Is it fair to blame the Banks & Government if you cant get mortgage approval?

Bobtheman

Donald Trump wrote: »

Most of any subvention from the government will end up, directly or indirectly, in the hands of builders and current owners.

The only way to enact change on that end is to apply charges. Higher property taxes to non-owner occupied properties and also strictly enforced vacant site or house levies.

Once land is rezoned, after say 3 years, there is a X% levy on it per year. When the developer gets planning permission, there is no levy for another 3 years. They have a reasonable window to build and sell the houses.

Once that second 3 year elapses, there is a levy of Y% on the market value of the planned houses (whether they have been built or not). This levy can increase over time depending on the number of years. The levy can attach to the property and be collected at sale time or result in seizure by the state if the accumulated levy exceeds the value of the property.


These levies would not discourage development. They would just discourage hoarding.

I think vacant site levies are already in place.
The cost of building is way too high. Finance is difficult to come by for developers. But nobody wants to hear that. So it's all greedy developers etc
If so much money to be made out there we'd have no housing issue.

Bobtheman

The state does not want social housing because it knows a large element pay SFA rent wise. We can't mangage moryage arrears thus we pay through the roof on interest rates.
The government wants to avoid mgt estates. Pure and simple

Pussyhands

Pussyhands wrote: »

Some people don't understand money at all. If they see money in their account, they just see that it can be spent.

That is true but it isn't why people cannot afford houses. Lots of people who can save a deposit cannot afford the average house because the average house house is more than 3.5 times higher than the average income. And in fact 3.5 is rare these days. So they have enough savings, just not enough income.

There are plenty of people out there who can save, and pay more in rent than their mortgage payments would be for the same house, but can't get the mortgage because of limits. I agree with the limits by the way.

The only solution is lower house prices.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Interest rates rocketed in the 1980s for a brief period and were generally high but guess what......wages growth rates were in todays terms...........astronomical

To the extent that the mortgage payments were no cost at all after a few years. My dad was paying more for his car loan about ten years after he got his mortgage. And that was a second hand car.

Donald Trump

Bobtheman wrote: »

I think vacant site levies are already in place.
The cost of building is way too high. Finance is difficult to come by for developers. But nobody wants to hear that. So it's all greedy developers etc
If so much money to be made out there we'd have no housing issue.

Vacant site levy is indeed theoretically in place but is in a form that very very few people or companies have to pay it.


My suggestion is a simple one with no exceptions/excuses. The developer is paying something all the time except for some strictly defined allowed windows.


The cost of building is not too high. When detailing the cost of building the builders include their margin and the site cost. Those should not be included within construction cost.

Bobtheman

Donald Trump wrote: »

Vacant site levy is indeed theoretically in place but is in a form that very very few people or companies have to pay it.


My suggestion is a simple one with no exceptions/excuses. The developer is paying something all the time except for some strictly defined allowed windows.

R

The cost of building is not too high. When detailing the cost of building the builders include their margin and the site cost. Those should not be included within construction cost.

So developers get the site for free?? What tripe? And the builder should not turn a profit?. Mother of God. You live in the clouds. It is too high because most houses are beyond the reach of a lot of people.
Building standards have been increased by law meaning you'd be hard pressed to build anything new for below 230k.
Site costs have to be included unless you are providing it for free or building in the bloody clouds.

Donald Trump

Bobtheman wrote: »

So developers get the site for free?? What tripe? And the builder should not turn a profit?. Mother of God. You live in the clouds. It is too high because most houses are beyond the reach of a lot of people.
Building standards have been increased by law meaning you'd be hard pressed to build anything new for below 230k.
Site costs have to be included unless you are providing it for free or building in the bloody clouds.

What are you talking about? Site cost is not related to cost of construction. It is a sunk cost. It has no bearing on the actual construction cost of the building. You don't have to pay 100x for each block because you paid 1m rather 10k for a site. Nor do you pay the blockie 100x his daily rate.



Site cost is what the developer decides to give to effectively obtain the "licence" to construct and sell the end product. They control that. If they overpay for it, they don't have an automatic right to get reimbursed by the consumer!

PokeHerKing

I was born in 85 and I've absolutely had it easier then my parents. I grew up middle class and went on foreign holidays, they grew up in tenement flats and thought Blackpool was a sun holiday.

You can draw a line under that and complain about current circumstances but no generation has it any worse imo.

Bobtheman

Donald Trump wrote: »

What are you talking about? Site cost is not related to cost of construction. It is a sunk cost. It has no bearing on the actual construction cost of the building. You don't have to pay 100x for each block because you paid 1m rather 10k for a site. Nor do you pay the blockie 100x his daily rate.



Site cost is what the developer decides to give to effectively obtain the "licence" to construct and sell the end product. They control that. If they overpay for it, they don't have an automatic right to get reimbursed by the consumer!

Sure whatever. Semantics. To build a house you must own the land.

Donald Trump

Bobtheman wrote: »

Sure whatever. Semantics. To build a house you must own the land.

SCSI etc, include land in the "construction costs". Along with developer margin AND financing which is double counting.



If you foolishly paid 230 odd million for a site in Ballsbridge (a la Sean Dunne) then you can still make the best of the situation and build say 230 houses on it and sell them for 50k profit over their construction costs. It won't cost you an extra million per house to construct the houses just because you overpaid for the land. You won't make profit overall on the venture, but you will make profit on the activity of constructing and selling even though it will not make up for the overall loss. The land is a sunk cost. Starting from now you can build and sell and get something back.

Geuze

Donald Trump wrote: »

SCSI etc, include land in the "construction costs". Along with developer margin AND financing which is double counting.

SCSI 2020 costs:

https://twitter.com/EOBroin/status/1330907722141880321/photo/1

Geuze

Donald Trump wrote: »

SCSI etc, include land in the "construction costs". Along with developer margin AND financing which is double counting.

SCAI costs 2020 - Dublin

Construction costs = 179k hard costs, which is 48% of total costs.

179k = house + site works + site development.


Other costs

Land = 61k
Finance = 16,700
Developer Margin = 42,700



Total costs, incl profit = 371k

Pussyhands

Pussyhands wrote: »

And then women started having careers, then couples had more money and could pay higher prices. Then multi nationals came and paid more money.

Maybe we work twice as hard because people decide to work twice as hard to get ahead?

Answer me this, with housing so expensive, why is immigration so high?

Female labour market participation rate in the UK was over 62% in 1980, USA was 52%, Sweden 76.9%
https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/BKMNINT59.pdf
table 2.1

So this isnt the reason, something else is happening and it is happening across most western economies. Is it supply? is it the interest rates creating bubbles? Is it the deindustrialisation of western countries and the printed money following the bubbles ? Has something structural occurred in almost synch across western economies that has affected supply? Is it the demand side? A combination?

Whatever it is it is far more complex than saying there are more women working and therefore people are paying more because they can. If that were the case then why arent we all paying more for everything across the board? Why only houses?

Bobtheman

Donald Trump wrote: »

SCSI etc, include land in the "construction costs". Along with developer margin AND financing which is double counting.



If you foolishly paid 230 odd million for a site in Ballsbridge (a la Sean Dunne) then you can still make the best of the situation and build say 230 houses on it and sell them for 50k profit over their construction costs. It won't cost you an extra million per house to construct the houses just because you overpaid for the land. You won't make profit overall on the venture, but you will make profit on the activity of constructing and selling even though it will not make up for the overall loss. The land is a sunk cost. Starting from now you can build and sell and get something back.

And you have built how many houses??

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I was born in 85 and I've absolutely had it easier then my parents. I grew up middle class and went on foreign holidays, they grew up in tenement flats and thought Blackpool was a sun holiday.

You can draw a line under that and complain about current circumstances but no generation has it any worse imo.

You had it easier than you parents growing up because they were socially mobile. They were born working class, or poor, and by the time you popped out they were middle class. So being poor was not a life time thing for them. And one of the things that helps people into the middle classes is cheaper housing. Is social mobility as strong today?

By the way I was born in 1975 and I didn't fly until 1997 or 1998. The RyanAir revolution applied to most people, my parents were teachers.

Bobtheman

Bobtheman wrote: »

And you have built how many houses??

Does he have to. His stats are correct or they aren’t. It’s not like developers are brilliant economists either.

namloc1980

SnuggyBear wrote: »

So now we are just making up imaginary situations to discredit a single person on 50k in Dublin getting mortgage approval and being able to buy in Dublin?

From my reading it's that everyone's situation is different.

Jinglejangle69

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

House prices are at the price they are as people are buying them at that price.

The only way they come down is if people can't afford them.

The way for anything to come down is to increase supply relative to demand.

crooked cockney villain

Part of the problem isn't just the house prices. It's young people being told to go to 3rd level, only for the reward at the end of it to be a job that starts on a poxy 24K that rises yearly at a snails pace. To compare, a 2nd year apprentice wouldn't be on much less than this, a 4th year one would be on upwards of 30- 35k. Unless you are going for a bona fide high earning profession, getting a catch all degree in Business or whatever to end up working admin in a bank or an insurance company is a slow road to poverty.

smurgen

Developers are running rings around the planning authorities. Take this in Cork. Knocked a historical pub with the promise of apartments. Now the apartments are deemed to be only feasible at 3k a month rent and it's offices being put up. How is this all legal?

https://twitter.com/AlanHealy/status/1398521142101618692?s=19

tom1ie

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The way for anything to come down is to increase supply relative to demand.

Also if people don't have the money to pay for the product.

tom1ie

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

Part of the problem isn't just the house prices. It's young people being told to go to 3rd level, only for the reward at the end of it to be a job that starts on a poxy 24K that rises yearly at a snails pace. To compare, a 2nd year apprentice wouldn't be on much less than this, a 4th year one would be on upwards of 30- 35k. Unless you are going for a bona fide high earning profession, getting a catch all degree in Business or whatever to end up working admin in a bank or an insurance company is a slow road to poverty.

Having a trade and gaining experience while learning is infinitely better than going to college and getting a degree, that after four years, isn't much use if you then need to gain experience.
You can always go to college as a mature student if you feel you need a degree.

crooked cockney villain

tom1ie wrote: »

Having a trade and gaining experience while learning is infinitely better than going to college and getting a degree, that after four years, isn't much use if you then need to gain experience.
You can always go to college as a mature student if you feel you need a degree.

1000%. Even a non skilled or semi skilled construction job will pull in 35- 40k for a 40 hour week. And most lads in the game will work longer than this, OT rates kick in after 8 hours, do a few Saturdays etc. Problem with these basic office jobs is they seem to pay the same across the country. A couple who both work as bank tellers on say 28K each could easily buy a home if they live in Donegal. Their colleagues in Dublin will be on the same money and would really struggle to get somewhere.

I would seriously discourage my son from going to 3rd level unless he had a very specific well paid field in mind. It isn't just the money, it's the toll on physical and mental health a stationery, repetitive, low paid office job can have. I remember I stopped off in the Subway at Cherrywood on my break once, the office men in there queueing looked like the walking dead. Overweight, underwight, pale, it was like you could smell the misery.

Cilldara_2000

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

1000%. Even a non skilled or semi skilled construction job will pull in 35- 40k for a 40 hour week. And most lads in the game will work longer than this, OT rates kick in after 8 hours, do a few Saturdays etc. Problem with these basic office jobs is they seem to pay the same across the country. A couple who both work as bank tellers on say 28K each could easily buy a home if they live in Donegal. Their colleagues in Dublin will be on the same money and would really struggle to get somewhere.

I would seriously discourage my son from going to 3rd level unless he had a very specific well paid field in mind. It isn't just the money, it's the toll on physical and mental health a stationery, repetitive, low paid office job can have. I remember I stopped off in the Subway at Cherrywood on my break once, the office men in there queueing looked like the walking dead. Overweight, underwight, pale, it was like you could smell the misery.

This is not true over the course of a lifetime:

The average lifetime net premium for an undergraduate degree holder from an Irish university has been estimated at €106,000 by research firm Indecon.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/irish-university-graduates-earn-more-from-degrees-than-in-uk-1.3848600

Plus the pension age is continuously being pushed up. Hanging off a bit scaffolding to screw a roof on when you're 70 is a rather different kettle of fish to pushing a computer mouse around.

Murph85

smurgen wrote: »

Developers are running rings around the planning authorities. Take this in Cork. Knocked a historical pub with the promise of apartments. Now the apartments are deemed to be only feasible at 3k a month rent and it's offices being put up. How is this all legal?

https://twitter.com/AlanHealy/status/1398521142101618692?s=19

How in God's name they think towers will be feasible in cork with far power rents and land prices than Dublin, is beyond me...

Murph85

tom1ie wrote: »

Having a trade and gaining experience while learning is infinitely better than going to college and getting a degree, that after four years, isn't much use if you then need to gain experience.
You can always go to college as a mature student if you feel you need a degree.

Toilets,plasterers, carpenters and painters etc in Dublin are taking in a fortune compared to most other workers and large amounts of it are cash...

Murph85

Murph85 wrote: »

How in God's name they think towers will be feasible in cork with far power rents and land prices than Dublin, is beyond me...

Surely land prices work in their favour.

Murph85

Is it fair to blame the government and banks? Banks not really, government wanting rip off prices and practicing appalling urban planning, yes...

biko

Not enough houses = prices go up.
Price go up = you need more money for mortgage.

Why are there not enough houses? There were ghost estates just a few years ago.

crooked cockney villain

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Plus the pension age is continuously being pushed up. Hanging off a bit scaffolding to screw a roof on when you're 70 is a rather different kettle of fish to pushing a computer mouse around.

Your average tradesman and his missus could easily buy a house in Dublin by the time he is in his early to mid 20's if he started his apprenticeship at 17/ 18, as long as he has the cop on to save a deposit. How many graduates can say that even 8 years later?

Of course, buying a house with a girlfriend at the age of 24 isn't always advisable IMO as it's a big commitment with a bird when you're very young- point is though it is very achievable.

As for the pension age I can't recall the last time I saw a tradesman over 55 on a big site. By that age the vast majority have long ago ppaid ff the house and are either self employed/ semi retired, plain retired, or moved on to less physically exerting work.

Again...how many graduates...etc.

Another advantage is that it's a sector with SEO rates. Everyone on sites knows the man beside him gets at least X amount per hour. In an office you won't (not only because there are no SEO minimum rates, but because for some bizarre reason most office people won't tell their colleagues what they earn, while lads on site have no issue with it)