SmokyMo wrote: » How about put tax on derelict properties and tax on vacant properties if more than 2 in possession as low hanging fruit?
fago wrote: » 2nd hand YoY growth swung by 3%, new by .4% In one quarter second hand growth has caught up and passed new. Would the theory be, a combination of the lack of new supply, and the price of new supply edging up making 2nd hand more attractive again?
cnocbui wrote: » Go ahead, increase the Revenue head count by 25%. More taxes and more civil servants - go for it - just what this country needs. REITS are a huge problem but the discussion here has turned to inaccessible spaces above shops, and the like. Crazy. Deal with the elephant in the room, before worrying about the mice. How many property owners have the funds necessary to do the renovations? if they all are forced to do it, assuming a magic amount of money, what would that do to the rental values? If they all had to borrow money to fund this nonsense, the rental yield could be insufficient to service borrowings. Not to mention the net effect of all this on Irelands currently minuscule level of debt. Where are the workers coming from to do these soon to be white elephant property conversions? Where is the money coming from? I have a property currently for sale, the prospective buyer has applied for a mortgage. So far it's been 5 months without it being granted yet. You own a shop, which makes ends meet, but isn't a spectacular earner. The government drops a 10% tax on you for the inaccessible, uninsulated, unplumbed, old wiring, spaces above. You apply for a loan to do the conversion and the banks say no. Then what? Yeah, great if such small business owners go under, fire their one employee, and are forced to put their property on the market, along with the 12,000 others doing likewise at the same time, for the same reason. What a win for FTBers - the prices of uninhabitable commercial buildings falling through the floor. The sheer impracticality and negative consequences of what people are proposing here at the moment just spin my head.
MacronvFrugals wrote: » Its a paywall article but interesting to note the IMF are recommending we increase taxesThe IMF’s point man on Ireland on increasing taxes, fixing the housing crisis and helping SMEs survive the pandemichttps://t.co/P3HggrjrRH?amp=1
The International Monetary Fund has distanced itself from comments by the fund’s former mission chief to Ireland, Ashoka Mody, who said complete reliance on austerity was not “a reasonable” way to go. ... Speaking on RTɒs Morning Ireland yesterday morning, Mr Mody said the construct for Ireland’s rescue was wrong. “We are seeing a belated recognition of the fact that the constraint imposed only by austerity was untenable. "Clearly the experience, if experience was needed, has demonstrated that reliance on austerity is counterproductive." Earlier this year, Mr Mody said the legacy burdens of the crisis must be addressed. “The alternative is unending human pain, a culture of national dependency and a fraying European economic and social fabric.”
cnocbui wrote: » Go ahead, increase the Revenue head count by 25%. More taxes and more civil servants - go for it - just what this country needs. REITS are a huge problem but the discussion here has turned to inaccessible spaces above shops, and the like. Crazy. Deal with the elephant in the room, before worrying about the mice.How many property owners have the funds necessary to do the renovations? if they all are forced to do it, assuming a magic amount of money, what would that do to the rental values? If they all had to borrow money to fund this nonsense, the rental yield could be insufficient to service borrowings. Not to mention the net effect of all this on Irelands currently minuscule level of debt. Where are the workers coming from to do these soon to be white elephant property conversions? Where is the money coming from? I have a property currently for sale, the prospective buyer has applied for a mortgage. So far it's been 5 months without it being granted yet. You own a shop, which makes ends meet, but isn't a spectacular earner. The government drops a 10% tax on you for the inaccessible, uninsulated, unplumbed, old wiring, spaces above. You apply for a loan to do the conversion and the banks say no. Then what? Yeah, great if such small business owners go under, fire their one employee, and are forced to put their property on the market, along with the 12,000 others doing likewise at the same time, for the same reason. What a win for FTBers - the prices of uninhabitable commercial buildings falling through the floor. The sheer impracticality and negative consequences of what people are proposing here at the moment just spin my head.
Amadan Dubh wrote: » If the government bans the entering into leases for 20/25 years by the councils and the institutionals have to try to draw €2k+ blood rents from the income tax payer stone, then I could see the "get rich quick" US investors starting to question the risk versus returns. The pension funds perhaps would just look to hold the asset and achieve some income over the long term. Bigger picture is as Timing Belt describes.
Amadan Dubh wrote: » The big question is how, in a housing crisis, can properties be left vacant rather than dropping rents until they are let? The data on the state of the market indicates rents have decreased slightly over the last year in Dublin but are potentially starting to increase again in Dublin. However, due to the level of vacancies, it is quite obvious that the Daft report is not a complete picture of the state of the market. Do we potentially already have our ghost estates from the economic growth period from 2012?
jill_valentine wrote: » The consensus seems to be, and apologies if I have this arseways, that the funds are calculating the on-paper valuation of these properties is going up so quickly that it outpaces whatever real cash they'd make by being rented out. So on on paper they make so much money every year just by being property and sitting around getting more valuable that the cash any actual tenants hand over is just lunch money on the side. Bizarrely though, part of that valuation figure though takes the potential rent into the equation, rather than the occupancy, as a previous commentor noted. How much you can ostensibly charge for that unit every month affects the valuation of it, while how much you are actually getting in the real world doesn't. So an unoccupied unit for €2000 a month "makes" more in a year than one occupied for €1000 a month, because it will go up by more than 12k, and more than the 1k one next door. And this is why their rents stay high, not because rents themselves are making the Reits rich, but because they expect such high on-paper rents to make their assets balloon in value year to year on the spreadsheet indefinitely. This is also why half empty developments are still finding new ways to staple on and sandwich in new units anywhere they can - because a new unit can have any rent they like thrown onto it for the sake of valuation, which is far more important to the investor report than filling the existing ghost block. This is my understanding of what's happening in those developments based on chatter on here and Reddit. And there is an internally logical dynamic to it, just as there was internal logic in sending beef and wheat abroad during the famine.
JimmyVik wrote: » I just caught the end of a show on the radio there. Not sure if it was him, but did I just hear Darragh O'Brien suggesting that they increase stamp duty for everyone but FTBs to curb REITs? I knew it wouldnt take them long to figure out how to gouge more money off ordinary workers, thinly veiled as helping them. What about second time buyers? I hope he isnt intending on upping stamp duty for them too. That guy is worse even than the housing ministers who came before.
PropQueries wrote: » And who are the owners? I would guess, in many cases, it's the funds who purchased c. €200 Billion in distressed Irish bank assets between 2012 and 2016. The state can easily distinguish between a shop owner who actually does run a shop out of his own property and a fund. They can easily tax the fund owned under-used property which would have no impact on the small business property owner IMO
jill_valentine wrote: » The consensus seems to be, and apologies if I have this arseways, that the funds are calculating the on-paper valuation of these properties is going up so quickly that it outpaces whatever real cash they'd make by being rented out. So on on paper they make so much money every year just by being property and sitting around getting more valuable that the cash any actual tenants hand over is just lunch money on the side. Bizarrely though, part of that valuation figure though takes the potential rent into the equation, rather than the occupancy, as a previous commentor noted. How much you can ostensibly charge for that unit every month affects the valuation of it, while how much you are actually getting in the real world doesn't. So an unoccupied unit for €2000 a month "makes" more in a year than one occupied for €1000 a month, because it will go up by more than 12k, and more than the 1k one next door. And this is why their rents stay high, not because rents themselves are making the Reits rich, but because they expect such high on-paper rents to make their assets balloon in value year to year on the spreadsheet indefinitely. This is also why half empty developments are still finding new ways to staple on and sandwich in new units anywhere they can - because a new unit can have any rent they like thrown onto it for the sake of valuation, which is far more important to the investor report than filling the existing ghost block. This is my understanding of what's happening in those developments based on chatter on here and Reddit. And there is an internally logical dynamic to it, just as there was internal logic in sending beef and wheat abroad during the famine. Its just absolutely ****ing insane from the outside, is all.
Cilldara_2000 wrote: » Another win for the accountants so (I'm an accountant). Fair value, market value, marked to market etc are all nonsense and lead to this sort of carry on. Absolutely bonkers that people get so tied up in unrealised notional profits.
Marius34 wrote: » Their main business and income is from actual Rental, they made much money even in the last 3 years, when property prices were stable, while they have plenty of expenses.
Villa05 wrote: » Home is where the city is Mick Clifford Irish Examiner podcast A study of dereliction focused on Cork City finds 340 derelict buildings within a 2 km radius in Cork Worth a listen on your evening walk
yagan wrote: » Their "declared" income on the many vacant properties we know exist. The easiest way to rob a bank is to run one, and the same applies to pension funds. I've elderly relatives whose weekly household expenses are less than the state pension but they obsess about their savings earning small interest and they're the kind of suckers that people like Smethurst ponzi scheme targets. Davy's were running a very dodgy ad specifically aimed at catching pensioners on LyricFM until they got rumbled.
Marius34 wrote: Their main business and income is from actual Rental, they made much money even in the last 3 years, when property prices were stable, while they have plenty of expenses.
Hubertj wrote: I could see that when I lived in cork from 2007-2012. So many derelict building in the city centre. Couldn’t get my head around it. Yards from Patrick st down cormarket past the bodega.
Marius34 wrote: » You are welcome to share, where did you find this information. If they declare income on vacant properties, their expenses/tax would go up. And if they manipulate their reports, there are massive fines for manipulating financial reports.
yagan wrote: » Seanie Fitz and Fingers Fingleton never saw the inside of a cell even though it was proven money passed between their institutions to get audits passed. Did that broker primetime exposed that rang his mate in the bank to find out how much the applicant could be squeezed for go to jail or get fined? It's impossible to design a system so perfect that no one needs to be good.
yagan wrote: » Seanie Fitz and Fingers Fingleton never saw the inside of a cell even though it was proven money passed between their institutions to get audits passed.
PropQueries wrote: » And, as David McWilliams said last year: "People who let good assets – like an old Victorian building – go bad are not too poor, they are too rich. If they were poor, they would mind the asset, take care of it, make it work for them, generate a return and bring the asset into commercial use."
cnocbui wrote: » You and McWilliams are wrong. You are assuming you can generate a viable return given the cost involved. You are also assuming being able to get the finance in the first place. I have chosen not to renovate my 'holiday' home because I did not think the revenue that might be achievable would justify the cost. I could have predicated my cost benefit on an income stream from AirBnb and the government could hove come along a week after I had hocked myself to the eyeballs and banned AirBnb due to some local nimby with an existing hotel making a stink.
Marius34 wrote: » this doesn't tell anything about REITs profits.
