Is the desire to own your own home justified !

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now for some reason we look back at building public housing as a great idea but would balk at the idea of paying for it through tax - as if the public Houses in the past were built for free.

Who availed of all this dreamy public housing? Not my parents or grandparents anyways, or our neighbours or colleagues.

The desire to own your own home is more justified now than it ever was. It is possibly the no. 1 thing you can do to secure your future living standards given the way pensions are heading.

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The magic of capitalism has lifted Ireland from being the poorest country in Western Europe to one of the wealthiest.

Nothing imagined about it and the housing "crisis" has little to do with capitalism

Well, let's be fairly clear that it was a mix of capitalism and socialism. In this instance they invested public money in affordable housing to home those who needed it. Then they decided to cut the socialist affordable housing part and leave it to the magic of capitalism which has brought us to the point were at now without affordable housing.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is it though?

There isnt infinite land in cities like Dublin. You sell off the social housing stock and it has to be replaced each time with more further and further away.

If we need more houses then we need more houses. That issue exists whether they are built by government or privately.

I'm fine with selling the houses to residents eventually as long as the government builds more affordable housing.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh look. The desire to own a home is completely normal and justified. But the circumstances might mean it's unlikely to happen as it did in the past.

1)In the past they built public housing: great idea.
2)When people had settled and created communities, they allowed them buy their house: great idea.
3)Instead of asking people to invest in the next generation of public housing, they took the easy route and imagined the magic of capitalism would create new, affordable housing: Terrible idea.

4)Now for some reason we look back at building public housing as a great idea but would balk at the idea of paying for it through tax - as if the public Houses in the past were built for free.

1)Agreed.
2)Bad idea - unless selling at market value, the state should keep the property and once that family have a change in circumstances, ie their children are now in their 30's and moved out. That house should be let to a new family while the previous older couple should be moved to a more appropriate home for their needs.
3) Good idea but not for the reason you say. We need outside money to build the bulk of our properties for private use only. They should never mix private and public houses if that was what you were trying to say.
4)Agreed. The one thing i would say is that housing standards have increased so much now that public houses nearly have a better standard that private - personally this is an rea that should be looked into to reduce costs.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh look. The desire to own a home is completely normal and justified. But the circumstances might mean it's unlikely to happen as it did in the past.

In the past they built public housing: great idea.
When people had settled and created communities, they allowed them buy their house: great idea.
Instead of asking people to invest in the next generation of public housing, they took the easy route and imagined the magic of capitalism would create new, affordable housing: Terrible idea.

Now for some reason we look back at building public housing as a great idea but would balk at the idea of paying for it through tax - as if the public Houses in the past were built for free.

That's not a great idea. Many families had lottery type windfalls on the back of the council handing over properties far below market rates... Is it not enough to put a roof over someone's head? But you then have to enrich them too?

Those houses should all still be state owned.

Graces7 wrote: »

You mean a ghetto, or similar? Happened in the Uk with the costly tower blocks in eg sheffield. They finally demolished them,

Yes precisely I mean ghettos. Do what's necessary to create communities that don't turn Into ghettos. Creating a place where poor people can live is fine, but with out further intervention you have a recipe for a ghetto. Hence the need for all the social programmes I mentioned, and more besides.

lawred2 wrote: »

That's not a great idea. Many families had lottery type windfalls on the back of the council handing over properties far below market rates... Is it not enough to put a roof over someone's head? But you then have to enrich them too?

Those houses should all still be state owned.

I've no problem with enriching people. But I'd suggest that the houses were cheap to begin with partly because the state build houses creating supply. Then they sold the houses cheap and stopped building houses which meant the houses increased in value due to lack of supply of affordable housing.

There's a whole generation who did great out of social programmes like this, and now they're stingy as hell. I'll never forget the bloke on LBC radio who advocated for cutting social programmes. He said "I grew up on a council estate, what did the government ever do for me?"

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've no problem with enriching people. But I'd suggest that the houses were cheap to begin with partly because the state build houses creating supply. Then they sold the houses cheap and stopped building houses which meant the houses increased in value due to lack of supply of affordable housing.

There's a whole generation who did great out of social programmes like this, and now they're stingy as hell. I'll never forget the bloke on LBC radio who advocated for cutting social programmes. He said "I grew up on a council estate, what did the government ever do for me?"

Yeah we'd differ on that

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's a whole generation who did great out of social programmes like this, and now they're stingy as hell. I'll never forget the bloke on LBC radio who advocated for cutting social programmes. He said "I grew up on a council estate, what did the government ever do for me?"

Again I ask, where is this generation?
Late 60s/70s, my parents emigrated and saved, returned home, bought a site and built their home. Worked, paid taxes, raised their children and put them through college. Had child benefit alright.
Now their kids all work and pay taxes.
Most of their siblings would have been the same, other than the brothers who stayed on the farm.
You’re wildly sweeping statement is totally inaccurate.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh right. Are you a full on communist?

Weird response.

A home is a place to live in and to have children and bring them up.
In japan where property is very expensive 25 per cent of young people
do not date or get married or have children .
The birth rate is low .
people who are always renting are less likely to marry or have children.
The taxation system and welfare system needs young people to fund it
and to fund healthcare .
If the next generation find it very hard to buy a house this will reduce the no of people who get married and have children.
The government owns alot of land ,it could offset this problem by building more social housing and housing for people on lower incomes who are working .
The system we have now does not work in that there seems to be
no planning by anyone for the next 10-20 years .
There was an article in the sunday times The end of the middle class .
It says young people who are working full time may be renting for
years and years ,they might save for a deposit, but meanwhile house prices are rising .
So some people may never be able to buy a house .
Up to the year 2000 any one who worked full time could expect to be able to buy a house
get married if they wanted to .
i understand not everyone who buys a house will have children .

Addle wrote: »

Who availed of all this dreamy public housing? Not my parents or grandparents anyways, or our neighbours or colleagues.

Well, at least housing was affordable for those that didnt avail of it (edit) Im not saying it was cheap relative to wages, but it was viable, with a lot of effort, and I think that was reflected in rental costs too, more realistic, now we have the worst of all worlds, unaffordable housing, expensive rents and nowhere in the middle it seems.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Hold on, who said anything about knock down prices? A price that acknowledges the rent the person has paid over the years is a good idea but I'm not talking about handing the house over for nothing. Nor am I talking about putting the house on the open market so already wealthy people can pick up a buy to let for cheap from the state, and rent it back to the people it was meant to help.

Discounted rent!
Really the councils should have had massive claw backs based on discounts provided and based on real increases in house prices, like a capital gains charge, so that if someone decided and wanted to sell then some cost could be recouped, if this prevented them from moving, then a means to pay back a set difference over time to the council may have been an idea.
The councils ideas in these things were limited, they had short term cost savings goals, not altruistic ones. They were looking to reduce the Councils liability for maintenance costs. It should not simply have been a windfall for people, many of whom sold up and made a profit on it afterwards.

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Silly people thinking a mortgage means they own their house buy the house outright for cash or you're just fancy renting.

I'm not sure you know how a mortgage works.

30 years of renting gets you nothing.
30 years of paying mortgage typically gets you a house.

Mike9832 wrote: »

Your arguing with yourself now

Brilliant, anyway, if you think renting a property is equal to having a mortgage on a property you are financially and economically illiterate.