Shortage of houses...

riclad

There,s no 3bed houses for sale in the area she lives in?
IN most areas a 3bed is substantially cheaper than a 5 bed.
MY mother sold 3bed semi d, bought a bungalow , easier to live in a bungalow for an older person.
exactly if you are mortgage free, you may not even think of downsizing,
a 3bed may be cheaper to heat than a 5bed house,if properly insulated.

Ray Palmer

D3PO wrote: »

But herin lies the problem. Your mother cant downsize in the area so a tax incentive has no benefit. If your mother could downsize in the area she would with or without a tax incentive.

the same way others in her position would remain or downsize in their large homes based on what they want to do. Generalisation perhaps but most people of your mothers vintage will be living mortgage free and are in no pressing need for freeing up capital by downsizing.

They like where they live, they like their friends , neighbours the area its completely understandable why these people wouldnt move house.

She would down size if there was an incentive. There would be a place to downsize if there was an incentive.
Lots of people my mother's age have lost a lot from their pension funds and could do with the money.
A few of the larger properties like my mothers can easily be split into 2-3 seperate dwellings.

Tragedy

Shedite27 wrote: »

Nail on the head.

You don't have to live in Downton Abbey to be upper class. I realise people aren't going to admit/broadcast that they are "upper class", but at least admit that buying houses in the areas described above are the "top class".

Definitely not middle class.

Strange then that studies classify the type of people buying in those areas as being middle class.

I guess you know more than researchers in the field of socio-economics though, I'm sure you have a relevant degree and Ph.D to back up your wholesale reclassification of what upper/middle class means?

Ray Palmer

riclad wrote: »

There,s no 3bed houses for sale in the area she lives in?
IN most areas a 3bed is substantially cheaper than a 5 bed.
MY mother sold 3bed semi d, bought a bungalow , easier to live in a bungalow for an older person.
exactly if you are mortgage free, you may not even think of downsizing,
a 3bed may be cheaper to heat than a 5bed house,if properly insulated.

Why would she move to a 3 bed to pay stamp duty? Every 3-5 bed house in the area sells in a few weeks.
That is why incentives should be there. There is a false economy of looking to generate money off property while under utilising available services and needing to build new ones.

Shedite27

Tragedy wrote: »

Strange then that studies classify the type of people buying in those areas as being middle class.

I guess you know more than researchers in the field of socio-economics though, I'm sure you have a relevant degree and Ph.D to back up your wholesale reclassification of what upper/middle class means?

Right bud, call it what you want, the point I and other posters is making, is that the areas listed above are the top 5-10% of areas to live in Ireland.

EricPraline

Tragedy wrote: »

Strange then that studies classify the type of people buying in those areas as being middle class.

I guess you know more than researchers in the field of socio-economics though, I'm sure you have a relevant degree and Ph.D to back up your wholesale reclassification of what upper/middle class means?

This is starting to go distinctly off-topic here into "my area is better than your area" pedantics, which tend to plague property forums.

But I'm genuinely interested in whether you have a link to these studies that say, for instance, that Milltown is an abode of the "upper classes" whereas some of the other areas listed previously are not.

Imho I thought that Ireland lacks a rigid class system unlike say Britiain. But I would be curious to see research the indicates otherwise, particularly research that is so granular that it can distinguish between classes based on suburbs that are 1-5km from one another. Links?

kennyb3

Ray Palmer wrote: »

She would down size if there was an incentive. There would be a place to downsize if there was an incentive.
Lots of people my mother's age have lost a lot from their pension funds and could do with the money.
A few of the larger properties like my mothers can easily be split into 2-3 seperate dwellings.

What more incentive does she want than the pot of money created by the actual downsize? (plus the money saved by running a smaller home)

Does she want us (the taxpayer) to buy her a boat?

Have you asked her how much of an incentive it would take for her to actually move?

Tax incentives to do anything - when will this country learn.

There's always a steady stream of people dying, so I don't see why we should hand out incentives just to call forward a chunk of these house.

Just leave the market alone - enough interfering. Builders will build if the lack of supply causes price rises.

riclad

Stamp duty is only 1 per cent, i,d say you,d get 35k plus profit,
difference between 3 bed vs 5 bed , depending on the area.
MY Theory is inertia, if you are living in a house 30 plus years ,you do,nt
think of selling your house.ITs not much fun ,looking at houses,moving is stressful.
off topic, i don,t think we have an upper class,
so much as people with lots of money live in certain areas,go to private schools,and talk with a certain accent.
I,M giving my opinion, i,m not telling anyone to buy this ,or that.

Ray Palmer

kennyb3 wrote: »

What more incentive does she want than the pot of money created by the actual downsize? (plus the money saved by running a smaller home)

Does she want us (the taxpayer) to buy her a boat?

Have you asked her how much of an incentive it would take for her to actually move?

Tax incentives to do anything - when will this country learn.

There's always a steady stream of people dying, so I don't see why we should hand out incentives just to call forward a chunk of these house.

Just leave the market alone - enough interfering. Builders will build if the lack of supply causes price rises.

Way to completely miss the point at every level.
People aren't dying at a steady rate.
There is a shortage of suitable family homes in the cities.
The people living in in well serviced areas aren't moving.
New properties for families lack the required family services.
There is a lack of diversity of properties in older areas.
Houses further out cost money in infrastructure such as schools, sewage, roads etc.
further out increases commute times and pollution of traffic.

Tax incentives are cheap to do and administrate. There isn't actually a big enough pot of money to downsize.
Older people don't need to move and won't move. Another smaller house in the area is not custom built for elderly people. Don't worry it won't happen as it makes too much sense and doesn't fit into simplistic thought patterns.

gurramok

This might help free up a few properties, action at last on the mortgage arrears crisis.
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/banks-given-repossession-green-light-by-coalition-29099823.html

Tragedy

EricPraline wrote: »

But I'm genuinely interested in whether you have a link to these studies that say, for instance, that Milltown is an abode of the "upper classes" whereas some of the other areas listed previously are not.

I never stated such.

But I would be curious to see research the indicates otherwise, particularly research that is so granular that it can distinguish between classes based on suburbs that are 1-5km from one another. Links?

I never stated such.

For someone 'genuinely interested' and 'curious', you sure do appear to lack both qualities considered you incorrectly paraphrased my posts to a gross degree.

murphaph

gurramok wrote: »

This might help free up a few properties, action at last on the mortgage arrears crisis.
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/banks-given-repossession-green-light-by-coalition-29099823.html

Be interesting to see the long term effects of giving banks more power to repossess such properties. We might see new entrants to the market eventually who can offer German type mortgages (we can get 20 years FIXED at 3.2% today borrowing €200k with a €50k deposit) which can deliver a lot of certainty and allow people to better budget.

EricPraline

Tragedy wrote: »

For someone 'genuinely interested' and 'curious', you sure do appear to lack both qualities considered you incorrectly paraphrased my posts to a gross degree.

Perhaps you might actually clarify the posts that you previously made on this thread regarding correlations between specific areas and professions, studies providing micro-level classifications of socio-economic class in Ireland, and obscure references to academic research? From what I can see, you're simply denigrating other posters, rather than actually responding to them. So I'm genuinely curious, links/citations to back up your previous posts on this thread?

delthedriver

Kosseegan wrote: »

Repossessing BTLs will contribute to a shortage or rental properties so buyers will benefit at the expense of renters. It would make more sense to make it feasible for people in high demand locations to sell and move to low demand locations which have a surplus of property. For example, could some estates in places like Longford be made into retirement villages for downsizers relocating from family homes in Dublin.

Why would a retired couple living in their nice home in Sandycove, sell up to live in a Retirement Village in Longford?
Eh , no thanks!

Shedite27

I think a lot of it comes down to nostalgia, we have set in our heads where the nice areas are, based on what they are now and have been for the past 30 years.

I think our generation (29 year old first time buyer here), should probably be looking at new areas that will be thriving in 10 years time for a family home, rather than moving into Sandymount (for example) which is full of pensioners and wouldn't have many people my own age.

Even somewhere like Dundrum/Kilmacud that right now seems a lovely area for families, in 10 years time all those teenagers will have moved out, and again that will be populated with people in their 60's by the time I raise a family there.

It's a tough one.

StillWaters

Shedite27 wrote: »

I think a lot of it comes down to nostalgia, we have set in our heads where the nice areas are, based on what they are now and have been for the past 30 years.

I think our generation (29 year old first time buyer here), should probably be looking at new areas that will be thriving in 10 years time for a family home, rather than moving into Sandymount (for example) which is full of pensioners and wouldn't have many people my own age.

Even somewhere like Dundrum/Kilmacud that right now seems a lovely area for families, in 10 years time all those teenagers will have moved out, and again that will be populated with people in their 60's by the time I raise a family there.

It's a tough one.

That would be the normal cycle of things. Unfortunately the new suburbs which were built for this generation of ftbs lack infrastructure, transport links etc as well of course of people being suspicious of build quality.

Kosseegan

Shedite27 wrote: »

I think a lot of it comes down to nostalgia, we have set in our heads where the nice areas are, based on what they are now and have been for the past 30 years.

I think our generation (29 year old first time buyer here), should probably be looking at new areas that will be thriving in 10 years time for a family home, rather than moving into Sandymount (for example) which is full of pensioners and wouldn't have many people my own age.

Even somewhere like Dundrum/Kilmacud that right now seems a lovely area for families, in 10 years time all those teenagers will have moved out, and again that will be populated with people in their 60's by the time I raise a family there.

It's a tough one.

Eventually pensioners die and young people replace them. Even in Sandymount there are plenty of children in primary schools. Mature areas generally have all the necessary facilities in place. I remember people moving to places like Celbridge when it started being built. The ended up spending years on committees try to get schools and such like built.Mount merrion was built 70 or 80 years ago and still attracts young families. There is no harm in having a balanced age profile in a suburb. It can be very pleasant in may ways.

delthedriver

Kosseegan wrote: »

Eventually pensioners die and young people replace them. Even in Sandymount there are plenty of children in primary schools. Mature areas generally have all the necessary facilities in place. I remember people moving to places like Celbridge when it started being built. The ended up spending years on committees try to get schools and such like built.Mount merrion was built 70 or 80 years ago and still attracts young families. There is no harm in having a balanced age profile in a suburb. It can be very pleasant in may ways.

Guess Sandymount and Mount Merrion are still outside the FTB 's budget. So it may take a number of moves on the property ladder to achieve the desired house in the right location.

gurramok

delthedriver wrote: »

Guess Sandymount and Mount Merrion are still outside the FTB 's budget. So it may take a number of moves on the property ladder to achieve the desired house in the right location.

Sandymount and Mount Merrion are exceptional rather than the rule for home ownership for most Dubs, just too expensive. The most expensive areas do tend to have an unbalanced age profile.

On the general note, the established schools in all areas rely on alot of pupils from outside the area, the traffic of this commute does be horrendous and has not been addressed by the govt.

Kosseegan

gurramok wrote: »

Sandymount and Mount Merrion are exceptional rather than the rule for home ownership for most Dubs, just too expensive. The most expensive areas do tend to have an unbalanced age profile.

On the general note, the established schools in all areas rely on alot of pupils from outside the area, the traffic of this commute does be horrendous and has not been addressed by the govt.

Many new areas have an unbalanced age profile. Too many young families and not enough old people. It is generally reckoned that after 20 years a balance is achieved. If people can afford an older area the age profile of other residents should be the least of their concerns. Having a few pensioner neighbours is a small overhead and is well compensated by having well developed facilities.
having a few retired people around is good for security because they are around all of the time. It is good for children to know some older people socially as well.

gurramok

Kosseegan wrote: »

Many new areas have an unbalanced age profile. Too many young families and not enough old people. It is generally reckoned that after 20 years a balance is achieved. If people can afford an older area the age profile of other residents should be the least of their concerns. Having a few pensioner neighbours is a small overhead and is well compensated by having well developed facilities.
having a few retired people around is good for security because they are around all of the time. It is good for children to know some older people socially as well.

Agree of course, thing is people could not afford to live in established areas so they moved out to new areas to raise young families. They never had the idea to rent for long periods either, its the buying mentality which has them in negative equity now.

gaius c

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The best solution is to give a tax incentive for older people to sell their houses. Ideally for a pension plan. Older houses are in better serviced areas for schools, shops etc...

It would reduce the need for children to be driven to school. Older people could have property designed for their needs due to failing health.

Every house near me has been selling very quickly. They are family homes in Dublin

I know of an excellent incentive...property tax. There is absolutely no reason they should be encouraged to hold onto their nice houses with gardens a stones throw from major urban centres, while their children AND grandchildren have to live in duplexes in Adamstown.

StillWaters

gaius c wrote: »

I know of an excellent incentive...property tax. There is absolutely no reason they should be encouraged to hold onto their nice houses with gardens a stones throw from major urban centres, while their children have to live in duplexes in Adamstown.

Whilst the property tax might help, it doesn't go far enough. I imagine most older people will simply defer.

papsita

pwurple wrote: »

Another little anecdote for this thread. We are renting for the last 6 months, having sold our house, trying to buy another. Moving due to job. Our finances are in order, we are ready, willing and able to buy. But the area we are looking at has sod all. We want a 3 or 4 bed house with a garden. Not an apartment, not a duplex, not a terrace. There are thousands of the houses we would like physically sitting there, but nothing for sale. We have bid and lost on 2 properties in those six months, and are bidding on a third at the moment. All have sold within 4 weeks of going on the market, and all for above the asking price. Once this one sells... (Probably not to us if it goes above our budget), we wait another month or so, basically until someone passes away and their house goes on the market. Then we bid against the ten or twenty other potential buyers haunting this area.

I am sure there are loads of unsellable apartments in the middle of nowhere, but there is a definite shortage of trader-ups / trader-downs from where I am sitting.

I'm in a very similar position. It's f***ing painful.

liffeylite

papsita wrote: »

I'm in a very similar position. It's f***ing painful.

Are you talking central Dublin here?

until the banks start lending to developers again, I cant see this problem getting any better.

BostonB

kennyb3 wrote: »

What more incentive does she want than the pot of money created by the actual downsize? (plus the money saved by running a smaller home)...

As you say the cost of running, heating, maintaining, painting a larger home, insruance, tax etc. All add up. The only reason not to downsize is where money isn't an issue.

delthedriver

papsita wrote: »

I'm in a very similar position. It's f***ing painful.

Location, location, location! Simples eh?:

delthedriver

liffeylite wrote: »

Are you talking central Dublin here?

until the banks start lending to developers again, I cant see this problem getting any better.

Even if the banks lend to developers, where are they going to build in the more desirable areas? The price of a site in a more desirable area will be simply telephone numbers. Dream on !:)

delthedriver

StillWaters wrote: »

Whilst the property tax might help, it doesn't go far enough. I imagine most older people will simply defer.

Think you are wrong here, older people in the more desirable areas are more likely to pay the property tax. They have been shrewd enough to make pension provisions for themselves. They have worked hard all their lives and probably paid PAYE at the higher rate. Their home is their castle and the need to move not a priority. Downsizing may happen if they lose their partner, when it is simply too lonely to live in a large property.
It is sad that begrudgers on this thread would prefer if they simply died or traded downwards just to suit others. Remember when the older people living in these most desirable areas had to pay the high market price which prevailed, when they were purchasing their desired property.
It is simple economics, law of supply and demand. Too many buyers chasing too few properties. Happy house hunting!:)

delthedriver

gaius c wrote: »

I know of an excellent incentive...property tax. There is absolutely no reason they should be encouraged to hold onto their nice houses with gardens a stones throw from major urban centres, while their children AND grandchildren have to live in duplexes in Adamstown.

So you think there should be a higher property tax for older people?
In your dreams! The older people are more likely to pay their property tax than defer it. They have also paid more than their fair share of taxes, PAYE at the highest rate and high levels of stamp duty on the purchase of their Des Res .:)

I am certain they did not force their offspring and grandchildren to live in Adamstown!