fear for the future and home ownership

ronbyrne2005 · 16-03-2006 12:54AM

Kernel wrote:

Years ago, a 200 pound mortgage was seen as high, and 40grand was a huge amount of a gamble on a house. Now, back then, your rent would have been a little less than the 200 pound mortgage. The difference is, that person is still paying a 200 pound mortgage, and will soon own a 400,000+ property. The person renting, would be paying around 1,200 euro today to RENT the same house. It's obvious that property ownership is the way to go.

.

so in the past houses were a good investment doesnt mean it will continue. houses are historical overvalued by many measures.buying a house wasnt a gamble 5,10,15 years ago but it is now because they are so high relative to wages rental yields and prospective future supply.what happens when theres too many houses? or if mortgage rates go to 6% or our economy slows a bit.
average dublin wage 38,000 average house price 420,000.when mortgages were 200pounds the average house was probably around 40,000 and average wage was around 8,000 which is a far smaller ratio.

as for your pension ,i presume your young so dont judege it over a few years,over any 30-40 year period your pension will do well ,the average pension fund made 21% last year so im sure yours was around that too,add in the tax benefit and your pension fund would have increased 35% last year.

ronbyrne2005 · 16-03-2006 01:09AM

Freelancer wrote:

Well lets see 7,000 a year x 30 years €210,000,

With a 10% return how do you turn that into 1.375 million?

Links to websites would help.

apologies should be .375 million or 375,000 in real terms or 575,000 in nominal terms.based on 40 year investment yielding 10%average per annum costing 350 euro per month investment.invest 700 a month and you'll have 1.2 million over same period.

MorningStar · 16-03-2006 10:14AM

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

apologies should be .375 million or 375,000 in real terms or 575,000 in nominal terms.based on 40 year investment yielding 10%average per annum costing 350 euro per month investment.invest 700 a month and you'll have 1.2 million over same period.

Where are you getting your figures from? Foregetting your Calculations that look really wrong to me

How much money does that mean you get every month? If I remember you are stopped cashing in your pension when you are older.

A house investment doesn't mean you sell it, you use the rent to provide a pension. THe rent is better linked to inflation than a cash value. 1.2 million won't be worth that much in 30 years and

CoolGuy2006 · 16-03-2006 11:58AM

well another thing about buying your house is that It has value. Its actually worth something that allows you to take out loans.

Also, when you are finished paying for it and you pass on to the next world it is there for your children to do as they please. Its like a big piggy bank really, one big enough to live in.

b3t4 · 16-03-2006 12:33PM

One thing which has me worried is that I have heard of people being refused morgages as they are in their thirties. If this is what it's like today my outlook on what it's going to be like in a couple of years a quite bleak to say the least.

Years ago there was no need to think about purchasing a house in your twenties but now it seems like with higher price houses and therefore higher morgages the repayment time is creeping up and up.

I would like to purchase a house as I can't see renting giving me the options owning my own property could. My parents paid off their house a couple of years ago, after 20yrs of repayments, and there is a great since of security that comes with knowing that you own it.

A.

MorningStar · 16-03-2006 12:35PM

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

well another thing about buying your house is that It has value. Its actually worth something that allows you to take out loans.

Also, when you are finished paying for it and you pass on to the next world it is there for your children to do as they please. Its like a big piggy bank really, one big enough to live in.

It can be worth less than your mortgage so it can be like a big black hole too

MorningStar · 16-03-2006 12:39PM

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

well another thing about buying your house is that It has value. Its actually worth something that allows you to take out loans.

Also, when you are finished paying for it and you pass on to the next world it is there for your children to do as they please. Its like a big piggy bank really, one big enough to live in.

It can be worth less than your mortgage so it can be like a big black hole too. I have seen property rip families apart too

CoolGuy2006 · 16-03-2006 12:40PM

MorningStar wrote:

It can be worth less than your mortgage so it can be like a big black hole too. I have seen property rip families apart too

Dam this world to hell :-(

ronbyrne2005 · 16-03-2006 12:59PM

MorningStar wrote:

Where are you getting your figures from? Foregetting your Calculations that look really wrong to me

How much money does that mean you get every month? If I remember you are stopped cashing in your pension when you are older.

A house investment doesn't mean you sell it, you use the rent to provide a pension. THe rent is better linked to inflation than a cash value. 1.2 million won't be worth that much in 30 years and

yes you wont be cashing it in thats the fund value you would have after 40years which your pension would be paid from,i think you can take a significant tax free lump sum from it at start of retirement.
the pension fund stays invested after you have retired and started receiving money from it so your still getting returns after the 40 years and into your pension years.
that 1.2 million figure is after accounting for inflation.
much of the increases in the money value of house's over last 20 years has been inflation.

there are extra expenses with owning a home ,such as insurance furnishing and maintanance etc which can be a few grand a year.
if your renting an investment home you have to pay all the relevant taxes etc.
a home can be a good investment but not a present.

daveirl · 16-03-2006 01:13PM

This post has been deleted.

bonkey · 16-03-2006 01:17PM

ferdi wrote:

how is it that people all over europe can afford to long term rent and here its a no-no?.

Mostly because people all over Europe enjoy the benefit of laws to make sure that they get some protection as renters.

Take where I live. By law my rent cannot be increased simply because the value of the property has gone up due to market forces. The main factors that allow my landlord to change my rent are :

1) They make material improvements to the house. Note that this does not include stuff like renovating a 30-year-old kitchen, as this is classified as standard maintenance.

2) The interest rate on the mortgage (should there still be a mortgage) goes up. I can be charged more to cover my "share" of this. Of course, should my landlord do this, and the interest rate subsequently falls, my landlord will be legally obliged to reduce my rent accordingly.

There's a huge chunk of rent-law which could be discussed for ever, but the simple fact is that the reason it works in other places and not in Ireland is because those other places have systems which allow it to work.

At the end of the day, its no coincidence that Ireland has the highest residence-ownership rate in Europe (at around 70%) and has terrible rent laws. Thats not likely to change quickly either. After all, once you join that 70%, fair rent laws are either not going to affect you at all, or will negatively affect you....so why would you care.

As for fear of the future....welcome to the world. every generation has had their major issues. Consider the 77% tax bracket in the 70s as an example. You think that was fun - where the government took close on 4 quid of every fiver you earned after a certain point? Or the mass emigration we "enjoyed" up until the Celtic Tiger kicked in...where Ireland's biggest export (and the one we got the least benefit from) was our workforce....you think they were preferable times perhaps? Where people worried about being able to find a job...not about whether or not the job they had would let them live the lifestyle they desired.

Yes, Ireland has its problems and there's no reason to deny them, shy from them, or believe they are insurmountable....because we've always had problems, just like every other nation, and they change from year to year, decade to decade.

The biggest problem that I perceive at the moment is the mindset that looks at the "glory-years" of the Tiger economy and the belief that we are somehow entitled to as good if not better conditions forever....ignoring the fact that these conditions helped drive the very type of problem that prompted this thread, and that the mid-90s had plenty of problems of their own.

jc

bonkey · 16-03-2006 01:28PM

Freelancer wrote:

what were house prices in Dublin 30 years ago?

Before or after the property crash which happened about that time?

No pension fund could possibly match the return of someone who invested in property 30 years ago.

Sure. If you take the period of time from after the last crash, and before the next one...you're fine.

It is a simple fact that until the Celtic Tiger, property in Dublin (and Ireland in general) was vastly undervalued. This is no longer the case, and as with many other Tiger-driven micro-economies, it is not indefinintely sustainable.

Mathematically, house prices cannot indefinitely outstrip inflation, unless salaries are also doing the same.

The only real questions are how long it can/will continue, and whether it will slow to a sustainable level, or outpace itself and come down to earth with a bump. While we continue to advocate and/or believe in the "buying is unquestionably good" mantra....we're lining ourselves up for one of the more unpleasant combinations.

jc

Meh · 16-03-2006 01:29PM

Freelancer wrote:

Purchasing property in a capital city is always a wise investment.

Wrong. Just look at Tokyo where house prices are currently about half of the peak value during the 1980s. If you think a house is a guaranteed investment, you're very wrong indeed.

The market could collaspe but then those shares, that pension, will also go down with it as well.

Not if you've diversified your holdings, something that's impossible to do with property investment.

MorningStar · 16-03-2006 01:44PM

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

yes you wont be cashing it in thats the fund value you would have after 40years which your pension would be paid from,i think you can take a significant tax free lump sum from it at start of retirement.
the pension fund stays invested after you have retired and started receiving money from it so your still getting returns after the 40 years and into your pension years.
that 1.2 million figure is after accounting for inflation.
much of the increases in the money value of house's over last 20 years has been inflation.

there are extra expenses with owning a home ,such as insurance furnishing and maintanance etc which can be a few grand a year.
if your renting an investment home you have to pay all the relevant taxes etc.
a home can be a good investment but not a present.

Show how you worked out 1.2 after inflation! How much are people putting in? Most peopla only get 30 years of pension payment.

Taxes paid on your rent give my mother over 5k a month now at current rates (paying maintanence also). I don't know any body getting that from a pension plan unless they are really rich which my mamisn't. Don't you pay tax on your pension as it is income? Big wigs do claim property as pensions.

You can't say property is not a good investment as you can't tell the future. It's just as bad as saying prices will go up.

MorningStar · 16-03-2006 01:58PM

bonkey wrote:

Mostly because people all over Europe enjoy the benefit of laws to make sure that they get some protection as renters.

Take where I live. By law my rent cannot be increased simply because the value of the property has gone up due to market forces. The main factors that allow my landlord to change my rent are :

Well they can't do that here either so what's your point?

bonkey wrote:

1) They make material improvements to the house. Note that this does not include stuff like renovating a 30-year-old kitchen, as this is classified as standard maintenance.

So once every 30 years? What material improvements? Many tenants actually fix the places up in other countries too is that laws fault too?

bonkey wrote:

2) The interest rate on the mortgage (should there still be a mortgage) goes up. I can be charged more to cover my "share" of this. Of course, should my landlord do this, and the interest rate subsequently falls, my landlord will be legally obliged to reduce my rent accordingly.

So intrest hikes are not even 1 percent

bonkey wrote:

There's a huge chunk of rent-law which could be discussed for ever, but the simple fact is that the reason it works in other places and not in Ireland is because those other places have systems which allow it to work.

After 6 months you are entitled to a 4 year lease by law here. To remove atenant from your proeprty is very difficult here no matter what they do.

bonkey wrote:

At the end of the day, its no coincidence that Ireland has the highest residence-ownership rate in Europe (at around 70%) and has terrible rent laws. Thats not likely to change quickly either. After all, once you join that 70%, fair rent laws are either not going to affect you at all, or will negatively affect you....so why would you care.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_hom_own
What rental rights do we not have here that are of importance. I think you will find a social element and the government home ownership promotional schemes since the birth of the nation might have a bigger impact than laws that seem to cover it pretty much.
What country are you in where it is also much better? You don't appear to know what it is like here now so I am guessing you are gone a while

bonkey · 16-03-2006 02:57PM

MorningStar wrote:

Well they can't do that here either so what's your point?

Someone asked why they can do it abroad and not in Ireland. You're basically asking me what my point is for answering the question? My point was to answer the question - I would have thought that was obvious.

So once every 30 years?

Thats not what I said. I gave an example of something I have experienced happening in both countries. In Ireland, the landlord hiked the price because he had made the place "more modern" or something. Here, the landlord was a) obliged to carry out the work, and b) unable to charge for it because given the age of what was being replaced, it was classed as standard maintenance.

What material improvements? Many tenants actually fix the places up in other countries too is that laws fault too?

Jeez man. A moment ago you're asking me what my point is because the laws aren't the same in Ireland. Now you're grilling me over the laws you've suggested aren't relevant to the discussion at hand.

Which is it - are they relevant or not?

So intrest hikes are not even 1 percent

My fiancee moved into her flat over a decade ago. The rent has not changed in that time as no material improvements to the building have been carried out. The house currently has no mortgage, so that can't effect her.

Other people I know (like her mother) who live in places which are still mortgaged have also not had rent changes, because the rates haven't changed enough to make it worthwhile, and no landlord wants to hit someone for a .5% or 1% increase....especially since the renter will - in all likelihood - then be given a reason to keep an eye on rates an insist on all shifts downward being passed on.

So yes. Less than 1 percent.

After 6 months you are entitled to a 4 year lease by law here. To remove atenant from your proeprty is very difficult here no matter what they do.
...
What rental rights do we not have here that are of importance.

So we're back to the laws not being relevant again....although they're important enough for you to point out the ones that we do have.

So the laws are relevant but irrelevant and also important but u****ortant?

Seems to me like you're cherry picking what is and isn't important or relevant so that you can disagree better. I just wish I knew what you were disagreeing with, seeing as you couldn't see the point in me answering a question that some other poster asked.

I think you will find a social element and the government home ownership promotional schemes since the birth of the nation might have a bigger impact than laws that seem to cover it pretty much.

I think you've confused my claim of correlation with one of causation. I said there is no coincidence we have both. I never said that either caused the other.

What country are you in where it is also much better?

Where did I say or suggest it was better, other than in respect to having better renting laws?

The relevance of it having better renting laws is that this is one major factor why renting can and does work here whilst failing in Ireland...which is the question I was originally responding to....y'know...the point I was making that you didn't get.

As to where it is...I can't see why that would matter while you insist (at least some of the time) that the differences are irrelevant.

You don't appear to know what it is like here now

Based on what? My claim that rent laws in Ireland are vastly less advantageous to renters then in mainland European countries where renting works? Are you suggesting Irish rental laws are just as fair to all parties? They've changed that much in the past handful of years?

Wow.

I must be imagining all the people I'm still in contact with in Ireland or who posted to this thread reaffirming all the problems that I've been basing my argument on.

jc

lomb · 16-03-2006 03:13PM

U guys are seeing the short term. inflation will destroy any mortgage today. it might take 20 years but mark my words 400 grand will be the equivilent of 100-150 grand today in 15-20 years.

daveirl · 16-03-2006 03:32PM

This post has been deleted.

MorningStar · 16-03-2006 03:36PM

bonkey wrote:

Someone asked why they can do it abroad and not in Ireland. You're basically asking me what my point is for answering the question? My point was to answer the question - I would have thought that was obvious.

You said something that wasn't true and are giving out to me for asking what your point is in being wrong?!? What you said is not true

bonkey wrote:

Thats not what I said. I gave an example of something I have experienced happening in both countries. In Ireland, the landlord hiked the price because he had made the place "more modern" or something. Here, the landlord was a) obliged to carry out the work, and b) unable to charge for it because given the age of what was being replaced, it was classed as standard maintenance.Jeez man. A moment ago you're asking me what my point is because the laws aren't the same in Ireland. Now you're grilling me over the laws you've suggested aren't relevant to the discussion at hand.

I asked you questions I never said you said anything. YOu are just telling us he was obliged to carry out work but under what basis? This is what I am asking you .Hence the wuestions were together.

bonkey wrote:

Which is it - are they relevant or not?

Nobody is complaining about intrest hikes driving up their rent so why did you mention it. What is the relevance of this to Irish rent or anywhere else?

bonkey wrote:

My fiancee moved into her flat over a decade ago. The rent has not changed in that time as no material improvements to the building have been carried out. The house currently has no mortgage, so that can't effect her.

THis doesn't add up, one minute you are saying they must make amaterial changes yet they haven't in 10 years. The reason the rent hasn't gone up is becasue they haven't made changes yet they can't put up the rent if they do improve it? You are not being very straight on this

bonkey wrote:

Seems to me like you're cherry picking what is and isn't important or relevant so that you can disagree better. I just wish I knew what you were disagreeing with, seeing as you couldn't see the point in me answering a question that some other poster asked.

YOu misunderstood my first comment and then proceeded to rant at me.

"Take where I live. By law my rent cannot be increased simply because the value of the property has gone up due to market forces. The main factors that allow my landlord to change my rent are :" my reply "Well they can't do that here either so what's your point?". THey can't put up rent becasue the value of the price has gone up. So what is your point about something that is not true. WHy did you think they could here?

bonkey wrote:

I think you've confused my claim of correlation with one of causation. I said there is no coincidence we have both. I never said that either caused the other.

I think you missed that I think the correlation is between attitude to renting/landlords and homeownership.

bonkey wrote:

Where did I say or suggest it was better, other than in respect to having better renting laws?

YOur whole post is about why people rent in Europe more than in reland and you explained what conditions and laws made it better. look below at the highlighted word

bonkey wrote:

The relevance of it having better renting laws is that this is one major factor why renting can and does work here whilst failing in Ireland...which is the question I was originally responding to....y'know...the point I was making that you didn't get.

I got it you didn't get me

bonkey wrote:

As to where it is...I can't see why that would matter while you insist (at least some of the time) that the differences are irrelevant.

I know a lot about property laws around Europe. TO compare what you are saying with fact it would help. As I pointed out you have been wrong about Irish Law so it is relevant to verify if you have made any other mistakes

bonkey wrote:

Based on what? My claim that rent laws in Ireland are vastly less advantageous to renters then in mainland European countries where renting works? Are you suggesting Irish rental laws are just as fair to all parties? They've changed that much in the past handful of years?

I never suggest Irish rental laws were fair they favour the tenant. Renting works here point out where it doesn't , people are living in rented accomadation. THe regualtions changed a few years ago I think it was 4 but not sure. SO you are commenting on something that you have no knowledge of.

bonkey wrote:

Wow.

Easily impressed are we?

bonkey wrote:

I must be imagining all the people I'm still in contact with in Ireland or who posted to this thread reaffirming all the problems that I've been basing my argument on.

jc

You know 100 people agreeing can be wrong. You should base things on what are facts and not opinion and hearsay. So in short you aren't imagining anything but you seemed to have forgotten how Irish people moan. Don't be a wonkey Bonkey find out facts. You just compared old laws in Ireland with laws I am not sure you know that well either. You also got the home ownership figure wrong. If you live in mainland Europe bear in mind after WWII a lot of social housing had to be created.

Meh · 16-03-2006 03:58PM

lomb wrote:

U guys are seeing the short term. inflation will destroy any mortgage today. it might take 20 years but mark my words 400 grand will be the equivilent of 100-150 grand today in 15-20 years.

Higher inflation means higher interest rates. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

bonkey · 16-03-2006 04:13PM

MorningStar wrote:

Nobody is complaining about intrest hikes driving up their rent so why did you mention it. What is the relevance of this to Irish rent or anywhere else?

Its an example of how renters in mainland Europe are protected from arbitrary rent hikes. The mechanism by which rent can be hiked is firmly defined, unlike in Ireland. I would have though the relevance is obvious.

THis doesn't add up, one minute you are saying they must make amaterial changes yet they haven't in 10 years.

I never said they must make material changes within any timeframe. I said that certain material changes are explicitly excluded from being used as grounds for price-hikes. This is not the case in Ireland.

The reason the rent hasn't gone up is becasue they haven't made changes yet they can't put up the rent if they do improve it? You are not being very straight on this

I'm being perfectly straight.

They cannot increase the rent without making material improvements. What constitutes a material improvement which can lead to an increase rent is clearly defined, and excludes maintenance.

Allowing something to get old and worn out, then replacing it is not an classed as an improvement.

Do Irish renters have that protection? If your kitchen is falling apart, and the landlord agrees to fix it up...he can't turn around at next lease-renewal and say "well, your kitchen is a lot more modern now, so that adds X".

THey can't put up rent becasue the value of the price has gone up.

When your 4-year lease comes up for renewal, you're telling me that if the value of the property you are renting has doubled, the landlord can do nothing to the price he wishes to charge you in the new lease? That he can only hike prices when tenants change?

Seriously?

YOur whole post is about why people rent in Europe more than in reland

You should go back and read the question I was answering again.

Its not about why people do it. Its about why it can work in mainland Europe and not in Ireland. Its about why people can afford it, not why they choose to do it.

I got it

Despite msiunderstanding that my response to a question asking "why can people do this" was in fact answering that queastion and not an entirely different one of "why do people choose to do this".

As I pointed out you have been wrong about Irish Law

I don't believe I am. When your lease is up for renewal, I believe the landlord in Ireland is not as tightly constrained on what the new rent level can be set to as (s)he is in most of mainland Europe.

Don't be a wonkey Bonkey

Grow up.

Dilly1 · 16-03-2006 04:17PM

Reading through the posts, then going back to the original and reading it again, you realise how property obsessed and insecure the Irish really are.

:rolleyes:

Arrrgh watch out "The Bull" Mcabe is in town !!!! :eek:

ferdi · 16-03-2006 04:21PM

yeah exactly

it just sad....i ask AGAIN why oh why? only half of my original post related to house prices/renting etc. the rest was a question of social commentary which everyone seemed to ignore.

Freelancer · 16-03-2006 04:36PM

ferdi wrote:

yeah exactly

it just sad....i ask AGAIN why oh why? only half of my original post related to house prices/renting etc. the rest was a question of social commentary which everyone seemed to ignore.

Probably because it was ill thought out and immature? Its been said better elsewhere and often before you decided to elighten us.

The people who are dismissing property as an investment have a point, but what property has which a pension or another investment doesn't give you, is a home.

At the end of thirty years, you'll have somewhere to live, rent free for the rest of your life, any increase in property value is gravy ontop of that. A slump in the housing market will affect property investors and speculators who are out to make a medium term killing, people who are in this for the long haul, may be adversely affected by a slump in the market, and may face negative equity, but in the long term they still end up owning their own home.

markpb · 16-03-2006 04:49PM

Sleepy wrote:

What kills me is that it's practically impossible for a single person to buy their own place without either facing a horrendous commute or crippling their quality of life for the first 4/5 years of the mortgage. It's estimated that to get a mortgage to buy an average three bedroom semi in Dublin you need to be earning over 60k a year if you're buying as a single :eek:

Why would a single person need to buy a three-bed semi? I know there are exception cases such as single parent families but they are just that - the exception. And why would a family in that situation need a semi?

I'm single, working just under two years and I bought a two bed apartment in Santry/Coolock last year for 248k with some help from my parents with the deposit. I pay just under half my salary each month in repayments. Now that I've rented the second room, I pay 25% of my salary each month.

Later when I'm married with kids, I'll need a bigger place and possibly I'd like a semi but I'll be better able to afford it.

At my current salary I could afford to buy a two bed apartment if I had a partner who was earning roughly the same as me.

Where in Dublin are you looking for that you can't afford an apartment without a partner? Several people in my company have bought apartments recently for c. 285k. They might not be city centre and they're definitely not semi-d's in the countryside but they're affordable and reasonably close to work.

Personally, it amazes me that people can get involved in a bubble economy so soon after the .com bubble of the 90's. Have we really got such short memories?

Sorry to disappoint you but everyone in Ireland is "involved" in our bubble economy. Whether you're a house-owner or not, you'll feel the pinch just as much when (if

) the bubble bursts.

Dave! · 16-03-2006 04:56PM

Freelancer wrote:

Probably because it was ill thought out and immature? Its been said better elsewhere and often before you decided to elighten us.

Ahh there it is, always have to have a little personal dig don't ya?

sad and bitter, sad and bitter.....

Sleepy · 16-03-2006 04:58PM

ferdi, to come back to the social side of your post, I think a lot of Irish people in their early twenties do feel a sense of despair at the notion that they'll never own their own home. This generation (20 - 26 year olds) in Ireland are used to their parents owning their own home and have been brought up to see this as the way forward in their own lives. We are culturally obsessed with owning our own homes and although a significant portion of this generation are rebelling against this notion choosing to travel the world a rather larger portion are tying themselves into huge mortgages.

I'm not too worried about buying a house in the near future as I'm convinced that the property market is a bubble. I may be wrong but most economists agree that house prices will at the very least, plateau in the next few years. Other people have different priorities than me though, some people are prepared to have no social life in order to own their own home and the best of luck to them, hopefully they won't be too badly stung if/when the market crashes.

seamus · 16-03-2006 05:01PM

Seriously tunaman, you could have at least removed the Americanisms from you crackpot points before poting them.

tunaman wrote:

The vast majority of taxes are paid by the lower classes and yet many of the rich manage to avoid paying the same rate of tax due to ridiculous loop holes.

Care to show some figures to prove this?

• ID cards with facial scans will soon be compulsory throughout U.K.104

"Facial scans"? Otherwise known as "photographs"? Fs, they've had these in many countries for years. And unless you have no wish of ever driving or leaving the country (wow, what a boring life), then at some point the government will have your face and details on file. Big deal.

• There are over 4 million closed circuit cameras monitoring every move the British people make and all faces caught on camera can be matched with a national data bank.105

If they already have your face, then why worry about ID cards? If all faces can be matched, and every move is monitored, then how are petty criminals getting away with crimes? Think about it ffs, it's a moronic thought.

• British police are carrying hand held DNA kits linked to national data bases for when they test saliva.106

• People are being pulled off London trains at random and forced to submit to a full body backscatter X-ray to reveal what they have under their clothes.107

I'm not even going to comment on these two. *boggle*

• Swipe cards used for transportation and building entry allow police to plot a citizen’s every move on a dot map.108

Eh, nice idea except that the police have absolutely no access to the records of private companies' security systems. Even the rail companies are private afaik, meaning that the motro police can't randomly access Oyster data.

• All moving vehicles in Britain are camera-recorded so that police can analyze, by license number, every journey, and every gas purchase made.109

Gas purchases? Not very useful, only a handful of vehicles in the UK would run on gasoline. As I say, remove the americanisms before posting at least.

• People and vehicles are being tracked from cell towers with a new technology called "Celldar" (as in radar).110

Really? Did they magically implant a "Celldar" transponder in my body and my car so that they can identify me?

• The British people are reporting grave illnesses from their exposure to thousands of microwave transmitters which make this metastasizing surveillance nightmare possible.111

Proof? Or more pseudo-scientific bull**** from the vaults of The Sun?

Kernel · 16-03-2006 05:03PM

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

so in the past houses were a good investment doesnt mean it will continue. houses are historical overvalued by many measures.buying a house wasnt a gamble 5,10,15 years ago but it is now because they are so high relative to wages rental yields and prospective future supply.what happens when theres too many houses? or if mortgage rates go to 6% or our economy slows a bit.
average dublin wage 38,000 average house price 420,000.when mortgages were 200pounds the average house was probably around 40,000 and average wage was around 8,000 which is a far smaller ratio.

as for your pension ,i presume your young so dont judege it over a few years,over any 30-40 year period your pension will do well ,the average pension fund made 21% last year so im sure yours was around that too,add in the tax benefit and your pension fund would have increased 35% last year.

Well Ron, equity is still showing an upward trend, and remember that people have been predicting the crash or slowdown for a long time. In fact, people have always said property is overvalued. Supply and demand dictates the market.

As for my pension fund... I've had my pension for about 7 years now, and I haven't got my annual report handy, but I can assure you that the return is normally nothing like 21%! Look at this table of predicted pension fund returns:

http://www.finfacts.com/fincentre/irishpenfunds.htm

You can see that the expected median return over 5 years is 3.3, over 10 years it's 10%.

You may make money on a high risk pension fund, but then again, you may not - and with the unpredictability and volatility of the stock market over recent years, I'll take a rain check and concentrate on property investments abroad, now that I own my own house in Dublin (which is still gaining steadily each year anyway).

I think a lot of people are codding themselves here, at the expense of good business sense, tbh.

ferdi · 16-03-2006 05:07PM

Freelancer wrote:

Probably because it was ill thought out and immature? Its been said better elsewhere and often before you decided to elighten us

i think i'll add you to my ignore list. life is too short to listen to petty bitter abuse like yours.

fear for the future and home ownership

Comments