cnocbui wrote: » The Irish solution to all problems - more tax. My solution is less tax, increasing the available consumption capability of people so they can better afford housing and consumption, leading to increased economic activity. The potential buyer of one of my properties recently said the bank had rejected her first loan application but her second has the verbal nod, so my dream of getting the feck out of this insane country is looking slightly more achievable. Happy daya.
The_Conductor wrote: » The problem is we are going to have to both pay more tax, and spend less- whether we like it or not. We will have the highest debt per capita in the EU in 2021 (at approx. 48,200 per head of population)- and our national debt is on a trajectory to continue increasing for the next 4-5 years. We need to pull the brakes on spending- and simultaneously increase taxation. We have an illusion of wealth in Ireland- an illusion that does not really exist, and its an illusion that we have been allowed perpetuate for the past number of years, as it suited not to call a halt to the party. Ireland is an incredibly expensive little country- and we have been exceptionally generous to those in society who have difficulty in living the lifestyle they'd like here. All of this house of cards is going to tumble.
PropQueries wrote: » I just looked up Jobseeker's Benefit in 2010 and today. It was €196 in 2010 and it's €203 today. Wouldn't that mean that the living standards of the unemployed have fallen significantly in real terms over the past ten years, which contradicts the narrative from some quarters that they're creaming it? Given that social welfare (as the layman understands it) comprises a very small percentage of the budget, I just don't see any real savings to made there IMO I also don't see how property taxes can be increased to such a level to make any difference. They did come after our pensions last time. Does anyone have any ideas on how they will come after our savings which they appear to be keeping too close an eye on recently IMO
ExMachina1000 wrote: Up to 1 million people don't pay income taxes in this country. The net needs to be widened
ExMachina1000 wrote: » Up to 1 million people don't pay income taxes in this country. The net needs to be widened
Hubertj wrote: » They can start with the public sector. There are billions to be saved there. The 2% pay increase the other week was insulting to the country given the current circumstances. We have thousands too many admin staff and not enough front line workers - doctors, nurses, law enforcement etc. Public services need to clean up their own act while reforming the taxation system - broadening it etc. back to the property market and the sinnn Fein housing policy for affordable housing. Does the purchaser get free hold or lease hold of the property? Are there conditions attached to purchasing your property for €240k or whatever number it is.
Hubertj wrote: » They can start with the public sector. There are billions to be saved there. The 2% pay increase the other week was insulting to the country given the current circumstances. We have thousands too many admin staff and not enough front line workers - doctors, nurses, law enforcement etc. Public services need to clean up their own act while reforming the taxation system - broadening it etc.
Hubertj wrote: » back to the property market and the sinnn Fein housing policy for affordable housing. Does the purchaser get free hold or lease hold of the property? Are there conditions attached to purchasing your property for €240k or whatever number it is.
The_Conductor wrote: » Parts of the public sector are already quite slim in comparison to other OECD countries. Also- the 2% payrise is for a 2 year period to February 2023- during which time the rate of inflation is predicted to be 2.7% see here In light of the fact that the payrise is below the predicted rate of inflation- it is a cut in real terms. Yes- there are too many admin staff- or even technical or medical staff in admin roles- we do need a seachange. We were promised a seachange in the HSE- when the old healthboards were abolished- however, instead of the predicted savings on admin and overheads- instead we ended up with bloat. No politicians have the gonads to tackle this- indeed, some politicians actively defend it. Fine Gael came out swinging on Twitter during the week- on the premise that Fine Gael was helping people to own houses, while Sinn Féin was only leasing houses to them. Either way- its nonsense- its largess from a government who don't have two brass farthings to rub against one another- trying to outdo each other and see who can promise the most ridiculous goodies to prospective voters. People have no cognisance of just how much trouble this county is in- and how we are not going to be given the latitude that many politicians imagine they will have if/when they are voted in on promises of bestowing goodies on their constituents. We are our own worst enemies.
The property can never be rented out on the private rented market, and it can never be sold on the open market at an unaffordable price. If the owner wants to sell the home, it must be sold back into the affordable housing scheme to another affordable purchaser at the future affordable housing price.
schmittel wrote: » The Sinn Fein policy is actually a pretty good one to be fair. There are two conditions attached: So basically if affordability is your biggest concern, buy a house in this scheme. Happy days. If investment is more of a factor and you're looking for income or capital gains, then sorry this is not for you. Fair enough. FGs attacks on it shows their mindset that they see rising property prices as the only game in town and compounding the current problems. SFs policy has the wisdom of taking a longer term view by trying to create a subsector in the market of affordable properties that will be available for people facing the same problem in 5, 10 or 15 years time. This is an altogether better approach.
Hubertj wrote: » How can you sell something at an unaffordable price? If someone can afford to buy something that makes it affordable. So it is really redefining the concept of home ownership in that you don’t really own it.
schmittel wrote: SFs policy has the wisdom of taking a longer term view by trying to create a subsector in the market of affordable properties that will be available for people facing the same problem in 5, 10 or 15 years time.
The_Conductor wrote: » I'd suggest extra rain days, more storms and general misery.
cnocbui wrote: » New Zealand. The drawbridge is up, but as I have two properties to offload and work to do to get planning compliant on one, hopefully by the time I get to a property free state, the road will be open.
PropQueries wrote: » Just looking at the share prices of the companies with most (all?) exposure to the Irish property market:Cairn Homes: Today = €1.09 vs Jan 2018 = €2.00Glenveagh: Today = €0.90 vs Jan 2018 = €1.26Irish Reit: Today = €1.57 vs Dec. 2019 = €1.83Hibernian Reit: Today = €1.15 vs May 2018 = €1.57 While Hibernian Reit (primarily office based investments) can be explained, why have the other three (primarily residential investments and primarily invested in the Greater Dublin region) moved in the opposite direction to what is both the public's perception and what the most recent data appears to show in relation to the movement of property prices in the Irish residential market? Genuinely not a loaded question. Seems like one of the buys of the decade if someone is on the bullish side IMO Even if someone believes the current low prices are down to the fact that share prices move according to international sentiment, they really should appear like a buy if someone believes that the Irish property market can indeed only go one way, rent or selling wise, going forward IMO
Timing belt wrote: » How does this policy differ from the building of large scale council estates that the populist don’t want anymore as they say they only lead to ghettos. The building of large scale council estates solved previous housing crises but it is no longer an option or is it under SF policy just with a bit of glitter to make it more attractive.
Mad_maxx wrote: » why New Zealand may i ask ? they do have a much more pro workers taxation code , is it purely down to this ?
schmittel wrote: » The difference that leaps out is the fact the houses being are being sold for in excess of 200k. However they envisage delivering it they are unlikely to be filled with dole scroungers.
Yurt! wrote: » He's in for a land if he attempts to buy property in proximity any of the cities in NZ. Their housing crisis is an order of magnitude worse than ours, and he'll find himself on boards.nz arguing the toss about what is and isn't affordable there as well; perhaps on the other side of the equation the proceeds of his buy-to-lets can't buy him a dunny in Upper Hutt.
Timing belt wrote: » Council houses in the past were not totally filled with dole scroungers but with people on lower incomes..
Timing belt wrote: » Council houses in the past were not totally filled with dole scroungers but with people on lower incomes.. I get the fact that people will buy so should have more respect for their properties and neighbourhoods but an area with 'Affordable houses' will have the same stigma attached than council estates did previously. That is not me saying that people should look down on them, it is just saying that I don't see how it is different. If FF/FG/G started building big council estates tomorrow to house people in HAP Rent prices would fall and houses would become more affordable of the back of this but there would be a massive outcry that council estates lead to ghettos and needs to be avoided at all costs.
schmittel wrote: » Building an estate of houses and selling them to people who qualify for mortgages of circa 200k is different to building an estate of houses and giving them to people who qualify for a free house. A bit silly to suggest otherwise. IMO.
Timing belt wrote: » Council house were rented by the tenant and later offered for sale at a affordable price.... they were not free houses given away.
