Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

The State is the one crowding out first time buyers, not investment funds

  • 09-05-2021 1:27pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 645 ✭✭✭ Fred Cryton


    All the talk in the media about funds buying up property is misplaced. The anger is misdirected and should be focused at the State, the councils and so called "Approved housing bodies"



    Let's be clear here. The REITs are just the middle men. Ultimately they are only doing this because they can lease to the council at guaranteed rent.


    It is the council, backed by taxpayer funding, that is ultimately the real enemy of the hard working first time buyer. Let's not lose sight of that.



    The answer here is for the government to get the heck out of the housing market and just let the private sector and private capital rip. Someone needs to stand up for the hard working first time buyer against the well funded councils housing their welfare class voters at enormous expense in desirable areas.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 27,204 ✭✭✭✭ end of the road


    the state did exactly what you are suggesting it should do, hence why we are where we are.

    julian the journalist asange is innocent, free julian the journalist.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,620 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    the state is still facilitating the sectors that have caused all our property issues, i.e. the fire sectors(finance, insurance and real estate)


  • Registered Users Posts: 645 ✭✭✭ Fred Cryton


    the state did exactly what you are suggesting it should do, hence why we are where we are.


    Wrong. The State interfered in the market by entering into agreements with REITs for council housing. That's not staying out of the market.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,501 ✭✭✭ Outkast_IRE


    The most worrying thing in all this is that the state is apparently entering into contracts for 15-20 years rent at a fixed rate. So even we start building enough homes and apartments the state will be paying rent at todays rates for 20 years potentially - And own no asset at the end of it !


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,893 ✭✭✭ NSAman


    The most worrying thing in all this is that the state is apparently entering into contracts for 15-20 years rent at a fixed rate. So even we start building enough homes and apartments the state will be paying rent at todays rates for 20 years potentially - And own no asset at the end of it !

    Not to mention getting nothing or very little in the way of tax from profits.

    Utter madness!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,501 ✭✭✭ Outkast_IRE


    NSAman wrote: »
    Not to mention getting nothing or very little in the way of tax from profits.

    Utter madness!
    Yeah a balance needs to be struck, but the conditions i would say are overly favourable for the funds right now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,893 ✭✭✭ NSAman


    Yeah a balance needs to be struck, but the conditions i would say are overly favourable for the funds right now.

    I’m not a landlord, but I can see that landlords (private) are being discriminated against in the current set up.

    I also saw somewhere on line that BTL mortgages were practically obliterated in the past decade.

    Favoured taxation set-ups for investment firms over traditional rental landlords is a disaster waiting to happen (is already happening).

    The government FFFG have been abysmal in dealing with housing matters. Short-term solutions are not what are required. Unfortunately, they are not long term thinkers (not thinking at all) when it comes to this issue.

    Levelling the playing field, in relation to taxation, building government controlled (council) housing and also creating a system where building is not the cash cow for tax from Irish companies is the long term solution.

    We all know that planning in Ireland is a joke. The costs, the process and political interference in same, has caused more damage than it has solved.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,620 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    NSAman wrote: »
    I’m not a landlord, but I can see that landlords (private) are being discriminated against in the current set up.

    I also saw somewhere on line that BTL mortgages were practically obliterated in the past decade.

    Favoured taxation set-ups for investment firms over traditional rental landlords is a disaster waiting to happen (is already happening).

    The government FFFG have been abysmal in dealing with housing matters. Short-term solutions are not what are required. Unfortunately, they are not long term thinkers (not thinking at all) when it comes to this issue.

    Levelling the playing field, in relation to taxation, building government controlled (council) housing and also creating a system where building is not the cash cow for tax from Irish companies is the long term solution.

    We all know that planning in Ireland is a joke. The costs, the process and political interference in same, has caused more damage than it has solved.

    yup, small time landlords are also in serious trouble under such an economy, you simply cannot compete against such monopiles


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,818 ✭✭✭ Darc19


    NSAman wrote: »
    I’m not a landlord, but I can see that landlords (private) are being discriminated against in the current set up.

    I also saw somewhere on line that BTL mortgages were practically obliterated in the past decade.

    Favoured taxation set-ups for investment firms over traditional rental landlords is a disaster waiting to happen (is already happening).

    The government FFFG have been abysmal in dealing with housing matters. Short-term solutions are not what are required. Unfortunately, they are not long term thinkers (not thinking at all) when it comes to this issue.

    Levelling the playing field, in relation to taxation, building government controlled (council) housing and also creating a system where building is not the cash cow for tax from Irish companies is the long term solution.

    We all know that planning in Ireland is a joke. The costs, the process and political interference in same, has caused more damage than it has solved.

    Favourable taxation is available to certain types of pension funds accessible to many ordinary people.

    But councils including some with sinn Fein majority are renting bulk properties from these institutional landlords and are paying premium rents.

    An immediate stop by any council renting bulk properties should be enacted immediately.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,644 ✭✭✭✭ Dempo1


    Not sure how we got here but the harsh reality is if pension, vulture funds continue to be able to block purchase new housing, new buyers and those wishing to upgrade are essentially excluded, that can not be right. There's also the two immediate effects, House prices rising dramatically and Rents becoming extortionate (albeit they are already)

    I was amused watching virgin media news this evening, their correspondant falling over herself with the news house viewing permitted again, all well and good if potential buyers actually get to see properties before they are sold from under them and that's before most average people could afford to purchase a property at the moment.

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    NSAman wrote: »
    The government FFFG have been abysmal in dealing with housing matters. Short-term solutions are not what are required. Unfortunately, they are not long term thinkers (not thinking at all) when it comes to this issue.

    They can't afford to be long term thinkers. Voters want this resolved and they want it resolved now. People want to push, via taxation, property funds out of the market here now, because the affordable housing bodies are struggling to buy houses. Things just keep getting worse here instead of better when it comes to housing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,204 ✭✭✭✭ end of the road


    Wrong. The State interfered in the market by entering into agreements with REITs for council housing. That's not staying out of the market.

    no, but that only began happening after the effects of them staying out of the market became clear.
    they did what you suggested, it failed, time to go back and do something that actually did work.

    julian the journalist asange is innocent, free julian the journalist.



  • Registered Users Posts: 398 ✭✭ The DayDream


    You know what, I had a feeling it couldn't be all the rich folks' fault. It's always the poor who screw over the middle class, isn't it? with all their money, power, influence and connections.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,372 ✭✭✭✭ One eyed Jack


    All the talk in the media about funds buying up property is misplaced. The anger is misdirected and should be focused at the State, the councils and so called "Approved housing bodies"



    The answer here is for the government to get the heck out of the housing market and just let the private sector and private capital rip. Someone needs to stand up for the hard working first time buyer against the well funded councils housing their welfare class voters at enormous expense in desirable areas.


    Nice try Fred :D

    How do you see your idea working out for people who cannot afford to buy property because they are priced out of the property market by private capital investment funds? That’s why the Government is involved in regulating the property market, to prevent that sort of thing from happening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,168 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump


    the state did exactly what you are suggesting it should do, hence why we are where we are.




    No, the state can still build its own social housing. By definition, that housing isn't being produced for the market. It would be produced for those who cannot get into the market. They can build as many of those as they want.


    What they are doing is instead entering the market and essentially outbidding private individuals with public money.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,620 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78


    No, the state can still build its own social housing. By definition, that housing isn't being produced for the market. It would be produced for those who cannot get into the market. They can build as many of those as they want.


    What they are doing is instead entering the market and essentially outbidding private individuals with public money.

    the abilities of the market of being able to produce all of our needs is clearly untrue, its a figment of our imaginations, there has never been such a thing as invisible people, with invisible hands, its time for us to grow up a bit and accept this


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,305 ✭✭✭✭ jimmycrackcorm


    The most worrying thing in all this is that the state is apparently entering into contracts for 15-20 years rent at a fixed rate. So even we start building enough homes and apartments the state will be paying rent at todays rates for 20 years potentially - And own no asset at the end of it !


    That's no worse than building council houses that have never gotten handed back to the state.
    Either they get sold off cheaply to the tenants or the tenants children's get to hold on to them after.

    At least this way the state doesn't have to pay up front for the house build.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,736 ✭✭✭ growleaves


    All the talk in the media about funds buying up property is misplaced. The anger is misdirected and should be focused at the State, the councils and so called "Approved housing bodies"



    Let's be clear here. The REITs are just the middle men. Ultimately they are only doing this because they can lease to the council at guaranteed rent.


    It is the council, backed by taxpayer funding, that is ultimately the real enemy of the hard working first time buyer. Let's not lose sight of that.



    The answer here is for the government to get the heck out of the housing market and just let the private sector and private capital rip. Someone needs to stand up for the hard working first time buyer against the well funded councils housing their welfare class voters at enormous expense in desirable areas.

    I don't know what the exact breakdown of buyers is but between REITs buying to let to councils, sovereign wealth funds and individual buyers there are many factors at play.

    The ECB's suppression of bond rates has helped to turn houses into financialised assets.

    There are foreign investors, possibly even foreign governments(?), buying up houses here. If you "let them rip" they will buy properties as investments giving a better return than cash or stocks and they mightn't even bother with tenants.

    Also the constriction of supply is partly due to lockdown. Feel free to oppose that ludicrous piece of "state intervention".


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,305 ✭✭✭✭ jimmycrackcorm


    Wanderer78 wrote:
    the abilities of the market of being able to produce all of our needs is clearly untrue, its a figment of our imaginations, there has never been such a thing as invisible people, with invisible hands, its time for us to grow up a bit and accept this

    The same applies to the state. The abilities if the state to produce all of our needs is clearly untrue. If it was then we wouldn't need to have anyone pay for private health insurance as an example.

    The state could go back to producing enough housing through schemes such as the Ballymun flats, if it could do something about the antisocial element.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,168 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    the abilities of the market of being able to produce all of our needs is clearly untrue, its a figment of our imaginations, there has never been such a thing as invisible people, with invisible hands, its time for us to grow up a bit and accept this




    I think you misunderstood my post. The state/councils should not be getting involved in the private sector market like they currently do. We are in a situation where you have desk jockeys using your public money to outbid you on that house you want to buy.



    It can be building its own social housing because that is, or could be, a parallel system. They can do that and still stay out of the market.



    If the council builds a council estate, the direct effect on me is only that the council, with its relatively unlimited budget, is now not going to be competing against me for the private house I want to buy. The houses it built are irrelevant to me otherwise. They are for people on housing lists. They are not flooding the market.


    The council can still outsource the building to the private sector for their own houses. But in the sense that they have a site, put it out to tender, and agree a contract with a builder to build X houses on it for Y. That's if they want to do it. Swooping in on just finished houses and outbidding private buyers is wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭ Shebean


    All the talk in the media about funds buying up property is misplaced. The anger is misdirected and should be focused at the State, the councils and so called "Approved housing bodies"



    Let's be clear here. The REITs are just the middle men. Ultimately they are only doing this because they can lease to the council at guaranteed rent.


    It is the council, backed by taxpayer funding, that is ultimately the real enemy of the hard working first time buyer. Let's not lose sight of that.



    The answer here is for the government to get the heck out of the housing market and just let the private sector and private capital rip. Someone needs to stand up for the hard working first time buyer against the well funded councils housing their welfare class voters at enormous expense in desirable areas.



    Where are all the voting unemployed welfare classes? Surely there's more squeezed middle working voters? Pre Covid unemployment nationwide was 4.93%. I think you've been sold a pup.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,611 ✭✭✭ Jinglejangle69


    I see DCC voted against buying up of estates by vulture funds even though they are the ones encouraging it by taking out long term leases with the funds.

    This country..


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,666 ✭✭✭✭ Kermit.de.frog


    All the talk in the media about funds buying up property is misplaced. The anger is misdirected and should be focused at the State, the councils and so called "Approved housing bodies"



    Let's be clear here. The REITs are just the middle men. Ultimately they are only doing this because they can lease to the council at guaranteed rent.


    It is the council, backed by taxpayer funding, that is ultimately the real enemy of the hard working first time buyer. Let's not lose sight of that.



    The answer here is for the government to get the heck out of the housing market and just let the private sector and private capital rip. Someone needs to stand up for the hard working first time buyer against the well funded councils housing their welfare class voters at enormous expense in desirable areas.

    We need to have the council's investigated over planning as well. Another big issue.

    Everyone's attention should be focused on what Dublin City Council is doing in Dublin Docklands, limiting height of buildings to just a few floors.

    There could 10's of thousands of apartments built there.

    A scandle and massive distortion of the market. They are taking An Bord Pleanala to court to PRRVENT new housing.

    Another part of the problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,187 ✭✭✭✭ _Kaiser_


    Councils are definitely part of the issue alright.

    As I've posted here before, I live in an end of terrace row of 4. In the last 2 years or so, 2 of those have been bought by the council and used for social housing tenants. It's happening everywhere.

    It's not just other regular buyers that people are competing with, it's councils using their taxes as well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,290 ✭✭✭✭ mariaalice


    Social housing is not going away, if social housing was not purchased from the developer and was built directly by the housing associations or local council there would still be competition for land and labor to build the houses so it would change nothing for the first-time buyer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭ JimmyVik


    I started a thread a good while ago about what the councils were doing in the property forum and a mod closed it, accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist. Well I guess the cat is out of the bag now. God know what can be done about it at this point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,187 ✭✭✭✭ _Kaiser_


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Social housing is not going away, if social housing was not purchased from the developer and was built directly by the housing associations or local council there would still be competition for land and labor to build the houses so it would change nothing for the first-time buyer.

    It's not just buyers. Private renters are similarly under pressure because of this practise - and this is before things like O'Gorman's "own door" policy for migrants starts to come into play.

    Reallocating existing supply to those who pay little to nothing for it at the expense of those who work damn hard, pay a lot of taxes and charges, and yet have nothing to show for it, is a clear sign of a broken system.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,666 ✭✭✭✭ Kermit.de.frog


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    I started a thread a good while ago about what the councils were doing in the property forum and a mod closed it, accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist. Well I guess the cat is out of the bag now. God know what can be done about it at this point.

    It's not conspiracy. There is a range of measures being used to intentionally distort the market for various reasons.

    Sinn Fein got nearly 1,000 new units in Coolock stopped because it didn't include enough social housing despite something like half being dedicated.

    That's the type of sh!te your dealing with.

    There should be an investigation in to particular councils in this country starting with DCC and their planning policies but others as well.

    Parties like SF and other objectors should also get proper attention from the public for their antics in denying supply in areas most needed.

    People think the corruption ended in the 90's.

    They are in for a rude awakening and it will all come out eventually just like back then.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,333 ✭✭✭✭ Dyr


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    It's not just buyers. Private renters are similarly under pressure because of this practise - and this is before things like O'Gorman's "own door" policy for migrants starts to come into play.

    Reallocating existing supply to those who pay little to nothing for it at the expense of those who work damn hard, pay a lot of taxes and charges, and yet have nothing to show for it, is a clear sign of a broken system.

    We seem to think we can run a society with and endless supply of inbound migration increasing the population in flash floods

    Demand will always outstrip supply when the economy is doing well, and apparently even when it isnt, as the covid local lockdown demonstrates


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,290 ✭✭✭✭ mariaalice


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    I started a thread a good while ago about what the councils were doing in the property forum and a mod closed it, accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist. Well I guess the cat is out of the bag now. God know what can be done about it at this point.

    That is an ideological point and like it or not most people don't care or have no interest in the ideology of it.

    Unless the state bans social housing something that is most unlikely to happen any change would not increase supply or decrease prices, it would be just tinkering with the market. The only thing that will have an effect is supply meeting demand so more building.


Advertisement