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*

1830831833835836943

Comments

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


    First off it will not increase supply. Even if it did say increase supply by 20% the government ate paying 150k per extra unit coming onto the market.

    The refurbishment grant is costing less than half that. There is no glut of empty liveable houses around. It woukd just ve a subsidity to existing homeowners who are going to sell anyway

    Slava Ukrainii



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


    Even when regs were looser and finance was very easy to get, the apartment blocks that did get built were absolutely atrocious quality. The fact is Irish builders are not good at it. They do not have the expertise or scale to take it on.

    That's why almost all apartments nowadays are built by a handful of large construction outfits who do have experience. However most of Irish construction industry is made up of lots of very small outfits.



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


    That Is because you can no longer transition from being a small scale to larger scale builders. Even lads that survived the noughties can no longer get finiance to build at the scale that they did back then.

    Slava Ukrainii



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


    Where are you getting 150k from? I'm talking about HT B not shared equity.

    The refurb grant is not working. Stock of second hand houses have gone down since it was introduced.

    Census 2022 indicate s almost 10% of habitable housing stock is empty.

    HT B already just gives a subsidy to builders who would have built anyway.

    There is as much economic sense in it for existing stock as there is for new builds.



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


    HTB would be paid on all qualifying sales. If the supply of qualifying houses increased by 20% or one in five the griss cost for all five houses is 150k but supply is only up by one house so in reality it costing 150k to subsidise that house to get it onto the .market even though tge direct cost forage house is 30k. The other 4 house owner's who intended to sell anyway there buyers got 30kfor nothing.

    No there is not new stock adds to the housing stock existing stock is there anyway. Refurbishment grant is working it only in existence a bit over a year. Supply is ramping up,

    Slava Ukrainii



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


    That's a pretty good point on the gross cost of HTB that I hadn't considered before. It just further highlights the folly of the idea, but it remains a folly that is equally applicable to new builds or used.

    There is no way refurb grant is working evidenced by supply ramping up, that's a mad claim.

    There were just 12,785 second-hand houses for sale across the country last month, new research from estate agents Sherry FitzGerald has revealed.

    That represents a drop of 7% on the same month a year ago and is 29% less than the summer of 2020, at the height of the pandemic.

    The total number of houses for sale was just 0.6% of the entire private housing stock of the country.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2024/0820/1465865-number-of-second-hand-homes-for-sale-down-7-in-july/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 306 ✭✭scrabtom


    Does anyone know when the Residential Zoned Land tax is coming in?

    I heard Jack Chambers say in the budget that farmers could apply to have residential land rezoned so as to avoid the cost but nothing about the actual implementation of the tax. I assumed based on the fact he didn't say that it's postponed that it will be coming in soon enough.

    If so that seems like a great move in the right direction, as does the increase in the vacant property tax from 5 times to 7 times local property tax.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,046 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    apparently the CAT measure is expected to have an annual cost of circa 80m and this is expected to counter act that with similar revenue, but i agree seems a misstep.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Had a quick look at prime time last night and they had a case study of a person on disability

    She recently got a 2 bed A rated home from a housing association, I was off the impression that these A rated homes would save the state on fuel allowance but it appears not

    Full fuel allowance, electricity credits plus A living alone allowance. Is there any way that a 2 bed unit could accommodate 2 persons thereby having 1 adapted living home benefit 2 people.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    The lack of 1bed apartments built in Ireland comes into play here. Lots of people in social housing with spare bedrooms that should really be in 1bed apartments instead, but due to how few of them get built they get 2bed units instead.



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


    what is the point your making? Even if it was an old house and she was on fuel allowance she would get a retrofit paid for to upgrade BER. Isn’t this where all the extra carbon tax revenue is being recycled to.

    As for getting a 2 bed unit without understanding circumstances it’s hard to judge as it may be required for medical equipment etc….. On the other hand if it’s not your forgetting about renting out the room tax free as another possible benefit. But as I said without understanding the exact circumstances it’s very difficult to judge or form an informed opinion as this person may be struggling due to costs related to the disability that are not covered etc.



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


    It'd not a miss step IMO. Will 50k less stop a person downsizing from a 2 million euro house to a 500-700k euro property. Walking away with a million plus tax free after upgrades to new property

    It will not in my opinion. Buyer alright will need the funds to cover the stamp duty but at that price level I doubt if that will be an issue.

    What might have been a more significant issue is if the PT had gone up significantly on values above 1.5 million

    Post edited by Bass Reeves on

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Villa05


    A rated home = C or D plus fuel allowance. Why give a fuel allowance on a home designed to operate on minimal fuel

    Most working people could never afford what's on offer under social

    The working poor pay the majority of carbon tax through poor quality rented accomodation which more often than not they must share to afford plus more likely than not, longer commutes to work in older cars

    Don't want to focus too much on the disability side as the payments we are talking about are also available to the long term unemployed. A living alone allowance is disincentive to the recipient to accept someone to share the property which can be beneficial to both parties.

    In a disability context you could have 1 occupant able to do a task the other occupant may not be able to and vice versa. They may have carers and having more in the 1 location may deliver economies of scale in administering the care they need



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,074 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    I think it's a quality issue (and a quality PR issue) more than cost. Most of the older apartments built here were such bad quality that lots won't buy apartments due to that. Need to turn around that first.

    Cost wise, most will go for a house here at a similar price point so apartments really need to be decently cheaper than houses.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Does look like this, not exactly like we need to balance the books though!



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


    I think they're trying to balance the political books rather than financial!



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


    I do not accept. In any budget you try to tax as well as spend. This is a common sense approach. Even at a 2 million property it's a 2.5% tax at 3 million its a 5.5% tax. It unlikely to stop someone downsizing and as you go up in that price bracket decision other than pure finance come into play.

    Looking at it the seller is walking away with a substantial tax free lump sum while the buyer still has there max price but is looking at a no capital gain for 1-2 years. If its inheritors selling they have a 400k tax shield to protect them from some of the pain

    Post edited by Bass Reeves on

    Slava Ukrainii



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


    I suspect you're right that it probably won't make much of a difference in the selling decision. It's just an unnecessary friction. My issue is with the signal it sends and the political thinking it reveals.

    In the context of the problems with housing the amount of stamp duty paid by somebody buying a €2m house, and the sales proceeds from somebody selling a €2m house is totally irrelevant.

    It's the only new measure related to housing, and it is does absolutely nothing to solve any of the problems in the market. The rest is all extend and pretend, continuations of stuff that is already demonstrably not working.

    This budget was the perfect opportunity to introduce something new, and this is what is new. It's a bit disappointing to say the least.



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


    What are the signals it send and what unnecessary friction will.it create.

    What other proposals could the government have made. It put HTB in place until 2029( it going to be very hard to wean off from that any but stability helps.

    There Is no magic bullet to fix the present housing crisis and throwing money at it is not the answer either. The whole point is to build up capacity and to utilise not in use stock.

    I was disappointed that no pension of adapting not in use commercial premises in small.towns and villages as well as pushing for tge utilisation of flats/apartments over commercial in larger urban areas and give tax breaks grants to bring this fast into use. Other than that it's patience as there is no magic bullet

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,619 Mod ✭✭✭✭spockety


    It looks like there's a pretty significant uptick recently in asking price drops:

    https://www.myhome.ie/pricechanges

    A lot of 5-10% reductions, but some chunkier ones too.

    Maybe a sign that EAs and vendors got a bit ahead of themselves in what they thought a panicking market could bear. Maybe a sign the winds are about to change. Who knows. In trader-upper territory, I suspect a lot of people have decided to sit things out for now given how crazy it has gone.



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


    The signals it sends is that the government are more concerned with the political benefits of doing something that is seen to hurt rich people. It doesn't do anything to alleviate problems in the housing market.

    All it does is make it more expensive to purchase higher value houses, which will dampen demand to some extent and this slow or stop price growth in this segment, and reduce proceeds for sellers. PITA yes, but little more for these buyers and sellers. The air is a lot thinner up in this price bracket, and as you say there are many other factors than simply price.

    I'd rather see the government making interventions to try and reduce price inflation at the lower end of the market. That would be a much better signal that they are serious about solving the problems for those hurting most. Instead they are throwing more money at this segment, which is undoubtedly inflationary.

    It is an unnecessary friction because if it has the potential to cause would be trader uppers or downsizers to rethink and stay put. The lack of trader uppers and downsizers is the biggest current problem in the market, so any friction in this, no matter how negligent is a bad thing.

    I would have much prepared to see some serious carrots and sticks to try and increase turnover of existing stock, even if they're very expensive for the taxpayer. We can afford it at the minute. I don't mind seeing taxpayers money at a problem if it is at the very least alleviating the problem. What pisses me off is seeing ever increasing amounts thrown at the problem to make it worse.

    I'd had hoped we might see something because the media have been covering the second hand drought at lot over the last six months, whereas they never mentioned it in previous years. But sadly there was nothing there.



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,619 Mod ✭✭✭✭spockety


    Before:

    image.png

    After:

    image.png

    200 grand haircut.. ouch..

    Estate agent actually took down the original ad and put up a new one so the price drop wouldn't be obvious.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭herbalplants


    Remember the shills only get paid when you react to them.



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


    I cannot see the increase In stamp duty having any effect on turnover at tge upper end of the market. On a 2 million euro house it's an extra 15k the number of houses sold above that is miniscule. Whike technically stamp duty is a tax on the buyer the seller pays through a reduced price.

    There is very little we can do about turnover unless we increase PT substantially. You can put all the carrots in place you like but there is very little suitable accommodation around the country to encourage downsizers. Any that is there is as expensive as staying put.

    I did the sums on it recently and it only makes sense if I could get planning and build again.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    The idea that a 15k increase in stamp duty on a 2million euro house will restrict supply of housing in a significant way is fairly obviously nonsense.

    The number of 2million euro homes being sold by people downsizing is minuscule as things stand, and the number of said sellings likely to be cancelled because of a 15k increase in stamp study reducing their profit by a tiny amount is even smaller.

    At that price point (and wealth point) the point of downsizing is for accessibility concerns (stairs), or maintenance (large gardens, large low BER house), or geography (wanting to move closer to grandkids or specific amenities like walking distance to a village). Receiving say 785k into your pocket instead of 800k is not going to influence many decisions.

    edit: and the widely recognised two biggest issues with the Irish tax system are 1) it not being broad enough and 2) it taxing income instead of wealth. This, even though its tiny, at least helps move both of those needles in a positive direction.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,132 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Interesting, bit at the guts of a million, it's still beyond the reach of most people. To qualify for a mortgage of that size, one would need an income of 200k or more, which even for a couple is far from common (despite what some posters on this thread have claimed before).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Its a wealth tax (that can't be avoided) offset by increased inheritance tax thresholds plus increased pension pot tax breaks for the super wealthy

    A non issue

    Land and property contribute the least tax and are the biggest beneficiary of tax spending. Any move closer to property paying it's fair share is a positive step forward



  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,619 Mod ✭✭✭✭spockety


    I'd say most houses above 600K or so involve large amounts of cash rather than mortgages.



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


    Agreed.

    You do not buy a 1mil house at >70% LTV. Its mostly equity that fuels purchases in the top end of the market. So looking at loan to income ratios is kind of irrelevant for house prices up at that end of things.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,132 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Well my grandmother's house sold for 800k to a cash buyer, so I'd believe it. The amount of cash floating about is unreal.



Advertisement
Advertisement