Gael23 wrote: » I imagine it will be in housing developments constructed by the state
Mic 1972 wrote: » There are a lot of cash buyer investors actually, the rental market is still very strong and attractive
decreds wrote: » Are you referring to REITs, vulture funds or small time landlords?
cnocbui wrote: » You'll need to explain to me how Berkshire Hathaway buying back 25 billion of their own shares, benefits the shareholders of BH to the tune of 25 billion, because I don't get it. Giving 25 billion worth of dividends to shareholders would benefit them by 25 billion. If it bossts the share price, They have to sell shares to realise the benefit in a practical sense.
SmokyMo wrote: » They are owned by funds. Rent income is not a priority for them, merely side effect.
Danzy wrote: Whatever it works out at it will push in prices for houses and rentals, you can be certain in won't be in areas where Socialists live, it will be in working class areas that the impact will be hardest felt.
Danzy wrote: » Green Minister Roddy O'Gorman announcement that all refugees will be provided their own door accommodation within 4 months of arrival is a game changer. In 2019 there were 3500 claims so you are talking 15% of units built in a year will be rented by the State to accommodate them. Whatever it works out at it will push in prices for houses and rentals, you can be certain in won't be in areas where Socialists live, it will be in working class areas that the impact will be hardest felt. Bertie Ahern couldn't have dreamt up such a wheeze for large scale landlords and developers.
Villa05 wrote: » People of ethnic minority are not housed in traditional working class areas at least that appears to be the policy in my local authority area. They feel that the integration process would be more difficult there. Yes working class will suffer as they are pushed down the housing priority list., while housing minorities in affluent areas will be far more costly
schmittel wrote: » Nobody is buying BH shares looking for a dividend. They're buying because they think Buffet's reputation as one of the best capital allocators in history is well deserved.
Hubertj wrote: » From what I read there will be 2 different lists for housing. RodEric ogormans department will be responsible for housing asylum seekers. So it will likely cause competition between departments inless they start magicking up a load of gaffs. Having said that I welcome the changes.
jill_valentine wrote: » Ditto. I wouldn't be shocked though - and admittedly this might just be me being fanciful - if this was turned into a coincidental way to make use of all that stuff thrown up as "student" housing, now that the bottom's fallen out of that market. That way you can reassure Irish voters the competition for housing isn't with them, you've technically kept your word to house asylum seekers in liveable - if limited - units, and you've put that stock to work. That actually might not be the worst idea in the world tbh, because as much as I loathe the whole concept of those units as long term living spaces, they could serve well as shorter term asylum shelter, and there's an argument to be made the shared kitchens etc could be ideal for facilitating community and social links among groups who've been displaced. Again, probably just my imagintion running away with me, but it is my first thought.
schmittel wrote: » Whether it's student housing or not, you might be onto something about it being a convenient way to mop up supply as it comes on stream so we can continued to panic about a housing shortage.
PropQueries wrote: » While they’re obviously right, if you’re a FTB don’t fall for their concern. It’s more to do with the fact that local estate agents generally don’t get a look in when new builds are being sold. Their bread and butter is second hand home sales.
cnocbui wrote: » I know why people buy BH, but I'm still waiting for your explanation as to what Buffet or BH shareholders get out of buying back their own shares? How does that benefit BH shareholders in a better way than giving that money to them as a dividend? As I said originally, I think there is a problem with the tax system if it is encouraging this crazy practice.
Austria! wrote: » Dividend or buyback doesn't create or destroy money, and there is no reason to prefer one over the other, except when it comes to tax. Certainly neither one is crazy. With a dividend shareholders get 25 billion, with a buy back their share price goes up by the same value. Someone with a low income tax might prefer dividend, someone with a high income tax or high capital losses might prefer the capital gains.
Deleted User wrote: » I spoke with people around about savings and how they see them financial future Some said they keep rising them saving because not sure about future of them jobs and try create parashute for mortgage or car loan Some had difficulties already in 2008 and would not like have same issues again Some use chance create savings before them 350 PUP will be turn into 200 euros unemployment benefit So before talking about savings lets talk about who exactly saving money.Sadly nobody can not tell who and why rising them savings I would be very careful before saying that savings will go into housing market when economy will be rising ( if will be ).
In a presentation to up to 700 delegates she suggested a regional development plan of €1 million per town to refurbish and retrofit 20 upper floor and vacant units in regional towns which could provide long-term jobs, create footfall and build sustainable communities. Prof Hegarty said this option could be used for direct provision accommodation, homelessness and for one, two and three-person households on housing waiting lists who are not prioritised.
Cyrus wrote: » In better news, I know we have a lot of McWilliams admirers here and I’m sure you all read his latest article with a keen interest. He believes Ireland will bounce back very quickly economically from all of this and that the Budget deficit will narrow without the need for austerity .www.irishtimes.com/opinion/david-mcwilliams-why-ireland-will-recover-faster-than-others-1.4495214%3fmode=amp
decreds wrote: » I'll have what he's smoking
schmittel wrote: » Assistant professor of architecture at UCD Orla Hegarty has been addressing the Soc Dems conference: Sounds like she has a direct line to Props!https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/construction-sector-spin-must-be-challenged-soc-dems-conference-told-1.4497193
schmittel wrote: » That one in glenageary is a smashing house. I’d think if you put 200k in that you’d end up with something awesome.
PropQueries wrote: » According to the SBP today: “Fresh pressure is mounting on the government’s proposed €75 million shared equity scheme, with a group representing 1,500 estate agents and auctioneers now claiming it will not make housing more affordable for buyers.” While they’re obviously right, if you’re a FTB don’t fall for their concern. It’s more to do with the fact that local estate agents generally don’t get a look in when new builds are being sold. Their bread and butter is second hand home sales. Either way, good to see the pressure mounting on this nonsense scheme which only benefits landowners. And who owns most of the land banks in and around our urban centres? Either the big developers or the funds. Link to article in SBP: https://www.businesspost.ie/houses/opposition-to-states-eur75m-shared-equity-scheme-grows-bb887453
PropQueries wrote: » Maybe he should have a chat with the chancellor of the exchequer in the UK. In an interview with the Financial Times two days ago: “Rishi Sunak will use next week’s Budget to “level with people” over the “enormous strains” in Britain’s public finances, warning that, after a further injection of coronavirus support, a bill will have to be paid. In an interview with the Financial Times, the chancellor said there was an immediate need to spend more to protect jobs as the UK emerged from the Covid-19 threat, but he warned that Britain’s finances were now “exposed”. “There are some people who think you can ignore the problem. And, worse, there are some people who think there isn’t a problem at all. I don’t think that,” Sunak said.” One would wonder how our government appears to believe that our covid bill doesn’t have to be paid. And let’s be honest. The PUP payments are primarily being funded through the raiding of our PRSI fund which means the majority of the borrowing is once again (much like after the last crash) going to pay the salaries and pensions of the public sector. But the full bill will be once again passed onto the private sector worker IMO Link to interview in FT here: https://www.ft.com/content/ad974b76-a5c3-4615-8b73-72f4063875b2
