Idbatterim wrote: » this is the thing, properly run countries here have proper taxation system etc. Governments there maybe somewhat populist, here they are UBER populist, they wont touch the likes of a meaningful property tax, that might encourage downsizing etc, its a political handgrendade, none of them will touch it. Not having a meaninful property tax is a joke, but in irelands case its such a token gesture, I think it should be massively hiked or just scrap it, if its going to be left at current rate (of course if its scrapped, its very very difficult to reinstate)... My personal preference would be a council tax like in the uk, applies to all adults in house, no exemptions, exceptions. Again wouldnt be touched here, as it would be fair in my opinion, but not fair in the governments eyes, bending over backwards for those that will never vote for them... did i mention the "vulnerable"?
awec wrote: » If the investor leaves they can't take the property with them. But you do have to take a lot of SF proposals with a pinch of salt. If they ever got into power, it is incredibly unlikely they would do everything they say.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Property tax should never have come in, but now that it's here, it shouldn't be getting dangled over people's heads that they're possibly going to be moved into higher bands. Besides, individual councils have a 15% leeway with it anyway, so they can increase it if they wish on a local level (which I also disagree with). Personally, although I can understand the benefit of property tax for the government (a reliable, stable tax income) it shouldn't be charged if the homeowners turn to pensionable age. Also, the difference in rates is too sizeable (especially from the lowest to second lowest rate - jumps up far too much). There are many issues with it, and I genuinely don't believe it should exist in the way that it does. It also is unfair that people in social housing don't have to pay it - gives the clear impression that (again) the workers are propping up the unemployables.
PropQueries wrote: » I don’t think 700,000 bankers left London because of Brexit. And they didn’t come here if they did. But the report clearly states it’s the hospitality workers moving back home because of coronavirus. Which is why I’m wondering if something similar is happening in Dublin that’s not yet showing up in the official government reports as they’re generally 6 months or more behind the curve while they collate the data.
Timing belt wrote: » Besides employees working remotely from the beach at the start there has been no reports.... I assume it would work both ways they would return home and we would see a increase in the Irish returning
PropQueries wrote: » There’s so much going on that’s most likely severely impacting the property market that appears to be not noticed due to covid. For example, pre-covid, there were c. 32,000 international students studying in Ireland. I assume many won’t be coming back in such numbers for the 2021/2022 academic year either so what are all those empty rooms doing right now? Another example would be in relation to many cash in hand workers who wouldn’t have been entitled to PUP, have they gone home freeing up their rooms? There would/ should appear to be plenty of spare capacity in the accommodation sector right now, so why isn’t it showing up in the data?
Timing belt wrote: » They are vacant because of RPZ's... if the regulation was not there rents would have dropped and if demand picked up they would rise again but because or RPZ's it makes more sense to leave vacant for a year or two or you could be waiting 10 years to get back to your previous rent.
schmittel wrote: » Now we're getting somewhere.
PropQueries wrote: » Good point. So there’s probably significantly more vacant properties than being advertised with the landlords hoping it’s back to normal next year. I hope those same investors also understand that a minimum of an extra c. 40,000 new build homes will have also entered supply in the interim (new builds for 2020 and 2021 combined) and maybe another c. 20,000 to 30,000 potential probate sales re-entering supply. That will be a lot of new homes looking for occupants from early 2022 IMO.
Timing belt wrote: » Is SF going to remove RPZ.... no not a chance. Every time someone interferes with the property market they end up making 2 or more new issues.
fliball123 wrote: » You keep talking about probate sales most of which take years and you absolutely zero evidence of. Also bulding for 2021 has not exactly got off to a great start a lot of building sites have shut down for the first month of the year. You are also going on the basis that our population will not grow once Covid is a thing of the past.
PropQueries wrote: » Well the IDA has already stated that new jobs in the multinational sector will be impacted by the inability to have site visits last year and this year. And that’s before any impact of the OECD tax reforms becomes clear. The tourism industry will take a few years to return to normal so they won’t be looking for many additional workers above 2019 levels for the foreseeable future. Will international students return in such pre-covid numbers? If probate sales take years, the ones from 5 years ago should be available to re-enter supply about now. I think landlords holding out for the supposed pre-covid supply/demand mismatches to return to normal post-covid are making a very big mistake IMO
Timing belt wrote: » we won't have those no of new homes next year as construction got delayed this year so that will cushion any drop in immigration no's. You are still on about your probate :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: They will still be buying all before them and outbidding the government and other institutional investors. There is a lot of money that can't find a home at the moment that is paying a good yield.... I think that even if there yield fell to 2.5% you would still see them coming to the party to play.
Timing belt wrote: » And if demand returns as strong or even 25% weaker than before the cash in..
PropQueries wrote: » But are they getting that yield or are they saying that’s the yield they would get if they rented their vacant apartment? How long before their investors start actually looking for this yield (in hard cash) that has been advertised to them? If government tax revenues decline, will the state keep up its side of the bargain in relation to the rents they agreed pre-covid, long-term lease agreements, HAP etc.
PropQueries wrote: » Well the signals point to reduced demand over the next 5 years compared to the pre-covid projections i.e. less FDI jobs being created, less tourism jobs being created etc. New build housing supply hasn’t fallen materially and won’t this year either.
Cyrus wrote: » When you say spare capacity what do you mean ? Accommodation available to rent and when you say it’s not showing up in the data what data do you mean ? The lack of foreign students being temporary rather than permanent anyway.
schmittel wrote: » I can't help thinking the pent up supply is going to outpace the pent up demand. Pent up demand affected negatively by rising unemployment and lower net migration. Positively affected by increased savings rate. Can't think of anything that will negatively effect pent up supply. Likely to increase due to people thinking about bigger house/different lifestyle. The increased savings rate - the only positive for pent up demand - is likely to have a dual impact. It drives the pent up supply because of large savings from homeowners who wish to trade up PPRs. If people who have been sitting on second properties enjoying capital appreciation with one eye on their CGT exemption see supply coming on stream, they might figure they are better to sell sooner rather than later.
PropQueries wrote: » And we’re still continuing to build all that student accommodation they couldn’t fill even pre-covid. They will have their choice of student accommodation places to choose from should they decide to return in similar numbers to the pre-covid levels for the 2022/2023 academic year. In relation to data, I suppose daft.ie is the only one to go by even though many now rent homes through Facebook etc. and the local councils snap them up before they even get a chance to be advertised, so it hasn’t been a meaningful report for many years.
fliball123 wrote: » People going to a bigger house is this not a zero sum game you lose a property from the current available stock and then you gain one? Your argument for CGT exemptions doe not seem to bearing fruit just keep an eye on the supply it is continuing to go down this year.
schmittel wrote: » Not being a zero sum game is exactly why I said dual impact. Well of course supply is still going down. We're in a lockdown. But as you so eloquently pointed out to Props, we won't be in lockdown for ever.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5029bac657ae68f2ca4b7fa18994db0d.svg)
