2021 Irish Property Market chat - mod warnings post 1

PropQueries wrote: »

Basically because austerity was the name of the game last time. Plus we went from having one of the lowest government debt levels in the world to one of the highest which cushioned the level of tax rises required to keep the economy going at that time.

Today, the buzzword is “bigger state”. That means significant tax rises ahead IMO

Look up the phrase of "law of diminishing returns" and you will understand that raising taxes to unaffordable levels will not work. So you think that raising to 70% is not austerity. We have been paying the debt back since 2008 so surely we should of all been paying 120% taxes to pay it off

come on Props we will never see 70% tax rates again this was the reason Ireland had such high emigration out of the country when it was here, It was not worth a persons while working. Also no political party would bring it in as they would be crucified.

fliball123 wrote: »

Then why didnt they do that after 2008? 20/30 on PRSI dont think so and 70% at the higher rate the law of diminishing returns is currently kicking in at the rate currently 70% will result in less taxes being collected.

Basically because austerity was the name of the game last time. Plus we went from having one of the lowest government debt levels in the world to one of the highest which cushioned the level of tax rises required to keep the economy going at that time.

Today, the buzzword is “bigger state”. That means significant tax rises ahead IMO

cnocbui

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Analysis: How Sinn Féin will seek to undermine LDA launch with its own unofficial website

LDA - just what this country needs, more civil servants.

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

In the very short term it may increase the price of new builds (or maybe just stop developers reducing their prices?).

Then in 5 years time, just when the buyers have to start making repayments on the government “subsidy/help/loan”, the state will finally admit we have a pension/healthcare budget problem and jack up PRSI to 20%-30% (still not an income tax increase in their eyes).

That will then bring real income taxes up to c. 70% at the higher rate (threshold probably dropped to €20k by that stage) on top of the additional mortgage payments these people will be forced to pay IMO

If real income taxes are 70% and you are paying 23% VAT, the tax burden would be 93% of income earned.

Thankfully, I don't believe that to be feasible.

Villa05

Browney7 wrote:

I was stunned with the 53% figure when I read it myself. Pretty sure the ESRI mean it in the context of 53% of people who are classified as renting are supported by the state (which would include LA housing and make a lot more sense!). I don't think they are saying 53% of participants in the private rental sector are receiving state support although with HAP this will continue to rise

I believe the figure for private rents is over 30%
I'm not sure what category the homeless/homeless hubs and those living in hotel rooms come under.

PropQueries wrote: »

In the very short term it may increase the price of new builds (or maybe just stop developers reducing their prices?).

Then in 5 years time, just when the buyers have to start making repayments on the government “subsidy/help/loan”, the state will finally admit we have a pension/healthcare budget problem and jack up PRSI to 20%-30% (still not an income tax increase in their eyes).

That will then bring real income taxes up to c. 70% at the higher rate (threshold probably dropped to €20k by that stage) on top of the additional mortgage payments these people will be forced to pay IMO

Then why didnt they do that after 2008? 20/30 on PRSI dont think so and 70% at the higher rate the law of diminishing returns is currently kicking in at the rate currently 70% will result in less taxes being collected.

Markitron

Cyrus wrote: »

850k for this ??

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/12b-wayside-cottages-kilternan-dublin-18/4484282

How the **** can they call it newly built when it's 5 years old?

MacronvFrugals

It seems O Brien's bill has been heavily watered down compared to the one Eoghan Murphy proposed(FG), mostly the LDA is not going to be the super quango handing public land over to developers that Fine Gael wanted

Hubertj wrote: »

I suppose if people are gullible enough to believe the HTB and other schemes will not increase prices they will be believe Sinn Fein would publish “non partisan”information.

In the very short term it may increase the price of new builds (or maybe just stop developers reducing their prices?).

Then in 5 years time, just when the buyers have to start making repayments on the government “subsidy/help/loan”, the state will finally admit we have a pension/healthcare budget problem and jack up PRSI to 20%-30% (still not an income tax increase in their eyes).

That will then bring real income taxes up to c. 70% at the higher rate (threshold probably dropped to €20k by that stage) on top of the additional mortgage payments these people will be forced to pay IMO

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

I suppose if people are gullible enough to believe the HTB and other schemes will not increase prices they will be believe Sinn Fein would publish “non partisan”information.

In fairness to SF on this I don't see the problem if they're doing it to criticise government policy - that's their job as opposition. And if it is true that government are trying to hush up ESRI criticism, the website might serve a useful purpose.

I guess it's a bit sneaky if they don't disclose they are behind it but cannot really see how they can inject a republican flavour into criticism of the LDA.

https://www.businesspost.ie/ireland/analysis-how-sinn-fein-will-seek-to-undermine-lda-launch-with-its-own-unofficial-website-134570c9?auth=login

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Analysis: How Sinn Féin will seek to undermine LDA launch with its own unofficial website

https://www.businesspost.ie/ireland/analysis-how-sinn-fein-will-seek-to-undermine-lda-launch-with-its-own-unofficial-website-134570c9?auth=login

I suppose if people are gullible enough to believe the HTB and other schemes will not increase prices they will be believe Sinn Fein would publish “non partisan”information.

MacronvFrugals

Analysis: How Sinn Féin will seek to undermine LDA launch with its own unofficial website

‘Non-partisan’ site will be modelled on Nama Wine Lake project which gained a considerable following and led to questions in the Dáil

The new Land Development Agency (LDA) is supposed to deliver up to 20,000 homes on public land in the decades ahead. The bill to set it up is arriving in the Dáil for the first time today.

But Sinn Féin is launching its own LDA website to thwart this key policy priority for Darragh O’Brien, the Minister for Housing.

It is an interesting venture from Sinn Féin because its unofficial LDA website will be presented as a “non-partisan” destination for all information for LDA housing projects around the country.

It is modelled on the now mothballed Nama Wine Lake website which was founded by an anonymous person during the last recession to question the actions of the National Asset Management Agency. It gained a considerable following and some of the information published there led to questions in the Dáil and responses from Nama. The author of the site signed off in 2013, having managed to keep his or her identity a secret.

Cyrus wrote: »

850k for this ??

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/12b-wayside-cottages-kilternan-dublin-18/4484282

Does the price include the fussball table? Sweetens the deal

[Deleted User]

Cyrus wrote: »

850k for this ??

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/12b-wayside-cottages-kilternan-dublin-18/4484282

Madness

Cyrus

850k for this ??

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/12b-wayside-cottages-kilternan-dublin-18/4484282

PropQueries wrote: »

Whether we require more public sector workers or not (I think not) is a mute point in my mind.

How we intend to pay for them without increasing income taxes or pay/pension cuts is vastly more important to me.

And, I'm still of the opinion that our eastern european EU neighbours, who have much lower real debt and pay/pension levels than we do, aren't going to keep allowing the ECB to keep funding our extravagances forever and a day IMO

Otherwise, it's just the ECB printing money and handing it over to some of the western EU countries for free.

Weather you agree or disagree about ps workers. The 3 points below can be proven so instead of you licking your finger and sticking it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, just try and get your head around these 3 points.

1) We had an employment embargo for years after 2008 - so no new hires

2) We had an active campaign of people taking redundancies or retirement in the PS in those years as well - Having said that none of it was forced and the PS were treated with kid gloves during the last recession- so losing staff

So numbers wise in the ps we had 325117 back in 2008 this dropped to 291838 in 2013 and back to 330576 in 2018 so in effect we have had an increase of about 5k ps workers in that time

https://publicpolicy.ie/papers/public-service-numbers-and-pay-from-austerity-to-recovery/

3) We have had an increase in our population of 567,035 since 2008

So we have hired 1 ps worker for every 100 people added to our population over that period. Not sure how this tallies with the rest of the globe with numbers.

So as much as I dislike the attitude and the entitlement culture in our PS along with the ridiculously high pay, pensions and perks we have a need for more resources. This is a fact not an IMO

I reckon the idea will be to get the economy going again, get people working again, employment is the driver for all taxation with the exception of corpo tax people have to work to pay it. The ECB is funding every country at the moment do you not think other countries even your beloved eastern euro countries are having problems during covid and need financial support

fliball123 wrote: »

OK lets just cut this out..Not just you Props. Before covid we had turned a corner with our deficit we have been paying back debt since the 2008 crash. The problem had been our deficit over those years. We had actually managed to recover and in 2018 and 2019 we were taking in more money than spending even when servicing a 200Billion debt. Now Corona has kicked in 2020 and 2021 we will be borrowing another 30 billion for this but the existing 200billion was refinanced at a almost 0% rate along with the new 30Billion so we are not paying out much more on interest and we still do not know what way the deficit will be after the country opens back up. One thing the world has learned is that austerity does not work. lets see how their approach works this time.

Also remember there had been an embargo on public sector jobs for years after 2008 which put a lot of pressure on some public sector areas. The garda are one such area, same goes with school teachers. Props you still have not joined the dots that our population has increased year on year for the last 100 years and as such the public sector has to grow to accommodate this as well. Cant believe I am actually defending the public sector. I do agree with you on what it costs for a public sector worker in this country and what should be done is public sector should stop paying the pension levy and be told to pay for their own pension just like the unwashed masses in the private sector.

Whether we require more public sector workers or not (I think not) is a mute point in my mind.

How we intend to pay for them without increasing income taxes or pay/pension cuts is vastly more important to me.

And, I'm still of the opinion that our eastern european EU neighbours, who have much lower real debt and pay/pension levels than we do, aren't going to keep allowing the ECB to keep funding our extravagances forever and a day IMO

Otherwise, it's just the ECB printing money and handing it over to some of the western EU countries for free.

PropQueries wrote: »

So in two years time we will start paying back our debt and pay the salaries for the additional 70,000 public sector workers they intend to hire over the 19 month period starting March 2020.

And they're going to do all this without increasing taxes or cutting public sector pay? To me, that only really leaves pensions and property that's left to be taxed at that stage and in the meantime IMO

Link to Irish Times article on Michael McGrath hiring 70,000 additional public sector workers over the 19 month period starting March 2020: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/number-of-public-servants-to-rise-to-370-000-over-next-19-months-1.4482201

OK lets just cut this out..Not just you Props. Before covid we had turned a corner with our deficit we have been paying back debt since the 2008 crash. The problem had been our deficit over those years. We had actually managed to recover and in 2018 and 2019 we were taking in more money than spending even when servicing a 200Billion debt. Now Corona has kicked in 2020 and 2021 we will be borrowing another 30 billion for this but the existing 200billion was refinanced at a almost 0% rate along with the new 30Billion so we are not paying out much more on interest and we still do not know what way the deficit will be after the country opens back up. One thing the world has learned is that austerity does not work. lets see how their approach works this time.

Also remember there had been an embargo on public sector jobs for years after 2008 which put a lot of pressure on some public sector areas. The garda are one such area, same goes with school teachers. Props you still have not joined the dots that our population has increased year on year for the last 100 years and as such the public sector has to grow to accommodate this as well. Cant believe I am actually defending the public sector. I do agree with you on what it costs for a public sector worker in this country and what should be done is public sector should stop paying the pension levy and be told to pay for their own pension just like the unwashed masses in the private sector.

Blue Badger wrote: »

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7odXQx148qwbXrrNJBFH9C?si=nUo8h5zlRVWk8W7AMO5iMg

^link for this morning's newstalk breakfast show with the housing minister discussing the new housing bill and being questioned about what the ESRI is warning

Interesting that he said they're going to "deliver" 13,000 social housing units this year.

That's very good news for landlords, REITS and other large investors into the build-to-rent sector.

However, bad news for the rest of us given that we will be paying for these long-term lease agreements for the next 25 odd years and all signed at what most now agree is the height of the market IMO

Browney7

Villa05 wrote: »

The comments by the FF senator are eye opening
53% of rents subsidised by the state.
Many of the remaining unsubsidised renters are under severe pressure and cant afford a mortgage.
Add
Every new housing unit is subsidised by the state through ftb grant or tax breaks for investment funds

And the solution she is selling is subprime lending supported by the state on adjustable rates to people who the banks have decided are too risky in an environment of 0% interest rates.

The state is the largest landowner in the country has access to free money and the pool of labour required to build is increasing.

This can be fixed easily and be revenue positive for the state instead they are pursuing policy after policy that drives prices and rents up, costs the taxpayer a fortune, and makes the problem worse

In addition the markets are predicting inflation which makes tackling supply an even greater no brainer and income generator for the state

I was stunned with the 53% figure when I read it myself. Pretty sure the ESRI mean it in the context of 53% of people who are classified as renting are supported by the state (which would include LA housing and make a lot more sense!). I don't think they are saying 53% of participants in the private rental sector are receiving state support although with HAP this will continue to rise

Villa05

Yurt! wrote:

Interestingly, NZ has a chronic housing crisis probably an order of magnitude worse than Ireland (I know a well-paid kiwi who got a mortgage with two of his uni mates in Wellington as it was the only way to 'get on the ladder'), and for the same reasons we have an affordability crisis.

Yurt! wrote:

The government response (Kiwibuild) is startlingly similar to the proposed 'affordable' housing measures here, was a complete cluster*ck and inflated prices further, and basically only further advantaged people who had the money to buy in the first place.

Yurt! wrote:

You'd wonder do the civil servants in the Department of Housing have access to the internet to research this at all?

Civil servants have persistabtly warned against government measures
Did you ever think that this is politics and the party and there financiers come before people, the economy and the country.

We have been here before

Villa05

PropQueries wrote:

Talk about blaming the messenger. They must be really worried the whole housing market is built on sand to be this angry about what should basically be just another insignificant report IMO

The comments by the FF senator are eye opening
53% of rents subsidised by the state.
Many of the remaining unsubsidised renters are under severe pressure and cant afford a mortgage.
Add
Every new housing unit is subsidised by the state through ftb grant or tax breaks for investment funds

And the solution she is selling is subprime lending supported by the state on adjustable rates to people who the banks have decided are too risky in an environment of 0% interest rates.

The state is the largest landowner in the country has access to free money and the pool of labour required to build is increasing.

This can be fixed easily and be revenue positive for the state instead they are pursuing policy after policy that drives prices and rents up, costs the taxpayer a fortune, and makes the problem worse

In addition the markets are predicting inflation which makes tackling supply an even greater no brainer and income generator for the state

Blue Badger

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7odXQx148qwbXrrNJBFH9C?si=nUo8h5zlRVWk8W7AMO5iMg

^link for this morning's newstalk breakfast show with the housing minister discussing the new housing bill and being questioned about what the ESRI is warning

hmmm wrote: »

Yeah, we need lots more apartments and density in general. There is this obsession with "housing for families" when there are vast numbers of single people and couples who also need somewhere to live and don't want to live in a semi-d with a big commute. The demographics are suggesting that we will have a lot more 2 person households in the future, I think McWilliams keeps going on about this. Not every housing unit has to have room for kids, a garden and a pony.

I think they definitely should build apartments in the city but I think the issue is that given the rents they intend to charge, two incomes will be required to pay the proposed rents i.e. a couple/family? So, they're not aimed at single people IMO

And, if we're honest, the primary reason people have less children these days is primarily due to the cost of housing, so it's kind of a self fullfilling prophesy?

hmmm

jill_valentine wrote: »

In theory, we do need lots of apartments, because single people, particularly men, are overrepresented in homelessness figures, and removing the rent incentive to wedge 9 people into a three bed would go a long way.

But the government consistently develops schemes that serve only to raise the cost of housing, and units in that kind of price range are useless except as safe deposit boxes. Mid range 1 and 2 bed apartments are exactly what need rn and they're like gold dust.

Yeah, we need lots more apartments and density in general. There is this obsession with "housing for families" when there are vast numbers of single people and couples who also need somewhere to live and don't want to live in a semi-d with a big commute. The demographics are suggesting that we will have a lot more 2 person households in the future, I think McWilliams keeps going on about this. Not every housing unit has to have room for kids, a garden and a pony.

combat14 wrote: »

varadker states pay cuts and tax rises on the way albeit delayed for another little while .. reassuring for those buying a house and worth factoring in when getting a mortgage the next while .. last time the pay cuts to public servants and tax rises were brutal & swingeing - who knows what they will be like this time with govt debt absolutely soaring at present

There will be no cuts to public sector pay or increase in income tax for “at least for the first couple of years” after the pandemic, Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has said.

https://m.independent.ie/news/tanaiste-commits-to-no-post-pandemic-tax-hikes-or-cuts-to-public-sector-pay-40100605.html

So in two years time we will start paying back our debt and pay the salaries for the additional 70,000 public sector workers they intend to hire over the 19 month period starting March 2020.

And they're going to do all this without increasing taxes or cutting public sector pay? To me, that only really leaves pensions and property that's left to be taxed at that stage and in the meantime IMO

Link to Irish Times article on Michael McGrath hiring 70,000 additional public sector workers over the 19 month period starting March 2020: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/number-of-public-servants-to-rise-to-370-000-over-next-19-months-1.4482201

Interesting to see how this plays out. With so many options KPMG can get a good deal here which will place downward pressure on grade A offices in Dublin going forward.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/six-of-the-best-in-bid-to-deliver-new-dublin-hq-for-kpmg-1.4486605