Property Market 2019

Kidkinobe wrote: »

exactly and thats why social housing is needed in cities...So teachers/trainee nurses starting on 35 K a year would be enticed to take a job in the city as a step up until they are a few years in and at which point they earn more and eventually purchase their own home.

cruizer101 wrote: »

I'll fully admit I'm a little bit ignorant of social housing policies but does a person not have to be on a queue for a good while before they would stand a chance of getting a social house, not really useful for newly qualified teachers.

Also, are there no criteria to prioritise people on that list and does that teacher actually have any realistic chance of getting anything? i.e. won't there be a constant flow of higher priority people who are homeless, unemployed, on minimal wage, large families, etc who are jumping in front of the queue meaning that in practice the teacher who technically qualifies has no realistic chance of reaching the top the the list?

My impression is that if we want people like a a newly qualified teachers or nurses to consistently and timely have access to social housing we would need a large part (a third? half?) of the rental stock to be public housing. Not sure that would be a good thing tbh.

L1011 wrote: »

Any form of time-limited tenancy on them is a recipe for disaster.

Uncap the differential rents so that they hit market rate when the tenant is earning enough, remove the option to buy them and remove the ability to inherit a tenancy. People will move on if it suits them rather than staying because its a cheap house but it doesn't leave a Sword of Damocles of an end date hanging over them.

Social housing with differential rents can actually be a profit maker for the operator, just not with the current cap on the rents - although I think one or two of the rural councils actually take more in rent than they spend now, mainly due to not having built/bought anything new in years.

A single national scheme would be sensible also - rates, allowances and caps differ in every council area. Some appear to have got rid of the cap already, others haven't

Totally agree on the rent caps. If you make enough money you should have to pay the market rate, same goes for if you get the option to purchase the property. The subsidising should end.

Confused by your last paragraph though. I think rates should be different per council as cost of living will differ quite a bit.

Sheeps wrote: »

Did you know that social homes aren't free?

4 working Adults in 4 bed council house(2 early/mid 50's, 2 circa mid/late 20's). Combined household income of roughly 160k(50k*2, 30k*2). A net household income of roughly 10k a month. I use this example as I know a household like this.

They live in D18, in which in the private accommodation rate in the area for a 4 bed house in one of the rougher areas is current 2.5k a month conservatively or 25% of their current household budget or 33% of the Adults earning capacity.

How much do they pay in rent a month to the council?
Do they pay property tax, building insurance?
Are they liable for large or small scale repairs on the property, like a boiler breaking beyond repair?
Are they eligible for free house upgrades, like insulation?

For DLR, the rent for that household would be circa 650 quid a month or 6.4% of total household net income. Some people could have been paying significantly less(fixed rent schemes). Dublin city council would never even get that high.

The issue with council housing is that in a lot of cases, the only incentive to leave the house is if the house is in a ****hole location surrounded by complete assholes. There is zero reason why a tenant in that situation would or should ever leave. They could even rent both rent rooms in the house and turn a profit on the councils property, rent and income adjustments included. Council housing intended purpose is to help those that are unable to help themselves with appropriate accommodation. But when they are placed into a situation where they can help themselves or their situations changed, it doesn't work.

Why can they not create a system that does exactly what it was meant to do? Create a escrow system and charge rates based on household income above the standard rate. The additional money accumulated can be used towards a purchase of another private house or the eventual purchase and ownership of the council house they live in. Failure to do either, money goes back to the council on death of the primary tenants for more housing. A forced savings scheme to incentivize leaving in a positive way.

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It seemed pretty obvious to me when I seen it. IMF are saying that growth is lower than forecast and there are multiple risks to the global economy. If the global economy takes a hit, it could have a negative effect on the Irish economy and/or could cause a drop in house prices. I think it's safe to say most people would know that last bit without it having to be spelled out.

The benefit that Ireland has in this scenario is that they are limiting access to finance... therefore they can adjust the valve to allow more access to the housing market if necessary... They don't have to release it fully, just make some adjustments and they can open up the housing market to more potential buyers... They can do this multiple times... thus limiting our exposure to a declining market.

Rex Disgusting Tariff wrote: »

As opposed to over extending, we are currently under-extended in terms of what we can borrow.

We have 28,000 mortgages in this country that haven't paid in the last two years according to the Central Bank. You just don't see that in other countries. This country is over extended from the view that the CBI has.

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Many of these 100% mortgages would have been at property values close to where the market is now. It proved unaffordable in 2005/6, it's not clear why it should be more affordable today.

Have a look at lending terms in 2005/6 & compare to now, then come back when you are informed.

Bluefoam wrote: »

Have a look at lending terms in 2005/6 & compare to now, then come back when you are informed.

Classy. getting a little close to the bone maybe.

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Classy. getting a little close to the bone maybe.

Not sure which bone you're talking about...? I'm saying that you made a statement that didn't make sense, I suggested you figure out why people were overstretched in 2005/6 (your dates) as opposed to the current lending criteria... But you failed to understand what I was suggesting and instead made some weird personal statement.