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

How can someone in their 30s afford a house - PLEASE READ MOD WARNING IN OP

Options
1…3536373840

Comments

  • Options
    #1172
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,696 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Cyrus wrote: »
    what have you ever wanted for?

    Point proven.


    All the best in life I'm sure.


  • Options
    #1173
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,696 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    I would agree that access to college has been mostly resolved in the last 30 years. However I do think theres another problem and its where good parents and good guidance is key.

    colleges and universities are so hungry for cash they keep adding useless courses that won't possibly result in the grant money etc.. ever making it back into the economy when that student enters the world of work.

    I think we need to lock down grants and scholarships to key areas like STEM. We're facing into a future where more people have degrees than not, but students from poorer and less educated families are picking courses like 'social justice' 'anthropology and English' etc... which is going to leave them still working in Tesco but with a fancy certificate to frame and hang. More educated families are steering their kids away from these courses because they can size the future from it, many poor families are just happy little Johnny and Mary went to college.

    What a ridiculous over simplification.

    Most of the successful music or artists in the country came from families with money to indulge their passions..

    Including arts degrees.


  • Options
    #1174
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Springy Turf wrote: »
    This is exactly why I think taxing inheritance is a good idea. And I am glad to see you appreciate some of the ways your tax money is being used.

    No it isn't a good idea at all. In fact its totally unfair.

    The people who do well are already funding the lives and educations of those on lower incomes paying 50% tax on large amounts of their income, paying more VAT, paying more VRT. Basically funding large numbers of the population. In the mean time they also have to cover the costs of their own children's educations, pay for their homes in full etc etc

    After all this they save money or likely invest it either in assets or in other investment products which again they will be taxed on any gains. Then then they want to gift money to their children to give them the best life they can by having smaller/no mortgages, enable them to not have to worry as much about money etc but after a very small threshold they are faced with more tax. And yes people see it as tax on their money and more of their hard earned money going to the government rather than benefitting their own family.

    My opinion is that certainly within the family unit (parents to their children and children to parents) there should be no CAT (on inheritances or gifts) whatsoever the same as spouses are exempt. I can't see any rational argument for why children do not have the same tax treatment as a spouse. The next level out grand parents to grand children I would also totally exempt from CAT and I would also extend this aunts/uncles to nieces/nephews though I could be persuaded on having a very high threshold here and tax at a certain point lets say above 3 million or someting like that and a tax rate of 5 or 10%.

    Total non relations lets say a million threshold and a tax rate of 5 or 10% above this just to keep the leftys happy. That being said I would have no issue with a total abolition of CAT regardless of the relationship between people but I could come to some compromises on this as outlined above.


  • Options
    #1175
    salonfire
    Registered Users Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭salonfire


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    its clearly obvious that the construct of 'the market' is capable of providing us with all our needs, is in fact false!

    What need of yours is not being met?

    If you are unable to afford a 5-bed house in Dublin, you could buy a 1 bed flat in a small regional town for a fraction of the price.

    The market offers you a wide range of affordability options. What's the problem?


  • Options
    #1176
    Brian201888
    Registered Users Posts: 1,048 ✭✭✭Brian201888


    Springy Turf wrote: »
    Not true - the social houses are paid for by the state.

    Well that'll teach me to parrot things I'm told without actually checking the facts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1177
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,087 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Springy Turf wrote: »


    So we shouldn't try to make it more fair?
    If the system is fair will everyone suddenly start to act fairly?


  • Options
    #1178
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    elefant wrote: »
    There's a fascinating OECD brief on sticky floors and sticky ceilings here if anyone is interested:
    https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/Social-Mobility-2018-PolicyBrief.pdf
    In short, 'it could take on average four to five generations for the offspring of a low-income family to reach the average income'

    Both my parents left school at 12 and were dirt poor. My brother and I both have STEM degrees and earn substantially more than the average wage thanks to the grants system in Ireland. Most of our peers preferred drinking, chasing their preferred sex and the path of least resistance to studying and working hard. This is not true in the US but it's true here.

    Were we disadvantaged? Sure. But there are ways around that too - emigrate and get experience where no one knows your background. Plus the MNC sector don't care in Ireland if you have the qualifications and experience.

    Doing Arts or Social Science? That's for kids with rich parents.


  • Options
    #1179
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,578 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    I would agree that access to college has been mostly resolved in the last 30 years. However I do think theres another problem and its where good parents and good guidance is key.

    colleges and universities are so hungry for cash they keep adding useless courses that won't possibly result in the grant money etc.. ever making it back into the economy when that student enters the world of work.

    I think we need to lock down grants and scholarships to key areas like STEM. We're facing into a future where more people have degrees than not, but students from poorer and less educated families are picking courses like 'social justice' 'anthropology and English' etc... which is going to leave them still working in Tesco but with a fancy certificate to frame and hang. More educated families are steering their kids away from these courses because they can size the future from it, many poor families are just happy little Johnny and Mary went to college.
    Wasnt the maintenance grant (SUSI) available for PhD studies? I think it still is, which is mad because if you cant get a PhD scholarship and you are not a rich heir, you probably shouldn't be doing a PhD.


  • Options
    #1180
    elefant
    Registered Users Posts: 4,649 ✭✭✭elefant


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Both my parents left school at 12 and were dirt poor. My brother and I both have STEM degrees and earn substantially more than the average wage thanks to the grants system in Ireland. Most of our peers preferred drinking, chasing their preferred sex and the path of least resistance to studying and working hard. This is not true in the US but it's true here.

    I'm sure you understand that nobody is saying it's impossible, but it's statistically unlikely.

    Even in a country where there are few logistical barriers to education, people born into less advantageous positions have much poorer social and financial prospects. There are issues at play far beyond who can afford to stay in school (you are proof of that), and efficient spending of tax money can make the playing field a little bit more even for those born into those positions through no fault of their own.


  • Options
    #1181
    guyfawkes5
    Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭guyfawkes5


    Savanna Refined Symbolism wrote: »
    No it isn't a good idea at all. In fact its totally unfair.

    The people who do well are already funding the lives and educations of those on lower incomes paying 50% tax on large amounts of their income, paying more VAT, paying more VRT. Basically funding large numbers of the population. In the mean time they also have to cover the costs of their own children's educations, pay for their homes in full etc etc

    After all this they save money or likely invest it either in assets or in other investment products which again they will be taxed on any gains. Then then they want to gift money to their children to give them the best life they can by having smaller/no mortgages, enable them to not have to worry as much about money etc but after a very small threshold they are faced with more tax. And yes people see it as tax on their money and more of their hard earned money going to the government rather than benefitting their own family.

    My opinion is that certainly within the family unit (parents to their children and children to parents) there should be no CAT (on inheritances or gifts) whatsoever the same as spouses are exempt. I can't see any rational argument for why children do not have the same tax treatment as a spouse. The next level out grand parents to grand children I would also totally exempt from CAT and I would also extend this aunts/uncles to nieces/nephews though I could be persuaded on having a very high threshold here and tax at a certain point lets say above 3 million or someting like that and a tax rate of 5 or 10%.

    Total non relations lets say a million threshold and a tax rate of 5 or 10% above this just to keep the leftys happy. That being said I would have no issue with a total abolition of CAT regardless of the relationship between people but I could come to some compromises on this as outlined above.
    Consumption taxes like VAT or VRT aren't really a progressive tax that the wealthy pay proportionately more of as you seem to insinuate. Rather the opposite, poorer people tend to pay higher proportions of their income on consumption taxes than more well-off people. The logic behind it is that if you make ten or a hundred times what someone else does, it doesn't follow that you buy ten or a hundred times the amount of food, and so on.

    The logic behind exempting spouses from inheritance tax is that it's reasonably logical to assume that in a large amount of cases, that spouse is part of the same household and was dependant on the person that passed away and you don't want to cut off supports there, especially if there are dependant children. That logic strains significantly once you apply it to non-dependant children.

    I think posters in the thread understand the urge of wanting to pass wealth onto children to give them the biggest advantage possible, but would raise that this can cause social problems as you can get snowballing advantage for certain sections of society, especially if you attempt to mitigate the tax's effects by lowering it to an insignificant amount.

    Would you consider yourself in favour of a progressive tax system or a flat one?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1182
    Cyrus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,731 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    listermint wrote: »
    I disagree with your nonsense about blaming parents for the ills of society.

    Should I blame your parents for having you so ill informed on the absolutely wide arrange of social issues that can impede even the smartest individual fulfilling their potential.


    You are coming across typically ignorant.

    i disagree with your latent assertion that people arent responsible for themselves and that there is always someone else to blame for their own misfortune.


  • Options
    #1183
    Cyrus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,731 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    listermint wrote: »
    Point proven.


    All the best in life I'm sure.

    why are you being obtuse, if you want to have a debate, or as you no doubt see it, educate me, why dont you answer the question.


  • Options
    #1184
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    guyfawkes5 wrote: »

    Would you consider yourself in favour of a progressive tax system or a flat one?

    Flat tax system without a doubt, you should not be punished by increased taxes just because you do well and earn more.


  • Options
    #1185
    guyfawkes5
    Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭guyfawkes5


    Savanna Refined Symbolism wrote: »
    Flat tax system without a doubt, you should not be punished by increased taxes just because you do well and earn more.
    Fair enough.

    All I can say is that I would be extremely against it, and it seems definitive that introducing a flat tax in Ireland would make the poor in Ireland worse off again. If you're interested, look at the 'Some Responses from Irish Economists' section here.


  • Options
    #1186
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,578 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    guyfawkes5 wrote: »
    Fair enough.

    All I can say is that I would be extremely against it, and it seems definitive that introducing a flat tax in Ireland would make the poor in Ireland worse off again. If you're interested, look at the 'Some Responses from Irish Economists' section here.

    Aagain? Ireland is on the of the best places in the world to be poor. Plenty of poor people have hard lives, but it is not for lack of social services. If we had a flat tax, we could potentially shrink the private financial sector and reduce staffing in revenue so companies would have more money to reduce the cost of their products and taxes would go further.


  • Options
    #1187
    guyfawkes5
    Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭guyfawkes5


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Aagain?
    Again in the sense that the last financial crisis hit the poor hardest.


  • Options
    #1188
    guyfawkes5
    Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭guyfawkes5


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    If we had a flat tax, we could potentially shrink the private financial sector and reduce staffing in revenue so companies would have more money to reduce the cost of their products and taxes would go further.
    Do you think any amount of staffing in Revenue is dedicated to the fact they have to multiply two numbers against your income instead of one?


  • Options
    #1189
    Lux23
    Registered Users Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    I wouldn't mind a flat tax if there were no loopholes for people that earn more to dodge taxes. But in order to police that you would need a Revenue service the size of Luxembourg.


  • Options
    #1190
    Cyrus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,731 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    Lux23 wrote: »
    I wouldn't mind a flat tax if there were no loopholes for people that earn more to dodge taxes. But in order to police that you would need a Revenue service the size of Luxembourg.

    the whole point of a flat tax is that people who earn more dont use schemes to decrease their tax liability.

    there was a report at one stage that the tax take on CAT was higher when the rate was 20% rather than when it increased to 33% because people were more likely to comply and not seek to avoid it.


  • Options
    #1191
    guyfawkes5
    Registered Users Posts: 291 ✭✭guyfawkes5


    Having a flat tax means the more well off pay far less in tax. Renua are of the few political parties to support introducing it and similarly dress up their claims with terms like 'simplicity' and 'closing loopholes', but the reality is that they don't want high earners to pay as much tax as they do now. Tax loopholes have nothing to do with having one percentage or two percentages of income tax.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1192
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    guyfawkes5 wrote: »
    Having a flat tax means the more well off pay far less in tax. .

    Anyone on any half decent wage in this country is massively over taxed as it is so of course the aim would be for them to pay far less tax. They will still pay far more tax than lower a earner though.

    I can’t see how anyone see punishing those who earn more is in anyway fair, they are basically working to earn 50 cent in the euro which is madness and no wonder people do everything they can to minimise tax, why wouldn’t you.


  • Options
    #1193
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,364 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Savanna Refined Symbolism wrote: »
    Anyone on any half decent wage in this county is massively over taxed as it is so of course the aim would be for them to pay far less tax. They will still pay far more tax than lower a earner though.

    I can’t see how anyone see punishing those who earn more is in anyway fair, they are basically working to earn 50 cent in the euro which is madness and no wonder people do everything they can to minimise tax, why wouldn’t you.

    That is misleading. You don't really get taxed 50% on what you earn. You need to keep a certain of number of hours to get a wage where you get taxed on the entirety. You can't really cut off the wage and say 50% tax after that as it is a whole wage.

    I do work less hours where I can due to tax deduction disincentive me. It also stops me investing in ideas where I would work and get taxed so much. So I do see your point but in normal situations it really isn't very relevant.


  • Options
    #1194
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,578 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    That is misleading. You don't really get taxed 50% on what you earn. You need to keep a certain of number of hours to get a wage where you get taxed on the entirety. You can't really cut off the wage and say 50% tax after that as it is a whole wage.

    I do work less hours where I can due to tax deduction disincentive me. It also stops me investing in ideas where I would work and get taxed so much. So I do see your point but in normal situations it really isn't very relevant.

    yes but you could be if you used up your lower rate of taxation with rental , pension or other investment income.


  • Options
    #1195
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    People in social housing pay rent depending on their income. The council asks for info on any adult who lives in the house, eg the annual wage of each person in the house. We need social housing for people on disability allowance and old age pensioners, not just single mothers.
    I read some articles in the UK papers, it says due to the crisis, more people are looking to buy homes in small towns and outside city's since it seems
    more company's are now allowing work from home due to the covid crisis.
    Maybe property prices might fall in city's and this could make it easier for single people to
    buy a home at a reasonable price


  • Options
    #1196
    Astro127
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32 ✭Astro127


    It's very possible to get a mortgage within year of saving for a couple just need 6 months of saving for the bank to see. Even if you have not much now just start
    Would be a lot harder if trying to get one on your own .
    You can also get a gift from parents if its possible I know alot are not able to , but alot of parents do help as they know how hard it is .


    I'm planning on building on my partners land just outside dublin 250k that would get a good size house with space.

    I wouldn't be able to afford dublin even if I could I wouldn't as houses are just crazy prices for nothing special and every house is the same with little to no garden .


  • Options
    #1197
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Savanna Refined Symbolism wrote: »
    Anyone on any half decent wage in this county is massively over taxed as it is so of course the aim would be for them to pay far less tax.

    My parents pay 9% on 50k - is that "over-taxed"???

    I'd say it's lower than many countries.


  • Options
    #1198
    Cyrus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,731 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    Geuze wrote: »
    My parents pay 9% on 50k - is that "over-taxed"???

    I'd say it's lower than many countries.

    Low earners aren’t taxed very much here

    Presume it’s 25k each ?


  • Options
    #1199
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Savanna Refined Symbolism wrote: »
    Anyone on any half decent wage in this county is massively over taxed ..................
    Geuze wrote: »
    My parents pay 9% on 50k - is that "over-taxed"???

    ..............

    If they are both working full time neither are on a half decent wage.


  • Options
    #1200
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Geuze wrote: »
    My parents pay 9% on 50k - is that "over-taxed"???

    I'd say it's lower than many countries.

    Exactly my point, lower earners pay little tax while higher earners are expected to carrying the majority on lower wages by being fleeced with tax


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1201
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,438 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Savanna Refined Symbolism wrote: »
    Exactly my point, lower earners pay little tax while higher earners are expected to carrying the majority on lower wages by being fleeced with tax

    nox, remember that when you build your mcmansion up your boreen that you'll be able to do so is thanks to the taxpayers in Dublin, Cork and other large-tax-take counties paying their high taxes and seeing so much of their money sent west and south to subsidise the lifestyles of people like yourself.

    Do you think it's unfair that low earning counties continue to enjoy spending more than they earn while the high earning counties are still expected to carry them while being fleeced with tax?

    We have a progressive tax system, it means those who can afford to pay more do so. When we spend the money, we are also nice enough to ensure that rural counties are not expected to be self-sufficient.


Advertisement