Timing belt wrote: » The Rent is the one that does not sit right with me but then again when you look at the average rent published by the CSO it is significantly lower than market rates for a variety of reasons.... If they are using this data it might explain it
schmittel wrote: » Re rents the only logical explanation I can think of is we have an extremely wide income gap. If 60% of private renters at market rates have a housing burden of in excess of 25% of income, the remaining 40% must be earning so much that they are well under 10%. Maybe that's the MNC effect again.
Timing belt wrote: » It might also be impacted by social housing as it is defined as the percentage of the population living in a household where the total housing costs (net of housing allowances) represent more than x% of the total disposable household income (net of housing allowances) e.g with Hap paying say 90% of the rent that would mean 10% housing cost
schmittel wrote: » I'm assuming that social housing comes under the category - tenant at reduced rate/free
Timing belt wrote: » HAP is at market rate isn't it? here is the Percentage of Working HAP Tenants by income from cso
schmittel wrote: » Just seems more logical to include them in the reduced rental crowd. Seems counter intuitive to present such stats in a way that knowingly misrepresents the reality.
timmyntc wrote: » If the tenant burden figures are based on individual tenants rather than households, it doesn't take the effect of houseshares into account does it? 5 people each renting a room in a house will pay a much lower % of their income in rent than a family of 5 (2 parents 3 children) - even if the house rent is the same. Typically people will opt for the cheaper option and house share to save money, so it might look as though things are better here than they actually are.
Timing belt wrote: » I don't know where they are reported HAP but if they are paying market rate to LL then its not social housing and would be classified as housing assistance. tenant at reduced rate/free I would see as social housing.
Timing belt wrote: » That is what the data is telling us but we are trying to understand why... The data comes from a annual survey and is published on the Eurostat website. I have a feeling that the strict lending rules by the CBI is driving the mortgage data because you can't get a mortgage if you can afford it..... in other EU countries lending standards are more relaxed... But this is only a guess. The Rent is the one that does not sit right with me but then again when you look at the average rent published by the CSO it is significantly lower than market rates for a variety of reasons.... If they are using this data it might explain it
Timing belt wrote: » Good point - here is the data that breaks it down by no of people Housing cost overburden rate by household type - EU-SILC survey % This indicator is defined as the percentage of the population living in a household where the total housing costs (net of housing allowances) represent more than 40% of the total disposable household income (net of housing allowances) presented by household type
timmyntc wrote: » Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but why in the EU28 figures do the categories total more than 100% of the population? Is there significant overlap in these categories or are they supposed to be mutually exclusive?
Timing belt wrote: » Between 2003 - 2019 The year with the largest % of young adults living with their parents was 2004. This surprised me as I would have thought with the housing shortage it would have been 2017/18/19.
Glenveagh, one of the State’s best known housebuilders, expects to charge Dublin City Council €33.44 million for 71 social housing units at a major development on Sheriff Street. In a letter to the city council about how it might meet its Part V social housing obligations under the plan, Glenveagh estimated that the units might cost the council up to €791,531 each.
schmittel wrote: » One of the non surprising facts about the housing shortage is that it is very good business for housebuilders.https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/glenveagh-to-charge-council-up-to-791-500-for-family-apartments-1.4456642 Celtic tiger prices were out of control, but I don't think apartments on SHeriff St were knocking on the door of 800k even then?! Is there any sort of price discovery in Part V? How does it actually work? Surely a builder cannot just say we are building a load of units here, price will be X and government pay it?
Taylor365 wrote: » What about the amount of people alive between 18-34 at each point?
Dav010 wrote: » Does anyone really think the Government should take on the responsibility for building sufficient units to ease the housing/rental crises?
Timing belt wrote: » I don't even want to think about the rent the government will probably for the housing units they don't buy. And people still think its a good use of tax payers money when they could buy twice the amount of property elsewhere.
schmittel wrote: » I think the government should take on the responsibility to ease the housing/rental crisis. I really don't think they should be buying/building overpriced units in bulk.
fliball123 wrote: » And around we go the government have got neither the skillset or cop on to do this and have proven that when they build it is a disaster when it comes to the price. Having the public sector step into build housing straight away adds a layer of bureaucracy and expense and a lack of expertise in building
schmittel wrote: » Maybe read what I posted and what you quoted. And around we go indeed.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
