Rex Disgusting Tariff wrote: As opposed to over extending, we are currently under-extended in terms of what we can borrow. I think if these limits were slowly increased in a declining market (say 4x), realistically it won't have much of a negative affect and when prices start to rise, those with higher borrowings will still have decent equity.
Bluefoam wrote: » Have a look at lending terms in 2005/6 & compare to now, then come back when you are informed.
awec wrote: » You have absolutely no idea whatsoever if this will happen. Prices will probably come down. Fast? Nobody knows. How much? Nobody knows.
Arthur Daley wrote: » Many of these 100% mortgages would have been at property values close to where the market is now. It proved unaffordable in 2005/6, it's not clear why it should be more affordable today.
Rex Disgusting Tariff wrote: » I'd hazard a guess that the majority of those are are people who purchased with 100% mortgages at the height of the boom, not in a recession.
Arthur Daley wrote: » We have 28,000 mortgages in this country that haven't paid in the last two years according to the Central Bank. You just don't see that in other countries. This country is over extended from the view that the CBI has.
Rex Disgusting Tariff wrote: » As opposed to over extending, we are currently under-extended in terms of what we can borrow.
AlmightyCushion wrote: » What do you mean? Are you talking about the central bank limits. If so they should not be increased even if house prices start falling. The last thing we need when the economy is taking a hit is to increase the amount of money people can borrow and allow them to over extend themselves.
Bluefoam wrote: » The benefit that Ireland has in this scenario is that they are limiting access to finance... therefore they can adjust the valve to allow more access to the housing market if necessary... They don't have to release it fully, just make some adjustments and they can open up the housing market to more potential buyers... They can do this multiple times... thus limiting our exposure to a declining market.
Pussyhands wrote: » Are we only allowed discuss absolute fact about forecast growth and not about the potential lightning bolt? If that lightning bolt does strike, which the IMF are saying could happen as there's clouds overhead, then prices will come down and fast. You seem to infer that my post has nothing to do with the property market. Economy and property are tightly connected.
AlmightyCushion wrote: » It seemed pretty obvious to me when I seen it. IMF are saying that growth is lower than forecast and there are multiple risks to the global economy. If the global economy takes a hit, it could have a negative effect on the Irish economy and/or could cause a drop in house prices. I think it's safe to say most people would know that last bit without it having to be spelled out.
Graham wrote: » It's hard to tell what you were implying with your post. That's the problem when someone just does a link-dump.
Graham wrote: » How do you think a reduction in economic growth forecasts from 3.7% to 3.5% will effect the Irish property market in 2019?
"When there are too many clouds, it takes one lightning (bolt) to start the storm," she said.
Pussyhands wrote: » https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0211/1028791-imf-warns-on-global-economy/ IMF sending out warnings.
Sheeps wrote: » Did you know that social homes aren't free?
L1011 wrote: » The rates are a % of income so reflect local costs and incomes automatically. But the % varies heavily
Ush1 wrote: » Totally agree on the rent caps. If you make enough money you should have to pay the market rate, same goes for if you get the option to purchase the property. The subsidising should end. Confused by your last paragraph though. I think rates should be different per council as cost of living will differ quite a bit.
Pussyhands wrote: » Considering you make it appear that someone on 10e an hour should be able to afford to live in a brand new house in the most expensive part of Dublin, it might as well be free.
L1011 wrote: » Any form of time-limited tenancy on them is a recipe for disaster. Uncap the differential rents so that they hit market rate when the tenant is earning enough, remove the option to buy them and remove the ability to inherit a tenancy. People will move on if it suits them rather than staying because its a cheap house but it doesn't leave a Sword of Damocles of an end date hanging over them. Social housing with differential rents can actually be a profit maker for the operator, just not with the current cap on the rents - although I think one or two of the rural councils actually take more in rent than they spend now, mainly due to not having built/bought anything new in years. A single national scheme would be sensible also - rates, allowances and caps differ in every council area. Some appear to have got rid of the cap already, others haven't
Kidkinobe wrote: » exactly and thats why social housing is needed in cities...So teachers/trainee nurses starting on 35 K a year would be enticed to take a job in the city as a step up until they are a few years in and at which point they earn more and eventually purchase their own home.
cruizer101 wrote: » I'll fully admit I'm a little bit ignorant of social housing policies but does a person not have to be on a queue for a good while before they would stand a chance of getting a social house, not really useful for newly qualified teachers.
Pussyhands wrote: » I'd say most people commute to work in citycentre no matter what wage they earn. You'd have a good argument as well to say someone on 10 euro an hour and a new free house in the city centre is better off than someone on 40k having to buy their own house. A big motivation for me to be working is so I don't have to share a rented house with others for the rest of my life.
Subutai wrote: » That's my point. It's not just people on minimum wage, you could easily have professionals like nurses and teachers who qualify for social housing and have little other option.
Kidkinobe wrote: » it may not sound fair but every city in every first world country provides social housing in city centres for the people that provide the mimimum wage services...If min age workers could not afford to live in city centres , the cost of getting a cup of coffee would increase three fold because getting staff to serve coffee would mean increasing their wages three fold so they could afford the accommodation close to their place of work. You can see how this works in many exclusive tourist hotspots around the world, coffees are twice the price because the staff that serve them get twice the wage and becuase these tourist hot spots don't have social housing, staff need the wage to be able to afford to live in the area. Social housing also serves as a mechanism to prevent city centres prices getting out of control.
