If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on 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

Supports for single people looking for a mortgage?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke

    Resolve that issue within social housing and then go after the ones who are paying full price for a house! Not sure why a single person moving a partner into a house after sale would be a problem. Would be the single persons house, they can do what they want then. The problem is single people can't get on the market as it's skewed towards couples.

    I don't think supports is the right word, more that the whole housing market needs an overhaul. I also have no idea how one could go about such a thing. I'm not learned enough. Nor do I care any longer. I'm victim of a failed mortgage which spiralled out of control fairly quickly, and as a result I have to sell and take a hit and will be paying it back for the forseeable future. My credit history record is that laughing face emoji. I'm hoping to downgrade it to a sly smirk emoji within 5 years. Then maybe another 10 after that before I'll ever get credit for anything or an approved loan again.

    No, not bitter in the slightest.

  • Registered Users Posts: 28,800 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_

    It's also not as if couples didn't "exaggerate" their earnings or contracts in order to qualify for a mortgage back in the Tiger days either.

    Completely agree that most of Official Ireland is skewed towards couples and relationships/marriage, not just in terms of things like mortgages, but taxes, and even car insurance (adding a partner as a named driver will actually reduce your premium) as well.

    Me, I (on reflection stupidly) refused the regular offers of "free money!" in the Tiger years because I worried about what would happen if I lost my job and couldn't afford it (little did I know I could just not pay but still keep the house anyway!) and I didn't really want to live in the middle of - then - nowhere (as was the case for several of my friends who moved a County or two away) .

    Add in the aforementioned job loss, becoming a father, a recession, slow recovery (from a wage perspective), covid, and now the current mess and I'm in my mid 40s with what would now be considered to be a very good wage, yet I can't afford to save quickly enough to build a deposit (which needs to be higher because of my age) with rent and all the other bills, and even if I had it, I'd be competing with not just couples but the councils who are using my taxes to buy up anything that comes available for social housing - in my row of 4, 3 have been sold to the council in the last 2/3 years.

    I'll probably never own a place in this country unless I use the savings to try and buy somewhere for cash when the time comes and when location isn't as important when you're still working. But of course, the way things are going too, many will probably need to keep working as long as they physically can regardless - which is another problem given a lot of employment contracts end at 65.

    There are serious problems coming for generation rent, and especially where those people may still be single (or widowed/separated) by the time they hit retirement age.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Any supports for single people would be open to fraud. It just wouldn't be fair to couples

    In China, there has been a rash of divorces over the last 5 years due to a law that was introduced to restrict the purchasing of properties, but by getting divorced... they could bypass the restriction, and get married again later to share the benefits of marriage once more. There's people who have been married/divorced 4-5 times so that they could further increase their holdings.

    People are going to find holes in any system.. and marriage is not some holy grail anymore. If it ever was.

    Any system that elevates one group over another due to life choices is unfair (beyond the natural benefits of that life choice). I'm always amazed at the justifications or excuses people try to find to make it sound reasonable, but it's always sounded extremely weak to me.

    Of course it is hard for single people but not every person who is single will remain single for the rest of their life.

    You do realise that marriage rates are dropping by a fair margin in most western nations, and Asia? haha.. off the charts as a drop in interest. For many people marriage just wasn't an option.. and that's been the case long before this decline towards marriage.

    Society has been shifting rather dramatically for a while now.

    I do feel for people who are likely never to be in a long term relationship though but how do you prove that you will always be single.

    haha... how do you prove that you will always be married?

    Come on. Seriously?

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,847 ✭✭✭Deeec

    Firstly you dont have to be married to be a couple.

    You can be single and have more disposable income than a couple with children. Would it be fair that single people who have more money than a couple get help just because they are single - no it wouldnt.

    Now perhaps some single people with lower incomes need help but not all single people. There would also have to be clear definitions of what 'single' means.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Yup. I'm aware about couples. I've had those experiences myself.. and the point is?

    You can be single and have more disposable income than a couple with children. Would it be fair that single people who have more money than a couple get help just because they are single - no it wouldn't.

    You are joking right? How about one or both people in a couple earning ten times what a single person makes.. while also getting help due to being in a couple. is that fair? No, it's not "fair".

    and you've shifted focus with the introduction of children.. which is what I tend to find happens in these conversations, except that many couples are childless (either through choice or circumstances).. so what's fair then? is this about children or about couples?

    Why should couples receive preferential treatment and benefits when they have double the potential purchasing power of a single person.. I can understand why parents do.. that's reasonably fair. But.. childless relationships?

    Now perhaps some single people with lower incomes need help but not all single people. Now perhaps some single people with lower incomes need help but not all single people.

    Obviously. And many couples don't need help but receive it anyway.. and your point is?

    As for the definition over being single, you're going to start a revolution whereby it becomes virtually impossible classify it just like all this cis-nonsense. Once people start defining what something is, they'll reinvent the wheel in doing so. Surely, the traditional legal perspective of what single means would be enough?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,313 ✭✭✭CPTM

    1k is not very generous for bills, groceries and car running costs. 250 euro a week wouldn't cover all that. You're probably thinking summer bills and no insurance or service/repair costs, let alone repaying a car loan.

    But I would take your general point even if I think your expenditure numbers are off - 2k a month for all that would be very reasonable. That leaves about 2k per month savings. 24k a year, 72k after 3 years would give them a budget of over 450k. (Mortgage: 3.5 X 110k, plus the 72k deposit). Maybe take 5 or 10k off that then for holidays, replacing electrical appliances etc during the 3 years. Still not in the worst position.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,847 ✭✭✭Deeec

    Your missing the point - If you compare a single person earning €50K to a one income family with 3 kids also earning €50K - yes the take home pay is slightly higher for the couple as they can benefit from the none working spouses tax credits/cut off point and childrens allowance but their overall essential spend to support a family of 5 is much higher. The tax benefits doesnt cover the higher expenses. So the family cannot save as much per month as the single person.

    Of course a couple with 2 good jobs will be in a much better position to borrow than a single person but they are also in a much better position than a couple with only 1 income. Very often a single person is in a much better position financially than a family - they just dont realise it!

    Post edited by Deeec on

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭mrslancaster

    Deleted earlier post as not buying so I'm not up to date on mortgages or any government schemes or help to buy..,

    It looks like it is very difficult for single people trying to buy.

    I just checked ptsb (first one in search) mortgage calculator. For a single person on 60k with no dependents and no other loan/car repayments, the most they could borrow is 210k over 30 years. TBF for someone working in dublin, that must cut out buying in most areas in dublin, there would be very few properties in that range.

    Post edited by mrslancaster on

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,110 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    northwood…two bedroom apartment, nice development but a 20 year old development now..

    2 bedroom apartment, 289,000

    so 210,000 is someway short.

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,953 ✭✭✭✭titan18

    Tbh, whilst this is a bit true, it's also impossible to actually save for a mortgage as a single person. Even if you're managing to save 500 a month which I'd imagine most can't (particularly if renting), that's 6k a year, and house prices are rising more than that every year so your saving has been pointless.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭Shelga

    Rather than the OP sneering and looking down at the single people complaining to him, why doesn't he ask himself, regardless of the reasons they can't buy, what does he think is going to happen to the social fabric of the country in 30 years time when single people are still renting? We have a massive problem coming down the line, it's genuinely quite frightening.

    I'm single and just bought a house in Dublin. It was incredibly difficult to do, took many years of living at home and saving (which I was very fortunate to be able to do), and is still a small house that needs a huge amount of work. I am not entitled to any grants or subsidies whatsoever. Help to Buy may as well not exist in Dublin, anyone looking knows there are zero new builds that are affordable for 99.9% of single people. I looked into getting the SEAI grants for improving the BER rating, but you only really get them if you get everything done at once (heat pump, wall insulation, underfloor heating etc), which I cannot afford. So I am buying new windows and a door but get no government aid, even though it still improves the energy rating of the house. Yet again, it just feels like- well, feck you, you're single, toughs s**t.

    I'm taking out a loan for some of the other work, so that's another pile of debt. I'm just trying not to think about it too much. Also, it doesn't matter how much you save, if you can only borrow 3.5x your income. What's the point of saving 90% of your take home pay if you're on €25k, and can then only borrow €87k to buy a house? That's another thing, I had to wait many years after graduation before my salary was at a reasonable enough level. Every extra €3k in salary is another €10k you can borrow- for most people it will take them a long time to save €10k.

    It's a horrible situation for anyone trying to buy, a bit of human empathy wouldn't go amiss, rather than choosing to think people are lazy, entitled, avocado-on-toast eating whingers, etc.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    No, I'm not missing the point. I'm noting that there are various points which seem to be pulled out individually to argue specific examples, but then all pulled back into a group, when it's convenient to do so. That's what you've done above.

    You talk about couples. Grand. Then, you introduce children into the equation.. even though many couples don't have children, and there's no guarantee that they will have children. And why guarantee? Because you introduced the need for some guarantee earlier in the thread. You're introducing different scenarios all related to couples, but with different circumstances flipping between them.

    So, what are we arguing? Single people should be treated the same as a couples. Couples with children are a different situation entirely.. otherwise the argument would be about single parents vs couples as parents.

    You really have to pick a scenario and run with it, because I'm not going to continue arguing when you constantly change circumstances (while retaining the illusion that they're the same to all couples) to justify your opinions.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,847 ✭✭✭Deeec

    You are rambling here and yes you are missing the point completely. You seem to only want to discuss single people because you think there hard done by. I'm saying sometimes couples are actually alot worse off. You want single people to be boosted up the ladder but don't seem to see why this could be unfair on other situations. Please discuss the point I'm making- it is very relevant.

    Why should single people receive help but couples with the same combined income as the single person shouldn't receive help ?

    You are assuming all couples have a high income because there is 2 of them which is not true in a lot of cases.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    You are rambling here and yes you are missing the point completely

    And now you're deflecting, while also discredit your opposition. Yay.

    You seem to only want to discuss single people because you think there hard done by. 

    Seem? Really. Would that be all these posts responding to the points you've made about couples.

    Come on. Seriously?

    Okay. I give up. If you don't want to have a reasonable discussion, where you deal with what I've written, and keep track of your own points made... grand. You can do it with someone else. I'd prefer not to have to deal with such dishonest posting.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,847 ✭✭✭Deeec

    This is my last post to you. You are the one not wanting to discuss the issues. All you seem to want me to say is that it would be fair to give single people a handout to buy a house.

    You seem to have a poor understanding of real life.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Scroll back. I have not once suggested that it would be fair to give single people a handout to buy a house. Go on. Find where I said that and quote me directly. No reading between the lines. No seem to. A direct quote. Except, you won't find it, because I didn't say it.

    You're also shifting goalposts.. as I've been arguing over the preference given to couples over that of single people. Which is what I consider to be unfair. As stated earlier in the thread.

    And that's why we not going to continue this discussion.. because you keep going off script, and your attempts to argue against points you've assigned to me.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48 porkmaster

    I don't know how single people do it in a lot of ways.

    I think the only support they'll be getting is their own two legs.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭HerrKuehn

    They have the same access to the Help To Buy (up to 30k tax rebate) and affordable housing (subsidised potentially over 100k) as anyone else. I am not sure what people expect the government to do.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭YellowLead

    Allowing them to borrow more than the 3.5 times of their salary could be an option.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭HerrKuehn

    There are good reasons why you can only borrow 3.5 times salary from an affordability point of view. Why would single people be exempt?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭YellowLead

    There are a number of applicants every year who can borrow 4.5 times instead of 3.5 times, so clearly these reasons don’t always apply. Not suggesting borrowing should be unlimited - but if certain criteria are met a solo applicant could be given provision to borrow 4.5 times instead.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,220 ✭✭✭sprucemoose

    yep there is definitely a strong grumpy old man vibe coming from the op here

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭mrslancaster

    The current schemes are not there to help buyers really, because only new builds qualify, so they don't suit anyone looking at an existing property. Incentivising people to buy new builds may have been government policy to get construction going again after the crash, but we all know that a huge number of people want smaller units yet most new developments seem to be built with families in mind, ie 3/4/5 bed houses. Most developments with smaller units look like they are strictly built-to-rent.

    Tbf, it's not realistic for older singles, divorced, or retired people to house-share like students for any number of reasons, but getting a deposit together must be really tough for single buyers who pay high rents. Lots of renters could probably afford the mortgage repayments but the deposit is the killer. Could some smart person not come up with a scheme where the 30k HTB is applied up-front as the deposit (on new or existing units), rather than a rebate after the home is bought? Wouldn't the effect to the treasury be the same?

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭HerrKuehn

    The exemptions are already available to single buyers are they not?

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭HerrKuehn

    Well buying an affordable home at a significant market discount would be a huge benefit to a buyer. The fact is that single buyers will have to have decent salaries as they are competing against couples with 2 salaries. The government already interferes in the market too much in my opinion, there really shouldn't be tax rebates or subsidised houses. I think that anyone looking to buy, but especially single buyers, really need to get a significant amount of money saved. This is a lot easier when you are younger and willing to live in house shares. The put it bluntly, you really need to get to 30 with a reasonable amount saved.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,719 ✭✭✭donaghs

    Ive read through this thread, and maybe i missed people saying this already, but isnt the obvious reason why couples get preferential treatment because, nowadays, they have two incomes?

    Not just more money, but if one person in a couple (with what the lender thinks are good incomes) loses their job and struggles to find another, they can still rely to some extent on the other income.

    If a single person who earns more than either person in that couple loses their job and struggles to find another, they won't pay the mortage on the dole.

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke

    On the flip side, single people are far less likely to have those money pits called children, and all the financial fun that comes with them. If we're talking about what-ifs.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,719 ✭✭✭donaghs

    Sorry, but I think the number-crunchers can spot the difference between a single person losing their income, and a two-income couple having one or two kids. Or none at all, which is more and more common. Just look at the trend of birth rates.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Sure, there's that possibility..

    However, from a lenders perspective it's worth considering that the earning potential of a woman who has children drops considerably after 30. That's borne out in the statistics on incomes, that the choices of women, who are married and want to have children, typically avoid promotions (with greater work commitments), and tend to take flexible positions with less hours (and so less income), so they can focus on the family.

    If we're looking at loss of income, there is the aspect of the {rising} costs involved in having a family too, which no State supports are going to compensate for, in addition, to the loss of income from the woman (or man if he decides to go down that route, instead of the woman). And if the primary provider then loses their job, what then?

    So, in reality, loss of income shouldn't be the consideration in all this based on what you said above when what I said is factored in.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke

    I'd imagine the trend of birth rates is down because people are finding they can't afford both a mortgage and a family. Probably also because more and more people are realising you don't need children to have a good life, but I'd imagine moreso because of the former. Then you have a baby machines keeping the numbers up so...