Labour FTB deposit top up of €6000

L1011

This is basically an SSIA replacement. The inevitable FF attack will be hilarious as they were touting their SSIA "achievement" as a reason to vote for them recently - as they've nothing else in the past decade and a half to cite as an achievement.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

power101 wrote: »

Much better way would be to increase the local property tax for owners of multiple properties say 30-40+ or do the same as the UK and completely get rid of all interest relief on buy to let properties.

This will have the effect of getting many large holders of property to sell up and increase the supply on the market decreasing prices at the same time.

Long term what we need is more people able to buy property, more stable prices for the future and a large and competitive house market owned by mainly individuals in family homes rather than large foreign investment and hedge funds.

It'll also send rents through the roof as landlords will pass the costs onto tenants. With a shortage of rental units already I don't think that's the best course of action.

4ensic15

power101 wrote: »

Much better way would be to increase the local property tax for owners of multiple properties say 30-40+ or do the same as the UK and completely get rid of all interest relief on buy to let properties.

.

The abolition of interest relief in 1997 caused rents to double within about 18 months. That was only for new landlords purchasing. Great idea altogether!

spaceHopper

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

First time buyer exemption from stamp duty up to €317,500. The amount of apartments advertised for €317,500 or €317,499 the following day was uncanny!

I'd two sets of friends who bought around then they were getting sick of bidding on houses in the 270rang and ending up in bidding wars so they just offered 317499 and had done with it. At the time credit was so cheap it made no difference now one is trying to sell the same house for 180. Every time any government interferes in the market they screw the FTB and coin it for estate agents and developers

gaius c

4ensic15 wrote: »

The abolition of interest relief in 1997 caused rents to double within about 18 months. That was only for new landlords purchasing. Great idea altogether!

You're mixing up cause & effect. Rents increased because the number of people renting increased as folks who started working needed to rent before they could buy. Previously they simply emigrated and therefore did not require housing.

Michael D Not Higgins

They've done something similar in the UK albeit under stricter conditions.

You have to be a FTB. There's a cap for the property price (<250k outside of London). The bonus is 25% but you can only save 200/month with an opening balance of 1000 (i.e. to get 6k like in this scheme, you'd have to save for nearly 10 years, twice as long as this initiative). I've signed up for it here. It's a huge incentive and I was saving money for a deposit anyway.

4ensic15

gaius c wrote: »

You're mixing up cause & effect. Rents increased because the number of people renting increased as folks who started working needed to rent before they could buy. Previously they simply emigrated and therefore did not require housing.

I am not mixing cause and effect. landlords stopped buying and combined with an increase in the numbers seeking accommodation and those landlords who sold the rents doubled. Had the rent relief not been restricted landlords would have kept buying and that would have increased supply to keep up with the increasing demand.

gaius c

4ensic15 wrote: »

I am not mixing cause and effect. landlords stopped buying and combined with an increase in the numbers seeking accommodation and those landlords who sold the rents doubled. Had the rent relief not been restricted landlords would have kept buying and that would have increased supply to keep up with the increasing demand.

Again, you're rearranging the facts to suit your extremely narrow argument. Rent increased throughout the 90's, not just when the relief was abolished and you're ignoring much more important factors, like the 70's baby boomers moving out (not emigrating) and requiring accommodation as well as the beginnings of previous emigrants moving back to Ireland and large-scale immigration into the country. It's like looking at the formation of a hurricane and deciding that the colour of the water is a primary indicator as to the future strength of the cyclone.
Up till then, the only people who rented were students and social tenants and the existing housing stock was completely unsuited to this new market that appeared very quickly.

You're also blaming the churn of "landlords selling up due to high costs" but completely ignoring the much higher churn of "landlords selling up because the bank are telling them to". One of them is quantifiable. The other is totally imaginary.

P.S. You're making a total contradiction there with your 90's anecdote. Landlords were selling up while the rents were doubling?
"Hey Jimmy, rents are going up by 4% a month but I'm selling up because the government are being mean to me"
Methinks they might want to get better advisors.

4ensic15

gaius c wrote: »

Again, you're rearranging the facts to suit your extremely narrow argument. Rent increased throughout the 90's, not just when the relief was abolished and you're ignoring much more important factors, like the 70's baby boomers moving out (not emigrating) and requiring accommodation as well as the beginnings of previous emigrants moving back to Ireland and large-scale immigration into the country.

It's like looking at the formation of a hurricane and deciding that the colour of the water is a primary indicator as to the future strength of the cyclone.
Up till then, the only people who rented were students and social tenants and the existing housing stock was completely unsuited to this new market that appeared very quickly.

There were Section 23 developments coming on stream in the 90s and rents were quite reasonable until the Bacon Report. There were young workers renting as well as social and student tenants. Not everybody went to college or got a mortgage straight out of college.

gaius c wrote: »

You're also blaming the churn of "landlords selling up due to high costs" but completely ignoring the much higher churn of "landlords selling up because the bank are telling them to". One of them is quantifiable. The other is totally imaginary.

There are always going to be landlords selling for a variety of reasons. Some sell residential and buy commercial investments when they have enough equity. Some are under pressure others want to invest in another business. In normal times others come in to take their place. When it is not attractive to go in the supply will constrict.

gaius c wrote: »

P.S. You're making a total contradiction there with your 90's anecdote. Landlords were selling up while the rents were doubling?
"Hey Jimmy, rents are going up by 4% a month but I'm selling up because the government are being mean to me"
Methinks they might want to get better advisors.

[/QUOTE]

There is no cantradiction. there will always be some sales for the reasons given above. In the late 90s the replacements did not appear because of the interest relief ban. It had to reversed a couple of years later.

athtrasna

Mod note

Gaius c and 4ensic15 please take it to PM, personal to and fro tends to derail threads. Thanks.