schmittel wrote: » EU. 70% of people live in houses that are too big for their needs. Twice the EU Average. Only 3.2pc of the Irish population were classified as living in overcrowded households in 2019 - the EU average is 17.2%https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/almost-7-in-10-people-in-ireland-are-living-in-homes-too-big-for-their-needs-39958654.html
91.7 per cent of the population living in house
schmittel wrote: » I’m not sure if the entire demand can be met from existing housing stock, so I assume some level of new build is required. I’m saying a lot of the future demand can be met by better utilizing our existing housing stock. The most important thing I am saying is it is blatantly untrue to say there is nothing we can do, the only solution is to build more.
Timing belt wrote: » But you are claiming it is additional supply when it is not!!!
PropQueries wrote: » Not staying clear of the ESB re-connections. I stated in my original post "5,000, maybe half that?" which is near enough your c. 2,000 per annum figure. Just to get that out of the way as you've asked me several times
In relation to the Help-to-Buy scheme, Michelle Shannon - the current IMF head of mission to Ireland - said: "We have cautioned that this could contribute to demand pressures." The Department of Finance last year announced that there would be a review of the scheme which is to begin soon. Ms Shannon said the IMF welcomed this review as it could provide an evidence-based opportunity to assess the impact of the scheme.
Timing belt wrote: » The housing Stock figure remains the same and there is no increase in supply. It is irrelevant who buys it as lets say it could be rented out to a young couple or could be bought by a couple upgrading who's house would then become available for FTB's. You are double counting by including this in your figures. Lets take a step back and count in housing stock as the 90k people is your figure which is calculated differently to how everyone else (ERSI,CSO etc) calculates it and results in no of people being over estimated. You are staying well clear from ESB re-connections do I take it that you agree that this is not additional supply now.
Timing belt wrote: » Even in a low migration scenario the ERSI are saying we need 23k housing units each year to meet demand. Are you saying that this can be accommodated without building new properties and instead looking to better utilise our existing housing stock.
beauf wrote: » Average compared to where?
Timing belt wrote: » It is not above average compared to most Cities in Europe and USA.
schmittel wrote: » We have huge number of people living in underoccupied properties - way above average. We have tiny number of people living in overcrowded properties - way below average. We have huge number of properties with nobody living in them - considerably above average. We may want huge additional supply every year, but we definitely don’t need it.
schmittel wrote: » We have huge number of properties with nobody living in them - considerably above average.
L1011 wrote: » The marginal rate does not reach 50% until you earn over 70k.Your posting style/tone here is exceptionally aggressive and not acceptable. Tone it down significantly.
PropQueries wrote: » If people believe we need enough additional supply each and every year for c. 90,000 additional persons going forward, so be it. We're far too small a country, population wise, for this level of future demand to exist IMO
PropQueries wrote: » The logic being that if an old couple's house goes into probate, it's not likely to be bought by another old couple. I'm looking at the actual demand for additional housing required each and every year going forward and that generally means young couples with children or hoping to have children who don't already have an existing home bought or rented.
If people believe we need enough additional supply each and every year for c. 90,000 additional persons going forward, so be it. We're far too small a country, population wise, for this level of future demand to exist IMO
Idbatterim wrote: » we have a marginal tax rate of FIFTY percent over a pittance after two booms and the party of early risers being at the helm for the last one. How much worse can it get?
Idbatterim wrote: » we have a marginal tax rate of FIFTY percent over a pittance after two booms and the party of early risers being at the helm for the last one. How much worse can it get? This rip off prices is all well and good, until their kids emigrate or emigrate long term OR they need financial assistance from the parents, who may struggle to afford it...
Timing belt wrote: » The figures are from 2011 - 2016 so yet again you are moving the goal posts. If people now had money to prevent a building from being obsolescent then they would also have money to bring back vacant properties to the market. yet this is not being seen in the ESB re-connection figures which you have totally ignored. If deaths are included in the population growth then why are you double counting with probate sales? Can you explain your logic.
PropQueries wrote: » And I have no idea why they fret about the value of their home. The state is just going to take whatever value exists in their homes from them through some future version of the fair deal scheme, lower inheritance tax thresholds etc.
PropQueries wrote: » There is definitely additional supply of at least c. 30,000 additional units entering the market each year when adding up new builds, refurbishments, re-connections, probate sales etc.. That's enough new additional supply entering the market to house c. 90,000 persons each year (average of a couple and one child). We definitely do not require enough additional housing supply to accommodate an additional 90,000 persons each year going forward IMO.
PropQueries wrote: » In relation to obsolescence, not many people would have had the funds between 2008 and 2013 to maintain their vacant properties especially if they thought there was little value in them at the time. Such properties would fall into disrepair fairly quickly in such a scenario. Extrapolating the obsolescence figures during that period and applying them going forward is wrong and overestimating the future levels of obsolescence IMO
Can't find figures on probate sales (maybe someone can find them), but stands to reason it's definitely in the 5,000 - 10,000 figure annually IMO.
PropQueries wrote: » I don't believe for one second c. 5,000 existing dwellings in and around the counties of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway (the counties where people want to live and where the majority of demand will be going forward, WFH or no WFH) need to knocked down and replaced each and every year i.e. 50,000 units would need to knocked down and rebuilt, primarily in these four counties over the next 10 years. I also don't believe using the 2011 - 2016 estimated level of housing obsolescence and applying it going forward would be appropriate given the unique circumstances of that time period. This, according to your link is how they calculate it: "For the intercensal period, 2011-2016 in this case, the number of dwellings that became obsolete each year can be obtained by taking the change in the stock of dwellings between Censuses and subtracting this figure from the numbers of dwellings built over the relevant period. Comparing the 2011 to the 2016 Census shows an increase of 8,800 permanent housing units. At the same time, completions in the intercensal period, between the second quarter of 2011 and the first quarter of 2016, amounted to 29,319 dwellings. The difference between these two figures provides an estimate of obsolete dwellings: a total of 20,519 or 4,104 per annum. This results in an obsolescence rate (obsolete dwellings compared to the total housing stock) of 0.20 per cent" There is definitely additional supply of at least c. 30,000 additional units entering the market each year when adding up new builds, refurbishments, re-connections, probate sales etc.. That's enough new additional supply entering the market to house c. 90,000 persons each year (average of a couple and one child). We definitely do not require enough additional housing supply to accommodate an additional 90,000 persons each year going forward IMO.
It's not the lowering value of their home that most middle class people will be worried about it will be their jobs and amount of extra tax they will pay if SF get in power.
Timing belt wrote: » The ESRI report acknowledge that obsolescence is lower in certain areas than others and take this into account in their calculations What is different now to then when it comes to old buildings becoming obsolete. Can you please explain? I agree with the new builds but obsolescence, ESB re-connections and probate sales are you making up figures. Obsolescence - I have discussed above. ESB Re-connections - I have explained is repossessions as per the CSO but you are ignoring this. Probate sales - Are included in the population growth figures as believe it or not they include deaths in calculating this so you are double counting this.
schmittel wrote: » If SF get into power it will be because the middle class have spent too long fretting about the value of their home and FF/FG have pandered to that.
PropQueries wrote: » I don't believe for one second c. 5,000 existing dwellings in and around the counties of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway (the counties where people want to live and where the majority of demand will be going forward, WFH or no WFH) need to knocked down and replaced each and every year i.e. 50,000 units would need to knocked down and rebuilt, primarily in these four counties over the next 10 years.
"The smallest obsolescence rates for the 2011-2016 period are registered around Dublin and the South coast, whereas the largest are located on the North-West."
I also don't believe using the 2011 - 2016 estimated level of housing obsolescence and applying it going forward would be appropriate given the unique circumstances of that time period.
There is definitely Additional supply of at least c. 30,000 additional units entering the market each year when adding up new builds, refurbishments, re-connections, probate sales etc.. That's enough new additional supply entering the market to house c. 90,000 persons each year (average of a couple and one child).
Timing belt wrote: » It's not the lowering value of their home that most middle class people will be worried about it will be their jobs and amount of extra tax they will pay if SF get in power.
Timing belt wrote: » So you claim obsolescence is inflating the demand figure by 5,000 despite the fact that this is a calculated figure from census data: 2016 housing stock - 2011 housing stock - new builds = obsolesce Also the ESRI do make reference to it and have a full section devoted to why you need to included obsolescence in calculating demand. -see section 5.3 OBSOLESCENCE on page 33 of REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS AND STRUCTURAL HOUSING DEMAND AT A COUNTY LEVEL Report published Dec 2020 The ESB reconnections you mention are only 2.5k a year and are mainly due to repossessed properties re-entering the market. yes this add's supply but if you are going to count this you need to reduce supply for properties repossessed. so the overall impact on housing supply is minimal.
MacronvFrugals wrote: » GE2020 touched on it slightly but as soon as middle class people see their children struggling unable to move out they will take chances even if a consequence of that is a lowering in value of their home. 3 years time with little action will only exacerbate these figures towards SF
