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

Investors ruining chances for First Time Buyers - regulations?

Options
1…45679

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    NewDirection
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭NewDirection


    Villa05 wrote: »
    Farmer comment aside. (It was used as an example of profession where there may be no pension but potential for plenty cash). I misused it
    Is it not possible to engage in a mature debate here
    I would like to engage in a mature debate. In my opinion what has dragged this thread into off topic areas is trying to compare anecdotal evidence.
    Mr. A in this situation is worse off than Mr. B in another situation.

    If we move away from these very particular cases and talk about the inequalities themselves we might start agreeing on things.

    I can see that you think the over 65, €18,000 exemption is unfair. But in reality it only benefits very low earners. Medium to high earners will be treated the same as under 65's.

    With that aside, the vibe I'm getting off this thread is that the scales should be tilted towards first time buyers and away from investors. Nobody has suggested how they would like to see this done. And I haven't heard a good reason why it should be done either?


  • Options
    #243
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    NewDirection wrote: »
    the vibe I'm getting off this thread is that the scales should be tilted towards first time buyers and away from investors. Nobody has suggested how they would like to see this done. And I haven't heard a good reason why it should be done either?

    While recognising that first time buyers are having a tough time at the moment, I'm not convinced too much should be done.

    This is Not because I don't think it would work and it's not because I think they're undeserving.

    Any significant assistance to ANY subset of purchases distorts the markets. If FTBers win, investors (and by extension tenants) start to loose.

    What's the solution, increase supply and offer very limited support to FTBers.


  • Options
    #244
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    Graham wrote: »
    Any significant assistance to ANY subset of purchases distorts the markets. If FTBers win, investors (and by extension tenants) start to loose.

    I think it's better for a FTB to be owning a home rather than renting it from an investor. They will be committed to the country and will have more money to spend in the economy.

    FTB's need and deserve property more than investors need property.

    I think the more FTB's get opportunities to purchase, the less rental properties will be required as many FTB's will move out of rental accommodation.

    Solution:
    Repossess BTL's
    Support FTB's
    Discourage 2nd+ homes as investments
    Steer govt thought away from making the rich richer


  • Options
    #245
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    lima wrote: »
    Solution:
    Repossess BTL's
    Support FTB's
    Discourage 2nd+ homes as investments
    Steer govt thought away from making the rich richer

    Wow, that sounds like the perfect recipe to send rents sky-rocketing and completely screw over those that can't afford to buy.

    How does any of that that makes more houses available?


  • Options
    #246
    witchgirl26
    Registered Users Posts: 2,115 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    lima wrote: »
    Solution:
    Repossess BTL's
    Support FTB's
    Discourage 2nd+ homes as investments
    Steer govt thought away from making the rich richer

    Specific criteria for the repossessions of BTLs? Most BTLs are probably servicing the loans considering the rents that are currently out there.

    How do you propose to support FTBs? Does that not just lead us back into the property bubble where 100% mortgages were offered for FTB to support them. And the criteria for getting the mortgage were a lot easier.

    A lot of people who own second homes as investments aren't loaded people gleefully rubbing their hands together while rolling around in their wads of cash. My cousin has a 2nd home as an investment as it was a deal with the bank to help her family move into a bigger house that would better accommodate them (rather than a 1 bed flat). There are deals like that being done by banks to help people out. Are you proposing that we stop that assistence?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    Graham wrote: »
    Wow, that sounds like the perfect recipe to send rents sky-rocketing and completely screw over those that can't afford to buy.

    How does any of that that makes more houses available?

    Personally I know of many renters who, if stock was available and at a non-manipulated price, they would buy. I'm not sure if would cause rent to increase since the movement of FTB's would free up rentals.

    It's basically swapping ownership from investors to people.

    This doesn't address the housing shortage, it's clear there is a supply issue too.


  • Options
    #248
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    lima wrote: »
    This doesn't address the housing shortage, it's clear there is a supply issue too.

    Correct, so it doesn't fix the problem, it just moves it.


  • Options
    #249
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    witchgirl26 wrote: »
    Specific criteria for the repossessions of BTLs? Most BTLs are probably servicing the loans considering the rents that are currently out there.

    How do you propose to support FTBs? Does that not just lead us back into the property bubble where 100% mortgages were offered for FTB to support them. And the criteria for getting the mortgage were a lot easier.

    A lot of people who own second homes as investments aren't loaded people gleefully rubbing their hands together while rolling around in their wads of cash. My cousin has a 2nd home as an investment as it was a deal with the bank to help her family move into a bigger house that would better accommodate them (rather than a 1 bed flat). There are deals like that being done by banks to help people out. Are you proposing that we stop that assistence?

    Obviously I'm talking about BTL's where the mortgages are not being paid. There are a huge amount of them.

    Your cousins specific case is not the majority, and it doesn't sound like conscious investment.


  • Options
    #250
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    Graham wrote: »
    Correct, so it doesn't fix the problem, it just moves it.

    It's better that they own the properties over investors.


  • Options
    #251
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,575 ✭✭✭Villa05


    NewDirection wrote:
    Also from your example and subsequent post about a flat tax rate for rental income, you seem to be only targetting low earning pensioners with your arguements. I just dont understand the motivation?
    Low earning pensioners should not be incetivised indirectly to invest in property. It is a long term investment not suitable to that age profile.
    Flat tax rate encourages investment as investors know there on a level playing field. Your not going to invest if you are taxed at 50% and some one can buy next door and pay 0 tax on rental income.


    Barely Hedged wrote:
    Youre defending the position of a FTB couple with one person working from being outbid! Unless were talking about the household demographics in the 70's and 80's i dont really see why you have chosen that other than it conveniently supports your point of debate. Its convenient alright, but no way realistic. What does that then say about the point youve developed from it?

    I made no reference to a couple with one person working being outbid on a property.
    That example was purely to show that the tax system discrimates based on age, a practice that is illegal in the workplace. Why should it be allowed in the tax system.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,575 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Barely Hedged wrote:
    Youre really stretching the boundaries of your point you made previous to this post and the posts subsequently. You say you are trying to put forward an alternative view point but all your opinion is based on is really an anomaly in the data population.

    535,393 over 65's in the country as of 2011 census.


  • Options
    #253
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    lima wrote: »
    It's better that they own the properties over investors.

    No it's really not, especially for anyone that's renting.

    There's only one way to address an issue where prices are driven up when demand exceeds supply. Increase supply.


  • Options
    #254
    NewDirection
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭NewDirection


    Villa05 wrote: »
    Low earning pensioners should not be incetivised indirectly to invest in property. It is a long term investment not suitable to that age profile.
    Flat tax rate encourages investment as investors know there on a level playing field. Your not going to invest if you are taxed at 50% and some one can buy next door and pay 0 tax on rental income.
    They are not incentivised to invest in property. The exemption is nothing to do with property. The same exemption would be there if they were receiving dividend payments from stocks, if they were to purchase an annuity / ARF, or if they just got out and work.
    It has nothing to do with property.


  • Options
    #255
    NewDirection
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭NewDirection


    lima wrote: »
    I think it's better for a FTB to be owning a home rather than renting it from an investor. They will be committed to the country and will have more money to spend in the economy.

    FTB's need and deserve property more than investors need property.

    I think the more FTB's get opportunities to purchase, the less rental properties will be required as many FTB's will move out of rental accommodation.

    Solution:
    Repossess BTL's
    Support FTB's
    Discourage 2nd+ homes as investments
    Steer govt thought away from making the rich richer

    There is a demand for a rental market. Not every renter wants to buy. There are massive benefits to renting depending on your situation.

    Your right the problem is lack of supply, but its for both people wanting to purchase and people wanting to rent.

    Repossess BTL's - I agree
    Support FTB's? How exactly, the government have always have had some scheme to help out FTB's in a small way anyway.
    Discourage 2nd homes - Dont agree at all. Should be taxed the same as all other income.
    Steer govt away from making rich richer - really, thats just a lazy comment on the end.


  • Options
    #256
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    NewDirection wrote: »
    There is a demand for a rental market. Not every renter wants to buy. There are massive benefits to renting depending on your situation.

    Your right the problem is lack of supply, but its for both people wanting to purchase and people wanting to rent.

    Repossess BTL's - I agree
    Support FTB's? How exactly, the government have always have had some scheme to help out FTB's in a small way anyway.
    Discourage 2nd homes - Dont agree at all. Should be taxed the same as all other income.
    Steer govt away from making rich richer - really, thats just a lazy comment on the end.

    I believe the govt should encourage the financial empowerment of young people over their personal vested-interests.


  • Options
    #257
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    lima wrote: »
    I believe the govt should encourage the financial empowerment of young people over their personal vested-interests.

    Skewing the property market to benefit the subset of 'young people' who want and can afford to buy hardly empowers the rest of the 'young people' who your suggestions choose not to empower.


  • Options
    #258
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    Graham wrote: »
    No it's really not, especially for anyone that's renting.

    There's only one way to address an issue where prices are driven up when demand exceeds supply. Increase supply.

    There are a huge amount of people renting who would rather buy. These people would move out of their rental homes, thus freeing up rentals for other people who are not ready to buy.

    There is a limited amount of property out there. People in a position to buy should get it over investors.


  • Options
    #259
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    Graham wrote: »
    Skewing the property market to benefit the subset of 'young people' who want and can afford to buy hardly empowers the rest of the 'young people' who your suggestions choose not to empower.

    The property market is already heavily skewed, it needs to be normalized.


  • Options
    #260
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    lima wrote: »
    The property market is already heavily skewed, it needs to be normalized.

    Yup, increase supply. Not skew the market to solely benefit the small subset of 'young people' who can afford to buy while disadvantaging anyone that is renting.


  • Options
    #261
    MouseTail
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭MouseTail


    lima wrote: »

    There is a limited amount of property out there. People in a position to buy should get it over investors.
    Nope, the rental crisis is more acute and has a bigger impact on economic growth. That is the policy lever that should and will be pushed first.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    Graham wrote: »
    Skewing the property market to benefit the subset of 'young people' who want and can afford to buy hardly empowers the rest of the 'young people' who your suggestions choose not to empower.

    It empowers more young people than the alternative. The government should build more housing too of course.


  • Options
    #263
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    Graham wrote: »
    Yup, increase supply. Not skew the market to solely benefit the small subset of 'young people' who can afford to buy while disadvantaging anyone that is renting.

    This is nonsensical. If someone in the rental market buys a house he is taking both himself and a house out of the rental market. It's a zero sum game.


  • Options
    #264
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    MouseTail wrote: »
    Its going to take at least 5 years until we have supply to match existing demand, and we have strong population growth projections beyond that. This is a supply issue, anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

    These projections are as ludicrous as the panic about generations of ghost towns. Any population growth depends on economic growth. As it did in 2006.


  • Options
    #265
    MouseTail
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭MouseTail


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    These projections are as ludicrous as the panic about generations of ghost towns. Any population growth depends on economic growth. As it did in 2006.
    They are widely accepted. We simply don't have the capacity, skills or shovel ready sites to meet supply much earlier.


  • Options
    #266
    Arbiter of Good Taste
    Registered Users Posts: 2,200 ✭✭✭Arbiter of Good Taste


    lima wrote: »
    Ah it's embarrassing in my specific example as this was in D6 where all of the other viewers were refined middle-class types and this loud unkempt prospective buyer started talking (loud enough for everyone to hear) that he would like to bid the asking right there and then. Normal experience in my view would be to say nothing, take the negotiators details and make a call on the Monday. Wasn't embarrassed myself but I could see the others cringe!

    Probably OT, but your snobbery is unbelievable.

    The man had the "mula", as you put it, to offer asking price them and there. I wouldn't be looking down my nose at him.


  • Options
    #267
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »
    Probably OT, but your snobbery is unbelievable.

    The man had the "mula", as you put it, to offer asking price them and there. I wouldn't be looking down my nose at him.

    I don't remember saying 'mula'!


  • Options
    #268
    stevedublin
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭stevedublin


    Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »
    The man had the "mula", as you put it, to offer asking price them and there. I wouldn't be looking down my nose at him.

    The man was being presumptious that his offer would be accepted there and then. This would be unfair on other potential buyers who may be prepared to buy the property at a higher price but a polite enough to wait their turn.


  • Options
    #269
    Icepick
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭Icepick


    MouseTail wrote: »
    They are widely accepted. We simply don't have the capacity, skills or shovel ready sites to meet supply much earlier.
    We have plenty of zoned land

    see this survey


  • Options
    #270
    MouseTail
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭MouseTail


    Just because land is zoned doesn't mean it is near ready. For short to mid term supply, tier 1 or tier 2a sites are needed. And they are in short supply.

    http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/DublinHousingSupplyCoordinationTaskForce/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Icepick
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭Icepick


    MouseTail wrote: »
    Just because land is zoned doesn't mean it is near ready. For short to mid term supply, tier 1 or tier 2a sites are needed. And they are in short supply.

    http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/DublinHousingSupplyCoordinationTaskForce/
    There are 18,000 units with granted permissionin Fingal co. alone.


Advertisement