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

IMF suggest mortgage rules change to Debt-to-income ratio

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    thierry14 wrote: »
    Exactly

    It's a free market and the government should stay out of it.

    It's a free market until banks need to be bailed out and Nama gets to own huge property portfolios when the free market fails.
    They have no business building houses, running transport companies etc.

    Most uk citizens would disagree on private transport having experienced it.
    What good will come out of building social houses?

    Social housing is designed to give people who can't ever get a mortgage a house - for which they pay rent but should never own. They also get security of tenure.
    How is it going to help the middle classes ( more like working class now )on 45k a year with mortgages and renting privately, just getting by and will pay for all these social houses through taxes.

    How is the building of all these social houses going to help us?

    It's not designed to specifically help you. However it doesn't cost anymore than subsidising private rental income and it reduces the number of people competing for private sector rent.


  • Options
    #33
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    The landing rules we have now are fine, the main problem is lack of supply in urban area ,s where people want to live and work .
    Changing lending rules does not increase the no of houses ,
    unless we go to the madness of the celtic tiger,
    Where anyone could borrow 150k to buy a house in cavan.


  • Options
    #34
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,080 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    thierry14 wrote: »
    It's a free market
    Housing is absolutely NOT a free market.

    If it were there would be no zoning, no building regulations, and no system of planning permission.


  • Options
    #35
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    ITS not a free market in that 20 plus per cent of the cost of a house goes on tax,s ,the council sets limits where you can build, how high buildings can go.But the lack of house building means there is a major problem
    somewhere .


  • Options
    #36
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    riclad wrote: »
    ITS not a free market in that 20 plus per cent of the cost of a house goes on tax,s ,the council sets limits where you can build, how high buildings can go.But the lack of house building means there is a major problem
    somewhere .

    If having to pay taxes means that industry is not a free then no industry is free. There has to be zoning laws.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Villa05
    Registered Users Posts: 4,618 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Harvey Normal wrote:
    If having to pay taxes means that industry is not a free then no industry is free. There has to be zoning laws.


    There are countless posts on this forum correctly pointing out how the housing market is not a free market and is almost completely rigged to ensure price increases. The vast majority of the reasons are government interference.


  • Options
    #38
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    Villa05 wrote: »
    There are countless posts on this forum correctly pointing out how the housing market is not a free market and is almost completely rigged to ensure price increases. The vast majority of the reasons are government interference.

    Yes I agree with that but it's not taxes or zoning. It's Nama. It's banks not calling in debts.

    Also I doubt that a proper free market would reduce prices.


  • Options
    #39
    Will23
    Registered Users Posts: 265 ✭✭Will23


    thierry14 wrote: »
    Exactly

    It's a free market and the government should stay out of it.

    They have no business building houses, running transport companies etc.

    What good will come out of building social houses?

    How is it going to help the middle classes ( more like working class now )on 45k a year with mortgages and renting privately, just getting by and will pay for all these social houses through taxes.

    How is the building of all these social houses going to help us?

    Our taxes are already paying for the rent allowance, etc on private sector housing. Say the state is paying 1000 a month to house someone/ a family in private rented accomm. That's 12k a year, 120k over 10 years not allowing for inflation.

    Now say the state can build a house for 150k because it doesn't have to pay for land, vat and profit. And it's gets an income on the rental of the house once completed. The payback is somewhere between 10-15 years, far exceeding the lifetime of the person/family in question.

    Moral questions about whether the state should pay for housing the less well off or not is another argument, they do and will continue to do so in a fair society.

    This thread is about the CB rules, but as I see it, this issue is having a much bigger effect on the 'market' than the limits. Remember the CB are trying to protect you from yourself as experience has shown most people need it!


Advertisement