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

On the wealth generation - This 'wealth generation' was not created by any Government, it was a by product of low interest rates and Quantitative Easing implemented by both the FED and the ECB. All this new money injected into the system after the GFC went straight into financial assets which gave the impression of wealth generation. Even the IMF stated this - This asset price inflation has really only created greater political and social divides between the haves and have nots which is resulting in the rise of populism and the shift from Centre politics in every western country.

Can you quantify that 235 billion as you have to realise that banks cost about 50/60 billion of it (minus the value of shares in AIB and BOI) and the rest was on over spend in 2 major areas I am not allowed say which 2 sectors but if you look at how spend ramped up over the years from 2000 onwards you will see where our expenditure ballooned it had nothing to do with people who bought a house.

Why should we pay more for this every worker is feeling the pain with regards to the cost of living and the issue of acute supply providing this option will unfairly give some people more money to push prices up even more and the inflation spiral/property price spiral keeps going up. The only way to tackle the problem as has been pointed out is building more supply. I would prefer to see the modular homes ramped up to the hundreds of thousands in units and those on the likes of welfare, people who are deemed essential workers and people fleeing countries for their lives would have a n option of a cheaper place to live in and then anyone who wants a house can work and save and buy one and hopefully it will lower demand which will bring down prices.

The only time I've seen parents skeptical about there child buying was last year in London (Asian parents).

I've never come across an occurrence of an Irish parent advising caution with regard to property purchase, location, yes, but never outright buying

The amount of parents caught in the last bubble by going guarantor was quite high

4 years ago the money printing presses were sent into overdrive driving every asset price up further.

We live in a highly distorted market, be careful. The western world is playing russian roulette with the economy. The higher prices rise the more barrels in the gun are loaded

Certainly, asset price inflation has helped home owners, but when was this ever not the case?

We live in a Capitalist world.

Blame the game, not the players.

I do agree with you that we should do more to assist the have nots, and a lot of that revolves around building more houses (seems to be the one point everyone agrees on).

Worth noting that the poorest in Ireland are still 63% better off than the poorest in the UK, as an example.

There are extremely generous social welfare benefits here, as we all know. And low earners effectivley pay very little tax.

I dont think we need to be giving more cash to people, when you consider that an unemployed family with 3 kids take in more in benefits than a couple, with both people working, earn on the median wage.

That is just wrong and probably helps explain wby we have so many open vacancies for lower paid roles, when the country is at full employment.

But we do need more houses and pronto.

No. just trying to balance the facts.

Current Govt housing delivery = Poor

Current Govt economic delivery = V.Strong. Top of the class in Europe.

I honestly feel that with SF, we will still end up with Poor for the Housing delivery (I dont see them improving much at all on the 30k per year being delivered, given rising interest rates, cost of building and the fact we simply dont have the construction workforce in the country to build much faster)

I see SF weakening the economic outlook, as they will attack MNCs via taxation, which will lead to less employment opportunities for young people in particular.

Current govt = 3 out of 10 for housing + 9 out of 10 for economy = 12 overall.

SF = 3 or 4 out of ten for housing + 6 out of 10 for economy = 9 or 10 overall.

obviously there are other factors to be considered, but in relation to these points, thats how I see it and I dont see SF moving the needle on any other major metric.

Australia has also recently launched a major effort to draw workers into the country. We need only look around here in Ireland to see what happens when immigration takes off, especially when its in tandem with high wages of skilled workers.

There's no safe haven really, especially not in the Anglo-sphere. This is what decades of low interest funny money and infinite GDP growth has brought us.

We live in a Capitalist world - if we lived in a true free market Capitalist world there would have been no QE as the banks would have been let fail back in 08 even though it would have caused serious pain.

We live in a world now where it is disguised as Capitalist buts its more and more socialist than ever.

Socialise the debt and privatise the profits is not free market capitalism and never was.

I agree we have a way too generous social welfare system, but I really believe the actions taken by central bankers regarding low rates and QE have absolutely put a normal working life, prosperity and the chance of owning a house totally out of the reach of these people who 25 years ago would be contributing to society.

The consequences of infinite QE and low rates are comming home to roost.

The dollar was taken off the gold standard in the early 70s. Years ago, I watched a presentation where the presenter showed a graph that tracked things like divorces, crime, self-deletions and other such negative aspects of a society. His position was that all of these things spiked after the dollar was unfettered from gold. It's not necessarily something that I accept, but it's an interesting correlation.

However, one thing is clear to me, we're at the end of what chasing the infinite growth model has to offer. In the heady days of the Celtic Tiger, growth meant 4 holidays a year, a new car every other year, reams of consumer goods and all the other stuff that boomtown had to offer. Today, that same economic model is making life ever more difficult for the average Westerner as they squeezed ever the more for the sake of more GDP. What will the state do to keep this ball rolling?

Take the devil's shilling, and he'll come knocking for his pound.

I agree with the QE aspect, but we cant just punish all homeowners because of the actions of the banks and the govt.

Most people that own a home (or are paying a mortgage) have worked very hard to get there and some have been through negative equity, made personal sacrifices, such as limiting or not having kids, so they can pay down a mortgage.

So many different stories for so many different owners.

They have done the right thing by sacrificing and paying down a mortgage for the sake of their family.

It wouldnt be fair or equitable to ultra tax all of those people, just because they didnt buy a home in 2023!

And would you then ultra tax the 2023 buyers anyway in 2024, since they no longer own a new home.

Only about 1.3% of all permanent dwellings will be built in 2023, 30k out of approx 2.2 million.

You would apply an ultra tax to 98.7% of homeowners, who could only avoid that tax by purchasing a new home & there are barely any of those available anyway. Not to mention the fact the govt and funds are buying up a lot of the scraps that are available.

If a homeowner did manage to buy a new build, the person moving into their old home is now liable for the same ultra property tax, and the price of the 2nd hand home wont come down anyway, becuase there are not enough new homes being built to enable people to move to in the first place.

You'd have to be delivering something like 30k homes a month, not a year, to start to move the needle down on 2nd hand prices. Its impossible with our current infrastructure and planning to build 360,000 homes per year.

What does it mean to rent it back to them at cost?

Cost relative to what?

The state is messing with the value of property coming on to the market. They are encouraging people to overhold so the state becomes the only buyer possible, driving the price down that they can buy it at.

They are also going to try and compel landlords to settle for an "independent" valuation on their property whether they want to sell to the council or not, who as I said, are the only buyer in town if you arent allowed to have vacant possession before putting it on the market.

So they will screw, buyers who cant get a look in versus the council, sellers, whose property is devalued because tenants are encouraged not to ever leave, renters, because supply of rentals will go down even more.

Pretty sure there must be some legal action to be taken against the state at some point for people whos property values are effected by their actions. But sure who knows, they seem to be able to do what they like to people.

Paying for the present with the futures of people too young to have any say has been par for the course here for a while now. I know that the "boomer" meme is overly simplistic, but it exists for a reason.

You make suggestions of absolutely huge, invasive taxation changes (with obvious, direct negative side effects); and also make complaints about the market not being let run without intervention.

I don't think you have any consistent viewpoint on this, let alone sane ideas.