Orange Tennis wrote: » It would be pretty sh1t if you had to rent your entire life, never havng the peace of mind that nobody can kick you out of your home.
Berties_Horse wrote: » It's down to a shift in attitude. People have no problem living within their means on the continent, and don't turn their noses up at renting property long-term.
Captain Chaos wrote: » Right now average rent on a 260k house is 2k pm. Mortgage over 35yrs on the same is around 920pm. Buying is cheaper. I can live within my means by buying but not renting. Can't afford to rent as it is.
kneemos wrote: » Rents will vary. A 35 year mortgage would be unusual.
Frostybrew wrote: » What a homeowner is entitled to do to their residence is far greater than what a tenant can do under current legislation.
Frostybrew wrote: » Nothing to do with living within your means. It's due to lack of tenant protections, rights.
steddyeddy wrote: » Will we ever be happy to give up ownership aspirations like they do in other countries and be happy to rent for life? I personally think for that to happen the concept of a rented accommodation as a home has to be accepted by landlord and tenant.
Matt Barrett wrote: » It's not about getting real. It's about government enabling private speculators to price the average Irish tax payer out of the market. Indeed, the time will come where the vast majority of working Irish tax payers pay rents to the wealthy, state assisted, foreign and homegrown few. Shameful and likely.
rgodard80a wrote: » Landlords are leaving the market in droves. Renters stop paying rent and dig in for month/years until forcibly evicted = tens of thousands of Euros in losses for landlords. You've rights if you agree and sign long term leases, e.g. 5 years+ if you really want security of tenure, but can't have it both ways. But landlords should be able to evict non-paying tenants after no more than 3 months. Laws have swung too far in favour of tenants, where the government is beating private landlords with legislation to solve a public housing crisis of their making. Vast towns and suburbs were built by the council/corporation 40 years ago, now there's little or nothing.
Frostybrew wrote: » What has happened is a completely unregulated sector is now starting to get the legislation that it should have had years ago and those used to the old regime aren't able for it. The legislation is very necessary as most landlords (up to 85%) were paying no tax whatsoever on their rental earnings, and the standard of a sizeable minority of rentals was diabolical.
shivermetimber wrote: » of course more units need to be built to stop the backward situation where rent is more expensive than mortgage repayment. Sure why would anyone do any of these things here...
mvl wrote: » No. - You also know many ppl in other countries can't afford to pay the rent from the pensions they would be getting - and state doesn't support them at all. Anyway - I think one of the issues here is that everyone seem to like owning bigger houses than they need. I've a small house atm, but I'd be happy to retire in a nice 2 bed apartment - as central I could afford (bare in mind, I am hoping to retire early).
steddyeddy wrote: » Yes price is one thing but I get the impression that Irish landlords have great difficulty handing you the keys and walking away. In other countries I've lived in as long as I pay the rent on time I never seen the landlord.
DS86DS wrote: » I am renting off of my parents who own a few properties. I don't mind renting off of them as the money is going back into the family and will probably inherit the property one day. But renting off of a complete stranger and paying their mortgage is a mugs game. Not only will you never own the property but you will be left paying rent in your retirement. Much better to be a part of home ownership than to be some fuedal vassal for the rest of your life, paying all the tent and with little to no rights. There are literally no advantages in the long term of renting over a mortgage and home ownership. The latter will allow you to enjoy your retirement and maybe even travel the world.
Captain Chaos wrote: » For me a 35 year is only option due to join income with the current rules. Anything less the banks won't approve. Rent are only going one way, up. Interest rates are on the deck and staying there for long term. So choices for us are paying 2k pm minimum for life or 920pm for 35 years. Buying is a no brainer.
Frostybrew wrote: » I agree landlords should be able to evict non paying tenants who don't engage. But non paying tenants isn't a major problem, as this type of situation is only relevant to about 1% of tenancies. It doesn't apply to the vast majority of tenants who do pay their rent, and is really a borderline red herring argument. You must also remember that landlords also have to also agree to long term tenancies and I honestly can't see the majority of landlords doing this. Landlords are not getting beaten by the government with regulation. What has happened is a completely unregulated sector is now starting to get the legislation that it should have had years ago and those used to the old regime aren't able for it. The legislation is very necessary as most landlords (up to 85%) were paying no tax whatsoever on their rental earnings, and the standard of a sizeable minority of rentals was diabolical. As for those leaving in droves, any landlord who is unable to manage the very high rents that they are receiving should not be in the business of providing rental accommodation. I suspect though that most of those who are leaving are doing so to liquify capital gains as they believe that the housing market has peaked. They'll more than likely buy back property at a lower price in the years ahead.
Frostybrew wrote: » Nothing to do with living within your means. It's due to lack of tenant protections, rights. There is a complete lack of security of tenure for tenants. Not to mention the exorbitant rents and the ability for a tenant to alter the residence to their liking. What a homeowner is entitled to do to their residence is far greater than what a tenant can do under current legislation.
fash wrote: » How or why would rent be lower than a mortgage repayment? Someone borrows money to provide a service and incurs additional costs in providing that service - and should sell their services for less than cost? As regards the general question, the only way long term rental could be a thing is if there are non-profit /local authority rentals. Anything else will have to be geared at getting a profit which means rents rising over the long term and potentially out of the range of a pensioner tenant - it doesn't make sense to rely on the rental market in that case.
