2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

Cyrus

PropQueries wrote: »

I suppose the question I would be asking is why building contractors appear to be charging DCC double the price they are willing to provide the same work to the likes of Cairn Homes for.

It also matters in the sense that DCC should be able to supply twice the number the houses if they got the same deal e.g. Cairn Homes appears to be negotiating.

Fine

But you are asking the wrong people in the wrong place .

MacronvFrugals

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I think that's crazy. If you work overtime and get 1.5 time you get to keep .75 on top of your normal wage. Anything extra you can put aside is massive and can toward a nest egg or whatever.

I could never understand that logic.

Its probably my inner lefty but i don't mind paying the tax and and will normally do 25-30 hours overtime a month.

In a tiny way it helps Ireland not turn into an horrifically unequal despot

Looking at the EU graphs for inequality, without our social transfer system we'd be another bargain basement tax haven like Luxembourg

Idbatterim

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I think that's crazy. If you work overtime and get 1.5 time you get to keep .75 on top of your normal wage. Anything extra you can put aside is massive and can toward a nest egg or whatever.

I could never understand that logic.

Would you work for half your normal hourly rate if at marginal rate and option of extra hours? You might, many wont...

Idbatterim

PropQueries wrote: »

And it will most likely get worse. Just last month RTE reported "Leo Varadkar has called for a "grown-up conversation" on increasing Employers' and Employees' PRSI to fund a reformed social insurance system, including income-linked unemployment benefits."


It does beg the question, in my mind anyway, where all this borrowed money (c. €40 billion between 2020 and 2021?) is actually going given that the PUP payments are being primarily funded through the raiding of the c. €5 billion surplus that was in the PRSI fund back in March 2020.



Link to article on RTE here: https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1123/1180017-low-pay-prsi/

I agree with a welfare system li led to what you pay in, proper run countries have this. Fund it by capping welfare benefits after a certain period, basically cuts to some, to fund the increases for the hard working paying for the welfare state, that is what should happen.

What will happen ? Let the overburdened here contribute more, to keep those paying in nothing, nice and comfy! Those that would never vote ffg, that's how spineless they are, they could make changes, to right the wrongs and they are so spineless they have alienated and lost / lose voters, before they would face the dissenting voice of an alphabet party on rte, accusing them of hurting " de vulneable"

Idbatterim

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Its probably my inner lefty but i don't mind paying the tax and and will normally do 25-30 hours overtime a month.

In a tiny way it helps Ireland not turn into an horrifically unequal despot

Looking at the EU graphs for inequality, without our social transfer system we'd be another bargain basement tax haven like Luxembourg

Funny your take on equality! Is it ever more expensive housing for workers, paying their own extortionate rent or mortgage, living beside the neighbour with free rent and paying their rent and welfare?

That equality? Where one group pay for everything and qualify for nothing?

MacronvFrugals

Idbatterim wrote: »

Funny your take on equality! Is it ever more expensive housing for workers, paying their own extortionate rent or mortgage, living beside the neighbour with free rent and paying their rent and welfare?

That equality? Where one group pay for everything and qualify for nothing?

Maybe its from my time living in Finland, but I will never punch down something you seem only willing to do.

If our welfare, housing or any systems within the state are off kilter well we've had a 100 year duopoly so ask your local FF/FG representative about this

Living with that level of hatred must get tiring, we all pay tax! Its just some of us don't moan about it all day.

I tend to be more annoyed about outrageous levels of private debt being saddled onto the public balance sheet or big funds snapping up property and paying zero tax but hey that's just me, maybe one of these days I'll pick up curtain twitching as a hobby!

Ironically the late post is because I'm doing overtime from a Priority 1 out of of hours on-call notification :P

Hubertj

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/o-broin-opposed-social-housing-project-after-asking-constituents-for-their-views-39966788.html

I’ll just leave this here. The article speaks for itself and doesn’t require any comment.

thomas 123

Hubertj wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/o-broin-opposed-social-housing-project-after-asking-constituents-for-their-views-39966788.html

I’ll just leave this here. The article speaks for itself and doesn’t require any comment.

This article is yet another attack on Sinn Fein - it omits the reason it was turned down and we the readers are none the wiser. Yet it focuses on how “galling” it is to see O’Broin vote down something.

I am sure the residents have highlighted legitimate concerns.

Timing belt

thomas 123 wrote: »

This article is yet another attack on Sinn Fein - it omits the reason it was turned down and we the readers are none the wiser. Yet it focuses on how “galling” it is to see O’Broin vote down something.

I am sure the residents have highlighted legitimate concerns.

It's not the first time nor will it be the last that this happens... all the political parties are guilty of it!!!!! They all say no to housing for reason X or Y and noting moves forward..... to busy point's scoring.

Wanderer78

MacronvFrugals wrote:

I tend to be more annoyed about outrageous levels of private debt being saddled onto the public balance sheet or big funds snapping up property and paying zero tax but hey that's just me, maybe one of these days I'll pick up curtain twitching as a hobby!

Again this is ideologically based, and our two main government parties have a history of continually supporting and encouraging these type of outcomes, and I can see it changing at all, even if alternatives are voted in

Hubertj

Timing belt wrote: »

It's not the first time nor will it be the last that this happens... all the political parties are guilty of it!!!!! They all say no to housing for reason X or Y and noting moves forward..... to busy point's scoring.

Just more NIMBYism of the highest order. Hypocrisy to the extreme. No real interest in resolving housing issues. Simply politicising it. It’s not an attack on Sinn Fein.

thomas 123

Hubertj wrote: »

Just more NIMBYism of the highest order. Hypocrisy to the extreme. No real interest in resolving housing issues. Simply politicising it. It’s not an attack on Sinn Fein.

I’ll say it again, the article your shared is absent of fact and instead focuses on attacking O’Broin... as to why it was rejected is not covered, what are the citizens concerns? I’m pretty sure it’s deeper than they just don’t want it there as this article attempts to suggest.

Hubertj

thomas 123 wrote: »

I’ll say it again, the article your shared is absent of fact and instead focuses on attacking O’Broin... as to why it was rejected is not covered, what are the citizens concerns? I’m pretty sure it’s deeper than they just don’t want it there as this article attempts to suggest.

Small scale development on public land. What’s to object about? Should every single proposed development in the country be objected to? Prt of the problem and Sinn Fein just adds to it

Timing belt

thomas 123 wrote: »

I’ll say it again, the article your shared is absent of fact and instead focuses on attacking O’Broin... as to why it was rejected is not covered, what are the citizens concerns? I’m pretty sure it’s deeper than they just don’t want it there as this article attempts to suggest.

Is this not the development that is in Question along with the family centre?

https://www.echo.ie/news/article/new-family-centre-for-deansrath

And the issue is that they want the family centre somewhere else?

The reason for the new family centre is because of this act of vandalism. Still can't believe the building is condemned when you see the pic's in the news article

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30963770.html

.

Bass Reeves

thomas 123 wrote: »

This article is yet another attack on Sinn Fein - it omits the reason it was turned down and we the readers are none the wiser. Yet it focuses on how “galling” it is to see O’Broin vote down something.

I am sure the residents have highlighted legitimate concerns.

It shows O'Brion and SF as having double standards. The plan was for 20+ social housing. They want it moved to another site.......where. as well the objectors suggest that 14 bungalow's are build for older people. This is total NIMBYism. It a small social housing project and a SF TD objects to it.

Idbatterim

Just read that article on obroinn. Dangerous game, nimbyism now is far less attractive vote wise, than sorting why you won a huge amount of seats last election at fg expense. The housing crisis! Nine less homes being delivered, this issue should be depoliticised. Planning should be granted for the maximum reasonable level of density the site can take, end of!

Idbatterim

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Maybe its from my time living in Finland, but I will never punch down something you seem only willing to do.

If our welfare, housing or any systems within the state are off kilter well we've had a 100 year duopoly so ask your local FF/FG representative about this

Living with that level of hatred must get tiring, we all pay tax! Its just some of us don't moan about it all day.

I tend to be more annoyed about outrageous levels of private debt being saddled onto the public balance sheet or big funds snapping up property and paying zero tax but hey that's just me, maybe one of these days I'll pick up curtain twitching as a hobby!

Ironically the late post is because I'm doing overtime from a Priority 1 out of of hours on-call notification :P

All of us pay tax? Technically. Some here pay far more than their fair share and some far less. Those paying far more than their fair share would be able to house themselves easier if they weren't paying for themselves and free housing for those co procuring and good as nothing.

I suppose if you went into a resteraunt and paid a tenner for your meal and the lad beside you paid a euro for the sane meal, youd say you both still paid for your meals ?

fliball123

Idbatterim wrote: »

All of us pay tax? Technically. Some here pay far more than their fair share and some far less. Those paying far more than their fair share would be able to house themselves easier if they weren't paying for themselves and free housing for those co procuring and good as nothing.

I suppose if you went into a resteraunt and paid a tenner for your meal and the lad beside you paid a euro for the sane meal, youd say you both still paid for your meals ?

Your analogy is lacking when it comes to a comparison. You and this other guy go into the restaurant. Your order a modest main course and pay your tenner. This other guy orders 3 course meal with champagne and a cappuccino to wash it all down and you pay the tenner and they pay the Euro.

I like yourself and others have no bother paying tax. The problem is the inequity when it comes to access to services and resources that are given to people on the social such as medical cards and free gaffs they pay very little tax and then on the other side someone trying to work has to pay for the likes of accommodation and their own healthcare while paying a hell of a lot more tax. Its like a double taxation system for anyone working.

Wanderer78

fliball123 wrote: »

Your analogy is lacking when it comes to a comparison. You and this other guy go into the restaurant. Your order a modest main course and pay your tenner. This other guy orders 3 course meal with champagne and a cappuccino to wash it all down and you pay the tenner and they pay the Euro.

I like yourself and others have no bother paying tax. The problem is the inequity when it comes to access to services and resources that are given to people on the social such as medical cards and free gaffs they pay very little tax and then on the other side someone trying to work has to pay for the likes of accommodation and their own healthcare while paying a hell of a lot more tax. Its like a double taxation system for anyone working.

....again, we ve been engaging in policies for a long time now that continually encourage asset price inflation, particularly in relation to property and land, and we have a refusal to implement wealth taxes in relation to these assets, you ll find most welfare classes own fcuk all assets........ it is a common outcome in so called free market economies, that taxation moves from these asset ownership classes, towards working classes, in particular what we call, 'middle classes'......

Bass Reeves

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

I tend to be more annoyed about outrageous levels of private debt being saddled onto the public balance sheet or big funds snapping up property and paying zero tax

The private debt is the banking collapse debt I presume. As is explained many time there was two elements to the countries finances collapse in 2008. Yes the banking was part of it the other half was the serious imbalance in public service pay and pensions. However that is not for a property thread.

However the other half of your post referees to REIT's. The push for them came from the left and liberal finance side in this country. They were forever parroting on about how good rental worked elsewhere in Europe. That we need this type of housing option in Ireland. The Labour/FG government started put these structures in place.

I remember at the time on property threads many parroting that these structures would revolutionise property rental and house prices. The great unwashed would all have housing choice and the bad smalltime landlords would be wiped out. These REIT's would rent to society at50-70% of your small time LL and supply a much high quality product.

I differed on this opinion. I explained that there maintenance costs would be much higher and that other than the tax breaks they got they would not compete with unincorporated LL.

This was never FF/FG solution to housing it was a leftwing brainfart

Browney7

Idbatterim wrote: »

Just read that article on obroinn. Dangerous game, nimbyism now is far less attractive vote wise, than sorting why you won a huge amount of seats last election at fg expense. The housing crisis! Nine less homes being delivered, this issue should be depoliticised. Planning should be granted for the maximum reasonable level of density the site can take, end of!

Have you read the plan and submissions to determine the "maximum reasonable level of density the site can take"?

http://www.sdublincoco.ie/Meetings/Agenda/1997?p=1 item H-I (10) chief executives report contains all submissions/observations. One of the submissions made by a resident cited "the only piece of green space in the entire Lindisfarne estate". I've no clue as to the accuracy of this contention. Traffic management also seemed to be resident's concerns.

Gino Kenny (PBP) opposed the building of more houses in the area on the green space. Nearby St Cuthbert's park was cited as being "plagued by issues". Reading councillor Francis Timmons submission on the proposal, it's clear scramblers and quads are an issue.

O'Broin and SF framed their submission as a compromise. They explained their rationale for the develooment being for older people would free up family homes in the area.

From searching the councillors for the clondalkin area, it appears no FF, FG or green councillor made any submission at all nor did Emer Higgins the FG TD for Dublin mid west.

Like everything related to politics in Ireland, "other side bad, my side good". Another way of spinning Philip Ryan's piece is that it is a proposed hatchet job on the guy "who wrote the book on housing" (David McManus SDCC FG councillor) by a journalist who wrote the book on Leo (Leo, A very modern Taoiseach).

Villa05

Alot of history rewriting going on here

Wanderer78

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The private debt is the banking collapse debt I presume. As is explained many time there was two elements to the countries finances collapse in 2008. Yes the banking was part of it the other half was the serious imbalance in public service pay and pensions. However that is not for a property thread.

However the other half of your post referees to REIT's. The push for them came from the left and liberal finance side in this country. They were forever parroting on about how good rental worked elsewhere in Europe. That we need this type of housing option in Ireland. The Labour/FG government started put these structures in place.

I remember at the time on property threads many parroting that these structures would revolutionise property rental and house prices. The great unwashed would all have housing choice and the bad smalltime landlords would be wiped out. These REIT's would rent to society at50-70% of your small time LL and supply a much high quality product.

I differed on this opinion. I explained that there maintenance costs would be much higher and that other than the tax breaks they got they would not compete with unincorporated LL.

This was never FF/FG solution to housing it was a leftwing brainfart

...only that it is! the majority of financial crisis financial issues were largely based in private sector financial institutions, again, a major component of so called free market ideologies is to reduce the public sector, in particular public spending, because apparently, the private sector is far more efficient!

fliball123

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The private debt is the banking collapse debt I presume. As is explained many time there was two elements to the countries finances collapse in 2008. Yes the banking was part of it the other half was the serious imbalance in public service pay and pensions. However that is not for a property thread.

However the other half of your post referees to REIT's. The push for them came from the left and liberal finance side in this country. They were forever parroting on about how good rental worked elsewhere in Europe. That we need this type of housing option in Ireland. The Labour/FG government started put these structures in place.

I remember at the time on property threads many parroting that these structures would revolutionise property rental and house prices. The great unwashed would all have housing choice and the bad smalltime landlords would be wiped out. These REIT's would rent to society at50-70% of your small time LL and supply a much high quality product.

I differed on this opinion. I explained that there maintenance costs would be much higher and that other than the tax breaks they got they would not compete with unincorporated LL.

This was never FF/FG solution to housing it was a leftwing brainfart

Eh the public service pay pensions and welfare contributed a hell of a lot more than half of the 210billion debt we accrued when the bank bailout happened. Banks accounted for about 60billion of the debt the rest (150billion) was borrowed for ps pay/pensions and welfare payments and people think we are not left leaning

Wanderer78

fliball123 wrote: »

Eh the public service pay pensions and welfare contributed a hell of a lot more than half of the 210billion debt we accrued when the bank bailout happened. Banks accounted for about 60billion of the debt the rest (150billion) was borrowed for ps pay/pensions and welfare payments and people think we are not left leaning

rising welfare budgets were hardly due to a rapid rise in unemployment due to previous crashes, were they!

fliball123

Wanderer78 wrote: »

rising welfare budgets were hardly due to a rapid rise in unemployment due to previous crashes, were they!

No the debt was built up over a number of years leading up the 08 crash. (Benchmarking anyone) and you only have to look the figures of how much ps pay/pensions and welfare ballooned up by in the years proceeding 08. Bertie basically though the stamp duty gravy train was going to go on for ever and based current spending on a bubble taxation model. This is the reason why we have 150 Billion of the current debt (about 220/230 billion) we are servicing.

Wanderer78

fliball123 wrote: »

No the debt was built up over a number of years leading up the 08 crash. (Benchmarking anyone) and you only have to look the figures of how much ps pay/pensions and welfare ballooned up by in the years proceeding 08. Bertie basically though the stamp duty gravy train was going to go on for ever and based current spending on a bubble taxation model. This is the reason why we have 150 Billion of the current debt (about 220/230 billion) we are servicing.

please explain to me in detail, how public debt lead to the previous crash? oh and bare in mind, deficits are actually a critical component of the money supply, by not having them, it forces the money supply out into the private sector, which creates money in the form of credit, by continually encouraging such behavior, it in fact significantly increases the likelihood of further economic crashes or credit crisis!

fliball123

Wanderer78 wrote: »

please explain to me in detail, how public debt lead to the previous crash? oh and bare in mind, deficits are actually a critical component of the money supply, by not having them, it forces the money supply out into the private sector, which creates money in the form of credit, by continually encouraging such behavior, it in fact significantly increases the likelihood of further economic crashes or credit crisis!

Did I say it lead to the crash?? If I did show me? I said it contributed 150Billion of the current debt we are servicing. Kind of puts the 20/30 Billion for covid in the hap-penny place

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

please explain to me in detail, how public debt lead to the previous crash? oh and bare in mind, deficits are actually a critical component of the money supply, by not having them, it forces the money supply out into the private sector, which creates money in the form of credit, by continually encouraging such behavior, it in fact significantly increases the likelihood of further economic crashes or credit crisis!

fliball123 wrote: »

Did I say it lead to the crash?? If I did show me? I said it contributed 150Billion of the current debt we are servicing. Kind of puts the 20/30 Billion for covid in the hap-penny place

this is a critical thing to remember here also, i.e. deficits are fine, in fact theyre more than fine, theyre needed, particularly right now

fliball123

Wanderer78 wrote: »

this is a critical thing to remember here also, i.e. deficits are fine, in fact theyre more than fine, theyre needed, particularly right now

Yeah maybe but they are also a drain on current spend this money could of been used in other areas right now and over the last decade or so. We should not of been on the hook for any of the debt accumulated pre-covid. The borrowings for covid makes sense as we would of had to pay a lot of money out for social welfare and for redundancies if the government had not supported the economy anyway, but borrowing to bail out banks, to pay public servants more money then we can afford not to mention the knock on effect to their pensions and to give people on social welfare so much money that it competes with the low paying jobs available in the country. That did not make a lick of sense.