Cheaper to buy than rent

lima · 30-11-2014 12:09am

murphaph wrote: »

If you'd had a low margin tracker you would have seen nothing but mortgage payment reductions since the crash, same as the reducing rents, so no advantage to renting during that period IMO and you'd have been equally well able to save.

Yeah but their 400k property is now only worth 200k

lima · 30-11-2014 12:10am

ted1 wrote: »

It won't work, unlike other cities dublin has a low sun, so the footprint needed for a 30 storey building prividing x is actual the same as a several 6 stories prividing x. Buildings shoukdnt cast shadows, if you are actually interested there's done good studies that you should look up.

low sun? can you explain?

ted1 · 30-11-2014 12:11am

lima wrote: »

Yeah but their 400k property is now only worth 200k

Try 300+. Rent on a place would be 15,000 a year.

lima · 30-11-2014 12:13am

ted1 wrote: »

You should have but the bullet a few years back, your large deposit effectively is worthless now as the apartments that you didn't go ahead with have increased by much more than 100k

Actually they haven't

I just bought one for the same price I was looking at in 2012, with a hefty deposit.

Apts in city centre have gone up and I defo lost out there but most of them were tiny 600sqft shoeboxes so I got a better deal in the end

ted1 · 30-11-2014 12:13am

lima wrote: »

low sun? can you explain?

Yeah the sun is low in the Sky which causes long shadows.

lima · 30-11-2014 12:14am

ted1 wrote: »

Yeah the sun is low in the Sky which causes long shadows.

What about our long summers?

lima · 30-11-2014 12:16am

ted1 wrote: »

Try 300+. Rent on a place would be 15,000 a year.

There may be some places like that but I know plenty of people who bought in north county dublin for over 400k for a 2br apt and they are going for around 200k now, and the rent is less than 1k for these places

lima · 30-11-2014 12:19am

Also a point to make is as I do my calculations on owning I have come to realise that there is only a tiny difference in the cost of buying vs renting. All you're really getting out of it is saving perhaps 2-300 per month, with the added risk of owning which could frankly go either way looking forward.. scary!

2013Lara · 30-11-2014 12:28am

It is certainly much cheaper for us, even with property tax and maintaining the house. Our mortgage is 710 Euro per month. We have a 90% mortgage that we began to pay Last month. To rent the same size house locally is 11/1200 Euro monthly.

ted1 · 30-11-2014 12:33am

lima wrote: »

What about our long summers?

Summers? You mean the 12th of August. ðŸ˜†
From September Till April all drivers will have their visors down because the sun sits low in the sky. So this causes long shadows. Public spaces need to be provided and they shouldn't be in the shade.

P. Breathnach · 30-11-2014 12:38am

lima wrote: »

Also a point to make is as I do my calculations on owning I have come to realise that there is only a tiny difference in the cost of buying vs renting. All you're really getting out of it is saving perhaps 2-300 per month, with the added risk of owning which could frankly go either way looking forward.. scary!

It's rather less scary if you have bought a place that suits you in the long term rather than the short or medium term. Negative Equity is no more than an interesting idea if you do not want or need to sell.

lima · 30-11-2014 12:39am

ted1 wrote: »

Summers? You mean the 12th of August. ðŸ˜†
From September Till April all drivers will have their visors down because the sun sits low in the sky. So this causes long shadows. Public spaces need to be provided and they shouldn't be in the shade.

Do you have any links about this? It would make sense for winter when the sun us low but not for summer when the sun is high. We have long days from may to September and we get a lot of light well into the evening

Also what about cities on higher latitudes than us with tall buildings e.g Stockholm?

lima · 30-11-2014 12:40am

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's rather less scary if you have bought a place that suits you in the long term rather than the short or medium term. Negative Equity is no more than an interesting idea if you do not want or need to sell.

Yeah but you still have a noose around your neck and no one wants to be trapped by that

ted1 · 30-11-2014 12:45am

lima wrote: »

Yeah but you still have a noose around your neck and no one wants to be trapped by that

You see you don't own a place and think of it as a noose around the neck. Where as I think of it as being liberating.
My kids have a bedroom they can paint and destroy and make as much noise as they want , I can dig up the garden and plant what eve fruit and veg I want. I can retire at 55 and have a place to live without having to pay rent or anything. As I bought our family home in 2012 I can sell it and pocket twice as much as I paid for it, in fact I paid 210,000 with an 8% deposit and could sell it for 450 so my 18k can be converted to 280k cash.

With regards a link I'm on my phone so no , but could dig one out when back on a PC

Arbiter of Good Taste · 30-11-2014 12:47am

lima wrote: »

Yeah but you still have a noose around your neck and no one wants to be trapped by that

The fact that there is severe upward pressure on property prices suggests that a lot of people are prepared to accept that.

o1s1n · 30-11-2014 1:46am

handlemaster wrote: »

if payments are fixed for the entirety of the mortgage you know what to pay every month no surprises. this can be still competitive for all involved. certainty breaths confidence. its common in other european countries

That's fine for people who want to have a fixed payment for the term of the mortgage. In our case we didn't and are on a variable. I'd rather the option to try and pay it off early via over payments.

Thankfully we live in a country where both options are available.

MouseTail · 30-11-2014 8:08am

lima wrote: »

Also a point to make is as I do my calculations on owning I have come to realise that there is only a tiny difference in the cost of buying vs renting. All you're really getting out of it is saving perhaps 2-300 per month, with the added risk of owning which could frankly go either way looking forward.. scary!

in the first year perhaps, what about the 10th year, the 20th year, is there still only savings of €200 pm, what about once the mortgage is redeemed, is there still only a small differential?

Call me Al · 30-11-2014 8:55am

lima wrote: »

Yeah but you still have a noose around your neck and no one wants to be trapped by that

Noose around your neck?
I think I'd prefer to be paying my mortgage now, when we have an income coming in, than risk the uncertainties of renting as I reach my pension years without the potential to earn and not owning the house I've lived in outright.

I'd just hate to be facing into that for what I'd like to think would be 20 years.

kandoola · 30-11-2014 9:14am

dubrov wrote: »

A lot of ifs and buts there. I don't see how apartments can be built bigger and better serviced but built at a cheaper price with lower management fees.
It is pretty much a contradiction.

Obviously more supply will put downward pressure on prices. At least this major economist remembered something from school

Isnt that what all of the problems with apartments were and are?

Too small, Too expensive, Unfairly high management fees. Bad locations.

If you want people to buy new ones you have to take care of these problems.

Not a contradiction that I can see.

dubrov · 30-11-2014 10:00am

High management fees are not a product of the quality of construction.
Of course management fees can become very high if members of the management company take little interest in monitoring them.
This applies to new and old developments,

More services => Higher management\service fees
Bigger apartments => Larger construction costs

Sure, there were loads of apartments built in bad locations but I think they have already seen a proportionately higher drop than those in better locations.

As far as I can tell, there seems to be huge demand to rent apartments in the city centre. This can only push up sale prices as well.
Judging by current rental prices, there is a need for many more apartments to be built there.

kandoola · 30-11-2014 10:08am

dubrov wrote: »

High management fees are not a product of the quality of construction.
Of course management fees can become very high if members of the management company take little interest in monitoring them.
This applies to new and old developments,

More services => Higher management\service fees
Bigger apartments => Larger construction costs

Sure, there were loads of apartments built in bad locations but I think they have already seen a proportionately higher drop than those in better locations.

As far as I can tell, there seems to be huge demand to rent apartments in the city centre. This can only push up sale prices as well.
Judging by current rental prices, there is a need for many more apartments to be built there.

Ah I give up.
You're not getting the point, but I'll tell Constantine to go to you for advice though

handlemaster · 30-11-2014 10:10am

Is not also the problem with management companies that the builder appointed family members or friends which could only be removed once the last unit on the development was sold. The issue then was the builder not selling the last unit thus retaining control of the development and high fees.

dubrov · 30-11-2014 10:32am

Send him my way alright

My point is that you can build bigger apartments with better services but they would cost more than the equivalent smaller apartment with less services.
I just don't think there is a market for large family style apartments (in Dublin anyway). This rule if dwelling would be trying to compete with family homes and I think the Irish mentality means that houses would win out.

No market means builders aren't going to build it.

P. Breathnach · 30-11-2014 10:50am

handlemaster wrote: »

Is not also the problem with management companies that the builder appointed family members or friends which could only be removed once the last unit on the development was sold. The issue then was the builder not selling the last unit thus retaining control of the development and high fees.

The MUD Act has gone a good way towards fixing that.

Saipanne · 30-11-2014 10:57am

Step 1

"Sure renting is dead money"

Step 2

"You gotta get your foot on the ladder"

Step 3

"i just bought a nice little place in Bulgaria"

Step 4

"it's all the government's fault"

Step 5

"where's my nama"

And repeat.

worded · 30-11-2014 11:03am

Saipanne wrote: »

Step 1

"Sure renting is dead money"

Step 2

"You gotta get your foot on the ladder"

Step 3

"i just bought a nice little place in Bulgaria"

Step 4

"it's all the government's fault"

Step 5

"where's my nama"

And repeat.

It's rince and repeat ....

kandoola · 30-11-2014 11:40am

Saipanne wrote: »

Step 1

"Sure renting is dead money"

Step 2

"You gotta get your foot on the ladder"

Step 3

"i just bought a nice little place in Bulgaria"

Step 4

"it's all the government's fault"

Step 5

"where's my nama"

And repeat.

Step 6

"Im in NE. Im going to default." sure i pay insurance for that.

Step 7

10,000 people do exactly the same

Step 8

Insurance companies come up with an excuse that they never expected so many claims. They cant pay.

Step 9

New levy for all of us whether we own a property or not or whether we have a mortgage or not to pay for this. Insurance companies pocket profits and pay nothing, we pay for it.

mfergus · 30-11-2014 1:37pm

Ah sure you can make these "steps"to argue the opposite too...

Step 1:
Why would you buy, it's like having a noose around your neck...etc

Step 2:
The washing machine is making too much noise, it's handy tho I can just contact the landlord again.

Step 3:
The landLord is raising my rent (time to construct an argument for prtb)

Step 4:
Rent is too expensive. There's no suitable places around.

Step 5
Moves to a small place

Step 6
Retire and continue to pay rent until you die wishing that 35 years previous you decided to buy...

Saipanne · 30-11-2014 1:40pm

mfergus wrote: »

Ah sure you can make these "steps"to argue the opposite too...

Step 1:
Why would you buy, it's like having a noose around your neck...etc

Step 2:
The washing machine is making too much noise, it's handy tho I can just contact the landlord again.

Step 3:
The landLord is raising my rent (time to construct an argument for prtb)

Step 4:
Rent is too expensive. There's no suitable places around.

Step 5
Moves to a small place

Step 6
Retire and continue to pay rent until you die wishing that 35 years previous you decided to buy...

Yeah, unfortunately in my list of steps I have to pay for mistakes I didn't play any part in...

lima · 30-11-2014 2:05pm

ted1 wrote: »

You see you don't own a place and think of it as a noose around the neck. Where as I think of it as being liberating.
My kids have a bedroom they can paint and destroy and make as much noise as they want , I can dig up the garden and plant what eve fruit and veg I want. I can retire at 55 and have a place to live without having to pay rent or anything. As I bought our family home in 2012 I can sell it and pocket twice as much as I paid for it, in fact I paid 210,000 with an 8% deposit and could sell it for 450 so my 18k can be converted to 280k cash.

With regards a link I'm on my phone so no , but could dig one out when back on a PC

Ok in your particular situation it worked out immensely well, which is great for you and your family (but only useful if you trade down or emigrate/move to the sticks) but for the people still stuck in negative equity for the forseeable future it's sad times, as they must feel stick to the stomach that they own a house that is 100-200k less that what they paid for it. Not only that, there's the feeling of stupidity that they risked it all to overborrow and did not have the foresight to get a mortgage they could afford on one salary in case things go bad.

Had those people rented all this time perhaps life would be a little bit better and they wouldn't have this dark cloud over their heads.

Cheaper to buy than rent

Comments