The accelerating fall in Sinn Féin support

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122583425#Comment_122583425

The First Home Scheme is different, because if your fortunes change, a promotion in a job, an inheritance etc., you can buy out the State stake, and then further down the road you can sell to anyone in the market or leave the full property to your descendants. Those are two significant material differences between the First Home Scheme and the SF Weird Scheme.

I am struggling to see any additional benefit to the SF Scheme over the First Home Scheme. Even you claim they are the same, despite the benefits I see in the FHS. Not a single poster is able to explain the advantages of the SF Scheme.

deezell

Is it just me, or is there an air of desperation in Mary Lou's demeanour as she frantically waves her Little Red Green Book about, like Mein Kampf. It's more of an ideological treatise than a realistic development plan.

There are no out of work bricklayers waiting for your 38 billion splurge Mary, unless you advertise, in Russia or China maybe.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122583823#Comment_122583823

Again, you are wrong.

With the FHS, you can take two steps. You can buy out the State equity at one point (say 5 years after buying) and sell the house at another point (say 10 years after buying). You must make both steps in one go with the SF Scheme, meaning that the FHS has greater flexibility for the buyer, another advantage of the FHS that the SF Scheme throws away.

The thing is, the FHS is here and working, to change from it requires a Scheme that shows greater benefit. The SF Scheme is worse.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122583567#Comment_122583567

With a normal house or the FHS, the pool of purchasers for the bank repossessing is huge, thereby reducing the risk.

For the SF Scheme house, the pool of purchasers is smaller, is dependent on the whims of the Government of the time as to who is eligible, and what price the house can be sold for, thereby increasing the risk significantly.

That is clearly obvious to anyone who thinks for half a second about the scheme. I would expect that the banks will therefore be reluctant to lend on the same terms to the SF Scheme. For example, they may limit borrowing to three times income instead of four times, therefore balancing out the risk.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584247#Comment_122584247

If your "fortunes change, a promotion in a job, an inheritance etc." in a FHS house after 5 years you can buy out the equity and then sell the house after 10 years to trade up.

And if your "fortunes change, a promotion in a job, an inheritance etc." in an SF house after 5 years you can invest that equivalent sum and then sell the house after 10 years to trade up.

In both cases if you're selling to trade up after 10 years you need to close a similiar significant funding gap.

As Danzy said this is just opposition for opposition sake.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584485#Comment_122584485

In the SF house, you are dependent on the investment matching the increase in equity and house prices, an additional risk, and you may lose on your other investment.

In the FHS house, you are investing in the asset you later wish to trade for another similar asset, which reduces the risk.

Again, the advantage is with the FHS house, but even if you are correct, that the risk is the same, you still haven't explained (and neither have SF, to be fair) how the SF house scheme is an improvement on the FHS. It simply isn't, it limits choice in terms of the house buyer's options, it permanently restricts the equity share, and it severely restricts the circumstances in which the house can be sold.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584563#Comment_122584563

The reason it is an improvement is also blindingly obvious.

The attraction is the state subsidy is perpetual.

If you buy a house without having to pay the value of the land because the state retains ownership, you get a big chunky discount on equivalent houses, the only drawback being when you come to sell the house on you won't enjoy any uplift in land values that has taken place.

The next buyer also enjoys the benefit of the state subsidy getting a discount on equivalent houses. Sure the price may have appreciated (or fallen) a little but it will not have moved in sync with the rest of the market.

And crucially not only can the state subsidy being enjoyed by by subsequent purchasers, it does not inflate the mainstream market with taxpayers money.

In FFG's model the subsidy which is in monetary terms larger (30%) not only ends with the initial purchaser, but it also inflates the market to the detriment of everybody.

An extreme example of how badly wrong this has gone is the Oscar Traynor land. The govt basically sold the land at a vast discount to the developers - giant subsidy number 1 - on the promise they would deliver "affordable" houses on the land.

Turns out the affordable houses on state land in Coolock cost 475k, and the affordability can only be achieved by a second subsidy to the buyers - 30% equity. You're a fool if you think that 30% is ever getting paid back. And even if it does the only benefit is to the original buyer who is incentivised to get on board with the pulling up the ladder mentality.

SO the government no longer owns the land it sold at a huge discount to market value in order to acheive supply of affordable homes, and still needs to risk further taxpayers money to make those homes affordable, and the benefit of this is only enjoyed by the individual buyer. It's total madness

Sure the shared equity scheme might be better for individual buyers who want to get a taxpayer subsidised wealth generating boost, or for anybody who likes to see the govt doing their bit to inflate the market.

But for everybody else the SF scheme is a considerable improvement.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584684#Comment_122584684

There are several problems with your analysis.

Firstly, you admit that there is a drawback "being when you come to sell the house on you won't enjoy any uplift in land values that has taken place". That means you will be at a disadvantage compared to every single person who bought outside of the scheme. Why would an individual take that on?

Secondly, you are correct that the next buyer may (and I would underline may) enjoy the benefit of a discount. But voters don't consider future buyers, neither does somebody buying a house think that it is great that someone else will get this house to my disadvantage.

Thirdly, you make an unfounded accusation that the 30% will never be paid back. It is built into the scheme that it will. What is more, the taxpayer benefits from any increase in prices.

Fourthly, and this is where it ultimately falls down. You state correctly that "the shared equity scheme might be better for individual buyers who want to get a taxpayer subsidised wealth generating boost." Those are the exact people who are most concerned by the housing issue. People like me who already own their house aren't voting in the next election based on housing. The people in the next election who are voting based on housing are individual buyers who want to get a taxpayer subsidised wealth generating boost. As you have said, and which I agree, the shared equity scheme is better for them. Of course, those with an ideological belief in the supremacy of socialism will vote for the SF scheme, but those looking for a house will want the FHS, and the rest of us with houses already, really don't care. That might be a cynical view in your eyes, but it also means the SF scheme is a vote-loser.

deezell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584563#Comment_122584563

There's our first election soundbite, 'A Sinn Fein House'.

Aurelian

This all seems absurdly complicated, why not just do:

Build homes and sell them to people

Build homes and rent them to people (let them remain council houses or allow the tenants to buy them after a while)

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584735#Comment_122584735

Firstly, you admit that there is a drawback "being when you come to sell the house on you won't enjoy any uplift in land values that has taken place". That means you will be at a disadvantage compared to every single person who bought outside of the scheme. Why would an individual take that on?

Yes it is a drawback from an individual's point of view, but it is the only drawback.

If you cannot afford to buy outside of the scheme, then you're already at a disadvantage. Nobody suggesting any individual forced to buy an affordable home if they'd prefer to buy an open market home to speculate on the uplift in land values.

You're looking at this from the point of an individual buyer who is benefiting from the subsidy, I am looking at from the point of the taxpayer who is paying for the subsidy. That's where we differ. It has many more benefits for the taxpayer than the FHS does.

In my opinion that is a good thing.

Secondly, you are correct that the next buyer may (and I would underline may) enjoy the benefit of a discount. But voters don't consider future buyers, neither does somebody buying a house think that it is great that someone else will get this house to my disadvantage.

Again it is pretty simple to spot where we differ here. I am sick to the back teeth of short term govt policies designed simply to buy votes at the next election from an increasingly short sighted electorate. Neither government or voter could care a damn about the long term damage being done. This policy is a dramatic shift from that, and that's why I think it is a good thing.

Thirdly, you make an unfounded accusation that the 30% will never be paid back. It is built into the scheme that it will. What is more, the taxpayer benefits from any increase in prices.

Unfounded as it is so far untested, so neither of us know for sure. One of things I don't like abut it is it has all the hallmarks of a future taxpayer funded write off scheme.

Take Oscar Traynor for example, by definition the low end of the market in a location that is also the low end of the market.

Currently an FTBer can buy one of those for the guts of half a million with 30% equity shared with the taxpayer. If that FTBer subsequently wants to sell the house, it is a second hand house and this not eligible for the 30% equity scheme for the next buyer, so in order to get the 30% back, now we need find somebody who is willing to pay half a million for a house in an estate in cost rental and social housing estate in Coolock.

I suspect those buyers will be thin on the ground, you may think they will be abundant. Again it is a difference of opinion.

People like me who already own their house aren't voting in the next election based on housing.

I suspect plenty of property owners who have enjoyed the significant uplift in values in their property under FFG policies and may fear that trend reversing under SF will most definitely vote based on housing.

individual buyers who want to get a taxpayer subsidised wealth generating boost.

I suspect you are totally correct here and they will vote accordingly.

Which brings me back to the earlier point - I'm sick to the back teeth of short term govt policies designed simply to buy votes at the next election from an increasingly short sighted electorate.

I think that is a bad thing. You may disagree.

I think at this stage we can agree to disagree.

ednwireland

I'm not sure what the issue with not owning the land, surely it's just a leasehold property. loads in the UK, quite often you renegotiate to 999 years when you buy.

iif the lease is plenty more than the life of the mortgage banks won't have a problem.

deezell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122585063#Comment_122585063

Its not that long ago, (well it is to a millenial), when home owners took the streets to protest over colonial 'ground rents' on their homes, which they felt were 100% theirs after a lifetime paying for them. Don't mention the UK.

Francie Barrett

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122585063#Comment_122585063

The leasehold system is a hold over from feudal times and both the Tories and Labour want to abolish it completely, indeed the Tories have already ended the practice for new build properties.

Why anyone want to bring back an anachronistic practice that belonged in medieval times is beyond me, but these are the times we live in and Sinn are the people who are proposing it. Hopefully people will see some sense and reject these far-left, nut-jobs.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584052#Comment_122584052

The FHS is not like the SF scheme at all. The SF scheme cannot allow a property price rise, outside of inflation.

The FHS allows the property to grow with the market. If the amount of equity you need to pay back grows, so does the value of your home.

You are going to see a much larger profit on the private market than you would with a SF house; not withstanding the fact that the same house in the same area of Dubin have vastly different starting prices.

The house on the private market & with the bigger starting price is allowed to become more expensive, because it grows with the market and can be sold to anyone.

The cheaper SF house is capped and cannot grow in value at all, outside of inflation. And when you want to sell it, not only are you selling if for a low price compared to the private house across the street, the pool of buyers you have is restricted, so it could take longer to sell.

The cost to the tax payer of hiring a whole new public construction service to deliver SF houses is an increase in govt funding, not a decrease!

Not to mention that those paying the income tax, folks on average incomes or above, wouldn't qualify for the SF homes they are funding anyway, because they earn too much!

The irony.

deezell

The Elephant in the room is that SF see no irony in pursuing this super socialist housing ideology with eye watering cost of €38B to the state, using funds generated by our successful Capitalism and business model. I stopped reading at 'publicly owned building department'. We have one, the OPW, they spent the construction cost of two small houses on a bike shelter.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582398#Comment_122582398

We judge people by what they do, rather than what they say. Over a period of time.

And FG in particular have had three terms to sort matters and put their stamp on policies.

And we see the results of their policy stamp. Time is up. It's that simple. Maybe in 10-15 years time, they'll get another go.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122585146#Comment_122585146

…land is currently being used to simply extract wealth by what is termed rent seeking measures, such an approach is none productive, it doesnt actually add value to an economy, and only truly benefits rent seekers, which is generally more wealthier entities of society, and by doing so, simply indebts none owners of land. its highly destructive for critical social needs such as social mobility, the ability for people to move from lower economic status to a higher status. all in all, this just accelerates wealth inequality, whereby we end up with most assets being owned by smaller and smaller group sets in our societies, leaving everyone else heavily indebted to these wealthier entities, and needing to effectively rent from these land/asset owners….

…i wouldnt be overly worrying about though, this dynamic is not set to change anytime soon, certainly not under ffg lead governments, which are set to remain in government, and probably for a very long time…

…..we just have to accept your kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews are just screwed, particularly in relation to their current and future property needs…..

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122585749#Comment_122585749

FG are leading the first preference polls.

They are ahead of SF.

It is more likley we will see a FFG govt than a SF one.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122585878#Comment_122585878

SF creating a two-tiered housing system would widen the gap between private buyers and non-private buyers.

The private buyers would see their property rise faster and their wealth expand, while the purchasers of the SF homes would see no price growth above basic inflation.

The scheme would make it all but impossible for an owner of a SF home to upscale to the private market in later life.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122586001#Comment_122586001

yup, sf have stuffed it, and ffg are playing a stormer, their agreement blocking technique will continue to work well into the 30's, tis all good…..

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122586030#Comment_122586030

Yes, its the most likley outcome. I have been saying for the past 12 months we will see an FFG govt returned, but its more likley than ever now.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122586025#Comment_122586025

…and ffg's primarily financialised approach is working by……

…continually implementing policies that are well known to simply push up the price of property and land, i.e. a demand side approach, wont solve this problem, we all know, its a supply side problem, pushing more money into the sector, first time buyers etc, has been done in other countries, and surprise surprise, the result was exactly the same as ireland, i.e. higher prices, this wont solve the problem, its just exasperating it!

sf certainly also dont know what to do about this, but really, have ffg the answers!

…again, dont worry, theres not going to be a sf government, and for a very long time either, its gonna be ffg all the way…..

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122586048#Comment_122586048

The FTB scheme may have a slighly inflationary effect on prices, but if it helps young couples get on the ladder because they don't have a deposit (and it does help them), then so be it.

Better a 400k house a couple can afford with deposit from the govt than a 350k house they can't afford because they will NEVER raise the 35k deposit themselves.

SF would abolish that suppprt and those couples wouldn't get on the ladder at all.

BTW, they won't qualify for a SF home either, because they earn an average salary each, which takes them over the 90k earning limit.

It comes down to a numbers game. Who will build the most homes, of all types, over the next 5 years.

FFG win that race at a canter and have record commencements already this year.

Anyone earning an average salary or above that wants to be a home owner would be much better off under the FFG housing policy. Its that simple.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122586084#Comment_122586084

go again there butty, theres clear evidence both here and in other countries than when governments implement demand side policies towards housing, i.e. push more money into the sector, by whatever means, including and in particular first time buyers etc, that the money is simply used to inflate the price of property, and doesnt actually stimulate the supply side of the equation, i.e. it doesnt actually increase the supply of property.

this approach has clearly been the approach of both ffg, and for many decades now, this approach is also termed financialisation, which ultimately only truly benefits older, asset owning, including pre-existing property and land owners, which is clearly the main voting base of both ffg.

ffg also have a refusal to implement potential capping policies of price inflation such as appropriate land value taxes, dereliction taxes, land and property hoarding taxes, all of which would help suppress inflation, but in saying that, none of the main parties want to go anywhere near potentially one of the better policies of increasing property taxes, to try cap inflation

this dynamic is set to continue for many more years, due to the fact, its not truly possible for an alternative government to be formed, due to the fact, ffg are simply blocking that possibility, as that was the intention of confidence and supply….

again, dont worry, nothings gonna change, if you own assets such as property and land, you re laughing, your kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews may not be though, but shur thats their problem!

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122586134#Comment_122586134

again, dont worry, nothings gonna change, if you own assets such as property and land, you re laughing, your kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews may not be though, but shur thats their problem!

Exactly why there is so much opposition to SF's idea. It's extremely shortsighted.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122586204#Comment_122586204

…but so to is ffg's, its a mess, so we re just gonna screw your kids, and rock on…..

…im sure it ll just be fine, thankfully some of those younger generations havent moved to more extreme views and extreme groups!

…everything is just fine!

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122586297#Comment_122586297

I mean the opposition to SF's plans is shortsighted, not the actual plan!!

Totally agree that FFG's approach is shortighted!

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122586309#Comment_122586309

but the reality is, sf have stuffed it, they have completely lost the momentum they had only a few months ago, they made a mess of the referendum and their stance on immigration, so theyre toast, and ffg's experience in governance has truly showed during this time, so it ll be another ffg, and potentially for a long time to come

an alternative government would need to gain an extremely high support, a near majority, in order to make it impossible for another ffg lead government, thats clearly not gonna happen, and theres a good chance it wont happen for a very long either, so…..

…i.e. younger generations are screwed, which means we ll all be eventually, especially when upward mobility becomes virtually impossible, which has already begun!

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122586134#Comment_122586134

Help to Buy is for first time buyers only. It does not benefit older, wealthier people, whom already own property.

There are over 50k first time buyers that have benefitted from the scheme.

How many of those mostly younger, all first time buyers, would have managed to purchase without the scheme?

If they didn't buy the houses, they wouldnt dramatically fall in price. They would be snapped up by wealthier landlords/investment funds etc and we would have more twenty and thirty somethings living with the parents.

You say you want help from the govt to support first time buyers and then complain when they get it.