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*

1836837839841842943

Comments

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


    It won't reduce the average price. The house may be "sold" for 250k, but the state will be picking up the tab the subsidy.

    As for the supply side, this is only increasing at a slow pace. Perhaps it can be increased more; I don't know. What is not increasing as a slow pace is the rate of inwards migration into the country. Increased supply is of no good if the demand continues to outstrip it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,855 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    If it's sold for 250k, it reduces the average price of all homes in Dublin.

    It doesnt reduce the price of non-SF homes, but it does reduce the average selling price of homes in Dublin overall.

    I'd say the 62k home starts in the last 12 months is evidence of increased construction at a rapid pace, but it needs to be maintained or ideally increased further, certainly.



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


    Sorry, should have made the point clearer - I'm certainly not suggesting making rental yields more attractive.

    Rent a room relief is currently capped at 14k per annum. You charge a cent over that and you're taxed on the full amount, so obviously nobody does charge more.

    Apply the same logic to a tenancy. Cap it at tax free 14k per annum, a cent over and you pay tax on it all. You could have bands of caps for 1,23 bed etc.

    Take your example fo a 300k apartment renting for 2200. Gross yield is almost 9%, net yield is closer to 4.5%.

    14k per annum would provide a slight improvement in net yield, but only about 0.5%, an extra 800 quid in rent. Enough to make it worthwhile for existing property owners, bur hardly enough to cause a stampede of new BTL landlords.

    Obviously you'd need to tweak a few other areas of policy to facilitate, but don't see any reason why it couldn't be done.

    In short, I am talking about significantly reducing rents, not doubling rental yields. It would be great for renters and first time buyers.



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


    It won't be a solid 250k. The 250k will be what the person who gets the house will pay, but the actual cost will be more. If they ignore what the state does to subsidise the price, then yes it will lower the average price on paper, but this is just numbers on paper.

    This is, of course, assuming that SF get elected and that they can even deliver on this. In my opinion, they will not see power as they have lost their core voters on the matter of immigration along with being historically unpopular among a great many people here.

    62k is an increase, that is true. But bear in mind that any affordable housing construction would take away from this number.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,855 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    I dont see SF getting in either, but nevertheless, a huge reduction in the overall price of some new homes will decrease the average price of all homes.

    Why would affordable homes not be included in the 62k? People would still be living in them.



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


    Once again, the price is not being reduced. It's just being subsidised. The demand will persist, so the actual prices of housing will continue to grow. This means that those nominally 250k houses will cost more to the state, and the taxpayer will be paying for that.

    On your second point, they affordable houses would be coming from that figure. What I would fear is that if SF were to attempt this scheme, they would just bulk purchase housing to be used as affordable housing in addition to whatever social housing is already coming from the pool of new builds.



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


    There is someone looking to do a nice flip. Sold last June for 1.9 million, a year later without doing a tap looking at 350k profit. Wonder why is he/she selling now if prices keep going up, what not wait till next year maybe get 500k profit.

    https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/181-mount-prospect-avenue-clontarf-dublin-3/4838722

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



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


    No pictures of the inside of the house eh? It must be in s**t :/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 461 ✭✭Rooks


    There could be a number of reasons for their decision to sell. It's anyone's guess.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,855 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    The average sales price is reduced. We would end up with a two tier system where private 3 beds were selling for 600k and SF 3 beds were selling for 250k. Average sales prices for all 3 beds comes down, but the private homes will actually increase in value, due to lack of supply, as the new supply is diverted toward the SF homes.

    I know what you mean about the second point, but the current govt already do that. Numerous examples of high end apartment complexes in DLR that have all gone to social housing.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,769 ✭✭✭spillit67


    Reducing the costs in Dublin to €250k is delusional and unnecessary. It feels like this discussion is five to six years out of date and also influenced by people who bought their homes when they were far cheaper.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,769 ✭✭✭spillit67


    Indeed. The €90k limit puts their “affordable” homes out of reach for a couple in their 30s in Dublin earning the median wage each.

    People need to slow down and consider this.

    There’s a bit of a game going on at the moment where we still have delusions out there that household incomes of €100k is major money.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,769 ✭✭✭spillit67


    I don’t think this will have as much influence as you think. I think Irish households were already relatively well protected against inflation by government subsidies. Our mortgage rules were already relatively strict as well.

    I don’t think you can attribute the same things that we see in other countries to Ireland necessarily.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,855 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Yep. The SF housing proposal doesnt benefit the average working couple, because they dont qualify for the housing SF are proposing.

    The only people that benefit are those on no or low incomes, everyone else will be paying extra for their private homes and average earners will be locked out altogether.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,769 ✭✭✭spillit67


    Yeah to me is basically is pulling out the universal subsidy to further subsidise housing for lower incomes.

    The issue SF have here is their tax policy for those households on €100k. There is a massive psychological barrier on that income level. That particularly tax policy is ironically borne out of the U.K. (and a Tory policy at that!) from 2010. That became an issue in the U.K. as as it is here, £100k isn’t what it once was. €100k then is €127k now…it’s hard to walk away from such a policy though as people’s heads are so tuned up to think that is major household money. It would be patently ridiculous if SF raised the policy from €90k to €100k when their tax policy says that €100k is mega earnings.

    Anyway, if there was a party serious about reducing costs then I’d be interested in voting for them. The SF policy on land to me just comes from years of Twitter warriors talking about it but the outcome (continued hereditary benefits for families) is just another means of lucky dip income redistribution. Nobody really wants to confront the real issues.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,769 ✭✭✭spillit67


    It’s called well meaning but negative unintended consequences. This regularly happens with regulations but when it does, the claim is that it is a conspiratorial often by the same people who demanded it at the time.



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


    I disagree. I think its been a fairly significant addition to getting older properties back into liveable condition. Yes there will ve abuse ofvthe system but in general its a good system.

    It actually has not seen a significant rise in value of this type of property as those in housing need can avail of it or you need to rent the refurbished house for 5 years.

    There was a few vacant properties in a village near me at present there is about 8 being refurbished or already refurbished.

    Cannot see a significant number leaving a property vacant to access the grant maybe for 4-6 months but not for two years, it doesn't make sense. Rental income lost could be 25-40k or you could ve paying that In rent to achieve the grant.

    In Limerick the ĹA is putting CPO's on vacant or derelict houses and forcing owner to refurbish or give up possession. There is a small cottage not far from me gpi g through the process at present

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 626 ✭✭✭felonious_Gru


    I have only one residential property left but before I purchased another commercial property in June 2022 , I went close to buying a four bed semi in castletroy in limerick , I went to €390 k but they went with the lower bid of €385 as I was waiting on the sale of another property

    I've relatives in the same estate and a near identical house a number of doors down sold for €510 k lately

    Things are parabolic right now



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


    Interesting. Any idea why they took the lower bid?

    Parabolic is quite the adjective to use. Think I'll listen to some Tool….



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 626 ✭✭✭felonious_Gru


    I was sale agreed on a house in another part of the country but hadn't funds at ready as the sale wasn't fully complete, I was a cash buyer , by the time the sale was completed in August 2022, the castletroy sale was finalized,I then discovered a commercial property in limerick city and bought it but I'm familiar with the estate as one of my brother's in law lives there

    Him and his wife paid €260 k in 2017

    The Market absolutely is parabolic



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5 KennedyJelly


    Hi Looking for some advice: I have a sale agreed on a house, but I’m feeling uncertain and a bit pressured to finalize things. A more suitable property is available with the same realtor. Is it appropriate to discuss the possibility of viewing this new property? Thanks a lot.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 626 ✭✭✭felonious_Gru


    If you haven't signed contracts ?, absolutely consider a different property, the house you are sale agreed on will get resold ?



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


    As said above, if no contracts are signed then you have no legal compulsion to continue the sale, nor does the vendor. Ethically, I think one should not break an agreement of sale, but it does sometimes happen for a good reason. I did this myself once, but only after it transpired that the vendor had been, shall we say, lenient with the truth regarding the financial status of an apartment maintenance fund.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 626 ✭✭✭felonious_Gru


    Buying a house is usually one the single biggest decisions in someone's life

    Sod ethics , take the bollocking by the estate agent, won't be the first time they saw it happen



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    From my own experience this "pressure" is a standard part of their game-book. If you are uncertain about something and they are blanking you on your questions regarding it, they are trying to hide something big.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,855 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Wr should see more of this, LAs forcing owners to sell or refurb and within distince timelines.

    Same for commervial property.

    Its ridiculous that retail units in wealthy parts of Dublin can sit idle for 10 years. The owners should be taxed into oblivion, forcing them to sell, or renovate and restore to market.



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


    It's about time the media started documenting the missed opportunities

    A massive resource available to the state to balance supply/demand dynamics but was instead used to choke supply while the state pumped demand side policies that have driven prices and rents beyond the majority

    It should have been re-purposed when it became apparent that Ireland’s housing needs far outweighed its need to re-establish fiscal and monetary credibility on international bond markets.........

    Unfortunately, when it comes to housing we have the money but people are paying a huge price for a lack of urgency from the State over most of the last decade. Fixing it will take time and a desire for real reform of a broken system. We don’t have either



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


    I can see this point, and I wouldn't disagree. However, it's worth noting that in Italy (and I think may European countries), if the buyer breaks the agreement of sale, they will not get their deposit back. If the vendor breaks it, they must give the buyer twice the deposit back. There are nuances to this to allow for structural issues with the property or buyers who act the maggot.

    I think something like this in Ireland would not necessarily be a bad idea. It would prevent people bidding on houses that they don't really want to some extent. Obviously it's not going to cool the market, however…



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


    People bid on multiple properties when in fact they can only buy only one. Hence unnecessary price increases.

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



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


    They do. Indeed, if I make a bid on a property and then pull out because I've found another houses, my offer on the said house is void and should be ignored. However, it will not be, and it will serve to drive up the price of the property.

    Of course, this is not why house prices are going up. Rather, it's just a symptom of a lack of supply and a gruesome surplus of demand.



Advertisement
Advertisement