Villa05 wrote: » Mortgage must be 80% or higher LTV The prudent need not apply!
derekbro wrote: » Is the max 20,000 per property, i.e. 10,000 per person for a couple?
derekbro wrote: » Will the rent a room exemption going up to 14k not just cause existing landlords using this to up the rent?
asteroids over berlin wrote: » i find it laughable, new builds will go up in price! The lads sitting around the table with their tea and biccies and this is the best they can come up with. fcuk wits!
Utah wrote: » Wondering this too, how will it be split?
radharc wrote: » Everyone is looking at this the wrong way, this is a supply initiative, nothing to do with the demand side. The government obviously know developers will stick the 5% onto asking prices but are happy for them to do so if it makes them more likely to build new houses. It is basically a 5% grant from the government to house builders to encourage them to step up activity.
OfflerCrocGod wrote: The truly prudent wouldn't pour all their savings into a deposit. The truly prudent would put 20% down as deposit and keep the rest of their savings in liquid form.
Earleybird wrote: » fast tracking zoning and planning and getting some extra houses built!? Just another silver bullet plan from the great minds in our Dail.
Villa05 wrote: » What about the low income person who would only qualify for a loan equivalent to 70% of the purchase price but through prudent behaviour may have saved 30% of the deposit.
ThisRegard wrote: » Earleybird wrote: » fast tracking zoning and planning and getting some extra houses built!? Just another silver bullet plan from the great minds in our Dail. Because this is the wrong thing to do.
Earleybird wrote: » Whys that?
OfflerCrocGod wrote: Yes, the whole scheme is a nonsense, but I'll take advantage of it if I can, I'd be foolish not to.
Villa05 wrote: » Are you a builder?
OfflerCrocGod wrote: I put a deposit down a few weeks ago and it looks like I meet all the criteria.
Michael D Not Higgins wrote: » Probably more likely to rent a second bedroom in most cases. Looking at daft for Dublin, over 60% of sharing ads are below 600/month.
athtrasna wrote: » Rent a room is based on total income, adding in bills could easily bring a room over the 600 mark so there may be some rentincreases now that it's gone up. I won't be letting my other room or upping my lodgers rent, it's not all about the money.
The_Conductor wrote: » Listened to Pascal O'Donoghue on the 4PM news yesterday- he seems to think the increase in the rent-a-room scheme is particularly directed at solving the student accommodation issue- how or why he has come to this conclusion is beyond me. I can't see many owner occupiers deliberately going out of their way to court students as housemates..........
Villa05 wrote: » Ahh you need to be a builder to take advantage of it
OfflerCrocGod wrote: I'm talking about the first time buyers grant, what are you referring to?
Villa05 wrote: » The ftb grant. The government even admit it it will benefit developers
ligerdub wrote: » The government aren't interested in increasing supply. If anything they will do as much as possible to placate the populace seeking to buy (a relatively small percentage of the population), but as little as possible to solve the problem. If you think it's tough to buy a house in Dublin in 2016 it's going to be practically impossible in 2017. They will have a greater chance of staying in power by 1) looking to see an increase in house prices to reduce the number of people in negative equity (a large population), 2) keeping the ones who can't find a home as quiet as possible but not really helping them (a relatively small % of the overall population).We're already at record levels of supply, and if anything the demand is increasing. It'll be interesting to see how this will play out in terms of price increases, but I suspect it will have to decline at some point.
Zzippy wrote: » Do you mean record low level of supply?
