2017-21 help to buy scheme - megathread. All help to buy discussion here please

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I doubt this to be the case, especially when FF were the ones pushing for the 500k limit. Not saying you're lying but he might be.

Have an e mail from Barry Cowen too confirming the same. Said it's unfair to remove it for current year transactions given that people would have acted upon the original announcement.

morrga wrote: »

Yes, spoke to Michael McGrath this afternoon who confirmed this will be noted in the bill when published.

I doubt this to be the case, especially when FF were the ones pushing for the 500k limit. Not saying you're lying but he might be.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Can you source this, please?

Yes, spoke to Michael McGrath this afternoon who confirmed this will be noted in the bill when published.

morrga wrote: »

The 600k threshold will remain until 31st December so once contracts are signed before then, we qualify!!

Can you source this, please?

The 600k threshold will remain until 31st December so once contracts are signed before then, we qualify!!

ifaour wrote: »

Did someone workout the math to see if getting a mortgage on 80% LTV to avail of the tax rebate is better OR if I can bring the LTV down to, say 75% and not take advantage of the rebate would be better for me?

This is assuming property price is 320K and APR of what the big banks are offering for 80% vs 70-80%

They already lowered the bar to 70% minimum.

ifaour

Did someone workout the math to see if getting a mortgage on 80% LTV to avail of the tax rebate is better OR if I can bring the LTV down to, say 75% and not take advantage of the rebate would be better for me?

This is assuming property price is 320K and APR of what the big banks are offering for 80% vs 70-80%

pilly

68 lost souls wrote: »

Not too many below 350k southside. Perhaps the 20% up to 400k would be a compromise? Dunnno why you are adement of 350K? We are in the position of having found a new build we loved below 350k and missed phase 1, waited 6 months for phase 2 but they jumped by 30k to above 350k or so and couldnt afford but then this scheme was announced later so we can now purchase.

EDIT: Price jump was well before budget so that is not to blame

I think that's cramcycles point. The whole idea of the scheme was to encourage builders back into building affordable houses for first time buyers.
500k is way above what anyone could call affordable. I agree 400k could be a compromise.

68 lost souls

CramCycle wrote: »

Inside of the greater Dublin area, the cap would hope to provide a target price for builders to sell their house at, and not above. Having that cap at 500k is ridiculous, and I imagine a lobby group helped with this number. It should never have went above 350k.

As for that rubbish about north and south side, plenty of houses north of the river with million plus price tags and plenty below with sub 350k

Not too many below 350k southside. Perhaps the 20% up to 400k would be a compromise? Dunnno why you are adement of 350K? We are in the position of having found a new build we loved below 350k and missed phase 1, waited 6 months for phase 2 but they jumped by 30k to above 350k or so and couldnt afford but then this scheme was announced later so we can now purchase.

EDIT: Price jump was well before budget so that is not to blame

CramCycle

morrga wrote: »

We want to live in South Dublin on the Wicklow border. Carrickmines or Shankill hardly the Dalkey, Killiney profile. My point is the govt deem it ok to support couples in North Dublin who earn the same salaries as ourselves.

Head down to Bray then, or slightly over to Blessington. Why won't you live somewhere else? Why do you think you are entitled to live where you grew up. My partner grew up in a very nice part of South Dublin but I accept that our salaries at this point in time do not "entitle" us to live there. It is not discrimination.

Stheno wrote: »

Sure look at all the posters earlier in the thread who signed contracts before the opening day for this who were disgusted to have lost out!

To hell with it, give everyone 20,000 back and be done with it.

In all seriousness, the grant should be looking to inspire more reasonably priced new housing all over the country. Outside of Dublin, it will just be helping people get on the ladder as houses are generally alot cheaper. Inside of the greater Dublin area, the cap would hope to provide a target price for builders to sell their house at, and not above. Having that cap at 500k is ridiculous, and I imagine a lobby group helped with this number. It should never have went above 350k.

As for that rubbish about north and south side, plenty of houses north of the river with million plus price tags and plenty below with sub 350k

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

But I should be entitled to buy the new build in Rathgar which costs €1.15 million then. We shouldn't have a cap at all. Everyone should get the 20k, even if they have a deposit of 188k and a salary of 270k.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise it will be seen as a tax break for the rich.

Sure look at all the posters earlier in the thread who signed contracts before the opening day for this who were disgusted to have lost out!

morrga wrote: »

Which is my point. So don't lower the threshold from 600k.

But I should be entitled to buy the new build in Rathgar which costs €1.15 million then. We shouldn't have a cap at all. Everyone should get the 20k, even if they have a deposit of 188k and a salary of 270k.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise it will be seen as a tax break for the rich.

morrga wrote: »

Which is my point. So don't lower the threshold from 600k.

I thought you weren't talking about 60k houses? Do you mind if I ask you again about the house you were going to buy?how much was it, was it in your preferred area and under 500k but is now over that?

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

It's the same distinction. Dublin is more expensive than the rest of Ireland, South Dublin is more expensive than the rest of Dublin, Dalkey is more expensive than the rest of South Dublin, Vico Road is more expensive than the rest of Dalkey. There's no discrimination.

Which is my point. So don't lower the threshold from 600k.

morrga wrote: »

But I am talking about Dublin exclusively.

It's the same distinction. Dublin is more expensive than the rest of Ireland, South Dublin is more expensive than the rest of Dublin, Dalkey is more expensive than the rest of South Dublin, Vico Road is more expensive than the rest of Dalkey. There's no discrimination.

pilly wrote: »

Exactly, it's ludicrous! They can't claim discrimination because it's so ridiculous and neither can you.

They are governed by different parties, different rules different policies. I am talking about discrepancies in one jurisdiction. Don't muddy the waters with irrelevant statements.

morrga wrote: »

I'm not talking about 600k homes.

What are you talking about then? We're you about to purchase a home under 500k in your chosen area that has gone up 20k and is now over 500k? And was it a new build?

listermint

morrga wrote: »

Nope. The policy was designed to give people the last push to meet the higher deposit requirements. So instead of another 3 years of saving and renting we could buy now, trigger sales and help free up another apartment for the desperate rental sector.

No the policy was to trigger sales of new houses.

The policy was not to trigger sales for people who cant afford houses outside the limits.

Which is what appears to be the case here.

You are not being victimised. Like everyone else if you want to live somewhere special then work hard and save. Id love to live by the sea in dalkey for example.

Wouldnt we all.

pilly

morrga wrote: »

The point of the policy was it was taking so long for people to get to their deposit targets that this was a kick start to achieve their target and kick of sales and building m. We can keep saving for another 3 years. But that's another 3 years of renting.

You're so missing the point here OP and that's why you're gaining very little sympathy. There are plenty of choices in life and if you choose to live in a very specific area then that's completely your choice but you can not claim to be discriminated against because property is expensive in that area. Seriously, who's problem is it that houses in a very specific area are very expensive? No-one's except the people who insist they have to live there!

Actually, I've just thought of a comparison, it's like someone living up the North saying they're being discriminated because they can't claim the grant because of where they live. Sorry, doesn't wash.

listermint wrote: »

You are quite hilarious, I cant figure out though if you are being honestly amusing on purpose or not.

Your whole point being you are victimised because you cant afford a house on the Dublin Wicklow border.

Like that is literally what you are saying

Nope. The policy was designed to give people the last push to meet the higher deposit requirements. So instead of another 3 years of saving and renting we could buy now, trigger sales and help free up another apartment for the desperate rental sector.

Earleybird

morrga wrote: »

The point of the policy was it was taking so long for people to get to their deposit targets that this was a kick start to achieve their target and kick of sales and building m. We can keep saving for another 3 years. But that's another 3 years of renting.

If it's going to take you 3 years to save 20k despite being able to get a mortgage for over 400k then I would suggest you find a less luxurious apartment to live or curb your lifestyle. Your figures don't add up!

morrga wrote: »

I'm not talking about 600k homes.

And I was. I was talking about the lowering of the limit from 600k to 500k.

listermint

morrga wrote: »

We want to live in South Dublin on the Wicklow border. Carrickmines or Shankill hardly the Dalkey, Killiney profile. My point is the govt deem it ok to support couples in North Dublin who earn the same salaries as ourselves.

You are quite hilarious, I cant figure out though if you are being honestly amusing on purpose or not.

Your whole point being you are victimised because you cant afford a house on the Dublin Wicklow border.

Like that is literally what you are saying

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Explain how. If you want to buy a 600k home as a first time buyer with a 10% deposit, you'll need to qualify for an exception to the central bank rules. Banks will usually look for spare capacity in salary as the main criteria for allowing an exception but let's ignore that for now.

At 600k with 10% deposit, you'd need a mortgage for 540k, which at an income multiple of 3.5 is €154k.

I'm not talking about 600k homes.

morrga wrote: »

That is categorically incorrect.

Explain how. If you want to buy a 600k home as a first time buyer with a 10% deposit, you'll need to qualify for an exception to the central bank rules. Banks will usually look for spare capacity in salary as the main criteria for allowing an exception but let's ignore that for now.

At 600k with 10% deposit, you'd need a mortgage for 540k, which at an income multiple of 3.5 is €154k.

Stheno wrote: »

Yes so either save and buy over 500k in your area or buy under it somewhere else and get the rebate.

The point of the policy was it was taking so long for people to get to their deposit targets that this was a kick start to achieve their target and kick of sales and building m. We can keep saving for another 3 years. But that's another 3 years of renting.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

And with an exception they would usually need an even higher salary, which means they'd be in the 150-200k salary range. Even less sympathy.

That is categorically incorrect.

Earleybird wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. If you can afford to purchase a house for over 500k why would you deserve a grant? It doesn't matter where you're from. I remember you asking was the grant per house or per couple in a previous thread, at some point you need to realise you just sound plain greedy.

We can afford the repayments. But due to spiraling rents we have struggled to get the deposit together in recent years. Which was exactly the point of the policy. To give people a push to get on the ladder. And now they are supporting people who have LTV lower than 80%. That defeats the purpose of this incentive.

Christ a colleague in work mentioned it to me. I didn't believe it so I asked on boards which is the purpose of a forum.

We're far from greedy. We had a deposit ready for the house. But the house went up an extra 20k last month, surprise surprise. Now we are left high and dry and we are short 20k of the purchase price.

Stheno wrote: »

Not without an exception over 220k I thought?

And with an exception they would usually need an even higher salary, which means they'd be in the 150-200k salary range. Even less sympathy.