Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

1575576578580581943

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 645 ✭✭✭J_1980


    Anecdotally, housing market crazy again after some lull around late last year.


    open days with a dozen parties with already existing offer 10% above ask. This is South Dublin. 700-1.1m range. Grim for any wannabe homeowners or anyone who sold to upgrade.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,823 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    In fairness,

    With the amount of support they have gained over the past five years, I'd suggest you are wrong.

    A lot of the support SF seem to have picked up are younger generations who are generally well educated but cannot see a way to own the own home or have become disillusioned with government policy for the last number of decades.

    In relation to housing, supply is the only answer at every level. Build more houses on places where they are in demand.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭amacca


    OK.. perhaps that's true...lets say SFs core vote is young people that can't see any other way to owning their own home than voting for SF

    I'd suggest their education wasn't up to much if they think SF will solve the housing crisis but I'll eat humble pie if I'm wrong.

    I'd say it would be more likely they'd make an even bigger balls of things than the current pack of sleeveens.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Unfortunately they dont see a way forward with the current political parties in place and you cant blame them they are now the least bad option for a voter or at least they can see the current lot have failed them. SF will get a lot of protest votes



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    They are not the least bad option.

    They are a different option.

    But realistically, SF will tax anyone on mid and upper incomes more heavily than they are being taxed now.

    If you are looking to buy a house, you would need to be in those 2 groups.

    Therefore, SF arent helping you buy a house.

    SF will support the low and no earners, they will not make it easier for people on average or above incomes to buy houses.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 414 ✭✭ingo1984


    100%. It's not that people believe that SF will do any better than the current crop, but it's the fact that people are so fed up with the current crop, they'll vote SF out of spite.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Young professionals voting SF will be sorely dissapointed.

    SF will not help these people. They are not the people SF represent.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Be careful what you wish for.

    SF are likley to cause us to lose MNC jobs, if they increase taxes on higher earners and the businesses themselves.

    At the moment, young people have fantastic career opportunities in Ireland. An amazing amount of great, well paid jobs for a small country, half the size of london.

    If SF drive those MNCs out, the good jobs go with them and we will see ecomonic migration and a brain drain again from the country.

    Not to mention lower living standards for all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,823 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Im not agreeing or disagreeing with the merits of voting SF however it's easy to see why after decades of power and apparantly the decadence of all of the MNC money/tax income from similar party governments, we are worse off in housing accessibility and health than we have ever been.

    What do they say - the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over again (voting in the same parties) and expecting different results.

    The reason younger people are going with SF is fairly straightforward, the current government have had a number of years to sort the issues out and simply haven't.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Yes, the govt have been a victim of their own success in a way.

    Fantastic economic growth and job creation for years has generated a population boom that they couldnt keep up with.

    Changes in planning laws etc are required, but SF arent suddenly going to magic up 50000 homes per year and we could lose jobs under their leadership that we have taken a long time to create.

    The current govt could have done better on the housing front, for sure.

    But they have done a lot of good things with regards rhe economy and wealth generation in the country.

    We have amazing corporate tax take and so many well paid highly skilled career opps for young people.

    The fear is that SF will weaken the economy and job propsects for young people AND not improve the housing situation.

    We are not currently living with the worst option.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    How can we fix it so that young people will be able to buy a house? Simple. Just increase property taxes for houses that were build prior to 2023 and exempt houses that get built from this point forward. Also, exempt first time buyers of pre 2023 houses from the property tax for at least 20 years, (provided they did not make the purchase before 2023).

    If the tax on pre 2023 houses was high enough, it would have these effects:

    1) It would create a real economic demand for new builds (over existing housing stock). Anyone who can afford a new house will buy one and sell their existing house which will be costing them too much to keep. This will make building new houses far more economically viable as they will fetch a higher price.

    2) This increase in sales of existing houses will put serious downward pressure on the price of pre 2023 houses., making them more affordable.

    3) It would correct the mistake the governments made in enriching and protecting property owners by re-inflating property prices which were trying to correct themselves in 2009. Re-inflating property prices has cost us all 200 billion euro in borrowed money since the crash of 2008. Natural justice dictates that 200 billion should be repaid by the people who benefitted from it and not by young people who were school children back in 2008. And by raising 200 billion (by taxing pre 2023 properties), the government could bring the national debt back to where it was in 2008, before they did their bank bailouts and market manipulations.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,823 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    The fear for the 'new' voters of SF is that things will continue to deteriorate on a housing front. Ever increasing amounts of their wages going into rentals or not being able to move out from their parents houses or indeed ending up in the street. The 'strong economy' is not good if you cannot afford a roof over your head.

    These are the things that people in their twenties and thirties are concerned about no matter what their income.



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Would that not mean Institutional investors/LAs would be getting an even better deal than they already are, by buying new homes which are exempt from LPTs?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,823 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    What kind of numbers are you talking about here?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Maybe but it will increase the supply which seems to be an ongoing issue. Also, the big institutions would have stiff competion because a lot of mature property owners (not first time buyers) would be buying the new builds to extricate themselves from the pre 2023 property taxes on their existing properties. I absolutely agree tax exemptions for institutional investors should never have been given and need to stop (I mean the properties they bought before 2023).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,823 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    I dont think you've thought this through at all.

    I can't see at all how it will increase supply - if anything it would make it more difficult to buy a "new" house - new houses which FTBs currently have the help to buy available for.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    The problen with new builds is that, such is the state of the housing crisis, the councils are buying up, or worse, renting, whatever new build and empty properties they can get their grubby hands on.

    Ergo, the liklehood of paying top dollar for a new build, only to find your neighbours are mr and mrs freeloader, would mean that buying a second hand home in a nice settled area is a much more attractive propsect for many.

    And, a better investment for your children.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 414 ✭✭ingo1984


    Yep happened a work colleague of mine. Bought a new build in an estate in castletroy in Limerick, sold within a year. Was a semi d next to the free loading finest who required the gardai to be called every week.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Nightmare.

    At least your friends managed to sell up.

    Terrible really that new builds are so risky in this respect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Currently yes but if pre 2023 houses fell (a lot) in price and if you didn`t have to worry about having to pay property tax for 20 years, wouldn`t that interest a first time buyer?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    The councils ability to buy new houses would be severely curtailed if they were up against a million baby boomers trying to off load highly taxed pre 2023 houses for tax free new houses. Under such circumstances, a lot of new houses would be built and would sell for prices higher than they are now. The pre 2023 houses would fall in price to become affordable to first time buyers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Lot of merit in this, think it’s an excellent idea.

    Personally would make some slight tweaks to exempt people who bought their first homes in particularly expensive times.

    05-08 and 2018-23. There’s a whole cohort of people who got caught up in the frenzy of the Celtic Tiger and are still servicing insane mortgages and raising families in apartments worth far less than they paid for them 20 years later. Any one of those people who didn’t pack in the mortgage payments at the first sign of negative equity like the majority did are champions and don’t deserve any more financial pain inflicted on them.

    Would be a small enough group to not materially impact your idea. Would need to be some sort of sliding scale based on house price index at time of purchase to avoid unfortunate binary cut off dates.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,823 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    It would depend greatly on the numbers and the trust you held in both the current government and more importantly future governments.......



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Villa05




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭Brock Turnpike




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Lol, no.

    But I know that a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    That would never happen in reality.

    Sounds like some kind of socialist wet dream to me.

    Just because someone owns property, it doesnt mean they owe the rest of the country a house.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    No, not just because they own a property but because inflating their property cost us 200 billion euro. Therefore, deflating their properties by the 200 billion euro they owe us, is not socialism, it`s just making them pay their debts. Alternatively we can all emigrate leaving property owners and migrants the only people left to service that debt. Looking on the bright side, at least you`ll get to zoom your grandkids in Melbourne once in a while.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    So increase the demand for new houses?

    How fast do you think new houses can be built?

    What is going to happen to the price of new houses when you increase the demand for them without making enough supply?

    Say you did somehow get the construction industry into overdrive like it was in the past. What are you going to do then when new houses are being built too fast. Apply the brakes suddenly? Whole other set of problems then.

    Taxing things into the way you think you want them to end up rarely ends the way you think it will.

    Its a poor tool and usually ends up having unintended consequences.

    Bold move though. But an experiment to carry out on the whole population of Ireland? Lots of lives destroyed when it inevitibly throws up something you didnt think of in a couple of paragraphs :)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,927 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    It just another brainfart suggestion from a poster that 8-10 years ago used to post that we should abolish the minimum wage.

    First unintended conquence would be nobody would do up any older stock as the PT would be inordinately high. Therefore all older smaller houses in towns and villages that are semi derelict would remain so and more would start to get that way.

    Younger people who bought houses in the last five years would be punished for doing so. For older people on pensions it would create a financial burden that might cause homelessness.

    It would create a housing trap for those families that were in small apartments or houses that they owned. They could not move as any house they bought would be subject to an inordinately high property tax and as there own home was as well it would have a low market value

    People who need to move with there work would not be able to move house.

    It would be an active discouragement to single people buying a smaller property as you would lose your first time buyer status. This would actually keep many people in there late twenties or early thirties in the rental market.

    It could actually slow down building as if demand dropped it might become uneconomical for new building to take place.

    Finally as any property tax is based on the property value it could decimate property tax returns. Therefore it would cause a situation where the rate had to be inordinately high to balance the impact.

    Bank could have an issue with mortgage lending. After 20 years a property would collapse in value there banks would probably want repayments over 25 years max. This would increase repayments. In turn this would impact the level of mortgage allowed. This again could make house building uneconomic.

    As I said a brain fart similar to other brain farts from the same poster

    Slava Ukrainii



Advertisement
Advertisement