Softening house market?

But that doesn't mean that house prices will drop by 11.385%. or what ever other figure someone pulls out of there ar5e.

During the 70's e en with interest rates increasing house prices increased. If that economic nugget was correct over the last 3-5 years house prices would have increased by no more than wage increases.

We were have some economic geniuses here suggesting that interest rates will increase 5+% o er the next couple of years.

I understand compound interest rates very well. I have paid back more property loans than you ever will probably. I know the exact effect of interest rates on different types of loans.

The simple fact is that the 3.5/4.5 times lending barrier is more of a barrier than any interest rate hike.

While interest rates will effect borrowers, the 3.5/4.5 times income is more of a barrier to house buying than cost of the mortgage.

As well you have the economic cost of building. Today hidden away in the budget is a 10% levy on concrete. That will add 800-1k in building costs to the average house. It might seem nothing but it's a thousand that has to come from somewhere either from other materials reductions, labour cost reductions, builders margin or from the new house purchaser

Precisely.

The renters are paying for the properties. The REITS are simply middlemen - back in the 19th century they would have been land agents squeezing the small farmers for every penny they could. In reality in social terms we've gone back to the 19th century, but with electronics.

The only house loan I ever had was my PPR just to clarify. There are other property loans so laugh away

Like a few other Chicken Lickens on here he tried to equate any interest hike with a sharp drop in house prices.

I think this 1%/11% equation has been posted a few times since interest rates increased as well as posters saying tracker mortgage holders were going to suffer an economic shock that would break them.

He finished that he expected a sharp fall in house sales that were in progress.

The harsh reality is renting is MORE EXPENSIVE than mortgage repayments in most of the country. While there has been serious house price increases in Dublin especially and in our other cities most of the rest of the country still has houses for sale that are below building costs.

We have not seen any major houses building outside cities. Any that has started has slowed down because of building material and labour costs

I would say the majority of Irish people can't afford to pay for a pension, not to mention the fact that any money put in is at the whim of the finance minister of the day to take to use to spend on things like increments for the public sector or for their own pensions or to continue the gravy pouring in social welfare. Why would you bother.

Private pensions are not at the whim of any finance minister..

You're inventing things. Nobody mentioned anything being "wonderful".

Let me turn your question back to you - does subsidising people's rents make them vanish so that they no longer take up any housing stock? Whether they are subsidised or not will not affect the number of people needing housing and would have negligible affect on housing availability.

People pay based on what they can afford and what they want. If the government decided to give every renter up to 1000 Euro a month towards their rent for one year, then rental prices would jump up. Suppose they go from 2,500 to 3,000. Why? Well because I am renting in my nice estate for 2,500 but suddenly the person who could only afford to live in a kip @2000 per month would be willing to put the extra 1000 to what they are currently paying to pay 3,000 to live here instead. So I'll pay 3,000 because I have it.

Then next year that subsidy is removed. By your logic they can't remove it as loads of people can't afford 3,000 and they can't vanish into thin air. You are ignoring the fact that there is no inherent reason why the rent should be at 3,000 and there is no reason why it can't go back to 2,500.

You know you've lost an argument when all you have is strawmanning and trying to make things up. In between claiming I was contradicting myself by saying something I never said, to claiming I was saying something was wonderful when I never said that to now trying to imply I said that rents would instantaneously drop. Not looking too good for ya

I think this conversation now definitely belongs on the general Property Market chat (if anywhere) - we’ve drifted far from talking about what is actually happening in the market now based on peoples’ direct experience, which is what this thread was started for.

Maybe it's over-priced. Have you made any enquiries as to current offers or do you know long is it's on the market?

You still haven't explained how you think that having C,D&E in the houses in scenario 3 leaves less people needing housing compared to A,B&C getting the houses as per Scenario 1.

We'll just have to assume that you are someone with a vested interest. Either the person in Scenario 3 who gets benefits to jump over A&B, or else the landlord who is benefitting from the artificially inflated market. You are only seeing things from the viewpoint of D&E. The poster immediately above is either A or B who is seeing the reality.

So maybe we could have solved the housing crises by allowing a 2x5k tax credit rather than 2x500? We might be sitting here today talking about what we will do with all these extra houses?