Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is the desire to own your own home justified !

Options
  • 22-07-2019 7:15am
    #1
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭


    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/is-our-desire-to-own-our-own-home-about-to-falter-1.3962976?mode=amp

    Nice piece on this in the times. But what is not mentioned is the government included need people to invest in their own homes. At the end of life it is better to have a person with property and therefore assets than not. The cost of long term care is astronomical and this cannot be borne totally by the state.

    With end of life costs and the rental costs over a life time in the mix it makes sence to buy and not rent for the majority. But if your more interested in life experiences and moving from one job and country to the next renting gives people more flexibility


«134567

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,973 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    handlemaster wrote: »
    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/is-our-desire-to-own-our-own-home-about-to-falter-1.3962976?mode=amp

    Nice piece on this in the times. But what is not mentioned is the government included need people to invest in their own homes. At the end of life it is better to have a person with property and therefore assets than not. The cost of long term care is astronomical and this cannot be borne totally by the state.

    With end of life costs and the rental costs over a life time in the mix it makes sence to buy and not rent for the majority. But if your more interested in life experiences and moving from one job and country to the next renting gives people more flexibility

    Oh look. The desire to own a home is completely normal and justified. But the circumstances might mean it's unlikely to happen as it did in the past.

    In the past they built public housing: great idea.
    When people had settled and created communities, they allowed them buy their house: great idea.
    Instead of asking people to invest in the next generation of public housing, they took the easy route and imagined the magic of capitalism would create new, affordable housing: Terrible idea.

    Now for some reason we look back at building public housing as a great idea but would balk at the idea of paying for it through tax - as if the public Houses in the past were built for free.


  • Options
    #3
    MayoSalmon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,240 ✭✭✭MayoSalmon


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Oh look. The desire to own a home is completely normal and justified. But the circumstances might mean it's unlikely to happen as it did in the past.

    In the past they built public housing: great idea.
    When people had settled and created communities, they allowed them buy their house: great idea.
    Instead of asking people to invest in the next generation of public housing, they took the easy route and imagined the magic of capitalism would create new, affordable housing: Terrible idea.

    Now for some reason we look back at building public housing as a great idea but would balk at the idea of paying for it through tax - as if the public Houses in the past were built for free.

    The magic of capitalism has lifted Ireland from being the poorest country in Western Europe to one of the wealthiest.

    Nothing imagined about it and the housing "crisis" has little to do with capitalism


  • Options
    #4
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    When people had settled and created communities, they allowed them buy their house: great idea.
    e.

    Is it though?

    There isnt infinite land in cities like Dublin. You sell off the social housing stock and it has to be replaced each time with more further and further away.


  • Options
    #5
    Addle
    Registered Users Posts: 4,812 ✭✭✭Addle


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Now for some reason we look back at building public housing as a great idea but would balk at the idea of paying for it through tax - as if the public Houses in the past were built for free.

    Who availed of all this dreamy public housing? Not my parents or grandparents anyways, or our neighbours or colleagues.


  • Options
    #6
    rn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭rn


    Yes it is because we are terrible at collective ownership and community building in Ireland. The harder we try, the worse we seem to get. Especially outside of Dublin.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    MrMusician18
    Registered Users Posts: 7,217 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    The desire to own your own home is more justified now than it ever was. It is possibly the no. 1 thing you can do to secure your future living standards given the way pensions are heading.


  • Options
    #8
    heebusjeebus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,783 ✭✭✭heebusjeebus


    MrMusician18 wrote: »
    The desire to own your own home is more justified now than it ever was. It is possibly the no. 1 thing you can do to secure your future living standards given the way pensions are heading.

    That would be my primary worry of not owning your own house by the time your working life is over.


  • Options
    #9
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,973 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    MayoSalmon wrote: »
    The magic of capitalism has lifted Ireland from being the poorest country in Western Europe to one of the wealthiest.

    Nothing imagined about it and the housing "crisis" has little to do with capitalism

    Well, let's be fairly clear that it was a mix of capitalism and socialism. In this instance they invested public money in affordable housing to home those who needed it. Then they decided to cut the socialist affordable housing part and leave it to the magic of capitalism which has brought us to the point were at now without affordable housing.


  • Options
    #10
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,973 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Addle wrote: »
    Who availed of all this dreamy public housing? Not my parents or grandparents anyways, or our neighbours or colleagues.

    Anyone who ever lived in a "council estate" - or a former council estate which was sold to residents.

    Is that what you asked because the answer seems self evident.


  • Options
    #11
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,973 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Is it though?

    There isnt infinite land in cities like Dublin. You sell off the social housing stock and it has to be replaced each time with more further and further away.

    If we need more houses then we need more houses. That issue exists whether they are built by government or privately.

    I'm fine with selling the houses to residents eventually as long as the government builds more affordable housing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Oh look. The desire to own a home is completely normal and justified. But the circumstances might mean it's unlikely to happen as it did in the past.

    In the past they built public housing: great idea.
    When people had settled and created communities, they allowed them buy their house: great idea.
    Instead of asking people to invest in the next generation of public housing, they took the easy route and imagined the magic of capitalism would create new, affordable housing: Terrible idea.

    Now for some reason we look back at building public housing as a great idea but would balk at the idea of paying for it through tax - as if the public Houses in the past were built for free.

    Many people look at large scale social housing as a bad idea. Look at Ballymun, Darndale, West Tallaght etc...


  • Options
    #13
    Hobosan
    Registered Users Posts: 582 ✭✭✭Hobosan


    MayoSalmon wrote: »
    The magic of capitalism has lifted Ireland from being the poorest country in Western Europe to one of the wealthiest.

    Nothing imagined about it and the housing "crisis" has little to do with capitalism

    What economic system did we use when we were the poorest?

    (Genuine question. I'm assuming the lack of freedom throughout previous centuries set us back)


  • Options
    #14
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,973 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Many people look at large scale social housing as a bad idea. Look at Ballymun, Darndale, West Tallaght etc...

    True enough. I'd have thought we'd have learned from those experiences. Social housing is primarily for working poor people. So the housing would need l lots of public services like education and training facilities for trades and skills. Public transport, sports clubs for children and to foster community in adults. That kind of thing.

    Worst case scenario would be to create an area with low expectations for careers and high expectations of criminal behaviour.


  • Options
    #15
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    desire yes

    entitlement through anything other than your own resources no


  • Options
    #16
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,973 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Deleted User wrote: »
    desire yes

    entitlement through anything other than your own resources no

    Like it or not, lots of people who own wealth today started by renting and then buying affordable housing.

    When you say "your own resources" are you advocating for eliminating inheritance? Surely the statement above is incompatible with inheriting someone else's resources.


  • Options
    #17
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,369 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Of course, they are, what irritates me a bit about this debate and lots like it...The o looks what the nordic countries or middle Europe is doing why don't we do it, completely ignoring the huge part culture plays in these things.

    The are a few caveats no one is entitled to a home where thay would like to like to live, nor are they entitled to a 3 bed semi. For most people commuting is part of life today.


  • Options
    #18
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Oh look. The desire to own a home is completely normal and justified. But the circumstances might mean it's unlikely to happen as it did in the past.

    1)In the past they built public housing: great idea.
    2)When people had settled and created communities, they allowed them buy their house: great idea.
    3)Instead of asking people to invest in the next generation of public housing, they took the easy route and imagined the magic of capitalism would create new, affordable housing: Terrible idea.

    4)Now for some reason we look back at building public housing as a great idea but would balk at the idea of paying for it through tax - as if the public Houses in the past were built for free.

    1)Agreed.
    2)Bad idea - unless selling at market value, the state should keep the property and once that family have a change in circumstances, ie their children are now in their 30's and moved out. That house should be let to a new family while the previous older couple should be moved to a more appropriate home for their needs.
    3) Good idea but not for the reason you say. We need outside money to build the bulk of our properties for private use only. They should never mix private and public houses if that was what you were trying to say.
    4)Agreed. The one thing i would say is that housing standards have increased so much now that public houses nearly have a better standard that private - personally this is an rea that should be looked into to reduce costs.


  • Options
    #19
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,281 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Oh look. The desire to own a home is completely normal and justified. But the circumstances might mean it's unlikely to happen as it did in the past.

    In the past they built public housing: great idea.
    When people had settled and created communities, they allowed them buy their house: great idea.
    Instead of asking people to invest in the next generation of public housing, they took the easy route and imagined the magic of capitalism would create new, affordable housing: Terrible idea.

    Now for some reason we look back at building public housing as a great idea but would balk at the idea of paying for it through tax - as if the public Houses in the past were built for free.

    That's not a great idea. Many families had lottery type windfalls on the back of the council handing over properties far below market rates... Is it not enough to put a roof over someone's head? But you then have to enrich them too?

    Those houses should all still be state owned.


  • Options
    #20
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    lawred2 wrote: »
    That's not a great idea.

    What is the actual benefit to the state or the community by selling a property to a private party at a severely discounted rate. The only person it benefits is a single private entity and no one else from what i can see.

    If we sold it at market rate, i could see that, it will generate funds for a future build but in its current state, it only benefits the buyer and no one else.

    If we held all the stock and if it was managed properly where people would be downgraded after the family move out, i suspect it would drop the amount of homeless children dramatically.


  • Options
    #21
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    True enough. I'd have thought we'd have learned from those experiences. Social housing is primarily for working poor people. So the housing would need l lots of public services like education and training facilities for trades and skills. Public transport, sports clubs for children and to foster community in adults. That kind of thing.

    Worst case scenario would be to create an area with low expectations for careers and high expectations of criminal behaviour.

    You mean a ghetto, or similar? Happened in the Uk with the costly tower blocks in eg sheffield. They finally demolished them,


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Ronaldinho
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Ronaldinho


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

    In the past they built public housing: great idea.
    When people had settled and created communities, they allowed them buy their house: great idea.

    Have to disagree about selling off the public housing stock at knock down prices. Crazy stuff.


  • Options
    #23
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,973 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Graces7 wrote: »
    You mean a ghetto, or similar? Happened in the Uk with the costly tower blocks in eg sheffield. They finally demolished them,

    Yes precisely I mean ghettos. Do what's necessary to create communities that don't turn Into ghettos. Creating a place where poor people can live is fine, but with out further intervention you have a recipe for a ghetto. Hence the need for all the social programmes I mentioned, and more besides.


  • Options
    #24
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,973 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Ronaldinho wrote: »
    Have to disagree about selling off the public housing stock at knock down prices. Crazy stuff.

    Hold on, who said anything about knock down prices? A price that acknowledges the rent the person has paid over the years is a good idea but I'm not talking about handing the house over for nothing. Nor am I talking about putting the house on the open market so already wealthy people can pick up a buy to let for cheap from the state, and rent it back to the people it was meant to help.


  • Options
    #25
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,973 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    lawred2 wrote: »
    That's not a great idea. Many families had lottery type windfalls on the back of the council handing over properties far below market rates... Is it not enough to put a roof over someone's head? But you then have to enrich them too?

    Those houses should all still be state owned.

    I've no problem with enriching people. But I'd suggest that the houses were cheap to begin with partly because the state build houses creating supply. Then they sold the houses cheap and stopped building houses which meant the houses increased in value due to lack of supply of affordable housing.

    There's a whole generation who did great out of social programmes like this, and now they're stingy as hell. I'll never forget the bloke on LBC radio who advocated for cutting social programmes. He said "I grew up on a council estate, what did the government ever do for me?"


  • Options
    #26
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    Hobosan wrote: »
    What economic system did we use when we were the poorest?

    Still market capitalism, but of a weird protectionist variety. It was when we began to trade more internationally and allow in FDI that we started to get wealthy
    lawred2 wrote: »
    That's not a great idea. Many families had lottery type windfalls on the back of the council handing over properties far below market rates.

    Especially the council houses with a side garden - there is only one left in the suburb where I live in that has not been built on. Basically the governent giving someone the guts of a million euro for a song.
    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Hold on, who said anything about knock down prices? A price that acknowledges the rent the person has paid over the years...

    So, someone who has gotten a discounted rent for many years, should get a discount again when buying a property? I paid market rent for some years before buying my apartment; where was my discount that acknowledged the (full-whack) rent that I had paid over the years(?)


  • Options
    #27
    Ronaldinho
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Ronaldinho


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Hold on, who said anything about knock down prices?

    Da gubbermint

    If you are a local authority tenant living in a local authority house included in the scheme you can apply to buy the house.....

    ....You will pay the market value of the house – less a discount.

    Depending on income, the discounts will vary between 40% and 60%.


  • Options
    #28
    leonffrench
    Registered Users Posts: 212 ✭✭leonffrench


    Hobosan wrote:
    What economic system did we use when we were the poorest?

    Hobosan wrote:
    (Genuine question. I'm assuming the lack of freedom throughout previous centuries set us back)


    Protectionism. Reversed thanks to Lemass


  • Options
    #29
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,281 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I've no problem with enriching people. But I'd suggest that the houses were cheap to begin with partly because the state build houses creating supply. Then they sold the houses cheap and stopped building houses which meant the houses increased in value due to lack of supply of affordable housing.

    There's a whole generation who did great out of social programmes like this, and now they're stingy as hell. I'll never forget the bloke on LBC radio who advocated for cutting social programmes. He said "I grew up on a council estate, what did the government ever do for me?"

    Yeah we'd differ on that


  • Options
    #30
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 19,973 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Yeah we'd differ on that

    Oh right. Are you a full on communist?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Addle
    Registered Users Posts: 4,812 ✭✭✭Addle


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    There's a whole generation who did great out of social programmes like this, and now they're stingy as hell. I'll never forget the bloke on LBC radio who advocated for cutting social programmes. He said "I grew up on a council estate, what did the government ever do for me?"
    Again I ask, where is this generation?
    Late 60s/70s, my parents emigrated and saved, returned home, bought a site and built their home. Worked, paid taxes, raised their children and put them through college. Had child benefit alright.
    Now their kids all work and pay taxes.
    Most of their siblings would have been the same, other than the brothers who stayed on the farm.
    You’re wildly sweeping statement is totally inaccurate.


Advertisement