Is the desire to own your own home justified !

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

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.

Many of these houses are now 70+years old. Maintenance costs alone, not to mind obligatory upgrades, would be ridiculous at this stage. A lot of those older houses are now privately owned and hence kept in decent condition and the fact that they're privately owned helps to create a settled sense of community in an area.

In my own area (in a suburb of Cork) Council estates were mostly built in the mid 80s', from about 1983 to 1989. These houses cost between £14,000, for the smaller bungalows to £27,000 for the bigger 4 bed and a very odd 5 bed to build. Probably 80% are 3 bed which cost just under £23,000 at the time. Most people in the area would be working so rental income would be decent enough if not astronomical. If the council can rent those for 30 years and then sell them on for €150k or so then that's not a bad bit of business.

Having said all that, I do believe that all Council houses should be retained by the council for a minimum term, be it 20, 30 years or whatever. I certainly wouldn't be in favour of selling to tenants after two or three years as I've seen happen. IMO houses should be of a certain age and tenants should also be Council tenants for a set amount of time.

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

It's got loads to do with it.
It's no co-incidence that most councils stopped building by direct labour between 1990 and 1995 and 5 years later house prices started to skyrocket. If Dublin City Council (or whoever) had 10,000 houses to let out tomorrow morning private landlords would be in the proverbial sh itter. Many would be forced to put their houses on the market or drop their rents substantially. The demand for Buy To Rent properties would also drop having a knock on effect on overall sales and prices.
When the Councils were the countries biggest landlords rents all round, and hence house prices, were far more reasonable.

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Da gubbermint

If you are a local authority tenant living in a local authority house included in the scheme you can apply to buy the house.....

....You will pay the market value of the house – less a discount.

Depending on income, the discounts will vary between 40% and 60%.

Unless you're disabled... The council will refuse to sell any houses that have been adapted in any way !!!

riclad wrote: »

Council housing is only avaidable to those on a low income ,people on welfare .
if dublin city council had 5000 empty units to give out ,
this would hardly effect the rental market .
it won,t effect people who work full time .

The part I've quoted above is not true.
Plenty of people who work full time are allocated Council Housing albeit most would be in the middle to lower income bracket.

Is it actually possible to have a landlord model where quality long term accomodation options at cost effective rents might be possible.

Taking on a mortgage is a gamble but the current rental set up actually makes it a gamble worth taking for your own place you want to live in. (If you can get one).

If you want people to not desire their own home then rental needs to be more attractive.

Unfortunately that's not the case

Aryanna Few Stint wrote: »

Not really sure how you can see taking on a mortgage as a gamble, it’s a pretty solid and safe thing to do.

The gamble is what happens if things go wrong - ie a job loss or an illness.

But it is still a gamble worth taking

brightspark wrote: »

Average length of stay in a nursing home (before death) used to be four years, since fair deal this is now less than two years. Not sure if you have ever been in a nursing home but the care certainly isn't one on one 24 hours per day.
Possibly due to earlier diagnosis but cancer patients are living longer with treatment, treatment that often involves teams of medical staff working together, expensive procedures, scans and drugs.
Not sure it is as simple maths as you think it is.


Cut benefits for those who don't work, even if it means introducing "workfare", housing standards should be reduced for social housing (I spent a few years living in "bed sits" until my wages increased, I also shared houses with "strangers" until I had sufficient savings to get a mortgage).

Cut costs in the public sector, make personnel responsible for their actions just like in the private sector.

Increase income taxes (or at least allow inflation to do it), the taxes paid during your working life should pay for pension/healthcare etc.

Increase inheritance taxes (that way no matter how you eventually die a proportion of your assets return to the state)

It's not fair that if you get dementia your assets are used by the state, but if you are "lucky" enough to die from other conditions then your assets are untouched.

I'm not sure I'd like the ambulance crew that comes out to my house at 3 am because I'm critically ill - to be on a cost cutting "be accountable for the costs of their actions regime".

Ditto the detective trying to catch gangs.

Ditto the guy doing the lung transplant.

But if we take the ambulance example - what would it cost if we had "private sector" ambulances.

I'd say if we applied the private sector norms - say plumbers and garages - to ambulances - we might quickly see whatever the HSE pays Paramedics and Advanced Paramedics as a bargain.

What will happen with private sector is that you might get the crew pay down - but the invoice cost for labour and call out could make the "highly paid" HSE ambulance crew crew look very low cost.

The risk of entrepreneurship, the risk of running the ambulance fleet - it all quickly adds up to a need for what looks like an insane invoice bill.

The reality is that stuff costs money to deliver.

Old diesel wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd like the ambulance crew that comes out to my house at 3 am because I'm critically ill - to be on a cost cutting "be accountable for the costs of their actions regime".

Ditto the detective trying to catch gangs.

Ditto the guy doing the lung transplant.

But if we take the ambulance example - what would it cost if we had "private sector" ambulances.

I'd say if we applied the private sector norms - say plumbers and garages - to ambulances - we might quickly see whatever the HSE pays Paramedics and Advanced Paramedics as a bargain.

What will happen with private sector is that you might get the crew pay down - but the invoice cost for labour and call out could make the "highly paid" HSE ambulance crew crew look very low cost.

The risk of entrepreneurship, the risk of running the ambulance fleet - it all quickly adds up to a need for what looks like an insane invoice bill.

The reality is that stuff costs money to deliver.

The losses in the public sector aren't caused by the front line staff, the losses are caused by the multiple layers of bureaucracy, lack of cost control (the children's hospital!), overpaid consultants (business ones not medical ones) who are paid by inept managers who obviously don't have the necessary skills or why else would they be hiring consultants.
The public sector has multiple unused buildings, yet they pay rent for offices, storage etc

The "guy" doing the lung transplant is already accountable, more than any of us I would think. The only issue I would have had with some is that they were treating private patients while also claiming to be working for the public health sector.

The "detective", the problem isn't with the Gardai (aside from a few scandals), it's with the legal profession who have set up a revolving door prison system for their own benefit.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

however it is very possible to rent a house in ireland for 30 years where the value of the house would mean that your rent would be the same as the 'dead' interest payments on a mortgage.

1.2 million quid house, 80% LTV
mortgage payment at 3.5% is 4490 per month

if your rent was 3000 a month you could be in there 8 years without the mortgage being better
if your rent was 2000 a month you could be in there 14 years before the mortgage was better.

Doesn't work with all properties, but there very much are cases (particularly with large rural houses) where renting is kind of like being on an interest only mortgage with no deposit and a free maintenance deal.

But no matter what you will own the house at the end of a mortgage, which is comforting to many people.

I would consider long term renting if we had a functioning rental market, but when your rent on a property is significantly more than a new mortgage on the same property, something is wrong and I want no part of it.

If rent was say 60% of your mortgage then long term renting could make sense, otherwise its hard to see why you would want to rent other than perceived "freedom"

GreeBo wrote: »

But no matter what you will own the house at the end of a mortgage, which is comforting to many people.

I would consider long term renting if we had a functioning rental market, but when your rent on a property is significantly more than a new mortgage on the same property, something is wrong and I want no part of it.

If rent was say 60% of your mortgage then long term renting could make sense, otherwise its hard to see why you would want to rent other than perceived "freedom"

You seem to want all the pros with none of the cons of renting.

-Rent includes all maintenance of a property. This could include a new boiler or roof which can cost thousands while you still pay the same rate
-while renting, it allows you to be flexible and move at short notice if needed
- it allows you to stay in a property without having the money for a deposit of at least 30-50k.
-rent is at all times highs now, how about 5 years ago. People seem to have short memory of this> even 5 years ago rent was more expensive than a mortgage and it should always be this way or else you will never have investors willing to take a punt at the residential market. Why would they when it’s loss making then.

Over the long term, yes your much better off having a mortgage however there are a lot of benefits that tenants fail/refuse to observe. Yes you don’t have security of tenure at the moment but you can’t just say oh my rent is more expensive vs the same mortgage for a house when you have ongoing maintenance and several others costs factors that impact it.

Fol20 wrote: »

You seem to want all the pros with none of the cons of renting.

-Rent includes all maintenance of a property. This could include a new boiler or roof which can cost thousands while you still pay the same rate
-while renting, it allows you to be flexible and move at short notice if needed
- it allows you to stay in a property without having the money for a deposit of at least 30-50k.
-rent is at all times highs now, how about 5 years ago. People seem to have short memory of this> even 5 years ago rent was more expensive than a mortgage and it should always be this way or else you will never have investors willing to take a punt at the residential market. Why would they when it’s loss making then.

Over the long term, yes your much better off having a mortgage however there are a lot of benefits that tenants fail/refuse to observe. Yes you don’t have security of tenure at the moment but you can’t just say oh my rent is more expensive vs the same mortgage for a house when you have ongoing maintenance and several others costs factors that impact it.

Investors make money buy owning the property outright or having a small mortgage or by having the rent closely match the mortgage. Don't confuse yield with asset value.

Rent shouldn't be more expensive than the mortgage! How would that ever work?

Sure there are other expenses when owning but over the lifetime they won't come near paying rent for life for the same property, especially considering you own an asset.

Tbh i don't think you followed my post at all...i am a mortgage holder... I'm not in favour of renting at all, but i could see how, in a rational market some people would... that's why it works and is popular... in other rational markets.

Fol20 wrote: »

When was rent ever cheaper than buying a home with a mortgage. It wasnt cheaper relative to a mortgage in the recession and its the exact same now. Try renting a car long term vs taking a loan and owning it. Try renting any item long term vs owning it. it is always cheaper to own it while renting for a year or two years will be more expensive from a cash flow point of view.

Where exactly does it work the way you talk about it. I know in France and USA, from a business point of view, it is the same as here.

Its cheaper on a monthly basis... obviously over time it can even out our be more expensive to rent, but that's irrelevant if you can't afford a deposit or don't want to.
50 years of renting compared to 30/35 years of mortgage assuming most people don't leave home and go straight into a new hone of their own.

In general no, absolutely unjustified.

In a market where the average mortgage is about half the cost of the equivalent rent, even with extortionate interest considered... go figure.