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

hometruths

SmokyMo wrote: »

Does EU metric above excludes Ireland? Would need to look at distributions in those figures.

EU averages include Ireland.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

This metric is not important. Ireland has a utilization issue.

Around 17% of the EU population live in an overcrowded home.

In Ireland 3.2% of people live in an overcrowded home.

Around 33% of the EU population live in an under-occupied home.

In Ireland 69.6% of people live in an under-occupied home.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/digpub/housing/images/pdf/Housing-DigitalPublication-2020_en.pdf?lang=en

Yes, as this is based on the walls, would be very very different if it would be counted on basis of living space. Apparently for you it number of walls is more important, household size/living space is not important metrics (or just depending on the case).

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, as this is based on the walls, would be very very different if it would be counted on basis of living space. Apparently for you it number of walls is more important, household size/living space is not important metrics (or just depending on the case).

Have you seen a study of crowding measured on basis of living space?

If so, could you link to it so we can compare the differences?

If not, how do you know it would be very different?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Have you seen a study of crowding measured on basis of living space?

If so, could you link to it so we can compare the differences?

If not, how do you know it would be very different?

I haven't see such studies on crowding measure, probably there is no such, except the ones with measuring walls.
The reason why I'm confident that those numbers would be lower, is due to the fact that comparing with Western Europe, Ireland average household size is higher, average property size is likely below Western Europe, and average living space per person is lower. And from the type of houses, there are many houses is Ireland below 100sqm packed with 5 rooms in it (3 bed + kitchen + living room). This is not as common in other countries I have lived.

cruizer101

I was curious as to what defines under/over-crowding and was googling, here are the definitions for those interested.
Its not clear is it referring to the number of bedrooms, but I think it must be as you can't be counting kitchen/bathroom etc in that.

However that would mean to be undercrowded you would have to have 2 spare bedrooms, as there is already one for the household, unless I am missing something that doesn't seem right, and I'd be amazed if 69% of houses in Ireland have 2 spare bedrooms What am I missing here.

For statistical purposes, a dwelling is defined as under-occupied if the household living in it has at its disposal more than the minimum number of rooms considered adequate, and equal to:

A person is considered as living in an overcrowded household if the household does not have at its disposal a minimum number of rooms equal to:

one room for the household;
one room per couple in the household;
one room for each single person aged 18 or more;
one room per pair of single people of the same gender between 12 and 17 years of age;
one room for each single person between 12 and 17 years of age and not included in the previous category;
one room per pair of children under 12 years of age.

Edit:
I found further definition
A room is defined as a space in a housing unit, or in living quarters other than housing units, enclosed by walls reaching from the floor to the ceiling or roof covering, or at least to a height of 2 metres above the ground, of a size large enough to hold a bed for an adult (4 square metres at least) and at least 2 metres high over the major area of the ceiling.

Thus, normal bedrooms, dining rooms, living rooms, habitable cellars and attics, servants' rooms, kitchens and other separate spaces used or intended for habitation all count as rooms. Passageways, verandas, lobbies, bathrooms, and toilet rooms should not be counted as rooms, even if they meet the criteria

So they do count kitchen and living rooms, in that case it makes sense that there would be under-occupation, as soon as you have a kitchen and living room along with adequate bedrooms you are under occupied. That means in my standard enough 4 bed house ~140m2, we could have ourselves along with 6 adult children, 8 adults total, and it would still not be considered over occupied, thats madness.

Marius34

Browney7 wrote: »

It's likely more nuanced than what you outline in relation to Ireland.

What you mean? I have shared lots of data here about Ireland, and forecasts which with a time showed that it was on the right directions, comparing with other side of argument.

Marius34

cruizer101 wrote: »

I was curious as to what defines under/over-crowding and was googling, here are the definitions for those interested.
Its not clear is it referring to the number of bedrooms, but I think it must be as you can't be counting kitchen/bathroom etc in that.

However that would mean to be undercrowded you would have to have 2 spare bedrooms, as there is already one for the household, unless I am missing something that doesn't seem right, and I'd be amazed if 69% of houses in Ireland have 2 spare bedrooms What am I missing here.

For statistical purposes, a dwelling is defined as under-occupied if the household living in it has at its disposal more than the minimum number of rooms considered adequate, and equal to:

A person is considered as living in an overcrowded household if the household does not have at its disposal a minimum number of rooms equal to:

one room for the household;
one room per couple in the household;
one room for each single person aged 18 or more;
one room per pair of single people of the same gender between 12 and 17 years of age;
one room for each single person between 12 and 17 years of age and not included in the previous category;
one room per pair of children under 12 years of age.

As far as I remember they count kitchen, and extension, etc. if it separated by wall, but they don't count bathroom.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

I haven't see such studies on crowding measure, probably there is no such, except the ones with measuring walls.
The reason why I'm confident that those numbers would be lower, is due to the fact that comparing with Western Europe, Ireland average household size is higher, average property size is likely below Western Europe, and average living space per person is lower. And from the type of houses, there are many houses is Ireland below 100sqm packed with 5 rooms in it (3 bed + kitchen + living room). This is not as common in other countries I have lived.

If there is no report about it, better leave it, and don't try to assume something as a "Fact".

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

If there is no report about it, better leave it, and don't try to assume something as a "Fact".

ok that would be fine, but for some reasons you looking to re-evaluate some reports that doesn't suit it, but I should leave numbers on it's own when it suits you.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

ok that would be fine, but for some reasons you looking to re-evaluate some reports that doesn't suit it, but I should leave numbers on it's own when it suits you.

I'm not re-evaluating anything! I am simply saying that the argument we have more of housing underutilisation problem than a housing stock problem is borne out by the overoccupied/under-occupied stats provided by the EU!

You're arguing against that, no problem, but it would be helpful if you had something more concrete than your anecdotal evidence.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

I'm not re-evaluating anything! I am simply saying that the argument we have more of housing underutilisation problem than a housing stock problem is borne out by the overoccupied/under-occupied stats provided by the EU!

You're arguing against that, no problem, but it would be helpful if you had something more concrete than your anecdotal evidence.

The household size and other metrics that I related to housing utilization is not anecdotical evidence.

cruizer101

schmittel wrote: »

overoccupied/under-occupied stats provided by the EU!

To be fair I think those stats need to be taken with a decent pinch of salt.
Going by them a small 3 bed, kitchen/diner and sitting room downstairs with a couple, an adult child, and two teenagers of the same sex is under occupied.
I don't think most people would consider that underoccupied.

If it was separate kitchen diner which wasn't uncommon a while ago you could have another adult child in there and still be under occupied.

I'm not overly familiar with housing elsewhere in europe but that metric does not fit here.

Similarly see my post above where I would need 9 adults in my decent enough but by no means huge 4 bed house for it to be overcrowded.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

This metric is not important. Ireland has a utilization issue.

Around 17% of the EU population live in an overcrowded home.

In Ireland 3.2% of people live in an overcrowded home.

Around 33% of the EU population live in an under-occupied home.

In Ireland 69.6% of people live in an under-occupied home.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/digpub/housing/images/pdf/Housing-DigitalPublication-2020_en.pdf?lang=en

I wonder does the widespread move to WFH (full or part time) change this metric much - spare rooms are now offices so would change classification of “under occupied”?

hometruths

cruizer101 wrote: »

To be fair I think those stats need to be taken with a decent pinch of salt.
Going by them a small 3 bed, kitchen/diner and sitting room downstairs with a couple, an adult child, and two teenagers of the same sex is under occupied.
I don't think most people would consider that underoccupied.

If it was separate kitchen diner which wasn't uncommon a while ago you could have another adult child in there and still be under occupied.

I'm not overly familiar with housing elsewhere in europe but that metric does not fit here.

Similarly see my post above where I would need 9 adults in my decent enough but by no means huge 4 bed house for it to be overcrowded.

Ok fair enough, but what I am missing about the difference between a 4 bed house in Dublin versus a 4 bed house in say Paris?

If the same rules of rooms per adult couple/children of same sex etc apply across all cities surely it still tells us that have more underoccupied houses than the EU average?

I see your point that you could squeeze 8 into your house before it would be classified as overcrowded, which does seem silly, but how many people do live in it?

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

I wonder does the widespread move to WFH (full or part time) change this metric much - spare rooms are now offices so would change classification of “under occupied”?

I don't think it would change much as far as the definition goes. As cruizer points out, the stats don't differentiate between what the purpose of the room is.

timmyntc

schmittel wrote: »

Ok fair enough, but what I am missing about the difference between a 4 bed house in Dublin versus a 4 bed house in say Paris?

If the same rules of rooms per adult couple/children of same sex etc apply across all cities surely it still tells us that have more underoccupied houses than the EU average?

I see your point that you could squeeze 8 into your house before it would be classified as overcrowded, which does seem silly, but how many people do live in it?

Many european countries have a lot more apartments - and apartments typically have one shared kitchen/living area - which immediately impacts on the "overoccupied"-ness of a property.

Marius34

cruizer101 wrote: »

To be fair I think those stats need to be taken with a decent pinch of salt.
Going by them a small 3 bed, kitchen/diner and sitting room downstairs with a couple, an adult child, and two teenagers of the same sex is under occupied.
I don't think most people would consider that underoccupied.

If it was separate kitchen diner which wasn't uncommon a while ago you could have another adult child in there and still be under occupied.

I'm not overly familiar with housing elsewhere in europe but that metric does not fit here.

Similarly see my post above where I would need 9 adults in my decent enough but by no means huge 4 bed house for it to be overcrowded.

I'm fairly familiar with housing in other countries, as I lived for 12 years around Europe without permanent place. I haven't seen 5 rooms (3bed+kitchen+living) apartment/house squeezed in 100sqm, outside Ireland. I believe it maybe fairly common in UK, and maybe Amsterdam, but not much of other places.
Size wise, except of Western Europe, properties in Ireland is still much bigger than typical post soviet countries, where in urban areas most property were block apartment of 1 bedroom with size of 46-48 sqm.

cruizer101

schmittel wrote: »

Ok fair enough, but what I am missing about the difference between a 4 bed house in Dublin versus a 4 bed house in say Paris?

I'm not sure, maybe there is more open plan in Europe, meaning the same size (sqft) house could be overoccupied in paris but under-occupied here, thats just a guess though.

schmittel wrote: »

I see your point that you could squeeze 8 into your house before it would be classified as overcrowded, which does seem silly, but how many people do live in it?

2, so it is very under occupied, however.
One of the bedrooms is small and will be converted into an ensuite for main bedroom.
The kitchen and diner are planned to be joined.
In that case it is still the same size but can now hold 2 less people under that criteria.

Also to add, we bought house with plans of raising a family here so expect to have a few children in future meaning it won't be under-occupied.
In theory that is under-utilization. Should we have bought an apartment, then upsized to a 3 bed, than a 4 bed, than downsize again as kids move out. It is more efficient from a housing point of view but I don't fancy doing that losing money each time.

I don't doubt there is significant under-occupation, particularly among older people and there should be moves to encourage downsizing, by building appropriate accommodation in suitable locations but it is far more complicated than just that. e.g. want space for grandkids to stay over, or a big one fair deal scheme can take a massive chunk of your assets but only a smaller % of the value of your ppr, thats a big reason not to downsize.

MacronvFrugals

Interesting new stats from the CSO, just highlights again how QOL is not as good for young people compared with some of our northern counterparts, but sure we don't need the CSO to tell us what consecutive polls are showing

a snapshot of Irish life taken this month and last from almost 10,500 people, the Central Statistics Office (CSO) found 76% of those who share rented accommodation with non-family members “feel they will never be in a position to own their own place”.

Despite 71% enjoying the company of others in the shared accommodation, more than half feel that they don’t have enough privacy, while 44% reported feeling lonely all or most of the time.

Household chores are the main source of rancour among housemates, with almost half saying it caused issues, while the sharing of facilities likes bathrooms and showers was a problem for a third.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40320092.html

hometruths

cruizer101 wrote: »

I'm not sure, maybe there is more open plan in Europe, meaning the same size (sqft) house could be overoccupied in paris but under-occupied here, thats just a guess though.



2, so it is very under occupied, however.
One of the bedrooms is small and will be converted into an ensuite for main bedroom.
The kitchen and diner are planned to be joined.
In that case it is still the same size but can now hold 2 less people under that criteria.

Also to add, we bought house with plans of raising a family here so expect to have a few children in future meaning it won't be under-occupied.
In theory that is under-utilization. Should we have bought an apartment, then upsized to a 3 bed, than a 4 bed, than downsize again as kids move out. It is more efficient from a housing point of view but I don't fancy doing that losing money each time.

I don't doubt there is significant under-occupation, particularly among older people and there should be moves to encourage downsizing, by building appropriate accommodation in suitable locations but it is far more complicated than just that. e.g. want space for grandkids to stay over, or a big one fair deal scheme can take a massive chunk of your assets but only a smaller % of the value of your ppr, thats a big reason not to downsize.

I am in the same boat, I have a four bed house that is currently underoccupied by any reasonable standards, even though 9 could in theory live in it and it would not be overcrowded.

But that's the theory. I suspect the reality in Ireland is closer to your case and mine - i.e the bulk of our 4 bed houses are not being classified as underoccupied with 8 people living in them!

tobsey

tobsey wrote: »

What time was that at?

It was 22.06.2021 I think something between 6.45 and 6.57.I clocked in at work at 6.54 I think.

Bubbaclaus

Looks to be a global issue, with many countries experiencing growth far more severe than ourselves.

https://twitter.com/RensvanTilburg/status/1407632950242447367?s=19

Amadan Dubh

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Looks to be a global issue, with many countries experiencing growth far more severe than ourselves.

https://twitter.com/RensvanTilburg/status/1407632950242447367?s=19

Why would we not blame the ECB? The Fed and Bank of England have also adopted QE policies which have inflated assets to this absolutely monstrous bubble. Interest rate rises to deflate it and cool asset prices as a matter of urgency would go a long way to helping ease housing crises. Wealth inequality is soaring, wages are not rising, populism is growing. It's all linked!

Timing belt

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Why would we not blame the ECB? The Fed and Bank of England have also adopted QE policies which have inflated assets to this absolutely monstrous bubble. Interest rate rises to deflate it and asset prices as a matter of urgency would go a long way to helping ease housing crises.

No it wouldn’t unless you had real economic growth with it. Interest rate rises without growth would make the ‘08 crisis look like a little hiccup in comparison and would just start a credit crisis so unless your cash buyer employed by a company that won’t fire you it would make things worse. To make matters worse the likes of google Facebook tic toc would be worse affected as there share valuations are based on future earnings which would be impacted severely due to discounting future profits brought about by high rates...The only option they would be left with is massive cost cutting (jobs) to prop up their shareprice.

TSQ

schmittel wrote: »

This metric is not important. Ireland has a utilization issue.

Around 17% of the EU population live in an overcrowded home.

In Ireland 3.2% of people live in an overcrowded home.

Around 33% of the EU population live in an under-occupied home.

In Ireland 69.6% of people live in an under-occupied home.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/digpub/housing/images/pdf/Housing-DigitalPublication-2020_en.pdf?lang=en

Ridiculous survey. So a 2 bedroom / 2 bath open plan house of 2,000 m2 with 3 adults is overcrowded, whereas a 1,500 m2 size house with 4 bedrooms and 3 adults is under occupied.

yagan

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Why would we not blame the ECB? The Fed and Bank of England have also adopted QE policies which have inflated assets to this absolutely monstrous bubble. Interest rate rises to deflate it and cool asset prices as a matter of urgency would go a long way to helping ease housing crises. Wealth inequality is soaring, wages are not rising, populism is growing. It's all linked!

The ECB, Fed don't regulate housing markets. Irish domestic settings actively encourage property speculation.

Amadan Dubh

Timing belt wrote: »

No it wouldn’t unless you had real economic growth with it. Interest rate rises without growth would make the ‘08 crisis look like a little hiccup in comparison and would just start a credit crisis so unless your cash buyer employed by a company that won’t fire you it would make things worse. To make matters worse the likes of google Facebook tic toc would be worse affected as there share valuations are based on future earnings which would be impacted severely due to discounting future profits brought about by high rates...The only option they would be left with is massive cost cutting (jobs) to prop up their shareprice.

But there's no real economic growth with the current situation. It's a sham. Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft valuations are laughable, genuinely entirely devoid of reason - meaning they won't need to cut costs if their share prices correct 30/40%. There is literally no reason they can stay this high unless the magic money printers keep whirring. I'm not talking about significant interest rate increases but incremental increases starting before the year end in order to try to ease the pressure on the whole thing.

Otherwise, the only way the situation can be sustained in the next few months and years is if we see big wage rises. But I don't think businesses will be too viable if they find they need annual 10%+ salary increases for employees (on top of what they alresdy need to keep up with the last few years of cost of living increases).

Interest rate rises are necessary and inevitable.

Amadan Dubh

yagan wrote: »

The ECB, Fed don't regulate housing markets. Irish domestic settings actively encourage property speculation.

Some solution like banning corporates from owning property or banning landlords? I can see something like that getting traction with populists who will become more popular over the coming years if house prices and rents do not reduce from current levels (not even if they remain flat for a couple years, they would need to reduce IMO).

TheSheriff

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

But there's no real economic growth with the current situation. It's a sham. Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft valuations are laughable, genuinely entirely devoid of reason - meaning they won't need to cut costs if their share prices correct 30/40%. There is literally no reason they can stay this high unless the magic money printers keep whirring. I'm not talking about significant interest rate increases but incremental increases starting before the year end in order to try to ease the pressure on the whole thing.

Otherwise, the only way the situation can be sustained in the next few months and years is if we see big wage rises. But I don't think businesses will be too viable if they find they need annual 10%+ salary increases for employees (on top of what they alresdy need to keep up with the last few years of cost of living increases).

Interest rate rises are necessary and inevitable.

Very unlikely to happen in the next couple of years.... and who knows how high prices will go between now and then.

Amadan Dubh

TheSheriff wrote: »

Very unlikely to happen in the next couple of years.... and who knows how high prices will go between now and then.

Timing is of course open to debate. How high they go, who knows as the printers are in overdrive. With wages going up, I hope businesses aren't planning on tightening their belts with staff costs and if they have tightened them because of covid, they will need to loosen them the way things are going. Emergency powers extended until November, eviction bans until the end of the year probably, PUP gradually phased out from September until February next year; all aligned with borrowing and money being printed out of thin air. The way the talk is going, we may end up with more covid hysteria in the autumn/winter which would of course result in further delays to removing supports, meaning even more QE!

tobsey

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was 22.06.2021 I think something between 6.45 and 6.57.I clocked in at work at 6.54 I think.

I just listened back to it. You completely misrepresented what was said in the show. He spoke only about consumer sentiment which is a survey of ordinary people. There wasn’t any mention of a crash coming. He said 16% felt that the housing market was the biggest issue. A similar number said that high government spending and therefore more government debt was the biggest issue. He gave no opinions of his own, he just reported on the story.

Bass Reeves

tobsey wrote: »

I just listened back to it. You completely misrepresented what was said in the show. He spoke only about consumer sentiment which is a survey of ordinary people. There wasn’t any mention of a crash coming. He said 16% felt that the housing market was the biggest issue. A similar number said that high government spending and therefore more government debt was the biggest issue. He gave no opinions of his own, he just reported on the story.

Why are we not surprised

Hubertj

tobsey wrote: »

I just listened back to it. You completely misrepresented what was said in the show. He spoke only about consumer sentiment which is a survey of ordinary people. There wasn’t any mention of a crash coming. He said 16% felt that the housing market was the biggest issue. A similar number said that high government spending and therefore more government debt was the biggest issue. He gave no opinions of his own, he just reported on the story.

Misrepresentation is being generous

Wanderer78

Amadan Dubh wrote:

Interest rate rises are necessary and inevitable.

How are rate rises necessary, a rise now would start crashing economies all over the place, the EU cannot afford this to happen, not even to a single country? Its also important to remember, a rate rise would only affect an element of our debts, and not all of that is due in a single go. I can't see rates rising anytime soon, and defict spending is the only way out of this, particularly in relation to housing

hometruths

TSQ wrote: »

Ridiculous survey. So a 2 bedroom / 2 bath open plan house of 2,000 m2 with 3 adults is overcrowded, whereas a 1,500 m2 size house with 4 bedrooms and 3 adults is under occupied.

I presume you meant sq ft. It's a ridiculous example, since a 2000 sq ft 2 bed would be relatively rare.

Even so, in your example, assuming 2 of the adults are a couple in the 2 bed, it is not overcrowded. But it has no spare bedroom.

And your 4 bed is underoccupied because even if all the adults are single it still has a spare bedroom.

Amadan Dubh

Wanderer78 wrote: »

How are rate rises necessary, a rise now would start crashing economies all over the place, the EU cannot afford this to happen, not even to a single country? Its also important to remember, a rate rise would only affect an element of our debts, and not all of that is due in a single go. I can't see rates rising anytime soon, and defict spending is the only way out of this, particularly in relation to housing

I think you would need to expand on what you mean by "crashing economies" as I would see it as taking the heat out of the economy with some very small increases. But it is not just because of the pandemic, it is because of the last 11 years of creating money. Costs are rising all around us, except for maybe supermarket food and clothes, and they will keep rising as more economies reopen. Throw in house prices climbing another 7-10% this year, with possible 8% rent increases when the government pause on that "loop hole" expires and employees looking for 10%+ wage increases as standard and the vicious upwards spiral continues. It is just not sustainable.

Hubertj

Hubertj wrote: »

Consumer sentiment is at a 2 year high.

Unfortunately growing savings show opposite picture

Amadan Dubh

In other news, sky is blue and grass is green, at least according to disgraced cowboys Davy. Supply needs to ramp up, building costs are high, regulation is a problem, planning is a joke and mortgage lending restrictions are too low.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/state-needs-to-build-over-200-000-homes-over-three-years-to-solve-housing-crisis-1.4601644

State needs to build ‘over 200,000 homes’ over three years to solve housing crisis

Supply is puzzlingly low given current house prices, Davy report says

The State may need to build as many as 200,000 new homes over the next three years to resolve the housing crisis, a new report by Davy stockbroker has claimed.

The report calculated that “latent” housing demand in the Irish market – the number of households whose demand for homes has not been met due to the lack of supply – now stands at 106,000.

This combined with an estimated annual demand of 30,000 units and an annual rate of obsolescence means that more than 200,000 housing units are needed between 2021 and 2024 to fix the problem.

Timing belt

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

I think you would need to expand on what you mean by "crashing economies" as I would see it as taking the heat out of the economy with some very small increases. But it is not just because of the pandemic, it is because of the last 11 years of creating money. Costs are rising all around us, except for maybe supermarket food and clothes, and they will keep rising as more economies reopen. Throw in house prices climbing another 7-10% this year, with possible 8% rent increases when the government pause on that "loop hole" expires and employees looking for 10%+ wage increases as standard and the vicious upwards spiral continues. It is just not sustainable.

If you put asset inflation to the side there has not been significant inflation in the economy for the past 11 years as measured by the CPI.

If you look at asset inflation specifically low rates have boosted asset prices but in the past 11 years (Jan 2010 - Jan 2021) house prices have increased by 21.8% nationally over the 11 years. That is an average annual increase of 1.9%.

We could look at Trough to Peek (2013 - Present) which would show a house price increase of 87% which would equate to a average annual increase of around 10% but not all this increase is due to QE or low rates. The majority of it will be due to house prices being significantly undervalued in 2013. Just to be clear I am not saying that house prices are not overvalued currently all I am saying is that QE is not the only reason for the rise in house prices. The main driver for a increase in house prices has been a shortage of supply because during those 11 years we only built a average of 11k of new property annually whilst at the same time we saw an increase in inward migration.

Even a modest interest rate rise has the potential to crash economies if it is not accompanied by real economic growth.

Amadan Dubh

Revolution 1917 wrote: »

Unfortunately growing savings show opposite picture

Sentiment means diddly squat.

Consumer spending down 14% and 19% YoY in January and February 2021 respectively (Revolut);
https://okellysutton.ie/2021/03/08/consumer-spending-down-19-in-february-revolut/

March 2021 consumer sentiment at 12 month high (KBC); https://www.checkout.ie/retail/irish-consumer-sentiment-increases-best-level-twelve-months-126491

Hubertj

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Unfortunately growing savings show opposite picture

Why did you lie about the Newstalk segment?

Summer2020

Revolution 1917 wrote: »

Unfortunately growing savings show opposite picture

I don’t think your opinion is even worth reading anymore after seeing you blatantly lie about the content of a radio segment.

Bass Reeves

Hubertj wrote: »

Why did you lie about the Newstalk segment?

Problem is he is not the first on that side of the debate and will not be the last to twist facts and keep posting falsehoods

MacronvFrugals

Taoiseach Micheál Martin: There will be new incentives for older people to downsize and free up homes for families

A vacant property tax “is being looked at” to incentivise people to develop the properties “and get them into use”, the Taoiseach said.

Mr Martin said the housing crisis will have to be dealt with in the same manner as Covid.

“There’s a repair and lease scheme in the public sector that local authorities benefit from. We’ve asked the Minister for Housing to give consideration to a scheme, whereby you’d incentivise people who would want to buy their first house, for example, to get involved in refurbishing it. It could be a grant.”

It’s understood this scheme would seek to incentivise prospective homeowners, specifically first-time buyers, to purchase a property that has been vacant for more than 12 months.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/taoiseach-micheal-martin-there-will-be-new-incentives-for-older-peopleto-downsize-and-free-up-homes-for-families-40574160.html

Amadan Dubh

That's quite a statement that the

housing crisis will be dealt with in the same manner as covid

I'll believe it when I see it but something big is coming from the government before the summer recess.

Timing belt

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

That's quite a statement that the I'll believe it when I see it but something big is coming from the government before the summer recess.

Even if the Government decided to start building houses on Mass the cost of building a unit will probably increase as there is a limited supply of builders and any large scale initiative will generate inflation in costs as there will be an increase in demand for workers and materials. There really is no magic wand to make this better. Yes there is a lot that can be done to improve the situation but any real solution will take time.

Browney7

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Taoiseach Micheál Martin: There will be new incentives for older people to downsize and free up homes for families








https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/taoiseach-micheal-martin-there-will-be-new-incentives-for-older-peopleto-downsize-and-free-up-homes-for-families-40574160.html

The incentive or grant for properties vacant for more than 12 months sounds like HTB for second hand homes by the back door.

Will need strong protections to ensure this isn't abused which likely won't come but for demand areas, these vacant homes from probate that need total refurbishment are getting sold anyway.

Any grant will just get added on to the sellers price. If for FTBs only, it will again disadvantage any existing owners or movers. If looking to move house, your house by definition won't be vacant so the price you could hope to get could be dampened by what the "dilapidated" vacant house up the road from the estate of Betty out of fair deal would offer to FTBs.

So second time buyers would be competing for new builds against buyers with the HTB free money and now potentially against buyers with access to a dilapidation grant.

I could see some merit to the scheme to revitalise towns and villages where no one wants to live but the dilapidation isn't a problem in demand areas

All kite flying no doubt to be seen to trying to do something and "tackling the issue with real solutions for real people" but more meddling seems inevitable

Ozark707

Timing belt wrote: »

Even if the Government decided to start building houses on Mass the cost of building a unit will probably increase as there is a limited supply of builders and any large scale initiative will generate inflation in costs as there will be an increase in demand for workers and materials. There really is no magic wand to make this better. Yes there is a lot that can be done to improve the situation but any real solution will take time.

The reality is that the government don't have time. If we are 3 years or so out from the next election they need to have decided on actions (very soon) that will lead to results on the ground inside 2 years (i.e. both a reduction in cost of renting and buying). So that rules out a large scale building plan as being the answer.

As far as I can see that narrows the field down to

• Vacancy tax
• Downsizer incentive
• Tightening of rules around STL's
• Refurb of run down homes
• Reform of HAP
• ...

Given the realpolitik here I can't see HAP being touched

Wanderer78

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

I think you would need to expand on what you mean by "crashing economies" as I would see it as taking the heat out of the economy with some very small increases. But it is not just because of the pandemic, it is because of the last 11 years of creating money. Costs are rising all around us, except for maybe supermarket food and clothes, and they will keep rising as more economies reopen. Throw in house prices climbing another 7-10% this year, with possible 8% rent increases when the government pause on that "loop hole" expires and employees looking for 10%+ wage increases as standard and the vicious upwards spiral continues. It is just not sustainable.

...as others have stated, its asset price inflation we ve been truly experiencing, and for a very long time, the most obvious being in regards property, real world economies, in particular wage inflation has remained very low, stagnant in some cases, this is ultimately where the crisis is. if central banks make a move now, we ll start experiencing serious real world problems, whereby many simply wont be able to service their debts, and then we re off to the races....

once again, its actually private debts are the true dangerous debts to be wary of here, public debts generally arent as bad, as governments have the ability to roll over their debts as long as possible, until serviced in full, this generally cannot be done with private sector debts, when defaults occur here in large numbers, the financial system falls over.....

again, its important to remember what brought us here, it was in fact by running our economy hot on the private sector money supply, i.e. the credit supply, and this is where qe has taken over, it to is now doing the exact same thing, pushing asset prices up, including property, this to is gonna fail, we need to get money out into the real world economy, and fast. a ubi style system is now becoming more necessary than ideologically driven, i personally believe all citizens should be given a voucher type card, maybe a one for all, pre loaded with credit, with maybe a time limit to spend, in order to create whats called an increase in the velocity of the money supply, to generate economic activities, this would need to be funded by deficit borrowing, but our government are now gonna default to their normal approach, i.e. encourage us to rush to the banks, spend our deposits, and take on new loans. i cant see this truly working very well, sadly i think many businesses will eventually end up closed permanently, post covid, and theres no need for this, increasing pup payments has proved such an approach works.

Amadan Dubh

Timing belt wrote: »

Even if the Government decided to start building houses on Mass the cost of building a unit will probably increase as there is a limited supply of builders and any large scale initiative will generate inflation in costs as there will be an increase in demand for workers and materials. There really is no magic wand to make this better. Yes there is a lot that can be done to improve the situation but any real solution will take time.

"on mass", perhaps fitting for the government that worships the false idols of the market representatives rather than considering the best interests for the individuals whose interests they are elected to represent and prioritise.

Absolutely agree it will take time, but I think the big plan from the government to be announced in the coming weeks will have a more concrete outcome, even if it takes a couple of years to make a meaningful dent in prices and meaningful increases to the supply of homes.