If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on 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

The HELP TO BUY scheme must go - NOW

  • 15-12-2021 9:16pm
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭

    The help to buy scheme gives money (30k) to first time buyers towards the purchase of a home and it can be used as part of a deposit.

    This means buyers have 30k more to add to the price of a house.

    It does not increase supply, the houses are being built anyways.

    I'm sure I'll be met with comments like "but without the help to buy, we wouldn't have been able to afford to buy". If you didn't get the help to buy money, would those houses be left sitting unsold now? No, they would be sold anyways to people who could afford it.

    In addition, it's for all first time buyers. Even those couples earning a combined 130k. Another point is that new builds are gone exceedingly expensive that those that would actually benefit from a free 30k are now priced out of new builds!

    In my experience of people who have availed of this scheme, they're all either big earners who wouldn't need financial assistance or they were always going to build in the sticks anyways. In my office there are a number of high earners in management positions, earning 70k+. They are from the sticks and were always going to build. One of them, for example, when asked about the scheme a couple of years ago during lunch they remarked "just have to fill in a few forms, free 20k". And it is just that, a free 20k because they were always going to build. Meanwhile, the ones aged 26,27,28,29,30 etc who are earning 30-45k are priced out of new builds and the scheme is as useful as a chocolate tea pot to them.

    The scheme needs to go, it's a populist scheme by FFG.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,747 ✭✭✭thomas 123

    Id argue it should remain but only on self builds. Developers get the land cheap in many cases, avail of bulk discounts on building, then really do capitalize on market prices.

    For me its vital so I can afford to build a modest house on modest land that I had to save for myself.

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,071 ✭✭✭✭L1011

    The State should not be unduly supporting self-builds when we have a climate crisis on - one-off houses are not sustainable environmentally with car dependence, on-site sewage treatment and so on.

    Unless you mean on serviced land in a town, which I know does exist (sister in law is doing it currently - mains sewers, footpath to the local school etc - but that's exceptionally rare even where she is). Even then I wouldn't support state financial support though.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,747 ✭✭✭thomas 123

    That is going to be an issue that will need to be looked at on a whole country level. I don't think forcing country people to live in estates is really an answer to the climate crisis though. My house has to be built with very expensive climate considerations in mind as you probably know.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,747 ✭✭✭thomas 123

    One thing actually that comes to mind - You should be able to use that cash on a second hand or derelict(Total/partial rebuild) - we looked at this as an option originally but your not allowed use it unless its a new self build or new buy.

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,071 ✭✭✭✭L1011

    Well, the alternative to estates is clustered housing on much smaller average sites; which would make things like rural bus services, sewage, broadband somewhat affordable. This is what we had pre-famine all across the country, small clusters of houses in each townland.

    But I don't see why "country people" can't live in housing estates, seeing as I'd say half of the people in the GDA are from "country people" backgrounds!

    The 300sqm on an acre things that dot the countryside now are never going to be sustainable.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,071 ✭✭✭✭L1011

    A subsidy for restoration of derelict would be sensible

  • Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭Jmc25

    I'd agree with you but also won't happen in the short term. Abolishing it is a no-win situation for the government as the construction lobby won't like it and (against their own self-interest), neither will the majority of first time buyers.

    It was a stroke pulled by the government on behalf of the construction industry at the time - funnelling cash to developers through first time buyers.

    Looking at it favourably, it was supposed to increase demand at the price point developers like to build, in the hope of increasing supply. It didn't work and as you say should be abolished.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Tow

    The only people I know who benefited where on good money, applied and bought when the scheme first started. I know 3 families who have paid deposit/ just bought, in the last few months. They have all paid the current inflated prices with the grant built into the price. Good friends bought in the hight of the recession, a repossession off a bank. People said they were mad, but their house is now worth at least 4-5 times what they paid. Their mortgage is a little over 400 per month.

    When is the money (including lost growth) Michael Noonan took in the Pension Levy going to be paid back?

  • Registered Users Posts: 1 DHMcg

    Total rubbish scheme. The bank would laugh at me if I asked for 70% mortgage – I’m having to manage with loans from family to top up amount I needed – after saving for donkey’s years I’m too poor to get anything from this scheme. Its laughable that it is sold as being to help those struggling to get on the property ladder.