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*

1779780782784785943

Comments

  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    If affordability can only be achieved by very hefty government subsidies, I'd agree that SF's leasehold on state land is the best model. There was a hell of a backlash to it when first mooted.

    I suspect most of the criticism of it is driven by politics rather than logic - if FFG had come up with this as government housing policy I think it would have been welcomed. It's actually a pretty good idea under the circumstances.



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


    It has significant disadvantages for buyers long-term. If the homeowners ever wanted to move to a bigger house they would have a significant funding gap to make up. Who decides what is affordability. If a owner carried out improvements or an extension they probably could not recoup its value.

    Personally I prefer the First Home Scheme than the leasehold scheme

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It has significant disadvantages for buyers long-term. If the homeowners ever wanted to move to a bigger house they would have a significant funding gap to make up

    Surely the First Home Scheme has exactly the same disadvantage?

    If government takes a 30% equity share in your €450k new build purchase, and you subsequently want to trade up, you need to find the guts of €150k (assuming market prices have stayed the same) + service charges to buy out the government before you can even think about trading up.

    In both cases there is a significant funding gap.

    Post edited by hometruths on


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


    With the FHS the owner has the option of buying out the government's equity. You are charge nothing for tge first five years. This is excellent for younger buyers. Generally there wages climb significantly early in there career. This scheme will allow them to buy a house rather than renting and up there mortgage within five years and buy out the government equity. Even if they fail in the first five years the service charge in tge equity is only 1.75% for years 6-15. On 100k that is 1750/ year. You can buy back the equity in tranches of 5% a year. or as a lump sum.

    Again take a couple with 100k equity to buy back they could pay back 5k/ year. For many people especially self employed who struggle to satisfy mortgage conditions but have decent earnings it would allow them to buy houses.

    As I said it a much preferable scheme than the leasehold scheme which is basically a piece of sh!t

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭SharkMX


    And not only that, they can afford them with lending restrictions now in place too.

    I know a few couples who were waiting, but now hitting late 30s and seeing that interest rates have stopped rising, and they have got salary increases, so have decided that its now or never. Either you rent forever or you risk buying even if they think there will be a crash.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    This scheme will allow them to buy a house rather than renting and up there mortgage within five years and buy out the government equity.

    And the SF scheme will allow them to buy a house rather than renting and not have to up their mortgage to buy out the government equity.

    Hard to see why having a big chunk of equity to service or buy out is theoretically preferable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,620 ✭✭✭combat14


    looks like house prices have rocketed up 20% in the last few months - the coutry is a **** show surely this is absolutely unsustainable



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    If that's the case anybody who has 100k of government equity in the First Home Scheme now has to find €120k to buy it out. Or face an increased service charge in a few years. Lucky them!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    The first home scheme has helped bring 630,000euro 2 bed apartments to Limerick. All arguments for it should die on that alone

    Post edited by Villa05 on


  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Really, where did you see that? That sounds very high to say the least!!

    I'm very anti the first home scheme, but if it is generating increased number of apartments that sounds like a good thing tbh.

    Edit - ignore that, I get you now, and wholeheartedly agree!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭chalky_ie


    Homes included in any of these schemes, just like council houses, should remain in a pool of affordability for the wage bracket they were designed for. They shouldn't be some vehicle for people to make money from the housing market to upgrade their home without doing anything for it. All this nonsense of buying houses off the council at cut rate prices etc. etc. is complete bullshit, you shouldn't be able to avail of these services and use them to try and rinse the next person in line.



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


    that’s one way of preventing people from being socially mobile….or put another way Know your place in society!!!

    Much rather help people that want to help themselves.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Housing affordability is often a temporary issue for the occupants of subsidised homes, therefore an affordable rental may help multiple families, while an affordable purchase is huge cash boost to one family from taxpayers.

    In addition posters here state they can do whatever they like with there property so that subsidised house can end up on Airbnb and out of public and private housing stock

    The mask is coming off the true political populists



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    It was the main finding of the Housing Commission report and during the election, I could not find one political party adopting this approach

    Truly shocking political representation



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    What is the point of affordable housing on your view?

    Is it to give someone an affordable roof over their heads & security of tenure?

    Or is it to give them a financial asset and an investment?



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Its all well and good saying you'd rather help people who help themselves, we have a relatively free education system for that purpose. The reality is there is a limited number of jobs that will pay sufficiently to afford private rent or a home purchase. There will always be essential jobs employing real people that will never pay enough to afford a private home purchase or rent

    For this reason you need a mid tier market that allows security of tenure and rents that are affordable. The precence of such a market eases the pressure on the private rental and purchase markets, tames the inflation, helps address supply issues and can be a benefit rather than a burden to the taxpayer.

    Alot of winners in such a scenario. A well thought out scheme would bring stability to the property market. Stability is the friend of the investor. Instability is the friend of the speculator.

    Which should the taxpayer be supporting. The speculator path did not work out well last time



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,620 ✭✭✭combat14


    hard to see how ordinary renters and would be home owners will have any money left to keep regular businesses in the economy going with the rapid rise of house prices this year and nose bleed rents



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Not to worry though, rising house prices are moving people up the social ladder into the middle classes.. somehow



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


    houses aren’t just purchased based on income.



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


    what a load of BS and putting your narrative on a post just because we have a differing opinion.

    All that I was pointing out is that a model where ownership exists and doesn’t lock people into social classes results in a better mix and avoids ghettos due to 100% social housing which will never be owned by occupier.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Leasehold model is as much ownership as having govt take equity stakes in your home purchase, except you do not need to buy out an increasingly large equity stakes if market prices rise.

    Social housing absolutely allows people to move up in social classes, the rents are low and though they track income they have a very low cap. Many people have come from social housing and "moved up" in this country and across Europe.

    The only reason it isn't even more prevalent is because social housing is so scarce and is prioritised to those "most in need", who regardless of support are least likely to move up in social classes



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    A big part of why the big winner across European elections was the Kremlin

    There has to be a mid tier between box room in your parents house or a median salary to pay the rent

    We are killing society and there is plenty negative powers out there to take advantage of it. The endgame is looking more grim by the day



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    The greatest barrier to social mobility is unaffordable rents.

    Running faster to standstill



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



    No one is questioning the rental market being a **** show at present… and until sufficient supply is out there it will stay like this regardless of what model is adopted… it’s not like overnight houses will appear if you choose one over the other.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭chalky_ie


    What are you on about? Getting a cut rate house off the government and then flogging it at current rip off rates is not the core intention of providing adequate homes for all. If you want to be socially mobile, get a different job, go into/back into education like any other person that wants to upgrade their home has to do.

    These homes are not supposed to propel people into middle class or whatever because of our fecked property market. Helping someone own a home and pay what they can, and have them come out the other side with some form of equity is not the same thing as sweetheart deals that help people make more money than they should have from an asset, while taking a house out of the pool for others.



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


    Taking a house out of the pool for others 🤣

    It’s the same no of houses built regardless so that claim is pure BS.

    You do know that owner needs to buy back shared equity from council/lda/housing body before they sell it so unless there financial situation changes and are able to buy out shared equity before selling they are not benefiting more than a regular house buyer besides having benefited from moving out of private rental market.



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


    Do people really think government will see the proceeds from the equity share? I guarantee as prices go up there will be articles about how much government is making and it will simply become they need to repay the original amount. Governments love buying votes. Its the same way the rainy day fund wont ever properly take off. Would be raided for some other purpose.



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


    they will only see proceeds if property sold…For majority I doubt shared equity will be paid before probate kicks in and no doubt there will be calls from left to write it off in those circumstances.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭chalky_ie


    If a house is a council house, or part of a scheme where the gov takes equity, if said house is 'bought out' by the owner/occupant and sold on the market, then of course it has been taken out of the pool. It should remain as a house in whatever scheme its part of, be that through the council/government buying it back for the same discounted price the original owner availed of and offering it again to another person needing similar, or by those houses not being purchasable in the first place. It's not the government's job to provide everyone with houses to own, it's their job to make sure everyone has a good home to live in.

    I am specifically talking about situations where the owner ends up getting some sort of discounted deal to take full ownership of the house, if they end up paying the full market price overall for it, then that's a different story.



Advertisement
Advertisement