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*

1887888890892893943

Comments

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


    You never know

    House prices rose by 8% last year, even faster than 2023. '25 could be even boomer! Tallaght will be full of million pound houses before long

    https://www.thejournal.ie/house-prices-up-8-percent-last-year-central-statistics-office-6627181-Feb2025/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    I dont think its to keep prices high, it's to secure the properties for social housing.

    The MO from the local councils & AHBs is to acquire property, not build it.

    They have targets to accommodate people and they have the money to acquire property; so purchasing/renting private property is what they are going to do and that's how they are going to hit their targets.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,981 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    The state of that !

    Mad , even looking at the pictures gives me the heeby jeebies !



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 645 ✭✭✭J_1980


    property is still too cheap looking at offr.io.


    so many bargains and no offers.



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


    Pascal is one of the few competent, capable, adults among our high level politicians. Hes got a good track record of being seemingly the only person in the room concerned with getting value for taxpayer euros - in housing policy here, but also elsewhere. Going against FF but also even against his own party.

    Hopefully hes not out-manouevered on it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,914 ✭✭✭Rocket_GD


    Good one.

    I’d ignore offer.io, not really used by many and often not updated with actual bids put in with estate agents.



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


    I'd agree with you on Paschal's competence as an individual, but thus far he's shown himself to be guided by the realpolitik of the situation rather than achieving value for money for the taxpayer. For guts of 10 years, between the ministries of finance and public expenditure, he's been signing off on measures that just throwing good money after bad making the problem worse and are clearly not value for money for the taxpayer.

    If, (and IMO it is a big if), increasing supply is the only solution to the current problems, the government might as well throw money at a solution that actually meaningfully achieves that.

    For all FF's faults, they know how to grease a palm, and they have a track record of incentivising developers to build 90k a year. Currently we have the money to do it, we might as well waste it and be left with a sh*t load of housing, rather than continue to waste it and watch the problem get worse.



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


    I think the "offr" stands for "Off the Record"….



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


    Arguing against Pascal's measures by saying they weren't value for money for the tax payer, while also saying "we might as well waste money" two paragraphs later seems rather contradictory.

    The evidence would suggest that without him having been in place we would have seen far more demand side wastes of taxpayer money being implemented. He has had a good track record of reigning in the worst splurging efforts.

    Darragh O'Brien, and FF, had control of the Department of Housing for almost five full years from 2020 to 2025 and haven't increased completions appropriately. Their 'track record' of success at building housing is now 20 years ago in the distant past, their current performance certainly doesn't reflect success.

    The argument for years against developing large scale social housing has been "the private sector will build the houses more cheaply, large scale public works are a waste of tax payers money with inefficiency". So seeing multiple posters now saying "just throw as much money at the problem as possible, who cares what it costs" would surely point towards us needing a massive public works building programme.

    If the private sector isn't delivering (as is the case), let the state step up and do it. That way the state can stop leasing and buying private sector housing (600k apartments in Limerick!) at hugely inflated prices, bidding against tax payers with their own tax euros. And stop with all the ineffective, but still expensive, demand side measures.



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


    I've long since given up on the idea that we'll see value for money on government spending. My problem at the minute is we're wasting money to make the problem worse.

    I'd happily accept the waste if it was solving the problem, or at the very least improving it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    What would be the solution if it is not to build more homes?

    Have thr govt shared the numbers in terms of predicted annual spend, if they were to introduce the tax breaks and incentivise building?

    It would be good to see how much we are spending today and the likely output; private and social, vs a spend estimate with tax breals to get us to 60k homes pa; private and social.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,035 ✭✭✭Villa05




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


    I don't believe the only solution is just to build more homes. I'd prefer to see more resources, financial and policy, targetted at increasing the efficiency of allocation of the existing stock.

    The data tells us that in most of the country we have enough existing stock, and in many places a surplus. As I've said what is needed more than anything is to kickstart a giant game of musical chairs.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    You mean across subsidised housing? More tenants sharing homes and so forth?



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




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


    I think there is lower hanging fruit in private sector housing - airbnb, vacancy, incentivise downsizing etc



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Indeed, they should be taxed into oblivion, same for commercial property sitting idle for years.



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


    Punitive taxes on vacant housing and vacant sites would seem such a really obvious measure. Tax them at 10% a year and watch them flood back into the market.

    Or if you want to get cute about it tax them at last year's increase in land/house prices +2%. Just make it not profitable to sit on an empty property/site and accumulate gains through price increases alone.

    And the few that pay it to keep the site vacant will actually raise some revenue for the state while we're at it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,351 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    How long should people get before the 10% kicks in? You buy a derelict building and have to get plans and survey then a builder etc… . Does it stop while you are waiting on planning permission? Appeal of planning?

    What defines vacant? I only go to the house for a week over the year but I store my collection of glasses there so it isn't vacant?

    I am just curious how effective it really can be and what way it could be decided. People couldn't travel during covid so may have left a property vacant.



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


    The reason landlords put their house on Airbnb is because they don't want to deal with the farce of RTB and all the rights tenants have. You know someone books the house for a month pays for it then they leave!

    You don't have non paying tenants who refuse to leave.

    They need to fix this issue first and then perhaps more people will rent their spare home to long term tenants.

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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    They also make more money with Airbnb vs renting property out, particularly in Dublin.

    If the govt are going to take up hotels with asylum seekers, we need to have a place for Airbnb; especially in rural towns who might rely on 2 or 3 hotels for tourism/business stays.



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


    If you buy a derelict building that's subject to a tax, good for you, you've bought it cheaper than you otherwise would have done without the tax. If you can't make the sums work with planning and surveys, don't buy it and let somebody else buy it who can make the sums work.

    Definition of vacant is very simple. Every single residential property in the country is either the owner's PPR, a dependent of the owner's PPR, a holiday home or subject to an RTB registered tenancy.

    If it is not one of the above then it is vacant and tax is due, attached and accruing to the property, and needs to be cleared before any conveyancing. Charge Revenue with the administrationss.

    Don't allow holiday homes in RPZs, tax rent free dependants on gifts/BIK.

    If you want keep a second home to store your collection of glasses, knock yourself out, but be prepared to pay for the privilege.

    The idea that is a difficult tax to administer is absurd, it is simply a variation of the NPPR tax from a decade ago.



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


    I mean they're all very easily solved issues with even a minimum of effort.

    Give people 2 years of vacancy before the tax rate kicks in if you want to be generous, to allow for probate or the purchase and renovation of a derelict home or similar.

    A home with no registered resident is vacant. And a human can only be registered resident in one home. You'd drag some unregistered rental tenancies into the tax system this way too, as a nice bonus.

    According to the Census of 2022, there were 163,433 (excluding holiday homes) vacant properties on Census night 2022. Thats an absolutely unacceptable number during a time of the worst housing crisis in the history of the state. Over half a decade's worth of housing construction, just sitting there.

    And thats not even taking into account the vacant sites that are all around the country in prime locations.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,351 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Wait you can tell me I can’t keep my bottle collection in the house I grew up in? You want to dictate how people have used their buildings? I don’t think you are using your home right and should stop sharing your bed with family.
    I know of lots of properties well maintained that is not a ppr and you don’t get to decide if they have to or not.
    what if I own in a RPZ I stay in one a week? Do you take it from me or tax me more?
    I think you should read our constitution and see that seizure of assets of citizens is an issue. Not even a nice try just novice



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


    2 years is way too generous, 6 months is plenty!



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


    Nobody is suggesting you can be dictated to whether or not you are "using your home right". If it is your PPR you can do whatever the hell you like with it.

    But if you own a second property that you want to keep just to house your bottle collection then you should be taxed for that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,702 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Empty habitable housing and rampant dereliction. Huge amounts of land. won't build high rise... won't introduce meaningful property taxes... if only there were easyvways to solve the " crisis " ... lol !



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,349 ✭✭✭The Student




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,702 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Its messy… Should second home tax be substantial, if the government simply refuses to do its job, of providing housing? Rhetorical question…



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


    Lol you are already taxed heavily to discourage smoking, drinking, eating sugar, but when it comes to 2nd or 3rd homes (of which most lay people are totally unaffected) its communism!

    It shows the influence that well off people have on these narratives



Advertisement
Advertisement