Record house prices "linked to more lax lending rules". Intent replaces negligence.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sorry for the OT but the CB have relaxed the 3.5 LTI now have they?

Maximus Alexander

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry for the OT but the CB have relaxed the 3.5 LTI now have they?

Must have; the bank are offering us far in excess of that. Idiots.

pilly

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry for the OT but the CB have relaxed the 3.5 LTI now have they?

They haven't relaxed it as a rule, just allowing a certain amount of exceptions a year or something as far as I know.

Samuel T. Cogley

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Must have; the bank are offering us far in excess of that. Idiots.

There is discretion, but is there a blanket policy now. Frankly there shouls be no discretion and no movement from 3.5 IMHO.

andekwarhola

pilly wrote: »

My advice to any family would be to buy a house that's much less expensive than 400k. It may not be in a leafy suburb with the best schools but it's affordable and not likely to leave you in the ditch the next time a recession hits.

You're not really viewing my post in the context of the earlier as it was intended.

It was about people being forced to opt for buying because renting is so unstable, especially for families and a lot of the time, people are trying to stay within a certain broad area if they have kids in school there etc

pilly

andekwarhola wrote:

It was about people being forced to opt for buying because renting is so unstable, especially for families and a lot of the time, people are trying to stay within a certain broad area if they have kids in school there etc

It's a fair point but irish people in general don't rent for life. There's an idea that you have to buy a home.

Ayuntamiento

pilly wrote: »

andekwarhola wrote:

It was about people being forced to opt for buying because renting is so unstable, especially for families and a lot of the time, people are trying to stay within a certain broad area if they have kids in school there etc

It's a fair point but irish people in general don't rent for life. There's an idea that you have to buy a home.

Considering how screwed most of us will be in the futue from a pensions perspective, having a fully paid off home will probably be the best investment of my life.

pilly

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

Considering how screwed most of us will be in the futue from a pensions perspective, having a fully paid off home will probably be the best investment of my life.

Probably, I never said whether it was a good or bad thing just that it is a thing.

andekwarhola

[qiuote="pilly;103082059"]It's a fair point but irish people in general don't rent for life. There's an idea that you have to buy a home.[/quote]

Why would they rent for life. The rental market is not conducive to raising families or settling down long term.

pilly

andekwarhola wrote: »

[qiuote="pilly;103082059"]It's a fair point but irish people in general don't rent for life. There's an idea that you have to buy a home.

Why would they rent for life. The rental market is not conducive to raising families or settling down long term.[/QUOTE]

Jesus christ, I can't say right for wrong here. I never said either way was the right way.

There are countries however that do rent for life and do so very happily.

I made a statement about Irish people in general wanting to own their own home. That's all. Never stated one was better than other. Imo whatever suits a person best is best for them.

Zulu

pilly wrote: »

Why would they rent for life. The rental market is not conducive to raising families or settling down long term.

Jesus christ, I can't say right for wrong here. I never said either way was the right way.

There are countries however that do rent for life and do so very happily.

I made a statement about Irish people in general wanting to own their own home. That's all. Never stated one was better than other. Imo whatever suits a person best is best for them.

Sorry, we're picking you up wrong so.

pilly wrote:

My advice to any family would be to buy a house that's much less expensive than 400k. It may not be in a leafy suburb with the best schools but it's affordable and not likely to leave you in the ditch the next time a recession hits.

So am I right in thinking that you're saying "buy or rent, whatever suits you best"?

Sadly renting in this country is far from ideal as the cost spiral, and there's little security.

andekwarhola

pilly wrote: »

Jesus christ, I can't say right for wrong here.

Time for a chill pill(y)?

pilly

Zulu wrote:

So am I right in thinking that you're saying "buy or rent, whatever suits you best"?

Zulu wrote:

Sadly renting in this country is far from ideal as the cost spiral, and there's little security.

Yes you're right. I agree, rental market is crazy but it is settling somewhat with the new regulations.

Still not enough security of tenure though. There are some countries where you can literally lease for your lifetime.

pilly

andekwarhola wrote:

Time for a chill pill(y)?

Yep, it's Friday. Time for a few!

Ayuntamiento

Renting in this country is horrific. I did it for 10yrs and I feel I have some kind of PTSD that keeps me reading boards threads despite the fact that I now own an amazing Dublin 8 house!
I read threads here where LLs are asking for bank statements, employee references and previous tenancy statements. It's unbelievable. I couldn't have provided any of these for my previous landlord yet I consistently paid him over 1,000 per month for over 6yrs. He never asked us for any of those documents in the first place and yet he ended up with perfect tenants for many years and he was devastated to see us leave.

TimeToShine

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

Considering how screwed most of us will be in the futue from a pensions perspective, having a fully paid off home will probably be the best investment of my life.

You'll be working until 70 anyway so I wouldn't count on that.

If anybody has any doubt that the Irish electorate has replaced Fianna Fáil lying bastards with Fianna Fáil-supported Fine Gael lying bastards, read this brazen article:

Ireland not heading for another property boom, says Coveney

The Government is not going to allow a situation where people are allowed to borrow “ridiculous amounts of money” to buy houses as happened during the so-called Celtic Tiger period, Minister for Housing Simon Coveney has said...

Absolutely brazen given that we are where we are because Coveney and his rightwing soulmates in the Blueshirts are the creators of the policies which have undermined Central Bank lending restrictions and led directly to this double-digit growth in property prices.


Oh, and yeah no matter what anybody says, thanks entirely to intervention from this government to help builders and developers, money is much more available from banks now than it was even 6 months ago. This is the principal, if not the sole, reason for property price increase in the past year to have reached double figures. This is a bubble entirely of the making of Fine Gael government policy.

The annual rate of increase in house prices in Dublin was 8.7% in the year to March, up from just 1% at the same time last year.

Prices have also increased in the other cities and in Leinster, outside of Dublin.

In both Galway and Limerick, the average price is 16.3% higher compared to last year.

In Cork city, prices are 10.7% higher than the same period in 2016, while in Waterford, the increase was 13.9%. (RTÉ News)

Fine Gaelers and their illusions of being ethically above Fianna Fáilers, of being "fiscally responsible". Conceited nonsense.

Zulu

Ugh, your post sets my teeth on edge. While I agree with most of it, it loses nearly all with the "blueshirt" and hardline party political motivation.
(And I'm not even a FG supporter!)

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

Ugh, your post sets my teeth on edge. While I agree with most of it, it loses nearly all with the "blueshirt" and hardline party political motivation.
(And I'm not even a FG supporter!)

Ha. Well, the crowd you're defending aren't exactly distancing themselves from their far right Blueshirt roots with their housing policy so Blueshirts is fully deserved. And as for "hardline party political motivation", as I've managed to put the Blueshirts on the same level as Fianna Fáil for their property bubble creating policies, and Sinn Féin in other posts for being the largest party in Dublin City Council but reducing building standards and apartment sizes and not building in the city, there aren't many parties left.

Perhaps you're just upset that somebody is calling out Fine Gael for the liars and fiscally irresponsible bubble pushers that they are in 2017?

Zulu

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha. Well, the crowd you're defending ...
Perhaps you're just upset that somebody is calling out Fine Gael for the liars and fiscally irresponsible bubble pushers that they are in 2017?

No, not at all. I'm not defending them. Quite the opposite, I'm disgusted (as a -ve equity 2007 buyer presently stuck renting while looking for a family home), that they are deliberately strangling supply to the market to drive up property value to better benefit banks, and builders.

I'm sickened at how they have meddled in the rental market and the property market further compounding the problems with piecemeal tokenism.

And I'm utterly dismayed that the present government squandered the opportunity to fix our many broken systems when first elected. They have proven themselves utterly contemptible time and again with continued and persistent snake-oil merchant tactics. Again and again they have weaselled out of doing the "right" thing, in order to do the "politically right" thing (and even screwing that up).

They've proven themselves to be almost as bad as FF in nearly every way, and have proven that they (FF/FG) are all really the exact same underneath it all. Broken promises and lies.

No, I do not defend FG. I was just pointing out that the language in your post was putting my teeth on edge, but don't worry about it

BattleCorp

In defence of the Government:

There's a severe shortage of houses on the market because builders aren't building enough houses to meet demand and haven't been doing so for a good number of years now.

The obvious solution is to build more houses. The Government (Co. Council's etc.) don't have the ability to do this so they must rely on builders. The builders haven't been building on a large scale because they say it wasn't financially viable for the past number of years.

The builders will only start to build on a large scale once it becomes financially viable. The recent house price increases, while unpalatable for most people, will incentivise builders to start building, which is the main thing that will fix the demand for houses.

Samuel T. Cogley

BattleCorp wrote: »

In defence of the Government:

There's a severe shortage of houses on the market because builders aren't building enough houses to meet demand and haven't been doing so for a good number of years now.

The obvious solution is to build more houses. The Government (Co. Council's etc.) don't have the ability to do this so they must rely on builders. The builders haven't been building on a large scale because they say it wasn't financially viable for the past number of years.

The builders will only start to build on a large scale once it becomes financially viable. The recent house price increases, while unpalatable for most people, will incentivise builders to start building, which is the main thing that will fix the demand for houses.

My thoughts exactly, but when does it become viable and what's driving the low profits?

BattleCorp

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

My thoughts exactly, but when does it become viable and what's driving the low profits?

When we see loads of builders ramp up their building of houses, then we'll know that it has reached a point where it is economically viable.

There are profits to be made at the moment but they are probably on the low side of things and not worth the risk for builders. Don't forget that many builders got burned too in the last recession.

There's significant investment needed to build a housing estate so there'd need to be significant rewards before it becomes worthwhile.

Zebra3

BattleCorp wrote: »

In defence of the Government:

There's a severe shortage of houses on the market because builders aren't building enough houses to meet demand and haven't been doing so for a good number of years now.

The obvious solution is to build more houses. The Government (Co. Council's etc.) don't have the ability to do this so they must rely on builders. The builders haven't been building on a large scale because they say it wasn't financially viable for the past number of years.

The builders will only start to build on a large scale once it becomes financially viable. The recent house price increases, while unpalatable for most people, will incentivise builders to start building, which is the main thing that will fix the demand for houses.

Conveniently ignoring how land banks are used to manipulate the market.

The state CPOs land to build motorways, so why doesn't the state CPO land so houses can be built?

BattleCorp

Zebra3 wrote: »

Conveniently ignoring how land banks are used to manipulate the market.

The state CPOs land to build motorways, so why doesn't the state CPO land so houses can be built?

If the State CPO's the land, who builds the houses? They still need the builders and it still needs to be economically viable for the builders to build.

There is the possibility that the Government could bring in a land bank tax but the builders could get around that by keeping a horse or something on the land and claim that they are farmers.

Your CPO thing isn't straightforward. Nor is a landbank tax.

CoolHandBandit

The criminal under investment in social and affordable housing over the last 20 years from government is hugely responsible for this. Like usual we can't do anything right when it comes to housing and as long as it's seen as an investment rather than a home nothing will change.

BattleCorp

CoolHandBandit wrote: »

The criminal under investment in social and affordable housing over the last 20 years from government is hugely responsible for this. Like usual we can't do anything right when it comes to housing and as long as it's seen as an investment rather than a home nothing will change.

While I don't disagree with what you said above, it still doesn't change anything.

There is still a chronic shortage of supply when it comes to houses and the Government don't have the skills to build any. They abdicated that function to builders years ago.

Unfortunately all houses are an investment. Maybe not so by the people who buy them, but they certainly are an investment for the builder who is building them. And until builders are able to make a lot of money from building houses, the supply will not keep pace with the demand and that will only push the prices up.

Zebra3

BattleCorp wrote: »

If the State CPO's the land, who builds the houses? They still need the builders and it still needs to be economically viable for the builders to build.

There is the possibility that the Government could bring in a land bank tax but the builders could get around that by keeping a horse or something on the land and claim that they are farmers.

Your CPO thing isn't straightforward. Nor is a landbank tax.

Builders don't tend to horde land. If the government CPOs land it'll have no shortage of builders looking to develop the land given how big a cost land is in a house build.

Maximus Alexander

BattleCorp wrote: »

In defence of the Government:

There's a severe shortage of houses on the market because builders aren't building enough houses to meet demand and haven't been doing so for a good number of years now.

The obvious solution is to build more houses. The Government (Co. Council's etc.) don't have the ability to do this so they must rely on builders. The builders haven't been building on a large scale because they say it wasn't financially viable for the past number of years.

The builders will only start to build on a large scale once it becomes financially viable. The recent house price increases, while unpalatable for most people, will incentivise builders to start building, which is the main thing that will fix the demand for houses.

There's another way to incentivise builders to start building, that doesn't involve driving up prices and screwing over large swathes of the populace. But I've never heard anyone suggest it, so maybe someone can explain to me why this wouldn't work?

Any residential property, or land zoned for residential, that is either left undeveloped or without an occupant, should be taxed to the gills.

AlmightyCushion

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

There's another way to incentivise builders to start building, that doesn't involve driving up prices and screwing over large swathes of the populace. But I've never heard anyone suggest it, so maybe someone can explain to me why this wouldn't work?

Any residential property, or land zoned for residential, that is either left undeveloped or without an occupant, should be taxed to the gills.

This (or something similar to this) is coming in to effect next year. It really should have been in place a few years ago. It's not taxed to the gills either but it's a start.