The accelerating fall in Sinn Féin support

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582098#Comment_122582098

In the first scenario both inherit 150k, parents having paid off 300k - your problem is one gets to live in the family home, assuming they want to, and the other doesn't.

In the second scenario both inherit 175k, parents having paid off 350k - we still have the problem that only one gets to live in the family home, and the other doesn't.

The difference being now they both have big mortgages, except of course the one who earns less doesn't, because they can't afford a €325k mortgage. So they're stuck in a rental trap, or leaving the area.

Christmases will still be frosty.

I have two heirs. If it were my children I'd far prefer scenario one. The less well off one can afford to buy the affordable family home and the better off one can afford to buy an open market home. That seems a far better outcome.

Again this is just absurd clutching at straws.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582209#Comment_122582209

You can live in a dreamland where siblings view it your way, but having seen many families around me go through these situations, it is a bit like the SF proposal - a weird fantasy.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122581761#Comment_122581761

The asylum immigration issue is a different topic and I highly doubt SF are going to make any changes on that front anyway. Your SF state land owned homes will goto refugees as well as irish citizens, I expect.

The question that matters in terms of housing boils down to who can produce the most homes over the next 5 to 10 years and I am still very confident that FFG will outbuild SF.

The cost of SF having to recruit public sector workers will take time and a lot of money. We still dont know if banks will lend on these homes, not least because their price growth is capped.

SF need to build the homes on state owned land. What if permission is refused? What if there is no viable state land in certain towns or cities to build on? Even if there is state owned land, once its built on, where is the next set of land located? Its a finite amount of space upon which to build.

As per previous post, there is only so much construction resource in the country. The more is diverted to public SF homes the less building of private homes will occur- meaning the cost of private homes continues to rise and become less affordable and the wealth gap continues to broaden.

Where will the social and cost rental homes go that SF are promising? Are they to be built in the same scheme these part ownership homes will be built?

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582282#Comment_122582282

Your post was more an argument against leaving anything in a will or even against the concept of social housing rather than any real relevance to the SF proposal though..

If was purely opposition for opposition sake Blanch.

God knows but i wish I didn't inherit anything, the baggage that came with it would break the melt of anyone but that's just an aside.

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582398#Comment_122582398

I look forward to seeing how often the staff in a state-owned construction go on strike demanding pay increases when they know the electoral leverage they would have.

Would be like the old B&I Line staff who used to call a strike every summer because they knew the company needed the holiday traffic to make any money.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582454#Comment_122582454

My argument was in favour of the current First Homes Scheme compared to the SF proposal. The SF proposal is a disimprovement on the existing arrangements. That will become clearer in the coming weeks as the proposal is examined.

Heskey1971

SF say they've spoken to the banks and they say they're confident there won't be any issues with getting a mortgage for the houses where the government own the land.

However, banks lend with terms attached so they can get their money back if there's a default. How would the banks reprocess a house where the government own the land and they can't sell it on without government approval? There's no certainty and they don't lend without certainty.

spillit67

Time for another bank guarantee?! 🙃

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582454#Comment_122582454

I've seen lots of opposition for opposition sake in political debate over the years, that's par for the course, but I've never seen anything like the absurdity this SF proposal in particular has triggered.

Some of the arguments in this post and in other threads against it, are a staggering reach.

standardg60

No one is going to privately pay through the nose for a house that they have no control over what it's worth or who they can sell it to, it's absurd. They won't be able to trade up because the private market will have moved beyond them so will be stuck there for life.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582933#Comment_122582933

Yep, its all well and good if you want to stay in the home for life, but youre stuck on the first rung of the ladder whilst the private home escalator next to you moves onward and upward.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582983#Comment_122582983

Exactly the same is true of the First Home Scheme.

The taxpayers equity stake is not transferable to another property. So if you buy a house using the FHS you're stuck with that house until such time that you can afford to pay off the equity stake that you couldn't afford to pay for when you first bought the house.

In both cases if you can only afford a house thanks to a govt subsidy, whether its the land value or an equity stake, unless your personal financial situation significantly improves you're stuck with what you buy.

Why is this so hard to understand?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582650#Comment_122582650

Assuming a bank lends 90% to buy one of these houses, with the buyer putting up 10%, where do you you see the risk to the banks?

In the event of a default they repossess the house and own the asset, with the same title and covenants etc as the borrower.

Where is the risk and lack of certainty to the bank? Surely they can resell the asset to another qualifying buyer and recoup their lendings?

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122583425#Comment_122583425

Its not the same at all.

First home scheme allows you to buy the govt equity and own the property at full market rate.

SF proposal does not.

Ergo, the SF house will always be worth considerably less than if you buy a home via the FHS.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122583783#Comment_122583783

Yes the SF house that you bought for considerably less than your neighbour paid for the FHS house will always be worth considerably less than the FHS house.

Thats blindingly obvious.

And if you want to trade up the ladder from your SF house you're going to need to find a big chunk of change to make up the difference between the sales price of your affordable house and the open market pri've of the new house.

Thats also blindingly obvious.

But here's the thing… If you want to trace up the ladder from your F H S house you will also need to find a similiar big chunk of change to buy the government out before you can move.

Whats the difference? In both cases if you can find the extra money, great trade up. If not, you're stuck.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122583823#Comment_122583823

The FHS home will rise in value with the market, meaning you can sell at a higher price than you purchased at, whether you redeem the equity or not.

You can sell it to anyone that can afford it, so your pool of buyers is vast and includes investors.

The SF home is index linked, will not rise in real value, and is far more difficult to sell because it can only be sold to a small select group of qualifying buyers.

And if you do manage to sell it, you wont be able to access the private market anyway because the value of your property has been left behind by two-tier market economics.

The FHS scheme is a far better option for a buyer.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122583834#Comment_122583834

The FHS home will rise in value with the market, meaning you can sell at a higher price than you purchased at, whether you redeem the equity or not.

Well that's just great, and it also means it will cost you more to redeem the equity.

But if you sell the property it is mandatory to pay off the equity share.

You cannot transfer it to another property. So you're not building up equity to trade up, other than what you're paying off your mortgage. Exactly the same as the SF scheme.

In both cases unless you have a significant additional chunk of funding or savings you won't be able to trade up.

The FHS scheme is a far better option for a buyer.

That may be true for each individual buyer, but the SF scheme achieves the same end and is a far better option for the taxpayer, and all buyers.

That's the whole point of it.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122583425#Comment_122583425

The First Home Scheme is different, because if your fortunes change, a promotion in a job, an inheritance etc., you can buy out the State stake, and then further down the road you can sell to anyone in the market or leave the full property to your descendants. Those are two significant material differences between the First Home Scheme and the SF Weird Scheme.

I am struggling to see any additional benefit to the SF Scheme over the First Home Scheme. Even you claim they are the same, despite the benefits I see in the FHS. Not a single poster is able to explain the advantages of the SF Scheme.

deezell

Is it just me, or is there an air of desperation in Mary Lou's demeanour as she frantically waves her Little Red Green Book about, like Mein Kampf. It's more of an ideological treatise than a realistic development plan.

There are no out of work bricklayers waiting for your 38 billion splurge Mary, unless you advertise, in Russia or China maybe.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122583823#Comment_122583823

Again, you are wrong.

With the FHS, you can take two steps. You can buy out the State equity at one point (say 5 years after buying) and sell the house at another point (say 10 years after buying). You must make both steps in one go with the SF Scheme, meaning that the FHS has greater flexibility for the buyer, another advantage of the FHS that the SF Scheme throws away.

The thing is, the FHS is here and working, to change from it requires a Scheme that shows greater benefit. The SF Scheme is worse.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122583567#Comment_122583567

With a normal house or the FHS, the pool of purchasers for the bank repossessing is huge, thereby reducing the risk.

For the SF Scheme house, the pool of purchasers is smaller, is dependent on the whims of the Government of the time as to who is eligible, and what price the house can be sold for, thereby increasing the risk significantly.

That is clearly obvious to anyone who thinks for half a second about the scheme. I would expect that the banks will therefore be reluctant to lend on the same terms to the SF Scheme. For example, they may limit borrowing to three times income instead of four times, therefore balancing out the risk.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584247#Comment_122584247

If your "fortunes change, a promotion in a job, an inheritance etc." in a FHS house after 5 years you can buy out the equity and then sell the house after 10 years to trade up.

And if your "fortunes change, a promotion in a job, an inheritance etc." in an SF house after 5 years you can invest that equivalent sum and then sell the house after 10 years to trade up.

In both cases if you're selling to trade up after 10 years you need to close a similiar significant funding gap.

As Danzy said this is just opposition for opposition sake.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584485#Comment_122584485

In the SF house, you are dependent on the investment matching the increase in equity and house prices, an additional risk, and you may lose on your other investment.

In the FHS house, you are investing in the asset you later wish to trade for another similar asset, which reduces the risk.

Again, the advantage is with the FHS house, but even if you are correct, that the risk is the same, you still haven't explained (and neither have SF, to be fair) how the SF house scheme is an improvement on the FHS. It simply isn't, it limits choice in terms of the house buyer's options, it permanently restricts the equity share, and it severely restricts the circumstances in which the house can be sold.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584563#Comment_122584563

The reason it is an improvement is also blindingly obvious.

The attraction is the state subsidy is perpetual.

If you buy a house without having to pay the value of the land because the state retains ownership, you get a big chunky discount on equivalent houses, the only drawback being when you come to sell the house on you won't enjoy any uplift in land values that has taken place.

The next buyer also enjoys the benefit of the state subsidy getting a discount on equivalent houses. Sure the price may have appreciated (or fallen) a little but it will not have moved in sync with the rest of the market.

And crucially not only can the state subsidy being enjoyed by by subsequent purchasers, it does not inflate the mainstream market with taxpayers money.

In FFG's model the subsidy which is in monetary terms larger (30%) not only ends with the initial purchaser, but it also inflates the market to the detriment of everybody.

An extreme example of how badly wrong this has gone is the Oscar Traynor land. The govt basically sold the land at a vast discount to the developers - giant subsidy number 1 - on the promise they would deliver "affordable" houses on the land.

Turns out the affordable houses on state land in Coolock cost 475k, and the affordability can only be achieved by a second subsidy to the buyers - 30% equity. You're a fool if you think that 30% is ever getting paid back. And even if it does the only benefit is to the original buyer who is incentivised to get on board with the pulling up the ladder mentality.

SO the government no longer owns the land it sold at a huge discount to market value in order to acheive supply of affordable homes, and still needs to risk further taxpayers money to make those homes affordable, and the benefit of this is only enjoyed by the individual buyer. It's total madness

Sure the shared equity scheme might be better for individual buyers who want to get a taxpayer subsidised wealth generating boost, or for anybody who likes to see the govt doing their bit to inflate the market.

But for everybody else the SF scheme is a considerable improvement.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584684#Comment_122584684

There are several problems with your analysis.

Firstly, you admit that there is a drawback "being when you come to sell the house on you won't enjoy any uplift in land values that has taken place". That means you will be at a disadvantage compared to every single person who bought outside of the scheme. Why would an individual take that on?

Secondly, you are correct that the next buyer may (and I would underline may) enjoy the benefit of a discount. But voters don't consider future buyers, neither does somebody buying a house think that it is great that someone else will get this house to my disadvantage.

Thirdly, you make an unfounded accusation that the 30% will never be paid back. It is built into the scheme that it will. What is more, the taxpayer benefits from any increase in prices.

Fourthly, and this is where it ultimately falls down. You state correctly that "the shared equity scheme might be better for individual buyers who want to get a taxpayer subsidised wealth generating boost." Those are the exact people who are most concerned by the housing issue. People like me who already own their house aren't voting in the next election based on housing. The people in the next election who are voting based on housing are individual buyers who want to get a taxpayer subsidised wealth generating boost. As you have said, and which I agree, the shared equity scheme is better for them. Of course, those with an ideological belief in the supremacy of socialism will vote for the SF scheme, but those looking for a house will want the FHS, and the rest of us with houses already, really don't care. That might be a cynical view in your eyes, but it also means the SF scheme is a vote-loser.

deezell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584563#Comment_122584563

There's our first election soundbite, 'A Sinn Fein House'.

Aurelian

This all seems absurdly complicated, why not just do:

Build homes and sell them to people

Build homes and rent them to people (let them remain council houses or allow the tenants to buy them after a while)

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122584735#Comment_122584735

Firstly, you admit that there is a drawback "being when you come to sell the house on you won't enjoy any uplift in land values that has taken place". That means you will be at a disadvantage compared to every single person who bought outside of the scheme. Why would an individual take that on?

Yes it is a drawback from an individual's point of view, but it is the only drawback.

If you cannot afford to buy outside of the scheme, then you're already at a disadvantage. Nobody suggesting any individual forced to buy an affordable home if they'd prefer to buy an open market home to speculate on the uplift in land values.

You're looking at this from the point of an individual buyer who is benefiting from the subsidy, I am looking at from the point of the taxpayer who is paying for the subsidy. That's where we differ. It has many more benefits for the taxpayer than the FHS does.

In my opinion that is a good thing.

Secondly, you are correct that the next buyer may (and I would underline may) enjoy the benefit of a discount. But voters don't consider future buyers, neither does somebody buying a house think that it is great that someone else will get this house to my disadvantage.

Again it is pretty simple to spot where we differ here. I am sick to the back teeth of short term govt policies designed simply to buy votes at the next election from an increasingly short sighted electorate. Neither government or voter could care a damn about the long term damage being done. This policy is a dramatic shift from that, and that's why I think it is a good thing.

Thirdly, you make an unfounded accusation that the 30% will never be paid back. It is built into the scheme that it will. What is more, the taxpayer benefits from any increase in prices.

Unfounded as it is so far untested, so neither of us know for sure. One of things I don't like abut it is it has all the hallmarks of a future taxpayer funded write off scheme.

Take Oscar Traynor for example, by definition the low end of the market in a location that is also the low end of the market.

Currently an FTBer can buy one of those for the guts of half a million with 30% equity shared with the taxpayer. If that FTBer subsequently wants to sell the house, it is a second hand house and this not eligible for the 30% equity scheme for the next buyer, so in order to get the 30% back, now we need find somebody who is willing to pay half a million for a house in an estate in cost rental and social housing estate in Coolock.

I suspect those buyers will be thin on the ground, you may think they will be abundant. Again it is a difference of opinion.

People like me who already own their house aren't voting in the next election based on housing.

I suspect plenty of property owners who have enjoyed the significant uplift in values in their property under FFG policies and may fear that trend reversing under SF will most definitely vote based on housing.

individual buyers who want to get a taxpayer subsidised wealth generating boost.

I suspect you are totally correct here and they will vote accordingly.

Which brings me back to the earlier point - I'm sick to the back teeth of short term govt policies designed simply to buy votes at the next election from an increasingly short sighted electorate.

I think that is a bad thing. You may disagree.

I think at this stage we can agree to disagree.

ednwireland

I'm not sure what the issue with not owning the land, surely it's just a leasehold property. loads in the UK, quite often you renegotiate to 999 years when you buy.

iif the lease is plenty more than the life of the mortgage banks won't have a problem.

deezell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122585063#Comment_122585063

Its not that long ago, (well it is to a millenial), when home owners took the streets to protest over colonial 'ground rents' on their homes, which they felt were 100% theirs after a lifetime paying for them. Don't mention the UK.