fliball123 wrote: » Can you be sure about that. The problem I see in your POV is that You, I or anyone else do not have a clue if and when property prices will drop or when they will drop or when they will rise, add in interest rates will they rise, how much will they rise by, add in scarcity of property available for sale. Forgive me if this seems to go against the social good but I think in my scenario the better option for my 2 kids is the property I live in goes up and they can get a windfall when I pass. Too many unknowns in your scenario. The kids are more than welcome to live here until I hit the tombstone so they wont have to pay out crazy rents and be able to save. I know that at some stage they will have to fly to coup but I think it will be good for them to struggle for a bit in the face of what people have to pay to live in this country on a day to day basis. Also it will give them an option of not having to live in Ireland or having to live in highly desirable areas within Ireland. They could move to a country with cheaper housing or to a county where housing is a lot cheaper with WFH now becoming an acceptable way of doing business people don't need to live in Dublin or Cork to work there. So I understand what your saying about they will need to buy a house but they will not have to buy the house they are living in now they can use that money and set themselves up elsewhere. So in my scenario my kids will have a lot more options and a lot less uncertainty.
DataDude wrote: » I'm not saying it's universal, and I've no doubt for most wealthy homeowners, they do want house prices to increases. But just a personal anecdote - my parents would have €2-3m+ in equity across multiple houses/apartments and definitely would have previously cheered rising house prices. Over the last year or so, hearing me talk about friends, seeing sons/daughters/nieces/nephews (who are Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants etc.) living at home til their mid 30s, I think the penny is finally starting to drop with them that whether their net worth is €5m or €6m really doesn't matter and they'd rather see their family living the lives they were able to live. As for inheritance, hopefully me and my siblings won't see a penny of it until we're in our 60s. What use is it then. We all keep telling them we don't want a cent of their money anyway - buy a boat and Ferrari, enjoy it.
timmyntc wrote: » House prices dropping is also a benefit to your children - in that its more affordable for them to buy their own house. I would much rather see my children able to buy a house of their own, than have to wait until I die so that they might get enough money from inheritance to buy a nice home. From that POV it is a zero sum game - an increase to the value of their inheritance means an increase to the cost of them buying a house. In fact, for 2 children, a house price decrease is actually more valuable - because they will each buy a house, but the inheritance is based on the price of 1 house only. So property prices decreasing is actually more beneficial to your children than an increase - a zero sum game for 1 child, but 2 or more and decreases are preferable to increases.
I When an obituarist comes to write that history, their epilogue will be simple enough. They will record the justified anger that drove the sons and daughters of older supporters of centrist parties to reject them because they made home-ownership impossible, because they put corporate interests before community. Had Napoleon been so stupid and so blind to the obvious, his Waterloo would have come many decades earlier.
fliball123 wrote: » Personally speaking and I am sure a lot of parents would be of the same mindset, it would be nice to leave this world and know your kid(s) are sorted financially.
fliball123 wrote: » Well your parents are in an exceptional good position. I mean I reckon its ok for someone worth x amount of millions to say ok I have more than enough, time to share the wealth. Unfortunately this would not be the same situation as the majority of property owners.
DataDude wrote: » It's not the amount of money though, it's the principle. My parents thought "higher house prices = higher family wealth = good for my kids". Which seems to be the same view you have. It's taken years, but my parents are finally realizing it's only good for them. But it's actually terrible for their kids. There's a misguided notion that passing on more money is the be all and end all of success. In reality, I've never seen inheritance cause anything but trouble in families. You might have rationalized it that you don't mind your kids living with you indefinitely and that somehow higher house prices will be good for them (eventually). But I absolutely promise you your kids would prefer to make their own way in life rather than living in your shadow waiting for you to die or until they can pack you up into a nursing home. Financial planning your future around inheritance is incredibly toxic for all involved.
Cyrus wrote: » the reality is nowadays, anyone waiting on an inheritance (especially one thats linked to the family home) will be well in their 50s and maybe 60s before they see it, bit of a waste of your life.
yagan wrote: » At what age should people be able to afford their own essential habitat on their own means? Instead what you'll end up with is children who'll be waiting for parents to expire just so they can enjoy security of tenure. I shudder to think of that older generation mindset that feels justified by locking young families out of home ownership just so rent will fund their retirement fund.
fliball123 wrote: » so why should I look to see my nett worth drop to help anyone else
DataDude wrote: » In reality, I've never seen inheritance cause anything but trouble in families.
fliball123 wrote: » Look I said it is my opinion and it goes against the greater good. What kind of a question is that "what age should people be able to afford their own essential habitat". Can you not see that its those emotive questions that the lefties are asking that is driving our current government into the daft decisions of paying high prices for housing now as well as renting property from the vultures and REITS. Not to mention the new government loan schemes, which have all had the unintended consequence of pushing prices up. Everyone wants their house and they want it now. How did the older generation lock young families out of home ownership? Explain that one for me please and giving out about anyone trying to look after themselves or trying to look out for their kids instead of young families that they have no links to is just bonkers. A lot of people pay a lot of tax and see it go up in smoke in this country so why should they sacrifice more to help others. As I say it may go against the greater good for society but are the majority of these property owners not already giving back in what we pay in tax. I sure as hell don't get much bang for my buck with what I pay already so why should I look to see my nett worth drop to help anyone else? Selfish ? Maybe self preservation? Absolutely, or is it a sense that instead of trying to drag people back into more debt and sh1t people should pay their own way. If you cant afford a property look at the option of trying to save more and then look again or look at cheaper options to live in you dont have to live in Dublin or Ireland no one owes a family in this country a property a bit of personal responsibility??? But sure why would that be an option when those who dont want to work will look to the state to house them same goes with mams who keep having kids even do they cant afford them and the state becomes babby daddy. When the burden of financing all the inequalities in this country is left on the squeezed middle why should they sacrifice more? Any discussion of housing people who cant afford it must be taken in the context of what others are already paying in taxation both now and in the future we borrowed 17Billion last year to keep the show on the road.
DataDude wrote: » It's not the amount of money though, it's the principle. My parents thought "higher house prices = higher family wealth = good for my kids". Which seems to be the same view you have.
Evil_g wrote: » Are we just calling everything a vulture fund now?
handlemaster wrote: » Its click bait . The public lap this up. The issue would be easier solved with housing if landlords were treated fairly and contracts were enforceable. When you have the government and housing agencies all against landlords you have less investors interested in investing and higher prices all round. The people are getting what they deserve and more will come as smaller time landlords leave the market.
thomas 123 wrote: » So you are suggesting if it were easier kick a tenant out (merit for sure) then more land lords would come to the market and build houses perumably - what happens to the tenant who is kicked out? Do they just not need to be housed then? ?
Claw Hammer wrote: » It doesn't seem to be a problem in other countries where non paying and or anti- social tenants are kicked out rapidly. It tends to mean tenants behave themselves and there is more investment in housing.
thomas 123 wrote: » So you are suggesting if it were easier kick a tenant out (merit for sure) then more land lords would come to the market and build houses perumably - what happens to the tenant who is kicked out? Do they just not need to be housed then? In short this is nowhere near why we have a housing crisis... Is it maybe that smaller landlords can’t afford to build and/or get planning permission? Or is it because they can’t write off the majority of their tax like the Vulture funds/investment firms/whatever else you want to call them?
timmyntc wrote: » The housing crisis is an issue of supply - some of it being supply not efficiently used (or used at all if reports of investment funds leaving units vacant is to be believed) Where does a proper eviction process come into play? For social housing. There is a serious aversion to social housing developments in this country because most people's experiences with social housing is that anti-social tenants can do what they like with 0 recourse. This is why homeowners will do whatever possible to stop social housing coming to a place near them. And to fix our dysfunctional market, this will have to change because we NEED much more social housing built. The only way to fix social housing is to put in place a quick evictions process for people who refuse to pay rent, and for those involved in anti-social behaviour. They can be lumped into emergency accomodation and put to the back of the list and someone more deserving put into their place.
thomas 123 wrote: » Where do you put those people Though ? The housing need does not dissapear if they are evicted.
timmyntc wrote: » The housing crisis is an issue of supply - some of it being supply not efficiently used (or used at all if reports of investment funds leaving units vacant is to be believed) Where does a proper eviction process come into play? For social housing. There is a serious aversion to social housing developments in this country because most people's experiences with social housing is that anti-social tenants can do what they like with 0 recourse. This is why homeowners will do whatever possible to stop social housing coming to a place near them. And to fix our dysfunctional market, this will have to change because we NEED much more social housing built.The only way to fix social housing is to put in place a quick evictions process for people who refuse to pay rent, and for those involved in anti-social behaviour. They can be lumped into emergency accomodation and put to the back of the list and someone more deserving put into their place.
timmyntc wrote: » Emergency accommodation & the back of the housing list to be rehoused at a later date. Either that or you build ghettos like the Netherlands and lump problem tenants together
timmyntc wrote: » The only way to fix social housing is to put in place a quick evictions process for people who refuse to pay rent, and for those involved in anti-social behaviour. They can be lumped into emergency accomodation and put to the back of the list and someone more deserving put into their place.
timmyntc wrote: » What good is your net worth if its all tied up in a property you live in? Your attitude is whats wrong with housing in this country - obsessed with numbers on paper that you cant actually spend! Your children and everyone elses would be much better off if your net worth was halved, if it meant they could afford a home to raise their children.
bubblypop wrote: » People need to get over their snobby attitudes when it comes to social housing, Irish are extremely begrudging
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
