The_Conductor wrote: » If it was genuinely to help first time buyers- rather than to provide a sop to developers- it shouldn't matter whether a property is new- or not. Its a sop of developers, plain and simple- but the manner in which its structured- means its far cheaper for a FTB to buy a new unit- than it is to buy a unit in a more mature area- so there is a disincentive to look at secondhand property. Meanwhile a non-FTB, who is not affected by this ridiculous scheme- gets their choice of the secondhand market- with a clearrun- given the lack of FTB's who are going to buy........ The scheme has resulted in a new stratification- with younger FTBs in new estates in West Dublin/North Kildare- and older non-FTBs in more mature areas.
Rew wrote: » Half of Killiney/Glenageary is really Sallynoggin and the other half is Ballybrack so the lines are a bit blurred esp when it comes to schools. .
cisk wrote: » Ballybrack and shankill’s issue is that they’re not far from major professional business parks like Central Park, South County and Sandyford. The job growth in those locations has been immense, the new Microsoft campus alone is staggering. So a short drive to work and a nice location by the sea is going to be very attractive for young professionals, the prices are lower than anywhere surrounding that’s not south to Wicklow or west to Tallaght. I think the a comparison could be what happened to Ringsend after google and other IT multinationals located in the Docklands.
Maurice Yeltsin wrote: » Indeed, but it seems strange to me that people from filthy rich backgrounds would want to move to somewhere of that social construct just because it's near where they grew up. Particularly considering the posts on this forum I've read, some people making out largely quiet areas of the Northside such as the aforementioned Kilbarrack to be something like The Wire. My brother lives there, it's nothing of the sort. And the price feckin reflects that unfortunately. Nearby Edenmore has recently seen a spike in incidents, and the shops must be the scaldiest looking strip in all of Dublin, but the fact is the houses there start at 290k and barely 3 minutes away in Darndale they start as low as 160k.Distance to work has to be the strangest deciding factor I've heard, particularly when it comes to multinationals. You might not be working for them in ten years. They might ship your department to their new premises in Naas. Etc etc etc. If anything I don't understand how, generally speaking, the mid west of Dublin is relatively affordable compared to formerly pure working class parts of the North East (Artane, Kilbarrack, Edenmore, Donaghmede, these bizarrely seem to attract a premium for their proximity to the overcrowded and often unreliable DART line). The likes of Tallaght, Clondalkin, Ballyfermot, Blanch, Finglas and Ballymun at a push are fairly equidistant to almost any location in the greater Dublin region.
awec wrote: » Bizarre. I would imagine distance to work is somewhere near the top of every single home buyers list of things that are important. It is probably only beaten by the price, and distance to family. .
Maurice Yeltsin wrote: » Well yes, it's important in terms of not spending more than an hour in traffic or public transport. But like I said, there's few economically active parts of Dublin, Kildare and Meath that aren't within a 30 minute drive of mid West Dublin. Whereas if you have bought in Dun Laoghaoire and your firm announces it's moving from Cherrywood to Navan, you've a bit of a commute there. If you live in Clondalkin and the same move is announced it isn't quite the same hassle.
awec wrote: » How often does this happen? .
awec wrote: » I disagree with this. There is no point in giving tax windfalls to people who already own property. There is no ultimate real here.
The_Conductor wrote: » I don't really understand how/why you imagine that allowing first time buyers their choice of where to spend their 'grant' is a windfall to people who already own property? Its a grant to FTBs- to enable them to buy where they so choose. By limiting it to new properties- it specifically disincentivises them from buying in mature areas. Its going to give them an advantage over other purchasers in mature areas- who don't have access to such a 'grant'. However- we're already at prices that are limited by people's ability to borrow- so its hardly likely that its going to do anything to the prices (hell, even new prices have plateau'ed in the greater Dublin area- people simply can't afford to pay more). I get that you imagine it would increment the price that the seller of a second hand property might achieve- I would argue that in the current market- the market quite simply is not in a position to bear further increases- so any effect would be muted by CB rules on lending multiples. It would, naturally, give FTBs an advantage over non-FTBs- as on the one hand they have a lower deposit requirement- and on the other hand the 'grant' would pay their 10% deposit (or a large chunk of it). I get it- you don't want a windfall for people for doing nothing- but the current scheme is just that- only its a windfall for developers that specifically creates artificial communities- with limited numbers of older families and or elderly people- as they are actively discriminated against in new developments in favour of FTBs on two different grounds. How about a case for giving OAPs a deontas to downscale to one of these new properties and sell their abode in the leafy suburbs? Any scheme that favours one group of people- almost certainly excludes or actively discriminates against another.
Maurice Yeltsin wrote: » The missus has worked for two large firms that have moved either departments or the entire staff to Dundalk and Leopardstown from Blanch and Ballsbridge. Isn't there an abandoned complex of either Dell or Microsoft in Bray? They clearly moved elsewhere. Didn't HP move out of Leixlip a while ago?Big firms moving is very common. Outgrowing their old premises, scaled down and can't justify the rent on the existing premises, it's very commonplace. It's worth remembering these firms are often here 30 plus years, that's a long time to occupy the same premises for a growing business. You'd be naive to invest an extra 100k in a house on the assumption you'll work five minutes down the road until you're 66.
awec wrote: » Because owners of second hand properties will simply up the price of their homes by 20k.
The_Conductor wrote: » Even developers couldn't 'up' their prices by 20k in the current market- we're at the max of people's borrowing capacity. People's inability to borrow additional funds is the brake on price rises- be they from FTBs or anyone else. Central bank rules- are saving people from their own worse excesses. We'd certainly up prices- and get them too- if people could afford to pay the revised prices- but they can't. In a market where there wasn't an alternate brake on price increases- what you're suggesting would likely happen. In the current market- its a non-runner.
awec wrote: » Sorry, I meant if it was available for second hand properties back when it was first introduced.
Mickiemcfist wrote: » Why can't a policy have a dual aim? First aim - get construction going again - achieved. Second aim - help FTB's who have very little hope of saving a deposit in a tougher rental climate than any current homeowner has encountered - achieved
The_Conductor wrote: » Gottcha. Yes- there was an overnight increase in new prices (its been well documented)- it would beggar belief that there wouldn't be a commensurate increase in secondhand prices. I'd argue that the current scheme has done its thing- FTBs already have an incentive over other buyers as they only require half the deposit of a non-FTB- many of whom aren't moving as they quite simply don't have the deposit. The whole sector is nuts.
awec wrote: » Maybe there are other ways this can be solved, like tax breaks against rent, but I'm not an expert.
Bob24 wrote: » A policy can have a dual aims if the two goals are not contradictory. In this case the selfish interest of developers and FTBs were clearly in direct contradiction (each of them wanted to retain as much as the grant as possible) meaning only the one with the most leverage could benefit from the policy. And policymakers were well aware of this. In practice this translated to the prices of those houses increasing about as much as the grant amount due to market forces. So FTBs suddenly got a free extra 20k on their budget but st the same time the price of their desired house increased by 20k - not difference to them.
theboringfox wrote: » I think the HTB grant should be allowed expire at year end but I would be surprised with potential GE around corner if it is not extended by 12 months.
awec wrote: » An interesting question is has the HTB scheme been a success? .
Pussyhands wrote: » The answer to that question is simple. Does the 20k make the difference between buying a new house or not. The answer I can almost guarantee is that no, the vast majority of buyers have not become home owners due to the HTB.
awec wrote: » Imagine you were buying a house at 480k, with no HTB in place. Deposit required would be 48k for a FTB, to be saved entirely by yourself. Now you get 20k HTB, and the price goes to 500k. But deposit requirements that you need to save yourself drop to 30k, which is 18k less than before. So while you aren't saving on the total cost of the house (in fact, it costs more over the term due to interest), you are short-cutting on the deposit requirements significantly.
Sheeps wrote: » Where are you getting the 48k figure from? The 10% deposit is only up to 220k, and 20% on everything over that. The deposit should be 74k.
Bob24 wrote: » Yes fair point, it is also a way for the government to help people circumvent the central bank's lending rules. Not something I'd say the government should be proud of though...
Evd-Burner wrote: » Since 1 January 2017: For first-time buyers of principal dwelling homes the limit of 90% LTV applies on the full value of all residential property, so first-time buyers will need a deposit of 10% for any house or apartment, regardless of price. From citizens information.
Sheeps wrote: » Wasn't aware this had been scrapped, thanks!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3eed4eebba3cfb0464ef9eff4317993.svg)