Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*
Options
Comments
-
-
-
fliball123 wrote: »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?
Assuming your kids are going to spend the inheritance on property, it is better for them if property prices drop.
Lets say your house is worth 400k, split between 2 that is 200k each, they want to buy a house for 300k meaning they have to fund 100k from elsewhere.
House prices drop 25%
Your house is worth 300k, split between that is 150k each, they want to buy the same house now worth 225k, they have to fund 75k in the difference.
That is 25k less due to the drop in house prices.fliball123 wrote: »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.
They go into negative equity and just continue to pay their mortgage, if they weren't planning on moving anyway, it basically makes no difference.
Once the bank is getting repayments they don't care.0 -
FTB outbid with their own tax money and multinationals, which in turn creates an insecurity of tenure for families, which in turn creates its own suite of problems.Can you clarify Yagan who the victims are?
But hey, what does it matter as long as you can play golf in portugal while living off their rent?0 -
Beigepaint wrote: »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.
How can tomorrow be better than yesterday when today we are borrowing a ridiculous amount already for today. Your post would mean more with out the personal digs I get as much exercise as I need.
Also if this was a country that people show a bit more personal responsibility instead of the state having to step in and help and welfare cheats?? Last I checked we paid out over 23Billion in social protection
https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/socialprotection/2021/
How much more blood do you want from this stone?
Its funny some posters on here think that halving a persons nett worth will be good for them because everyone will benefit. I am wondering if I have wondered into a communist Russia thread.
The problem is that for all your ideals someone has to pay for them and the well of people being asked are already paying through the nose in taxation. Also we are more Animal Farm when it comes to our leftist ideals as in some animals are more equal than others. (public sector take a bow) Way too many vested interests both right and left learning sucking at the public purse. These issues need to be tackled. There is no way of tackling the issue of people not being able to afford houses without throwing up moral hazard and unforeseen consequences.
Why do you or others think that its on current home owners to house everyone? Do you all think that as a home owner or a group of home owner we can all get together and say lets half our property price for the greater good? NO we cant and any mechanism the government has tried to implement to give FTBs in this county has actually pushed prices up.
So while we have champagne communistic ideas everyone is equal no matter who pays for it and the capitalism cannot fail no matter the costs attitudes in this country coming from both sides. I dont see why I should help anyone else get a house. I am already paying my taxes into the 23 Billion paid out in social protection.0 -
Advertisement
-
FTB outbid with their own tax money and multinationals, which in turn creates an insecurity of tenure for families, which in turn creates its own suite of problems.
But hey, what does it matter as long as you can play golf in portugal while living off their rent?
credit is in fact the main source of money for purchasers, but of course deposits are also used0 -
cruizer101 wrote: »Assuming your kids are going to spend the inheritance on property, it is better for them if property prices drop.
Lets say your house is worth 400k, split between 2 that is 200k each, they want to buy a house for 300k meaning they have to fund 100k from elsewhere.
House prices drop 25%
Your house is worth 300k, split between that is 150k each, they want to buy the same house now worth 225k, they have to fund 75k in the difference.
That is 25k less due to the drop in house prices.
They go into negative equity and just continue to pay their mortgage, if they weren't planning on moving anyway, it basically makes no difference.
Once the bank is getting repayments they don't care.
Throw in inheritance tax too. There would unlikely be a big political appetite for reducing the group A threshold even in the event of a wholesale drop in property values. Doesn't impact your example here but it would impact others, if say a house worth €800k down by 25% to €600k would take both children out of the the inheritance tax net altogether.0 -
fliball123 wrote: »
Also if this was a country that people show a bit more personal responsibility instead of the state having to step in and help and welfare cheats?? .
Which welfare cheats?
Do you consider social protection to be for 'welfare cheats'?0 -
Wanderer78 wrote: »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 allWanderer78 wrote: »yea, not surprised, lets cause far more expensive and messy outcomes!
As per usual, a load of waffle from you. Why would evicting anti social tenants and replacing them with other people on the housing list need significant investments in health, legal and "in the overall property sectors"?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.
Way over your head. My point is that we need more social housing for low income workers - but there is no political appetite for it right now because most people's view of social housing is skewed by anti-social tenants who cannot be punished. If people knew that anti-social tenants would be evicted they would be more open to building more social housing in their area.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
20 years of anecdotes, good man.
I think you'll find that most people's attitudes are informed by past experiences, not some begrudging of people for having a home.0 -
fliball123 wrote: »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.
Would you not rather see your kids start getting on with their lives now? Get settled and live lives you could be part of?
If we had a rational housing market they could be working towards it themselves or have it already. They could be getting their feet under them and getting established themselves, instead of being on hold, unable to live lives entirely their own or build any wealth towards their own later years - at least until you die and they can cash in the family jewels to get on the ladder.
There are a lot of knock on consequences from the housing crisis, not least that Generation Rent is going to head into its own old age with no accommodation security, minimal pension or health provisions, and very few post employment benefits. That's something to consider for your kids now too, do they not deserve the quality of life you have now when they get to your age? They will never have that so long as they have to burn anything they might be able to invest in themselves in that regard in the rent trap.
Having to rely on the deaths of loved ones and the loss of a childhood home from the family is an awful thing to have a whole society take for granted as a *basis* for financial stability.0 -
Advertisement
-
As per usual, a load of waffle from you. Why would evicting anti social tenants and replacing them with other people on the housing list need significant investments in health, legal and "in the overall property sectors"?
in order to deal with overall rise in complex social issues from such an approach, from rising health care issues, both physical and mental health related issues, particularly mental health related, addiction problems etc, from the overall rise in legal activities, criminal behavior etc, and then of course, the actual need to house all of these people. from all of that, and if the norm remains to be, you, the tax payer is the one that foots that bill!0 -
We don't even have affordable homes for those whose earnings put them over the housing list threshold!
Way over your head. My point is that we need more social housing for low income workers - but there is no political appetite for it right now because most people's view of social housing is skewed by anti-social tenants who cannot be punished. If people knew that anti-social tenants would be evicted they would be more open to building more social housing in their area.
The problem is affordability for the general workforce but you think the reason the general workforce can't afford to live in Dublin is that they're not in their jobs they're busy being anti social.
Anti social behaviour is not the reason housing is unaffordable, but insecurity of tenure does go against the building of stable communities which can counter anti social behavior.0 -
fliball123 wrote: ». I am already paying my taxes into the 23 Billion paid out in social protection.
Most of that 23billions is for pensions. Although I wouldnt mind cutting Bertie 'No Bank' Ahern's pension 5 fold.
https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/0 -
We don't even have affordable homes for those whose earnings put them over the housing list threshold!
The problem is affordability for the general workforce but you think the reason the general workforce can't afford to live in Dublin is that they're not in their jobs they're busy being anti social.
Anti social behaviour is not the reason housing is unaffordable.
Where have I said that?
yet again you have completely missed the point of my post.
Let me dumb it down for you:
House prices are high for a number of reasons, mainly that
1) Council are buying houses for social housing from private market
2) Council are agreeing long term leases for social housing from institutional investors - that investors buy from private market
The solution to this is that the council should build social housing directly that they own. BUT - we currently dont have the political will to do this because most homeowners do not want social housing near them, because of the negative connotations - anti social tenants for example.
The solution to that problem, is to streamline the eviction process for anti-social tenants. They get kicked out promptly, someone more deserving from housing list gets in instead, and the anti socialites go to emergency accommodation and the back of the housing list.0 -
Where have I said that?
yet again you have completely missed the point of my post.
Let me dumb it down for you:
House prices are high for a number of reasons, mainly that
1) Council are buying houses for social housing from private market
2) Council are agreeing long term leases for social housing from institutional investors
The solution to this is that the council should build social housing directly that they own. BUT - we currently dont have the political will to do this because most homeowners do not want social housing near them, because of the negative connotations - anti social tenants for example.
The solution to that problem, is to streamline the eviction process for anti-social tenants. They get kicked out promptly, someone more deserving from housing list gets in instead, and the anti social goes to emergency accomodation or the back of the housing list.
mainly because we have allowed the fire sectors to dictate our economies, we are not the only country experiencing these problems, most western countries have engaged in this approach, hence why we re all experiencing similar outcomes
as explained previously, this would worsen the situation dramatically, as we do not have the systems and processes required to do so, ultimately costing you the tax payer even more0 -
Eviction to where?Where have I said that?
yet again you have completely missed the point of my post.
Let me dumb it down for you:
House prices are high for a number of reasons, mainly that
1) Council are buying houses for social housing from private market
2) Council are agreeing long term leases for social housing from institutional investors - that investors buy from private market
The solution to this is that the council should build social housing directly that they own. BUT - we currently dont have the political will to do this because most homeowners do not want social housing near them, because of the negative connotations - anti social tenants for example.
The solution to that problem, is to streamline the eviction process for anti-social tenants. They get kicked out promptly, someone more deserving from housing list gets in instead, and the anti socialites go to emergency accommodation and the back of the housing list.
Passing the parcel does not tackle anti social behaviour. Is it any different to the RCC moving sex offenders around?
Fianna Fail thought they were lining their own landlord pockets by turning a housing list into long yielding rental bonds but they were gazumped at their own game!0 -
20 years of anecdotes, good man.
I think you'll find that most people's attitudes are informed by past experiences, not some begrudging of people for having a home.
20 years of past experience then, does that sound better to you?
My last experience has shown me that the majority of neighbour issues are not involving social tenants.
So why the issue with social housing?0 -
cruizer101 wrote: »Assuming your kids are going to spend the inheritance on property, it is better for them if property prices drop.
Lets say your house is worth 400k, split between 2 that is 200k each, they want to buy a house for 300k meaning they have to fund 100k from elsewhere.
House prices drop 25%
Your house is worth 300k, split between that is 150k each, they want to buy the same house now worth 225k, they have to fund 75k in the difference.
That is 25k less due to the drop in house prices.
They go into negative equity and just continue to pay their mortgage, if they weren't planning on moving anyway, it basically makes no difference.
Once the bank is getting repayments they don't care.
Once again you seem to be under the impression home owners can band together and come to this conclusion, we dont control the property market.
Also in your hypothetical outline the difference is made up by the actual equity
Situation 1 - house sells for 400 they get 200 each and 300 is paid out meaning they have 200 in equity
Situation 2 - house sells for 300 they get 150 each and 225 is paid out meaning they have only 150 in equity
Situation 1 means my kids have more money to play with and this is a big advantage in Ireland as any property on the lower end of the price range tends to be very much in demand and prices go up quicker as apposed to houses at higher prices and if they do buy a house it means they start out with more equity. So at the point of them getting the inheritance it better for my kids for property prices to be higher.0 -
Eviction to where?
Passing the parcel does not tackle anti social behaviour. Is it any different to the RCC moving sex offenders around?
Fianna Fail thought they were lining their own landlord pockets by turning a housing list into long yielding rental bonds but they were gazumped at their own game!
Eviction to somewhere that doesnt reward them for being sh1Ts to their neighbors would be a start.0 -
Which welfare cheats?
Do you consider social protection to be for 'welfare cheats'?
I have no doubt there are lots on there I also have no doubts that there are people badly in need for it who are genuine. The point is out of the public purses 23Billion is already going out to help those who are deemed less fortunate, how much more do you want do we give everyone a free gaff? How would people with a mortgage feel? Do you not think they would jingle mail their keys back to bank and declare bankrupcy.
I have yet to hear one valid way to give free housing with moral hazard or without any other knock on consequence.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Or how about not creating poverty sumps which breeds anti social behaviour?Eviction to somewhere that doesnt reward them for being sh1Ts to their neighbors would be a start.
Why is it that it's those cornered by successive generations of bad planning pay for it?
Why do we allow empties go untaxed?0 -
jill_valentine wrote: »Would you not rather see your kids start getting on with their lives now? Get settled and live lives you could be part of?
If we had a rational housing market they could be working towards it themselves or have it already. They could be getting their feet under them and getting established themselves, instead of being on hold, unable to live lives entirely their own or build any wealth towards their own later years - at least until you die and they can cash in the family jewels to get on the ladder.
There are a lot of knock on consequences from the housing crisis, not least that Generation Rent is going to head into its own old age with no accommodation security, minimal pension or health provisions, and very few post employment benefits. That's something to consider for your kids now too, do they not deserve the quality of life you have now when they get to your age? They will never have that so long as they have to burn anything they might be able to invest in themselves in that regard in the rent trap.
Having to rely on the deaths of loved ones and the loss of a childhood home from the family is an awful thing to have a whole society take for granted as a *basis* for financial stability.
Well they are young both 10 and 3 so hopefully they wont have to fend for themselves for a bit, look I may ease up as they get older and watch them jumping the hurdles people in their 20s and 30s are now.
OK you brought up a notion of a rational housing market has there ever been such a thing in the existence of Ireland or the world? what does it look like? While I fell sympathy for those in the 20s and 30s not being able to afford to live in the likes of Dublin or Cork and other built up highly desirable places there are other counties that are not as expensive. Counties that the REITS wouldnt buy in.
I have done the math on here umpteen times of the median wage in Ireland, median house price in Ireland and the amount of houses under that price available on myhome. When the idea of asking someone who cant afford Dublin to move to somewhere less expensive is brought up we are told what about the low paid workers who work in Dublin. There is always going to be people who feel put upon no mater how rational or irrational the housing market is.
Quality of life ??? Look high paid low paid we are all running the same race and jumping the same hurdles in this country. We have the most progressive income tax system in the world those earning most pay most and we pay over half of what is earned before the AIW. How much more do you expect people to pay. Some look for solutions like moving somewhere less expensive, living with mam and dad till you have saved more for a a deposit, moving out of Ireland to a country that is less expensive and some look for excuses and want others to pay. I know what I will drilling into my kids as they make their way into adulthood. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past with this country.0 -
fliball123 wrote: »I have no doubt there are lots on there I also have no doubts that there are people badly in need for it who are genuine. The point is out of the public purses 23Billion is already going out to help those who are deemed less fortunate, how much more do you want do we give everyone a free gaff? How would people with a mortgage feel? Do you not think they would jingle mail their keys back to bank and declare bankrupcy.
I have yet to hear one valid way to give free housing with moral hazard or without any other knock on consequence.
There is no free housing0 -
fliball123 wrote: »Once again you seem to be under the impression home owners can band together and come to this conclusion, we dont control the property market.
Also in your hypothetical outline the difference is made up by the actual equity
Situation 1 - house sells for 400 they get 200 each and 300 is paid out meaning they have 200 in equity
Situation 2 - house sells for 300 they get 150 each and 225 is paid out meaning they have only 150 in equity
Situation 1 means my kids have more money to play with and this is a big advantage in Ireland as any property on the lower end of the price range tends to be very much in demand and prices go up quicker as apposed to houses at higher prices and if they do buy a house it means they start out with more equity. So at the point of them getting the inheritance it better for my kids for property prices to be higher.
The equity your children have is irrelevant because it will be eroded by the house price increase. The equity they have, same as the equity you have right now - is only useful if you decide to sell up and move out of the country. Otherwise that equity is tied up in property and is of no value to you.
The same thing applies to the inheritance given that the increase in inheritance is totally eroded by the increase in property prices.0 -
90% of the apartments sold last year in Dublin bypassed the market and went straight to rent farming funds. It was government planning policy that is destroying home ownership and the security of tenure that comes with it in favour of a quick buck profit.fliball123 wrote: »Well they are young both 10 and 3 so hopefully they wont have to fend for themselves for a bit, look I may ease up as they get older and watch them jumping the hurdles people in their 20s and 30s are now.
OK you brought up a notion of a rational housing market has there ever been such a thing in the existence of Ireland or the world? what does it look like? While I fell sympathy for those in the 20s and 30s not being able to afford to live in the likes of Dublin or Cork and other built up highly desirable places there are other counties that are not as expensive. Counties that the REITS wouldnt buy in.
I have done the math on here umpteen times of the median wage in Ireland, median house price in Ireland and the amount of houses under that price available on myhome. When the idea of asking someone who cant afford Dublin to move to somewhere less expensive is brought up we are told what about the low paid workers who work in Dublin. There is always going to be people who feel put upon no mater how rational or irrational the housing market is.
Quality of life ??? Look high paid low paid we are all running the same race and jumping the same hurdles in this country. We have the most progressive income tax system in the world those earning most pay most and we pay over half of what is earned before the AIW. How much more do you expect people to pay. Some look for solutions like moving somewhere less expensive, living with mam and dad till you have saved more for a a deposit, moving out of Ireland to a country that is less expensive and some look for excuses and want others to pay. I know what I will drilling into my kids as they make their way into adulthood. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past with this country.
If these policies are allowed to continue you may find yourself mostly chatting with grandkids via zoom.0 -
There is no free housing
Really tell that to my niece who doesnt work 3 kids from 2 different daddies and just got shacked up in a nice gaff in Lucan. The daddies give her cash under the table and she squeezes the hell out of every benefit she can. I know this is anecdotal but there are people out there taking advantage of the system and anytime I have a beer and the family gathers I do end up having a conversation about personal responsibility as in why have kid no 2 and 3 when you couldn't afford no 1.0 -
fliball123 wrote: »Really tell that to my niece who doesnt work 3 kids from 2 different daddies and just got shacked up in a nice gaff in Lucan. The daddies give her cash under the table and she squeezes the hell out of every benefit she can. I know this is anecdotal but there are people out there taking advantage of the system and anytime I have a beer and the family gathers I do end up having a conversation about personal responsibility as in why have kid no 2 and 3 when you couldn't afford no 1.
These type of people, while an issue, are a very very small part of the current problem.0 -
fliball123 wrote: »Really tell that to my niece who doesnt work 3 kids from 2 different daddies and just got shacked up in a nice gaff in Lucan. The daddies give her cash under the table and she squeezes the hell out of every benefit she can. I know this is anecdotal but there are people out there taking advantage of the system and anytime I have a beer and the family gathers I do end up having a conversation about personal responsibility as in why have kid no 2 and 3 when you couldn't afford no 1.
this bullsh!t, once again, we do not live on a planet of equal opportunities, you re niece needs a functioning health care system to fully support her and her kids!0 -
Advertisement
-
fliball123 wrote: »Really tell that to my niece who doesnt work 3 kids from 2 different daddies and just got shacked up in a nice gaff in Lucan. The daddies give her cash under the table and she squeezes the hell out of every benefit she can. I know this is anecdotal but there are people out there taking advantage of the system and anytime I have a beer and the family gathers I do end up having a conversation about personal responsibility as in why have kid no 2 and 3 when you couldn't afford no 1.
If you suspect illegal activity, report it to the authorities rather than complaining about it on here. Do not continue down this track. Do not reply to this post0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement