# My Indo article: It is time to integrate home ownership into our pension savings scheme



## Brendan Burgess (20 Aug 2022)

In today's paper based on my Pre-Budget submission 









						It is time to integrate home ownership into our pension savings schemes
					

In July, the Economic and Social Research Institute published research on behalf of the Pensions Council which looked at the implications of declining home ownership levels for the adequacy of pensions in retirement.




					www.independent.ie
				






In July, the Economic and Social Research Institute published research on behalf of the Pensions Council which looked at the implications of declining home ownership levels for the adequacy of pensions in retirement. At present, 90% of retired people own their own homes. The ESRI projects that, on current trends, only 50% of people who are currently aged between 25 and 34, will own their own homes when they retire. That means that 50% of these people will be renting either from the state or from private landlords.

Home ownership in retirement is one of the best guarantors of a comfortable retirement. Not only does it dramatically reduce a person’s housing costs, but it also means that they have a valuable asset against which they can borrow if they need to supplement their income.

The ESRI paper considered the policy options facing the government. They concluded that people will have to either contribute more to their pensions to ensure that they have enough to pay ever rising rents or else, the government will have to subsidise rents.

But the paper did not look at the much more obvious solution which is the subject of my Pre-Budget submission this year. Saving the €30,000 or so for the deposit is the biggest barrier to getting on the housing ladder. I propose that the first-time buyer should be allowed to borrow this from their own pension fund.

It is important to note that they will repay this money to their pension fund, so they will not be reducing its overall size. They will pay it back either from their income or when they sell their home to trade up. And if they haven’t paid it back by the time they retire, the loan will be deducted from their tax-free lump-sum. It is odd that we allow 65-year-olds to access a big lump-sum on retirement when they probably don’t need it, yet we do not allow younger people to access the money when they do need it.

Typically, people in their twenties and thirties have little interest in pensions as they will see no benefit for at least 30 years. Their pressing concern is how to get on the housing ladder. If they see that contributing to a pension will help them get on the housing ladder, they will be much more enthusiastic about contributing.

Pensions and home ownership are two sides of the same coin. They work together to provide long-term financial security. A person will not have a comfortable old age without both.

But it’s not just about retirement. In general, mortgage repayments are lower than rent. The earlier a person gets on the housing ladder, the lower their housing costs will be during their working life. This will leave them with more disposable income to contribute to their pension fund. It’s very likely that someone who buys their home in their 20s will actually end up not only with a mortgage-free home in retirement, but also with a bigger pension fund than someone who has been spending money on rent all their working life.

The government suffers from compartmentalised thinking on this issue. The Department of Social Welfare deals with pensions. The Department of Housing deals with housing. They operate in isolation from each other. The Department of Social Welfare is introducing an auto-enrolment pension scheme which will effectively force employees to contribute 8% of their after-tax income to a pension fund. This might be great for achieving that Department’s strategic objective of improved pension coverage. But it will make it even more difficult for people to accumulate the deposit and will further reduce home ownership levels.

Allowing first-time buyers to borrow the deposit will not solve the housing problem on its own. It is only one part of the solution. The government must simultaneously focus on encouraging more homes to be built and on bringing down the cost of housing to first-time buyers.

This is not a short-term fix for the current problem. It is a long-term reform of the pensions and housing system. The supply of mortgage finance goes through booms and busts. At the moment, Irish banks have plenty of money to lend to house buyers. But this cycle will change, and from time to time, we will face shortages of mortgage finance. When this happens, house building slows down because of the lack of house buyers. Allowing people to borrow from their pension funds would smooth the total supply of finance so we would not see such pronounced booms and bust in housing finance and house building.

Singapore boosted home ownership from 30% to 90% of the population in just 20 years. In the same period, they doubled their housing stock. Integrating pensions and home ownership was a key component of that strategy.

We are going in the opposite direction to Singapore. The prospect of 50% of our retired citizens depending on the benevolence of the state or on the benevolence of private landlords for a comfortable retirement is frightening. We should fix this problem now.

Brendan Burgess is the founder of Askaboutmoney.com, The Irish Consumer Forum.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Aug 2022)

A Twitter user told me it's common in Switzerland









						Withdrawal for residential property | Swiss Re
					

Withdrawal for residential property




					www.pensionskasse-swissre.ch


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Aug 2022)

The Swiss system is not what I am proposing.

They allow the house buyer to cash their pension early but it is subject to taxation.
I am proposing that the first time buyer borrows the money from the pension fund.

Brendan


----------



## Gordon Gekko (20 Aug 2022)

Hi Brendan,

Is there a halfway house, perhaps, where they can pledge it as collateral and get 1:1 additional borrowings at, say, 1% outside of the normal lending rules?

We don’t want them to have significantly reduced pensions either.

Gordon


----------



## joe sod (20 Aug 2022)

The fundamental problem with the housing market is lack of supply and big increase in population, therefore all measures need to be addressed from those angles. By allowing people take money from their pension schemes as a deposit, all you are doing is adding fuel to the fire and increasing demand and prices by that amount. We already saw the effect on limited supply when many first time buyers got their deposits from "the bank of mom and dad", house prices just increased by all that extra liquidity.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Aug 2022)

joe sod said:


> The fundamental problem with the housing market is lack of supply and big increase in population,



I have dealt with that in the article.


_
Allowing first-time buyers to borrow the deposit will not solve the housing problem on its own. It is only one part of the solution. The government must simultaneously focus on encouraging more homes to be built and on bringing down the cost of housing to first-time buyers.

This is not a short-term fix for the current problem. It is a long-term reform of the pensions and housing system. The supply of mortgage finance goes through booms and busts. At the moment, Irish banks have plenty of money to lend to house buyers. But this cycle will change, and from time to time, we will face shortages of mortgage finance. When this happens, house building slows down because of the lack of house buyers. Allowing people to borrow from their pension funds would smooth the total supply of finance so we would not see such pronounced booms and bust in _housing finance and house building.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Aug 2022)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Is there a halfway house, perhaps, where they can pledge it as collateral and get 1:1 additional borrowings at, say, 1% outside of the normal lending rules?



Interesting variation Gordon.

Allow the lender to give a FTB a 100% mortgage with the pension fund acting as a guarantor. 

I would go for that, but I would prefer my solution as the buyer effectively pays interest to themselves rather than to the mortgage lender.

Brendan


----------



## Gordon Gekko (20 Aug 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Interesting variation Gordon.
> 
> Allow the lender to give a FTB a 100% mortgage with the pension fund acting as a guarantor.
> 
> ...


My concern is that the monies are out of the pension so not working to provide for the person’s retirement. A back to back loan would keep costs minimum but keep the cash in the pension. Overall, it’s a great idea.

There are other variations where the fund could take a share in the house. Or other people’s funds could take shares in people’s houses and earn a modest but predictable return.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Aug 2022)

Gordon Gekko said:


> My concern is that the monies are out of the pension so not working to provide for the person’s retirement



Hi Gordon

The loan would attract market level interest.  So it would be just as if the pension fund had invested in the bond.

I did have that in the original article but edited out for simplicity. 

Brendan


----------



## Bluefin (20 Aug 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Pensions and home ownership are two sides of the same coin. They work together to provide long-term financial security. A person will not have a comfortable old age without both


This is the critical point.. Anything that improves house ownership would be a great thing for society.  The good thing about this suggestion is that it's not coming from one of the vested interested groups...


----------



## Jim2007 (20 Aug 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> A Twitter user told me it's common in Switzerland
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is not common at all in Switzerland, it's among Brit expats in Switzerland, which is an entirely different thing.


----------



## Jim2007 (20 Aug 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> The Swiss system is not what I am proposing.
> 
> They allow the house buyer to cash their pension early but it is subject to taxation.
> I am proposing that the first time buyer borrows the money from the pension fund.
> ...



It also requires the loan is fully repaid before the borrower reaches 65 and there are further restrictions concerning future pension savings.  There is also little tax relief for mortgage interest and an imputed rental income is add to the borrowers taxable income as a result of home ownership. 

The Swiss system does not support the acquisition of a house as a pension saving.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Aug 2022)

Jim2007 said:


> The Swiss system does not support the acquisition of a house as a pension saving.



@jim 
Thanks for clarifying. I was surprised to hear it on Twitter as I thought I would have heard about it before.

Brendan


----------



## Gervan (20 Aug 2022)

In New Zealand they have something similar, whereby the savings can be accessed to pay a house deposit. I don't think the withdrawals have to be paid back though.
It makes sense to be able to use your savings when needed. 
Having poured money into my pension, then received less than I paid in, I would rather have the asset of a house, which can bring in an income via a lodger, than put too much economic effort into a pension.


----------



## dubdub123 (20 Aug 2022)

Its going to be difficult to get house prices under control when the rental market is so broken. You would expect to pay some premium for short term letting (corporate lets) but the difference between monthly costs of renting vs mortgage may well continue to push people towards purchasing, when they may have otherwise been satisfied to rent at least in the short to medium term. 

One issue though with linking pensions to mortgage is that the higher paid are the bigger winners. Getting better tax break on money going in, so will have higher pension pot and then if they can use this as a deposit  there's a risk prices will push up further, if supply is still low. 
What are the figures around % of rentals vs owner occupied homes now vs 10/20/30 years ago? Its frightening to think so many will be privately renting in retirement and many of these will probably not have been able to build up their pension. Disastrous situation.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (20 Aug 2022)

Gervan said:


> Having poured money into my pension, then received less than I paid in, I would rather have the asset of a house, which can bring in an income via a lodger, than put too much economic effort into a pension.




You obviously made poor investment decisions.

That’s your fault rather than your pension’s.


----------



## MrViking (20 Aug 2022)

Why bother save……since we’ll all have free houses, healthcare, and whatever else we want once Sinn Fein are elected. Roll on the populist agenda baby!


----------



## ryaner (20 Aug 2022)

dubdub123 said:


> Its going to be difficult to get house prices under control when the rental market is so broken. You would expect to pay some premium for short term letting (corporate lets) but the difference between monthly costs of renting vs mortgage may well continue to push people towards purchasing, when they may have otherwise been satisfied to rent at least in the short to medium term.


Things have gotten so bad that I've heard multiple people go into house buying with a whatever it takes mentality as they had gotten so tired of the lack of stability from the rental market and it affecting their kids.


----------



## Sophrosyne (21 Aug 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Singapore boosted home ownership from 30% to 90% of the population in just 20 years. In the same period, they doubled their housing stock. Integrating pensions and home ownership was a key component of that strategy.


I’m not convinced that comparisons to Singapore are realistic in the Irish context.

Part of Singapore’s success was a strong Housing Development Board (HDB).

Almost 90% of Singapore’s residents live in public housing.

This is an interesting interview with the man who helped to create Singapore’s housing boom, Liu Thai Ker.

However, he is worried about current surging property prices.

“We didn’t want people who lived in public housing to feel that they were inferior. So, we wanted their housing value to increase.

*One of my jobs at the HDB was to monitor the supply of public housing against demand to make sure that people don’t have to wait too long to get public housing. In fact, what we wanted was to have supply slightly higher than demand so that people will not spend huge prices. *

I do worry that nowadays that public housing has become a kind of business venture rather than actually solving the housing needs. I feel that the implication may not be very good for the economic development of Singapore.”

“As long as the HDB is able to control their land price and consumption costs, hopefully they can control the selling price. But I’m totally out of touch with HDB, I don’t know whether they’re able to do that. If they cannot do that, then I think the key factor of having successful public housing may be compromised.”


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Aug 2022)

dubdub123 said:


> What are the figures around % of rentals vs owner occupied homes now vs 10/20/30 years ago? I



Hi dubdub

Good data in this publication from the ESRI.






						Future trends in housing tenure and the adequacy of retirement income
					

In recent years, Ireland has experienced a notable decline in homeownership and a rise in the proportion of households in private rental accommodation. Concurrently, the cost of both rents and house prices have risen markedly and affordability challenges in terms of meeting housing costs have...




					www.esri.ie


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Aug 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> Almost 90% of Singapore’s residents live in public housing.



Hi Sop

I don't think that this is correct. They live in private housing which was built by the Housing Development Board. 

They can sell it if they want to, so it's private housing. 

As I said in the article: 

_Integrating pensions and home ownership was a key component of that strategy._

They did lots more as well. 

They key point is that they went from 25% home ownership to 90% home ownership over 20 years. We are going in the opposite direction and it does not have to be that way.

Brendan


----------



## dubdub123 (21 Aug 2022)

ryaner said:


> Things have gotten so bad that I've heard multiple people go into house buying with a whatever it takes mentality as they had gotten so tired of the lack of stability from the rental market and it affecting their kids.



When i moved from rural ireland back to Dublin last year  the only option was to purchase. I went all in (and more) with mortgage. There was no possibility of renting. People mentioned to me about looking into HAP but I needed security. Id spent years getting things in place. I honestly dont know how people are expected to do it now. I have years of mortgage payments ahead right into pension age, but at least if something goes wrong there are options. No long term security with private renting, unlike years ago when local authorities were building public housing.


----------



## Sophrosyne (21 Aug 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I don't think that this is correct. They live in private housing which was built by the Housing Development Board.
> 
> They can sell it if they want to, so it's private housing.


It is true!

The reason Singapore achieved what it did was not _solely_ because residents could borrow from their pension pot. It was also about affordability.

The Government owns the land on which the properties were built in perpetuity. It either built the properties or contracted it out to private contractors under Government supervision and subject to detailed precinct housing, amenity and environmental design.

Public properties are sold under a 99-year lease, there are re-sale restrictions on the seller and perspective buyers of new and re-sales must meet HDB conditions.

Because its government owns most of the land, it can readily increase the supply of public housing when necessary, thereby controlling costs, which was the main key to its success.

You cannot cherry pick parts of the Singapore model and expect the same outcome.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Aug 2022)

Hi Sop

To most people, "public housing" means social housing.

It is generally accepted that 90% of people in Singapore own their own homes.

If you wish to redefine owning a home with a 99 year lease as "public housing" that is fine, but it's not what most people think it means.

 I am not cherry picking. I am highlighting that the decline in home ownership in Ireland is not something we have to accept.  Singapore has done the opposite. And integrating pensions and home ownership was a key component of that. That was not the whole reason. 




Brendan Burgess said:


> Integrating pensions and home ownership was a key component of that strategy.


----------



## Sophrosyne (22 Aug 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If you wish to redefine owning a home with a 99 year lease as "public housing" that is fine, but it's not what most people think it means.


I am not going to argue the toss on whether it is public or private. Most global commentators and Singaporeans themselves refer to it as subsidized public housing.

I agree that use of pension funds to help fund house purchase is _one_ component of Singapore’s housing success.

It is not the most important element and it does not work by itself.

By mentioning Singapore’s housing achievements, you are over egging the potential benefits of your suggestion to use pension funds as a means to alleviate the Irish home ownership problem.


----------



## Steven Barrett (22 Aug 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> The Swiss system is not what I am proposing.
> 
> They allow the house buyer to cash their pension early but it is subject to taxation.
> *I am proposing that the first time buyer borrows the money from the pension fund.*
> ...


IORPS II has banned borrowing from company pension schemes. So unless the person has a personal pension or a PRSA, they won't be allowed to borrow under this legislation. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Aug 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> Most global commentators and Singaporeans themselves refer to it as subsidized public housing.



Just Googled it and the first two results confirm the high home ownership rate in Singapore:





						List of countries by home ownership rate - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				








						Home Ownership Rate - Countries - List
					

This page displays a table with actual values, consensus figures, forecasts, statistics and historical data charts for - Home Ownership Rate.




					tradingeconomics.com


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Aug 2022)

And then Wikipedia tells me that we are in violent agreement:


----------



## Steven Barrett (22 Aug 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Interesting variation Gordon.
> 
> Allow the lender to give a FTB a 100% mortgage with *the pension fund acting as a guarantor.*
> 
> ...


Also not allowed for company pension schemes which are written under trust for the benefit of the member. The person who is looking for the loan does not actually own the asset that they are looking to borrow against.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Aug 2022)

Hi Steven

It's important to work out what the right approach to housing and pensions is.

If there are rules in place which prevent the right solutions to be implemented, then those rules should be changed.

Brendan


----------



## Steven Barrett (22 Aug 2022)

You would be changing the fundamentals of trust law, allowing a beneficiary to borrow from an asset that they are not the owner of. 

IORPS II is only in in the last year. If any of it was not going to be adopted, it would have been done. 

So while you may propose this solutions, if we look at the barriers that are already there and what new legislation has come in, it is very unlikely that this is going to become a reality.


----------



## PGF2016 (22 Aug 2022)

MrViking said:


> Why bother save……since we’ll all have free houses, healthcare, and whatever else we want once Sinn Fein are elected. Roll on the populist agenda baby!


It's strange that so many threads will have a go at SF while discussing a problem that has come about while FF & FG are in power (and implementing many shortsighted populist policies of their own).

And for the record I'm not and probably will never be a SF voter.


----------



## argolis (22 Aug 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> In today's paper based on my Pre-Budget submission



Really like this Brendan. Reusing an existing mechanism rather than a new complicated one involving a lot more administration. Getting people into the habit of pension contributions as a method of saving for their first house would also be an easier habit to continue after the homeloan is paid down. Two-pronged simple approach to general pension provisions. And a two-pronged approach to stopping the export of young talent, tax breaks on saving for a house and then being in your own home are incentives to stay.

However, as was pointed out Singapore applied other changes was the homebuilder and probably set the house prices at reasonable levels. It could be a big positive change in Ireland but if it was done in isolation I think it would cause house prices to spike up to the short - medium term with new demand. Until builders got supply in place to take advantage and stall the inevitable price rises, there would likely be a backlash. 

While I think this should be done, it also comes back to supply being the broader fix and whether the state should get back into building houses.


----------



## Purple (26 Aug 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> It's strange that so many threads will have a go at SF while discussing a problem that has come about while FF & FG are in power (and implementing many shortsighted populist policies of their own).
> 
> And for the record I'm not and probably will never be a SF voter.


Because our housing shortage is fundamentally a problem caused by the success of other parts of the economy and society, because almost every country in the developed world is having the same problem, and because there's no easy or fast solution despite the Shinner lies that say there is.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (26 Aug 2022)

It's a nice article Brendan but I quibble with a few points:



Brendan Burgess said:


> The ESRI projects that, on current trends, only 50% of people who are currently aged between 25 and 34, will own their own homes when they retire. That means that 50% of these people will be renting either from the state or from private landlords.


The ESRI paper assumes no inheritance of either property or financial wealth which is absurd!

The wealthiest generation ever seen in Ireland is going to die off over the next 20 years. The beneficiaries are going to be their children, and a lot of this will be retained as or converted into owner-occupied housing.

That's not to say that there isn't an issue, but this is more down to the Central Bank rules which - under current interest rates - limit a 25 year old on a solid career track to mortgage payments of about 25% of their net income. This is silly. They have 40 working years ahead of them and most likely increases in earnings and potentially an inheritance too.



Brendan Burgess said:


> Saving the €30,000 or so for the deposit is the biggest barrier to getting on the housing ladder.


Is it? I mean it's €500 each a month for couple for two-and-a-half years. This doesn't seem terribly onerous for people who wants to take on a mortgage for half of their remaining life. The bigger impediment is the 3.5 LTI multiple, particularly in urban areas.


----------



## Purple (26 Aug 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The bigger impediment is the 3.5 LTI multiple, particularly in urban areas.


That just limits what the person at the top of the queue will pay. It doesn't make the house any more affordable for the person behind them. 
Every house and apartment in the country that goes on sale is sold and it is sold to the person who can access the most capital. If the lending multiple in increased from 3.5 to 4.5 it just means that the same person who ends up buying it borrows more money and so pays more.


----------



## PMU (26 Aug 2022)

Which is the riskier for a young family, investing in a pension or buying a domestic property? When they buy, first-time buyers take on a significant leveraged holding of an illiquid asset relative to their net worth. While there may be or should be a high return in the future, it’s not guaranteed, and unlike a pension, they are buying in an unregulated environment, as recent housing standards scandals in Ireland demonstrate.

By moving assets from their pension, i.e. a regulated unleveraged investment environment, to domestic property in Ireland, first-time buyers would move some of their portfolio from a relatively low risk environment to leveraged riskier assets. Does such a swap make sense? And monthly repayments must now increase to repay not only the mortgage but to increase their pension contributions. (Or bet that the value of their house would increase sufficiently to top-up their pension if / when they dispose of the house in the future.)

This really is more like a ‘reverse endowment mortgage’, except instead of investing in equities with the aim to pay off a mortgage in the future, first time buyers would invest in property with the expectation of recouping the deposit to top up their pension in the future.

Why not just let those with spare cash contribute to or pay the deposit? I’ve suggested elsewhere How do we deal with the inequalities due to falling home ownership rates? | Askaboutmoney.com - the Irish consumer forum that CAT thresholds be adjusted to encourage inter-generational donation of cash from grandparents/parents with spare cash to ‘savings poor’ family members to fund the deposit/purchase of housing.



Gordon Gekko said:


> There are other variations where the fund could take a share in the house. Or other people’s funds could take shares in people’s houses and earn a modest but predictable return.



A great idea. Why not encourage those with spare cash to provide the deposit in return for the right to participate in a percentage of any future profit on the sale of the house? This has the benefit of moving risk to those better placed to hold it. Financial institutions could bundle up the participation rights and sell them on as collective products to those wishing to invest in domestic property as an asset class.

Or if you believe incomes will increase in the future, treat it as car finance (i.e. PCP); buy with a low (or no?) deposit and pay a tail payment at the end of the mortgage, either out of your savings, a gift from your parents,  or from the capital gain on the property.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Aug 2022)

PMU said:


> Which is the riskier for a young family, investing in a pension or buying a domestic property?



No contest at all.

Buying a property is simply paying for their housing costs in advance. It is by far the least risky option.

The problem is the compartmenatlised thinking.   That is my home and mortgage in that corner and my pension is over there.

This is how people should look at it.

House value: €300k
Pension fund: €100k
Mortgage:  (€250k)
Net assets : €150k

Effectively anyone with a mortgage and pension fund is borrowing to invest in that pension fund.

Think of it another  way. If the tax reliefs on pension funds were abolished in the morning, what would the right strategy be?  Very simply.
1.  Save the deposit for the house
2.  Buy a house with a mortgage and the deposit
3.  Pay off the mortgage
4. After the mortgage is paid off, start building up savings to live off in retirement.

We only break the rule of not borrowing to invest, because of the tax advantages of pension investing.

Brendan


----------



## interested21 (26 Aug 2022)

PMU said:


> Which is the riskier for a young family, investing in a pension or buying a domestic property?


You can't live in your pension fund.

Saving for the future is all well and good, but it's more important that they have security in the here and now.


----------



## jpd (26 Aug 2022)

In theory, with a house and a mortgage you do not really have security until the mortgage is paid off

In reality, because it is more or less impossible for the lender to enforce repossession in case of default, you do have some level of seciruty. Ths is paid for by the whole community of borrowers who have to pay higher interest charges becaus eof the difficulty in re-possessing properties where the mortgage is not being paid


----------



## Sarenco (26 Aug 2022)

interested21 said:


> You can't live in your pension fund.


Indeed.  

But equally you can’t eat your house.


----------



## interested21 (26 Aug 2022)

Sarenco said:


> Indeed.
> 
> But equally you can’t eat your house.


Anyone who can gets a deposits worth into their pension when while young will be well able to eat well in retirement if they keep that savings habit up.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Aug 2022)

jpd said:


> In theory, with a house and a mortgage you do not really have security until the mortgage is paid off



As you say "in theory".

The vast majority who borrow sensibly and repay their mortgage more or less on schedule, have full security.

Brendan


----------



## Gordon Gekko (26 Aug 2022)

Sarenco said:


> Indeed.
> 
> But equally you can’t eat your house.


Unless you’re the witch in Hansel and Gretel…


----------

