First time buyers gone

Hobbes

Just wondering if that means all the builders will drop their prices by 3k for first time buyers? From what I gather a lot factored that into the price as well.

I can see the property market going the way of the taxi drivers. It will only go so far before everyone will be screwed over because all they can think about is greed.

koneko

Hobbes,

3K off the house price wouldn't make too much difference for most people, as this is just part of the big loan (mortage) you're paying over 20/25/30/35 years.

The great thing about the first time buyers grant is/was that you get it after you have bought the house. This gives you a little breathing space after you just move in, for those essential furniture purchases, or to help pay back relatives you borrowed money from.

I know that without the FTB grant it would have taken me a fair bit longer to get that lovely couch and other bits.

gandalf

Someone made a very interesting point to me the other day.

The abolition of the First Time Buyers grant is saving the government €40 million a year. If they increased betting tax from 2% to 10% they would bring in an additional €38 million apparently, I think that actually shows where this governments priorities actually live. Doesn't McGreedy have some kind of interest in Race horses/ The Racing Industry?

Whether the builders build the cost into their prices or not alot of people rely on that money to help furnish their new home because they are morgaged to the hilt trying to make the purchase price. It would have been more fair and equitable to increase the taxes on investors who are part of the reason for the shortage of supply of housing.

Gandalf.

Meh

Originally posted by gandalf
It would have been more fair and equitable to increase the taxes on investors who are part of the reason for the shortage of supply of housing.

Great, so investors would leave the housing market. So there would be less rental accommodation available, leading to rent hikes for people (like me) who can't afford to buy a house. Therefore this tax you propose would penalize the poor and benefit the (relatively) wealthy housebuyers (if you have €10k+ saved for a deposit on a house, you're not poor).

I agree with you about the betting tax though.

Shinji

Therefore this tax you propose would penalize the poor and benefit the (relatively) wealthy housebuyers (if you have €10k+ saved for a deposit on a house, you're not poor).

Well, you're correct in that you couldn't just do what Gandalf proposed - you'd have to do that as part of a package of measures aimed at bringing rent costs down as well, and regulating that whole industry.

However, he's right in principle - right now Dublin is riding on the same property bubble that the UK is, and much of it is down to investors driving prices up. The objective of housing policy should be to make property as affordable as possible for people, it's that simple.

Dublin is in the same position as the south of England at the moment; basically your hopes of EVER affording a property as a first-time buyer (particularly if you're single) are getting poorer and poorer. For most people in the London area now (and the same roughly applies in Dublin), saving a deposit AND paying rent is not a possibility - partially because rent is crazy money, partially because over the past five years the size of deposit required has increased faster than most people can save.

Of course, the other way to make this all affordable is for the property bubble to burst... I don't think we'll be waiting long.

Hobbes

My point about greed was in relation to the builders. From what I gather the price to build a house hasn't risen much at all in the past 20 years or so. Add the fact that FTB is factored into the price makes it all the more sickening.

Great, so investors would leave the housing market.

It's been mostly the investors that have been causing the house inflations, not the first time buyers.

mike65

The FTB grant was just a builders subsidy, the best way the give fist times a break is to a give a generous taxbreak over several years. Also all houses should be subject to this allowence not just newly built ones.

Mike.

bonkey

Any break given to a housebuyer will be swallowed up by matching increases in house prices. Its a simple case of supply and demand. People will figure any break they get into what they can afford.

Therefore, the bigger the break, the more they can afford. Until there is a surplus of houses / a shortage of buyers, this is bound to continue.

I would agree with gandalf though - I think there should be more serious taxation on people owning multiple residences, to discourage people buying houses to hold for a few years and sell on at a huge profit.

Yes, as Meh pointed out, this would potentially cause more problems for renters. However, the solution to that problem is a completely seperate issue.

Ireland, as a nation, has a house-ownership mentality. People want to own their house. Therefore, renting is viewed as a purely transitory state. This is evidenced by the fact that it is virtually impossible to get unfurnished accomodation...which is the norm in most European nations that I've been in.

What is needed is a proper set of renting laws - laws which protect the renter and rentee appropriately. Here in Switzerland, for example, if a landlord increases the rent, and you disagree with this, you have the right to refuse. This gets brought to a court of some form, who then impose the rent costs on the landlord.

While tenants in Ireland have effectively no rights, the situation will always be terrible - you will be screwed for whatever the landlord thinks he can get out of you.

jc

spongebob

Originally posted by bonkey
Any break given to a housebuyer will be swallowed up by matching increases in house prices. Its a simple case of supply and demand. People will figure any break they get into what they can afford.

Therefore, the bigger the break, the more they can afford. Until there is a surplus of houses / a shortage of buyers, this is bound to continue.

I would agree with gandalf though - I think there should be more serious taxation on people owning multiple residences, to discourage people buying houses to hold for a few years and sell on at a huge profit.

Yes, as Meh pointed out, this would potentially cause more problems for renters. However, the solution to that problem is a completely seperate issue.

Ireland, as a nation, has a house-ownership mentality. People want to own their house. Therefore, renting is viewed as a purely transitory state. This is evidenced by the fact that it is virtually impossible to get unfurnished accomodation...which is the norm in most European nations that I've been in.

What is needed is a proper set of renting laws - laws which protect the renter and rentee appropriately. Here in Switzerland, for example, if a landlord increases the rent, and you disagree with this, you have the right to refuse. This gets brought to a court of some form, who then impose the rent costs on the landlord.

While tenants in Ireland have effectively no rights, the situation will always be terrible - you will be screwed for whatever the landlord thinks he can get out of you.

jc

Pretty much covers it except that a lot of multiple home owners are into section 23 or section 50 investments where they became owners as part of a process to increase houseing stock for students or in inner cities. I would exempt them from multiple property taxes up to a point.

The real problem in Ireland is the lack of a decent private rented sector, it is a scummy lottery which operates to the detriment of the tenant...nowhere more than in Dublin.

The good news is that every bubble bursts.
M

Cork

I think that House Prices is the only green bottle left on the wall.

But - When the bubble bursts - it is nothing to feel smug about.

When people think about where they purchased houses many miles in domer towns and the prices they paid - it was akin to a frenzy.

The banks were also responsible. But the buyer was ultimately responsible and He/She will be left with the mortgage./

spongebob

you're making sense this time Cork.

Once every mug figures a way to make money out of property you know you are ina bubble.

By the same analogy every mug was making money from the stockmarket in 1999

M

aine

The great thing about the first time buyers grant is/was that you get it after you have bought the house.

fair enough you get the FTB grant after you have bought the house but the thing is that most builders just put their prices up by the value of the grant! so basically you the buyer werent gaining anything!!!!

and in answer to the original question it is highly unlikely that the builders will now lower their prices!!

personally I think it was a good idea to scrap the scheme because to continue supporting it would probably have meant borrowing, and we learned the hard way when it comes to borrowing for day to day current expenditure! Just ask Richard Ryan!!

sceptre

Originally posted by Muck
Once every mug figures a way to make money out of property you know you are ina bubble.

By the same analogy every mug was making money from the stockmarket in 1999

Sums both bubbles up for me.

Tulips all over again.

Nevyn

FTB whats that ?

We could not afford a Brand new house when we needed to buy.
( one kid, Landlord jacking up prices, both working )

So we had to buy a second hand house so no grant.

We had touble getting a morgage we earned too much for a shared ownership and too little for a lot of morgage providers.

We had a little saved and not everyone has ten grand saved, we took out two loans to top us up. A personal loan and a credit union loan to cover the stamp duty. Ironically a few weeks after we moved in they scrapped the tamp duty for first time buyers and we are still paying the loan for it off.

But despite the morgage , the insurances and the loans we still pay out less a mnth then what houses are renting for near us and we own this house (with the bank) and do not have to fear
anyones interfernce.


There are many ways to do it when you need to.