combat14 wrote: » looks like it is time to cut the dole, HAP payments, COVID payments and business supports the country simply afford all these payments at current rates and borrowing any more serious crisis on the way if we dont tighten our belt
thefridge2006 wrote: Fully agree. HAP is the biggest joke I've ever seen not to mention all the scamming that takes place on it. We really do live in the land of milk and honey
cnocbui wrote: » This thread has become like the Sweden avoiding lockdown one. Same obsessive personalities at play.
thefridge2006 wrote: » Exchequer deficit swells to €14bn as lockdown hits tax takehttps://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/exchequer-deficit-swells-to-14bn-as-lockdown-hits-tax-take-1.4499249 What happened the money they stuck in the piggy bank in a "worse case scenario super fund" to deal with the twin-threat posed by Covid-19 and Brexit The truth is, they haven't a scoobies about what's going to happen and things are looking a lot worse than they first thought. God only knows what's coming down the line. I feel sorry for people who are buying houses in the middle of all this at record prices. I just can't see how it makes sense but that's just me
PropQueries wrote: » According to the Irish Independent, the Minister for Housing has said that it's only the opposition that are against his affordable housing scheme: "Speaking on RTE News at One yesterday, Minister Darragh O’Brien flatly denied there had been a notable level of criticism directed at the scheme, other than from the usual suspects. “There hasn’t actually been a lot of criticism, there has been some predictable criticism from the political side – the opposition,” The article goes on to say: "To date, the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), the Central Bank, the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers (IPAV), and a former secretary-general of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER) have all criticised the Government’s proposed shared equity scheme." Link to article in Irish Independent today: https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/government-ploughing-on-with-affordable-homes-scheme-despite-what-experts-say-40151749.html
PropQueries wrote: » According to the Irish Independent, the Minister for Housing has said that it's only the opposition that are against his affordable housing scheme:
thefridge2006 wrote: » God only knows what's coming down the line. I feel sorry for people who are buying houses in the middle of all this at record prices. I just can't see how it makes sense but that's just me
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Eoghan O Broin is making the point that this will interefere with supply and demand and artificially increase house prices. When SF are the ones advocating for a freer market and less government intervention in popular causes, something is amiss. My prediction for the affordable housing scheme is that they will introduce it, but they will make it very difficulty to access. They might say that it only applies to houses where the building commenced in or after 2021 for example, or they will insist on the government shared equity being the first charge, thus making it unattractive for banks to lend money. My simple solution to all of this is for the government to provide funding directly to builders to build new houses and have a profit sharing scheme with them and an undertaking to cover any losses they suffer. That is the best way to increase supply without causing dramatic distortions in the price paid by buyers.
PropQueries wrote: » I think we should start by looking at why the Government thought now was the right time to agree pay rises for the public sector IMO
PropQueries wrote: » I get your point. But if developers can build and sell 3 bed semi detached units in the midlands for under €250k (incl. site, VAT, profit margins etc.), that means the c. €100k the state is lending to the purchaser in Dublin is basically a €100k loan to cover the cost of the site i.e. it's a direct subsidy to landowners. Maybe such a scheme would make sense in pre-China Hong Kong but there's nothing but fields in Co. Dublin so there's obviously no shortage of land to build on. And the only reason a site cost is so expensive in Dublin to begin with is that the state continues to restrict the overall supply of building land through the planning permission process and gave it that value through the granting of planning permission. That same site currently worth c. €100k in Co. Dublin is probably only worth c. €10k (agri. value) without the state granting them this permission i.e. a stamped piece of paper.
Deleted User wrote: » Banks leaving/closing branches.Third bank anounced changes. It does not look that economy will recover and there will be bussiness as usual. The banks representatives could say what they want but things does not look good. Very bad signs.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Well a scheme where the government provide funding to build houses in areas that need housing. They could then sell the houses privately and have a profit share and then reinvest in other houses, or undertake to buy them at cost as social houses. So for example, between site and building costs if a house in the suburbs of Dublin cost €450k:A. They sell it for €500k, developer takes €25k of the profit and the govt takes the other €25. B. They sell it for €450k. No profit, but you took a gamble and broke even, no harm done. C. They can't sell it for €450k, so the govt buys it as social housing. However bad all of the above sounds, it's no worse than the current system where the government subsidises private house building and buys in private developments as social housing, but this way the government has some control over what is built, is likely to see some return on their investment and it also guarantees that houses which might otherwise not be built, will be built. They could also provide grants and tax breaks to companies willing to relocate from high demand areas to lower demand areas, maybe fill up a few ghost estates instead of bulldozing them. It's a sort of least worst variant on how the government should intervene. Their coctail of interventions to date are just making property prices more expensive. Then again, maybe that is the real reason behind the government interventions - to support the propertied class rather than to actually solve the housing crisis.
PropQueries wrote: » But that's the thing. Cairn Homes average selling price last year was c. €350k and Glenveagh's average selling prince was c. €311k. And that included site costs, VAT, profit margins etc. etc. Many new builds in the midlands are currently asking under c. €250k and last year in Co. Waterford they were selling two bed a-rated terraced units for c. €160k. I don't understand where people pull figures of €500k, €450k or €400k that developers need to break even. Cairn Homes and Glenveagh are not just breaking even, but making decent profits by building and selling their new build units in and around Co. Dublin for an average of under €350k at the moment.
fliball123 wrote: » If this is the case why isn't the government using them? Is there anything out there that would stop them from using these companies?
Figures obtained by the Irish Examiner show that in some counties — Limerick, Meath, and South Dublin — upwards of four out of every five, or 80%, of houses offered by Nama were not taken up for social housing. In Limerick City and County, only 32 of 166 homes identified were taken up by the local authority, while in Meath only 39 of 236 homes identified were accepted, meaning 197 or 83% were not secured. For Cork City, the documents show that Nama offered 470 properties with just 157 taken up, leaving 313 (66%) behind, while in Cork County a total of 849 properties were offered but just 357 were taken — 492 (57%) were unwanted.
PropQueries wrote: » That's not "if this is the case". That's in their actual 2020 reports to their investors
fliball123 wrote: » I am not doubting you I am asking the question if this is the case why are they not using them.
Cyrus wrote: » hang on did you look at the glenveagh annual report? they made a decent loss also cairn and glenveagh are sitting on super cheap landbanks hoovered up between 2012 and 2014, if you were starting right now and needed to buy a site to build in dublin the prices being mentioned make sense.
PropQueries wrote: » Which is my original point. The c. €100k the state wants to lend home buyers to buy a home in Dublin is just a direct subsidy to landowners. Obviously without this scheme, the developer would need to sell their new built homes for c. €100k less in the private market and buy the site for cheaper. If they overpaid for the land, that is not the taxpayers fault and we have various methods to deal with such developers i.e. liquidation etc. If I open a jean selling shop and overpay for the jeans, the Government doesn't come in and offer to pay a third of the cost of the jeans for anyone interested in buying them. No, I go bankrupt. Same should apply to developers IMO
PropQueries wrote: » The c. €100k the state wants to lend home buyers to buy a home in Dublin is just a direct subsidy to landowners. Obviously without this scheme, the developer would need to sell their new built homes for c. €100k less in the private market and buy the site for cheaper.
Marius34 wrote: Why it makes sense to Rent? How come you so confident that the ones who bought recently are in worst position then the ones Renting?
Graham wrote: Only if you're working from the obviously flawed assumption that the houses wouldn't sell for the same price without the scheme.
Graham wrote: » Only if you're working from the obviously flawed assumption that the houses wouldn't sell for the same price without the scheme.
jill_valentine wrote: » Because getting out of being a renter in this country is an "at all costs" priority. Whatever happens in the next ten years, I would rather be struggling with a mortgage payment than meeting rent.
Markitron wrote: » Hasn't it always been like that?
Villa05 wrote: » I think both situations are dire. Overpriced housing in a country with massive debt and costly future issues such as health and pensions or even higher rents Every bubble needs a bit of a push factor to help it blow larger Rents are that factor and will continue to be unless supply is addressed. If supply is not addressed it will be an added factor as well as health and pensions. Home owners and renters will then have to pay much higher taxes in the future to cover these 3 issues amongst others It all could be so very different, we could run the country in a way that helps our citizens or continue to pander to landowner interests to the detriment of everyone else including home owners There's a show on rte called how to be good with money where the presenter uses sugar cubes to explain financial conundrums to viewers If sugar cubes are used to purchase houses and you give customers more sugar cubes for this specific purpose. What do you think happens houses where supply is restricted Do you think they need more less or the same amount
