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

I thought he did answer it - anyone can inherit whether they would qualify for the scheme or not.

My theory is existing property owners solely thinking of the value of their own property like FFG's First Home Scheme because they know it will provide a tailwind for rising property values, and they don't like SF's leasehold scheme because they know it will provide a headwind for rising property values.

Given that approx 25,0000 of the planned 300,000 homes that SF will attempt to build over 5 years are these leasehold schemes, it represents approx 8% of the total output.

I would be against the scheme because it's stupid.

Im not a fan of it at all. You can check my previous post.

But, it's better than the SF leasehold scheme.

This is why most people buy homes in Ireland, it is a wealth generator, whether we like it or not

This is complete nonsense. Ask anyone why they opted to buy a house and very little will tell you it's about generating wealth.

And with an affordable leasehold home you are still building equity - but you are not part of the speculation of the private market.

Very very few peoples motivation for buying a home is an investment with a view to profiting. Just look at how many people never buy more than 1 home. Security of tenure and flexibility to renovate and upgrade as they see fit is primary motivation for homebuyers in this (and most) countries. All of which can be achieved with affordable leasehold homes also.

That's a fair point, but where will the volatility level be greater.

If all your eggs are in the high risk private market, the hit to the economy will be far greater than if you had a less risky product.

The fall in the private market may present opportunities to add stock at lower prices to SF model while cushioning the private market fall

If that where the case while did people opt to purchase their council houses.

House purchase even your ppr is about wealth generation everyone wants their children to inherit as much as possible this is normal behaviour. Even if they want to downsize later in life they will still want their property to be worth as much as possible.

Remember a 10% increase on €100k is less than a 10% increase on €200k. When you are downsizing you get a larger return the higher in value your property is.

What is your optimal solution

Tiered solutions to tiered incomes seems logical

I think the issue is the squeezed middle will, as usual, miss out.

They would earn too much for the SF homes and not enough for the private market, which is now even futher out of reach due to price inflation caused by limited private supply, coupled with an absence of govt supports, as far as deposits are concerned.

I would like to see local councils ramp up social and affordable home delivery, but without detracting from the private developers building new homes for the private market at an increased scale, as we are seeing today.

I do think the govt need to incentivise developers to sell new homes, not rent them. Give tax breaks or other incentives, but make it appealing to sell apartments, not just to rent them out to a select group of high earners.

I think the govt need to drastically speed up planning by investing in resource in that area; introduce a punitive vacant property tax and limit the power of housing objections from the public.

In short, build on the momentum we have now. 40k homes this year, pushed to 50k next year and so forth.

SF will drop the numbers off a cliff in 2025 with this policy because there wont be resources to deliver it and we will lose ground which cannot be made up over the next 5 years, especially if the state's population increases by another 100k people in 12 months.

Id say if you had a bell curve of income distribution of non home owning 25 to 40 year olds alot of them would fit into the 50 to 90k income bands, be it singles or couples

The system would operate if the State stopped interfering in it. Leave the private sector to itself and it will self level itself (thats what it does).

If the State wants to house people in subsidised housing then do it in social housing. Have lower spec levels etc, rather than forcing the private sector to provide them. For every Part V property provided by the private sector who do you think is subsidising it? the people who are purchasing the other properties in the development.

The market worked in the past all the way up to the early 2000's and had done since the 1950's when people began to purchase properties on the private market.

Remember its not social housing that is the issue. Its the small minority of anti social individuals living in them. Deal with them and the housing situation will improve. It wont be sorted on this one issue alone but it will be improved.

Hand overs are not been given to wealthy individuals as you state. I can only use my family situation where both my nieces and partners (all on the average industrial wage) purchased second hand properties in the €300k to €350k one three yrs ago and the second last year.

Life is about choices for all of us.

This is complete nonsense. Ask anyone why they opted to buy a house and very little will tell you it's about generating wealth.

There are mutiple reasons to buy a house, and the wealth generating effect is most certainly one of them.

That is why no politician seriously wants house prices to decrease. They are not going to say "We want house prices to decrease by 25%", as that means it will make 66% of Irish households who own their own home property.

MLMD said something similar and see what happened to her poll numbers, as a result.

Now we can argue long and hard about that being unfair, and I agree in spirit. Western governments have let this happen not be design but by accident IMO. But it creates big issues with an inter-generational split between the haves and have not. I agree that the under 40's have not had a good time of it. But that is the way of the world, its not fair but it is what it is.

And with an affordable leasehold home you are still building equity - but you are not part of the speculation of the private market.

Its the mirage of equity growth as it being a closed market, prices and growth are locked in.

Our population is increasing by 100,000+ people every year now consistently because of migration (natural growth, births minus deaths, is only about 20k). Thats completely unsustainable at a time of the worst housing crisis in the history of the state, and when we're only building crica 35k housing units a year.

Nobody with any grasp of reality is going to say we can reduce immigration to zero, but it can and should be significantly reduced. We could tomorrow relatively easily cut it down to only EU immigrants (because we can't restrict those, and they tend to do fill paying jobs at least) and non-EU immigrants qualified to do essential jobs that are required here (nurses, doctors etc). We could overall reduce arrivals by tens of thousands a year as a result quite easily.

Which would means tens of thousands of people a year fewer needing houses, it would help the housing situation instantly.