Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming?

Dav010

JimmyVik wrote: »

Definitely in those years you could could get a house free with a box of cornflakes.
I remember I went into a broker and asked could I get a €350,000 mortgage.
They said to me, what are you at? You can get a mortgage for €700,000. Why dont you raise your expectations?


My friend came home from Australia in 2004. Worked for 3 months for a company for €600 per week, while his wife was unemployed. Applied for a mortgage and got approved and bought a 3 bed house for €250,000 with a small deposit.

That still does not you could buy a house exactly where you want to live, with that easy credit came high house prices and competition for purchases.

JimmyVik

Dav010 wrote: »

That still does not you could buy a house exactly where you want to live, with that easy credit came high house prices and competition for purchases.

Well I guess we couldnt all have one on Kiliney hill

Dav010

JimmyVik wrote: »

Well I guess we couldnt all have one on Kiliney hill

Next time we’ll be there Jimmy, neighbours.

Smouse156

JimmyVik wrote: »

Do you know how much tax these older people paid so you could get your education and public services etc?

It’s true they paid through the nose back in the day, rates up to 65% I believe. However, their generation of Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael Landlord party successively made housing more and more unaffordable so they could feel better about their “paper” wealth at the expense of the younger generation who now can’t afford housing at all.

Therefore I have little issue seeing some of this paper wealth eroded

Dav010

Smouse156 wrote: »

It’s true they paid through the nose back in the day, rates up to 65% I believe. However, their generation of Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael Landlord party successively made housing more and more unaffordable so they could feel better about their “paper” wealth at the expense of the younger generation who now can’t afford housing at all.

Therefore I have little issue seeing some of this paper wealth eroded

Nonsense.

It was just as difficult to buy properties in the 70s and 80s when wages were low, jobs scarce and interest rates high. When they pass, the State will take another chunk out of their “paper wealth”. Get down off the cross and don’t be looking for retirees who have worked all their lives, raised families and paid their taxes, to help out the snowflake generation.

You want wealth, you either earn it yourself or marry well.

The_Conductor

We do have to broaden the tax base, significantly, and move away from crucifying workers with a combined rate of tax, PRSI, and USC of 52% kicking in at 35k. Our rate of personal taxation is nutty- and the manner in which our higher rate of tax/deductions kicks in at 35k is almost unique in the OECD.

The American Chamber of Commerce, IBEC and others- have tried to hammer home to the government how difficult it is to financially remunerate workers once they hit this 35k threshold, to absolutely no avail.

There is a massive cohort of workers- who don't pay tax at all- a squeezed middle who are made bleed- and an upper tier who play the system like a fine fiddle and get away without paying a fair share (often without paying anything at all).

We need equity- at the moment the system is not fit for purpose, it encourages people to work far below their potential, or even under the table, because it simply doesn't pay to work once you hit predefined targets.

In addition- with our social welfare state- it often perversely incentivises some people not to work at all, under any circumstances.

Its incredibly hard to take away something from someone once you give it to them- so we're now in the situation where you have to be creative in how you take it back.

Hubertj

The_Conductor wrote: »

We do have to broaden the tax base, significantly, and move away from crucifying workers with a combined rate of tax, PRSI, and USC of 52% kicking in at 35k. Our rate of personal taxation is nutty- and the manner in which our higher rate of tax/deductions kicks in at 35k is almost unique in the OECD.

The American Chamber of Commerce, IBEC and others- have tried to hammer home to the government how difficult it is to financially remunerate workers once they hit this 35k threshold, to absolutely no avail.

There is a massive cohort of workers- who don't pay tax at all- a squeezed middle who are made bleed- and an upper tier who play the system like a fine fiddle and get away without paying a fair share (often without paying anything at all).

We need equity- at the moment the system is not fit for purpose, it encourages people to work far below their potential, or even under the table, because it simply doesn't pay to work once you hit predefined targets.

In addition- with our social welfare state- it often perversely incentivises some people not to work at all, under any circumstances.

Its incredibly hard to take away something from someone once you give it to them- so we're now in the situation where you have to be creative in how you take it back.

Pretty much in a nutshell. Unfortunately populism will make it extremely difficult to broaden the tax base which means whatever government will just kick the can down the road. Sinn Fein lie about their “wealth taxes” and what that will achieve. Unfortunately people are sucked into believing them due to anger with the status quo. But the status quo can’t be addressed due to populism brought about by Sinn Fein.... this feeds into the overall economy, house prices, rents etc.

Smouse156

Dav010 wrote: »

Nonsense.

It was just as difficult to buy properties in the 70s and 80s when wages were low, jobs scarce and interest rates high. When they pass, the State will take another chunk out of their “paper wealth”. Get down off the cross and don’t be looking for retirees who have worked all their lives, raised families and paid their taxes, to help out the snowflake generation.

You want wealth, you either earn it yourself or marry well.

You clearly haven’t a clue if you believe it was harder to get a house back in the past. Most could buy on a single salary in their twenties. Now it’s couples in their thirties. House price inflation is well ahead of wage inflation.

I’m not on any cross and I’ll be able to buy a house on my own without any help! But my generation are not as fortunate as me! The tax base should be broadened to incentivise labour not incentivise emigration of the intelligent, irrespective of what people paid or did not pay in the past.

Dav010

Smouse156 wrote: »

You clearly haven’t a clue if you believe it was harder to get a house back in the past. Most could buy on a single salary in their twenties. Now it’s couples in their thirties. House price inflation is well ahead of wage inflation.

I’m not on any cross and I’ll be able to buy a house on my own without any help! But my generation are not as fortunate as me! The tax base should be broadened to incentivise labour not incentivise emigration of the intelligent, irrespective of what people paid or did not pay in the past.

Every generation believes the one before it had it easier. They didn’t. Mark my words, your kids will think you had it easier than them.

Timing belt

Dav010 wrote: »

Every generation believes the one before it had it easier. They didn’t. Mark my words, your kids will think you had it easier than them.

It’s all relative because what the younger generation have today and take for granted we did not have by way of opportunities. Tax was higher in the past and interest rates on mortgages meant that a cheaper house was as expensive as today and getting a mortgage was harder. The big difference is that the younger generation will not have decent pensions and will need to work till 70+.

jmlad2020

Dav010 wrote: »

Every generation believes the one before it had it easier. They didn’t. Mark my words, your kids will think you had it easier than them.

People are deciding to not have kids for this very reason.

Pelezico

jmlad2020 wrote: »

People are deciding to not have kids for this very reason.

People dont have kids for loads of reasons

Dav010

jmlad2020 wrote: »

People are deciding to not have kids for this very reason.

While the birth rate fell by .5% last year, Ireland has the highest birth rate in the EU.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-has-highest-birth-rate-and-lowest-death-rate-in-eu-1.3952983%3fmode=amp

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-vsys/vitalstatisticsyearlysummary2019/

redarmyblues

Dav010 wrote: »

While the birth rate fell by .5% last year, Ireland has the highest birth rate in the EU.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-has-highest-birth-rate-and-lowest-death-rate-in-eu-1.3952983%3fmode=amp

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-vsys/vitalstatisticsyearlysummary2019/

Could be up a bit next year.

The_Conductor

redarmyblues wrote: »

Could be up a bit next year.

Well, there hasn't been anything on the telly.......

the_syco

Smouse156 wrote: »

Therefore I have little issue seeing some of this paper wealth eroded

So you want less landlords, and less reason for anyone to become a landlord?

Smouse156 wrote: »

Most could buy on a single salary in their twenties.

When? Are you talking about during the "boom" years, or about some Civil Servant?

Austria!

The_Conductor wrote: »

We do have to broaden the tax base, significantly, and move away from crucifying workers with a combined rate of tax, PRSI, and USC of 52% kicking in at 35k

48.5% after 35k, 52% after 70k.

Smouse156

the_syco wrote: »

So you want less landlords, and less reason for anyone to become a landlord?


When? Are you talking about during the "boom" years, or about some Civil Servant?

No, I’m talking about the 70s, 80s & 90s. My dad as a young teacher could buy our home on a single salary in his late twenties. Not a hope any young teacher could buy it nowadays.

I want cheaper properties and a little thing we have never had in this country called “value for money”! I’d prefer landlords had more properties and rents were actually affordable. I’d just like to see overpriced land reduced by up to 80/90% through heavy taxation as land hoarders do nothing for society!

Think about it, the Brickie could get cheaper land and build cheaper. He could also sell cheaper (and yes before it’s pointed out he will sell as high as he can get but at least lower prices would be viable) and the landlord would get investment property cheaper. If land got expensive, the Govt would get most of the benefit and could pass this on to the Brickie when margins become unviable through lower VaT rates etc. The only loser is a tiny tiny minority of the population.

The 80% windfall tax needs to be reintroduced and a use it or lose it clause in relation to planning. The vacant site levy actually needs to be implemented. We would all end up better off as the people that are productive in society (even landlords as they provide a service) would have more value for money. Govt would gain the overpriced land benefit.

Finally for any clown that thinks land should be treated like a stock or another investment, it’s not! It’s necessary for people to have somewhere to live so cannot be compared to investing in other non-essential products like stocks. Govt need to control it better

Dav010

Smouse156 wrote: »

Finally for any clown that thinks land should be treated like a stock or another investment, it’s not! It’s necessary for people to have somewhere to live so cannot be compared to investing in other non-essential products like stocks. Govt need to control it better

You want the sale and ownership of land to be State controlled? In Ireland of all places.

Smouse156

Dav010 wrote: »

You want the sale and ownership of land to be State controlled? In Ireland of all places.

Just controlled enough to keep prices low so that useless unproductive land is used properly!

But it’s Ireland so never gonna happen

dotsman

Smouse156 wrote: »

No, I’m talking about the 70s, 80s & 90s. My dad as a young teacher could buy our home on a single salary in his late twenties. Not a hope any young teacher could buy it nowadays.

And exactly what decade did you father buy your house?

Can you think of any other differences between that decade and today that might significantly affect house prices? I'll give you a clue - there's loads (and nothing to do with greedy developers/landlords or government tax rules etc)

Smouse156

dotsman wrote: »

And exactly what decade did you father buy your house?

Can you think of any other differences between that decade and today that might significantly affect house prices? I'll give you a clue - there's loads (and nothing to do with greedy developers/landlords or government tax rules etc)

80s...yes the other fact is far more women are working and they decided it would be better to fleece two people for the same **** house rather than one. Interest rates have dropped considerably too, although even with that factored in, they’re still far more unaffordable especially for single people than they were.

Dav010

Smouse156 wrote: »

80s...yes the other fact is far more women are working and they decided it would be better to fleece two people for the same **** house rather than one. Interest rates have dropped considerably too, although even with that factored in, they’re still far more unaffordable especially for single people than they were.

So you are saying Government should intervene to force property/land owners to lower their asset value/price so that everyone can afford it?

Smouse156

Dav010 wrote: »

So you are saying Government should intervene to force property/land owners to lower their asset value/price so that everyone can afford it?

Im saying they should tax land aggressively to make housing affordable! I think I’ve said this now many times? Why is this so hard to comprehend?

I’ve also said that land cannot be looked on as a pure asset as it is vital to public interest. There are other things that are state/EU controlled such as drugs etc as these are also vital to public interest. You don’t hear drug companies complaining that they can’t sell whatever they want to whomever as it could effect their “asset”.

I’m not advocating for peoples private principal primary residence to be heavily taxed, just the empty fields and depilated sites (Iveagh markets) to be taxed aggressively so the owners are forced to develop it. Once developed and in use then the taxation can go way down. This would lower land prices overall (which are some of the most overpriced in Western Europe for the least densely populated country) so that housing could become more affordable at the expense of a few rich unproductive landowners (Martin Keane for example sitting on Iveagh Markets for decades which was only possible due to no land taxation). I know not everyone agrees...

Timing belt

Smouse156 wrote: »

Im saying they should tax land aggressively to make housing affordable! I think I’ve said this now many times? Why is this so hard to comprehend?

I’ve also said that land cannot be looked on as a pure asset as it is vital to public interest. There are other things that are state/EU controlled such as drugs etc as these are also vital to public interest. You don’t hear drug companies complaining that they can’t sell whatever they want to whomever as it could effect their “asset”.

I’m not advocating for peoples private principal primary residence to be heavily taxed, just the empty fields and depilated sites (Iveagh markets) to be taxed aggressively so the owners are forced to develop it. Once developed and in use then the taxation can go way down. This would lower land prices overall (which are some of the most overpriced in Western Europe for the least densely populated country) so that housing could become more affordable at the expense of a few rich unproductive landowners (Martin Keane for example sitting on Iveagh Markets for decades which was only possible due to no land taxation). I know not everyone agrees...

Large portions of the land are owned by government agencies/councils taxing them would make no difference. For developers that own land they would probably still hold and increase the price of it to recover costs of taxation. A better option is that they loose planning permission if not used and won’t be granted it again making them sell the land and some one else apply for planning knowing that if they don’t build within a year that the same thing will happen to them

PommieBast

Dav010 wrote: »

So you are saying Government should intervene to force property/land owners to lower their asset value/price so that everyone can afford it?

Making property affordable and existing owners having to lower value go hand-in-hand. Only difference is which way round they happen.

salonfire

Smouse156 wrote: »

My dad as a young teacher could buy our home on a single salary in his late twenties. Not a hope any young teacher could buy it nowadays.

Teachers have among the highest graduate salaries with increases due to increments and across the board % increases.

A teacher would have no problem buying in the vast vast majority of the country, - the exception being Dublin, maybe Cork - where private salaries are nowhere near the same. Not many Multinationals paying €37000 to graduates in Carrick-On-Shannon.

Jizique

Dav010 wrote: »

So you are saying Government should intervene to force property/land owners to lower their asset value/price so that everyone can afford it?

Well, they are planning another intervention whereby they take an equity stake in a property (of €100k I believe) to ensure that the average Irish buyer can access a house he can’t afford;

Should the govt start taking an equity stake in cars? Land prices are too high and clearly only supported at current levels by govt willingness to subsidize house purchase (despite historical low interest rates) and unwillingness to force the owners of land to develop it (through its lack of a tax policy on said land)

dotsman

Smouse156 wrote: »

80s...yes the other fact is far more women are working and they decided it would be better to fleece two people for the same **** house rather than one. Interest rates have dropped considerably too, although even with that factored in, they’re still far more unaffordable especially for single people than they were.

Yes, 2-income households are now the norm, which causes house prices to rise dramatically. However, who is this "they" that decided to "fleece" us? There is no "they". There is no secret society who meet and decide on how much John & Mary are going to bid to beat Peter & Susan who also desire the same property. John & Mary and Peter & Susan and a lot of other couples, and a few single people are all desperately trying to borrow as much much as possible to outbid each other for the tiny supply of housing.

House prices, like most things are simply down to supply and demand. Over the past 3 decades, demand for housing has increased substantially, while supply has nowhere near kept up, hence the price rises.

Other major factors to contribute to today's house prices, besides women staying in the workplace, include:

• a massive increase in population from 3 million to 5 million (that is a 66% increase);
• a large push to urban areas to seek professional, modern jobs (so a huge proportion of that population increase has been in our cities);
• a decrease in household size, with 2 adults and 3-4 kids (and possibly a grandparent) per house now becoming 1-2 adults with 1-2 kids (so a lot more houses required today to accommodate the same number of people compared to back in the '80s);
• a massive increase in the standard of living/income levels, resulting in huge demand for modern & quality housing, as well as being able to bid higher amounts;
• despite the huge increase in incomes, for many, the standard of living increase is often also on the back of "spending instead of saving" and debt-fuelled spending, resulting in a scary amount of thirty-year-olds who have sweet fa life-savings or lack a positive attitude to savings (people in the 80's didn't have broadband, tv subscriptions, mobile phone plans, gym memberships, weekends away, brand-new cars, ridiculous weddings, ridiculous insurance premiums for everything, designer-brand clothes, consumer electronics etc, etc, etc); and
• a dogged determination by councillors & gob$hites alike to ensure all urban planning in the last 30 years has been focused on keeping our cities as old, dirty, unsuitable, low-density, industrial era working class provincial towns, resulting in everybody competing for a tiny amount of suitable housing and a small amount of ok housing.

Taxing or untaxing land has nothing to do with it. What land are you looking to tax? Dublin has already sprawled out far more than it can handle (hence the brutal commutes/traffic). We've had countless tax policies down through the years trying to "manage" the property market, but none of them have worked, and often made the situation worse. Until we address the underlying problems, everything else is just a damp band-aid.

Modern urban planning with high density housing and offices in the city centre, surrounded by medium density housing, finally encapsulated by low density and industrial/retail zones, all designed around rapid mass transport enables suitable housing with large interior sizes, cheap cost per sq meter, access to amenities and facilities as well as quick, easy & environmentally friendly commuting.

mrslancaster

It doesn't help that more than 40% of the population live in Dublin and the number of people who want to live in the capital has seen a huge increase. Other parts of the country are still more affordable. Maybe if we had a more evenly distributed population the huge costs of housing and the transport problems in Dublin would be less acute.