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

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Which is exactly why we see a large number of vacant properties. For many the risk/reward of a tenant is not worth it, even with high rents.

In a rising market, they are better off keep it vacant, get income from STLs if they wish.

Even if they don't go down the STL route and forego the income, if the market is rising 2-3% per annum they are still doing ok compared to having the money sitting in the bank.

Factor in that many of these properties have CGT exemptions on them and it is a no brainer.

Of course it is only a no brainer as long as the market is rising. If market starts to turn and CGT benefits are diminishing, the no brainer choice becomes do you put it on the market for sale or for rent?

I think risk is definitely a big factor. Links to a point I made this morning about RTB and enforcement of regulations. If landlord and tenant had more faith in system it would help overall.
If someone does sell their investment property where do they put their money though? In bank at 0 or negative? Sell and Sit on cash for 12-18 month then buy again?
Or invest elsewhere?

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

Leo Varadkar last November called for “a grown-up conversation on increasing Employers' and Employees' PRSI to fund a reformed social insurance system, including income-linked unemployment benefits.”

...

There’s only property, pensions and inheritance taxes left to tax IMO

...

Link to RTÉ article on Leo calling for a grown-up conversation on PRSI hikes here: https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1123/1180017-low-pay-prsi/

Ireland already has the highest inheritance taxes in the world. Make them even higher, why not, comrade.

The_Conductor wrote: »

...

We are already signed up to continuous increases in carbon taxes- alongside a new road tax that is divorced from the notion of crucifying older cars while not making new cars pay their shares.

Income taxes may not increase- however, we urgently need a new band- and a broadening of the base to bring more people into the tax bands- including a tally of *all* income (the whole notion of exempt income, be it social welfare disbursements, subsidised housing or whatever- it all needs to be tallied and taxed). Until such time as the notion of a free-hand-out gets hit on the head for once and for all, we're going to be sunk.

Residential property tax- is a joker- its set at such an implausibly low level on the one hand, and the size of a dwelling has no input into the tax on the other hand. It makes perfect sense to thoroughly reform this- however, the whole notion of people living in rural mansions versus shoebox apartments in Dublin- also needs to be addressed in this one.

Its not just housing though- its across the board- we may have one of the great redistributive tax systems- however, its at the cost of a squeezed middle who are well capable of working far more productively, but who don't, because our penal rate of taxes and charges kicks in at an abnormally low level of circa 35k. We need to incentivise this group- its hard to motivate people when a majority of their marginal income is going straight to the government.

...

A lot of the discussions and changes that have to happen- are going to be terribly unpopular, and our gormless politicians have shown that they don't have the gonads to look beyond the media and the court of public opinion. Frankly- its a foregone conclusion that they are going to fail on this.

While I agree with you about the necessity to broaden the tax base, I vehemently disagree about raising property taxes. My local council is so well funded that in my village, they spent an absolute fortune ripping up perfectly good concrete sidewalks and replacing them with pavers. There is no way in hell I see any need to raise property taxes by 400-500%. In other countries, property taxes such as you propose come with the provision of rubbish collection services and the like. They are not justified here.

I'd like to have a grown up conversation with Varadkar. This country already places a heavy tax burden on income tax payers, and not much on corporations. It's tax burden that is important, not whether the tax is called carbon, PRSI, Income, Inheritance, TV Licence, Insurance surcharge or whatever.

Irish governments only have one sort of grown-up conversation they want to have and that is how much more they can take, it's never about reforming the costs, it's always stuff like increasing staffing levels of Revenue so they can take more, never reducing staffing levels of the public service so they don't need to take more. It's never about government doing stuff to reduce the utterly ridiculous expensiveness of Irish society and it's disfunctions. The legal system; the cost of insurance - these are in the remit of the government to make vastly less costly, but don't - myriad other costs that the government imposes via requirements, such as BER certificates and a disfunctional 19th century property register system. Western Australia fixed that one about 30 years ago. In WA you can go cradle to grave without needing to hire a lawyer. Property transactions can be swift and an absolute breeze and low-cost, since you don't need a f'n lawyer!

This government stops people from buying cheaper generic meds from elsewhere in the EU and the government, or pharmacists, conspire to ensure they are effectively unavailable here. The health system is deliberatly configured to be slow, inefficient and costly - not being able to see a specialist without a referral, for example.

The Public Service is so fu*king bloated that they pay people to feel up incoming parcels in case someone tries to buy functional herbal medicines that are legal world-wide - then pays them to write you a snarky supercillious letter telling you you youv'e been a naughty girl/boy and not to do it again. So long as my taxes are paying for that sort of sh​it you can keep your not needed tax increases.

Meanwhile, my son has had an application for an Irish passport pending for 16 f'n months!!!!!! Greater efficiency is needed, not more money.

Ireland has the second highest paid public servants in the EU, and too many of them, that's what needs fixing, not more gouging to pay for them.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

I think risk is definitely a big factor. Links to a point I made this morning about RTB and enforcement of regulations. If landlord and tenant had more faith in system it would help overall.
If someone does sell their investment property where do they put their money though? In bank at 0 or negative? Sell and Sit on cash for 12-18 month then buy again?
Or invest elsewhere?

That's the big question? What do they do with the money? I suspect many at that stage would decide the risk/reward of rental income becomes worth it to offset risk of falling capital values.

They may even follow the funds example and enter into a long term council lease. That's what I'd do.

For others who decide that the risk/reward of rental income is not worth it, even in a falling market. then presumably cash or other asset classes are preferable - a basket of investment trusts, long term hold, low income, low hassle.

SmokyMo

Dole - welfare is a grain in sand.. just over 1B. Peasants are worrying about the crumbs of kings table.
https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/socialprotection/2019/

Cyrus

SmokyMo wrote: »

Dole - welfare is a grain in sand.. just over 1B. Peasants are worrying about the crumbs of kings table.
https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/socialprotection/2019/

where do you get 1bn?

The_Conductor

Villa05 wrote: »

How do we stop property being a leech on the economy?

Two separate taxes, one on property residents (a la the UK poll tax) and a separate free standing tax on property ownership. Let residents pay for services, facilities and amenities in their immediate local authority areas, based on the size and utility worth of the property (such as the number of bedrooms and the square footage of the property)- while property owners are taxed purely on the value of the property.

In one foul swoop (well two, but you know what I mean)- you get the residents of various local authority areas to fund the activities of *their* local authorities- while you raise funds for the central exchequer based on the value of the property (and no other consideration).

All residents and all property owners are autoenrolled (Revenue are good at this) and anyone who pleads penury can apply to the local authority for a rebate- but no rebates on the value of the property.

Applies across the board- REITS etc- no exceptions for anyone.

?

hometruths

The_Conductor wrote: »

All residents and all property owners are autoenrolled (Revenue are good at this) and anyone who pleads penury can apply to the local authority for a rebate- but no rebates on the value of the property.

Indeed. Often amazed that Revenue seem to be able to enforce things very easily that councils and other public bodies say are impossible!

Timing belt

Villa05 wrote: »

How do we stop property being a leech on the economy?

Increase supply and limit market manipulation from everyone government/landlords/tenants & mortgage arrears.

What is it the worst that happens if we end up with to much supply.... surely it is better than a lack of supply as it gives options as long as it’s not controlled by a monopoly.

The_Conductor

SmokyMo wrote: »

Dole - welfare is a grain in sand.. just over 1B. Peasants are worrying about the crumbs of kings table.
https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/socialprotection/2019/

Strip pensions and children's payments (childrens benefit etc) out of the equation- and you still have a cool 10billion to go through to identify cuts.

Norway and other Nordic countries can afford generous social welfare systems- hell Norway holds over 200k per head of population in its sovereign wealth fund- Ireland, on the other hand- owes 54k per head of population (and rising).

If/when interest rates ever increase- we are so screwed. Even in this era of low interest rates- we still paid roughly 5.5 billion in interest on sovereign debt in 2020...........

We need to strip billions out of our expenditure, and identify new methods of taxing the Irish populace (and close loopholes that the wealthy like to exploit- including the 180 day rule etc).

PropQueries

The_Conductor wrote: »

Strip pensions and children's payments (childrens benefit etc) out of the equation- and you still have a cool 10billion to go through to identify cuts.

Norway and other Nordic countries can afford generous social welfare systems- hell Norway holds over 200k per head of population in its sovereign wealth fund- Ireland, on the other hand- owes 54k per head of population (and rising).

If/when interest rates ever increase- we are so screwed. Even in this era of low interest rates- we still paid roughly 5.5 billion in interest on sovereign debt in 2020...........

We need to strip billions out of our expenditure, and identify new methods of taxing the Irish populace (and close loopholes that the wealthy like to exploit- including the 180 day rule etc).

I think that's already beginning to happen. It was reported in the FT today: USA "30-year bond yield rises to 2% on expectations that government support will fuel price rises".

How long more will investors be willing to lend to Ireland at 0%?

Villa05

schmittel wrote:

They may even follow the funds example and enter into a long term council lease. That's what I'd do.

Is that realistic though
One dodges tax
The other may pay more than half in tax

What, if any, other prioduct/service has this level of tax inequality

Cyrus

The_Conductor wrote: »

Strip pensions and children's payments (childrens benefit etc) out of the equation- and you still have a cool 10billion to go through to identify cuts.

Norway and other Nordic countries can afford generous social welfare systems- hell Norway holds over 200k per head of population in its sovereign wealth fund- Ireland, on the other hand- owes 54k per head of population (and rising).

If/when interest rates ever increase- we are so screwed. Even in this era of low interest rates- we still paid roughly 5.5 billion in interest on sovereign debt in 2020...........

We need to strip billions out of our expenditure, and identify new methods of taxing the Irish populace (and close loopholes that the wealthy like to exploit- including the 180 day rule etc).

we need to widen the tax base for sure, most of the income is derived from too few sources,

i think things like the 180 day rule is a red herring though, the super rich will always find a way around things or just relocate completely, there is much more lucrative and lower hanging fruit.

hometruths

Who'd have thought it. Remote working more appealing to certain age groups, study finds

Two in every five - 40% - workers are happy to stay working from home post-Covid, according to a new study

From the 1,000 people surveyed by Esri Ireland, there is a clear divide between age groups, with 63 per cent of people under the age of 24 and 75 per cent of people over 55 wanted to return to the office.

Meanwhile, almost half of the people in their late twenties and early thirties wanted to stay working from home.

I think we can assume that this almost 50% of would be WFHers are in the same age range as the bulk of would be FTBers.

The survey also found that one in 10 of workers would like to leave larger urban centres in favour of the countryside.

If almost 50% of late 20s/30s workers want to WFH and 1 in 10 of all workers would like to leave larger urban centres, it would suggest that more than 1 in 10 of FTBers would like to leave larger urban centres.

If this survey is even close to representative that is a serious headwind for Dublin prices.

PropQueries

Villa05 wrote: »

Is that realistic though
One dodges tax
The other may pay more than half in tax

What, if any, other prioduct/service has this level of tax inequality

Don't fall for the nonsense put out by the landlords on the unfair tax burden.

They would be paying 50% on any other income if they decided to work for a living. The tax on such passive investments should be much higher than on the income tax on people who actually work for a living or who actually work in their business full time e.g. a cafe owner.

Rent is basically free money for wealthy people who can afford to purchase an investment property for cash or if they borrowed to invest in an investment property, then they're speculators (gamblers?) and not real business people.

At least developers actually build something and create jobs etc.

A property investor/speculator does very very little and should be taxed accordingly if the state really does need the revenue IMO

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

Who'd have thought it. Remote working more appealing to certain age groups, study finds

Two in every five - 40% - workers are happy to stay working from home post-Covid, according to a new study



I think we can assume that this almost 50% of would be WFHers are in the same age range as the bulk of would be FTBers.



If almost 50% of late 20s/30s workers want to WFH and 1 in 10 of all workers would like to leave larger urban centres, it would suggest that more than 1 in 10 of FTBers would like to leave larger urban centres.

If this survey is even close to representative that is a serious headwind for Dublin prices.

what impact do you think this will have on prices in 2021 ?

hometruths

Cyrus wrote: »

what impact do you think this will have on prices in 2021 ?

I have no idea of the precise impact. All I know for sure is it won't be a positive impact.

cnocbui

schmittel wrote: »

Who'd have thought it. Remote working more appealing to certain age groups, study finds

Two in every five - 40% - workers are happy to stay working from home post-Covid, according to a new study



I think we can assume that this almost 50% of would be WFHers are in the same age range as the bulk of would be FTBers.



If almost 50% of late 20s/30s workers want to WFH and 1 in 10 of all workers would like to leave larger urban centres, it would suggest that more than 1 in 10 of FTBers would like to leave larger urban centres.

If this survey is even close to representative that is a serious headwind for Dublin prices.

I'm glad it's a one-off country mansion I am looking to sell then.

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

I have no idea of the precise impact. All I know for sure is it won't be a positive impact.

i didnt ask for a precise impact just your estimation, it would seem to me that if this does impact prices in urban locations it will be a longer term thing rather than over the next 10-11 months.

PropQueries

cnocbui wrote: »

I'm glad it's a one-off country mansion I am looking to sell then.

Unfortunately, there's c. 90,000+ other properties (not including c. 60,000 holiday homes) in the country at the moment that could also possibly be looking for buyers in the short-to-medium term if the latest GeoDirectory is to believed


P.S. I believe it

PropQueries

schmittel wrote: »

I have no idea of the precise impact. All I know for sure is it won't be a positive impact.

Well, as this plays out over the next several months, it will definitely impact on the buying decisions of people thinking of buying in the later months of 2021 IMO.

Cyrus

PropQueries wrote: »

Unfortunately, there's c. 90,000+ other properties (not including c. 60,000 holiday homes) in the country at the moment that could also possibly be looking for buyers in the short-to-medium term if the latest GeoDirectory is to believed


P.S. I believe it

lucky for him that people looking to buy houses tend to look at the ones actually available for sale

hometruths

Cyrus wrote: »

i didnt ask for a precise impact just your estimation, it would seem to me that if this does impact prices in urban locations it will be a longer term thing rather than over the next 10-11 months.

It is a current survey, if it is genuinely representative, it will be having an impact to some degree or another right now. The extent of that impact is impossible to measure.

Cyrus

PropQueries wrote: »

Well, as this plays out over the next several months, it will definitely impact on the buying decisions of people thinking of buying in the later months of 2021 IMO.

we shall see but i dont expect any material changes in property prices in 2021.

people will hardly be back in the office by the end of the year much less have a clear idea of what WFH they will be allowed to do (irrespective of what they want) into the future.

PropQueries

Cyrus wrote: »

lucky for him that people looking to buy houses tend to look at the ones actually available for sale

Depends on who owns them Maybe they'll take their capital gains now and invest the proceeds at 2% in 30 year treasuries.

Cyrus

PropQueries wrote: »

Depends on who owns them Maybe they'll take their capital gains now and invest the proceeds at 2% in 30 year treasuries.

im sure we will see a flood of properties added to myhome and daft over the next few weeks as they flock to do this.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

I have no idea of the precise impact. All I know for sure is it won't be a positive impact.

Would falling prices not be positive? I would also like to see a survey of people who bought outside Dublin due to affordability. If prices decrease would they take opportunity to move back to Dublin to be closer to family, friends and Starbucks?

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

Unfortunately, there's c. 90,000+ other properties (not including c. 60,000 holiday homes) in the country at the moment that could also possibly be looking for buyers in the short-to-medium term if the latest GeoDirectory is to believed


P.S. I believe it

A month or so ago, someone in the currently buying/selling thread was complaining about the utter lack of good condition family home type houses in, or even near Cork. Curious, and somewhat sceptical, I took a look. Single figures. - low single figures.

I just took a peek on myhome.maxtax and there are 9 local to me; 4 if you discount the ones €499 K and above.

So, I don't think I will be sitting for 24 months, hoping for a sign of interest. Sorry to disappoint.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Would falling prices not be positive? I would also like to see a survey of people who bought outside Dublin due to affordability. If prices decrease would they take opportunity to move back to Dublin to be closer to family, friends and Starbucks?

I suppose it depends on your point of view. I get the impression there are many on here that think falling prices would not be a good thing.

I used the phrase meaning positive as in the impact will not be putting upward pressure on prices.

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

I suppose it depends on your point of view. I get the impression there are many on here that think falling prices would not be a good thing.

you are making the assumption that someone disagreeing with you thinks prices dropping is a bad thing.

its ok to have an opinion without a vested interest,

and so far the people of the opinion that prices arent dropping, or at least by any material amount have been on the correct side of the argument.

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

Don't fall for the nonsense put out by the landlords on the unfair tax burden.

They would be paying 50% on any other income if they decided to work for a living. The tax on such passive investments should be much higher than on the income tax on people who actually work for a living or who actually work in their business full time e.g. a cafe owner.

Rent is basically free money for wealthy people who can afford to purchase an investment property for cash or if they borrowed to invest in an investment property, then they're speculators (gamblers?) and not real business people.

At least developers actually build something and create jobs etc.

A property investor/speculator does very very little and should be taxed accordingly if the state really does need the revenue IMO

Ireland is the way it is because so many think like you. A shining example of Irish socialsim.

One of the several reasons I wish to sell my property is to emigrate and get as far away from such thinking as possible.

Putting a moral slant on how people generate an income is a teflon coated slope. It's ok to allow a REIT to operate tax free, but tax any rich w*nker to death if they dare try the same thing. Tax the shi​t out of an individual who makes any money from trading shares, but tax a company that does the same thing, next to nothing. What, you still have enough money left to put in the bank? You filthy, dirty barsteward! Here's an appropriately named DIRT tax to teach you a lesson, you scum.

By all means keep this begrudgery driven mental faeces going, but don't be too surprised when you find your kid in need of a neurosurgeon and on a 16 month waiting list for a life saving operation, because for some strange reason, neurosurgeons seem to be in short supply.

I am dreaming of when I can catch a sweet whiff of kerosene in the air as I head for the exit.

hometruths

Cyrus wrote: »

you are making the assumption that someone disagreeing with you thinks prices dropping is a bad thing.

yes, that's the assumption I am making based on both the style and substance of their posts.

Cyrus wrote: »

its ok to have an opinion without a vested interest,

Yes, I get that. My opinion on the outlook for the property market and my vested interests in the property market are very different

JimmyVik

PropQueries wrote: »

Good luck on paying for rent (yes they do pay some no matter how small), food, electricity, gas, broadband, mobile phone, clothing, footwear, car, petrol, insurance, travel once a year to a wedding etc. on €203 a week.

Just out of curiosity. For the posters who seem to truly believe that giving up their job and being on the dole would make them better off, have they looked at their ESB/Gas bill after Christmas?

I believe I would be able to do all those things.
And I wouldnt even need them to pay my rent.
How about I get the choice as to whether or not i want to try it?

PropQueries

cnocbui wrote: »

Ireland is the way it is because so many think like you. A shining example of Irish socialsim.

One of the several reasons I wish to sell my property is to emigrate and get as far away from such thinking as possible.

Putting a moral slant on how people generate an income is a teflon coated slope. It's ok to allow a REIT to operate tax free, but tax any rich w*nker to death if they dare try the same thing. Tax the shi​t out of an individual who makes any money from trading shares, but tax a company that does the same thing, next to nothing. What, you still have enough money left to put in the bank? You filthy, dirty barsteward! Here's an appropriately named DIRT tax to teach you a lesson, you scum.

By all means keep this begrudgery driven mental faeces going, but don't be too surprised when you find your kid in need of a neurosurgeon and on a 16 month waiting list for a life saving operation, because for some strange reason, neurosurgeons seem to be in short supply.

I am dreaming of when I can catch a sweet whiff of kerosene in the air as I head for the exit.

I would guess I'm way more capitalist than yourself

REITS who build apartments are completely different to a passive investor in a property.

A cafe owner who works in his cafe is completely different to a passive property investor as well.

Taxation is an excellent way to direct the resources of the economy to where they would be best used, if implemented properly.

A property investor who buys a property built in e.g. 2004 to rent out is not contributing anything to the economy from my viewpoint. The house has already been built. Someone is already renting it.

Wouldn't it be better to "encourage" that potential property investor to invest in a local business or maybe even in a developer who wishes to build houses?

fliball123

PropQueries wrote: »

I would guess I'm way more capitalist than yourself

REITS who build apartments are completely different to a passive investor in a property.

A cafe owner who works in his cafe is completely different to a passive property investor as well.

Taxation is an excellent way to direct the resources of the economy to where they would be best used, if implemented properly.

A property investor who buys a property built in e.g. 2004 to rent out is not contributing anything to the economy from my viewpoint. The house has already been built. Someone is already renting it.

Wouldn't it be better to "encourage" that potential property investor to invest in a local business or maybe even in a developer who wishes to build houses?

so the service of having someone housed is not contributing to the economy that person will still have to be housed.

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

I would guess I'm way more capitalist than yourself

REITS who build apartments are completely different to a passive investor in a property.

A cafe owner who works in his cafe is completely different to a passive property investor as well.

Taxation is an excellent way to direct the resources of the economy to where they would be best used, if implemented properly.

A property investor who buys a property built in e.g. 2004 to rent out is not contributing anything to the economy from my viewpoint. The house has already been built. Someone is already renting it.

Wouldn't it be better to "encourage" that potential property investor to invest in a local business or maybe even in a developer who wishes to build houses?

You really do like to ignore home truths. It's been pointed out by me and others months ago, that REITS are buying finished developments, not commissioning their construction, thereby reducing retail supply. They bought most of the apartments constructed in Dublin in 2019. They provide demand, not impetus, and you know what, so does a rich individual who buys an investment property to rent out.

One good, the other bad? Socialism.

I know four apartment blocks currently being built which were bought by Irish life to be rented out, bought before the building even started

mcsean2163

cnocbui wrote: »

You really do like to ignore home truths. It's been pointed out by me and others months ago, that REITS are buying finished developments, not commissioning their construction, thereby reducing retail supply. They bought most of the apartments constructed in Dublin in 2019. They provide demand, not impetus, and you know what, so does a rich individual who buys an investment property to rent out.

One good, the other bad? Socialism.

The rich individual pays tax.

cnocbui

mcsean2163 wrote: »

The rich individual pays tax.

Not quite: The rich individual pays tax and underwrites the US based shareholders of Irish based US multinationals and helps them transition from being 0.01 percenters to being 0.001 percenters, via the taxes Ireland aids and abets those multinationals in avoiding.

Tim Cook under oath, before the US Senate, in reply to being asked how much tax Apple paid in Ireland on billions in earnings: '2.5%'

During its investigations, the subcommittee found that Apple considers three key subsidiaries, all based in Ireland, to have no tax jurisdiction at all. One of those Irish affiliates, Apple Sales International (ASI), reported sales income of $74bn over four years but paid hardly any tax. In 2011 ASI had pre-tax earnings of $22bn but paid just $10m in tax, a rate of 0.05%

The Irish government's response to the EU finding illegal state tax subsidisation and that Apple must pay it to the Irish government: 'no, no, we don't want that €13 Billion - we don't need it, we have a few million tax payers we fleece and if we let up now, the little feckers might get used to it!'

PropQueries

cnocbui wrote: »

Not quite: The rich individual pays tax and underwrites the US based shareholders of Irish based US multinationals and helps them transition from being 0.01 percenters to being 0.001 percenters, via the taxes Ireland aids and abets those multinationals in avoiding.

Tim Cook under oath, before the US Senate, in reply to being asked how much tax Apple paid in Ireland on billions in earnings: '2.5%'



The Irish government's response to the EU finding illegal state tax subsidisation and that Apple must pay it to the Irish government: 'no, no, we don't want that €13 Billion - we don't need it, we have a few million tax payers we fleece and if we let up now, the little feckers might get used to it!'

I think the difference is that Apple had a choice to set up here or not. Without our low taxes, they would have been better off setting up in the UK or other EU country i.e. nearer their market, much bigger concentration of potential workers nearby etc. The low taxes created jobs etc. which otherwise wouldn't be here. Local landlords also benefit from renting their properties to Apple employees etc.

But, if a farmer in Wicklow sells a site for c. €5m, then the only beneficiaries are the farmer, Germany and Switzerland i.e. He will possibly buy a BMW from the German car manufacturer and a chalet in Switzerland.

So, in my view, I have no problem with Apple paying zero tax, but I think that Wicklow farmer should definitely pay 90% tax on any value in excess of the agricultural value of that land. The excess value over the agricultural value was created by the local council when they signed off on the planning permission so the farmer contributed nothing to his new found wealth IMO

Cyrus

PropQueries wrote: »

I think the difference is that Apple had a choice to set up here or not. Without our low taxes, they would have been better off setting up in the UK or other EU country i.e. nearer their market, much bigger concentration of potential workers nearby etc. The low taxes created jobs etc. which otherwise wouldn't be here. Local landlords also benefit from renting their properties to Apple employees etc.

But, if a farmer in Wicklow sells a site for c. €5m, then the only beneficiaries are the farmer, Germany and Switzerland i.e. He will possibly buy a BMW from the German car manufacturer and a chalet in Switzerland.

So, in my view, I have no problem with Apple paying zero tax, but I think that Wicklow farmer should definitely pay 90% tax on any value in excess of the agricultural value of that land. The excess value over the agricultural value was created by the local council when they signed off on the planning permission so the farmer contributed nothing to his new found wealth IMO

You have removed the incentive for the farmer to sell the land now, making land more scarce pushing house prices up .

Timing belt

Hubertj wrote: »

I think risk is definitely a big factor. Links to a point I made this morning about RTB and enforcement of regulations. If landlord and tenant had more faith in system it would help overall.
If someone does sell their investment property where do they put their money though? In bank at 0 or negative? Sell and Sit on cash for 12-18 month then buy again?
Or invest elsewhere?

At the moment property provides the best risk/reward for an investor the other main options are the stock market and get a 2% dividend, Invest in gov bonds and get 2% on a 30year note. With both of these you have serious risks of loosing capital unless you are looking at holding a position till maturity or for a long period to enable the stock market to recover from any crash.

Maybe they could take copy Elon musk and invest in Bitcoin

Rent would need to drop up to 40% before the other investments were on a equal footing from a reward perspective IMO

Timing belt

Hubertj wrote: »

Would falling prices not be positive? I would also like to see a survey of people who bought outside Dublin due to affordability. If prices decrease would they take opportunity to move back to Dublin to be closer to family, friends and Starbucks?

I think the majority of purchases would see a fall in prices as a positive. If it is a case that people WFH outside Dublin the first impact will probably be felt in the rental market.

You would need to see a drop in rents of about 30% for rent to be on par with a mortgage repayment (assuming 30 yrs @ 3%) so there should still be demand to buy for people wanting to live in Dublin and they may have more choices as supply comes online and return it to a more normally functioning housing market with the exception of DLR/Wicklow that will find it more difficult to sell at current prices as these areas have already maxed out on property prices.

Elsewhere in the country you will probably see a shortage of houses and strong increases in price as someone on a Dublin wage will be able to outbid someone on a local wage.

decreds

schmittel wrote: »

Who'd have thought it. Remote working more appealing to certain age groups, study finds

Two in every five - 40% - workers are happy to stay working from home post-Covid, according to a new study



I think we can assume that this almost 50% of would be WFHers are in the same age range as the bulk of would be FTBers.



If almost 50% of late 20s/30s workers want to WFH and 1 in 10 of all workers would like to leave larger urban centres, it would suggest that more than 1 in 10 of FTBers would like to leave larger urban centres.

If this survey is even close to representative that is a serious headwind for Dublin prices.

Fwiw, my company has offices in Belfast, Dublin and London.


I have been with the company years and know most of the people in the Dub office. There is roughly 90-100 in the Dub office with around 30 of them from the countryside (all under 35), around 25 of them have all moved back home and now that we have been given the green light with full time WFH the majority of them will now be purchasing outside of Dublin.


Colleagues in Belfast and London have reported similar patterns. It's a drop in the ocean but people in MNC have been WFH for years on a semi-regular basis, now that most of them are offering full time WFH we could see a huge amount of FTB opt out of Dublin.

hometruths

decreds wrote: »

Fwiw, my company has offices in Belfast, Dublin and London.


I have been with the company years and know most of the people in the Dub office. There is roughly 90-100 in the Dub office with around 30 of them from the countryside (all under 35), around 25 of them have all moved back home and now that we have been given the green light with full time WFH the majority of them will now be purchasing outside of Dublin.


Colleagues in Belfast and London have reported similar patterns. It's a drop in the ocean but people in MNC have been WFH for years on a semi-regular basis, now that most of them are offering full time WFH we could see a huge amount of FTB opt out of Dublin.

Makes sense. Given that FTBers for years have been opting out of Dublin in favour of affordability in Wicklow/Kildare/Meath without wide scale WFH, a larger number will clearly do so and look further afield still if they have the option to WFH.

PropQueries

This is a completely new initiative from DCC and I don't believe anyone could have foreseen this.

According to the Irish Times: "Dublin City Council to consider using public parks for Traveller housing schemes"

DCC also said "We will face opposition to proposals and we would welcome strong political leadership to support new development proposals brought before Councillors for approval."

I don't think anyone can now now seriously disagree with building social homes on Phoenix Park if this latest proposal goes through IMO. And, I'm not saying that in jest.

Link to Irish Times article here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-city-council-to-consider-using-public-parks-for-traveller-housing-schemes-1.4479511

hometruths

PropQueries wrote: »

This is a completely new initiative from DCC and I don't believe anyone could have foreseen this.

According to the Irish Times: "Dublin City Council to consider using public parks for Traveller housing schemes"

DCC also said "We will face opposition to proposals and we would welcome strong political leadership to support new development proposals brought before Councillors for approval."

I don't think anyone can now now seriously disagree with building social homes on Phoenix Park if this latest proposal goes through IMO. And, I'm not saying that in jest.

Link to Irish Times article here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-city-council-to-consider-using-public-parks-for-traveller-housing-schemes-1.4479511

Bit speechless reading that. Hubert's assessment of councillors IQ seems to be spot on.

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

This is a completely new initiative from DCC and I don't believe anyone could have foreseen this.

According to the Irish Times: "Dublin City Council to consider using public parks for Traveller housing schemes"

DCC also said "We will face opposition to proposals and we would welcome strong political leadership to support new development proposals brought before Councillors for approval."

I don't think anyone can now now seriously disagree with building social homes on Phoenix Park if this latest proposal goes through IMO. And, I'm not saying that in jest.

Link to Irish Times article here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-city-council-to-consider-using-public-parks-for-traveller-housing-schemes-1.4479511

It won't be the first time that they build on public parks. They built 50 odd houses on a public park in Clondalkin 2/3 years ago.

https://consult.sdublincoco.ie/en/consultation/part-8-proposed-new-rapid-build-social-housing-development-st-cuthberts-park-clondalkin

PropQueries

Timing belt wrote: »

It won't be the first time that they build on public parks. They built 50 odd houses on a public park in Clondalkin 2/3 years ago.

https://consult.sdublincoco.ie/en/consultation/part-8-proposed-new-rapid-build-social-housing-development-st-cuthberts-park-clondalkin

So there we go. We have the solution to the supposed lack of land problem for building houses in the city. It's called Phoenix Park

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

So there we go. We have the solution to the supposed lack of land problem for building houses in the city. It's called Phoenix Park

That would be total madness... but where the council are involved you never know.... the only comfort I would get is that it would take 10 years to publish their plan and then another 10 years in court.... Burn through a few million euro in legal fees, consultants etc. and end up with noting and then blame each other for not delivering.

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

This is a completely new initiative from DCC and I don't believe anyone could have foreseen this.

According to the Irish Times: "Dublin City Council to consider using public parks for Traveller housing schemes"

DCC also said "We will face opposition to proposals and we would welcome strong political leadership to support new development proposals brought before Councillors for approval."

I don't think anyone can now now seriously disagree with building social homes on Phoenix Park if this latest proposal goes through IMO. And, I'm not saying that in jest.

Link to Irish Times article here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-city-council-to-consider-using-public-parks-for-traveller-housing-schemes-1.4479511

Buy some old clapped out barges, load the feckless freeloaders on the and tow them 2 km out into the Irish sea and anchor them. Send a supply vessel out once a week. There you go, problem solved the right way.