What is your view on the property market currently?

ShowMeTheCash · 07-11-2017 6:07pm

McGaggs wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Is there?
So you want to kick indigenous Dubliners out of the City because you work their?
Interesting......

Don't you mean 'indolent'?

So people in social housing are lazy?
Another interesting view point!

Geuze · 07-11-2017 6:20pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Absolutely, we have a dreadful habit of genuinely thinking we have it so bad - I live in Europe and I pay eye watering amounts of tax compared to my Irish friends

Yes.

It's well known that direct taxes and overall taxes are lower here than in most countries.

However, out top MTR does start very early, at approx 35-36k, so people have the perception that Ireland is a high-tax country.

The J Stands for Jay · 07-11-2017 6:23pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So people in social housing are lazy?
Another interesting view point!

Nah, just having a wind-up.

The point I think the other poster is trying to make is that there was no reason to house those people in those locations, and they should be used in an economically productive manner.

When they originally applied for social housing, they should have been placed elsewhere, somewhere better for them. They didn't live in that location before they were placed there, so you can't argue that they are from there.

Geuze · 07-11-2017 6:23pm

Cina wrote: »

The same applies to the countries themselves, though. It's just a bit like Ireland where the capital is the most expensive.

The only European exceptions I can think of are Portugal and Germany, and obviously some of the poorer countries.

People in Ireland seem to see us as some ultra mega expensive country where we're overcharged for everything but really, we're about on par with the other countries of our GDP/median wages, in some cases cheaper.

I wouldn't agree. The consumer price level here is 125% of the EU-28 average.

Price level index for household final consumption expenditure (HFCE), 2016, EU-28=100

Price_level_index_for_household_final_consumption_expenditure_%28HFCE%29%2C_2016%2C_EU-28%3D100June.png

Price_level_index_for_household_final_consumption_expenditure_%28HFCE%29%2C_2016%2C_EU-28%3D100June.png

Price_level_index_for_food%2C_beverages%2C_clothing_and_footwear_2016%2C_EU-28%3D100.png

Geuze · 07-11-2017 6:28pm

With prices being 25% above the EU average, our AIC is not that high.

Actual individual consumption, abbreviated as AIC, refers to all goods and services actually consumed by households. It encompasses consumer goods and services purchased directly by households, as well as services provided by non-profit institutions and the government for individual consumption (e.g., health and education services). In international comparisons, the term is usually preferred over the narrower concept of household consumption, because the latter is influenced by the extent to which non-profit institutions and general government act as service providers.

T1_Volume_indices_per_capita%2C_2013-2016_%28EU-28%3D100%29.png

T1_Volume_indices_per_capita%2C_2013-2016_%28EU-28%3D100%29.png

ShowMeTheCash · 08-11-2017 12:52am

McGaggs wrote: »

Nah, just having a wind-up.

The point I think the other poster is trying to make is that there was no reason to house those people in those locations, and they should be used in an economically productive manner.

When they originally applied for social housing, they should have been placed elsewhere, somewhere better for them. They didn't live in that location before they were placed there, so you can't argue that they are from there.

Thing about social housing it really is not to supply the need of the working class. You could argue if you are single with no family then you why should you be closer to amenaties such as school, shops, hospitals? Single working class people tend move a lot more so again why would you have a single professional close to schools.... I get the idea but it's far more complicated than the last poster seems to suggest.

BillyBobBS · 08-11-2017 8:11am

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

What irks me is that there's so much social housing in the city centre, in prime locations. Shouldn't the workers be living here really, and social housing in areas that don't require easy access to the city centre?

People in social housing work so your point makes zero sense.

nice_guy80 · 08-11-2017 8:58am

build more houses
private and 'social'

councils stopped large scale building in the 70s or 80s when the rates were abolished.
they need to get back to this.

take the savings from paying off our bonds early and start building houses.
the EIF (european investment fund) will give funding to build these.

speed up the process hugely by going for timber frame panel houses. they can be made off site and craned into position, blocks and windows put in within 10 days. upscale a few of the existing factories and you could build an estate of 50 houses in 6 months.

whisky_galore · 08-11-2017 9:37am

The space over shops in towns and cities needs to be freed up for living space, every other 'normal' city in Europe has living areas over businesses, somehow they nearly all seem to be gathering dust here, but of course we'll find excuses not to use them.

Dr Crayfish · 08-11-2017 10:57am

whisky_galore wrote: »

The space over shops in towns and cities needs to be freed up for living space, every other 'normal' city in Europe has living areas over businesses, somehow they nearly all seem to be gathering dust here, but of course we'll find excuses not to use them.

Yeah I noticed that here. My friend lives in Munich and where he is there are tonnes of blocks of nice flats, but on the ground floor of each there are shops and cafes and restaurants etc. None of them ever seem that busy but I don't think it's very expensive to run businesses there like it is here, so the overheads wouldn't be huge, you can get by if it's ticking over. They should build tall apartment blocks here but offer incentives for shops and cafes to open on the ground floors.

Richard Hillman · 08-11-2017 7:25pm

McGaggs wrote: »

Nobody wants us and our inability to repossess the asset securing the loan. The insurers are scared of our delicate necks.

Totally understandable but the point is that they shouldn't be allowed to refuse us their service because of what country we are in. It is a single market.

The J Stands for Jay · 08-11-2017 7:32pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Totally understandable but the point is that they shouldn't be allowed to refuse us their service because of what country we are in. It is a single market.

You can't force them to spend money to enter a market they don't believe they can make money off.

08-11-2017 10:30pm

Route1 wrote: »

House prices spiralling out of control, particularly in Dublin. A shortage of rental accommodation sees rents at and all time high?
What do you see as the solution?

I'm curious... how are house prices spiralling out of control outside of Dublin?

There are heaps of houses/apartments in the Midlands and other parts of the country that have been on the market for months without getting a buyer even close to the prices being demanded in Dublin.

I have a house in Athlone and an apartment just outside Cork. Rents are reasonably priced to pay my mortgages but I'm not making much in the way of actual profit after expenses (last year I made 1k profit from my cork property once all the government taxes, fees, and house maintenance was factored in). Housing prices haven't jumped that much beyond around 30k from the recession and are nowhere close to pre-recession times.

Most of the house/apartment owners I know around my properties are still in negative equity and would love the opportunity to sell their places. Now, I could be wrong here. I tend to just look at the immediate areas around my own properties for the prices, but I don't think I am wrong. Are there any statistics showing this crisis for the rest of the country?

If you want a decent solution, lower taxes on selling a property, and the costs of the solicitors... then owners of property would be much quicker to sell a place. Also, put in some encouragement for those living in Dublin to move out into the countryside, but few people really want to commute any real distance.

But TBH if the government really cared about the housing in Dublin, we would see apartment complexes 20-30 floors tall being built with the proper infrastructure/services to support them. Take inspiration from countries with high populations like in Asia, who have apartment building complexes housing tens of thousands of people...

nice_guy80 · 08-11-2017 10:56pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

The space over shops in towns and cities needs to be freed up for living space, every other 'normal' city in Europe has living areas over businesses, somehow they nearly all seem to be gathering dust here, but of course we'll find excuses not to use them.

the government removed the tax credit for building owners
to do this a few years back
that's why most town centres are uninhabited.

Zebra3 · 08-11-2017 11:05pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm curious... how are house prices spiralling out of control outside of Dublin?

In Kildare, Wicklow, Meath and Louth as parts of those counties are long since in the Dublin commuter belt.

Apparently rising in Cork too. No idea what the economy is like down there though.

That’s 20% of the state’s counties outside Dublin.

maryishere · 09-11-2017 10:38am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm curious... how are house prices spiralling out of control outside of Dublin?

There are heaps of houses/apartments in the Midlands and other parts of the country that have been on the market for months without getting a buyer even close to the prices being demanded in Dublin.

I have a house in Athlone and an apartment just outside Cork. Rents are reasonably priced to pay my mortgages but I'm not making much in the way of actual profit after expenses (last year I made 1k profit from my cork property once all the government taxes, fees, and house maintenance was factored in). Housing prices haven't jumped that much beyond around 30k from the recession and are nowhere close to pre-recession times.

Most of the house/apartment owners I know around my properties are still in negative equity and would love the opportunity to sell their places. Now, I could be wrong here. I tend to just look at the immediate areas around my own properties for the prices, but I don't think I am wrong. Are there any statistics showing this crisis for the rest of the country?

If you want a decent solution, lower taxes on selling a property, and the costs of the solicitors... then owners of property would be much quicker to sell a place. Also, put in some encouragement for those living in Dublin to move out into the countryside, but few people really want to commute any real distance.

But TBH if the government really cared about the housing in Dublin, we would see apartment complexes 20-30 floors tall being built with the proper infrastructure/services to support them. Take inspiration from countries with high populations like in Asia, who have apartment building complexes housing tens of thousands of people...

Correct. A typical house in Longford is about €80,000 it said on the news, in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown its over half a million.

The government reversed its policy on decentralisation, and all new jobs this past ten or 12 years have gone to Dublin, so it is the author of its own misfortune. Bad planning again in Ireland.

whisky_galore · 09-11-2017 10:44am

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the government removed the tax credit for building owners
to do this a few years back
that's why most town centres are uninhabited.

If all that unused space was occupied, the uni, college and language students, the baristas, cooks, cleaners and all the people that need to be located there, but who can't afford to buy a car or commute from afar would at least bring a bit of life back to town and city centres instead of an empty shell of shopfronts.

Richard Hillman · 09-11-2017 10:50am

McGaggs wrote: »

You can't force them to spend money to enter a market they don't believe they can make money off.

They already in the market. It's a single market.

Lollipops23 · 09-11-2017 11:01am

My OH bought an apartment last year; we viewed maybe 12 places and bid on 4.

Several times we went to view, there was at least one couple about our age and also several men in their 60s, clearly buying as an investment property. They were able to outbid us at every turn. It felt like a double smack- we weren't able get our feet onto the property ladder and these guys were going to be renting the properties to people our age at extortionate rates.

Even in the past year the market has gone so bad that we wouldn't be able to get onto the ladder now.

pwurple · 09-11-2017 11:22am

That price index omits the three most expensive things on my balance sheet.
-Childcare
-Accommodation
-Transport

I was talking to a guy who was moaning about the price of sending his two kids to college... 12k in fees a year, godawful. Except my childcare fees are around 18k a year for two small kids, so I was like, jeez you're getting off light! Mortgage is ~12k per year, but there's also utilities, repairs and maintenance etc on a house. Brings it up to 16k. Family cars used to cost us about 5-6k, down to under 2k now with one electric & one diesel. That's 36k after tax required for a household with 2 children, before anyone gets food or a pair of shoes, or anything else listed in that index. And remember, we have to earn 75k gross just to cover that.
So, yeah. Of my top three expensive things, housing is number 2.
It is obviously an asset, because it costs money to build, to run, and houses can be differentiated based on quality. If it became value-less, then why would you spend your money maintaining it at any standard. It becomes a race to the bottom. Cheapest of the cheap.

whisky_galore · 09-11-2017 11:25am

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My OH bought an apartment last year; we viewed maybe 12 places and bid on 4.

Several times we went to view, there was at least one couple about our age and also several men in their 60s, clearly buying as an investment property. They were able to outbid us at every turn. It felt like a double smack- we weren't able get our feet onto the property ladder and these guys were going to be renting the properties to people our age at extortionate rates.

Even in the past year the market has gone so bad that we wouldn't be able to get onto the ladder now.

When the govt abdicates its responsibility, the investors/gombeens/middlemen/parasites whatever you want to call them, step in.

09-11-2017 1:14pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

In Kildare, Wicklow, Meath and Louth as parts of those counties are long since in the Dublin commuter belt.

Apparently rising in Cork too. No idea what the economy is like down there though.

That’s 20% of the state’s counties outside Dublin.

20%? Sure, but it's as you say... they're still the traditional areas servicing Dublin. What about the rest of the country?

Dublin has a housing crisis. I've seen little indication that the rest of the country does (which the OP suggested) unless we're talking about the inability to sell.

Apparently rising in Cork too.

Cork is rising. As is Galway. All the major towns are rising... but nothing close to Dublin.

I'm not suggesting that these other towns/cities should rise at the same speed/level as Dublin. That's unrealistic for many reasons. However, I do wonder at all these cries of a housing crisis that is mostly centered on Dublin (or the 20% nearby).

Most of the threads on boards about the property crisis include the rest of the country, but the vast majority of posts simply refer to Dublin.

Athlone is slightly more than an hour car travel to Dublin. take the train for 90 mins, and follow up with the luas. Many of the towns in the Midlands are similar... but most people in Dublin don't want to commute. They tend to talk about the traffic inside of Dublin and complain about the need to add another hour to their commute... I lived in a number of international cities where a two-hour commute was seen as very reasonable and honestly based on the road layout of Dublin, with population increases, many in Dublin are going to get that kind of increase anyway.

donegaLroad · 09-11-2017 5:19pm

I just heard today, the highest cost of an average house in Ireland is Dun Laoghaire / Rathdown @575k.

The lowest value of an average house is Longford @90k. Bear in mind that the builder is still making a few quid even at 90k, what does is say about price inflation in Dublin.

Also, Longford is within commuting distance to Dublin (by train at least). You could buy in Longford, commute for a few years, and sit it out until house prices normalise in Dublin, then buy. Prices in Longford are bound to rise in the next few years.

ShowMeTheCash · 09-11-2017 5:48pm

pwurple wrote: »

That price index omits the three most expensive things on my balance sheet.
-Childcare
-Accommodation
-Transport

I was talking to a guy who was moaning about the price of sending his two kids to college... 12k in fees a year, godawful. Except my childcare fees are around 18k a year for two small kids, so I was like, jeez you're getting off light! Mortgage is ~12k per year, but there's also utilities, repairs and maintenance etc on a house. Brings it up to 16k. Family cars used to cost us about 5-6k, down to under 2k now with one electric & one diesel. That's 36k after tax required for a household with 2 children, before anyone gets food or a pair of shoes, or anything else listed in that index. And remember, we have to earn 75k gross just to cover that.
So, yeah. Of my top three expensive things, housing is number 2.
It is obviously an asset, because it costs money to build, to run, and houses can be differentiated based on quality. If it became value-less, then why would you spend your money maintaining it at any standard. It becomes a race to the bottom. Cheapest of the cheap.

Yeah but are you talking pre-school childcare?
I cannot remember what ours cost but that stopped as soon as the kids actually started school.

donegaLroad · 11-11-2017 12:22pm

Also, the cost of a house is not €575,000 unless you pay cash on the day.

Borrowing €500,000 @ 4% per annum for 30 years will mean you will be paying back approx €900,000 over the term.

Will the property be worth €900,000 in 30 years?

11-11-2017 1:02pm

donegaLroad wrote: »

Also, the cost of a house is not €575,000 unless you pay cash on the day.

Borrowing €500,000 @ 4% per annum for 30 years will mean you will be paying back approx €900,000 over the term.

Will the property be worth €900,000 in 30 years?

Also worth trying to factor in yearly maintenance (repairs, renovations, etc) taxes, charges over the lifetime of your mortgage. Plan ahead as much as possible, and rein in your optimism as to how it will turn out.

Buying a house is just the start of the costs. I had my parents advice, along with the costs they'd previously experienced, but over the last 10-15 years, I've experienced many other costs both old and new...

just prior to the boom, I started with an old house, bought it relatively cheap, renovated it, and resold it within a year making a reasonable profit to put towards the deposit/mortgage for the next one. Very different experience than buying a house with a 30-35 year mortgage.

A property is very expensive over time to keep... and renting is not all that it's cracked up to be. I've had renters who cost me enough in damages to wipe out over a year of rental 'profit' (although the government does make it quite difficult to actually make any real profit from a single property). I'm currently charging rent lower than the market average, just to hold on to a tenant that keeps the place well, and doesn't cause issues. So many other tenants have little to no respect for a property they themselves don't own, and that brings a host of expenses for the owner.

SEPT 23 1989 · 11-11-2017 2:18pm

donegaLroad wrote: »

Also, the cost of a house is not €575,000 unless you pay cash on the day.

Borrowing €500,000 @ 4% per annum for 30 years will mean you will be paying back approx €900,000 over the term.

Will the property be worth €900,000 in 30 years?

It probably will in a good area

donegaLroad · 11-11-2017 2:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Also worth trying to factor in yearly maintenance (repairs, renovations, etc) taxes, charges over the lifetime of your mortgage. Plan ahead as much as possible, and rein in your optimism as to how it will turn out.

Buying a house is just the start of the costs. I had my parents advice, along with the costs they'd previously experienced, but over the last 10-15 years, I've experienced many other costs both old and new...

just prior to the boom, I started with an old house, bought it relatively cheap, renovated it, and resold it within a year making a reasonable profit to put towards the deposit/mortgage for the next one. Very different experience than buying a house with a 30-35 year mortgage.

A property is very expensive over time to keep... and renting is not all that it's cracked up to be. I've had renters who cost me enough in damages to wipe out over a year of rental 'profit' (although the government does make it quite difficult to actually make any real profit from a single property). I'm currently charging rent lower than the market average, just to hold on to a tenant that keeps the place well, and doesn't cause issues. So many other tenants have little to no respect for a property they themselves don't own, and that brings a host of expenses for the owner.

that is a whole other headache Klaz, it must be also a burden on your time.

My feeling is that the current model can't go on indefinitely, especially with houses that were built during the boom.

For example, where I mentioned the house purchased for €575k, €500k would be borrowed @ 4% for 30 years. The approx total repayment over the term would be €900k.

Does this then mean that when the house is being sold on again in 30 years, the price tag will be over €900k? This will mean that a couple will have to borrow in excess of €800k to purchase the property, lets say @4% for 30 years, they will end up paying back approx €1.7m over the term of the loan.

(Bearing in mind that now the house is, lets say 40 years old. Needs some modification etc.)

After the next 30 year mortgage cycle the house now has a price tag of €1.8m, and a couple take out a mortgage of €1.5m @4% over 30 years (taking it that they have a deposit of 300,000k)

After 30 years they will have paid approx €2.7m, and the house goes on the market for €3m... and the cycle continues, but the house is getting older.

It doesn't seem sustainable to me, especially when you consider that public sector wages have significantly dropped in the last 10 years.

Its a pyramid scheme.

server down · 11-11-2017 2:50pm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

It probably will in a good area

Don’t count on it unless inflation also grows at that level.

Goat of Lochmarne Castle · 11-11-2017 9:43pm

server down wrote: »

Don’t count on it unless inflation also grows at that level.

500k to 900k is an 80% rise in prices.
This has almost happened in Dublin from 2012-2017 with inflation of <1% for most of those years. We don't need inflation for rapidly rising house prices, all we need is a constriction of supply as is currently evident.
I would actually be shocked if 500k houses in Dublin were worth anything less than a million in 30 years time.
It's like comparing house prices now with 1987. A lot can and will change in an economy over 3 decades.

donegaLroad · 12-11-2017 12:05am

Goat of Lochmarne Castle wrote: »

500k to 900k is an 80% rise in prices.
This has almost happened in Dublin from 2012-2017 with inflation of <1% for most of those years. We don't need inflation for rapidly rising house prices, all we need is a constriction of supply as is currently evident.
I would actually be shocked if 500k houses in Dublin were worth anything less than a million in 30 years time.
It's like comparing house prices now with 1987. A lot can and will change in an economy over 3 decades.

can you see wage levels increasing sufficiently between now and then, in order for people to qualify for a mortgage of that size?

A lot is already changing in the present economy, in the Eurozone and internationally. There are economists who say that the dollar will no longer be a reserve currency in the foreseeable future. There is also Brexit, and its immediate and long term effects on ROI.

The highest average house price in Ireland is currently Dun Laoghaire / Rathdown @ €575k

The lowest is in Ireland is Longford @ €90k

The same standard and size of house, with a difference of €485k... 1 hour and 40 minutes away on the train. People are being hoodwinked once again.

badboyblast · 12-11-2017 9:16am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm curious... how are house prices spiralling out of control outside of Dublin?

There are heaps of houses/apartments in the Midlands and other parts of the country that have been on the market for months without getting a buyer even close to the prices being demanded in Dublin.

I have a house in Athlone and an apartment just outside Cork. Rents are reasonably priced to pay my mortgages but I'm not making much in the way of actual profit after expenses (last year I made 1k profit from my cork property once all the government taxes, fees, and house maintenance was factored in). Housing prices haven't jumped that much beyond around 30k from the recession and are nowhere close to pre-recession times.

Most of the house/apartment owners I know around my properties are still in negative equity and would love the opportunity to sell their places. Now, I could be wrong here. I tend to just look at the immediate areas around my own properties for the prices, but I don't think I am wrong. Are there any statistics showing this crisis for the rest of the country?

If you want a decent solution, lower taxes on selling a property, and the costs of the solicitors... then owners of property would be much quicker to sell a place. Also, put in some encouragement for those living in Dublin to move out into the countryside, but few people really want to commute any real distance.

But TBH if the government really cared about the housing in Dublin, we would see apartment complexes 20-30 floors tall being built with the proper infrastructure/services to support them. Take inspiration from countries with high populations like in Asia, who have apartment building complexes housing tens of thousands of people...

Great post, most landlords are looking to get out of it and mad to sell, no money In houses, it's a joke

12-11-2017 11:09am

badboyblast wrote: »

Great post, most landlords are looking to get out of it and mad to sell, no money In houses, it's a joke

Time has moved on. Traditionally, in most countries, sinking your money into land and a property made sense. It was a good investment overall. My parents did it, and came out quite well, but then, they'd finished all that by the mid-80s.

However, governments have placed too much emphasis on taxes/charges for income from property becoming a favorite source, along with a bloated legal system that needs to justify itself with higher fees, and lastly, a drop in the quality of houses/apartments being built (prices go up, but the quality drops).

TBH, I wouldn't view property in Ireland as being a good investment anymore, and I'd love to sell my properties. Alas, I do have negative equity. Not because I bought so high above my means, but because of the market, the costs involved in selling, and the costs of maintaining the property over the last 15 years. It really is quite scary when I consider what I was spending in my first year of property ownership vs what I'm paying now.

Are some people making a fortune? Sure. Are some people making a reasonable profit? sure. But from those I've spoken to through associations and friends, most people are borderline struggling beyond simply paying their mortgage, and immediate expenses.

The system is completely broken imo. Not just the property market in the Dublin area, but pretty much everything associated with property too.

my poor tortured hands · 12-11-2017 11:55am

Capital Gains Tax could be set very high, >90%.

That'd effectively stop investors. No need to actually ban foreign ownership, just make it unprofitable.

But instead of increasing capital gains tax our government actually reduced it to zero on some properties.

Goat of Lochmarne Castle · 12-11-2017 1:41pm

donegaLroad wrote: »

The highest average house price in Ireland is currently Dun Laoghaire / Rathdown @ €575k

The lowest is in Ireland is Longford @ €90k

The same standard and size of house, with a difference of €485k... 1 hour and 40 minutes away on the train. People are being hoodwinked once again.

I think an important point you're missing is the site cost.
In nice parts of Dublin where semi-D's are 500-600k, the land it's built on alone is probably worth 300k.
The fact you would have to commute to Dublin for 1 hr 40 mins (x2) every day on the train, the cost of train tickets (never mind the 3 hour+ per day commute) multiplied by 30 years. The financial cost of transport alone over that length of time would probably make the house in Dublin cheaper. This is factored into Dublin house prices (and every capital city throughout the world where jobs are centred)

donegaLroad · 12-11-2017 9:35pm

Goat of Lochmarne Castle wrote: »

I think an important point you're missing is the site cost.
In nice parts of Dublin where semi-D's are 500-600k, the land it's built on alone is probably worth 300k.
The fact you would have to commute to Dublin for 1 hr 40 mins (x2) every day on the train, the cost of train tickets (never mind the 3 hour+ per day commute) multiplied by 30 years. The financial cost of transport alone over that length of time would probably make the house in Dublin cheaper. This is factored into Dublin house prices (and every capital city throughout the world where jobs are centred)

yes I agree, the site is expensive.. but on the other had there are people who commute to Dublin from Limerick, Newry, Athlone etc. everyday on the train. The fact that Newry was on the train line meant that house prices there went up accordingly during the early 00's.

When I lived in Navan and worked in Dublin, my daily commute was 2 hours and 40 minutes because of the traffic. Plus I had to keep a van on the road.

That was in 2001 so morning traffic may have improved now, I don't know.

I am trying to make people aware of the total cost of a mortgage. Back during the Great Delusion, so many people I know didn't do one small calculation before they signed up for their mortgage, and that was to find out the total amount they would pay back by the end of the term of the loan.

How much it would cost to borrow €500k @4%; over 30 years. That calculation would only take you 1 or 2 minutes, and Im sure it would shock a lot of people.

badboyblast · 12-11-2017 10:03pm

The Irish government should have shared housing community's like the Danish who have houses who share a garden, laundry room, workshop, storage area, dining hall where they can opt In to communal meals.

12-11-2017 10:16pm

badboyblast wrote: »

The Irish government should have shared housing community's like the Danish who have houses who share a garden, laundry room, workshop, storage area, dining hall where they can opt In to communal meals.

TBH, They should have large apartment blocks with services catering to the block complex. This focus on houses, and small apartment buildings is extremely short-sighted. Dublin is already too dense for roads, rail, services, parking etc. There should be a definite move towards more people living in a smaller area, and seek to shrink the overal size of Dublin. Not going to happen though, and Dublin will turn into a total mess. Ireland's population is growing, and it's going to keep growing from births and immigration...

I've lived in Asia and seen the massive populations there. It's going to be interesting to see 5/6/7 million people try living in Dublin. At least, property prices outside Dublin, and in the rest of the country will likely rise dramatically then.

Lastly... regarding transport. Ireland has a relatively old fashioned transport system compared with the more modern countries, and it's highly likely that the government will be forced at some stage to upgrade. Travelling costs in money/time will drop heavily once that happens. I can remember when driving to Dublin took well over 2 hours from Dublin, now it's around an hour. A few high speed train links, and that will change eveything...

whisky_galore · 13-11-2017 10:37am

badboyblast wrote: »

The Irish government should have shared housing community's like the Danish who have houses who share a garden, laundry room, workshop, storage area, dining hall where they can opt In to communal meals.

I can't see Irish people doing this at all without fist fights breaking out.

my poor tortured hands · 13-11-2017 10:53am

Irish people can't use shared services as we don't have a sufficiently strong rule of law in this country.

We have a police force that often refuses to do its job.

These things also happened before the foundation of the Irish State. The British government wanted to provide financial compensation to the Irish during the 19th century, (1800 onwards). The English needed proof so they asked Irish professionals like doctors and solicitors to provide the proof. The Irish professional classes criminalised themselves in a rush to get the English loot. This seriously compromised the integrity of Irish professional classes and they have never recovered.
(What I'm saying here is that the Irish professional classes lied and cheated to get the English money. They got used to it and now they lie and cheat all the time)

The result is that Irish professionals appear to have never done their job correctly. They see their role as one where they should lie and cheat to get ahead. Cute hoorism in other words. It's still with us today.

Another problem for the Irish is the anti-evolution we engage in. Every generation we send our best and brightest abroad, leaving us with the dregs. The opposite of evolution in other words. Do that for 200 years and see the state of those left behind. Us, in other words.

Irish people have no get up and go as it has been bred out of us. We are mostly talkers, not walkers.

ShowMeTheCash · 13-11-2017 12:59pm

badboyblast wrote: »

Great post, most landlords are looking to get out of it and mad to sell, no money In houses, it's a joke

I would argue making money off houses was the joke!

This really just comes down to math.
If there is money in it, then every man and his dog will be at it, and really that is what was happening before the bubble burst.

It essentially is the the start of a false economy, making profits and pushing up house prices I would argue is ethically wrong but then so is a host of other activities.

If you can buy a property at a market value, pay the mortgage and make a tidy profit then the model is broken. In reality for a sustainable model the rent and mortgage should be similar and inline with wages for an area.

If you are making more on top and people can consistently do this what is happening is we push the value of the property up as it is seen as an asset and in turn rents go up and house prices go up completely independently of what people actually earn.

Because so many people where treating properties as assets with the sole purpose of making revenue it then becomes a business of selling something for more than it is actually worth.

Because you can only go so far with this, eventually you have people needing to borrow 10 x their salary to purchase a home.

Sephiroth_dude · 13-11-2017 1:01pm

My view is that Landlords have all the power it would seem.

my poor tortured hands · 13-11-2017 1:24pm

The property market is dysfunctional from so many points of view.

Buying and selling houses is very difficult and takes ages, more than a year in many cases.

Rules and laws about renting and about shared apartment blocks either do not exist or they're not fit for purpose.

There are threads on Boards of renters running criminal enterprises from rented houses and not paying rent and the Gardai refuse to do anything.

Ireland is rapidly becoming a failed state.

13-11-2017 3:16pm

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

My view is that Landlords have all the power it would seem.

Then you're being remarkably naive. I won't go into all (and there's a lot) of the government/political interference into our properties, but the laws over the last two decades have changed drastically regarding landlord rights. It's extremely difficult for me to evict a tenant even if that tenant has failed their responsibility as a tenant. The contract tenant agreement that landlords get tenants to sign is often overturned by the courts in favor of 'tenant' rights.

13-11-2017 3:51pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

If you can buy a property at a market value, pay the mortgage and make a tidy profit then the model is broken.

No. That's capitalism. That you buy something, improve on it, and resell for a higher amount. Nothing wrong with that at all.

You're seriously exaggerating the influence that property owners have over market values.

In reality for a sustainable model the rent and mortgage should be similar and inline with wages for an area.

You're combining markets though. There is the market of purchase with the expectation of reselling... and then the market of purchase and renting for profit, and/or to pay off the mortgage amount.

The first market worked fine as long as the banks/government didn't interfere too much. Now they do, and the ability to sell properties easily with a profit has mostly disappeared. You might try to sell with a profit of 30% but likely after legal/government/taxes, you'll come out with 10%-15%. If you're lucky. That drastically slows down the resale of properties, which is why Dublin is having such a housing crisis. Can't afford to sell, and can't afford to maintain them.

And then the second market of renting is so regulated that landlords, for the most part, are forced to pass extra costs on to the tenants... and those costs go up a few times within each year, seriously reducing any profits, but the landlord can't access the first market anymore.

It's not sustainable because the government is killing the goose that laid the egg. Property owners are becoming immobilized. Housing values remain at affordable costs when a property market has a relatively fast turnaround...

If you are making more on top and people can consistently do this what is happening is we push the value of the property up as it is seen as an asset and in turn rents go up and house prices go up completely independently of what people actually earn.

I can charge whatever I like in rent for my house to prospective tenants. Doesn't mean people are going to accept my rates. Landlords are tied to the market. Not the other way around.

Secondly, market value is determined by hundreds of factors. You're trying to make it simple... but it's not a simple situation.

Because so many people where treating properties as assets with the sole purpose of making revenue it then becomes a business of selling something for more than it is actually worth.

Perceived value vs actual value. That goes both ways. I have negative equity because the perceived value is less than the actual value. Why? because nobody is willing to pay the actual value anymore. You're giving property owners far more power than they actually have in this situation.

Because you can only go so far with this, eventually you have people needing to borrow 10 x their salary to purchase a home.

Yup. because 1)they have unrealistic expectations of their purchasing power, expecting to get their dream home the first time they buy, and 2) Government assigned costs have destroyed the real profit margin on houses.

I have a house & land which I 'bought' for 200k. It matched the value of the property before the boom period. Sorted. During the boom, the perceived value skyrocketed, but I bought the house to be my home. Not an investment for resale. Then the crash happened, I lost my job and was forced to rent out my home to cover the mortgage. That first year I made a clear profit, although I lost most of that to housing costs the following year. Since that first year, costs have consistently increased in all areas, and I have made a loss each year.

Move forward to present day, and I am still making a loss from renting, and with the current market, I can sell my house for a total gross profit of 32k. Once you factor in legal fees, government charges and taxes, etc that profit drops to less than 20k, but I've also spent much more than 20k in maintaining the house while I had tenants. If I sell now, I will make a definite loss in tens of thousands.

IF you want people to buy a property for a reasonable cost, then the government needs to rein in all the associated costs. The market is dying for normal people. It's only the real estate companies that can afford to make real profits.

ShowMeTheCash · 13-11-2017 5:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

No. That's capitalism. That you buy something, improve on it, and resell for a higher amount. Nothing wrong with that at all.

I think history for the housing market will disagree with you on this one.
Capitalism is usually an excuse when you really do not understand economics.

House's should not be treated as assets they should be treated as homes. This is something economist have said and warmed about even before the last crash but they were labeled "Doom and gloom merchants" during the Celtic Tiger.... David McWilliams told everyone this would happen.

Capitalism works in certain defined environments where it is scale-able and sustainable.

So within the housing market, yes, yes there really is something wrong with that.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're seriously exaggerating the influence that property owners have over market values.

That is not the argument I am making, you have no influence over it, the buy to rent, the buy to flip or to make profit is the reason the market acts this way.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're combining markets though. There is the market of purchase with the expectation of reselling... and then the market of purchase and renting for profit, and/or to pay off the mortgage amount.

I worked for the NYSE for almost 10 years and every investment bank you can probably think of.
This is the issue as that you think of this as a market, it shouldn't be.

A home should be treated as a home, you should by a home with the idea of living in it, that is the purpose of a home. Anyone you is buying with the idea of reselling or renting is part of the problem.

Deleted User wrote: »

The first market worked fine as long as the banks/government didn't interfere too much. Now they do, and the ability to sell properties easily with a profit has mostly disappeared. You might try to sell with a profit of 30% but likely after legal/government/taxes, you'll come out with 10%-15%. If you're lucky. That drastically slows down the resale of properties, which is why Dublin is having such a housing crisis. Can't afford to sell, and can't afford to maintain them.

And then the second market of renting is so regulated that landlords, for the most part, are forced to pass extra costs on to the tenants... and those costs go up a few times within each year, seriously reducing any profits, but the landlord can't access the first market anymore.

It's not sustainable because the government is killing the goose that laid the egg. Property owners are becoming immobilized. Housing values remain at affordable costs when a property market has a relatively fast turnaround...

I can charge whatever I like in rent for my house to prospective tenants. Doesn't mean people are going to accept my rates. Landlords are tied to the market. Not the other way around.

Secondly, market value is determined by hundreds of factors. You're trying to make it simple... but it's not a simple situation.

Perceived value vs actual value. That goes both ways. I have negative equity because the perceived value is less than the actual value. Why? because nobody is willing to pay the actual value anymore. You're giving property owners far more power than they actually have in this situation.

Yup. because 1)they have unrealistic expectations of their purchasing power, expecting to get their dream home the first time they buy, and 2) Government assigned costs have destroyed the real profit margin on houses.

I have a house & land which I 'bought' for 200k. It matched the value of the property before the boom period. Sorted. During the boom, the perceived value skyrocketed, but I bought the house to be my home. Not an investment for resale. Then the crash happened, I lost my job and was forced to rent out my home to cover the mortgage. That first year I made a clear profit, although I lost most of that to housing costs the following year. Since that first year, costs have consistently increased in all areas, and I have made a loss each year.

Move forward to present day, and I am still making a loss from renting, and with the current market, I can sell my house for a total gross profit of 32k. Once you factor in legal fees, government charges and taxes, etc that profit drops to less than 20k, but I've also spent much more than 20k in maintaining the house while I had tenants. If I sell now, I will make a definite loss in tens of thousands.

IF you want people to buy a property for a reasonable cost, then the government needs to rein in all the associated costs. The market is dying for normal people. It's only the real estate companies that can afford to make real profits.

The issue I have with people who by to rent or buy to resell (Maybe with the exception of a renovation project where someone puts value in)

Is that you literally provide nothing of value to society, you are trying to make money on a basic necessity.

You should by a house to live in it, if you outgrow your home and decide to rent your first house to move into a second so be it. If you inherit a home and decide to rent it out, then so be it. There are a host of situations where yes there maybe a need. But the housing crisis really came down to greed! And greed will be the main contributing factor to it happening again.

13-11-2017 5:50pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think history for the housing market will disagree with you on this one.
Capitalism is usually an excuse when you really do not understand economics.

True enough. I don't understand economics. Although I find it's a handy excuse for people to post when they get an objection. But then I find the study of economics leaves out a ****load of practical application. (I have a Finance degree and an MBA. I did economics as part of those)

House's should not be treated as assets they should be treated as homes. This is something economist have said and warmed about even before the last crash but they were labeled "Doom and gloom merchants" during the Celtic Tiger.... David McWilliams told everyone this would happen.

Capitalism works in certain defined environments where it is scale-able and sustainable.
So within the housing market, yes, yes there really is something wrong with that.

Anything that you purchase has a value and is resellable is an asset.

Economists say a lot of things, more often than not contradicting each other. I don't put a lot of faith in those predictions anymore.

That is not the argument I am making, you have no influence over it, the buy to rent, the buy to flip or to make profit is the reason the market acts this way.

Ok.....

I worked for the NYSE for almost 10 years and every investment bank you can probably think of.
This is the issue as that you think of this as a market, it shouldn't be.

I worked as a Credit Controller. Of course, I consider it as an asset. I took enough of them from people/businesses for not fulfilling their contract obligations.

You seem to be trying to bring us into theoretical economics. I'm not. I'm looking at what is happening right now.

A home should be treated as a home, you should by a home with the idea of living in it, that is the purpose of a home. Anyone you is buying with the idea of reselling or renting is part of the problem.

Funny... Tell that to the people who can no longer afford their home without renting it out.

Buying a property to rent worked fine for decades. What has changed since then? An economic crash... greater government interference... and increasing costs to retain the property.

The issue I have with people who by to rent or buy to resell (Maybe with the exception of a renovation project where someone puts value in) Is that you literally provide nothing of value to society, you are trying to make money on a basic necessity.

Seriously? So all those tax contributions we pay don't provide anything to society? That seems strange since I pay more in tax since I'm renting out my home than I would if I was living in it. I also provide a service to people who cannot afford a place of their own, or don't want to buy a place.

I suspect you've never owned a property from your renovation comment... since all properties need to be renovated fairly regularly, more so with properties put out to rent.

You should by a house to live in it, if you outgrow your home and decide to rent your first house to move into a second so be it. If you inherit a home and decide to rent it out, then so be it. There are a host of situations where yes there maybe a need. But the housing crisis really came down to greed! And greed will be the main contributing factor to it happening again.

I'm getting the feeling that you're in love with the theory of these things rather than the reality.

The housing crisis comes down to the greed... right.

ShowMeTheCash · 13-11-2017 6:21pm

Deleted User wrote: »

True enough. I don't understand economics. Although I find it's a handy excuse for people to post when they get an objection. But then I find the study of economics leaves out a ****load of practical application. (I have a Finance degree and an MBA. I did economics as part of those)

I would say you should know better but I have argued this point with a number of people with your exact background.

In other markets there are practical applications for a lot of things but you are invested in this so I doubt you can be objective.

Deleted User wrote: »

Anything that you purchase has a value and is resellable is an asset.

Yes but many things will depreciate in value, they are not bought as assets they are bought as a matter of necessity.

When you buy a car, most people buy as something they need, they do not buy it with the idea of selling it for more 6 months down the road.

Deleted User wrote: »

Economists say a lot of things, more often than not contradicting each other. I don't put a lot of faith in those predictions anymore.

Like what?

Deleted User wrote: »

I worked as a Credit Controller. Of course, I consider it as an asset. I took enough of them from people/businesses for not fulfilling their contract obligations.

You seem to be trying to bring us into theoretical economics. I'm not. I'm looking at what is happening right now.

OK you might be looking at the what I am trying to explain or at least give my take on the why.

Deleted User wrote: »

Funny... Tell that to the people who can no longer afford their home without renting it out.

Chicken or the egg?
People are having to rent due to what has happened, we created an unstable market and now people are stuck. These people are not the people i am talking about. These people are the real casualties of the housing market crash!

I know people that moved back in with parents because they cannot afford to live in their own homes. But this is not an advertisement for the rental market is it a warning to what can happen if we allow the market to get out of control.

Deleted User wrote: »

Buying a property to rent worked fine for decades. What has changed since then? An economic crash... greater government interference... and increasing costs to retain the property.

Go look at a chart to the house prices in Ireland from the 1950s to now. It is pretty easy to see when things stared to get out of control.
It did not work for decades, the housing market went crazy in the 90s nothing to do with government interference, people saw the housing market as a cash cow, everyone wanted to get in on it, the banks where handing out loans like it was going out of fashion, the regulator was almost non-existence homes became assets and no longer seen is a liability.

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously? So all those tax contributions we pay don't provide anything to society? That seems strange since I pay more in tax since I'm renting out my home than I would if I was living in it. I also provide a service to people who cannot afford a place of their own, or don't want to buy a place.

In 2015 I think 37% of Ireland GDP went to paying back loans, if think you provide a service to those who cannot afford a home maybe try and understand why they cannot afford a home.

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect you've never owned a property from your renovation comment... since all properties need to be renovated fairly regularly, more so with properties put out to rent.

I own my own home and a small farm.
When I say renovation I mean houses that are in need to constructional renovation as in they are of no value as they stand.

Not cosmetic, i.e. any furniture, painting or flooring.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm getting the feeling that you're in love with the theory of these things rather than the reality.

I agree my view point might be somewhat utopian or idealistic but the reality you talk about is to repeat the same process over and over.

Deleted User wrote: »

The housing crisis comes down to the greed... right.

13-11-2017 7:04pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I agree my view point might be somewhat utopian or idealistic but the reality you talk about is to repeat the same process over and over.

I did start to write a long response, but got halfway, and nah. Not worth it.

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with your utopian/idealistic objections to people seeking a profit for property investment, and your judgment that landlords greed is the main reason for the housing crisis. I stated my pov for this on other pages, and I'm just repeating it with your objections.

A difference of opinion.

ShowMeTheCash · 13-11-2017 11:16pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I did start to write a long response, but got halfway, and nah. Not worth it.

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with your utopian/idealistic objections to people seeking a profit for property investment, and your judgment that landlords greed is the main reason for the housing crisis. I stated my pov for this on other pages, and I'm just repeating it with your objections.

A difference of opinion.

I would not say the main reason but one of the driving forces, banks where also responsible in giving out loans which essentially made the whole thing possible. One could not exist without the other.

Buying houses for profit is a bit like being a bank.
Banks do not produce anything useful, they are institutions that make profit from other people debts. Buying to let is just another middle man looking to turn a profit.

The main issue is an over saturation of the market it pushes prices up in the short-term but usually there is a tipping point where it can no longer be sustained.

If people make huge margins then ultimately those margins come from the people either renting or buying homes, so certain ethical questions come into play. But then if you make a huge margins then Tom, Dick and Harry will want to get in on it also..... You see where this is going.

Personally, in a society I feel there are areas that need to be regulated where we put people before profit. Housing and certain utilities I feel are two areas where it makes sense. Ultimately where people live feeds into a community and an overall economy, over priced houses and utilities can kill a community if allowed.

What is your view on the property market currently?

Comments