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

The accelerating fall in Sinn Féin support

1636466686974

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,242 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    We need to at least double houses built per year to meet ongoing demand and eat in to pent up demand.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,242 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    This is not a new thing, what you are in about is a different matter.

    Vast swathes of Cork and Dublin had houses built in them were the land was not owned by the house owner or developer.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,812 ✭✭✭pureza


    Good luck with the paperwork with the bank on that one,most individual issues eventually get resolved but if I waltz into my bank asking for a loan on land my brother owns,you know what they'd say don't you



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


    And good luck to you if you waltz into a bank saying I can't afford to pay full whack for this house, but don't worry my brother is buying 30% of it, will you finance the rest of it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,890 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Think I saw a headline today that, stamp duty was being doubled on investment buyers of houses.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,812 ✭✭✭pureza


    You didn't answer my question and tellingly neither have the banks yet for SF have they ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    We still need to build more because the investment fund homes hit the rental market.

    They do push up sales prices, because the homes are being diverted away from the sales market, but they still provide valuable stock to the rental market.

    The point some people miss is that alot of the private homes wouldnt get built in the first place, were they not financed by the investment funds; This is another problem with the SF plan.

    SF want to stop investment funds owning properties & want to squeeze the funds out of home ownership, yet the majority of new homes under the SF scheme are private homes!

    Guess who finances the majority of private homes? Yep, Investment funds.

    There's no way you can build 40k + private homes per year if you freeze out investment funds from ownership.

    The numbers SF are talking about delivering just dont stack up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,890 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    The build number needed has no relation to who owns them. Someone is living in every house. This is a question of whether we want to bias their use to home owners? We probably need between 50 and 60K/year, to balance supply with demand. Not sure how big a problem there is, outside of the major cities? In the last 2/3 years their is a boom in the number being built in towns and villages. The only problem, is the price of them.



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




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,812 ✭✭✭pureza


    Will I get a mortgage on a site where my bother wont sell me the land



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


    Under normal circumstances you'd probably have to jump through a few extra hoops, but if your brother is Minister for Finance, and he really wants you to get that mortgage, yes you'll get the mortgage, no problem.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,812 ✭✭✭pureza


    In other words No,do you see the problem now with the SF plan ?



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


    You seem to think the analogy of your brother's land is a meaningful one. I think it is ridiculous.

    So oddly enough I still don't see the problem with the plan. We'll just have to agree to disagree.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,392 ✭✭✭deezell


    Suppose if a developer offered to build houses on land without paying the €40k per site to the owner, so he just gets pays or his construction costs. The owner has a future stake in the house. Would the bank issue a mortgage on this joint ownership? Could the land owner exclude the unpaid for site as security on the mortgage? I doubt the bank would agree. They'd want a clear joint tenancy on the registration, with percentage ownership from the outset, and in the event of a default, or price collapse or negative equity, the landowner, and householder lose out. So who's going to agree to a deferred payment for a site? Who's going to approve a mortgage unless the site is part of the equity. A deferred contract of sale of the to the householder in 25 years leaves the landowner liable for CGT immediately, not when he cashes in. Its all Sinnfenomics, make it up as you go along. Property and house transactions are the way they are for a reason. They work. Market forces and prices have nothing to do with the rules of ownership, equity and liability. Something dreamt up in a pub in Drumcondra is not going to trump hundreds of years of legal evolution.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,812 ✭✭✭pureza




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,242 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    It would be but it's talking out your hole to be blunt. .

    The house im currently in was bought with a mortgage and the land in someone elses title.

    You are making it out like this is something that is unfamiliar to banks.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,812 ✭✭✭pureza


    You're a SF supporter though,so you would say that

    The rest of us deal in reality

    A bank used be able to work on a solicitors guarantee but not anymore,so I guess it's you thats talking out of their hole

    Even working on a solicitors guarantee though eventually has to be cleared up



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Not being able to repossess them in the event of a default increases the risk to the bank. The bank can derisk by only offering mortgages at 2.5xincome instead of 4xincome. The scheme would be dead in the water.



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


    Not being able to repossess them in the event of a default increases the risk to the bank.

    🤣

    You may have misunderstood my earlier point about the irony of this argument, so I will spell it out.

    Since about 2009 government policy has deliberately been to make it almost impossible for a bank to repossess a PDH mortgage in default.

    This is why currently, even with a booming property market, booming economy and nearly full employment, nearly 7% of mortgages are in default, with very little if any facing any real threat of repossession. Some of these are over 10 years in arrears.

    Yet all of a sudden everybody is worried about the increased risk to banks because they won't be able to repossess a property?! Give me a break.

    Many people are talking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue, not least the minister for housing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I didn't miss the irony, but even if the bank currently has a high risk of not being able to repossess, the SF Scheme increases that risk even further.

    The point I make is that increased risk is increased risk, no matter how high or low current risk is. That affects bank pricing.



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


    It not currently a question of if there is a risk that they are unable to repossess!

    The banks are currently unable to repossess properties because the government does not want them to repossess properties.

    That seems unlikely to change anytime soon, no matter who is in government. The banks are realistic enough to know that and will lend for whatever government scheme is in operation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,392 ✭✭✭deezell


    Get their own house in order before they can think of ordering Sinn Fein houses for the masses. They even proposed a state run building department to construct them. That would be the OPW/co. Councils. Let's see, ignoring the bike shed and security hut, they spent ,€440,000 per 'house' for prefab garden rooms, tiny drop in structures, when you'd expect a full sized 4 bed proper home in Mahon for this. 3 beds there sell for €200k . I reckon Sinn Feins social building department would run to a €Million per unit if the Ukrainian sheds at €440,000 are anything to go by. Never let government get involved in building homes, just buy off the market.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,320 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    …we ve been doing the whole market based approach for decades now, strangely enough, this is exactly why we are where we are, as its primarily a financialised approach, whereby the overall priority is to maximize financial outcomes, i.e. keep pushing prices up, this approach has yielded the exact same outcomes in every country that has tried, i.e. hyper inflated prices, highly dysfunctional markets and serious supply problems, so if you want this to continue, rock on!

    oh and there isnt gonna be a sf government anytime soon, so on we go with the financialised, market based approach!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,392 ✭✭✭deezell


    3 bed terrace house in Mahon, €200k.

    2 bed Garden prefab in Mahon, €440k.

    I know which market model I'd prefer.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,191 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    The government are milking this paedo story effectively after wasting billions of tax payer money , they are getting away with murder



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,392 ✭✭✭deezell


    I haven't seen a Government press release about it, only reports in the newspapers, and here of course. Could you post a link to the Government statements on this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,451 ✭✭✭Dr Robert


    It's a big story tbf.

    Do people want to to vote for a party with links to paedos? Doubt it.

    I think people want more information on it and to have it totally explained. Same goes for any party with such a big story.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,451 ✭✭✭Dr Robert




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    The govt arent trying to pump the value of property.

    The price increase is down to supply not meeting demand and, at the same time, the net wealth of irish households rising to a record 1.1 trillion.

    Its also worth noting that the net wealth of the poorest households has increased ten fold in the last decade.

    We do need to build more homes, but the country will build more homes under an FFG govt than it would via a SF led term.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,320 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    …and again, wrong, our governments, both current and past, have been doing all they can to inflate the price of property, this is generally called financialisation of property markets, of which most advanced economies, including ireland, have been engaging in for many decades now…

    ….under such conditions, the state steps back from providing critical needs such as housing, and promote other major parts of the economy, in particular whats typically called the fire sectors(finance, insurance and real estate), to provide this critical need, hence why we ve seen such a rapid growth of such sectors in ireland over the last few decades.

    ..from this approach, you ll find that most countries that engaged in this approach have resulted in almost the exact same outcomes, in the form of hyper inflated prices, highly dysfunctional markets and serious supply problems, as its primarily a demand driven approach, i.e. by increasing the money supply into such markets, in particular the credit money supply, which is created and provided by the finance sector itself, hence why we ve seen a rapid growth in private debt across most advanced economies, including ireland.

    ….this is turn causes what economists call a 'rent seeking' dynamic, whereby more and more income is used and required to service such debts, and less and less is available for other economic activities, which in turn generally leads to slowing economic activity and ultimately a stagnant economy, which is the most likely outcome for ireland eventually.

    …other known demand based policies such as first time buyers is also known to help inflate prices, also experienced in other countries such as australia as well as here in ireland…

    interesting you mention irelands 1.1 trillion household wealth, yes exactly, this is exactly what such policies do, i.e. inflate the value of assets such as property and land, i.e. all good for current owners of such assets, not so good for current none owners of such, i.e. younger generations!

    we ve no clue what would happen under a sf government, and we may never find out, but we know full well whats gonna happen under further ffg ones, i.e. further price inflation, and rising supply to be fair….

    ..so again, you re completely wrong!



Advertisement
Advertisement