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

We live in a Capitalist world - if we lived in a true free market Capitalist world there would have been no QE as the banks would have been let fail back in 08 even though it would have caused serious pain.

We live in a world now where it is disguised as Capitalist buts its more and more socialist than ever.

Socialise the debt and privatise the profits is not free market capitalism and never was.

I agree we have a way too generous social welfare system, but I really believe the actions taken by central bankers regarding low rates and QE have absolutely put a normal working life, prosperity and the chance of owning a house totally out of the reach of these people who 25 years ago would be contributing to society.

The consequences of infinite QE and low rates are comming home to roost.

The dollar was taken off the gold standard in the early 70s. Years ago, I watched a presentation where the presenter showed a graph that tracked things like divorces, crime, self-deletions and other such negative aspects of a society. His position was that all of these things spiked after the dollar was unfettered from gold. It's not necessarily something that I accept, but it's an interesting correlation.

However, one thing is clear to me, we're at the end of what chasing the infinite growth model has to offer. In the heady days of the Celtic Tiger, growth meant 4 holidays a year, a new car every other year, reams of consumer goods and all the other stuff that boomtown had to offer. Today, that same economic model is making life ever more difficult for the average Westerner as they squeezed ever the more for the sake of more GDP. What will the state do to keep this ball rolling?

Take the devil's shilling, and he'll come knocking for his pound.

I agree with the QE aspect, but we cant just punish all homeowners because of the actions of the banks and the govt.

Most people that own a home (or are paying a mortgage) have worked very hard to get there and some have been through negative equity, made personal sacrifices, such as limiting or not having kids, so they can pay down a mortgage.

So many different stories for so many different owners.

They have done the right thing by sacrificing and paying down a mortgage for the sake of their family.

It wouldnt be fair or equitable to ultra tax all of those people, just because they didnt buy a home in 2023!

And would you then ultra tax the 2023 buyers anyway in 2024, since they no longer own a new home.

Only about 1.3% of all permanent dwellings will be built in 2023, 30k out of approx 2.2 million.

You would apply an ultra tax to 98.7% of homeowners, who could only avoid that tax by purchasing a new home & there are barely any of those available anyway. Not to mention the fact the govt and funds are buying up a lot of the scraps that are available.

If a homeowner did manage to buy a new build, the person moving into their old home is now liable for the same ultra property tax, and the price of the 2nd hand home wont come down anyway, becuase there are not enough new homes being built to enable people to move to in the first place.

You'd have to be delivering something like 30k homes a month, not a year, to start to move the needle down on 2nd hand prices. Its impossible with our current infrastructure and planning to build 360,000 homes per year.

What does it mean to rent it back to them at cost?

Cost relative to what?

The state is messing with the value of property coming on to the market. They are encouraging people to overhold so the state becomes the only buyer possible, driving the price down that they can buy it at.

They are also going to try and compel landlords to settle for an "independent" valuation on their property whether they want to sell to the council or not, who as I said, are the only buyer in town if you arent allowed to have vacant possession before putting it on the market.

So they will screw, buyers who cant get a look in versus the council, sellers, whose property is devalued because tenants are encouraged not to ever leave, renters, because supply of rentals will go down even more.

Pretty sure there must be some legal action to be taken against the state at some point for people whos property values are effected by their actions. But sure who knows, they seem to be able to do what they like to people.

Paying for the present with the futures of people too young to have any say has been par for the course here for a while now. I know that the "boomer" meme is overly simplistic, but it exists for a reason.

You make suggestions of absolutely huge, invasive taxation changes (with obvious, direct negative side effects); and also make complaints about the market not being let run without intervention.

I don't think you have any consistent viewpoint on this, let alone sane ideas.

I’m not sure that keeping house prices high was the priority when making it difficult for lenders to repossess houses. There would no doubt have been a much larger homeless crises if it was made easy to repossess homes and evict tenants. Like you, I also think that if a tenant stops paying rent, the owner should not be penalised, and should be entitled to recover use of their property. But make no mistake, making repossessions/evictions easier will not be popular policies with the electorate, and will lead to more confrontations. These play more on the minds of politicians than keeping property prices high, which by the way I don’t think either does to any significant degree.

I'm from that area. That property has real issues in terms of being a bank repossession that the owners are trying to stop the sale of. The folio has been carved up in such a way so the boundary line goes through part of the property and there is no way to access the property from the main road so you'd need a helicopter to get in and out.

Houses requiring work south of Asford have come down a good bit since the start of the year. I'm following that market very closely. There's a cottage called castle view 345k on the market for a good while and another recently got marked down to 300k, both in the Brittas Bay area. Haven't gone to view them but would love if anyone would like to share their observations on that market? I'm assuming it's because wfh is fizzing out a bit. Or maybe it's rising interest rates preventing NPPR house purchases?

Bit of a Stephen King vibe to that place, right beside the old Indian burial ground, previous owners eaten by their re-animated pets.

I thought the house was haunted

As a cash buyer looking to buy in that area I'm trying to figure out what's worth the hassle. I ruled out that house due to the cost to rennovate due to its size. Didn't pick up on the boundary issue. I'll have to keep a close eye on the little red lines in future.

Not a bit of this alternate reality you've made up actually ties in with, well, the reality everyone else is in.

We can just start at the start of the fantasy - property prices had nowhere near reached their floor in 2009 (and had not fallen 60% yet, either) and fell significantly more than 20% afterwards.

Prices did not bottom out until late 2012, and an element of that was due to the removal of a Government scheme, namely TRS, which encouraged people to accelerate purchases.

If you can't at least try to make sense, please find somewhere else to write out your dreamworld. This thread, and forum, are not for you.