Property Market 2020

The_Conductor

Mad_maxx wrote: »

the elderly have always been uber prioritised in this country, often at the expense of the youth

Not entirely true- we have had an exceptionally well funded social welfare net in this country. Its been recognised many times that there is a perverse disincentive to taking up employment in the Irish economy- as the supports are generous to a T.

The truly marginalised in Ireland are those who are in the 30-40k bracket- who pay for everything themselves.

Before all the current crisis hit the fan, the proposals were to finally tackle the abnormally low level at which our higher tax rate vests, and to soften the tax burden on the squeezed middle. That is all out of the question now.

The elderly have been traditionally treated generously in the context of entitlements in Ireland. The fact of the matter is that both entitlements and taxes are going to have to be closely scrutinised and significant savings made alongside new tax streams. This is going to hurt everyone.

The group least affected economically during the last downturn- were the retired and those on social welfare. I'm not being cruel for pointing it out- but you can't expect the squeezed middle to do all the heavy lifting in the new economy we find ourselves in..........

JimmyVik

schmittel wrote: »

hasn't stopped some people suggesting forcing the elderly out of their homes to make way for the young which is utter madness.

It makes me sick actually when I hear people who suggest just letting the elderly die in a corner so they can have their houses on the market. There is far too much of that.

The_Conductor

schmittel wrote: »

hasn't stopped some people suggesting forcing the elderly out of their homes to make way for the young which is utter madness.

People's needs evolve as they enter various stages in their lifes.
Eventually, we will all have to accept that however much we love our surroundings- that perhaps a setting where we have access to the services, facilities and amenities that better match the stage in life we find ourselves in- might be preferable.

No-one should be forced to move though, if they don't want to. They should however have alternate options available to them, and be made aware of what those options are. By all means incentivise them to move, if they want to, but you can't force them to.

masculinist

Mad_maxx wrote: »

the elderly have always been uber prioritised in this country, often at the expense of the youth

Not so fast there .

The elderly have been paying for government mismanagement all of their lives.

I suspect lip service to the elderly is done with a cynical purpose e.g "too old to be prosecuted and go to jail etc"

The elderly are as divided as any other group.

The_Conductor

The other aspect of why the elderly have traditionally been prioritised in Ireland- is quite simply, as a demographic, they have traditionally been a hell of a lot more likely to actually get out and vote. The younger people have tended to bitch and moan, but not vote. Votes count- and are courted by politicians.

JimmyVik

The_Conductor wrote: »

People's needs evolve as they enter various stages in their lifes.
Eventually, we will all have to accept that however much we love our surroundings- that perhaps a setting where we have access to the services, facilities and amenities that better match the stage in life we find ourselves in- might be preferable.

No-one should be forced to move though, if they don't want to. They should however have alternate options available to them, and be made aware of what those options are. By all means incentivize them to move, if they want to, but you can't force them to.

I have done some volunteering both in Ireland and the UK.


Ive seen some lovely retirement villages in the UK where relatives now live. The kind of place that arent too expensive and make you want to actually move there if you were elderly.

In Ireland ive seen very few and they are very expensive and dumps to boot. They are more like a holding pen for the elderly than somewhere they can actually enjoy their life.

hometruths

The_Conductor wrote: »

People's needs evolve as they enter various stages in their lifes.
Eventually, we will all have to accept that however much we love our surroundings- that perhaps a setting where we have access to the services, facilities and amenities that better match the stage in life we find ourselves in- might be preferable.

No-one should be forced to move though, if they don't want to. They should however have alternate options available to them, and be made aware of what those options are. By all means incentivise them to move, if they want to, but you can't force them to.

Don’t disagree with anything you say but there are people who think s it is a sensible suggestion to move the elderly on, they might not put it as bluntly as forcing them out, but essentially that’s what it amounts to.

GreeBo

combat14 wrote: »

up to a point.. when you are paying a higher interest rate than you need to 12-13+ years later because your house is still in negative equity it has some bearing

there is always some economic cost

You will be paying the interest rate that you were happy to pay when your house was worth when you bought it. You can't retrospectively look at that and decide its costing you more than it otherwise could.

The_Conductor

GreeBo wrote: »

You will be paying the interest rate that you were happy to pay when your house was worth when you bought it. You can't retrospectively look at that and decide its costing you more than it otherwise could.

I thought everyone was hopping around the place- moving to new lenders every 3-4-5 years, making the most of the competition and claiming yet more money back offers..........

Maitguel

combat14 wrote: »

up to a point.. when you are paying a higher interest rate than you need to 12-13+ years later because your house is still in negative equity it has some bearing

there is always some economic cost

She should talk to MABS if her debts are greater than her assets she is insolvent. No harm in them having a look at her circumstances and seeing if they can get a rate reduction with her current bank.

combat14

GreeBo wrote: »

You will be paying the interest rate that you were happy to pay when your house was worth when you bought it. You can't retrospectively look at that and decide its costing you more than it otherwise could.

I dont think any one is happy to pay a 12 year old interest rate .. when there are opportunities to switch and get better value over a decade down the road .. but unfortunately due to negative equity this is not possible - she cant revalue her house to get a better rate as the house value is still under water 12 years later!!!!

Some people seem to have forgotten the last boom and bust cycle and how ridiculous house prices were back in 2008 - in some (not all) parts of the country prices are almost back to where they were before the last crash.

there is no harm buying a property or even in some people's world substantially over paying for assets .. but there are real world affects even if stay in the house for ever or a long period of time

combat14

Maitguel wrote: »

She should talk to MABS if her debts are greater than her assets she is insolvent. No harm in them having a look at her circumstances and seeing if they can get a rate reduction with her current bank.

My understanding is that she has to revalue the house first, prove that the house value is greater than the mortgage (it was one of the famous 100% mortgages) and then avail of the reduced rate

combat14

GreeBo wrote: »

You will be paying the interest rate that you were happy to pay when your house was worth when you bought it. You can't retrospectively look at that and decide its costing you more than it otherwise could.

and in 2008 she was happy to pay that interest rate etc but then there was a recession like today .......

and like everyone else her pay was cut unexpectedly and taxes rose unexpectedly....

and this could very well happen again in 2020-2022 - even if you are happy with the price you pay for your house .. many people in the country are potentially facing once again unexpected job losses, pay cuts and tax rises in the coming months.. and this also has to be factored in

house buyers shouldn't bite off more than they can chew at the moment .... i.e. dont over pay for houses at the moment in this once again uncertain economic environment

we have our recent history to remind us what happens when we pay too much for houses

Villa05

Mad_maxx wrote:

the elderly have always been uber prioritised in this country, often at the expense of the youth

schmittel wrote:

hasn't stopped some people suggesting forcing the elderly out of their homes to make way for the young which is utter madness.

The isuue is not the elderly its the systems. We can see that acting collectively, issues are solved much quicker and the burden shared is much smaller

Housing seriously disadvantages youth excessive rents hampers incomes and will lock many out completely,
This youth willl tasked with supplementing the cost of retirement into the future

Would you have a system where a lifeguard has a 20kg weight tied around their their ankles in the performing of their duties.

Housing is a strategic asset, it should be managed in a way that delivers for the collective benefit not sectoral interests

The bedroom tax tax is normalised in the UK now and I know of several elderly relations and there friends who have taken it positively. Downsizing has improved their lives an increased their disposable income

Of course this needs to be balanced with what we build. Current. Residential building is dictated by what the top earners of the country can afford rather than what the country needs which may be smaller units of 1 and 2 bed size for
A Downsizers close to medical and health care facilities
B young couples at affordable rents Close to job centres

GreeBo

combat14 wrote: »

I dont think any one is happy to pay a 12 year old interest rate .. when there are opportunities to switch and get better value over a decade down the road .. but unfortunately due to negative equity this is not possible - she cant revalue her house to get a better rate as the house value is still under water 12 years later!!!!

Some people seem to have forgotten the last boom and bust cycle and how ridiculous house prices were back in 2008 - in some (not all) parts of the country prices are almost back to where they were before the last crash.

there is no harm buying a property or even in some people's world substantially over paying for assets .. but there are real world affects even if stay in the house for ever or a long period of time

Your interest rate wont be 12 years old, you will just be paying a higher rate than someone with a better LTV than you...

hometruths

Villa05 wrote: »

Housing is a strategic asset, it should be managed in a way that delivers for the collective benefit not sectoral interest

Could not agree more.

Sort out the arrears problem first - i.e encourage those who are not paying for the houses they live in to move to something smaller and more suitable, before you set your sights on the elderly who by and large will have paid for their houses.

Repos for the common good, prioritise the efficient use of a national strategic asset.

Risteard81

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

Sure, but if lending volume is down 90% from its peak in 2005, you're only correct in the most technical sense

Indeed. His point is wholly incorrect and wrong.

Hoffmans

What's propping up house prices and rents seeing gdp is way down markets crashed is it a false house market ?

combat14

Hoffmans wrote: »

What's propping up house prices and rents seeing gdp is way down markets crashed is it a false house market ?

well at the moment .. 3 month mortgage holidays and government covid payments (backed by 20-30 billion of additional state borrowing effectively a second bailout for banks again and now landlords?) ..

after 12 weeks of support .. who knows what will prop up rents and house prices after that ??

in the commercial sector rents are so high, some landlords wont renegotiate and businesses are closing .. all very similar to last recession

residential sector might be different as there Is a moratorium for the moment on evictions and rent increases.. landlords may yet be forced to drop prices (rent)?

Taylor365

Hoffmans wrote: »

markets crashed

Wut? We're hitting new all time highs!


Can't make it up! :pac:

Donald Trump

Hoffmans wrote: »

What's propping up house prices and rents seeing gdp is way down markets crashed is it a false house market ?

The average person selling is hoping that it's a temporary blip and will sit on their property. If they are right, they'll be happy, and if they are wrong they will likely stay in denial for a good while.


On the other side, buyers would be stalling and/or pulling out. So you're not going to see that many sales. If there is to be a dip, it will take a while to manifest itself into actual transacted prices.

Padre_Pio

Hoffmans wrote: »

What's propping up house prices and rents seeing gdp is way down markets crashed is it a false house market ?

We're only a few weeks into this.

It'll take at least 6 months to properly manifest.

hometruths

Villa05 wrote: »

The bedroom tax tax is normalised in the UK now and I know of several elderly relations and there friends who have taken it positively. Downsizing has improved their lives an increased their disposable incomes

Encouraging downsizing is one thing but a tax is more of a carrot than a stick stick than carrot.

A fairly significant obstacle to the elderly downsizing is the uncertainty of the buying/selling chain if they don't have the funds to buy the smaller property in the meantime. i.e all good and well to sell the big empty 4 bed, but there would be no appetite to rent in the the interim if they get caught in limbo.

I think an obvious incentive solution is to provide bridging finance for downsizers - provide max 3 year interest only finance to max 60% equity of the existing home.

Government can borrow the money from ECB at low rates, they could even make a profit on it.

Have often thought there must be a problem with this idea that I am missing, or else surely they would have done it by now rather than talking about house sharing for old folks.

cnocbui

Tax is punitive, therefore it's a stick.

hometruths

cnocbui wrote: »

Tax is punitive, therefore it's a stick.

Indeed, that's what I meant, my mistake, edited to correct

OttoPilot

GreeBo wrote: »

Have you planned your savings, investments, pension around paying rent until the day you die?

If not, then you need to buy a house.

I do have investments but why bother keeping them for retirement? The government wont let OAPs become homeless given the number of single people like me who cant afford an apartment in the area they work in. I'll join the fair deal scheme where you are punished for saving.

BillyBiggs

Hoffmans wrote: »

What's propping up house prices and rents seeing gdp is way down markets crashed is it a false house market ?

Landlords are unwilling to reduce their high rents, until they realise nobody will pay what they are looking for. Estate agents will similarly advertise high prices until the reality dawns that the bubble has burst.

combat14

Banks to offer mortgage 'holiday' extension for three months

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/banks-to-offer-mortgage-holiday-extension-for-three-months-39169604.html

lucky the banks have all that savers money resting in their accounts this time earning absolutely no interest

combat14

From another boards thread - looks like some tenants are stopping rent payments - wonder how long it will be till this is widespread? bound to have a downward affect on rents if this crisis continues which it appears to be the case.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058074447

----

Tenant refusing to pay
Hi,

I am a landlord with a 2-bed apartment in North-West Dublin. I bought the apartment in 2018 (at age 28, with all my savings and a parental loan too!). Late last year I decided to go travelling with my girlfriend and move to Australia for a year or potentially two, and rented out the apartment.

The rent is 1,700 Euro per month. The tenant advised that their work has been stopped temporarily due to Covid-19, and is refusing to pay anything. They say when they get the rent supplement, they will give me that (a maximum of 900 Euro). However, they are refusing to contribute a single cent themselves. I've tried to open negotiations to a fair compromised rate during the pandemic but he refuses.

He only submitted the rent supplement form this week, despite claiming he lost his work 5 weeks ago. I was also conscious of renting for the first time and before signing the agreement had unofficial conversations with them asking about their savings etc., as I didn't want to have to evict a couple with a child. He promised he had savings. I explicitly asked about if he lost his job would he be OK for 3-6 months, and he promised he would be. I appreciate this isn't legally binding but I feel it shows that he is using this situation to take advantage of me.

Does anyone have any advice as to how I should proceed? I feel I've been fair with my assessment, but the next month's rent is due today and he has paid nothing. My parents suggested contacting a solicitor but they said they wouldn't get involved (I assume they don't want their name attached to any potential issues down the line). All the guidance from the government advises that tenants still have to pay their rent but all those messages are just being ignored.

I appreciate that there is little sympathy for landlords. However, I put all my savings into buying this apartment, and don't think I should be treated the same as some person who has 5 properties etc. I'm now working in Australia paying living costs, rent and bills for myself and my girlfriend, who is unable to get a job as over 800,000 Australians have been let go and the working holiday visa is quite restrictive for employers. This is on top of my mortgage/management fees etc. for the apartment at home.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you

JimmyVik

schmittel wrote: »

Encouraging downsizing is one thing but a tax is more of a carrot than a stick stick than carrot.

A fairly significant obstacle to the elderly downsizing is the uncertainty of the buying/selling chain if they don't have the funds to buy the smaller property in the meantime. i.e all good and well to sell the big empty 4 bed, but there would be no appetite to rent in the the interim if they get caught in limbo.

I think an obvious incentive solution is to provide bridging finance for downsizers - provide max 3 year interest only finance to max 60% equity of the existing home.

Government can borrow the money from ECB at low rates, they could even make a profit on it.

Have often thought there must be a problem with this idea that I am missing, or else surely they would have done it by now rather than talking about house sharing for old folks.

The elderly have spent thoer live paying high taxes and paying off their debts. The are then in a situation where they cant increase income and so cannot and dont want to take on more debt.
The elderly wont want to take on any sort of loan. If it goes wrong there is no chance of recovery for them.
Whats needed are retirement homes that even non retirees and young people would love to live in.
That way the elderly will be only too happy to downsize into them.
At the moment there is nothing but uncertainty for them if they move.