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

jill_valentine

I'm not sure how ecstatic anybody can stay about the on-paper price of their house by the time their two 30-40 something kids and their partners have all been living and working there for a year or two.

mcsean2163

fliball123 wrote: »

Can you be sure about that. The problem I see in your POV is that You, I or anyone else do not have a clue if and when property prices will drop or when they will drop or when they will rise, add in interest rates will they rise, how much will they rise by, add in scarcity of property available for sale.

Forgive me if this seems to go against the social good but I think in my scenario the better option for my 2 kids is the property I live in goes up and they can get a windfall when I pass. Too many unknowns in your scenario.
The kids are more than welcome to live here until I hit the tombstone so they wont have to pay out crazy rents and be able to save. I know that at some stage they will have to fly to coup but I think it will be good for them to struggle for a bit in the face of what people have to pay to live in this country on a day to day basis. Also it will give them an option of not having to live in Ireland or having to live in highly desirable areas within Ireland. They could move to a country with cheaper housing or to a county where housing is a lot cheaper with WFH now becoming an acceptable way of doing business people don't need to live in Dublin or Cork to work there. So I understand what your saying about they will need to buy a house but they will not have to buy the house they are living in now they can use that money and set themselves up elsewhere. So in my scenario my kids will have a lot more options and a lot less uncertainty.

That sounds very personal and unlike most scenarios. I certainly wouldn't want all our kids to be stuck Living at home with us in their 40s.

fliball123

DataDude wrote: »

I'm not saying it's universal, and I've no doubt for most wealthy homeowners, they do want house prices to increases. But just a personal anecdote - my parents would have €2-3m+ in equity across multiple houses/apartments and definitely would have previously cheered rising house prices.

Over the last year or so, hearing me talk about friends, seeing sons/daughters/nieces/nephews (who are Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants etc.) living at home til their mid 30s, I think the penny is finally starting to drop with them that whether their net worth is €5m or €6m really doesn't matter and they'd rather see their family living the lives they were able to live.

As for inheritance, hopefully me and my siblings won't see a penny of it until we're in our 60s. What use is it then. We all keep telling them we don't want a cent of their money anyway - buy a boat and Ferrari, enjoy it.

Well your parents are in an exceptional good position. I mean I reckon its ok for someone worth x amount of millions to say ok I have more than enough, time to share the wealth. Unfortunately this would not be the same situation as the majority of property owners.

AlmightyCushion

timmyntc wrote: »

House prices dropping is also a benefit to your children - in that its more affordable for them to buy their own house. I would much rather see my children able to buy a house of their own, than have to wait until I die so that they might get enough money from inheritance to buy a nice home.

From that POV it is a zero sum game - an increase to the value of their inheritance means an increase to the cost of them buying a house. In fact, for 2 children, a house price decrease is actually more valuable - because they will each buy a house, but the inheritance is based on the price of 1 house only.

So property prices decreasing is actually more beneficial to your children than an increase - a zero sum game for 1 child, but 2 or more and decreases are preferable to increases.

This. Plus reasonable property prices makes their lives easier in their 20s and 30s. They will spend less of their income on rent and a mortgage. Whereas they won't get the inheritance until probably much later in life when they already have a house and are reasonably well set up. Lower living expenses and house prices will have a better effect on people's long term finances than a higher inheritance (assuming they get one) later in life.

MacronvFrugals

The Irish Examiners editorial opinion posted today

I When an obituarist comes to write that history, their epilogue will be simple enough.

They will record the justified anger that drove the sons and daughters of older supporters of centrist parties to reject them because they made home-ownership impossible, because they put corporate interests before community.

Had Napoleon been so stupid and so blind to the obvious, his Waterloo would have come many decades earlier.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/ourview/arid-40281674.html

yagan

fliball123 wrote: »

Personally speaking and I am sure a lot of parents would be of the same mindset, it would be nice to leave this world and know your kid(s) are sorted financially.

At what age should people be able to afford their own essential habitat on their own means?

Instead what you'll end up with is children who'll be waiting for parents to expire just so they can enjoy security of tenure.

I shudder to think of that older generation mindset that feels justified by locking young families out of home ownership just so rent will fund their retirement fund.

DataDude

fliball123 wrote: »

Well your parents are in an exceptional good position. I mean I reckon its ok for someone worth x amount of millions to say ok I have more than enough, time to share the wealth. Unfortunately this would not be the same situation as the majority of property owners.

It's not the amount of money though, it's the principle. My parents thought "higher house prices = higher family wealth = good for my kids". Which seems to be the same view you have.

It's taken years, but my parents are finally realizing it's only good for them. But it's actually terrible for their kids. There's a misguided notion that passing on more money is the be all and end all of success. In reality, I've never seen inheritance cause anything but trouble in families.

You might have rationalized it that you don't mind your kids living with you indefinitely and that somehow higher house prices will be good for them (eventually). But I absolutely promise you your kids would prefer to make their own way in life rather than living in your shadow waiting for you to die or until they can pack you up into a nursing home. Financial planning your future around inheritance is incredibly toxic for all involved.

Cyrus

DataDude wrote: »

It's not the amount of money though, it's the principle. My parents thought "higher house prices = higher family wealth = good for my kids". Which seems to be the same view you have.

It's taken years, but my parents are finally realizing it's only good for them. But it's actually terrible for their kids. There's a misguided notion that passing on more money is the be all and end all of success. In reality, I've never seen inheritance cause anything but trouble in families.

You might have rationalized it that you don't mind your kids living with you indefinitely and that somehow higher house prices will be good for them (eventually). But I absolutely promise you your kids would prefer to make their own way in life rather than living in your shadow waiting for you to die or until they can pack you up into a nursing home. Financial planning your future around inheritance is incredibly toxic for all involved.

the reality is nowadays, anyone waiting on an inheritance (especially one thats linked to the family home) will be well in their 50s and maybe 60s before they see it, bit of a waste of your life.

Imagine waiting until your 50s/60s till your parents die, in order to be able to live in your own place!
That's a depressing thought. Why would anyone want that?

DataDude

Cyrus wrote: »

the reality is nowadays, anyone waiting on an inheritance (especially one thats linked to the family home) will be well in their 50s and maybe 60s before they see it, bit of a waste of your life.

100%. And if you polled all people in their 20s and 30s with two kids if they'd prefer to be able buy their family home earlier because prices are lower, or if they'd prefer an extra few 100k when they're 65 because their parents house appreciated...

Any older person with a home who thinks rising house prices is good for their non-homeowning kids because it will ultimately increase the value of their inheritance some day has a bit of a god complex (IMO!).

No problem with people wanting their house to be worth more. That's grand. Just be honest about it though, it's at the expense of your children. Not to their benefit.

fliball123

yagan wrote: »

At what age should people be able to afford their own essential habitat on their own means?

Instead what you'll end up with is children who'll be waiting for parents to expire just so they can enjoy security of tenure.

I shudder to think of that older generation mindset that feels justified by locking young families out of home ownership just so rent will fund their retirement fund.

Look I said it is my opinion and it goes against the greater good.

What kind of a question is that "what age should people be able to afford their own essential habitat". Can you not see that its those emotive questions that the lefties are asking that is driving our current government into the daft decisions of paying high prices for housing now as well as renting property from the vultures and REITS. Not to mention the new government loan schemes, which have all had the unintended consequence of pushing prices up.

Everyone wants their house and they want it now. How did the older generation lock young families out of home ownership? Explain that one for me please and giving out about anyone trying to look after themselves or trying to look out for their kids instead of young families that they have no links to is just bonkers.

A lot of people pay a lot of tax and see it go up in smoke in this country so why should they sacrifice more to help others. As I say it may go against the greater good for society but are the majority of these property owners not already giving back in what we pay in tax. I sure as hell don't get much bang for my buck with what I pay already so why should I look to see my nett worth drop to help anyone else? Selfish ? Maybe, self preservation? Absolutely, or is it a sense that instead of trying to drag people back into more debt and sh1t people should pay their own way. If you cant afford a property look at the option of trying to save more and then look again or look at cheaper options to live in you dont have to live in Dublin or Ireland no one owes a family in this country a property a bit of personal responsibility??? But sure why would that be an option when those who dont want to work will look to the state to house them same goes with mams who keep having kids even do they cant afford them and the state becomes babby daddy.

When the burden of financing all the inequalities in this country is left on the squeezed middle why should they sacrifice more?

Any discussion of housing people who cant afford it must be taken in the context of what others are already paying in taxation both now and in the future we borrowed 17Billion last year to keep the show on the road.

fliball123

DataDude wrote: »

It's not the amount of money though, it's the principle. My parents thought "higher house prices = higher family wealth = good for my kids". Which seems to be the same view you have.

It's taken years, but my parents are finally realizing it's only good for them. But it's actually terrible for their kids. There's a misguided notion that passing on more money is the be all and end all of success. In reality, I've never seen inheritance cause anything but trouble in families.

You might have rationalized it that you don't mind your kids living with you indefinitely and that somehow higher house prices will be good for them (eventually). But I absolutely promise you your kids would prefer to make their own way in life rather than living in your shadow waiting for you to die or until they can pack you up into a nursing home. Financial planning your future around inheritance is incredibly toxic for all involved.

Your parents have x amount of millions in nett worth I am not there I am about x amount of millions away from their situation so you cant compare.

Look I will be doing my utmost to have my kids paying their way and would be delighted if they were able to afford a house without my help. If they cant afford Dublin I will be telling them well your options are to move elsewhere or stay here in your family home save more and try again. That's the plan I dont want them being a sponge or a drain or a welfare recipient. I wont be having a conversation with them saying "you will be fine once I kick the bucket" far from from it. Yet I will feel better when I am on my death bed knowing that they will be getting a windfall that will make their life easier

timmyntc

fliball123 wrote: »

so why should I look to see my nett worth drop to help anyone else

What good is your net worth if its all tied up in a property you live in?
Your attitude is whats wrong with housing in this country - obsessed with numbers on paper that you cant actually spend!

Your children and everyone elses would be much better off if your net worth was halved, if it meant they could afford a home to raise their children.

yagan

DataDude wrote: »

In reality, I've never seen inheritance cause anything but trouble in families.

...and it has cost lives as we've seen in the Kanturk case.

Beigepaint

fliball123 wrote: »

Look I said it is my opinion and it goes against the greater good.

What kind of a question is that "what age should people be able to afford their own essential habitat". Can you not see that its those emotive questions that the lefties are asking that is driving our current government into the daft decisions of paying high prices for housing now as well as renting property from the vultures and REITS. Not to mention the new government loan schemes, which have all had the unintended consequence of pushing prices up.

Everyone wants their house and they want it now. How did the older generation lock young families out of home ownership? Explain that one for me please and giving out about anyone trying to look after themselves or trying to look out for their kids instead of young families that they have no links to is just bonkers.

A lot of people pay a lot of tax and see it go up in smoke in this country so why should they sacrifice more to help others. As I say it may go against the greater good for society but are the majority of these property owners not already giving back in what we pay in tax. I sure as hell don't get much bang for my buck with what I pay already so why should I look to see my nett worth drop to help anyone else? Selfish ? Maybe self preservation? Absolutely, or is it a sense that instead of trying to drag people back into more debt and sh1t people should pay their own way. If you cant afford a property look at the option of trying to save more and then look again or look at cheaper options to live in you dont have to live in Dublin or Ireland no one owes a family in this country a property a bit of personal responsibility??? But sure why would that be an option when those who dont want to work will look to the state to house them same goes with mams who keep having kids even do they cant afford them and the state becomes babby daddy.

When the burden of financing all the inequalities in this country is left on the squeezed middle why should they sacrifice more?

Any discussion of housing people who cant afford it must be taken in the context of what others are already paying in taxation both now and in the future we borrowed 17Billion last year to keep the show on the road.

Your post here is essentially “why should tomorrow be better than yesterday?”

The answer is that if the collective acts in the interest of the collective, then everyone benefits.

We have the power within us to make Ireland an absolutely brilliant place to raise a family AND run a business, but currently the interests of shareholders are weighted and the interests of citizens are irrelevant. You would benefit from a big picture view.

Your overblown concern about a fractional number of welfare cheats is unhealthy. Maybe you should reconsider your media usage and try to get more exercise.

Geuze

DataDude wrote: »

It's not the amount of money though, it's the principle. My parents thought "higher house prices = higher family wealth = good for my kids". Which seems to be the same view you have.

Society needs to accept that rising house prices is bad.

Stable house prices is good.

If house prices are too high, which they are in cities, then if they fall, that is good.

If high house prices and rent in urban areas fall, due to growth in supply, that should be seen as a public policy success.

I'd like to see a pol stand up and say that they want urban rents and urban house prices to fall

handlemaster

Evil_g wrote: »

Are we just calling everything a vulture fund now?

Its click bait . The public lap this up. The issue would be easier solved with housing if landlords were treated fairly and contracts were enforceable. When you have the government and housing agencies all against landlords you have less investors interested in investing and higher prices all round. The people are getting what they deserve and more will come as smaller time landlords leave the market.

thomas 123

handlemaster wrote: »

Its click bait . The public lap this up. The issue would be easier solved with housing if landlords were treated fairly and contracts were enforceable. When you have the government and housing agencies all against landlords you have less investors interested in investing and higher prices all round. The people are getting what they deserve and more will come as smaller time landlords leave the market.

So you are suggesting if it were easier kick a tenant out (merit for sure) then more land lords would come to the market and build houses perumably - what happens to the tenant who is kicked out? Do they just not need to be housed then?

In short this is nowhere near why we have a housing crisis...

Is it maybe that smaller landlords can’t afford to build and/or get planning permission?

Or is it because they can’t write off the majority of their tax like the Vulture funds/investment firms/whatever else you want to call them?

Claw Hammer

thomas 123 wrote: »

So you are suggesting if it were easier kick a tenant out (merit for sure) then more land lords would come to the market and build houses perumably - what happens to the tenant who is kicked out? Do they just not need to be housed then?

?

It doesn't seem to be a problem in other countries where non paying and or anti- social tenants are kicked out rapidly. It tends to mean tenants behave themselves and there is more investment in housing.

yagan

handlemaster wrote: »

Its click bait . The public lap this up. The issue would be easier solved with housing if landlords were treated fairly and contracts were enforceable. When you have the government and housing agencies all against landlords you have less investors interested in investing and higher prices all round. The people are getting what they deserve and more will come as smaller time landlords leave the market.

Is your complaint about small versus large landlord?

It's still the renter priced out of ownership that's the political hot potato now.

thomas 123

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It doesn't seem to be a problem in other countries where non paying and or anti- social tenants are kicked out rapidly. It tends to mean tenants behave themselves and there is more investment in housing.

Ah yeah no issues with someone who should be evicted being evicted, saying this is the cause of our current crisis and high rents is ludicrous though.

Balluba

I wonder why Glenageary asking prices have shot up? A three bed semi is advertised today for €735,000 and a four bed semi for €750,000

timmyntc

thomas 123 wrote: »

So you are suggesting if it were easier kick a tenant out (merit for sure) then more land lords would come to the market and build houses perumably - what happens to the tenant who is kicked out? Do they just not need to be housed then?

In short this is nowhere near why we have a housing crisis...

Is it maybe that smaller landlords can’t afford to build and/or get planning permission?

Or is it because they can’t write off the majority of their tax like the Vulture funds/investment firms/whatever else you want to call them?

The housing crisis is an issue of supply - some of it being supply not efficiently used (or used at all if reports of investment funds leaving units vacant is to be believed)

Where does a proper eviction process come into play? For social housing.
There is a serious aversion to social housing developments in this country because most people's experiences with social housing is that anti-social tenants can do what they like with 0 recourse.
This is why homeowners will do whatever possible to stop social housing coming to a place near them. And to fix our dysfunctional market, this will have to change because we NEED much more social housing built.

The only way to fix social housing is to put in place a quick evictions process for people who refuse to pay rent, and for those involved in anti-social behaviour. They can be lumped into emergency accomodation and put to the back of the list and someone more deserving put into their place.

thomas 123

timmyntc wrote: »

The housing crisis is an issue of supply - some of it being supply not efficiently used (or used at all if reports of investment funds leaving units vacant is to be believed)

Where does a proper eviction process come into play? For social housing.
There is a serious aversion to social housing developments in this country because most people's experiences with social housing is that anti-social tenants can do what they like with 0 recourse.
This is why homeowners will do whatever possible to stop social housing coming to a place near them. And to fix our dysfunctional market, this will have to change because we NEED much more social housing built.

The only way to fix social housing is to put in place a quick evictions process for people who refuse to pay rent, and for those involved in anti-social behaviour. They can be lumped into emergency accomodation and put to the back of the list and someone more deserving put into their place.

Where do you put those people Though ? The housing need does not dissapear if they are evicted.

timmyntc

thomas 123 wrote: »

Where do you put those people Though ? The housing need does not dissapear if they are evicted.

Emergency accommodation & the back of the housing list to be rehoused at a later date.

Either that or you build ghettos like the Netherlands and lump problem tenants together

Wanderer78

timmyntc wrote: »

The housing crisis is an issue of supply - some of it being supply not efficiently used (or used at all if reports of investment funds leaving units vacant is to be believed)

Where does a proper eviction process come into play? For social housing.
There is a serious aversion to social housing developments in this country because most people's experiences with social housing is that anti-social tenants can do what they like with 0 recourse.
This is why homeowners will do whatever possible to stop social housing coming to a place near them. And to fix our dysfunctional market, this will have to change because we NEED much more social housing built.

The only way to fix social housing is to put in place a quick evictions process for people who refuse to pay rent, and for those involved in anti-social behaviour. They can be lumped into emergency accomodation and put to the back of the list and someone more deserving put into their place.

this would exasperate the situation significantly, we would need significant investments in multiples of sectors prior to such an approach, in particular the health care system, legal system, and clearly in the overall property sectors, by not doing so would exasperate the overall situation, ending up in you, the tax payer, footing the bill in its disastrous outcomes. strangely enough, shoving people into 'temporary accommodation' causes far more serious, complex, and bloody expensive outcomes for all

Wanderer78

timmyntc wrote: »

Emergency accommodation & the back of the housing list to be rehoused at a later date.

Either that or you build ghettos like the Netherlands and lump problem tenants together

yea, not surprised, lets cause far more expensive and messy outcomes!

yagan

timmyntc wrote: »

The only way to fix social housing is to put in place a quick evictions process for people who refuse to pay rent, and for those involved in anti-social behaviour. They can be lumped into emergency accomodation and put to the back of the list and someone more deserving put into their place.

Vertical ghosts is an established fact now. Just because sales are being booked doesn't mean unit are occupied.

We ended up with houses in places where there was no demand and now we're going to end up with loads of shoebox apartments suitable only for a transient multinational workforce that may be greatly diminished now that businesses are saving loads via WFH.

Blaming those marginalised by short term profit driven planning is the sign of a hollow soul.

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

The housing crisis is an issue of supply - some of it being supply not efficiently used (or used at all if reports of investment funds leaving units vacant is to be believed)

Where does a proper eviction process come into play? For social housing.
There is a serious aversion to social housing developments in this country because most people's experiences with social housing is that anti-social tenants can do what they like with 0 recourse.
This is why homeowners will do whatever possible to stop social housing coming to a place near them. And to fix our dysfunctional market, this will have to change because we NEED much more social housing built.

The only way to fix social housing is to put in place a quick evictions process for people who refuse to pay rent, and for those involved in anti-social behaviour. They can be lumped into emergency accomodation and put to the back of the list and someone more deserving put into their place.

Never mind your fix social housing.
Usual lazy discriminating opinions with no basis in truth.

After over 20 years of dealing with neighbours in dispute, I can assure you the majority are not social tenants.

People need to get over their snobby attitudes when it comes to social housing, Irish are extremely begrudging

fliball123

timmyntc wrote: »

What good is your net worth if its all tied up in a property you live in?
Your attitude is whats wrong with housing in this country - obsessed with numbers on paper that you cant actually spend!

Your children and everyone elses would be much better off if your net worth was halved, if it meant they could afford a home to raise their children.

It will be good when I pass it on to my kids. How is good for my kids that their inheritance is halved?? Why should it be existing home owners taking a hit to help those who don't have a house?

I may never spend that money but if it remains at a relatively high amount in value at some point in the future my kids will get it. I would rather see them get the benefit of my hard work than strangers.

Look I understand your take I do I just dont see a way in doing what your asking without existing home owners taking a bath in their finances. Like if your saying half everyone's property value, what happens to those who have a mortgage on that property that is more than that? Do they just give the keys back and go for a cheaper house. Do they stop paying the mortgage and live their 10 years without paying the mortgage.

Your POV has moral hazard traps and the law of unintended consequences written all over it and is unworkable.