Rent

BattleCorp

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You can cover the mortgage payments and be unable to secure a mortgage and help should be given to working people to achieve such a mortgage.

I wouldn't be against a scheme that would give people an extra bit of a loan to cover some of the deposit for your house. But it would have to be a loan, not a handout.

I'd be afraid though that many people would default and leave the Government (and therefore us) out of pocket. And it might actually have the effect of pushing prices up even more.

moycullen14

optogirl wrote: »

totally agree - have a few family members who have dismissed my whinging about rent / not being able to get a mortgage who now have kids about to start college - will be very interesting to see their attitude change when they realise that little Johnny & Mary are likely to be living at home for a looooooooooong time.

Must admit I'm starting to find myself in that position. One college leaver who can't find something and a college student in the same boat.

Just had to deal with a scam artist in Galway this morning. Sorry, I can't show you the house as I'm out of the country. Send me the money and you can move in..... Scumbag

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I really don't know why I am bothering to reply but everyone needs a chance to be educated.

My rent at the moment is about 120 a month less than a mortgage would be.

Yet I cannot get a mortgage without a deposit I have no chance of saving up for................

You make it sound like the requirment for a deposit was an overnight thing. You quite likely had a decade + to save this deposit but quite simply didn't bother as you spent the cash on other things

xckjoo

Augeo wrote: »

You make it sound like the requirment for a deposit was an overnight thing. You quite likely had a decade + to save this deposit but quite simply didn't bother as you spent the cash on other things

Has your income been static for the last 10 years? I'm guessing you're middle aged from your responses. I know of very few people that were able to afford to save towards a mortgage in their 20's. Most were struggling to pay rent and bills. The days of getting a Job-for-Life that lets you buy a house and support a family on a single income after you left school with an Intercert are gone I'm afraid

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

Has your income been static for the last 10 years? I'm guessing you're middle aged from your responses. I know of very few people that were able to afford to save towards a mortgage in their 20's. Most were struggling to pay rent and bills. The days of getting a Job-for-Life that lets you buy a house and support a family on a single income after you left school with an Intercert are gone I'm afraid

I'm far from middle aged.
My income has increased over the last 10 years but I bought my first property in 2005 when I was just about approaching mid 20s. I lived in a houseshare up until then in Dublin.

PlaneSpeeking

Augeo wrote: »

You make it sound like the requirment for a deposit was an overnight thing. You quite likely had a decade + to save this deposit but quite simply didn't bother as you spent the cash on other things :)

Yeah that extravagance of rent, bills, medical care, top ups for dad's nursing home care etc. Like f**ing Imelda Marcos I was.

PlaneSpeeking

xckjoo wrote: »

Has your income been static for the last 10 years? I'm guessing you're middle aged from your responses. I know of very few people that were able to afford to save towards a mortgage in their 20's. Most were struggling to pay rent and bills. The days of getting a Job-for-Life that lets you buy a house and support a family on a single income after you left school with an Intercert are gone I'm afraid

No way is he middle aged.

30 max and never had to struggle for a cent in his life.

optogirl

Augeo wrote: »

I'm far from middle aged.
My income has increased over the last 10 years but I bought my first property in 2005 when I was just about approaching mid 20s. I lived in a houseshare up until then in Dublin.

What age are you expecting to live to? You're not that far! (Neither am I)

PlaneSpeeking

optogirl wrote: »

What age are you expecting to live to? You're not that far! (Neither am I)

I'm 49 next birthday and not long said "I'm almost middle aged now" - one of my students laughed and said "I think you were than 10 years ago!".

Cruel but accurate sadly!!!

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

No way is he middle aged.

30 max and never had to struggle for a cent in his life.

I'm self employed since 2006, every day is a struggle when you are self employed. Especially during recessionary times. Fluctuating income, moving from county to county at times following the work. I made my bed so to speak so was happy to lay in it.

optogirl wrote: »

What age are you expecting to live to? You're not that far! (Neither am I)

Barring cancer or heart disease etc etc I imagine many of my generation will go to 80/90 years old.

xckjoo

Augeo wrote: »

I'm self employed since 2006, every day is a struggle when you are self employed. Especially during recessionary times. Fluctuating income, moving from county to county at times following the work. I made my bed so to speak so was happy to lay in it.

Bought a house in your mid-20's. Self-employed and lots of foreign travel. Are you a drug dealer?

monkeybutter

optogirl wrote: »

What age are you expecting to live to? You're not that far! (Neither am I)

do you have any savings? Mid 30's are not the time to be looking at starting to save a deposit.

You really have to do it pre having kids also as they probably took say the 280k that you might have been able to borrow otherwise to the 180k. that's based off the 4k income.

I do believe the government should be building housing at cost, to stabilize the market, but you might be far down the list of the first to get it.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

Bought a house in your mid-20's. Self-employed and lots of foreign travel. Are you a drug dealer?

County to county.
Not much foreign travel.
It was a flat I bought, not a house.

optogirl

monkeybutter wrote: »

do you have any savings? Mid 30's are not the time to be looking at starting to save a deposit.

You really have to do it pre having kids also as they probably took say the 280k that you might have been able to borrow otherwise to the 180k. that's based off the 4k income.

I do believe the government should be building housing at cost, to stabilize the market, but you might be far down the list of the first to get it.

Yeah I do. Deposit amount we've saved is decent enough but it's the 3.5x salary that's holding up the show. Hopefully that can improve before the dreaded call from the landlord.

monkeybutter

optogirl wrote: »

Yeah I do. Deposit amount we've saved is decent enough but it's the 3.5x salary that's holding up the show. Hopefully that can improve before the dreaded call from the landlord.

Just lie and don't mention the kids :pac: poof sorted

moycullen14

KevinCavan wrote: »

I think there are a lot of landlords on here, with a slightly guilty conscience about what they are charging renters. They justify what they are charging the renters by saying “ fcuk them they should have planned out their future better, it’s their own fault they pay €2000 a month now.”

There will be a certain number who are milking it.

I'm a landlord and I can remember 2010 when I had a flat in 100K negative equity, charging 650 per month. Every 3 months without fail, my tenant approached me with 'I need to pay less'. There were no other takers so I had to suck it up. I had tenants leave for 5-10 euro a month cheaper rent. Rent ended up down at $500. Now its back up to $650.

All this while I am paying 52% tax. If I could get $2000 a month, would I? Course I would.

LANDLORDS, NO MORE THAN TENANTS, DO NOT SET THE PRICE. SUPPLY AND DEMAND DOES. A LANDLORD MAY CHARGE LESS THAN THE MARKET RATE, A TENANT WILL NEVER, EVER PAY MORE.

KevinCavan

Augeo wrote: »

Any current day landlord would have gotten market rates back in the recession and they're getting market rates now.
I couldn't imagine too many of them feel guilty at the moment.

You are probably right I am giving them too much credit.

Shelga

I'm 31, born and raised in Dublin. My company (not in Dublin) went bust last month so am back living with the parents for now. It's no way to live for any length of time.

Seriously considering relocating to Galway or going back to UK, where I worked for many years. Not sure I want to be there when the Brexit car crash happens though. I love Dublin but come on, it's not that great, and it's not worth it anymore. As a single person, you're ****ed, unless you're on a massive salary.

xckjoo

Augeo wrote: »

County to county.
Not much foreign travel.
It was a flat I bought, not a house.

No denial of the career choice. Interesting.......
:pac::D

Corb_lund

xckjoo wrote: »

Bought a house in your mid-20's. Self-employed and lots of foreign travel. Are you a drug dealer?

I'm mid (getting on for late) 20s and have a house and travel.

Genuinely think most people waste most of their money on frivolous crap!

Grandeeod

Augeo wrote: »

Was it ever overly feasible in the last 20 years for someone on €30k/€40k to buy in Dublin?

In 1995 (23 years ago) my wife bought and end of terrace new build in west Dublin on a salary of 18k with only a 100 pounds deposit and the first time buyers grant. Loads did this even earlier. Many are closing in on being mortgage free in their 40s/early 50s. Many traded up and moved to places like kildare and are still approaching being mortgage free. It was luck and created by government incentives.

Fol20

KevinCavan wrote: »

I think there are a lot of landlords on here, with a slightly guilty conscience about what they are charging renters. They justify what they are charging the renters by saying “ fcuk them they should have planned out their future better, it’s their own fault they pay €2000 a month now.”

Where have you come up with this thought process, like any product, they try and make as much money as possible similar to what you do in your day job. If you had the earning power of a soccer player, would you be ok with earning the same salary as a teacher or cop?

Fol20

optogirl wrote: »

I assume you're referring to me - take rent and all the other costs of living out of that. We cannot get a mortgage from the bank so yes, a government scheme that accepted our ability to pay over the size of our deposit would be very very helpful. We already know you view this as a handout, I view it as a hand up. I am more than willing to pay back any loan I get - it's getting the loan that is the problem at the moment, despite proven ability to pay above what an average mortgage repayment is - even in the postcode of my desire!

I didn't say I want a house in the postcode that suits me.

Whatever the government do give are handouts and that money needs to come from somewhere.

The new ltv rules is probably one of the best rules they have ever enforced. If they didn’t price would continue to rise and ordinary joes would be paying the price while the banks and developers would be laughing all the way to their big fat wallets.

You might think you can afford the payments however loans are stress tested for a reason and in Ireland’s market where it is especially difficult to take a house of an owner they have to be extra careful.

Fol20

Optogirl. I genuinely hope it all works out for you. If you have a few kids, rent, car insurance medical bills. School, 2k can be tough to live on and save at same time. I honestly think the only way this country should be going especially Dublin is up. Apartment living in many countries is normal and at least if you have large blocks of apartments, they will have decent infrastructure and amenities for the local population. Only then will we hopefully see prices stabilize somewhat.

Grandeeod

Grandeeod wrote: »

In 1995 (23 years ago) my wife bought and end of terrace new build in west Dublin on a salary of 18k with only a 100 pounds deposit and the first time buyers grant. Loads did this even earlier. Many are closing in on being mortgage free in their 40s/early 50s. Many traded up and moved to places like kildare and are still approaching being mortgage free. It was luck and created by government incentives.

An ir£18k salary wasn't a bad wage at all back then. I was working part time in 97 and the full time lads were taking home 150/week so there pretax wage was under 10k.

I'lol be closing in on being mortgage free in my mid 40s & I bought in 2005.

Andrew Beef

It’s also possible to be mortgage free much quicker if one is willing to make sacrifices.

I'm baffled to see folk wanting to borrow more than the banks will give them....was nothing learned from the 00s.
If loads of folk could borrow more than the "correct" amount than they'd be in competition with folk borrowing within their means...... house prices would rise further.

Assetbacked

I had a good job in dublin but the housing crisis drove me out as, combined with all other aspects of life (groceries, eating and drinking out, insurance, public transport, utilities, healthcare), it became too much.

To emigrate in a strong economy seems absurd, especially with a good wage but the government’s policy to squeeze the middle for everything they’re worth whilst not doing anything to ensure their security financially (eg landlords should never be allowed to remove tenants just because they want to sell the house, move in a family member or renovate it - that is laughable at how absurd a law it is), but that’s how it is.

Life in Dublin in 2018 is not for the tax paying worker; it is for the tourists, for the Erasmus-like impermanent tech company workers, existing home owners and those incapable of taking personal responsibility. Whilst I have emigrated I will protest vote in the next election and give my vote to an independent.

I work in Dublin..... living in any part of it that I could afford wouldn't appeal. Living near Dublin city center certainly doesn't appeal and the cost of eating & drinking out regularly is a luxury that some reckon is now an essential part of life.

Not good for the weight or the pocket

Fol20

Assetbacked wrote: »

I had a good job in dublin but the housing crisis drove me out as, combined with all other aspects of life (groceries, eating and drinking out, insurance, public transport, utilities, healthcare), it became too much.

To emigrate in a strong economy seems absurd, especially with a good wage but the government’s policy to squeeze the middle for everything they’re worth whilst not doing anything to ensure their security financially (eg landlords should never be allowed to remove tenants just because they want to sell the house, move in a family member or renovate it - that is laughable at how absurd a law it is), but that’s how it is.

Life in Dublin in 2018 is not for the tax paying worker; it is for the tourists, for the Erasmus-like impermanent tech company workers, existing home owners and those incapable of taking personal responsibility. Whilst I have emigrated I will protest vote in the next election and give my vote to an independent.

Who owns the property again? The renter or the ll. Teants can be much more flakey and leave on a whim as a post here yesterday or the day before points out and peoples general response was your lucky he left early instead of overstaying. LL have only a handful of ways to get their property back and if they do not do everything by the book, you can be damn sure the previous tenant has the oppertunity to get a nice paycheck from the ll mistake, the opposite cant be said for a tenant not abiding by the law.

Likewise if you have an asset worth a few hundred k and you are forced to sell with a sitting tenant, you are shooting yourself in the foot in regards to what you can make off it as no owner occupier can then buy it and your severely limiting the amount of prospective buyer.

Finally if you have any experience with renovations, some of these can be quite dirty and messy jobs, and I as a landlord would not want to be held liable for any of the tenants property if it gets damaged. Its all about minimising liability. Even when i renovated my own house, i moved out while the work was being done.

Assetbacked

Fol20 wrote: »

Assetbacked wrote: »

I had a good job in dublin but the housing crisis drove me out as, combined with all other aspects of life (groceries, eating and drinking out, insurance, public transport, utilities, healthcare), it became too much.

To emigrate in a strong economy seems absurd, especially with a good wage but the government’s policy to squeeze the middle for everything they’re worth whilst not doing anything to ensure their security financially (eg landlords should never be allowed to remove tenants just because they want to sell the house, move in a family member or renovate it - that is laughable at how absurd a law it is), but that’s how it is.

Life in Dublin in 2018 is not for the tax paying worker; it is for the tourists, for the Erasmus-like impermanent tech company workers, existing home owners and those incapable of taking personal responsibility. Whilst I have emigrated I will protest vote in the next election and give my vote to an independent.

Who owns the property again? The renter or the ll. Teants can be much more flakey and leave on a whim as a post here yesterday or the day before points out and peoples general response was your lucky he left early instead of overstaying. LL have only a handful of ways to get their property back and if they do not do everything by the book, you can be damn sure the previous tenant has the oppertunity to get a nice paycheck from the ll mistake, the opposite cant be said for a tenant not abiding by the law.

Likewise if you have an asset worth a few hundred k and you are forced to sell with a sitting tenant, you are shooting yourself in the foot in regards to what you can make off it as no owner occupier can then buy it and your severely limiting the amount of prospective buyer.

Finally if you have any experience with renovations, some of these can be quite dirty and messy jobs, and I as a landlord would not want to be held liable for any of the tenants property if it gets damaged. Its all about minimising liability. Even when i renovated my own house, i moved out while the work was being done.

The whole attitude of “who owns the property?” is wrong. The tenant is the one choosing to live in it as their home therefore they have more of a right to not be disturbed than a landlord has to do what he wants with it. We’re talking about a Home here, someone is renting the dwelling to live in it. In an economy where houses are impossible to buy without taking on astronomical levels of debt, people have no choice but to rent and therefore the lessee should be seen as a practical de facto owner for the time they rent the property.

BattleCorp

Assetbacked wrote: »

Fol20 wrote: »

Assetbacked wrote: »

I had a good job in dublin but the housing crisis drove me out as, combined with all other aspects of life (groceries, eating and drinking out, insurance, public transport, utilities, healthcare), it became too much.

To emigrate in a strong economy seems absurd, especially with a good wage but the government’s policy to squeeze the middle for everything they’re worth whilst not doing anything to ensure their security financially (eg landlords should never be allowed to remove tenants just because they want to sell the house, move in a family member or renovate it - that is laughable at how absurd a law it is), but that’s how it is.

Life in Dublin in 2018 is not for the tax paying worker; it is for the tourists, for the Erasmus-like impermanent tech company workers, existing home owners and those incapable of taking personal responsibility. Whilst I have emigrated I will protest vote in the next election and give my vote to an independent.

Who owns the property again? The renter or the ll. Teants can be much more flakey and leave on a whim as a post here yesterday or the day before points out and peoples general response was your lucky he left early instead of overstaying. LL have only a handful of ways to get their property back and if they do not do everything by the book, you can be damn sure the previous tenant has the oppertunity to get a nice paycheck from the ll mistake, the opposite cant be said for a tenant not abiding by the law.

Likewise if you have an asset worth a few hundred k and you are forced to sell with a sitting tenant, you are shooting yourself in the foot in regards to what you can make off it as no owner occupier can then buy it and your severely limiting the amount of prospective buyer.

Finally if you have any experience with renovations, some of these can be quite dirty and messy jobs, and I as a landlord would not want to be held liable for any of the tenants property if it gets damaged. Its all about minimising liability. Even when i renovated my own house, i moved out while the work was being done.

The whole attitude of “who owns the property?” is wrong. The tenant is the one choosing to live in it as their home therefore they have more of a right to not be disturbed than a landlord has to do what he wants with it. We’re talking about a Home here, someone is renting the dwelling to live in it. In an economy where houses are impossible to buy without taking on astronomical levels of debt, people have no choice but to rent and therefore the lessee should be seen as a practical de facto owner for the time they rent the property.

Whaaaaa. You think a tenant should have more rights than the person who owns the house. G'wayyyy will ya.

Andrewf20

Could something like this be part of the solution by reducing demand for Dublin based accommodation?



Some rain and impact protection, 125CC for motorway use. It would place less demand on accommodation in the city if people could zip in from Navan, Saggart etc and cut through alot of morning rush hour jams.

In Ho chi min city, the culture is mopeds. Just a pity Ireland has such crap weather in comparison.

If it was a goer, there should be government incentives to buy one like free parking in the city say.

Grandeeod

Augeo wrote: »

An ir£18k salary wasn't a bad wage at all back then. I was working part time in 97 and the full time lads were taking home 150/week so there pretax wage was under 10k.

I'lol be closing in on being mortgage free in my mid 40s & I bought in 2005.

I really don't know where you were working in 1997, but my first full time job offer in 1990 had a starting salary of £125 per week and I was only 19 and would have had to drop out of college to accept it. While it was a specific job starting at a low end it was a pretty good salary. However the point I was trying to make was in relation to how easy it was to buy a house in Dublin in the 80s and 90s. It was very easy and lots did, from buying up the council house they lived in, to new builds by availing of the first time buyers grant. That is when it all started to go wrong and things got skewed and lead us to where we are today.

Fol20

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Could something like this be part of the solution by reducing demand for Dublin based accommodation?



Some rain and impact protection, 125CC for motorway use. It would place less demand on accommodation in the city if people could zip in from Navan, Saggart etc and cut through alot of morning rush hour jams.

In Ho chi min city, the culture is mopeds. Just a pity Ireland has such crap weather in comparison.

If it was a goer, there should be government incentives to buy one like free parking in the city say.

The culture isnt mopeds, they are forced to get them as their average monthly salary are 400e and the tax on a new car is over 100pc so thats why you see very few of them.

Grandeeod

Grandeeod wrote: »

I really don't know where you were working in 1997, but my first full time job offer in 1990 had a starting salary of £125 per week and I was only 19 and would have had to drop out of college to accept it. While it was a specific job starting at a low end it was a pretty good salary. However the point I was trying to make was in relation to how easy it was to buy a house in Dublin in the 80s and 90s. It was very easy and lots did, from buying up the council house they lived in, to new builds by availing of the first time buyers grant. That is when it all started to go wrong and things got skewed and lead us to where we are today.

Buying up council houses should never have been an option for so many. Social housing should be for when and for whom it's needed. Building loads of it for every generation is flawed ..... the current welfare attitude many have is bad enough without cultivating more generations expecting the same.

Andrewf20

Fol20 wrote: »

The culture isnt mopeds, they are forced to get them as their average monthly salary are 400e and the tax on a new car is over 100pc so thats why you see very few of them.

I reckon they would still use mopeds in general even if they were more affluent as the traffic would be absolute carnage otherwise with the population levels.

I reckon it could work here if people felt safe enough to use one (and if you end up saving a few hundred euro a month on rent).

4ensic15

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed, all the more reason not to invest in property IMO.

I know a guy who bought an apartment in Dublin in 1996 for £38k with Section 23 relief. He got a mortgage of £38k. The repayment was 270 per month. The first years rent was £370. The service charge was about £400. Furniture etc was about 2k. There was no tax on the rental profit for several years because of the Section 23 allowance. The 20-year loan was paid off 2 years ago. A few weeks ago the apartment was let for €1500. Stupid to borrow money to invest in property?

Grandeeod

Augeo wrote: »

Buying up council houses should never have been an option for so many. Social housing should be for when and for whom it's needed. Building loads of it for every generation is flawed ..... the current welfare attitude many have is bad enough without cultivating more generations expecting the same.

While allowing council tenants to buy their homes was a mistake and absolutely based on the Thatcher/Conservative policy from across the pond, a steady stream of Social housing is required to separate those on welfare from the private rental market. Furthermore many working people could benefit from social housing (like they did in the late 70s/80s) by paying affordable rents that also allow them to save for a mortgage deposit. Some may stay in Social housing, but others will opt to go the mortgage route. You really need to go back further in our housing history to discover why we are where we are today. Pushing social housing onto the private sector is not working whether we are talking about HAP in the private sector, privately built social houses as part of a purchase scheme etc. etc. Social housing can be designed to benefit a whole lot more than what you refer to as those with a welfare attitude cultivating those expecting the same.

And please remember how the state introduced a first time buyers grant in the 1980s that stimulated construction and actually allowed people to buy a home for literally a 100 pound deposit and mortgage approval. That's when it all went wrong and got messed up as we stopped building social housing at the same time. By 1992 and the Maastricht treaty with the Euro and the relaxation of how banks could lend we were on a one way trip to what's happening now.

Fol20

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I reckon they would still use mopeds in general even if they were more affluent as the traffic would be absolute carnage otherwise with the population levels.

I reckon it could work here if people felt safe enough to use one (and if you end up saving a few hundred euro a month on rent).

Your right, they would more than likely continue to use it since thats all they have been using for x years. I have friends that have Vietnamese heritage and when their cousins from vietnam came over, they couldnt say too long in cars as they were all getting car sick.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

I know a guy who bought an apartment in Dublin in 1996 for £38k with Section 23 relief. He got a mortgage of £38k. The repayment was 270 per month. The first years rent was £370. The service charge was about £400. Furniture etc was about 2k. There was no tax on the rental profit for several years because of the Section 23 allowance. The 20-year loan was paid off 2 years ago. A few weeks ago the apartment was let for €1500. Stupid to borrow money to invest in property?

My comments are in relation to today really .... obviously enough.... not 30 odd years ago.

If you think I'm wrong why not dive in yourself and "invest"


The guy you know really gives you great insight into his finances, are ye in a relationship.... sugardaddy?

4ensic15

Augeo wrote: »

My comments are in relation to today really .... obviously enough.... not 30 odd years ago.

If you think I'm wrong why not dive in yourself and "invest"


The guy you know really gives you great insight into his finances, are ye in a relationship.... sugardaddy?

Your comments are in relation to the general principle of borrowing to invest in property. It can be a perfectly sensible and sane thing to do under the right conditions. I am related to the guy by marriage.

myshirt

Property taxes need to go up substantially. I don't like it. You don't like it. But it has to happen.
CAT thresholds also need to drop aswell, and CAT rates need to go up. Substantially.

I'd get rid of the rent caps aswell, all they do is protect the incumbents and drive up of the price of everything else. Effectively the below market rent is paid by everyone else chipping in.

Does Pascal have the balls and the skillet to navigate it?

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

Your comments are in relation to the general principle of borrowing to invest in property. It can be a perfectly sensible and sane thing to do under the right conditions. I am related to the guy by marriage.

The general principle indeed but I'm considering current prices, taxation etc not those of 30 odd years ago.

Should I detail that if you can but a property for next to fnck all, borrow a small sum & pay no tax in the income it's better than the current set up? No I shouldn't as 99.9% of people don't try and falsify my statement by using a situation from 30 years ago.

Andrew Beef

Wild generalisations above. You can buy a property at a 6% yield right now. Cash is giving you zero. The Central Bank rules mean that you have to pony up 30%, so you’ve a decent enough buffer in the event of a downturn. Yes, the usual caveats apply and prices might fall, but property’s not something I’d run away from if I was in the market for an investment.

fly_agaric

myshirt wrote: »

Property taxes need to go up substantially. I don't like it. You don't like it. But it has to happen.
CAT thresholds also need to drop aswell, and CAT rates need to go up. Substantially...
Does Pascal have the balls and the skillet to navigate it?

All of that is very unlikely. Govt policy is the opposite.
The LPT is being killed off slowly by leaving the basis as-is + unreformed. They'll probably scrap it at some point to buy votes.
The CAT thresholds were dropped in the economic crash and have been raised every budget since we got the troika out AFAIR, another vote-buying move.

Old diesel

na1 wrote: »

optogirl wrote: »

More social & affordable housing.

Who is gonna pay for this?

With affordable housing....

1) the economic benefits of construction companies building houses - employing staff/paying taxes/staff spending.

2) a reduction in monthly payments basically is equivalent to a tax free increase income. But costs an employer nothing while also allowing people spend more - a meal out/new clothes/a holiday/new car.

3) it reduces upward wage pressure which helps our competitiveness and keep/attract FDI*.

4) upfront cost is large - but you reap the benefits long term.

fly_agaric

Old diesel wrote: »

With affordable housing....

1) the economic benefits of construction companies building houses - employing staff/paying taxes/staff spending.

2) a reduction in monthly payments basically is equivalent to a tax free increase income. But costs an employer nothing while also allowing people spend more - a meal out/new clothes/a holiday/new car.

3) it reduces upward wage pressure which helps our competitiveness and keep/attract FDI*.

4) upfront cost is large - but you reap the benefits long term.

Yes, it would enable better functioning of our economy over the long term, but property/land owners and banks would be net losers from it.
That is much more important in the govt.'s opinion.
Sky high rents and accommodation costs are the government policy; any effort they make to cushion people from it must never threaten banks' balance sheets, profits of property owners etc. so takes form of rent subsidy, help to buy schemes and the like.
It is depressing but there's no sign of this changing any time soon.

Fol20

myshirt wrote: »

Property taxes need to go up substantially. I don't like it. You don't like it. But it has to happen.
CAT thresholds also need to drop aswell, and CAT rates need to go up. Substantially.

I'd get rid of the rent caps aswell, all they do is protect the incumbents and drive up of the price of everything else. Effectively the below market rent is paid by everyone else chipping in.

Does Pascal have the balls and the skillet to navigate it?

Why do you want to pay more taxes on stuff and what benefit will it have?

Cat thresholds if anything should be increased. Your parents have paid tax on everything they have earned in life to get their house or whatever other assets they have. Its not right that these net assets are taxed yet again whens its passed down through generations.

4ensic15

Augeo wrote: »

The general principle indeed but I'm considering current prices, taxation etc not those of 30 odd years ago.

Should I detail that if you can but a property for next to fnck all, borrow a small sum & pay no tax in the income it's better than the current set up? No I shouldn't as 99.9% of people don't try and falsify my statement by using a situation from 30 years ago.

It was 22 years ago, so obviously maths are not your strong point. There are conditions under which it can be entirely sensible to borrow to invest in property.
Whether current conditions suit borrowing to invest in property or not is a different matter.