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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming?

1…5253555758…68

Comments

  • #2702
    Fol20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,625 ✭✭✭Fol20


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Maybe direct your bile at FFG who are actually currently in power and setting the shambles of our current housing policy, which seems to benefit none of the working class, none of the middle class and none of the unemployed but rather a short list of investors. SF haven't had the opportunity to make a hames of housing yet so condemning their theoretical housing policy (or whatever elaborate and unsubstantiated claim you've made about their housing policy) seems a slight waste of breath.


    So all the people that have received social housing for virtually nothing. All the people on hap that pay a very low percentage of their income on rent are not benefit. The middle class are the people loosing out the most as they earn too much to not receive the benefits and also don’t earn enough to take advantage of certain aspects.


  • #2703
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Fol20 wrote: »
    So all the people that have received social housing for virtually nothing. All the people on hap that pay a very low percentage of their income on rent are not benefit. The middle class are the people loosing out the most as they earn too much to not receive the benefits and also don’t earn enough to take advantage of certain aspects.

    You make it sound as if there is social housing available? Some lucky people have benefited of course. Some have been able to buy houses (with wealthy parents probably) and some have had blind luck and waited a decade for social housing. The thing about social housing is, it's great in theory. A Nurse earning €25k pa, netting €1,800 pm can avail of a one bed social housing unit for a mere €270 pm. But that's only a theory because it's unavailable thanks to government/council housing policy. HAP benefits slum lords who could not attract such high rents in their area without hap.


  • #2704
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,612 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Dav010 wrote: »
    I suspect the poster is referring to REITs/corporate investors who benefit from lower tax rates than LLs who own one property. Their names are regularly published, one bought a whole development in Lucan last week, google is your friend.

    They are listed companies with millions of investers owning the stocks, mostly what they build is commerial or residential apartment towners that normal people dont buy so much anyway. I am not sure anyonne demostrated that this part of the market are actually doing better. Money is sloshing in but that doesnt mean they are doing better.


  • #2705
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    They are listed companies with millions of investers owning the stocks, mostly what they build is commerial or residential apartment towners that normal people dont buy so much anyway. I am not sure anyonne demostrated that this part of the market are actually doing better. Money is sloshing in but that doesnt mean they are doing better.

    Considering they invested in a country with historically high rents, pay virtually no tax, and can afford to leave large numbers of units empty rather than dropping the rental price, I suspect they are doing better than ok.


  • #2706
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,612 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Considering they invested in a country with historically high rents
    Turn over isnt the same as profit. Totally seperate. False claim
    Dav010 wrote: »
    pay virtually no tax
    The investors pay plenty of taxes though. False claim
    Dav010 wrote: »
    and can afford to leave large numbers of units empty rather than dropping the rental price, I suspect they are doing better than ok.
    The story you refer to reported hundreds of properties. Kennedy Wilson is a 17 billion dollar company. So it is a pretty outlandish claim to make.


  • Advertisement
  • #2707
    rightmove
    Registered Users Posts: 1,000 ✭✭✭rightmove


    Alot of the accidental or mom and pop LLs who have been running to the exit door would have stayed on only for the anti LL regulations. Most ppl i know who were in this category had rents under market value. The increase in property prices gave them the choice to exit which they did and ultimately the tenant suffers (despite the innocent ones thinking the gov are looking after their interests.) I was both a tenant and a LL concurrently during this period so I saw it from both sides. I am now neither.

    If I could remove a non paying tenant efficiently (they stopped paying at the end) and the government hadnt screwed me for giving my tenants the best rent in town I would still be a LL, but I never will be one again .EVER!


  • #2708
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,872 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    cgcsb wrote: »
    poor people and slightly poorer people bashing each other is a great trick of the elite while they make off with your almost free public land and sell us back public housing on said land for €700k a pop, and not an eyelid batted.

    Thought the €700k each was a bit steep when I read the above post until I saw this article in the IT saying that house builders Glenveagh are to charge council €790k each for 70 social apartments in Sheriff Street.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/glenveagh-to-charge-council-up-to-791-500-for-family-apartments-1.4456642?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fcommercial-property%2Fglenveagh-to-charge-council-up-to-791-500-for-family-apartments-1.4456642

    It's a wonder anyone would bother saving & getting a mortgage these days:D


  • #2709
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Sheriff Street with >700k property prices, my mind boggles- I never thought I'd see the day.
    Ok, Glenveigh and others are completely taking the piss- someone has to call a halt to this, it is a ridiculous waste of hard-earned taxpayers money.


  • #2710
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    mrslancaster wrote: »


    Thought the €700k each was a bit steep when I read the above post until I saw this article in the IT saying that house builders Glenveagh are to charge council €790k each for 70 social apartments in Sheriff Street.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/glenveagh-to-charge-council-up-to-791-500-for-family-apartments-1.4456642?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fcommercial-property%2Fglenveagh-to-charge-council-up-to-791-500-for-family-apartments-1.4456642

    It's a wonder anyone would bother saving & getting a mortgage these days:D
    Getting one of them from the council is more difficult than winning the lotto. You would have to be a single unemployed female with 10 children, living in a box for several years to be considered. A nurse, teacher or garda on 28k a year won't be considered, the social housing system is a failure, the vast majority of people who meet the criteria to access it will never get to access it.


  • #2711
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Sheriff Street with >700k property prices, my mind boggles- I never thought I'd see the day.
    Ok, Glenveigh and others are completely taking the piss- someone has to call a halt to this, it is a ridiculous waste of hard-earned taxpayers money.

    Will only change with a change of government. FFG are introducing a house price inflation scheme in June to add insult to injury. The current Taoiseach was elected on the 6th count and the Tánaiste elected on the 5th count. Clearly the people wanted change but will have to wait until 2025 to get it, unless there is some ground swell for a good old fashioned ousting.


  • Advertisement
  • #2712
    DubCount
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,092 ✭✭✭DubCount


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Will only change with a change of government. FFG are introducing a house price inflation scheme in June to add insult to injury. The current Taoiseach was elected on the 6th count and the Tánaiste elected on the 5th count. Clearly the people wanted change but will have to wait until 2025 to get it, unless there is some ground swell for a good old fashioned ousting.

    Thanks for the party political broadcast on behalf of SF.

    Maybe if we had a majority FF or FG government that didnt have to implement lefty populist policies, we might not be in this mess.


  • #2713
    PommieBast
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,805 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Will only change with a change of government. FFG are introducing a house price inflation scheme in June to add insult to injury. The current Taoiseach was elected on the 6th count and the Tánaiste elected on the 5th count. Clearly the people wanted change but will have to wait until 2025 to get it, unless there is some ground swell for a good old fashioned ousting.
    Looking at how the Green party is falling apart it may well not be that far in the future.


  • #2714
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    DubCount wrote: »
    Thanks for the party political broadcast on behalf of SF.

    Maybe if we had a majority FF or FG government that didnt have to implement lefty populist policies, we might not be in this mess.

    Speaking of SF - wasn't it a SF developer who built Priory Hall- which cost the taxpayer EUR24m to fix as it was a fire hazard.............?


  • #2715
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,872 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Sheriff Street with >700k property prices, my mind boggles- I never thought I'd see the day.
    Ok, Glenveigh and others are completely taking the piss- someone has to call a halt to this, it is a ridiculous waste of hard-earned taxpayers money.

    I've no idea what building costs are in Dublin but if the apartments in that central Dublin development are costing that much to the council, then presumably the open market apartments for anyone buying them will cost at least that and probably a lot more.

    If building costs are so high, it's no surprise that rents in Dublin are so expensive.


  • #2716
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    DubCount wrote: »
    Thanks for the party political broadcast on behalf of SF.

    Maybe if we had a majority FF or FG government that didnt have to implement lefty populist policies, we might not be in this mess.

    I'm no shinner but hard to think of an alternative to topple this sh!t show.
    I'm not sure what part of ceasing new social housing developments and gifting state land to developers and buying back premium apartments from them is lefty, but I'm sure you've given that ample thought.


  • #2717
    Jayden Square Technique
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Jayden Square Technique


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Speaking of SF - wasn't it a SF developer who built Priory Hall- which cost the taxpayer EUR24m to fix as it was a fire hazard.............?

    Yep it was indeed, Thomas McFeely. Spent years in jail for shooting an RUC officer, was involved in the hunger strike. Like every good socialist his net worth apparently touched on the 1 billion mark during the Tiger.


  • #2718
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    cgcsb wrote: »
    The current Taoiseach was elected on the 6th count and the Tánaiste elected on the 5th count.

    That is what happens in multi-seat constituencies when you run multiple candidates. Nobody ever made an issue of that until this year, until it suddenly became useful for a specific party who got lots elected on the first count to try make it a thing...

    If SF run a more appropriate number of candidates next time out, they'll have people elected on the 5th and 6th too.

    In larger constituencies, getting elected on the 6th is often early. In 2016, Brendan Howlin - poll topper - was the first elected in Wexford on the 9th count.


  • #2719
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,289 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    L1011 wrote: »
    That is what happens in multi-seat constituencies when you run multiple candidates. Nobody ever made an issue of that until this year, until it suddenly became useful for a specific party who got lots elected on the first count to try make it a thing...

    If SF run a more appropriate number of candidates next time out, they'll have people elected on the 5th and 6th too.

    In larger constituencies, getting elected on the 6th is often early. In 2016, Brendan Howlin - poll topper - was the first elected in Wexford on the 9th count.

    The funny thing about this is the Unionist parties in the Nort used toi make the same argument about the No 1 s they got. The trick in PR is to try and get the last seat, not the first. It is clearly better to get two seats even if they are later counts, than one seat only, even if it is on the first count. The way to maximise the number of seats is to keep the front runner below the quota on the first count and indeed as close as possible to the other candidate.
    One thing the last election showed was the ignorance of they PR system on the part of many voters. There were instructions not to give later preferences etc and then all this commentary about being elected on later counts.

    It has of course nothing to do with rents falling or rising in Dublin. It seems that rents are stabilising at about 15% less than peak at the moment but the next move may well be upwards. Building has slowed down and returning emigrants and increased household formation seem to have taken up the slack left by AIR BnB coming to a halt and students going virtual.


  • #2720
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Manion wrote: »
    What are the plans?

    continued eviction bans
    rent freezes
    continued caps on rent increases
    increased regulation
    more protections for tenants
    more taxation on the sector
    cementing bans on short term rentals

    its not a good time to be a landlord.


  • #2721
    LuasSimon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭LuasSimon


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    continued eviction bans
    rent freezes
    continued caps on rent increases
    increased regulation
    more protections for tenants
    more taxation on the sector
    cementing bans on short term rentals

    its not a good time to be a landlord.

    Its not a good time to be taking out a mortgage either , paying back big money every month for 30 years. Mad Stuff

    We all need to wait and get free houses when Sinn Fein get into government.


  • Advertisement
  • #2722
    TSQ
    Registered Users Posts: 283 ✭✭TSQ


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Speaking of SF - wasn't it a SF developer who built Priory Hall- which cost the taxpayer EUR24m to fix as it was a fire hazard.............?

    Another one of Mary Loo’s “good republicans”... I suppose being a profiteering gerry building developer is ok if you supported the men in balaklavas.


  • #2723
    Manion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,508 ✭✭✭Manion


    So, are there any links to what might be coming down the line for landlords!


  • #2724
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Manion wrote: »
    So, are there any links to what might be coming down the line for landlords!

    Eoin O'Broin mentioned a 'right to buy' for tenants, and suggested a co-ownership structure to fund it with local authorities shouldering the risk........

    Who knows- all that is apparent, is it will be further measures to strengthen the rights of tenants, and dilute the rights of landlords, thats all you can be sure of.


  • #2725
    DubCount
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,092 ✭✭✭DubCount


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Eoin O'Broin mentioned a 'right to buy' for tenants.....

    Obviously that wouldn't be at full market value - no point in rewarding the greedy capitalists :D


  • #2726
    Smouse156
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 529 ✭✭✭Smouse156


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Eoin O'Broin mentioned a 'right to buy' for tenants, and suggested a co-ownership structure to fund it with local authorities shouldering the risk........

    Who knows- all that is apparent, is it will be further measures to strengthen the rights of tenants, and dilute the rights of landlords, thats all you can be sure of.

    More likely they’ll CPO the entire rental stock for 1/2 what it’s worth. It’s a pity the rental market in this country is such a joke! Decent landlords penalised, scumbag landlords get away with it (Paul Howard, Christian Carter etc)? Non paying tenants driving landlords out of the market which jacks the price up for the decent paying folk...why do we incentivise people breaking the law (over holding, illegal evictions etc)?


  • #2727
    Timing belt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,567 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    Smouse156 wrote: »
    More likely they’ll CPO the entire rental stock for 1/2 what it’s worth. It’s a pity the rental market in this country is such a joke! Decent landlords penalised, scumbag landlords get away with it (Paul Howard, Christian Carter etc)? Non paying tenants driving landlords out of the market which jacks the price up for the decent paying folk...why do we incentivise people breaking the law (over holding, illegal evictions etc)?

    I would like to see them try and CPO it for 1/2 its worth... It would be before the courts a lot longer than SF would be in office (even if they served 2 full terms)

    It would be a lot more likely they would pay top price and buy from a company that a few wealthy followers had invested heavily in. History has shown us there is always plenty of smoke and mirrors whenever there the state is signing the cheque.


  • #2728
    Hubertj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    Based on the crap that Obrion comes out with he must be gettin advised by Tom McFeely.


  • #2729
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,100 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Timing belt wrote: »
    I would like to see them try and CPO it for 1/2 its worth... It would be before the courts a lot longer than SF would be in office (even if they served 2 full terms)

    It would be a lot more likely they would pay top price and buy from a company that a few wealthy followers had invested heavily in. History has shown us there is always plenty of smoke and mirrors whenever there the state is signing the cheque.

    Even if they did CPO the properties, it wouldn't be for less than market value. It would be for a decent amount over market value. This has always been the way for CPOs.


  • #2730
    Smouse156
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 529 ✭✭✭Smouse156


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    Even if they did CPO the properties, it wouldn't be for less than market value. It would be for a decent amount over market value. This has always been the way for CPOs.

    I’m not seriously suggesting this will happen...just having a dig at SF “policies”...not that the hairbrained Brickie Policies of Darragh O’Brien are any good...I wonder how thick the brown paper envelope was for the shared equity scheme...he seriously can’t be that stupid to think it will help supply and not just inflate house prices...hmm if he’s not stupid then that must mean he’s oh yeah...wait for it...CORRUPT!


  • Advertisement
  • #2731
    Manion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,508 ✭✭✭Manion


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Eoin O'Broin mentioned a 'right to buy' for tenants, and suggested a co-ownership structure to fund it with local authorities shouldering the risk........

    Who knows- all that is apparent, is it will be further measures to strengthen the rights of tenants, and dilute the rights of landlords, thats all you can be sure of.

    I suppose, but Eoin O'Broin isn't in government and Sinn Fein mental opinions are not new. I suppose the risk here is that with SF becoming more popular it nudges the political discourse ever further in this direction. Nevertheless it would be hard to see them being able to achieve this.

    My concern was if there had been any signs that the temporary suspension of landlord rights during the pandemic looks likely to become a permanent fixture.


  • #2732
    LuasSimon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭LuasSimon


    Has there ever been as many people who can’t afford a house ?
    Yes there is a growing amount of people who won’t work that demand everything on a plate but there’s a lot of couples with both working can’t afford a house . Might be something to do with the ****e wages many employers get away with paying . There are some employers who need to pay minimum wage or close to it but there’s a hell of a lot of companies could afford to pay their staff a lot more than they do and still make plenty .


  • #2733
    Phat Cat
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭Phat Cat


    LuasSimon wrote: »
    Has there ever been as many people who can’t afford a house ?
    Yes there is a growing amount of people who won’t work that demand everything on a plate but there’s a lot of couples with both working can’t afford a house . Might be something to do with the ****e wages many employers get away with paying . There are some employers who need to pay minimum wage or close to it but there’s a hell of a lot of companies could afford to pay their staff a lot more than they do and still make plenty .

    I think that's one of the main issues with renting in Dublin, the wages are too low compared to the current rental market valuations. I mean, back in the Celtic Tiger days, I had a lovely new one bedroom city center apartment for €900 per month. I saw the exact same apartment listed on Daft for €1750 around this time last year. I find it incredible that it nearly doubled in price in the space of 10 years. Yes I know, it's a landlords market and we don't have the supply to meet the demand, but it's not like wages have increased in the last 10 years to compensate all of the price hikes. It would be interesting to see how wages have risen since the 2000's in comparison to rent, house prices and the cost of living in general.


  • #2734
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Phat Cat wrote: »
    I think that's one of the main issues with renting in Dublin, the wages are too low compared to the current rental market valuations. I mean, back in the Celtic Tiger days, I had a lovely new one bedroom city center apartment for €900 per month. I saw the exact same apartment listed on Daft for €1750 around this time last year. I find it incredible that it nearly doubled in price in the space of 10 years. Yes I know, it's a landlords market and we don't have the supply to meet the demand, but it's not like wages have increased in the last 10 years to compensate all of the price hikes. It would be interesting to see how wages have risen since the 2000's in comparison to rent, house prices and the cost of living in general.


    What probably happened with that €900 euro apartment was that the rent was that in 2007, then suddenly dropped to €600 in 2008.
    Then remained like that until maybe 2015 with the owner eating that loss.
    After that the landlord tried to make up for that loss as rents started rising.
    Then rent controls came in and if the landlord was smart they would have upped the rent as high as they possibly could before that happened.
    And then upped it every chance they got since then as much as they could, because of rent controls too. If they couldnt make up that loss over the years, then they have probably sold up by now.


    And now today you have REITs and councils buying up everything and little supply for the average renter.


  • #2735
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    LuasSimon wrote: »
    Has there ever been as many people who can’t afford a house ?
    Yes there is a growing amount of people who won’t work that demand everything on a plate but there’s a lot of couples with both working can’t afford a house . Might be something to do with the ****e wages many employers get away with paying . There are some employers who need to pay minimum wage or close to it but there’s a hell of a lot of companies could afford to pay their staff a lot more than they do and still make plenty .

    If you look at the 1970s and 80s interest rates were sky high but the cost of the average house was typically much less than 3 times the average salary, i.e. less than you're able to borrow in a mortgage now, so very affordable. Housing was cheap. But other things were BONKERS expensive. A TV and VCR in the 80s could cost you about 25% of what your house would be worth, or equivalent to most of a years salary. A flight to England set you back about 3 months wages. Use of the telephone was extortionate. Most basic groceries milk, bread, eggs, meat, veg etc. have basically not changed in price, despite the wage growth. Any sort of decent clothes You'd have to pay for in installments. Altering and repairing clothes was an essential skill.


  • #2736
    Timing belt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,567 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    cgcsb wrote: »
    If you look at the 1970s and 80s interest rates were sky high but the cost of the average house was typically much less than 3 times the average salary, i.e. less than you're able to borrow in a mortgage now, so very affordable. Housing was cheap. But other things were BONKERS expensive. A TV and VCR in the 80s could cost you about 25% of what your house would be worth, or equivalent to most of a years salary. A flight to England set you back about 3 months wages. Use of the telephone was extortionate. Most basic groceries milk, bread, eggs, meat, veg etc. have basically not changed in price, despite the wage growth. Any sort of decent clothes You'd have to pay for in installments. Altering and repairing clothes was an essential skill.

    back in the 80's taxes were higher and there was limited work available....generation today are way better off


  • Advertisement
  • #2737
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,872 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    cgcsb wrote: »
    If you look at the 1970s and 80s interest rates were sky high but the cost of the average house was typically much less than 3 times the average salary, i.e. less than you're able to borrow in a mortgage now, so very affordable. Housing was cheap. But other things were BONKERS expensive. A TV and VCR in the 80s could cost you about 25% of what your house would be worth, or equivalent to most of a years salary. A flight to England set you back about 3 months wages. Use of the telephone was extortionate. Most basic groceries milk, bread, eggs, meat, veg etc. have basically not changed in price, despite the wage growth. Any sort of decent clothes You'd have to pay for in installments. Altering and repairing clothes was an essential skill.

    My folks house cost 72k in 80's, interest rate was 16%.
    there's no way tv & vcr cost 25% & they definitely didn't buy clothes on installments :rolleyes:


  • #2738
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Buying a TV in the 80's!

    LOL. It was rented, not bought.


  • #2739
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    My folks house cost 72k in 80's, interest rate was 16%.
    there's no way tv & vcr cost 25% & they definitely didn't buy clothes on installments :rolleyes:

    When I did my leaving cert in 1992, the overnight rate was 14.32%

    It wasn't as high as the peak in 1985 (think it hit 16.5%) but it was startling nonetheless.


  • #2740
    Garlinge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Garlinge


    I inherited 250 sterling in 1980 which came to 400 punts I think. It was the cost of my first television which was a small colour maybe 16 inch. I had survived with an old black and white discarded by a relative up to then and four years of 'rabbits ears' as no cable TV... and four years of no telephone and this was in a Dublin suburb, new built in 1977.


  • #2741
    Timing belt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,567 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    When I did my leaving cert in 1992, the overnight rate was 14.32%

    It wasn't as high as the peak in 1985 (think it hit 16.5%) but it was startling nonetheless.

    To put this in context a 165k mortgage with 15% interest over 20 years has the same monthly repayment as a mortgage of 400k @ 3%.

    And you need to remember its a lot easier to get a mortgage now compared to the 80's


  • Advertisement
  • #2742
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Phat Cat wrote: »
    .............., back in the Celtic Tiger days, I had a lovely new one bedroom city center apartment for €900 per month. I saw the exact same apartment listed on Daft for €1750 around this time last year. I find it incredible that it nearly doubled in price in the space of 10 years...............

    2010 was a fair bit into the doldrums post Celtic Tiger. I think the sh1t has well and truly hit the fan by then.


  • #2743
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    cgcsb wrote: »
    If you look at the 1970s and 80s interest rates were sky high but the cost of the average house was typically much less than 3 times the average salary, i.e. less than you're able to borrow in a mortgage now, so very affordable. Housing was cheap. But other things were BONKERS expensive. A TV and VCR in the 80s could cost you about 25% of what your house would be worth, or equivalent to most of a years salary. A flight to England set you back about 3 months wages. Use of the telephone was extortionate. Most basic groceries milk, bread, eggs, meat, veg etc. have basically not changed in price, despite the wage growth. Any sort of decent clothes You'd have to pay for in installments. Altering and repairing clothes was an essential skill.

    and your house had almost no insulation, single pane windows, 1 bathroom, a back boiler for heating. The family might go on 1 holiday to wexford a year if even, there was 1 car in the driveway and every meal was home cooked.

    we've come a long long way.


  • #2744
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Timing belt wrote: »
    back in the 80's taxes were higher and there was limited work available....generation today are way better off


    Also these days you probably want to use 2x the average salary as a base, because double incomes are normal now when it comes to bidding on houses.


  • #2745
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    mrslancaster wrote: »
    My folks house cost 72k in 80's, interest rate was 16%.
    there's no way tv & vcr cost 25% & they definitely didn't buy clothes on installments :rolleyes:

    this was a very expensive house at the time.


  • #2746
    vandriver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,467 ✭✭✭vandriver


    cgcsb wrote: »
    If you look at the 1970s and 80s interest rates were sky high but the cost of the average house was typically much less than 3 times the average salary, i.e. less than you're able to borrow in a mortgage now, so very affordable. Housing was cheap. But other things were BONKERS expensive. A TV and VCR in the 80s could cost you about 25% of what your house would be worth, or equivalent to most of a years salary. A flight to England set you back about 3 months wages. Use of the telephone was extortionate. Most basic groceries milk, bread, eggs, meat, veg etc. have basically not changed in price, despite the wage growth. Any sort of decent clothes You'd have to pay for in installments. Altering and repairing clothes was an essential skill.
    I bought a TV and VCR in 1985.Cost £975.Could you buy a house for £3,900?
    What do you think?
    A flight to England was about £100.A weeks wages for me and I was woefully underpaid.
    I have never bought clothes on 'easy terms'
    Your whole rant is frankly nonsense.


  • #2747
    Phat Cat
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭Phat Cat


    Augeo wrote: »
    2010 was a fair bit into the doldrums post Celtic Tiger. I think the sh1t has well and truly hit the fan by then.

    I had the apartment from 2004 to 2008 then moved to London, but my point still stands, rent has doubled since the 2000's


  • #2748
    Timing belt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,567 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    I know it’s not Dublin but interesting article on us rent arrears.

    ‘About 18% renters in America, or around 10 million people, were behind in their rent payments as of the beginning of the month.

    It is far more than the approximately 7 million homeowners who lost their properties to foreclosure during the subprime mortgage crisis and the ensuing Great Recession. And that happened over a five-year period. ‘

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/nearly-20percent-of-renters-in-america-are-behind-on-their-payments.html


  • #2749
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Topgear on Dave wrote: »
    Buying a TV in the 80's!

    LOL. It was rented, not bought.


    RTV rentals :)


    I remember my Dad bought a second hand Nordmende colour tv in 1982 from a TV repair man who lived a few doors down from us because the rented one kept needing repairs and they wanted double the price to rent a new one. He told me it cost a months wages to buy that Nordmende.

    We didnt get a VCR until 1989. £120 second hand. And it was probably about 5 years old at the time.


  • #2750
    jr1942
    Closed Accounts Posts: 45 ✭jr1942


    Can't compare basketball then and today, not to mention something as huge as construction sector and prices involved. Makes no sense.


  • #2751
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    jr1942 wrote: »
    Can't compare basketball then and today, not to mention something as huge as construction sector and prices involved. Makes no sense.


    True, but its amazing how many people think that somehow life was easier in the 80s.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement