Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Is the desire to own your own home justified !

24567

Comments

  • #32
    RobbingBandit
    Registered Users Posts: 18,073 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


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


  • #33
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,257 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Oh right. Are you a full on communist?

    Weird response.


  • #34
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


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

    Not really, a renter can't sell the house they are renting.


  • #35
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    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 .


  • #36
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


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

    Nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    1874
    Registered Users Posts: 2,382 ✭✭✭1874


    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.


  • #38
    Mike9832
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Mike9832


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Not really, a renter can't sell the house they are renting.

    Mortgage holder still has a landlord " the bank " and is at the mercy of them just like a renter etc


  • #39
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,003 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    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.


  • #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Mike9832 wrote: »
    Mortgage holder still has a landlord " the bank " and is at the mercy of them just like a renter etc

    No they don't have a "LL" nor are they at the mercy of anyone, honestly how do people imagine up this stuff.

    A home owner 100% owns the house mortgage or no mortgage. It can in now way whatsoever be compared to renting.


  • #41
    decky1
    Registered Users Posts: 975 ✭✭✭decky1


    have some friends in Sweden and most people there have no desire to own their own homes and things seem to go fairly smooth for them,are we scourging ourselves to own a house we can't take it with us and there's the chance that our children will sell it and have a good time with the proceeds, also when we leave it to them the government will want their share even though we've paid for it all our lives.Once again an example of our great country.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Mike9832
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Mike9832


    Aryanna Few Stint wrote: »
    No they don't have a "LL" nor are they at the mercy of anyone, honestly how do people imagine up this stuff.

    A home owner 100% owns the house mortgage or no mortgage. It can in now way whatsoever be compared to renting.

    If economy goes to **** or booms etc, the "LL" can increase interest rates anytime if your not in fixed, eg they are at the mercy


  • #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    decky1 wrote: »
    have some friends in Sweden and most people there have no desire to own their own homes and things seem to go fairly smooth for them,are we scourging ourselves to own a house we can't take it with us and there's the chance that our children will sell it and have a good time with the proceeds, also when we leave it to them the government will want their share even though we've paid for it all our lives.Once again an example of our great country.

    I keep hearing this kind of thing but for what it takes to rent a ****hole in my town you could easily cover a mortgage of a much nicer gaff in a much nicer area nearby. Yeah the market's pretty ****ed right now but "scourging" yourself by paying less for accommodation and having a huge asset down the line doesn't really make sense as an argument to me.


  • #44
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Mike9832 wrote: »
    Mortgage holder still has a landlord " the bank " and is at the mercy of them just like a renter etc

    No they aren't, I just said how can someone who is renting from a landlord sell the house they are renting?

    The bank can't sell your house that you have a mortgage on but you can.


  • #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    No one ever counts in the historic factor, which is more relevant as so many trace back their ancestry to the times when so many of our ancestors were renters on wealthy-owned land, and the effect of having an eviction in your personal family history.

    It’s easier for urban livers to discount & dismiss it because it isn’t as prevalent in their families, but so much of what drives people to want to own is considering those days and seeing the wealthy at the same dodging and whining that the landlords of old were at, and wanting to stick on in their eye.

    Factor it in. Plan based on it.


  • #46
    ScottCapper
    Registered Users Posts: 117 ✭✭ScottCapper


    Rent rent rent. Id be looking to buy my first home in 3 years and flip it straight away. Want to get into the real estate business my family is in it. Almost gaurenteed money


  • #47
    Mike9832
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Mike9832


    Ush1 wrote: »
    No they aren't, I just said how can someone who is renting from a landlord sell the house they are renting?

    The bank can't sell your house that you have a mortgage on but you can.

    Your arguing with yourself now


  • #48
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,003 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Mike9832 wrote: »
    Your arguing with yourself now

    No, they, amongst others, are correcting your incorrect posts implying having a mortgage means you are basically renting.


  • #49
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    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.


  • #50
    Mike9832
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Mike9832


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Brilliant, anyway, if you think renting a property is equal to having a mortgage on a property you are financially and economically illiterate.

    I never said it was the same

    I said you have a landlord, bank is your landlord


  • #51
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    decky1 wrote: »
    have some friends in Sweden and most people there have no desire to own their own homes and things seem to go fairly smooth for them...

    Home ownership in Sweden, while lower than Ireland and a little lower than the EU average, still account for a majority of the population (64%)

    http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_lvho02&lang=en


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Should I mention selling the property for a third time?:(


  • #53
    brightspark
    Registered Users Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    handlemaster wrote: »
    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/is-our-desire-to-own-our-own-home-about-to-falter-1.3962976?mode=amp

    Nice piece on this in the times. But what is not mentioned is the government included need people to invest in their own homes. At the end of life it is better to have a person with property and therefore assets than not. The cost of long term care is astronomical and this cannot be borne totally by the state.

    With end of life costs and the rental costs over a life time in the mix it makes sence to buy and not rent for the majority. But if your more interested in life experiences and moving from one job and country to the next renting gives people more flexibility

    The cost of long term unemployment and social housing is also astronomical, do you think this should not be borne by the state either?


  • #54
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Mike9832 wrote: »
    I never said it was the same

    I said you have a landlord, bank is your landlord

    No, the bank is your lender.

    Renting out money is in no way the same thing as renting out property. Trying to conflate them is just stupid.


  • #55
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,003 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Mike9832 wrote: »
    I never said it was the same

    I said you have a landlord, bank is your landlord

    Sweet!

    Anyone have the number for KBC? I have a problem with a leaky washing machine...:rolleyes:


  • #56
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    brightspark wrote: »
    The cost of long term unemployment and social housing is also astronomical, do you think this should not be borne by the state either?


    looks like your picking up on someone elses post because your question isnt related to what has been said.


  • #57
    brightspark
    Registered Users Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    handlemaster wrote: »
    looks like your picking up on some elses post because your question isnt related to what has been said.

    In your original post you implied that people should buy their own homes so that they can be used to pay for their long term care in the future

    "But what is not mentioned is the government included need people to invest in their own homes. At the end of life it is better to have a person with property and therefore assets than not. The cost of long term care is astronomical and this cannot be borne totally by the state."


    My view is that there are many who live their lives without making any contribution to the state and that it is wrong to penalise those that have been prudent throughout their working lives and not alone looked after their own housing needs but also contributed to the economy while at the same time allowing those who have never contributed anything have the same standard of living.

    But going after the assets of the older generation appears to be easier than making the current generation realise that they need to earn their lifestyle.
    (The latest "kite flying" suggestion is to remove the state pension, by means testing it, from people who have private pensions!!)

    I recently spoke with an older woman who when they got married (in the early 1950s) didn't share a house with others...they shared a flat!! Just a couple of rooms, four adults and two babies.

    The high standard of accommodation now expected is one of the reasons why many cannot afford housing these days.


    I view owning my own home as one way of saving for my future retirement, by having a house fully paid for before I retire will mean that my pension money will go further.


  • #58
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    brightspark wrote: »
    In your original post you implied that people should buy their own homes so that they can be used to pay for their long term care in the future

    "But what is not mentioned is the government included need people to invest in their own homes. At the end of life it is better to have a person with property and therefore assets than not. The cost of long term care is astronomical and this cannot be borne totally by the state."


    My view is that there are many who live their lives without making any contribution to the state and that it is wrong to penalise those that have been prudent throughout their working lives and not alone looked after their own housing needs but also contributed to the economy while at the same time allowing those who have never contributed anything have the same standard of living.

    But going after the assets of the older generation appears to be easier than making the current generation realise that they need to earn their lifestyle.
    (The latest "kite flying" suggestion is to remove the state pension, by means testing it, from people who have private pensions!!)

    I recently spoke with an older woman who when they got married (in the early 1950s) didn't share a house with others...they shared a flat!! Just a couple of rooms, four adults and two babies.

    The high standard of accommodation now expected is one of the reasons why many cannot afford housing these days.


    I view owning my own home as one way of saving for my future retirement, by having a house fully paid for before I retire will mean that my pension money will go further.


    so you are in agreement then. If you have to move to a retirement home your property will pay for this.


  • #59
    brightspark
    Registered Users Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    handlemaster wrote: »
    so you are in agreement then. If you have to move to a retirement home your property will pay for this.

    If it is applied on an equitable basis, that would mean that those who are unfortunate to need expensive treatments for cancer etc., should also have to use their property to pay for their treatment too.


    Of course that would mean the sensible thing for me to do is to just remortgage the house and spend all my money in the first few years of retirement then rely on the state to provide anything I may need later. But that wouldn't be the best for the state would it?

    The state needs to reward long term financial prudence, not punish it.


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Mike9832 wrote: »
    I never said it was the same

    I said you have a landlord, bank is your landlord

    The bank isn’t your LL by any measure whatsoever.

    If I own my house outright and borrow money with my house as security against the loan would you think that the lender now becomes “my LL”?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    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.
    Why should it take in to account rent that's paid? That doesn't happen to private renters?

    If people in council houses can afford to buy a house then they go to the market and buy one. The council house should stay with the council to be rented to new tenants.


Advertisement