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*

1763764766768769913

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,327 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    A lot of the houses being refurbished under the scheme are small houses. In tge local village two two bed houses have being refurbished under the old scheme. Two bed houses, both are single ladies, one is in her mid 20's a young nurse, the other is in he late 40's.

    A third locally was a old farmhouse, a young couple have done it up. Many single people are doing up houses that they have inherited, or got from family members

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    So you have an issue with helping single people buy a home? Currently it's incredibly difficult for a single person to buy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,924 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    As things stand it is a PITA for anyone to buy. The whole conveyancing system is a joke.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,903 ✭✭✭Villa05


    The first home scheme is for new builds aka shared ownership

    Edit: They appear to have changed it to include tenants that have received notice to quit, who wish to purchase the property from the landlord

    Post edited by Villa05 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,424 ✭✭✭arctictree


    Love that scene in the movie 'Limitless' where he views the penthouse apartment. He says 'Whats the asking?', she replies and then he says 'OK, I'll take it'. Wouldn't happen in Ireland!



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 14,708 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The opening paragraph in the Eligibility section of the site directly contradicts your assertion.

    The First Home Scheme (FHS) aims to make home ownership achievable for thousands of individuals and families by bridging the gap for first-time buyers and other eligible homebuyers between their deposit and mortgage, and the price of their new home.”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,903 ✭✭✭Villa05




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 578 ✭✭✭theboringfox


    Wouldnt happen anywhere. They bid on houses in US too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,632 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Screenshot_20240425-102036.png

    First home scheme applies to new builds, self builds (new) and tenant purchases when landlords sell.

    So overwhelmingly it's for new builds. And it is shared equity scheme - they reference this explicitly many times in the scheme site.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,903 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Subsidies/assistance/help whatever we want to call it all increase price and further damage affordability for singles and couples

    Personally I feel there should bo no assistance for anyone in buying a house, all efforts should be put into making rentals more affordable through reducing costs. Any help should be redeemable to help the next person(s)

    I could guarantee that housing for all would be in a much better state with such a system



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 14,708 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I may have misinterpreted what Villa was posting, but like others I took it that he was complaining that single people were availing of the scheme, leading to under utilisation of the property which should be shared. The paragraph I quoted indicates that individuals are welcome to avail of the scheme.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,632 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Individuals are welcome to avail of the scheme - that doesn't mean it won't encourage underutilization. Since FHS is new builds, self builds, or ex rentals sold to tenant, it is fairly unlikely to see single people buying 1 beds or 2 beds. There are a frighteningly small number of new 1 and 2 beds for sale in this country.

    And as bass claimed up thread about renovations of old 2 beds - that is not FHS, it's a different scheme for vacants. FHS cannot be used for vacants or renovations, so older smaller stock will not come into picture for this scheme.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,924 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    That's not far off what I actually did.

    Not aware of any other country that does things in the opaque way Ireland does.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    I thought it was that only high-earning single people could hope to buy a house, so most single owners who are using the FHS are probably on 70k+. Should we use supports like the FHS to help high earners onto the property ladder, or should they target lower-earning couples?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,585 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Why?

    A single income earner on €100k pays 60% more tax than two 50k earners pay combined. They’ll likely find it harder to buy a house as the bank will see them as a higher risk (concentrated in one job) along with their lower net pay.

    Given their significant contribution to the tax base here, why should they be any less ‘worthy’ of support to buy a home than a couple on the same income when it’s already harder for them to buy something?

    They also typically fazed outsized rental costs due the inability to share rent for a room with someone. Imagine it makes it fairly hard to put together a deposit.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,903 ✭✭✭Villa05


    One of sample case studies on the first home scheme site

    Jim has his own site and earns 75k a year and appears to be looking for a 100k from this scheme to fund his McMansion

    Jim doesn't strike me as an individual that needs state assistance to fund his home.

    Simon Harris can't stop mentioning farmers since his elevation maybe this is the reason this case study is in there

    Screenshot_20240425_173919_com.android.chrome.jpg


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


    you are probably right with rents at 1800-2500 per month the governments current 500 now 750 a year renters credit is not going very far .. this will have to increase before the election

    as for the FHS it is not much use when you have to borrow the absolute max you can borrow before government assists - this scheme is really just driving up house prices even further - with the tax payer at risk of price drop down the line



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    Tax isn't a savings account where the more you pay, the more you get back. Usually the opposite.

    My personal experience is single people are more likely to house share than couples. Most couples don't want to share, and most singles don't want to live with couples.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,317 ✭✭✭Blut2


    If these CSO statistics just released today are accurate, and we do only hit circa 20k completitions in 2024, its going to get ugly.



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


    apparently the higher interest rates are upsetting the construction companies ..

    they cant be helping would be buyers here either

    news from US today seems to be inflation is sticky there on top of sharp US growth slowdown - great combo in an presidential election year



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,632 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    I don't believe the govt projections for 35k+, however I also dont think you can extrapolate 1 quarter completions and assume it'll be same for remaining 3. Commencements and completions are asymmetric, certain times of year see more project starts and others more project finishes, due to weather mostly



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,903 ✭✭✭Villa05


    I understand and sympathise with all of your well made points.

    However the solution for all income groups is to ramp up supply that serve all income groups

    This week we announced cheap loans @ 3.5% for existing homeowners to renovate there homes. Could we not do something similar for those with no homes.. According to the developers the labour is present to ramp up output and of course there is no shortage of land

    The solutions are simple, what's necessary is the will to remove what's blocking the solution from being implemented.

    I'm afraid that giving subsidies to those on a 100k salary adds to the dysfunction rather than doing anything to solve the problems



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,585 ✭✭✭DataDude


    This is more arguing the merits of demand side supports altogether. Without going down the rabbit hole of the economics, I think it’s fair to say there are absolutely reasonable arguments to made for and against them. I think it’s a reasonable position to hold that they should be scrapped altogether (although not one I personally subscribe to)

    The bit I couldn’t understand is why you’d carve out a section of society (single income households/single people), and discriminate against them when they already have a tougher time as it is buying a home, typically contribute more in tax and receive less in other supports (child benefit etc.)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,327 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    It wouldn't have anything to do with the weather I wonder. Son has started building arrived back to this when steel was supposed to go in in early March, delayed concrete by a week. We soldiered on many did not. Subfloor in awaiting the blocklayer to come back

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,327 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    What the government has done is give supports to first time buyers. It has loaded the market in there favour. Some are upset by this as its making it difficult and expensive to get extensions, upgrades etc done. As well it limiting the supply of larger houses

    Post edited by Bass Reeves on

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭The Student


    Builders/developers won't build unless they get the profit they want and the market decides what that is.

    They can't get finance at a reasonable figure to actually build. Giving low cost finance to those who want to buy is all well and good but who pays for financing these low cost loans?

    No matter what people think I am sure there are aspects of building that we can't control (anything we need to either import or any input where there is a shortage).

    It never ceases to amaze me how many people completely ignore simple economics. For example let's look at the rental sector for a moment we have a housing crisis, so we make the rental sector toxic for a landlord resulting in some (not all) selling up because of this fact.

    But the property does not cease to exist! Correct but you are under utilising existing stock. Logic suggests give the landlord a short term break to encourage them to stay giving breathing space to increase the number of properties built/renovated (remember increased supply is the answer).

    Why should someone on €100k not get a subsidy? This person is most likely contributing between €30k and €40k in income tax, PRSI, usc etc. Do you think their earnings are received from doing an easy job?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,632 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    You have addressed the failings of demand side schemes in your post, and then at the end question why it's a bad thing to subsidise 100k earning buyers?

    If you want to make it easier for low earners to buy housing, whether they be single or a couple, you should spend state money to increase supply.

    Throwing money at demand led measures is a zero sum game, it just means a different group win and another lose.

    Supply led measures actively expand the pool of available housing, demand led measures expand the pricing of existing housing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,903 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Its not aimed at being discriminatory. If we are in a position where the top 10% of income earners and probably the top 5% of the First time buyer pool need subsidies to buy a basic necessity we need to stop and immediately change what we are doing. Surely it's the definition of dysfunction

    Focus on supply and stop demand side measures

    There were over 30,000 first time buyers last year. Only about 20% of new builds are making it to the for sale window at the auctioneers about 6,000 annually, let's assume that 50% are purchased by first time buyers that's 3,000

    Despite 10% in your back pocket and the offer from the state to cover a further 20% of the price, 90% of FTB's are buying from the non subsidised 2nd hand market.

    Could it be anymore emphatic that what the government is doing is a failure and is only driving up the cost of new supply thus hindering all income groups in achieving home ownership



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,585 ✭✭✭DataDude


    If the government gave a developer €30k for every new house they built (supply side) or give the buyers of the house €30k to give to the developer (demand side), they largely have the same economic effect for both parties. The demand side incentive stimulates the supply.
    You’re over simplifying it.

    The benefit of demand side is it’s easier to be targeted towards a certain cohort (first time buyers). This comes at a cost to everyone else because prices excluding the grant do go up a bit. But that’s the point, it lowers prices for FTBs. It increases prices for everyone else.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 210 ✭✭Mr Hindley


    I haven't been monitoring this so closely since I finally managed to buy somewhere last year (thank God!), but FWIW, these are my latest stats on supply, based on total properties of all types listed for sale on Daft.

    image.png


Advertisement