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

PropQueries

Timing belt wrote: »

Even the most staunch Democrats admit that they are not in a position in the US to increase taxes because of the state of the economy. To imply otherwise is misleading.

The UK is in a totally different situation as they will be looking to make changes to tax that they were previously unable to make due to being in the EU. Even though saying that I think they will have difficulty making changes without the EU claiming it gives them a unfair advantage and retaliate by imposing restrictions on financial services.

The IMF have already come out and advised against raising taxes at the moment so its not as black and white as you make it.

How will raising corporation taxes and CGT give the UK an "unfair advantage"?

PropQueries

L1011 wrote: »

HTB is max 30k - where are you generating the extra 70k from?

The proposed HTB is up to €100k

L1011

PropQueries wrote: »

The proposed HTB is up to €100k

That's a proposed co-ownership scheme which is a vastly different product. I do hope you understand that.

The_Conductor

L1011 wrote: »

HTB is max 30k - where are you generating the extra 70k from?

Perhaps its the 3.5times multiplier that the lenders apply that he has in mind.

Regardless- none of us have a crystal ball.

Ireland looks set to exit the Covid emergency with the second highest debt per capita in the world. The only thing keeping our heads above the water in the short to medium term- is statements from the ECB that they intend to keep interest rates extremely low for a protracted period of time.

Arguably- of far more concern- is Ireland's aging population.
From 2030 onwards, our dependency ratio is going to go seriously skew-ways.

We cannot afford the state expenditure that we have persisted in doling out to the public, and even without any other factor (such as Brexit or Covid) in the mix, our ability to keep on going- was throttling rapidly in the wrong direction.

I have no idea whether there is going to be a property crash, or not, and if there is, by what extent different classes of properties will fall by.

We have a reckoning coming, regardless of what socialist/left leaning politicians would have you believe. We cannot continue, business as usual. How we decide to adapt to this changing world, will require gonads that the current political system seems incapable of delivering (and I'm not advocating in favour of any political doctrine- I think they're all as bad as one another).

Expenditure is going to have to be reviewed, as will taxation- and the silly things we did like agreeing to forego on the increase in the old age pension vestage age, are all going to bite us in the arse, irrespective of who is in power.

I don't like to point at specific measures and suggest that particular programmes will be cut or abolished, because, I don't know any better than anyone else. All I know is- fiscally- we are playing with fire, and we have a day of reckoning trundling towards us like a freight train, made all the worse by the demographic time bomb that people are ignoring like the elephant in the corner of the room.

PropQueries

Hubertj wrote: »

AmCham released information on Bidens buy American bill. Minimal impact on Ireland due to the nature of the good produced here.
Only an idiot would suggest MNCs haven’t already considered future tax development when making expansion or employment decisions in a country. Or maybe google and Microsoft don’t have a clue.

Maybe Google has already started moving jobs. Nobody knew when they created the c. 8,000 jobs and nobody will know when they start moving them.

We only hear the headlines when they create 200 jobs here and 200 jobs there. There was no headlines or politicians cutting ribbons when they started upping their workforce because they didn't know. Can work just as easily in reverse.

PropQueries

L1011 wrote: »

That's a proposed co-ownership scheme which is a vastly different product. I do hope you understand that.

So, the house buyer isn't on the hook for the c. €100k to the state under the proposed HTB scheme?


Good to know. Really.

L1011

PropQueries wrote: »

So, the house buyer isn't on the hook for the c. €100k to the state under the proposed HTB scheme?


Good to know. Really.

It isn't a HTB scheme and you clearly don't understand it.

Graham

PropQueries wrote: »

We only hear the headlines when they create 200 jobs here and 200 jobs there. There was no headlines or politicians cutting ribbons when they started upping their workforce because they didn't know. Can work just as easily in reverse.

Apart from the collective redundancies legislation with mandatory employee information and consultation periods and notification to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

fliball123

The_Conductor wrote: »

Perhaps its the 3.5times multiplier that the lenders apply that he has in mind.

Regardless- none of us have a crystal ball.

Ireland looks set to exit the Covid emergency with the second highest debt per capita in the world. The only thing keeping our heads above the water in the short to medium term- is statements from the ECB that they intend to keep interest rates extremely low for a protracted period of time.

Arguably- of far more concern- is Ireland's aging population.
From 2030 onwards, our dependency ratio is going to go seriously skew-ways.

We cannot afford the state expenditure that we have persisted in doling out to the public, and even without any other factor (such as Brexit or Covid) in the mix, our ability to keep on going- was throttling rapidly in the wrong direction.

I have no idea whether there is going to be a property crash, or not, and if there is, by what extent different classes of properties will fall by.

We have a reckoning coming, regardless of what socialist/left leaning politicians would have you believe. We cannot continue, business as usual. How we decide to adapt to this changing world, will require gonads that the current political system seems incapable of delivering (and I'm not advocating in favour of any political doctrine- I think they're all as bad as one another).

Expenditure is going to have to be reviewed, as will taxation- and the silly things we did like agreeing to forego on the increase in the old age pension vestage age, are all going to bite us in the arse, irrespective of who is in power.

I don't like to point at specific measures and suggest that particular programmes will be cut or abolished, because, I don't know any better than anyone else. All I know is- fiscally- we are playing with fire, and we have a day of reckoning trundling towards us like a freight train, made all the worse by the demographic time bomb that people are ignoring like the elephant in the corner of the room.

Have you link to 2nd highest debt per capita?? I cant find that info anywhere?

PropQueries

Graham wrote: »

Apart from the collective redundancies legislation with mandatory employee information and consultation periods and notification to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

It's not redundancy if they're still working for Google but in a different country.

awec

PropQueries wrote: »

So, the house buyer isn't on the hook for the c. €100k to the state under the proposed HTB scheme?


Good to know. Really.

They are on the hook.

PropQueries

fliball123 wrote: »

Have you link to 2nd highest debt per capita?? I cant find that info anywhere?

Well, back in 2018, we had the third highest public debt per capita in the developed world.


Link to RTE article here: https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0903/991287-government-deficit/

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

How will raising corporation taxes and CGT give the UK an "unfair advantage"?

They will have loop holes that you could drive a bus through as they always have.... It's not a coincidence that the UK wash all the Russian and Chinese money.

awec

PropQueries wrote: »

Maybe Google has already started moving jobs. Nobody knew when they created the c. 8,000 jobs and nobody will know when they start moving them.

We only hear the headlines when they create 200 jobs here and 200 jobs there. There was no headlines or politicians cutting ribbons when they started upping their workforce because they didn't know. Can work just as easily in reverse.

Or maybe they haven't.

All we can go on is the facts as they are known. MNCs continue to invest in Ireland, despite your continual insistence that this won't happen.

hometruths

The_Conductor wrote: »

I don't like to point at specific measures and suggest that particular programmes will be cut or abolished, because, I don't know any better than anyone else. All I know is- fiscally- we are playing with fire, and we have a day of reckoning trundling towards us like a freight train, made all the worse by the demographic time bomb that people are ignoring like the elephant in the corner of the room.

Hear, hear.

hometruths

Mic 1972 wrote: »

My understanding is that the market has slowed down due to Covid, not due to lack of demand. Are we saying that there is no demand?

Market slowed down significantly due to weakening demand before Covid.

If anything Covid has revved it up again, rather than slowed it down.

fliball123

schmittel wrote: »

Market slowed down significantly due to weakening demand before Covid.

If anything Covid has revved it up again, rather than slowed it down.

Have you any proof of this, could of slowed down due to Brexit, could of revved back up due to lack of supply. If you have proof to what your saying can you show it?

awec

fliball123 wrote: »

Have you any proof of this, could of slowed down due to Brexit, could of revved back up due to lack of supply. If you have proof to what your saying can you show it?

There is no way to prove it either way, that's not really a fair question to ask.

Unlike supply, demand is hard to quantify.

fliball123

awec wrote: »

There is no way to prove it either way, that's not really a fair question to ask.

Unlike supply, demand is hard to quantify.

Then the poster should be saying in his opinion instead of it coming across as fact as he cant prove it. Too many guys who want property to drop are using their own wants as fact and we need to start pulling people up on it. If I put something up here I will try my hardest to quantify it by fact. If its something I am just thinking than I will add an IMO

hometruths

fliball123 wrote: »

Have you any proof of this, could of slowed down due to Brexit, could of revved back up due to lack of supply. If you have proof to what your saying can you show it?

Eh?

Are you asking do I have proof of whether the market slowed down? A slow down in market is weakening demand.

But then you yourself suggest it could have slowed down due to Brexit?

You're not making any sense.

Timing belt

The_Conductor wrote: »

Perhaps its the 3.5times multiplier that the lenders apply that he has in mind.

Regardless- none of us have a crystal ball.

Ireland looks set to exit the Covid emergency with the second highest debt per capita in the world. The only thing keeping our heads above the water in the short to medium term- is statements from the ECB that they intend to keep interest rates extremely low for a protracted period of time.

Arguably- of far more concern- is Ireland's aging population.
From 2030 onwards, our dependency ratio is going to go seriously skew-ways.

We cannot afford the state expenditure that we have persisted in doling out to the public, and even without any other factor (such as Brexit or Covid) in the mix, our ability to keep on going- was throttling rapidly in the wrong direction.

I have no idea whether there is going to be a property crash, or not, and if there is, by what extent different classes of properties will fall by.

We have a reckoning coming, regardless of what socialist/left leaning politicians would have you believe. We cannot continue, business as usual. How we decide to adapt to this changing world, will require gonads that the current political system seems incapable of delivering (and I'm not advocating in favour of any political doctrine- I think they're all as bad as one another).

Expenditure is going to have to be reviewed, as will taxation- and the silly things we did like agreeing to forego on the increase in the old age pension vestage age, are all going to bite us in the arse, irrespective of who is in power.

I don't like to point at specific measures and suggest that particular programmes will be cut or abolished, because, I don't know any better than anyone else. All I know is- fiscally- we are playing with fire, and we have a day of reckoning trundling towards us like a freight train, made all the worse by the demographic time bomb that people are ignoring like the elephant in the corner of the room.

Everyone goes on about Irelands debt levels despite the fact that we have one of the lowest yields in Europe due to the management of our debt. A credit default swap (CDS) for Ireland will cost you less than one for France. Add on top of this We have one of the youngest demographics in Europe. All these issues are present in most EU states and everyone is happy to kick the can down the road and hope that we see inflation sometime soon.

The reality is that the system is broken at its core and QE is not resolving the issues like they hoped due to liquidity getting trapped in the banks because they are not lending. I would be a lot more concerned about what is coming down the road in the short to medium term as an awful lot of wealth will be destroyed but in the meantime house prices will rise with investors chasing yield.

PropQueries

fliball123 wrote: »

Have you any proof of this, could of slowed down due to Brexit, could of revved back up due to lack of supply. If you have proof to what your saying can you show it?

Back in November 2019, the CSO reported that "Property prices see slowest growth in six years".

"Dublin residential property prices fell for the third month in a row in the year to September, the latest Central Statistics Office figures have shown.

Dublin residential property prices decreased by 1.3% in the year to September, with house prices falling by 1.5% and apartments slowing by 0.2%.

The CSO noted that the highest house price growth in Dublin was in Fingal at 1.5%, while Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown saw a decline of 6.8%."

Link to RTE article here: https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/1114/1090843-cso-residential-property-prices/

So, what happened in 2020? FDI fell of the pre-covid projections cliff, unemployment soared, our pre-covid public debt levels got significantly worse, our pension problems got significantly worse as they raided the surplus in the PRSI fund etc. etc.

Timing belt

awec wrote: »

Or maybe they haven't.

All we can go on is the facts as they are known. MNCs continue to invest in Ireland, despite your continual insistence that this won't happen.

They will publish the no of employees in there financial statements so it is easy enough to see that there is an increase in no's employed in Ireland.

fliball123

schmittel wrote: »

Eh?

Are you asking do I have proof of whether the market slowed down? A slow down in market is weakening demand.

But then you yourself suggest it could have slowed down due to Brexit?

You're not making any sense.

I am asking you if you have any proof of the whole statement..breaking it down

Have you proof that Covid revved demand up , could Brexit have slowed down demand on a temporary basis pre covid and 2020 seen some of that demand come back on stream. How significantly did the market slow down pre covid?

The fact is we dont know what exactly the thoughts of everyone who has decided to buy or not to buy over the last year or two. I will hazard a guess or IMO a lot of people will put their own personal circumstance ahead of covid, brexit or the chances of property dropping as a reasons to buy or not to buy.

hometruths

fliball123 wrote: »

Then the poster should be saying in his opinion instead of it coming across as fact as he cant prove it. Too many guys who want property to drop are using their own wants as fact and we need to start pulling people up on it. If I put something up here I will try my hardest to quantify it by fact. If its something I am just thinking than I will add an IMO

Get over yourself.

The number of houses sold in Dublin fell by 1.5 per cent last year while the overall value of those transactions rose by 4.7per cent compared with 2018, according to a new study,

The slowdown in sales was greatest in Dublin 6 – down 22.3per cent – and Dublin 13 – down 30.1per cent – according to analysis by property website MyHome.ie of the Residential Property Price Register.

The overall fall in transaction numbers last year compares with a 6 per cent increase in 2018 and coincides with a levelling off in property prices as recorded by the CSO last month, with house prices in Dublin falling by 0.9 per cent over the course of 2019.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/dublin-house-sales-fall-1-5-as-affordability-pushes-buyers-out-1.4197340

fliball123

schmittel wrote: »

Get over yourself.



https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/dublin-house-sales-fall-1-5-as-affordability-pushes-buyers-out-1.4197340

I am arguing your reasoning for revving up of property and the slowdown before it and I wont get over it anyone spinning an argument where they say Covid revved up demand when they have absolutely no way of getting inside the mind of people buying is their opinion and not fact

hometruths

fliball123 wrote: »

I am arguing your reasoning for revving up of property and the slowdown before it and I wont get over it anyone spinning an argument where they say Covid revved up demand when they have absolutely no way of getting inside the mind of people buying is their opinion and not fact

And what reasoning that I gave are you taking issue with and asking me to prove?

You're still not making any sense.

I said get over yourself, not get over it.

fliball123

schmittel wrote: »

Eh?

Are you asking do I have proof of whether the market slowed down? A slow down in market is weakening demand.

But then you yourself suggest it could have slowed down due to Brexit?

You're not making any sense.

I was using that as an example of other things that it could ( I even stated "could it of been brexit") of been so it was a way of pouring cold water on your theory which was not fact

fliball123

schmittel wrote: »

And what reasoning that I gave are you taking issue with and asking me to prove?

You're still not making any sense.

I said get over yourself, not get over it.

OK prove to me that Covid revved up demand?? simple question you stated as fact ??

Browney7

fliball123 wrote: »

I am arguing your reasoning for revving up of property and the slowdown before it and I wont get over it anyone spinning an argument where they say Covid revved up demand when they have absolutely no way of getting inside the mind of people buying is their opinion and not fact

You're wrong IMO.

Covid has created a one off step change in the profile of the demand side. Plenty have made the following arguments on this board:

People in hospitality who have lost jobs were never really in the market which I somewhat agree with.
People aren't spending money on drink, holidays etc and so are able to save more. I agree with this. So applying this to a typical couple paying a decent wedge of their money on rent, they've been able to get a deposit together quicker as their discretionary spending has fallen off a cliff. At the start of Jan, they may have been planning to have a deposit in Jan 22, they may now have that deposit - demand brought forward due to Covid.
Indeed, people may have moved home as the incentive to live in a house share has waned - potentially more demand. Do I know how many people have moved home? No.
Did the government change the HTB scheme due to Covid in July - yes.

Were people holding back because of brexit uncertainty - no clue, do you know?

Hardly crime of the century to state Covid probably gave the demand side a kick without citing some PHD from trinity or CSO report.

hometruths

fliball123 wrote: »

I was using that as an example of other things that it could of been so it was a way of pouring cold water on your theory which was not fact

schmittel wrote: »

Market slowed down significantly due to weakening demand before Covid.

The market slowed down. Fact.
Market slow downs are caused by weakening demand. Fact.

fliball123 wrote: »

OK prove to me that Covid revved up demand?? simple question you stated as fact ??

Really? I stated that as a fact?

schmittel wrote: »

If anything Covid has revved it up again, rather than slowed it down.

If you read what I posted, that sentence starts with "If anything" - hardly the build up to a statement of fact.

Time and again your own biases are leading you to get on your high horse with your mistaken perceptions of other posters opinions and we need to start pulling you up on it.

Mic 1972

schmittel wrote: »

Market slowed down significantly due to weakening demand before Covid.

If anything Covid has revved it up again, rather than slowed it down.

That's not correct. The volume of houses being sold has dropped, and the available stock is also much lower. Plenty of reports showing that.
But demand is very high, as shown but the price increases.

not sure how giving more money to potential buyers is going to resolve the issue if houses aren't being built.

hometruths

Mic 1972 wrote: »

That's not correct. The volume of houses being sold has dropped, and the available stock is also much lower. Plenty of reports showing that.
But demand is very high, as shown but the price increases.

not sure how giving more money to potential buyers is going to resolve the issue if houses aren't being built.

Revved the demand up rather than the market. But as I said above "If anything..."

fliball123

Browney7 wrote: »

You're wrong IMO.

Covid has created a one off step change in the profile of the demand side. Plenty have made the following arguments on this board:

People in hospitality who have lost jobs were never really in the market which I somewhat agree with.
People aren't spending money on drink, holidays etc and so are able to save more. I agree with this. So applying this to a typical couple paying a decent wedge of their money on rent, they've been able to get a deposit together quicker as their discretionary spending has fallen off a cliff. At the start of Jan, they may have been planning to have a deposit in Jan 22, they may now have that deposit - demand brought forward due to Covid.
Indeed, people may have moved home as the incentive to live in a house share has waned - potentially more demand. Do I know how many people have moved home? No.
Did the government change the HTB scheme due to Covid in July - yes.

Were people holding back because of brexit uncertainty - no clue, do you know?

Hardly crime of the century to state Covid probably gave the demand side a kick without citing some PHD from trinity or CSO report.

I don't know is the honest answer this is the point I was trying to make no one phucking knows yet a poster can say "covid has revved up the property market" . I have no bother with him or her having an opinion I have an issue when its stated as fact. They may be right and may be proven right in the near future.

fliball123

schmittel wrote: »

The market slowed down. Fact.
Market slow downs are caused by weakening demand. Fact.



Really? I stated that as a fact?



If you read what I posted, that sentence starts with "If anything" - hardly the build up to a statement of fact.

Time and again your own biases are leading you to get on your high horse with your mistaken perceptions of other posters opinions and we need to start pulling you up on it.

If anything you put it down without any facts I have no bias on here if I do can you point to one single post where I have advised anyone to buy or sell or do anything. I am on record time and again for anyone buying or selling to look at your own personal circumstances and to in no way use this board for guidance as everyone is guessing at beast and some just plainly trying to mislead people

hometruths

fliball123 wrote: »

If anything you put it down without any facts I have no bias on here if I do can you point to one single post where I have advised anyone to buy or sell or do anything. I am on record time and again for anyone buying or selling to look at your own personal circumstances and to in no way use this board for guidance as everyone is guessing at beast and some just plainly trying to mislead people

You have a serious bias against posters who are bearish on property prices.*

*In my opinion.

mcsean2163

Villa05 wrote: »

I was thinking that, how can pension/incestment funds justify current charges if as you predict we are moving into a low return environment

It's hard to justify incestment funds or even contemplate them but I guess we need to be cognisant that it can happen and hope the appropriate supports are in place.

fliball123

schmittel wrote: »

You have a serious bias against posters who are bearish on property prices.*

*In my opinion.

Thats fair enough if its your opinion.. I have put up facts during 2020 that prices were not going to crash and now looking at it in hindsight the bears have been proven wrong. Did property crash last year ?? NO and now its the crash is happening this year according to bears and when the crash doesn't (IMO) come this year it will 2022

Villa05

awec wrote:

The whole point of HTB was to increase developer margins to encourage them to build more. It was never really a secret. People who use it are taxpayers too. You can only get back what you've paid in yourself.

Plenty of evidence that developer margins are fine from released site costs and the true cost of building

Taxation is not a savings scheme to be transferred to the wealthiest

awec wrote:

Current demand is high but lower incomes are finding it difficult to get in on the action. The latest scheme is an attempt by the government to give lower incomes a leg up.

People buying new houses are on above average wages

Please don't dress up this scheme as a benefit to lower income workers. It helps no one except the developer as you admitted in the same post

PropQueries wrote:

Well, back in 2018, we had the third highest public debt per capita in the developed world.

And this is the entity that is bankrolling the riskiest 30% of new house prices through shared ownership

You could not make up this level of stupudity

awec

Villa05 wrote: »

Plenty of evidence that developer margins are fine from released site costs and the true cost of building

Taxation is not a savings scheme to be transferred to the wealthiest




People buying new houses are on above average wages

Please don't dress up this scheme as a benefit to lower income workers. It helps no one except the developer as you admitted in the same post




And this is the entity that is bankrolling the riskiest 30% of new house prices through shared ownership

You could not make up this level of stupudity

Of course it benefits developers. It also benefits lower income people who would not have any hope of getting a house if the government didn't buy up to 30% of it with them.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

People buying new houses are on above average wages? Yes, that is exactly the issue they are trying to target. As I said, lower incomes struggle to get in on the action.

Timing belt

Villa05 wrote: »

Plenty of evidence that developer margins are fine from released site costs and the true cost of building

Taxation is not a savings scheme to be transferred to the wealthiest




People buying new houses are on above average wages

Please don't dress up this scheme as a benefit to lower income workers. It helps no one except the developer as you admitted in the same post




And this is the entity that is bankrolling the riskiest 30% of new house prices through shared ownership

You could not make up this level of stupudity

How much are they attributing to the scheme? The last I heard it was something like 75m which is not exactly going to send our Bond yields through the roof.... We are yet to see what is the plan for the roll out of this is.... If it is priced at the low end of the market and for specific builds only then it may not impact overall housing prices and may just just give people that are trapped in rent a leg up...If this was the case it is just a different form of social housing however if it is priced higher than an entry level FTB house then we all know that it will lead to house prices going up and is only lining he pockets of developers.

awec

Timing belt wrote: »

How much are they attributing to the scheme? The last I heard it was something like 75m which is not exactly going to send our Bond yields through the roof.... We are yet to see what is the plan for the roll out of this is.... If it is priced at the low end of the market and for specific builds only then it may not impact overall housing prices and may just just give people that are trapped in rent a leg up...If this was the case it is just a different form of social housing however if it is priced higher than an entry level FTB house then we all know that it will lead to house prices going up and is only lining he pockets of developers.

I doubt there'll be many barriers to uptake put in place by the government.

But I also do not think it'll be all that popular a scheme outside of lower incomes.

JimmyVik

fliball123 wrote: »

Thats fair enough if its your opinion.. I have put up facts during 2020 that prices were not going to crash and now looking at it in hindsight the bears have been proven wrong. Did property crash last year ?? NO and now its the crash is happening this year according to bears and when the crash doesn't (IMO) come this year it will 2022

Sure people, including myself have been predicting a property crash for the last 10 years. Its our national past time
Everyone knows that if you are posting on boards, your skills at predicting property crashes have not brought you riches

PropQueries

Timing belt wrote: »

How much are they attributing to the scheme? The last I heard it was something like 75m which is not exactly going to send our Bond yields through the roof.... We are yet to see what is the plan for the roll out of this is.... If it is priced at the low end of the market and for specific builds only then it may not impact overall housing prices and may just just give people that are trapped in rent a leg up...If this was the case it is just a different form of social housing however if it is priced higher than an entry level FTB house then we all know that it will lead to house prices going up and is only lining he pockets of developers.

But wouldn't it be fair to assume that if this new scheme did include higher than entry level priced new built homes (and I think I did hear up to c. €400k which is hardly entry-level), it would take potential buyers (i.e. demand) away from the second hand market which would then lower prices in the second-hand market as those sellers would need to compete with the subsidy (additional top-up loan) being offered to potential buyers?


The only way the second hand home market could then compete with new builds is by lowering their prices.

So, us existing home owners are paying on the double i.e. higher taxes to fund this loan/subsidy (which is fully going into the developers profit margin) and lower values on our existing homes.

Timing belt

awec wrote: »

I doubt there'll be many barriers to uptake put in place by the government.

But I also do not think it'll be all that popular a scheme outside of lower incomes.

The scheme should have limits on the value of the property so that with the added Equity it would enable the purchase of a FTB's house only. This would limit/reduce any impact on house prices whilst still giving people the opportunity to get out of rent.

I would not agree that the scheme would only have uptake by lower incomes... I think a lot of people would avail of it if it enabled them to get a property in a better location

awec

Timing belt wrote: »

The scheme should have limits on the value of the property so that with the added Equity it would enable the purchase of a FTB's house only. This would limit/reduce any impact on house prices whilst still giving people the opportunity to get out of rent.

I would not agree that the scheme would only have uptake by lower incomes... I think a lot of people would avail of it if it enabled them to get a property in a better location

The big difference though is by taking it you are signing up to an ongoing cost. It's not like taking the HTB and buying a better gaff.

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

But wouldn't it be fair to assume that if this new scheme did include higher than entry level priced new built homes (and I think I did hear up to c. €400k which is hardly entry-level), it would take potential buyers (i.e. demand) away from the second hand market which would then lower prices in the second-hand market as those sellers would need to compete with the subsidy (additional top-up loan) being offered to potential buyers?


The only way the second hand home market could then compete with new builds is by lowering their prices.

So, us existing home owners are paying on the double i.e. higher taxes to fund this loan/subsidy (which is fully going into the developers profit margin) and lower values on our existing homes.

So now you are arguing that the shared ownership scheme will lower second hand home's where as before you were arguing that all house prices will go up as a result.... Can you please confirm/clarify that you h you think house prices (with the exception of new builds) will decline because of this.

Hubertj

Timing belt wrote: »

The scheme should have limits on the value of the property so that with the added Equity it would enable the purchase of a FTB's house only. This would limit/reduce any impact on house prices whilst still giving people the opportunity to get out of rent.

I would not agree that the scheme would only have uptake by lower incomes... I think a lot of people would avail of it if it enabled them to get a property in a better location

Also need to consider enabling people to purchase a larger property to account for families. FTBer or HTBer or shared equity applicant could have children.

Timing belt

awec wrote: »

The big difference though is by taking it you are signing up to an ongoing cost. It's not like taking the HTB and buying a better gaff.

There are People who don't care about ongoing cost.... they care about having a bigger better property that the next guy. Just look at the car market to see that people are not concerned about balloon payments or PCP finance..... Sure we will be in a better position in 5 years lets go for it :cool:

Browney7

Timing belt wrote: »

How much are they attributing to the scheme? The last I heard it was something like 75m which is not exactly going to send our Bond yields through the roof.... We are yet to see what is the plan for the roll out of this is.... If it is priced at the low end of the market and for specific builds only then it may not impact overall housing prices and may just just give people that are trapped in rent a leg up...If this was the case it is just a different form of social housing however if it is priced higher than an entry level FTB house then we all know that it will lead to house prices going up and is only lining he pockets of developers.

Whilst 75m seems small, if everyone got a 100k more, that would be 750 first time buyers and if on average it was only 50k more you'd be looking at 1500. Considering just under 6500 new build properties were purchased by FTBers in 2020 (unsure if there is an adjustment for self builds in these figures), it's not an insignificant meddling with the FTB demand side