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

Amadan Dubh

Dav010 wrote: »

What you are describing has always been the distinction between renting and owning a property, this “crisis” has not lessened the rights of a tenant to own the property they rent.

But the policies of FF and FG to push younger people towards long term renting and away from buying, whilst not ensuring sustainability in the rental market (namely, rampant rental market inflation the past few years while salary growth is muted), is causing social destruction, and I mean severe, worse-than-covid social devastation to so many young people. And I write this as a renter but a lucky one due to our jobs and rental we have but I am very much close to the situation given my peers, colleagues, friends and family are all experiencing it; it is grim how Irish society looks for the younger generations. Of course covid restrictions have just magnified the issues, with the whole pandemic being a social more than a health concern for the younger generations but the situation was hesding that way pre-covid and is now far worse.

Amadan Dubh

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

But the policies of FF and FG to push younger people towards long term renting and away from buying, whilst not ensuring sustainability in the rental market, is causing social destruction, and I mean severe, worse-than-covid social devastation to so many young people. And I write this as a renter but a lucky one due to our jobs and rental we have but I am very much close to the situation given my peers, colleagues, friends and family are all experiencing it; it is grim how Irish society looks for the younger generations. Of course covid restrictions have just magnified the issues, with the whole pandemic being a social more than a health concern for the younger generations but the situation ws shesding that way pre-covid and is now far worse.

The parties in power over the past 10 years have seen an incredible economic recovery which led to full employment prior to the pandemic. This has led to a reduction in emigration and increase in population who all need accommodation. It really doesn’t matter who governed, they couldn’t conjure up the properties needed while at the same time limit the borrowing and development which put us in the mire during the last recession. This notion that SF or any of the other loony socialists will sort out the property market is fanciful. While some argue that RPZ legislation saved tenants from higher rents, it has undoubtedly hindered rent reductions over the past year.

Social destruction? Honestly, you would think that it only became difficult to buy a house recently and that up to now, everybody was able to live wherever they wanted. How easily and quickly that people forget that a significant proportion of twenty-somethings had to emigrate to the UK/US to work, and save, so they could afford to come home years later to buy/build a home.

Balluba

TheSheriff wrote: »

Great, could you share some examples of these properties?

Look at Price Changes on Myhome.ie. Many houses in Dublin have reduced their asking prices over the past few days. Also many houses have increased their asking prices.

combat14

Balluba wrote: »

Look at Price Changes on Myhome.ie. Many houses in Dublin have reduced their asking prices over the past few days. Also many houses have increased their asking prices.

looks like another potential lockdown on the cards with new covid variant numbers rising here 38% in 2 weeks and still so many unvaccinated .. maybe sellers are trying to make a quick sale before economy shut down again

Ozark707

combat14 wrote: »

looks like another potential lockdown on the cards with new covid variant numbers rising here 38% in 2 weeks and still so many unvaccinated .. maybe sellers are trying to make a quick sale before economy shut down again

It could also be that they were highly aspirational in the first place and given that we are now entering the summer season which typically sees a reduction in activity and past the spring selling season then if they could not offload at the original prices they might have to modify downwards expectations

Amadan Dubh

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Yes and before people say "well, she had a chance to bid for it", that's not the point

Well, no - that's exactly the point. Do you really think if you don't pay for your house, and the bank repossess it, the bank should lose out on the market value of the property because the tenant wants to buy it for less than it's worth?

She had the exact same opportunity as everyone else in the country to bid on it, but she couldn't afford it. I'd rather see that than see Leo stepping in to bail her out. What good would that do? Nothing gets repossessed because the state steps in to save everyone?

Should every tenant get first dibs on a property and get away with offering what they can afford, instead of what it is worth? How does that make sense?

Amadan Dubh

Reassuring comments from the deputy governor of the CBI on the mortgage lending restrictions. I'm not sure when their review is due to finish but I think it is still ongoing.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/relaxing-mortgage-rules-could-fuel-another-credit-bubble-warns-top-banker-1.4609060

The State’s strict mortgage lending rules are necessary to prevent another credit price spiral, Central Bank deputy governor Sharon Donnery has said.

“House prices are going up for many reasons – supply and demand, land availability, planning, building constraints – and we don’t want credit to be adding fuel to that,” she told a webinar event on the economy, hosted by University College Dublin.

Amadan Dubh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well, no - that's exactly the point. Do you really think if you don't pay for your house, and the bank repossess it, the bank should lose out on the market value of the property because the tenant wants to buy it for less than it's worth?

She had the exact same opportunity as everyone else in the country to bid on it, but she couldn't afford it. I'd rather see that than see Leo stepping in to bail her out. What good would that do? Nothing gets repossessed because the state steps in to save everyone?

Should every tenant get first dibs on a property and get away with offering what they can afford, instead of what it is worth? How does that make sense?

That's not the point.

See post above.

AlmightyCushion

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Reassuring comments from the deputy governor of the CBI on the mortgage lending restrictions. I'm not sure how their review is due to finish but I think it is still ongoing.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/relaxing-mortgage-rules-could-fuel-another-credit-bubble-warns-top-banker-1.4609060

That is very relieving to hear.

C14N

C14N wrote: »

Maybe I'm small minded in some way but I never really understand why people build houses this size. What does anyone want with 8 bedrooms? If I got one for free, I actually couldn't fathom what I would put in all of those rooms, and I can't think of a time when I've wanted to have numerous guests all staying in my house at the same time. I can get wanting more size to an extent, but maybe up to like 250sqm, I haven't a clue what I would want with 900sqm. Just seems like the vast majority of it is going to be unused pretty much forever.

Obviously every house is different, but I've been in some 6+ bedroom houses were the bedrooms are so small that you can barely fit a bed into them. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.


That said, I could understand wanting extra rooms if you wanted to do stuff in your house. For example, if i had a load of (reasonably sized) rooms, I'd go ahead with having a proper office and a decent gym. Other people might like a cinema room, arcade room, home bar/snooker table set up, model railway room, etc.

Amadan Dubh

Dav010 wrote: »

The parties in power over the past 10 years have seen an incredible economic recovery which led to full employment prior to the pandemic. This has led to a reduction in emigration and increase in population who all need accommodation. It really doesn’t matter who governed, they couldn’t conjure up the properties needed while at the same time limit the borrowing and development which put us in the mire during the last recession. This notion that SF or any of the other loony socialists will sort out the property market is fanciful. While some argue that RPZ legislation saved tenants from higher rents, it has undoubtedly hindered rent reductions over the past year.

Social destruction? Honestly, you would think that it only became difficult to buy a house recently and that up to now, everybody was able to live wherever they wanted. How easily and quickly that people forget that a significant proportion of twenty-somethings had to emigrate to the UK/US to work, and save, so they could afford to come home years later to buy/build a home.

Firstly, I was referring to the rental market but I think your post touches on the dogmatic, stubborn mindset of someone obsessed with buying and this is the mindset we need to breakdown to ensure the problem gets the full covid-restrictions, wartime response it requires. The rental market prices should not be 40%+ higher than mortgage repayments. This is an out of control situation that is, quite simply, approaching catastrophe (political revolution, social upheavel, market crash). And I do not use hyperbole here, I believe these are appropriate descriptions of the state of the rental market.

As well, your post adds more weight to my point, claiming that emigration in the past happened but it lead to people getting savings to buy a house. Is that really how society should be? I sometimes feel there is a begrudging "I had to suffer and emirate so everyone else should too", attitude among people who have been scarred from their own trauma.

Amadan Dubh

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

That's not the point.

See post above.

Without trying to be smart - I don't understand your point then? I gathered that she wanted to pay less than the house is worth, and you think she should have been allowed to do that?

Does anyone else find MyHome is very slow to load? My internet is fairly speedy. I never have issues with Daft, Netflix, Youtube, watching HD anything really.. but MyHome always takes ages.

Anyone else have that issue? (I use Firefox, for what it's worth)

Amadan Dubh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Without trying to be smart - I don't understand your point then? I gathered that she wanted to pay less than the house is worth, and you think she should have been allowed to do that?

My point was that this extra froth in the market and desperation, frenzy buying from people fearful of inflation (investors) or desperate to get a foothold on the property ladder and get some security/escape the rental market (individual buyers), caused by a whole host of issues in the property market, added froth to the selling price with a knock on effect that the poor lady could not afford to buy the place in the end, who has rented the place for ten years, is now homeless. If you took the froth out of the market of the last few years, she would've been able to afford the place and this is easy to claim as wages and mortgage lending restrictions have remained rather static in that time, so there is no rationale justification for this froth in the market the last few years and it needs to be removed as a matter of urgency.

Amadan Dubh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Does anyone else find MyHome is very slow to load? My internet is fairly speedy. I never have issues with Daft, Netflix, Youtube, watching HD anything really.. but MyHome always takes ages.

Anyone else have that issue? (I use Firefox, for what it's worth)

I use the browser on my phone called Brave and it works fine always. Just opened a few pages there and still seems to be all fine.

Amadan Dubh

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

My point was that this extra froth in the market and desperation, frenzy buying from people fearful of inflation (investors) or desperate to get a foothold on the property ladder and get some security/escape the rental market (individual buyers), caused by a whole host of issues in the property market, added froth to the selling price with a knock on effect that the poor lady could not afford to buy the place in the end, who has rented the place for ten years, is now homeless. If you took the froth out of the market of the last few years, she would've been able to afford the place and this is easy to claim as wages and mortgage lending restrictions have remained rather static in that time, so there is no rationale justification for this froth in the market.

The value of the house has increased over time, and she couldn't afford it. Doesn't matter whether houses are at rock bottom prices, or 'celtic tiger' prices, the value is the value, and the bank should be doing all they can to make sure they get the market value, in my opinion.

Amadan Dubh

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

I use the browser on my phone called Brave and it works fine always. Just opened a few pages there and still seems to be all fine.

Seems to be an ongoing issue for me. I'll try another browser and see if that helps. Cheers for checking that for me.

Amadan Dubh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The value of the house has increased over time, and she couldn't afford it. Doesn't matter whether houses are at rock bottom prices, or 'celtic tiger' prices, the value is the value, and the bank should be doing all they can to make sure they get the market value, in my opinion.

Yes, but the situation that we have had the last few years is not a sustainable way for the market to be and we are in another boom/bust cycle, likely at the upper echelons of the boom. Real people suffer needless hardship and stress by not looking to keep more stability in the market in terms of prices.

combat14

combat14 wrote: »

looks like another potential lockdown on the cards with new covid variant numbers rising here 38% in 2 weeks and still so many unvaccinated .. maybe sellers are trying to make a quick sale before economy shut down again

This may be a 'stupid' opinion to some people, but I don't think anything pushed houses prices up more than the lockdown restrictions.

There was a period there where you had to demonstrate a legitimate interest in a property to be able to secure a viewing (PSRA i think set this out as the person must have viewed it online, and demonstrate an ability to pay the asking price).

EA's interpreted this as "make a bid to view the house". Doesn't matter if you have no interest in keeping the bid, but just make a bid, so we can get you into a viewing. As a result, prices went absolutely mental for a while.

There was a house I was looking at in Cavan where the price had gone up from 175 to 190, before anyone even set foot in it, because people's nonsense bids were being made to get to the viewing, and once the viewing had taken place, for anyone still interested, the price was now 190.

There was a house in Drogheda too, that was listed at 200k in an estate where 200 is optimistic. It was at 225k i think, before a viewing took place. I was one of the "pretend" bidders on it. I couldn't attend the viewing in the end, but rang a few days after, expecting the "real" bidding would have started, and it'd be around 210k or so, but it was at 237k :rolleyes: Sold for more than that, 250 i believe.


Another lockdown, with viewing restrictions, will push prices harder again, i reckon.

Amadan Dubh

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Firstly, I was referring to the rental market but I think your post touches on the dogmatic, stubborn mindset of someone obsessed with buying and this is the mindset we need to breakdown to ensure the problem gets the full covid-restrictions, wartime response it requires. The rental market prices should not be 40%+ higher than mortgage repayments. This is an out of control situation that is, quite simply, approaching catastrophe (political revolution, social upheavel, market crash). And I do not use hyperbole here, I believe these are appropriate descriptions of the state of the rental market.

As well, your post adds more weight to my point, claiming that emigration in the past happened but it lead to people getting savings to buy a house. Is that really how society should be? I sometimes feel there is a begrudging "I had to suffer and emirate so everyone else should too", attitude among people who have been scarred from their own trauma.

If supply is not available, the rental market should work like every other economic market, why should it be any different? When supply outstrips demand, prices fall, except of course when government interference prevents that from happening. Our population has grown because there are jobs here, it outstripped home building, it will take time for that to catch up, do you want a crash with associated job losses and economic bust, just so houses become more affordable? How will people pay?

In relation to emigration and migration, yes, that is how society should be. If you can’t get what you want where and when you want it, you consider alternative methods to achieve it. It seems self entitled to think you should not have to do what previous generations did in order to get what you want. It can hardly be considered begrudgery, and it is laughable to describe it as traumatic, that previous generations had to emigrate to achieve their ambition to own a home.

You do use hyperbole, quite a lot, do you see political revolution, social upheaval or markets crashing? Where? Are people marching on the streets? Has the stock market dived? Has the government collapsed to be replaced with Lefties? No it hasn’t. The voters in DS have a chance to send a message, let’s see if the political upheaval you speak of is reality.

BillyBiggs

If there isn’t a crash, where does all this end? Will a 3 bed semi in Glasnevin be worth a million?

Amadan Dubh

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Yes, but the situation that we have had the last few years is not a sustainable way for the market to be and we are in another boom/bust cycle, likely at the upper echelons of the boom. Real people suffer needless hardship and stress by not looking to keep more stability in the market in terms of prices.

I don't know if we are in a boom at the moment, though, is the thing. Or is this just the new normal?

Top of a boom would say that prices are going to dwindle soon, but the supply isn't there yet, and the shared equity scheme is gonna come barging onto the scene like the Kool Aid Man coming through the wall, putting a theoretical extra 30% into people's back pockets.

I also find it difficult to believe we're in a boom, when almost everyone is saying we're in a boom. People have been saying the prices are gonna crash for the last few years and it hasn't happened.


In relation to the woman/tenant in the story - if she can't afford to buy the house then she can't afford to buy the house. I don't mean to sound too crude, but there are lots of people out there that can't afford to buy houses they like. I've been outbid on stuff, and so have many people I know. It's a bit sh/t when it happens to you, but that's just the way it goes, unfortunately.

BillyBiggs wrote: »

If there isn’t a crash, where does all this end? Will a 3 bed semi in Glasnevin be worth a million?

It might not crash, or keep raising, but just level off instead, for a few years (which is my guess - that the "crazy prices" are just gonna be the new price points for a while to come. At least until more supply appears, or Paschal kicks the legs out from under everyone to start paying back the Covid bills).

Villa05

Dav010 wrote:

it really doesn’t matter who governed, they couldn’t conjure up the properties needed while at the same time limit the borrowing and development which put us in the mire during the last recession. This notion that SF or any of the other loony socialists will sort out the property market is fanciful. While some argue that RPZ legislation saved tenants from higher rents, it has undoubtedly hindered rent reductions over the past year.

On housing the starting point in the time period of less than 10 years was a significant oversupply. The need to knock down houses was been openly discussed and taken

Nama pulled in all developers into their clutches regardless of whether they were in trouble or not. This in effect was a measure to control supply/competition.

It is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that it was impossible for supply to keep pace with demand from our starting point

The situation we have right now is by choice with every arm of the state thrown at it to achieve it. It was basically a back door bailout for the banks.

The fact that the entire load was placed on the backs of our youth was a policy choice of weak governance under the guise that many don't vote or the system makes it cumbersome for them to vote through our rental system.

Had that load been spread a little bit more evenly we would have a far more equal country today. Instead we have our youth and futures gouged at every turn while the institutions most responsible for the crash (banks) enjoying tax free status for years to come because they can offset profits against losses that were transferred to the taxpayer
They then use marketing slogans like Backing Brave. Yeah right

Amadan Dubh

IT editorial today on home ownership, calling it a " a major social faultline". I could have written this myself it seems!

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-home-ownership-a-major-social-faultline-1.4610115

The model of buying a home and paying off the loan as you work towards retirement is broken – and it will have profound consequences

Property has become the great delineator of wealth and a major demographic faultline. Those who own their homes are typically older and better off. According to the 2016 population census, 85 per cent of 65-year-olds own their own homes, while just 14 per cent rented. Contrast that with the fact that an estimated 12 per cent of 25-39-year-olds – those of a prime working age – own their own homes. This dynamic has all sorts of consequences, not least relating to the pension implications of having a whole generation shut out of the property market. The traditional model of buying a home and paying off the loan as you work towards retirement is broken. The wider social and political implications could be profound.

drogon.

Deleted User wrote: »

It might not crash, or keep raising, but just level off instead, for a few years (which is my guess - that the "crazy prices" are just gonna be the new price points for a while to come. At least until more supply appears, or Paschal kicks the legs out from under everyone to start paying back the Covid bills).

The chance of house pricing standing still is very unlikely, bidding process for second hand homes are just going to push prices up and up. New home prices will be increased to cater for the increased demand.

Something will have to give eventually. The market is pretty screwed up at the moment.

Villa05

Villa05 wrote: »

On housing the starting point in the time period of less than 10 years was a significant oversupply. The need to knock down houses was been openly discussed and taken

Nama pulled in all developers into their clutches regardless of whether they were in trouble or not. This in effect was a measure to control supply/competition.

It is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that it was impossible for supply to keep pace with demand from our starting point

The situation we have right now is by choice with every arm of the state thrown at it to achieve it. It was basically a back door bailout for the banks.

The fact that the entire load was placed on the backs of our youth was a policy choice of weak governance under the guise that many don't vote or the system makes it cumbersome for them to vote through our rental system.

Had that load been spread a little bit more evenly we would have a far more equal country today. Instead we have our youth and futures gouged at every turn while the institutions most responsible for the crash (banks) enjoying tax free status for years to come because they can offset profits against losses that were transferred to the taxpayer
They then use marketing slogans like Backing Brave. Yeah right

You are making it sound like you have a persecution complex. I can’t remember the last time Ireland had full employment and emigration dwindled, can you? Without bailing out the banks, there was the possibility that the collapse of the Irish economy would have been far worse, you believe that to have been a more advantageous alternative?

It might not have been impossible for house building to keep up with population increase and improvements in people’s work/financial position, but it is a bit naive to think it was just a case of developers deciding to take a chance on building tens/hundreds of thousands of house in 2015-19 which they may not sell or may sell at a loss, and then presto, houses suddenly appear.

The success of our recovery is a contributing factor in this, there is/was jobs/money in Ireland, and now a generation of the self entitled who believe they deserve a house where they want it.

Villa05

Amadan Dubh wrote:

IT editorial today on home ownership, calling it a " a major social faultline". I could have written this myself it seems!

Does anyone know if that 12% ownership rate for 25 to 39 year olds is an outright or with mortgage ownership

If I recall correctly the census only asks if you own or rent your property

Amadan Dubh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't know if we are in a boom at the moment, though, is the thing. Or is this just the new normal?

Top of a boom would say that prices are going to dwindle soon, but the supply isn't there yet, and the shared equity scheme is gonna come barging onto the scene like the Kool Aid Man coming through the wall, putting a theoretical extra 30% into people's back pockets.

I also find it difficult to believe we're in a boom, when almost everyone is saying we're in a boom. People have been saying the prices are gonna crash for the last few years and it hasn't happened.


In relation to the woman/tenant in the story - if she can't afford to buy the house then she can't afford to buy the house. I don't mean to sound too crude, but there are lots of people out there that can't afford to buy houses they like. I've been outbid on stuff, and so have many people I know. It's a bit sh/t when it happens to you, but that's just the way it goes, unfortunately.





It might not crash, or keep raising, but just level off instead, for a few years (which is my guess - that the "crazy prices" are just gonna be the new price points for a while to come. At least until more supply appears, or Paschal kicks the legs out from under everyone to start paying back the Covid bills).

The key reason there is a boom and it remains this way is due to the factors which created it not being addressed so it is just going higher and higher.

The biggest factor, as people are probably aware, as it is common for quite a few countries who are also experiencing booming markets, is QE and low interest rates. Yield chasing institutionals are scouring the planet looking for anything that generates yield and this had lead to then piling into property, with their deep pockets and ability, like a whale in the sea, to gobble everything up and almost dictate the market themselves from their actions.

Meaningful interest rate rises would, overnight, correct the market. Remove the QE and the whole financial system collapses but is it sustainable for central banks to print money out of no where just to keep the financial system afloat? If you think it is then maybe that's where people think there isn't a bubble!

The other factors are smaller but also relevant; dearth of supply, immigration uncontrolled, the State also elbowing out and competing with individuals, planning issues, small landlords being driven out of the market etc.

Villa05

Dav010 wrote:

You are making it sound like you have a persecution complex. I can’t remember the last time Ireland had full employment and emigration dwindled, can you? Without bailing out the banks, there was the possibility that the collapse of the Irish economy would have been far worse, you believe that to have been a more advantageous alternative?

Unfortunately, I'm no longer in the 18 to 35 demographic but I have children who are. If I have a persecution complex it is not self

Full employment 1997 to 2007 more or less, pity we didn't use that luxury to plot a sustainable future

If you read my post the issue is not bailing out the banks. Its who foots the bill plus the added insult of gouging that demographic in rents that are propped up by that very same bailout they contributed most.

Amadan Dubh

Dav010 wrote: »

You are making it sound like you have a persecution complex. I can’t remember the last time Ireland had full employment and emigration dwindled, can you? Without bailing out the banks, there was the possibility that the collapse of the Irish economy would have been far worse, you believe that to have been a more advantageous alternative?

It might not have been impossible for house building to keep up with population increase and improvements in people’s work/financial position, but it is a bit naive to think it was just a case of developers deciding to take a chance on building tens/hundreds of thousands of house in 2015-19 which they may not sell or may sell at a loss, and then presto, houses suddenly appear.

The success of our recovery is a contributing factor in this, there is/was jobs/money in Ireland, and now a generation of the self entitled who believe they deserve a house where they want it.

The last paragraph is terribly unfair and symptomatic of the mindset which does not appreciate just how unequal Irish society is.

And the bailing out of the banks came after an absolutely outrageous time in Irish society where greed was rampant and people could not control themselves. Under 35s had zero hand in any of that, only entering the workforce after the crash. They notice "USC" on their payslips but have been gaslighted and told it is just temporary. The bailout itself and aim to get the country back working was a policy which had completed its aim by 2014/2015. However, FG, drunk on power, continued to go cap in hand via the IDA to international capital to aim for more and more growth. At all costs, it was about mroe and more, with no long term planning or effort to achieve a more sustainable, equitable society that works for all stakeholders. It was never a case of looking at the trends in companies constantly setting up and creating mroe jobs, bringing in more people to the country and asking "is this sustainable? What about housing, infrastructure, services; these haven't been given any focus since before the crash? So we had reactionary, thoughtless policies that were rushed through and have made the situation worse like RPZs, not fixing the situation where mortgage defaulters and non-paying tenants could sit in valuable property for years, as well as HAP which was a stop-gap which has become a permanent policy!

Villa05

Dav010 wrote:

It might not have been impossible for house building to keep up with population increase and improvements in people’s work/financial position, but it is a bit naive to think it was just a case of developers deciding to take a chance on building tens/hundreds of thousands of house in 2015-19 which they may not sell or may sell at a loss, and then presto, houses suddenly appear.

Again very poor argument 2015/16 was the start of billions in unexpected corporate taxes coming into the state coffers. Ideal opportunity to tackle the issue with supply side measures, instead more was pumped in at the demand side making the issue worse and resulting in it spiraling out of control today

Had Nama left healthy develooers outside its clutches, they could have taken advantage of lower land prices and delivered housing at lower cost from 2015 to 2019

Cyrus

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

IT editorial today on home ownership, calling it a " a major social faultline". I could have written this myself it seems!

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-home-ownership-a-major-social-faultline-1.4610115

What alternative are they proposing if borrowing to buy the most expensive asset you will own isn't desirable?

And is anyone surprised at the difference in home ownership levels of the over 60s vs people in their 20s?

coolshannagh28

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Yes, but the situation that we have had the last few years is not a sustainable way for the market to be and we are in another boom/bust cycle, likely at the upper echelons of the boom. Real people suffer needless hardship and stress by not looking to keep more stability in the market in terms of prices.

We are close to the top of our rollercoaster property cycle and those who will suffer the brunt of it are ordinary young people sucked into this ; we deserve better government as smoothing out this cycle is one of their primary responsibilities .

Bass Reeves

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

. The rental market prices should not be 40%+ higher than mortgage repayments. .
.

Why shouldn't it be.ook at the crazy rules regarding tax and LL in this country. Add in the risk of a bad tenant who damages a house or fails to pay rent.

Assuming you are a LL you will need 30% equity to buy a rental property. On resting in investment funds you will get a 5% return so of you invest in property you should be looking at a greater return than this on your 30% equity.

The 70% that you borrow will cost you 1% above mortgage interest rates. On a loan this will cost you 10% of the amount borrowed over 20 year loan.

As a LL you are responsible for a higher housing standard than a private individual. You require an electrical certificate every 5year ( costing 500 euro plus now) replace smoke, heat and monoxide alarms every ten years 50 euro each for newer types.

If you replace windows and doors in a house you may not be allowed to write off total cost by revenue rules as it may be a house improvement. Kitchens, high cost internal improvements are the same. Crazy rule that used to be applied years ago if timber facia and soffit were replaced by PVC it was considered a house improvement not maintenance

You pay 4% PRSI but you cannot use this to qualify for OAP or some other Welfare provisions as it's classed as passive income.

House tents have nothing to do with mortgage rates. FTB and even those moving to larger houses have a different lending regime to an Investor

Villa05

Cyrus wrote:

And is anyone surprised at the difference in home ownership levels of the over 60s vs people in their 20s?

The figures provided are for 25 to 39, its not just 20's. The figures are also from 2016 census which would imply the issue is significantly worse today.

It's the trend that is the worry. A case often spouted here is that home ownership is tracking towards European norms. Most European markets are mature and functioning while the Irish market is pretty much the opposite and getting worse by policy

Would rents in Europe be up to double the cost of buying. I'd doubt it

Is pension provision more robust in Europe than in Ireland. My understanding is that public pension system is funded from current taxation in Ireland. This is highly unsustainable as our population ages and young taxpayers are having their incomes gouged by investment funds who contribute nothing in tax. Completely lost income for the economy

coolshannagh28

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Why shouldn't it be.ook at the crazy rules regarding tax and LL in this country. Add in the risk of a bad tenant who damages a house or fails to pay rent.

Assuming you are a LL you will need 30% equity to buy a rental property. On resting in investment funds you will get a 5% return so of you invest in property you should be looking at a greater return than this on your 30% equity.

The 70% that you borrow will cost you 1% above mortgage interest rates. On a loan this will cost you 10% of the amount borrowed over 20 year loan.

As a LL you are responsible for a higher housing standard than a private individual. You require an electrical certificate every 5year ( costing 500 euro plus now) replace smoke, heat and monoxide alarms every ten years 50 euro each for newer types.

If you replace windows and doors in a house you may not be allowed to write off total cost by revenue rules as it may be a house improvement. Kitchens, high cost internal improvements are the same. Crazy rule that used to be applied years ago if timber facia and soffit were replaced by PVC it was considered a house improvement not maintenance

You pay 4% PRSI but you cannot use this to qualify for OAP or some other Welfare provisions as it's classed as passive income.

House tents have nothing to do with mortgage rates. FTB and even those moving to larger houses have a different lending regime to an Investor

In order to achieve any decent yield as a private Landlord rents have to be extortionate , taxation eats everything up . This is why the Irish market is so attractive to outside investors , no tax and high rents .

BillyBiggs

drogon. wrote: »

The chance of house pricing standing still is very unlikely, bidding process for second hand homes are just going to push prices up and up. New home prices will be increased to cater for the increased demand.

Something will have to give eventually. The market is pretty screwed up at the moment.

Yeah the only thing is that it’s way different now compared to 2007. We are not building nearly enough houses. There is a severe lack of supply and is there anything to knock the prices down on the horizon? I think a global recession is the only hope we have of a property crash and how likely is that with the money printers going full belt?

BillyBiggs

BillyBiggs wrote: »

Yeah the only thing is that it’s way different now compared to 2007. We are not building nearly enough houses. There is a severe lack of supply and is there anything to knock the prices down on the horizon? I think a global recession is the only hope we have of a property crash and how likely is that with the money printers going full belt?

Do you see the paradox in posting that a global recession will help people buy a house?

Cyrus

Villa05 wrote: »

The figures provided are for 25 to 39, its not just 20's. The figures are also from 2016 census which would imply the issue is significantly worse today.

It's the trend that is the worry. A case often spouted here is that home ownership is tracking towards European norms. Most European markets are mature and functioning while the Irish market is pretty much the opposite and getting worse by policy

Would rents in Europe be up to double the cost of buying. I'd doubt it

Is pension provision more robust in Europe than in Ireland. My understanding is that public pension system is funded from current taxation in Ireland. This is highly unsustainable as our population ages and young taxpayers are having their incomes gouged by investment funds who contribute nothing in tax. Completely lost income for the economy

So which European market do you hold up as the model of mature and functional?

Bass Reeves

Dav010 wrote: »

Do you see the paradox in posting that a global recession will help people buy a house?

LOL
I always find those that consider a house price collapse or a recession as the answer as hilarious. In any house price collapse it means ordinary people cannot access finance. In a recession people lose there jobs so they cannot access lending. If the last collapse taught us anything it taught us that.

The problem with full employment us that many people that work in the construction sectors have other job opportunities. At present locally machinery drivers are on about 17/ hour so 35k/ year.

Factory not too far away that has an automated production system require unskilled operatives. Pay is a bit with 800/ week nearly 45k/ year. Also included is health insurance Christmas bonus( about 709-1k, first 500 is tax free), pension scheme and decent working conditions.

They are looking for 8 people over the next six months sure to a combination of lads retiring, safety changes and increased production.

They operate a two cycle shift 6-2 and 2-10 so an eight hour day all in. I know if one machinery driver that will apply and at a guess at least half of the positions will be filled by construction or agri type workers

Workers exiting the construction sector are in greater numbers than those entering it. While we have full employment that will happen. There is only.one pool of labour.

The answer to house prices as s supply but supply comes at a cost. Even if government makes land available at a cost of nothing it's labour constraints that will be the issue

Amadan Dubh

Dav010 wrote: »

If supply is not available, the rental market should work like every other economic market, why should it be any different? When supply outstrips demand, prices fall, except of course when government interference prevents that from happening. Our population has grown because there are jobs here, it outstripped home building, it will take time for that to catch up, do you want a crash with associated job losses and economic bust, just so houses become more affordable? How will people pay?

In relation to emigration and migration, yes, that is how society should be. If you can’t get what you want where and when you want it, you consider alternative methods to achieve it. It seems self entitled to think you should not have to do what previous generations did in order to get what you want. It can hardly be considered begrudgery, and it is laughable to describe it as traumatic, that previous generations had to emigrate to achieve their ambition to own a home.

You do use hyperbole, quite a lot, do you see political revolution, social upheaval or markets crashing? Where? Are people marching on the streets? Has the stock market dived? Has the government collapsed to be replaced with Lefties? No it hasn’t. The voters in DS have a chance to send a message, let’s see if the political upheaval you speak of is reality.

I was reading back over the posts since yesterday to correct spelling and make sure I was happy with them - perhaps a tad hyperbolic, I admit and you can have that - I was in bed and posting at 1am so probably explains it!

Villa05

Bass Reeves wrote:

Factory not too far away that has an automated production system require unskilled operatives. Pay is a bit with 800/ week nearly 45k/ year. Also included is health insurance Christmas bonus( about 709-1k, first 500 is tax free), pension scheme and decent working conditions.

Out of interest, does that factory produce products that have inflation similar to housing

I have not heard anyone saying houses are not being built because of low wages in the sector.

With regard to labour availability. If we were serious about fixing things we could look at other sectors

Fruit pickers from Bulgaria during the height of a pandemic and travel ban.

Nurses from the Philippines

Food processing from Brazil

Roads maintenance from Eastern Europe


This of course after we look at why 10,000 construction sector workers are on PUP up to very recently

Where there is the will, there is a way

Villa05

Cyrus wrote:

So which European market do you hold up as the model of mature and functional?

For Ireland, I'd go Dutch you have affordable options for people who want a home and for the people who want to play monopoly, off you go at your own risk.

Open to correction but I didn't hear of any bailouts required in that nation in 08

combat14

What's driving bidding wars for houses in Ireland?

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2021/0629/1231923-ireland-housing-property-bidding-wars-supply-demand/

apparently investment funds and sheer panic from ordinary buyers who are now terrified they wont get on the property ladder

dr hearne warns of a social catastrophe for the country if the government dont take radical supply friendly measures while massively curbing investment funds

the reality is the country may well also face a political catastrophe as FF/FG are opening the door wide open to SF if this continues

fergus1001

combat14 wrote:

the reality is the country may well also face a political catastrophe as FF/FG are opening the door wide open to SF if this continues

as stated earlier in the thread letting SF in on it's own would spook the funds enough to back out of the market so unless FFFG do something better than hike up stamp duty they will leave that door open for SF

old_house

Villa05 wrote: »

Open to correction but I didn't hear of any bailouts required in that nation in 08

The Dutch government paid more than 40 billion euros to rescue the domestic banking sector, nationalising ABN Amro and SNS Reaal, and injecting 10 billion in cash into ING.

Mad_maxx

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

The last paragraph is terribly unfair and symptomatic of the mindset which does not appreciate just how unequal Irish society is.

And the bailing out of the banks came after an absolutely outrageous time in Irish society where greed was rampant and people could not control themselves. Under 35s had zero hand in any of that, only entering the workforce after the crash. They notice "USC" on their payslips but have been gaslighted and told it is just temporary. The bailout itself and aim to get the country back working was a policy which had completed its aim by 2014/2015. However, FG, drunk on power, continued to go cap in hand via the IDA to international capital to aim for more and more growth. At all costs, it was about mroe and more, with no long term planning or effort to achieve a more sustainable, equitable society that works for all stakeholders. It was never a case of looking at the trends in companies constantly setting up and creating mroe jobs, bringing in more people to the country and asking "is this sustainable? What about housing, infrastructure, services; these haven't been given any focus since before the crash? So we had reactionary, thoughtless policies that were rushed through and have made the situation worse like RPZs, not fixing the situation where mortgage defaulters and non-paying tenants could sit in valuable property for years, as well as HAP which was a stop-gap which has become a permanent policy!

the alternative government ( SF ) fully back mortgage defaulters and rogue tenants remaining on in properties

Mad_maxx

combat14 wrote: »

What's driving bidding wars for houses in Ireland?

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2021/0629/1231923-ireland-housing-property-bidding-wars-supply-demand/

apparently investment funds and sheer panic from ordinary buyers who are now terrified they wont get on the property ladder

dr hearne warns of a social catastrophe for the country if the government dont take radical supply friendly measures while massively curbing investment funds

the reality is the country may well also face a political catastrophe as FF/FG are opening the door wide open to SF if this continues

Rory Hearne is a neo marxist fool who,s near permanent presence on the airwaves tells us a lot about the irish media

yer man!

Yeah the Dutch model isn't anything to write home about now to be honest. I'm trying to buy a house here at the moment, you can get 100% mortgage at 5 times your salary. That's all grand but the locals almost see the max the bank will give you as a target rather than a limit.

There's a frenzy going on here, just like Ireland from what I can see. Overbidding is around 15% over asking on average, in my experience. Municipalities are having to enact byelaws to prohibit investors from buying houses by practically placing covenants on houses that they must be owner occupied. Bidding here is also a closed system, you place your blind bid by a deadline and hope you get it. There's also very little support for FTB, you get stamp duty waived if the house is below 400k, but sure 2 bed apartments are easily exceeding that now so it's useless.

Not sure if it's any better than Ireland but it's definitely not far off it. I've decided to just step back and take a breather, keeping an eye out but happy to see if things can settle down a bit.

Villa05

Villa05 wrote:

Open to correction but I didn't hear of any bailouts required in that nation in 08

Thanks old house

So the Dutch bailout was 40bn spread over a population of 17 million

The Irish bailout 64 billion spread over a population of 4 million at the time

I wonder how much of the Dutch bailout was due to national over international business. The vast majority of the Irish bailout was due to national business