Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Investors ruining chances for First Time Buyers - regulations?

Options
13567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    There is also the simple fact that the government don't actually want an increased supply as it is allowing NAMA to claw back money, with the rising prices from investors flooding back into the market


  • Options
    #63
    MouseTail
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭MouseTail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There is also the simple fact that the government don't actually want an increased supply as it is allowing NAMA to claw back money, with the rising prices from investors flooding back into the market

    That is not a fact, or anything near one.


  • Options
    #64
    hfallada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭hfallada


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There is also the simple fact that the government don't actually want an increased supply as it is allowing NAMA to claw back money, with the rising prices from investors flooding back into the market

    A majority of NAMA housing now sold and a majority of NAMA housing wasnt suitable for families. It was mainly 2 bed apartments, which arent suitable for most Irish Families. A lot of the talk is BS from politicians who have would fail ordinary level leaving cert economics.

    You can search NAMAs own site and see they have about 230 residential units in Dublin, for sale/not for sale. If they sold that all tomorrow, it wouldnt make a dent in property prices, as the stock is simply too small.
    https://www.nama.ie/property/

    Personally I think the Government should do nothing. In the long term, the market will increase supply and reduce price. This ad hoc intervention of the Government buying elections with tax breaks eg section 23,caused the bubble


  • Options
    #65
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,621 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Graham wrote: »
    Tax on income is generally a level playing field some people just pay less because their income is less. No idea how you've managed to muddle that into somehow being responsible for the global financial crisis.

    Unwise investment decision encouraged by taxation policy be it un/intended. Potential disaster for the individual investing

    Tax on working person is very different to tax on a retired person using risky outlets to generate that income.


  • Options
    #66
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    Villa05 wrote: »
    Unwise investment decision encouraged by taxation policy be it un/intended. Potential disaster for the individual investing

    Tax on working person is very different to tax on a retired person using risky outlets to generate that income.

    Pensionable income is taxable in the same way as PAYE


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,621 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Barely Hedged wrote:
    Pensionable income is taxable in the same way as PAYE

    All other things being equal.
    Please calculate the net pay difference between an income of 36000 for (a) a couple over 65 (b) a couple under 40 single income

    I see a huge difference in favour of over 65. Now if over 65 have no job there is a massive incentive to invest in property to use up there various tax allowances.


  • Options
    #68
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    Villa05 wrote: »
    All other things being equal.
    Please calculate the net pay difference between an income of 36000 for (a) a couple over 65 (b) a couple under 40 single income

    I see a huge difference in favour of over 65. Now if over 65 have no job there is a massive incentive to invest in property to use up there various tax allowances.

    Hang on - a couple under 40 single income. Whats this about? Youre saying a traditional FTB setup is a couple with one income only?

    Can you show me what you see the huge difference as?

    From the link below:"Retirement income is treated like normal income so income tax must be paid on it."

    https://www.irishlife.ie/uploadedFiles/Retail/body/products/Pensions/PENSIONS%20TAX%20FLYER.PDF

    What are the various tax allowances to invest in property?


  • Options
    #69
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    hfallada wrote: »
    A majority of NAMA housing now sold and a majority of NAMA housing wasnt suitable for families. It was mainly 2 bed apartments, which arent suitable for most Irish Families. A lot of the talk is BS from politicians who have would fail ordinary level leaving cert economics.

    I was crying out for a 2br last year, and kept getting outbid by 60+ couples. The least the govt could do would be to ensure their own people had the opportunity to purchase their first home. If they are going to interfere in other parts of the free market then why don't they interfere in a way that normalizes the market and prioritizes FTB's over people buying 2nd homes and Kennedy Wilson


  • Options
    #70
    TheDriver
    Registered Users Posts: 12,514 ✭✭✭✭TheDriver


    lima wrote: »
    IThe least the govt could do would be to ensure their own people

    The over 60s are also their own people............


  • Options
    #71
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,621 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Barely Hedged wrote:
    Hang on - a couple under 40 single income. Whats this about? Youre saying a traditional FTB setup is a couple with one income only?

    With respect, Can you answer the question. I'm on the phone. My point refers to how the tax system indirectly incentives retired people to invest in property to supplement income. The income example is for a retired couple not a ftb couple and displays how the tax system discriminates

    The difference I found is so great that I need to double check it before I post

    Please note the word indirectly should be in bold and underlined


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    TheDriver wrote: »
    The over 60s are also their own people............

    Who are enormously wealthy and comfortable compared to others and are hardly the future of the country.


  • Options
    #73
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    lima wrote: »
    Who are enormously wealthy and comfortable compared to others and are hardly the future of the country.

    Yeah but they'll vote, either way you can't prioritise who can buy an asset or any goods. The seller has the right to sell to whoever they want and at whatever price they can achieve.

    Capitalism baby!

    Or would you rather Communism?


  • Options
    #74
    NewDirection
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭NewDirection


    Villa05 wrote: »
    As mentioned in my earlier post a flat tax on rental income ie 30% - level playing field.
    Making a long term investment like property advantageous to to a demographic that may have large cash reserves but who's investment profile should be towards risk free safe investments is a recipe for disaster. Disasters we are all too familiar with over the past 8 years

    Well that's just counter productive. A 30% flat tax will just encourage more investors that should be in the higher tax bracket to buy property.

    Investors are only a barrier to FTBers buying undervalued properties.
    If a house is selling at a fair price, it won't be worthwhile for investors to buy it as their yield after tax will be too low.


  • Options
    #75
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    lima wrote: »
    Who are enormously wealthy and comfortable compared to others and are hardly the future of the country.

    Do you think theres an appetite out there for an Irish Communist party?


  • Options
    #76
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    The Spider wrote: »
    Yeah but they'll vote, either way you can't prioritise who can buy an asset or any goods. The seller has the right to sell to whoever they want and at whatever price they can achieve.

    Capitalism baby!

    Or would you rather Communism?

    Just saw this


  • Options
    #77
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    The Spider wrote: »
    Yeah but they'll vote, either way you can't prioritise who can buy an asset or any goods. The seller has the right to sell to whoever they want and at whatever price they can achieve.

    Capitalism baby!

    Or would you rather Communism?

    Capitalism is great and I'm all for it, but it's been argued that we do not have a capitalist society in Ireland.

    Rather, some some groups of people are protected (social welfare classes, non-mortgage paying classes, multiple-dwelling owner classes) whereas some others are not. It's inconsistent, and rather concerning, that a whole entire section of society (who'll also vote btw) are left out of the state intervention that others enjoy.

    Can you imagine a fully-capitalist society in Ireland? I'd have a normal house close to my well-paid high-tech job in Dublin and the people who lost out in the boom would be down the country somewhere. You'd have a house closer to work too


  • Options
    #78
    Barely Hedged
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Barely Hedged


    Villa05 wrote: »
    With respect, Can you answer the question. I'm on the phone. My point refers to how the tax system indirectly incentives retired people to invest in property to supplement income. The income example is for a retired couple not a ftb couple and displays how the tax system discriminates

    The difference I found is so great that I need to double check it before I post

    Please note the word indirectly should be in bold and underlined

    Please could you post your findings, when off your phone, as i have provided a link from one of the largest pension providers in the country saying the opposite to the point your making


  • Options
    #79
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    lima wrote: »
    Capitalism is great and I'm all for it, but it's been argued that we do not have a capitalist society in Ireland.

    Rather, some some groups of people are protected (social welfare classes, non-mortgage paying classes, multiple-dwelling owner classes) whereas some others are not. It's inconsistent, and rather concerning, that a whole entire section of society (who'll also vote btw) are left out of the state intervention that others enjoy.

    Can you imagine a fully-capitalist society in Ireland? I'd have a normal house close to my well-paid high-tech job in Dublin and the people who lost out in the boom would be down the country somewhere. You'd have a house closer to work too

    No, no you wouldn't prices would probably be more out of reach than they are now. Still supply and demand, besides don't you have an apartment in the city centre?


  • Options
    #80
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    The Spider wrote: »
    No, no you wouldn't prices would probably be more out of reach than they are now. Still supply and demand, besides don't you have an apartment in the city centre?

    Supply wouldn't be a problem because repossessions would have happened because people would be removed from properties they are not paying mortgages for.

    Not not city centre but close and I'm not suddenly a vested interest either


  • Options
    #81
    The Spider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Somehow I don't think any repos would have your desired effect, there's 37000 in arrears in the entire country, see graph below.

    http://c2.thejournal.ie/media/2014/12/central-bank-17.png

    So 73% not in arrears and whats that percentage for Dublin I'll bet it's higher seeing as the vast majority of jobs are in Dublin, so no you wouldn't have got that fantasy cheap house, now if you had bought in 2012....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    lima wrote: »
    Supply wouldn't be a problem because repossessions would have happened because people would be removed from properties they are not paying mortgages for.

    Not not city centre but close and I'm not suddenly a vested interest either

    That's not going to fix a lack of supply. If/when reposessions do start in large number all those owner occupiers or tenants evicted from failed buy-to-let ventures will still need to live somewhere.


  • Options
    #83
    johnp001
    Registered Users Posts: 658 ✭✭✭johnp001


    The Spider wrote: »
    Somehow I don't think any repos would have your desired effect, there's 37000 in arrears in the entire country, see graph below.

    http://c2.thejournal.ie/media/2014/12/central-bank-17.png

    So 73% not in arrears and whats that percentage for Dublin I'll bet it's higher seeing as the vast majority of jobs are in Dublin, so no you wouldn't have got that fantasy cheap house, now if you had bought in 2012....

    Central bank has the figure as 110k in arrears as of December 2014
    https://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/mortgagearrears/Pages/releases.aspx


  • Options
    #84
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    The Spider wrote: »
    Somehow I don't think any repos would have your desired effect, there's 37000 in arrears in the entire country, see graph below.

    http://c2.thejournal.ie/media/2014/12/central-bank-17.png

    So 73% not in arrears and whats that percentage for Dublin I'll bet it's higher seeing as the vast majority of jobs are in Dublin, so no you wouldn't have got that fantasy cheap house, now if you had bought in 2012....

    ..I still wouldn't have a cheap house, maybe in Gorey but I don't do commuting.

    Out of 758,988 mortgage loans, 37,778 are in arrears over 720 days, another 31,882 over 180 days so that's approx 70,000 that should be taken from them in a pure capitalist market.


  • Options
    #85
    johnp001
    Registered Users Posts: 658 ✭✭✭johnp001


    johnp001 wrote: »
    Central bank has the figure as 110k in arrears as of December 2014
    https://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/mortgagearrears/Pages/releases.aspx

    Apologies, that's only the PDH figure.
    BTL adds 35k to that for a total of 145k mortgages in arrears


  • Options
    #86
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    https://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/mortgagearrears/Documents/2014q4_ie_mortgage_arrears_statistics.pdf


  • Options
    #87
    delthedriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,958 ✭✭✭delthedriver


    Why shouldn't investors buy properties ????????


  • Options
    #88
    stevedublin
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭stevedublin


    delthedriver wrote: »
    Why shouldn't investors buy properties ????????

    Why shouldn't first time buyers buy properties ????????


  • Options
    #89
    delthedriver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,958 ✭✭✭delthedriver


    stevedublin wrote: »
    Why shouldn't first time buyers buy properties ????????
    Indeed !
    However investors have as much right to buy as a FTB !


  • Options
    #90
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    delthedriver wrote: »
    Indeed !
    However investors have as much right to buy as a FTB !

    That's what appears to upset some people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    lima
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭lima


    Graham wrote: »
    That's what appears to upset some people.

    Why does the state give incentives for having children and getting married? Something to do with looking after the people?

    Why does the state stop short of giving incentives for citizens looking for their first home?

    It's a little bit inconsistent and sad to see. Perhaps there should be some incentives for people purchasing their first PPR and more tax for investors.

    Capitalism doesn't come into play in other aspects of housing (lack or repossessions) so why should it come into play in an area that disadvantages young people?


Advertisement