Wanderer78 wrote: » the government has to step in to sort this, in particularly in regards the financing of building, but we need the private sector to do most of the building
combat14 wrote: any thoughts on ff/fg price caps e.g. 300,000 clare, 250,000 roscommon, 225,000 leitrim and so on...
Robson99 wrote: » Something needs to happen. The cost of building has probably gone up 10% + in the last 12 months. That probably adds another 20k to the cost of building a 3 bed semi
Reins wrote: » Or his other quote " Not everyone want's to buy their own home " :rolleyes:
Amadan Dubh wrote: » Now it seems that 1 in 3 shops on Henry St, Dublin may stay closed even after restrictions ease. With all restrictions easing by July, it is worrying what sort of economic fallout we will see from covid (as we have not really seen much, if any, economic fallout as of yet due to government supports).
Cal4567 wrote: » Two separate situations. The first one is a REIT whose role is to buy up swathes of residential properties and let them. Their business model is to let to high end professionals given the open market rents they can achieve. Dublin has been very attractive to them in that regard. A whole host of well paid tech workers coming into Ireland, never mind other young professionals who just want/need somewhere to live, as they work in Dublin. Please some one correct me but I am also hearing, albeit 2nd hand, that they are offloading some of their properties to the local authorities for social housing or are they taking on HAP tenants, to fill some of their empties? Not sure.
Ozark707 wrote: » This is a tough one for the REIT's. If you are that young professional paying top dollar and then HAP is used to fill the rest you might consider moving on when your lease it up. On the other hand as you can see most of the new builds are priced out of the reach of these young professionals so the vacancy level is very high. The question boils down to how long they can sit on the vacant ones. Either way if HAP was not the renter of last resort at such high prices we would have considerably cheaper rents.
yagan wrote: » Forgive as it adds nothing to the discussion but this morning I woke up feeling very relieved that there is outrage. Under the last Fianna Fail led government I was pissing in the wind with family, friends and colleagues about the property bubble, but at least now they're all outraged by Fianna Fail's latest housing disaster. It's weird but I find strangely comforting. Maybe this time Fianna Fail will be dispatched entirely at the polls as even their most conservative secure home owning voter must be wondering if some vulture fund will buy the house for sale next door and move in problem tenants.
Evil_g wrote: » Are we just calling everything a vulture fund now?
fliball123 wrote: » FF are going no where, while people will be snorting fire in public behind the scenes almost 70% of the population own property why would they want to see their financial situation diminished. The REITS and the likes are pushing their balance sheet up.. Now I am not saying this is right but you will find FF are worse than cockroaches even if you squish its head it can continue living.https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/ireland-has-lowest-rate-of-home-ownership-in-almost-50-years-dail-told-38278560.html
timmyntc wrote: » This argument has been addressed umpteen times here already 70% of the population are not looking to sell up and move abroad, so won't see any huge benefit from rising prices. I'd say substantially more people of that 70% have children looking to buy - than have 2nd or 3rd properties that they can sell and avail of the equity.
fliball123 wrote: » FF are going nowhere, while people will be snorting fire in public behind the scenes almost 70% of the population own property why would they want to see their financial situation diminished. The REITS and the likes are pushing their balance sheet up.. Now I am not saying this is right but you will find FF are worse than cockroaches even if you squish its head it can continue living.https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/ireland-has-lowest-rate-of-home-ownership-in-almost-50-years-dail-told-38278560.html
Wanderer78 wrote: » it is the fact, that we continually prioritise these owners needs, particularly the value of their property, over every ones else needs, has lead us to here, and we re still doing it
timmyntc wrote: » if its a fact then why not present some evidence? You continually derail these threads with baseless broad statements such as these but never have anything to back them up.
yagan wrote: » Yesterday added a new twist for the die hard self serving Fianna Fail voter in that their own property value may be seriously threatened if a vulture fund buys the house next door and a feral mob is moved in. It's white terror for the landed Fianna Fail voter to have social housing as a neighbour. They loved it when vulture funds raised their property price, but they don't want vulture funds picking their neighbours.
Cilldara_2000 wrote: » Those of us who are more concerned with good outcomes and what's best for the country would hope to get SF into power because the centre-right consensus backed up by Labour has been shown to be completely unworkable and unaffordable for the ordinary people. They literally couldn't be any worse than what has gone on so far. Hoping that they get blamed for a mess not of their making is pathetic. Also, had to laugh at this quote in the article on rte.ie:https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2021/0504/1213801-mullen-park-investors-first-time-buyers-property-housing-estate/After being locked out of the housing estate, the Prime Time crew was later permitted into Mullen Park to interview Damien Dillon, an agent with Dillon Marshall Property Consultants, which is working with the developer. "Institutional landlords are being painted as big vulture funds that are coming in, but they're trying to help the housing crisis," he said. This guy takes us all to be fools. He's probably right considering how long we've allowed this to go on.
fliball123 wrote: » Well then it has not been addressed correctly no one wants to be less well off than they are that includes the 70% of people who own a property. Also step back and think about it most parents will do their best to look after their kids themselves instead of the state stepping in more chance of a rich daddy and mammy looking after young Charles than leaving it to the state to give them a hand up. If I had a few quid I would be buying a few gaffs giving them to the government for 20/25 years and using the money gained you could be funneling cash into young Charles bank account without any fuss and without raising any red flags with the tax man and Charles is sorted and when you die Charles gets a nice inheritance, he will have to pay inheritance tax after 335k. Now if you have 2 or 3 kids Charles, Porshe and Queenie thats nearly a million going to your kids untouched by the state. Now ask yourself the question as a parent do you really want the value you of your house dropping? To think people always always put the needs of the social good instead of their own interests is just barmy more times than not they look after themselves and couldnt give a flying feck how anyone else is.
fliball123 wrote: » Well good enough for them it will put paid to the amount of Nimbyism in the country
timmyntc wrote: » These hypotheticals have no bearing on reality - you've just created a situation in your head to justify your pov. Most people who own 1 home (that they live in) cannot realise any gains in equity from prices rising. If they want to trade up (or down) there is little gain there, because not only did their property raise in value, but all others did too. They cannot remortgage the house to take advantage of the extra equity and buy something nice for themselves - those days are long gone. Banks wont do that anymore. So I guess it all comes down to inheritance - but yet again, what good is a big inheritance from the family home because: 1) increase in price means its more likely to hit the CGT threshold 2) increase in price means that more of the inheritance will be spent buying a house anyways So there really is no benefit. The only people to benefit from the increase in house prices is speculators/investors - but the 70% of homeowners in the state are not all investors or speculators. Majority only own 1 home and that is the family home.
fliball123 wrote: » So there is a benefit to my 2 kids if my house keeps going up in value when I die they get more. That is a benefit. I might not see it but they will. Sorry if this goes against the social good but I am looking after me and my own as no one else will do it.
fliball123 wrote: » So your telling me that any of the 70% who own a property and have kids want their house price to drop? In my analogy no one sold and moved abroad and no one upsized or downsized or remortgaged. It is all about maximizing what you have to pass on to your kids. Personally speaking and I am sure a lot of parents would be of the same mindset, it would be nice to leave this world and know your kid(s) are sorted financially. So you think that in your analogy of the person having one house and say the average for kids is 2? So you think that the parents in this situation don't see any benefit in passing on a house that is worth more ?? I don't understand that logic at all. The kid will get 335k tax free from the house and then 67% of anything over this amount. Just as an aside the average house price is well below this 335k. So there is a benefit to my 2 kids if my house keeps going up in value when I die they get more. That is a benefit. I might not see it but they will. Sorry if this goes against the social good but I am looking after me and my own as no one else will do it. This is the reality a lot of people are living in and its not hypothetical.
timmyntc wrote: » House prices dropping is also a benefit to your children - in that its more affordable for them to buy their own house. I would much rather see my children able to buy a house of their own, than have to wait until I die so that they might get enough money from inheritance to buy a nice home. From that POV it is a zero sum game - an increase to the value of their inheritance means an increase to the cost of them buying a house. In fact, for 2 children, a house price decrease is actually more valuable - because they will each buy a house, but the inheritance is based on the price of 1 house only. So property prices decreasing is actually more beneficial to your children than an increase - a zero sum game for 1 child, but 2 or more and decreases are preferable to increases.
