Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1729730732734735915

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,685 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    The Government abolished bedsits, created mayhem in the rental sector and is now effectively encouraging homeowners to rent out their sheds and outhouses as bedsits. We have come full circle. What a joke.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Yes...we don't even have a fake conservative party like the Tories or Mrs Melons over in Italy!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,045 ✭✭✭MacronvFrugals




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,634 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,592 ✭✭✭DataDude


    If you are young in Ireland, you are probably asset poor but with a lifetime of earning potential ahead of you to accumulate wealth. You should therefore, if voting in self interest, be supportive of massively increasing taxes on existing wealth (property taxes being the most effective), and lower income taxes to better enable you to build your own wealth.

    If you are old, you are likely asset rich but with your earning days largely behind you. You should want higher income taxes on the generation coming after you but the abolition of any wealth taxes which would impact you.

    Sinn Fein are in the latter camp. Their main policies are to eliminate the only wealth tax we have. To increase income taxes. They want to decrease the amount people can put into pensions going forward (this doesn’t impact older people who already have their pensions, only young people who still need to build theirs).

    Their policies on the key issues are remarkably pro - older established wealth and anti young people striving to earn a better future.

    Yet all our young people are voting for them. It is quite bizarre.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Could it be that people will vote for them because they're seen as the alternative? In the next UK election, Labor will almost certainly win through the "virtue" of not being the Tory party. Most who will vote for them are probably not Labor supporters, whatever that entails in the modern world. In other words, it's a case of voting someone out rather than voting someone in because they're perhaps better.

    As it happens, I agree with your summary of SF. Ireland is run like an investment fund for the benefit of those who bought into it decades ago. Keeping it going is destroying the country's future.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,592 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Absolutely. There seems to be this sense of ‘it can’t possibly be worse’ so I’ll just vote for someone else irrespective of what that alternative actually proposes to do.

    It tends to be the case, across the world, that it’s easier to build support in opposition and the sitting government loses support over time.

    Either all governments we elect are bad. Or people are easily swayed by big promises from those who don’t need to deliver anything (€300k houses in Dublin for all!). My guess is it’s the latter!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,432 ✭✭✭combat14


    sounds like appetite for longer term fixed mortgages is increasing after last couple of years of rising rates hitting certainty and pockets





  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    I don't suppose anyone is going to get elected by promising a balanced budget (and all that that entails) and personal responsibility anytime soon.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,327 ✭✭✭Blut2


    SF in their defense have promised to massively increase house building, which is a key issue for most young people. They'll also increase spending on things like teachers, gardai and nurses - which is also a priority for a lot of people, both young and old.

    Their anti-property tax policy is totally bonkers/populist nonsense though yeah, they're the only in theory "left wing" party in Europe thats against the idea as far as I'm aware.

    The main reason they're doing so well is people look at the current mess in housing, in education, healthcare, in policing, and blame it (quite reasonably) on FG for having been in government from 2011 to 2024. We're living in a time of massive government surplus to the tune of billions a year, but declining quality of life in many key areas. Its incredibly hard to justify voting for the status quo because of that. SF are the beneficiaries as a result of being the only main party in the Dail not already in government.

    SF will almost certainly turn out to be very similar to FF of 30-50 years ago when in office - just slightly economically left of center populists. They're unlikely to actually make much of a difference or rock the boat too much, despite the hopes of left-wing voters and fears of right-wing ones. But they may make things slightly better in their key areas of focus at least.

    And governmental change does a democracy good in general. No party should be in goverment for 15+ years straight - competence decreases and corruption increases over extended periods of time in power.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    There are building sites up and down the country as it is. The surplus budget is just meaningless funny money. It doesn't translate into resources, and even if it did, we're not going to go from building 35k houses in one year to 100k next year.

    Look, everyone know it's just just a case of building more houses, and pretending that it is is simply dishonest.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭newmember2




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,327 ✭✭✭Blut2


    The surplus budget is billions of euros per year, its not remotely funny money. Its real money, that can be used to solve real problems.

    We were building 90,000 housing units a year fifteen years ago, when our population was 25% lower than it is now. We'd need to be building 110k units a year to compare per capita. Its completely possible to build massively more housing, if we allocate the resources to do so.

    We built 32,000 housing units in 2023, and 30,000 in 2022. The goal is 33.5k in 2024. Our current government's housing for all program calls for an average 33k housing units to be completed every year from now until 2030.

    90,000 was obviously too much with hindsight, but 33,000 is also very obviously too little at present. The ESRI estimates we need 60k per year this decade. That can't be achieved instantly no, but our government should at the very least be aiming to achieve that within a 3-4 year window, but its not. Thats the problem. We're never going to build enough houses if the government doesn't even aim to do so.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭flexcon


    Any chance the government would actually stop giving us all Energy credits and start paying a better wage to apprenticeships in the trade nah?


    We are still paying aspiring builders, carpenters, plumbers & electricians €100 a week - in a housing crisis.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    90k houses a year was possible when the economy was essentially geared towards building. That's not the case today. If we want to build tens of thousands of houses more each year, we would need many more tens of thousands of builders to come and build them. Where will they live?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,327 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Thats not accurate. We have essentially the same number of builders now in 2024 as which we had in 2004, when we built 70,000 housing units.

    The difference is in what exactly the builders are building - more non-housing work now, than then.

    cSuojzb.png




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Okay, I didn't actually know that. Thank you.

    However, I think that more builders would be needed to build more houses. Can the current non-housing projects simply cease? Probably not...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,327 ✭✭✭Blut2


    You couldn't stop an already commenced non-housing project, no. But the housing crisis has been going on for 5+ years at this stage now, far longer than the duration of most commercial building works.

    A more interventionist government could have introduced measures to reduce commencements of office/hotel/other commercial building to prioritise house building. Increased targeted taxes/levies, denied planning permissions etc, there are ways.

    Given the rapidly increasing vacancy rate in the office sector (from 5% in 2019 to 15% in Dec23 and still rising), and potential impending crash, this would actually presumably have been good for that sector too, not even just the housing market itself.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    That Graph and the CSO data both tell us that the numbers in construction are 25% lower from their peak in 07/08. That would mean that if we were building 07/08 standards and majority were employed in housing you would expect 60k of houses a year. If you are building A rated housing units as opposed to 07/08 standards, I wound imagine this number would be lower again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Hmm not all non-housing projects CAN be stopped, but yes there probably is less of a need to be building office blocks these days. Probably 45-50k units a year is a reasonable target. However, as I've mentioned above, it's not just a case of building more. Without policy change elsewhere, it's just a case of finding bigger buckets to hold and never ending leak.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,327 ✭✭✭Blut2


    We built 90k houses at the peak, 25% less than that would have us at over 70k per year.

    You can absolutely take some off that for higher building standards now on top, but no more than additional 10-20%, considering we've also had technological advances in the industry in the last two decades that help compensate for some of that.

    So if we had a similar allocation ratio of construction workers to housing we would be hitting approx 60k. But instead at present we're at approx 30k, because not enough of our construction workers are building housing. Thats a major problem in allocation of resources.

    Building more is the #1 solution, though. Everything else is marginal in comparison. If the Irish state was building 60k+ houses a year, every year, the housing market would be much much less problematic.

    The ESRI estimation, a fairly well informed and neutral one, is now 60k a year is whats required also, 45k comes nowhere close.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 62 ✭✭Cristianc


    Problem is also cost. You cannot build houses costing 300k anymore. And from what I've read the developers are not making large profits, not even 30% on a house. Even if houses are built, prices will still be very high - higher than old builds so many people will still fight on what they can afford - overbidding on old houses.

    Apartments should be cheaper to build with less land and common components but somehow most seem to be in expensive areas (and more expensive than existing ones) or just built for rent.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Problem is also cost. You cannot build houses costing 300k anymore. And from what I've read the developers are not making large profits, not even 30% on a house.

    I suspect a lot of what you've read is total nonsense. To say published build cost figures are massaged would be putting it politely.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 754 ✭✭✭FernandoTorres


    "Not even 30% on a house". God help them! On what planet is 30% profit not considered good!?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,634 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    The planet where you can get 40%. Seriously, the profit would vary from project to project, and what's calculated at the start of a build is probably very different from the end of a build.

    The 30% could be gross margin, before the cost of running the business is paid.

    Again, hearsay, but there were plenty of reports of builders asking for more money from buyers after deposits were paid, as labour and material costs shot up. Interest rates are up now, and demand is still sky high.

    If people will pay it then builders will charge it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,010 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    There's a small developer selling new build 3 bed dormers *on a fecking island* (so significantly transit costs and no local labour supply) in Donegal for 195k. I doubt they're making 30% or even close to it though.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,394 ✭✭✭Royale with Cheese


    I had my name down on the waiting list for a 5 bed at the Woodbrook development between Shankill and Bray. The 5 beds sold out quick in the earlier phases when they went on sale, I believe priced at 830-850. Months later and they're still trying to shift all of the 3/4 beds from the current phase. Well, got a call earlier to see if I'd be interested in putting a deposit down on one from the final phase before they go on the market... at 950-965. I was expecting a price increase but that seems absolutely mental to me. They won't be ready until the end of the year too.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,697 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Equally, I doubt they're doing it for nothing. He'll be getting a call from the SCSI and told to stop letting the side down and wind his neck in, since they're after telling the government you can't build a house for less than 350k in the north west.



  • Posts: 577 ✭✭✭ Musa Unkempt Tech


    Jobstown one of the most dangerous places Dublin



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    Let’s not forget that in a lot of cases the developer is buying the site from an investment company that he owns or controls and any profit on reselling the land is not included in the profit figures for the development as is shown as site costs so very easy to massage profit margins to show what you like.



Advertisement