Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

JimmyVik

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Well I would argue that corporate interests have ensured that self-control bias is overridden by the constant infiltration of psychological and emotional manipulation in the form of advertising which permeates nearly all aspects of our lives. Particularly the smart phone. Imagine 15 years ago even where companies only had access to you in catalogues, in between TV shows, on the radio, billboards. Today, I think the average is around 3 hours per day people spend on their phones alone, that is so much time to attack the self-control of people and attack their long-term saving goals.

The bigger picture is that our entire Western economic system is built on debt and not savings. You buy a house with 80%+ borrowing, large companies constantly renewing debt facilities and issuing new corpriate bonds, government debts are perpetual etc. In fact, 5he savings of people during the pandemic was even argued to be a negative thing for the economy. Imagine that!

The limits on credit cards these days are shocking.
I know people who think they are a target. If heard bragging contests in the office (back when there were offices) about how much people owed on their credit cards.

JimmyVik

C14N wrote: »

Rest assured, this is not normal behaviour or representative of young people in general. I don't know anyone my age who would drop €3000 on a holiday to Kerry, or anywhere else for that matter, especially if they were trying to save for a house.

Unfortunately I know quite a few myself.

JimmyVik

yagan wrote: »

I remember renting our TV!

RTV rentals. fiver a week

C14N

JimmyVik wrote: »

Unfortunately I know quite a few myself.

Great, but the fact that you know some people who are moochers and bad with money doesn't make them representative or conveniently explain away all problems with the property market.

timmyntc

JimmyVik wrote: »

Unfortunately I know quite a few myself.

These kinds of people have existed in the past too - unless the proportions of them have massively changed (which I doubt), it is not the reason for housing being so unaffordable nowadays.

In the past people drank far more, so much of the wages wasted in the pub. Same with smoking too - both of these are on the decline, Paddy doesnt waste all his money on booze and fags anymore. And yet he still cant afford a house. Go figure

KBH2020

Jmc25 wrote: »

Last year definitely. Not seeming so this year. I've seen a three bed terraced in Artane listed for 380k (a stretch on last year's prices but I could suck it up), with a bid of 475k. Granted, that's the most extreme example, but this is what's happening.

Totally agree with this and your previous point about those who have not been squeezed out but won't compromise as not looking for anything special. The prices were bad enough last year but now in hindsight they look like great deals. We have come to terms with the fact we need to look at the asking price and need another 55k-70k on top of the asking price to be the winning bidder. After working and saving hard for the last 5 years to get to this point, it is beyond demoralizing. VERY hard to swallow spending 60k more on a house that was "worth" 60k less last year. And that's if you have the extra 60k (this is the 400-500k region we are seeing in D12.) I genuinely feel everyone spending 60k more than what comparable houses sold for last year must have massive inheritances from families because when its your own hard earned cash that took you years to save..it is very hard to come to terms with this. Especially as we are not talking about mansions here..in many cases these houses need work done to them. Hard to know if things will remain at this level, improve or get worse. Either way it will be SF votes from us.. "the people who get up early in the morning"!

Amadan Dubh

jill_valentine wrote: »

Just in case folks haven't seen it -

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/stagnant-wages-and-expensive-housing-leave-young-people-in-ireland-worse-off-than-parents-1.4560760?mode=amp



I'm not sure I can take another lap on the how-much-phones-actually-cost track.

Since the growth of the 00s turned out to be artifical, it was not crazy that a significant correction would occur after it was found out as such. However, is what has happened the last 10 years been a lot better? No, as far as I can see. For example, where is the infrastructure and income tax reform that should've come with a booming economy? There is a reason the ESRI have been for the last few years warning about the concentration of our economy in one small sector; MNC activity and a few companies contributing so much to our exchequer. Now the chickens of 10s growth are coming home to roost with post-Brexit EU efforts to attack our corporate tax regime and the OECD level harmonisation efforts. We hitched our wagon to US hyper growth capitalism and as a result are extremely vulnerable should a big change occur in the international tax regime for corporates.

yagan

timmyntc wrote: »

In the past people drank far more, so much of the wages wasted in the pub.

How much of that was on credit though?

I remember having to wait 6 weeks for credit card approval around 1999 and I was in a solid job, weekly pay checks going into the same bank processing the card etc... yet within four years people were being approved for credit cards that they hadn't applied for.

I wish I had kept a few of those "congratulations, you've been approved for a €10.000 credit limit" from banks that didn't even have a high street presence here.

I heard an Offaly hurler on the radio talk about blowing €800.000 on his gambling addiction in the last 13 years. He'd only have access to a weekly paycheck before casino economics were unleashed.

Balluba

KBH2020 wrote: »

Totally agree with this and your previous point about those who have not been squeezed out but won't compromise as not looking for anything special. The prices were bad enough last year but now in hindsight they look like great deals. We have come to terms with the fact we need to look at the asking price and need another 55k-70k on top of the asking price to be the winning bidder. After working and saving hard for the last 5 years to get to this point, it is beyond demoralizing. VERY hard to swallow spending 60k more on a house that was "worth" 60k less last year. And that's if you have the extra 60k (this is the 400-500k region we are seeing in D12.)

David McWilliams might be right when he called for a buyers strike.

Ace2007

C14N wrote: »

Great, but the fact that you know some people who are moochers and bad with money doesn't make them representative or conveniently explain away all problems with the property market.

But When you have shows like "How to be good with money" on tv - it shows that it is a problem in Ireland.

There are many other issues as well

I would love to see the figures of what credit in Ireland in 1980s was compared with now.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

But When you have shows like "How to be good with money" on tv - it shows that it is a problem in Ireland.

There are many other issues as well

I would love to see the figures of what credit in Ireland in 1980s was compared with now.

Again - anecdotes. Can you back any of this up with statistics to prove that increased use of loans and credit is what makes housing so inaccessible for current generation??

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

Again - anecdotes. Can you back any of this up with statistics to prove that increased use of loans and credit is what makes housing so inaccessible for current generation??

I never said that's what making house inaccessible for the current generation - that was you reading one thing, but having that stuck in your head and assuming it true.

I said that young people can save more - some complain that they can't afford the deposit - and how could they when they are careless with money.

Another poster gave example about a couple paying 400 a night for a holiday because of the year we've had attitude... you seem to think this is one off - and maybe among your friends it doesn't happen - but i know plenty living that life, and with the CC max out - while still saying they can't get a mortgage.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

I never said that's what making house inaccessible for the current generation - that was you reading one thing, but having that stuck in your head and assuming it true.

I said that young people can save more - some complain that they can't afford the deposit - and how could they when they are careless with money.

Another poster gave example about a couple paying 400 a night for a holiday because of the year we've had attitude... you seem to think this is one off - and maybe among your friends it doesn't happen - but i know plenty living that life, and with the CC max out - while still saying they can't get a mortgage.

And yet again more anecdotes - you insist that this is much more prevalent than any of us think but yet you cant provide a single statistic to prove your point?

KBH2020

[QUOTE=Balluba;117293721
David McWilliams might be right when he called for a buyers strike.[/QUOTE]

Said the same thing to my partner the other day. The irony is we are all in the same boat but doing this to each other with bidding/being willing to pay excessive amounts. If everyone said "no i'm not willing to pay that for this house" then the prices would decrease. We actually have the power but only as a collective. Irish generally have a very individualistic mentality though. I think elsewhere people are much better at uniting in opposition. Some things that happen/are accepted here would cause out and out major protests around the world.

SmokyMo

KBH2020 wrote: »

Totally agree with this and your previous point about those who have not been squeezed out but won't compromise as not looking for anything special. The prices were bad enough last year but now in hindsight they look like great deals. We have come to terms with the fact we need to look at the asking price and need another 55k-70k on top of the asking price to be the winning bidder. After working and saving hard for the last 5 years to get to this point, it is beyond demoralizing. VERY hard to swallow spending 60k more on a house that was "worth" 60k less last year. And that's if you have the extra 60k (this is the 400-500k region we are seeing in D12.) I genuinely feel everyone spending 60k more than what comparable houses sold for last year must have massive inheritances from families because when its your own hard earned cash that took you years to save..it is very hard to come to terms with this. Especially as we are not talking about mansions here..in many cases these houses need work done to them. Hard to know if things will remain at this level, improve or get worse. Either way it will be SF votes from us.. "the people who get up early in the morning"!

Someone showed me a house for sale in inchicore, starting price 475, current bid is over 650 if I remember correctly. Mental, given the area is a kip.

cnocbui

KBH2020 wrote: »

Said the same thing to my partner the other day. The irony is we are all in the same boat but doing this to each other with bidding/being willing to pay excessive amounts. If everyone said "no i'm not willing to pay that for this house" then the prices would decrease. We actually have the power but only as a collective. Irish generally have a very individualistic mentality though. I think elsewhere people are much better at uniting in opposition. Some things that happen/are accepted here would cause out and out major protests around the world.

Any examples of buyers strikes elsewhere in the world? They certainly aren't happening in Australia, NZ, Canada or the US.

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

And yet again more anecdotes - you insist that this is much more prevalent than any of us think but yet you cant provide a single statistic to prove your point?

But other posters are saving it as well, you want stats to prove it?

You know that are loads of reasons why couples can't get a mortgage or can't afford the deposit - but all you say is show me proof etc...

SmokyMo

KBH2020 wrote: »

Said the same thing to my partner the other day. The irony is we are all in the same boat but doing this to each other with bidding/being willing to pay excessive amounts. If everyone said "no i'm not willing to pay that for this house" then the prices would decrease. We actually have the power but only as a collective. Irish generally have a very individualistic mentality though. I think elsewhere people are much better at uniting in opposition. Some things that happen/are accepted here would cause out and out major protests around the world.

never gonna happen and also a very silly idea.
A better way would be to unite and pressure your local TD to engage their lukewarm IQ to sort this out. Housing is hard task but its definitely not a complex issue to fix.

Cyrus

SmokyMo wrote: »

never gonna happen and also a very silly idea.
A better way would be to unite and pressure your local TD to engage their lukewarm IQ to sort this out. Housing is hard task but its definitely not a complex issue to fix.

looking forward to seeing vote no1 smokymo posters :cool:

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

These kinds of people have existed in the past too - unless the proportions of them have massively changed (which I doubt), it is not the reason for housing being so unaffordable nowadays.

In the past people drank far more, so much of the wages wasted in the pub. Same with smoking too - both of these are on the decline, Paddy doesnt waste all his money on booze and fags anymore. And yet he still cant afford a house. Go figure

Weren't taxes on alcohol and cigarettes a fraction of what they now are? And what did a litre of petrol cost and VAT sure as hell wasn't 23%.

Ace2007

cnocbui wrote: »

Weren't taxes on alcohol and cigarettes a fraction of what they now are? And what did a litre of petrol cost and VAT sure as hell wasn't 23%.

Shhhh! that's not part of his narrative

growleaves

Ace2007 wrote: »

But other posters are saving it as well, you want stats to prove it?

You know that are loads of reasons why couples can't get a mortgage or can't afford the deposit - but all you say is show me proof etc...

Yes but consumer prices have diverged from asset prices. So profligate consumer spending is a poor explanation for why people cannot afford assets like housing.

Phone calls, coffees, avocados, airplane flights etc. are cheaper than ever.

What's not cheap is "fixed" costs like housing, private healthcare, taxes which can't be deflated through imports or arbitrage.

The main difference between Ireland and other 1st world countries is that we have ingeniously deflated the cost of education by importing international students and off-loading costs onto them through a lop-sided price structure.

cnocbui

Ace2007 wrote: »

Shhhh! that's not part of his narrative

I've given up on the idea of suggesting thrift and self denial; it gets a violent reception around here. I can't imagine how people would react to mortgages with 2 digit percentage interest rates.

cnocbui

jill_valentine wrote: »

Just in case folks haven't seen it -

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/stagnant-wages-and-expensive-housing-leave-young-people-in-ireland-worse-off-than-parents-1.4560760?mode=amp

I'm not sure I can take another lap on the how-much-phones-actually-cost track.

Unions had their uses, much as they seem despised these days. The neocons defeat and subjugation of collective bargaining, along with the capital rapaciousness unleashed by globalisation, are mostly to blame for the surge in income inequality and erosion of relative incomes. If people keep on voting for conservative governments, they get to reap what they have sown - or at the very least their children do.

snow_bunny

KBH2020 wrote: »

Totally agree with this and your previous point about those who have not been squeezed out but won't compromise as not looking for anything special. The prices were bad enough last year but now in hindsight they look like great deals. We have come to terms with the fact we need to look at the asking price and need another 55k-70k on top of the asking price to be the winning bidder. After working and saving hard for the last 5 years to get to this point, it is beyond demoralizing. VERY hard to swallow spending 60k more on a house that was "worth" 60k less last year. And that's if you have the extra 60k (this is the 400-500k region we are seeing in D12.) I genuinely feel everyone spending 60k more than what comparable houses sold for last year must have massive inheritances from families because when its your own hard earned cash that took you years to save..it is very hard to come to terms with this. Especially as we are not talking about mansions here..in many cases these houses need work done to them. Hard to know if things will remain at this level, improve or get worse. Either way it will be SF votes from us.. "the people who get up early in the morning"!

This is it EXACTLY. It took a looooong time and a lot of sacrifices to save that extra 60k. We're just not prepared to hand it over for what's frankly a complete rip off we wouldn't have looked twice at last year. Hard to know what to do when there's no real alternative but rip off rent. I can see a lot of people emigrating for a while, even people well into their 30s.

SF are a given at this stage too IMO, nobody cares if they'll be any better or worse, they just want rid of the current corrupt muppets.

C14N

KBH2020 wrote: »

I genuinely feel everyone spending 60k more than what comparable houses sold for last year must have massive inheritances from families because when its your own hard earned cash that took you years to save..it is very hard to come to terms with this.

I think more likely they just have it covered by mortgage approval. Personally, I'm a lot more willing to pay extra up to what my mortgage can cover (within reason anyway, would still prefer to save money and have a max cutoff for any given place that might be less). Once you get out of what the mortgage covers and have to start dipping into personal savings to cover the cost of buying you do get a lot more careful about what you'd spend beyond that. If someone has a mortgage to cover up to, say €650k, then I'd expect that they'd have an easier time bidding up to that level than someone with approval up to €600k who has to put an extra €50k of savings in to get to that level.

Ace2007 wrote: »

Another poster gave example about a couple paying 400 a night for a holiday because of the year we've had attitude... you seem to think this is one off - and maybe among your friends it doesn't happen - but i know plenty living that life, and with the CC max out - while still saying they can't get a mortgage.

Nobody here is really very sympathetic to someone who is maxing out a credit card for expenses or taking extremely expensive holidays and then can't get a mortgage. I think most people would agree that they are obviously not very serious about getting a mortgage/house in the first place if this is how they're acting. But their existence and inability to get a mortgage is kind of just not relevant to the overall discussion of the general property market.

SmokyMo wrote: »

Someone showed me a house for sale in inchicore, starting price 475, current bid is over 650 if I remember correctly. Mental, given the area is a kip.

You may be talking about this one that was recently covered in the Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/new-to-market/take-the-plunge-in-inchicore-smart-home-with-pool-and-sauna-for-595k-1.4567284

Started with a guide price of €495k, and at the time of the article had been bid up to €630k. To be fair though, the house is very well done up and has some very luxurious features, like a sauna and improved energy rating up to A3. If it was in my budget I'd be delighted to have a house like that.

cnocbui wrote: »

Weren't taxes on alcohol and cigarettes a fraction of what they now are? And what did a litre of petrol cost and VAT sure as hell wasn't 23%.

What's your point? Young people today have to pay more for the same things our parents did like the pub or driving their car (in addition to even more substantial costs like rent). Doesn't this in part explain why it's harder for them to save up money for a deposit?

Just noticed that the semi-D in Brookwood Ave, Artane appeared on the PPR. It did indeed go for €155k over asking (€650k)

So either it was a cash buyer or the valuer signed off on it.

Jmc25

Ace2007 wrote: »

But When you have shows like "How to be good with money" on tv - it shows that it is a problem in Ireland.

There are many other issues as well

I would love to see the figures of what credit in Ireland in 1980s was compared with now.

I know I'm generalising massively here, but I'm in my early thirties and neither me nor any of my friends are extravagant with money or have any loans worth talking about.

The people I know with serious debt, or buying things on credit as you mentioned in a previous post, are all my parents age.

I'm HUGELY generalising here and I acknowledge that but it's no more a generalisation than all millennials are bad with money and that's why they can't afford houses.

C14N

cnocbui wrote: »

I've given up on the idea of suggesting thrift and self denial; it gets a violent reception around here. I can't imagine how people would react to mortgages with 2 digit percaentage interest rates.

This is a complete strawman. Nobody is against the idea of being thrifty or cutting back, much less being "violent". The thing people are pushing back against is the bizarre notion that every young person is this wild spender who is maxing out their credit card to spend on expensive holidays and eating out, and that if they were only a bit more sensible with their money they'd have no issues at all. I would guess that most people who are on a property forum are generally pretty careful with money and are making efforts to save for a deposit over a long term, but are still being accused of being mad yokes that can't hack a day without spending €10 on expensive coffee.

The fact is that your mortgage is capped at 3.5-4.5x your salary, and for many people, few properties cost less than 3.5-4.5x the average young person or couple's salary, and even saving for a deposit is very difficult for many given the costs of rent right now.

KBH2020

cnocbui wrote: »

Any examples of buyers strikes elsewhere in the world? They certainly aren't happening in Australia, NZ, Canada or the US.

SmokyMo wrote: »

never gonna happen and also a very silly idea.
A better way would be to unite and pressure your local TD to engage their lukewarm IQ to sort this out. Housing is hard task but its definitely not a complex issue to fix.

I completely agree, it is never going to happen. My point was just that it is crazy to think the vast majority are unhappy with the prices yet we are a big part of the problem as we are willing to pay them. My point, and I think David McWilliams point was about the market right now (no good value, prices overinflated due to high demand/poor supply/poor quality supply post pandemic) - if we could strike and stay away for a while we would be better off but its not realistic/feasible, anywhere in the world. As long as people are willing to pay and as long as supply is an issue, we will continue to have the same problem, strike or no strike.

I also meant the Irish are less inclined to protest about anything in general. One of the economists (I think) who speaks about housing was saying that there are two housing camps. Camp 1 is when you are trying to buy an overpriced house, when you're in this camp you want prices to drop. Camp 2 is when you finally get the overpriced house and then want prices to stay high so you don't lose all the money you put into the house. Once you get into camp 1 there is no need to protest anyway. I hope that is changing now as our parents see the struggles we are facing though. What about our kids (if we can afford to have any...!).. as someone else said, future generations might end up looking back saying "remember when the millennials had it so easy and could actually afford to buy here with saving for years and a mortgage!!".

Just feeling very disillusioned with the whole thing currently.

fergus1001

KBH2020 wrote:

(if we can afford to have any kids...!)..

on this one, our retirement shortfall may be exasperated as I'd say the amount of kids being had is falling due to not having a stable roof above their heads.

housing affects everything

Bass Reeves

C14N wrote: »

This is a complete strawman. Nobody is against the idea of being thrifty or cutting back, much less being "violent". The thing people are pushing back against is the bizarre notion that every young person is this wild spender who is maxing out their credit card to spend on expensive holidays and eating out, and that if they were only a bit more sensible with their money they'd have no issues at all. I would guess that most people who are on a property forum are generally pretty careful with money and are making efforts to save for a deposit over a long term, but are still being accused of being mad yokes that can't hack a day without spending €10 on expensive coffee.

The fact is that your mortgage is capped at 3.5-4.5x your salary, and for many people, few properties cost less than 3.5-4.5x the average young person or couple's salary, and even saving for a deposit is very difficult for many given the costs of rent right now.

It's not really a straw man's argument. People did not spend money Back then like now. I stayed in houses for 7-8 years in Limerick. One thing back then virtually no couples stayed together before marriage. This was a massive costs savings. There was six of us staying in a 4 bed house at one stage. I virtually never remember at any stage in that time any body in a double room by themselves. If it was a double room there was two single beds.

There was no takeaway teas or coffees and there was virtually no take away sandwiches or lunches. Ya you might go to the chipper after a night out in the pub. There was no gym membership. In that time I only went on two foreign holidays one to Greece with 3 other lads and once withy better half before we got married. Most times you went out it was for 4-5 pints, someone was nearly always driving. If you met someone you were seeing it was at a pub somewhere for 2-3 drinks before one of you dropped the other back to where you were staying.

You might go to a big concert once a year, there might be 2-3 weekends away these were often down at where some other lad lived. There was no mid week matches in a pub.
There was few distractions when you decided you were getting married and buying a house. You did not drift into it.

No house. No getting married. No regular sex.

It amazing the way it focused you mind.

Ace2007

snow_bunny wrote: »

SF are a given at this stage too IMO, nobody cares if they'll be any better or worse, they just want rid of the current corrupt muppets.

If they want to run enough candidates this time - Do they want to be in charge of dealing with major deficit and having to increase taxes somewhere along the way - they are often accused with the alternative budget that they never price their budget as one, and instead it's based on individual sums added together - when some policies will negatively affect others etc.

If you look at Dublin central as a great example - last time Mary Lou ran out her own - no other SF candidate - very odd if you ask me.

Unless SF get the majority i just don't see what party is happy to go in with them.

Their housing policies on their website doesn't say anything about stopping investment funds from buying up apartments/house estates.

mcsean2163

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It's not really a straw man's argument. People did not spend money Back then like now. I stayed in houses for 7-8 years in Limerick. One thing back then virtually no couples stayed together before marriage. This was a massive costs savings. There was six of us staying in a 4 bed house at one stage. I virtually never remember at any stage in that time any body in a double room by themselves. If it was a double room there was two single beds.

There was no takeaway teas or coffees and there was virtually no take away sandwiches or lunches. Ya you might go to the chipper after a night out in the pub. There was no gym membership. In that time I only went on two foreign holidays one to Greece with 3 other lads and once withy better half before we got married. Most times you went out it was for 4-5 pints, someone was nearly always driving. If you met someone you were seeing it was at a pub somewhere for 2-3 drinks before one of you dropped the other back to where you were staying.

You might go to a big concert once a year, there might be 2-3 weekends away these were often down at where some other lad lived. There was no mid week matches in a pub.
There was few distractions when you decided you were getting married and buying a house. You did not drift into it.

No house. No getting married. No regular sex.

It amazing the way it focused you mind.

I'm guessing 70s/80s? Certainly wasn't like that in the nineties on the sex front....

Bass Reeves

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I'm guessing 70s/80s? Certainly wasn't like that in the nineties on the sex front....

80's

But it's just to show how attitude change's

yagan

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I'm guessing 70s/80s? Certainly wasn't like that in the nineties on the sex front....

The sexual liberation came from around 1986 on when you could start buying condoms from the Virgin music store at O'Connell Bridge.

Ryanair coming along then meant the boat was no longer the budget option. I can relate to a lot of the stuff mentioned in the post you replied to, especially the mid-week pints. Back then it was far more common for pubs to be also family homes so staying open mid week for a few retirees who'd sip one pint over a couple of hours wasn't bad business.

Drinking as a business became a thing in the 90s, especially after the development of Temple Bar made the economic case for boozing as a leisure activity.

In ways I can see how the 80s were completely flipped by the 90s, but the saddest event of all was the assent of Boyzone which essentially killed music. That's when the new rot set in.

Edit to add, I can chime with that post about it been the norm to share rooms, the idea of a room of your own was the exception to the norm. I can well remember in the mid 90s the complaints starting about the average income combo of nurse and garda no longer being able to afford a house in Dublin, which led to the first Bacon reports which quickly forgotten about once Bertie got his "A lot done, a lot more to do" mandate in 2002.

PropQueries

Bass Reeves wrote: »

80's

But it's just to show how attitude change's

But if you're going to compare today to the 1980's, isn't that the same amount of time as between the 1950's and 1980's and between the 1950's and 1910's etc. and so forth going backwards?

yagan

PropQueries wrote: »

But if you're going to compare today to the 1980's, isn't that the same amount of time as between the 1950's and 1980's and between the 1950's and 1910's etc. and so forth going backwards?

There are decades when nothing happens, and then there are years when decades happen.

There's a huge difference between a society where raising 6 kids in a three bed terrace house wasn't unusual and today's expectation of everyone having their own room.

It's fair to say that the domestic expectations between the 1980s and 1950s were more alike than the 1980s were to even the latter part of the 1990s.

PropQueries

yagan wrote: »

There are decades when nothing happens, and then there are years when decades happen.

There's a huge difference between a society where raising 6 kids in a three bed terrace house wasn't unusual and today's expectation of everyone having their own room.

It's fair to say that the domestic expectations between the 1980s and 1950s were more alike than the 1980s were to even the latter part of the 1990s.

I get that point and I like the saying, but I think that saying is misinterpreted.

What happens is that a lot of small changes happen each and every year and it's only at the end that we see how all these small non-noticeable minor changes join together into a much bigger change.

There were many many small changes between the 1950s and 1980s that led to the 1990s and 2000s. It wasn't any one specific government policy in the 1980s or 1990s that led to the boom years.

For example, we had the low/zero corporation taxes (exports) from the c. 1950s onwards. It was just that the tech companies could move quickly into the country to take advantage of them from the 1990s onwards.

yagan

PropQueries wrote: »

I get that point and I like the saying, but I think that saying is misinterpreted.

What happens is that a lot of small changes happen each and every year and it's only at the end that we see how all these small non-noticeable minor changes join together into a much bigger change.

There were many many small changes between the 1950s and 1980s that led to the 1990s and 2000s. It wasn't any one specific government policy in the 1980s or 1990s that led to the boom years.

For example, we had the low/zero corporation taxes (exports) from the c. 1950s onwards. It was just that the tech companies could move quickly into the country to take advantage of them from the 1990s onwards.

I agree with a lot of that, but a major social shift happened in the late 80s to mid nineties before the loosening of credit standards that fueled the property bubble. People were on good multinational salaries before that but credit was constrained.

PropQueries

yagan wrote: »

I agree with a lot of that, but a major social shift happened in the late 80s to mid nineties before the loosening of credit standards that fueled the property bubble. People were on good multinational salaries before that but credit was constrained.

Good point. Lots of things joined together around that time (both here and abroad) that led to those effects. That's where I see a lot of the changes to the property market over the past 10 years joining together sometime this year for another one of those monumental shifts that people will look back on as when everything changed and the direction of the country veered off on a completely different trajectory.

Villa05

There's a very popular podcast by rte doing the rounds at the moment called Gun plot, its about the arms crisis of the 70's
In episode 3 they stumble upon what I believe the origins of our dysfunctional property market
Charlie Haughy changed the taxation laws to make himself very wealthy from a land deal. I don't believe those law changes have ever been corrected

I was not aware of it before as I was an 80s child.

The entire podcast is very good

cnocbui

Villa05 wrote: »

There's a very popular podcast by rte doing the rounds at the moment called Gun plot, its about the arms crisis of the 70's
In episode 3 they stumble upon what I believe the origins of our dysfunctional property market
Charlie Haughy changed the taxation laws to make himself very wealthy from a land deal. I don't believe those law changes have ever been corrected

I was not aware of it before as I was an 80s child.

The entire podcast is very good

This country has an inexplicable blind spot I fail to fathom. There is a total reluctance to change or repeal laws, it's as if they are set in stone and are somehow untouchable.

yagan

cnocbui wrote: »

This country has an inexplicable blind spot I fail to fathom. There is a total reluctance to change or repeal laws, it's as if they are set in stone and are somehow untouchable.

I think a lot of it is down to basic financial illiteracy in the pre internet generations, the ones who keep Fianna Fail alive.

They had zero problem voting to guarantee the banks in two weeks in the belief that it would keep their house prices elevated, but it took nearly a year of dragging their heels before we had a quarantine amendment to the existing public health acts of the TB era.

If a law goes beyond their domestic interests they prefer to kick it down the road.

Cal4567

cnocbui wrote: »

This country has an inexplicable blind spot I fail to fathom. There is a total reluctance to change or repeal laws, it's as if they are set in stone and are somehow untouchable.[/QUOTED

Despite the results of recent referenda, you've hit on the innate conservatism of Ireland and the Irish.

Villa05

cnocbui wrote:

This country has an inexplicable blind spot I fail to fathom. There is a total reluctance to change or repeal laws, it's as if they are set in stone and are somehow untouchable.

Podcast Mick Clifford - Homing in on the pandemic, Mick and Daniel McConnell discuss many of the issues raised here. First half deals with housing

Mick makes the point how the reluctance to change tax laws that stoke demand echos mistakes made in the noughties with section 23 and others. They may serve a purpose when first introduced but they should be time limited.
Daniel states that investment funds are laughing at us with the effective gifts they are getting from the state

cnocbui

Nothing would be better for FTBs than the government imposing 25% tax on rents received by REITs and making them subject to 33% CGT - just like everyone else.

This cargo-cult like attitude to large foreign corporations needs to end.

yagan

Cal4567 wrote: »

cnocbui wrote: »

This country has an inexplicable blind spot I fail to fathom. There is a total reluctance to change or repeal laws, it's as if they are set in stone and are somehow untouchable.

Despite the results of recent referenda, you've hit on the innate conservatism of Ireland and the Irish.

Is it conservatism or simple intransigence?

It was really noticeable how much the ball dropped once leadership passed to FF last summer. We went from regular Covid updates and roadmaps straight to FF infighting about ministerial appointments etc.. It was like we weren't in an actual pandemic.

And don't get me started about "meaningful christmas". Against scientific warnings they indulged the pissers and moaners in their scientifically illiterate older grassroot voter.

They can't see that a hike on stamp duty isn't going to stop international funds on spending sprees because they're too financially illiterate to understand that these funds will go through every open door they can. A stamp duty hike isn't even a noticeable speed bump.

A hike in yield tax would get their attention.

yagan

cnocbui wrote: »

Nothing would be better for FTBs than the government imposing 25% tax on rents received by REITs and making them subject to 33% CGT - just like everyone else.

This cargo-cult like attitude to large foreign corporations needs to end.

Amen!

They're afraid to pull any lever that might reduce the value of their grassroot voters property, even if it alienates all future voters.

snow_bunny

cnocbui wrote: »

Nothing would be better for FTBs than the government imposing 25% tax on rents received by REITs and making them subject to 33% CGT - just like everyone else.

This cargo-cult like attitude to large foreign corporations needs to end.

Can someone exain why they aren't already taxed this way and why the government aren't making it priority no.1 to do so? Apologies if this is a stupid question.