Will house prices ever stop growing?

Graham

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Not a whole lot of expectation really, this should be the minimum.

Maybe 50 years ago living close to work was a reasonable expectation out of necessity more than anything. Anyone I know that currently lives close to work considers it a stroke of luck, certainly not some new unwritten human right.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Graham wrote: »

Maybe 50 years ago living close to work was a reasonable expectation out of necessity more than anything. Anyone I know that currently lives close to work considers it a stroke of luck, certainly not some new unwritten human right.

Well it should be a primary goal of the government to allow people to work hard and have a reasonable home near work. Not a mansion, and not next door to work but close. I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise.

tommythecat

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Well it should be a primary goal of the government to allow people to work hard and have a reasonable home near work. Not a mansion, and not next door to work but close. I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise.

And what happens if you change jobs? That makes no sense.

Graham

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Well it should be a primary goal of the government to allow people to work hard and have a reasonable home near work. Not a mansion, and not next door to work but close. I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise.

Why?

Most couples I know work in different locations.

Starkystark

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Well it should be a primary goal of the government to allow people to work hard and have a reasonable home near work. Not a mansion, and not next door to work but close. I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise.

I agree! Particularly when the government is trying to get rid of every car in the country and have non-improved public transport system by 2030.

Starkystark

Graham wrote: »

Why?

Most couples I know work in different locations.

Again why should you have to be in a relationship to be able to afford a house?

OwlsZat

The_Conductor wrote: »

I laugh often when I see how pampered today's generation are- and how they expect it is a right to have everything handed to them on a silver platter.

This is a giant a misconception since nothing has been handed to my generation on a silver platter. Exorbitant tax rates to pay back a massive bailout, and a country so expensive it's almost unaffordable to live in.
Decisions taken by our government have protected those with deposits and protected those with property. They have widened the gap between the rich and the poor, the poor including those starting to work. They have created a homeless crisis, pushed the young towards poverty and made us the first generation that won't be as wealthy as their parents. 
Maybe we are just looking for the exact same conditions the previous generations such as yourself were afforded.

Graham

Starkystark wrote: »

Again why should you have to be in a relationship to be able to afford a house?

I never suggested they did. You can take it as read that I don't think couples, families or single people have any particular right to live within a few minutes of work.

Starkystark

Graham wrote: »

I never suggested they did. You can take it as read that I don't think couples, families or single people have any particular right to live within a few minutes of work.

But they definitely should have the choice...

Cyrus

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Why should you have to be in a relationship to get a house? You shouldn't have to get married to be able to afford a average home within a short distance from work. Not a whole lot of expectation really, this should be the minimum.

I never said they should be in a relationship I think you are conflating two different points

Cyrus

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Well it should be a primary goal of the government to allow people to work hard and have a reasonable home near work. Not a mansion, and not next door to work but close. I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise.

Providing accommodation for lower paid workers in Dublin's most expensive suburbs should definitely not be a goal of any sensible government much less a primary goal

Spanish Eyes

Back in the day there was a lot more social housing available for people who met the criteria, working or not. Same as today except there is no social housing available now.

County councils gave out loans to buy property, None of that now either.

Those schemes were aimed at "ordinary people" who either qualified for a council house/flat, or could borrow at reduced rates. None of that now.

And the recipients of the Council houses were given the option of buying them. And they did in their droves. So the stock is gone for a mess of pottage.

And whatever happened to the Housing Finance Agency. They provide finance to LA's to build accommodation. Seems to be asleep at the moment, but lots of nice pics on their website. I suppose they give finance to build ten here or there and hand them over to Cluid or whomever as social housing. I don't hear much about it anyway.

No wonder things are as they are for people today.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Cyrus wrote: »

Providing accommodation for lower paid workers in Dublin's most expensive suburbs should definitely not be a goal of any sensible government much less a primary goal

What should be so?

Graham

Pheonix10 wrote: »

What should be so?

That's probably best discussed in the politics forum.

andekwarhola

Chilli Con Kearney wrote: »

You raise an interesting point.

Where would you think two teachers should be able to buy in Dublin? Doubt most would aim for Dalkey, Blackrock or Donnybrook.

I mean, their level in society and professional status is beneath two solicitors or two doctors. Their wages are too. They always have been and always will be. Their buying power will never match these.

But going back in time, you can say with a certain amount of certainty that most people in x area have y types of jobs. You don't get binmen living on Shrewsbury Road. But you might have a waste company owner who sold to a larger company.

Where would you see in Dublin being appropriate for two teachers? I'm being genuine BTW.

Think I'm going to have to edit my post.

That's the point I was making. The Rathgar thing was tongue in cheek.

Dublin is a capital city with a high standard of living. Like any other such city, people on median incomes can't live wherever they want because so many other people do too. That's reality, not some evil coalition stopping the market 'reaching stability'.

That's why in other places, you accept that you have to move outwards or into 'gentrifying' areas.

I think as well, a normal middle class income would have got a far nicer house in Dublin during our parents' generation. A lot of places in South Dublin that are far more expensive now were more obtainable on that kind of wage then: places like Dundrum, Rathfarnham, Templeogue, Harold's Cross etc and I think this is why the current generation find it hard to accept that with the growth of the economy and wages also comes property inflation.

Wanderer78

andekwarhola wrote: »

Think I'm going to have to edit my post.

That's the point I was making.

Dublin is a capital city with a high standard of living. Like any other such city, people on median incomes can live wherever they want because so many other people do too. That's reality, not some evil coalition stopping the market 'reaching stability'.

its truly time for us to ditch this idea of 'the efficient market hypothesis'. its a train wreck in regards these issues!

knipex

Pheonix10 wrote: »

This exactly!

Your source is a tweet with no links ??

knipex

OwlsZat wrote: »

This is a giant a misconception since nothing has been handed to my generation on a silver platter. Exorbitant tax rates to pay back a massive bailout, and a country so expensive it's almost unaffordable to live in.

You need to look at some history. Tax rates in Ireland used to be far far higher..

In fact if you think that taxation in Ireland is exorbitant then you are delusional..

I think it amusing when the same person who decries our "high taxes" decrys the lack fo government spending be it on housing, health or what ever. The government can only spend what it takes in.

The cost of living has increased, at least in a significant part, as people expectations as to whats a minimum standard of living has increased dramatically

OwlsZat wrote: »

Decisions taken by our government have protected those with deposits and protected those with property. They have widened the gap between the rich and the poor, the poor including those starting to work. They have created a homeless crisis, pushed the young towards poverty and made us the first generation that won't be as wealthy as their parents. 
Maybe we are just looking for the exact same conditions the previous generations such as yourself were afforded.

As I said I bought in 2006. My house is still not worth what I paid for it. Its worth less than i borrowed to buy it, even having a decent deposit that it took me 20 years (and 10 of hard saving) to put together while paying rent.

The state didn't protect me..

Wanderer78

knipex wrote:

I think it amusing when the same person who decries our "high taxes" decrys the lack fo government spending be it on housing, health or what ever. The government can only spend what it takes in.

Misconception and misunderstanding of money, it's creation and overall taxation. Just like banks, governments to can create money in the form of bonds, for the use of public spending, I.e. they can actually spend more than they take in by these methods. Our governments have been fed with this craponomics for decades of balancing the books. Australian economist Steve keen explains this very well, far better than I anyway

knipex

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Misconception and misunderstanding of money, it's creation and overall taxation. Just like banks, governments to can create money in the form of bonds, for the use of public spending, I.e. they can actually spend more than they take in by these methods. Our governments have been fed with this craponomics for decades of balancing the books. Australian economist Steve keen explains this very well, far better than I anyway

Of course they can.

Same as you and I can have an overdraft.

No state can create infinite amounts of money without it blowing up in their faces.

I have no issues with debt or bonds for capital spending, or in exceptional circumstances (counter cyclical spending for example) but in the "good times" or a supposed recovery following 10 years of massive deficits, to fund day to day spending ???

Wanderer78

knipex wrote: »

Of course they can.

Same as you and I can have an overdraft.

No state can create infinite amounts of money without it blowing up in their faces.

I have no issues with debt or bonds for capital spending, or in exceptional circumstances (counter cyclical spending for example) but in the "good times" or a supposed recovery following 10 years of massive deficits, to fund day to day spending ???

oh i agree, there is as jim rickards would say, an invisible confidence boundary or limit to which money can be created before it starts having serious negative effects on a currency, but as far as i can see, the central bank qe experiment has largely failed. the money created by this approach has not, as far as i can see, 'trickled down' towards the majority, and has become lodged at the higher tiers of our social, financial and economic systems, which is evident in our stock, shares and bond markets etc.

its time for us to analyse this 'recovery' and ask ourselves, are we truly 'recovering' or is our society slowly cracking? it has been deeply disturbing to watch the housing and homeless crisis develop, it shows that there is something very deeply and fundamentally wrong with our thinking regarding these issues. ive been wondering, when will 'market equilibrium' be reached, maybe when 10,000 or 15,000 are homeless maybe? im afraid the 'efficient market hypothesis' is a bust, its time for us to move on from it before we truly wreck our societies.

our housing and health systems are fundamental to the stability of our societies, if we cant get these right, all bets are off. failure of addressing our needs at these levels creates extremely complex social problems, some of which are irreversible. its time for us to do some sole searching!

Graham

Mod Note

Wanderer78 knipex take the politics chat to PM.

Wanderer78

Graham wrote: »

Mod Note

Wanderer78 knipex take the politics chat to PM.

understandable request of which i will respect but this is a very deeply political subject matter. i suspect you may be battling this one the whole time on this thread. thank you

guile4582

Wanderer78 wrote: »

understandable request of which i will respect but this is a very deeply political subject matter. i suspect you may be battling this one the whole time on this thread. thank you

OwlsZat

knipex wrote: »

You need to look at some history. Tax rates in Ireland used to be far far higher..
In fact if you think that taxation in Ireland is exorbitant then you are delusional..

I think it amusing when the same person who decries our "high taxes" decrys the lack fo government spending be it on housing, health or what ever. The government can only spend what it takes in.

The cost of living has increased, at least in a significant part, as  people expectations as to whats a minimum standard of living has increased dramatically

I never decried anyone. I lamented the pathetic state of the nations finances when I was lucky enough to start paying taxes. We are paying high rates of tax relative to the services we are receiving, make no mistake about that. Why though?
Firstly, by European standards we start taxing people at a relatively high amount earned. That's party politic, maybe it's correct but it certainly won't be easily undone. Secondly, we decided that people that bought assets they couldn't afford which in turn collapsed our banks is a debt all tax payers and future tax payers should be burdened with.
We took a loan to cover the losses and successfully created nonsense capital gains bylaws to encourage foreign investors to the Irish rental market.  Who did it work out for? Those with bank deposits, property owners and foreign investors who have creamed it over the last years and let's not forget the Germans. Just about everyone really, everyone apart from the most recent generation. Is it any wonder there was mass immigration?

maninasia

Getting to the heart of the matter there, although our public servant and social welfare bill would have crashed us anyway once the tax went down.
It was only stamp duty revenue from property speculation that kept the show on the road the last few years of the Celtic tiger.

The measures that they put together during the financial crisis were a digout for public workers nobody got laid off) and to keep paying social welfare at the same rate .

I blame Noonan and Cowen and Lenihan. Each have major flaws in how they dealt with the bust.

Cowen was taking long holidays during the financial crisis and had too much fondness for the black stuff. I remember thinking it was madness at the time. He was completely at sea with no hands at the wheel.

Lenihan foolishly rushed into guaranteeing all the banks debts , maybe to look smart or strong . Mitigating factors were he was ill, he was given poor advice by David McWilliams and his own senior civil sevants who wanted to avoid pain for their class, bank regulator who was worse than useless and senior bankers lied to him constantly. The Germans wanted nothing to do with the debt and the Yanks the same.
But he was out if his depth with this job and the wrong man to be finanCe minister at a critical moment .

Noonan maybe is the worst, he basically gave away our assets for next to nothing with the 7 year tax holiday, special vehicles such as charities which the hedge funds use to avoid taxes and his stated focus on getting property prices back up high and as fast as possible.

I should throw in Enda Kenny and
Vradakar because they should never have cancelled the transport initiative in 2011 even though they had money issues, they should have kept the planning permissions and shovel read y. They should also have had the balls to stand up to the ECB about the 3% debt limit in that case. There was also financial from Outside they could have looked at like UAE or China for building the metro, as far as I can tell they didn't do anything proactive or even protective such as maintaining the existing planning permissions for some projects.

Now the capital city and it's regular workers are ****ed with No housing and no way to travel to work and back. Completely and utterly predictable.

Bob24

Drifting away from the topic of the thread (and the forum) quite a bit in the past few posts ... just saying.

murphaph

Depending on how Brexit goes for Dublin, prices now may seem cheap in 10 years.

EmoCourt

andekwarhola wrote: »

I think as well, a normal middle class income would have got a far nicer house in Dublin during our parents' generation. A lot of places in South Dublin that are far more expensive now were more obtainable on that kind of wage then: places like Dundrum, Rathfarnham, Templeogue, Harold's Cross etc and I think this is why the current generation find it hard to accept that with the growth of the economy and wages also comes property inflation.

But many areas that are now considered desirable on the Southside were in the sticks when our parents and grandparents were buying their houses there. They weren't necessarily buying a 'middle class' house back then.

OwlsZat

Bob24 wrote: »

Drifting away from the topic of the thread (and the forum) quite a bit in the past few posts ... just saying.

You can't answer when house prises will stop rising until you analyse the series of reasons they have risen to where they are.

i.e. Can we remove foreign yield chasing investors out of the Irish market. We might start to see this in 2019 as the 7 year tax deals mature/ expire. Can the government actually afford to actually drive price reduction in house prices, without incurring serious shortfalls from stamp duty and propery tax. Its a numbers game but I'd doubt it giving how spineless the attempts have been to date. If we wanted to do this we would have to start looking at adopting a taxation system like the Swiss or Austrians. Where there is little sympathy for low earners or little reward for spending years on benefits. The flip side of that is there is housing for everyone and their property markets are stable and track inflation.