RandomAccess wrote: » It's always been a builder grant, they know builders earn greater profits from the less basic houses. It wouldn't succeed in its true goal of incentivising development if it just targeted the lowest earners. Also more importantly, If they just targeted the lowest rung it would put people who haven't managed to save on an equal footing as those that have managed to scrimp and save to meet the requirements. It would be a kick in the face to those who followed the rules and would generate enormous anger and undermine trust in government and the central bank.
bleary wrote: » No its supposed to help developers build more. This 80% measure penalised responsible purchasers. Also self builds are still probably ruled out by it. To be honest if someone can't save a 10% deposit, should they be getting a mortgage? analysis of arrears have shown they are less likely to be able to cope over the course of the mortgage. They will have to deal with a number of things interest rate increases, employment & life changes etc.Everyone should have to save for a few years before a mortgage, it's part of understanding the commitment you are making. I know a lot of people who wish they were made do that rather than put themselves through the last ten years
Larsso30 wrote: » Trust me, Dublin rents far exceed most first time buyers mortgage repayments so I think I understand perfectly thanks very much!
The_Conductor wrote: » Depends entirely on where and what you purchase. In most cases, in the Dublin area- despite astronomical rents- its still cheaper to rent than it is to buy (obviously this is subject to various caveats).
conf101 wrote: » Definitely not true. In some cases maybe, but not in most cases. I'm about to move to a 2-bed where my rent will be €1400 per month. If I were to buy the same place at the current market price my mortgage repayments would be in the region of €950/month.
StupidLikeAFox wrote: » As an aside, this situation is exactly where the grant scheme is designed to help. i.e you could afford the repayments but would struggle to build up a deposit
morrga wrote: » If they go the 70% route and then reduce the threshold to 400k it would be laughable hypocrisy whereby they will eliminate people who need it and give it to people who don't it. The idea was to help people get to their 20% not help people already at 20%.
bleary wrote: » This is effectively supporting and pushing 100% mortgages. Well done Ireland , oh the Germans must be pissing themselves laughing at us.
stickman22 wrote: » Does anyone have any idea how it will work. Our case is we have have signed contracts (just this week)for a new build to be completed in spring, how do we go about getting the rebate or do we need to wait until the mortgage is being drawn down. We really don't understand much about the ins & outs except we qualify now as we are taking out a 76% mortgage..
cronos wrote: » Can't find anything in the Finance bill preventing you from taking a loan of LTV of 70%, then paying off say another 20% the next day in lump sums with the bank? Would everyone read it that way?
Pedro32561 wrote: » True. I couldn't see anything in there that would prevent that.
CramCycle wrote: » Same here and if I were in that boat, I certainly would. Would seem idiotic not too. Although I can see stupidity and comfort over riding common sense and people doing this and saddling them with a higher mortgage after blowing a load of the spare dosh.
Grassey wrote: » Pretty sure I saw something referenced last week where self build also were in scope. Or houses that were build pre July 19th but hadn't had anyone live in them since completion, and contract for sale signed after July 19th would be in scope.
Eireann81 wrote: » I'm hoping that's the case. Plenty of houses around that were built years ago, but never finished. Makes sense to get these houses sold, finished, and occupied.
