The accelerating fall in Sinn Féin support

8 billion budget surplus expected this year. Debt to GNI down to 72% (Debt to GDP at 41% but ye will no doubt poo poo that even though the associated corporate tax benefits are very real).

That graph by itself shows that we are only back to 2005, below the 2008 peak.

Remind me again of the attitude of the Irish population and electorate to paying ground rents? Does re-introducing a hated policy from the past make sense?

How is it different from the scheme where the government owns 30% of the equity of the house? Not very much different, except the SF scheme places much more restrictions on what a houseowner can do, with the house only being sold to another eligible purchaser.

The SF proposals to cut the thresholds for inheritance tax and increase the rate will have an impact as well. Why would people buy one of these houses when their children may have to sell the house in a restricted way because of SF's red tape and because they have to pay inheritance tax?

A 2 bed is deluded. That is a luxury at that age and for that purpose.

A studio or one bed, agreed.

The median wage is 51k in Galway, so more like 48k for someone that age. That’s a net or €3,150 so on the basis of 25% to 33% on rent, I would say about 800-1,050 is a good goal for studios in that county.

Social housing no longer based on need, but based on who your parents are (or maybe how loyal they are to the party)

I am not an expert on it but I believe you can hand it down now.

I am assuming the justification is that it holds communities together but I am dubious why we have special classes of citizenry for some things and not others.

Reminds me of how the party who hate the monarchy seem to think that the great grand nephew of a 1916 Proclamation signatory should have a special say in things like Moore Street.

You can "hand down" social housing only if the person taking on the tenancy was actually already living there, recorded on the tenancy, and contributing to the rent calculation for a reasonable period of time beforehand

You can't just will the tenancy to someone.

I believe some councils will also reserve the right to right-size the property on handover, e.g. move someone to a one bedroom flat; but never heard of it actually happening.

SF have TDs availing of this facility already.

So not based on the actual value of the asset but on the maximum tolerable by those struggling to afford?

What has happened is asset prices have increased due to lack of supply and everyone else in the supply chain has increased their prices to grab some of the gravy train.

But you know lets have a few more grants to make sure the snouts in the trough can get more wealth transferred from the ordinary person

You can't increase supply in already densely populated areas, so the supply restriction will mean that prices will go up in those areas so long as the population increases in the State.

Densely populated areas 🤣

The problem is that there is no assessment on whether the new tenancy-holder actually qualifies for social housing themselves or not - leading to the possibility of someone who can afford to house themselves blocking someone in genuine need from receiving social housing.

What is value, other than the market borne price? If two people want a loaf of bread, and both have one euro and one has 1.10 euro, and it's the last loaf, is the value not 1.1 euro?

The regulations are great. They are the only thing keeping us from a repeat of 07-09.

Which would go to my contention that house prices are not particularly overvalued in the round. There is certainly pockets of poor value where there is either acute supply shortages and / or huge demand.

The issue really comes down to rent and the ability to save / live comfortably.

How is price determined, if not the priceof the item deemed by the most that one person/s is willing to pay for it by outbidding others, which is derived from the value they place on it.

Price and value diverge when demand is significantly constrained.

A few questions on the SF housing policy.

What have the banks said about availing of mortgages to purchase these homes?

What labour do SF plan to use to build these homes, consdering the home building resources in councils are now very small.

What specfic ownership rights would local councils have over these homes, when compared to ownership of freehold homes.

These SF homes will likley push up the prices further of the rest of the housing stock, since the supply of homes that can be sold to anyone on the open market and at market prices, will constrict.

Interesting points, but you'd be best addressing your points to SF or one of their supporters.

Regarding the last point though, if many more homes become available, the laws of supply and demand will cause prices to drop, because taking a substantial number of individuals out of the market means that fewer people will be looking to buy, causing oversupply. This last happened after the crash, IIRC.

It is actually a good point that he makes. If the outcome of the SF model is to bring people to the market who can't buy a house currently, that increases the demand. Unless the SF model actually succeeds in increasing the numbers of houses being built (and many commentators don't believe it will, that there will be a substitution effect), then there will be an increase in prices over and above existing increases.

Will there be an increase in home building though? Unless there is additional resource and funding in the market, I dont see how an increased number of homes will be built.

Let's say SF or FFG govts would both oversee 30k new homes per year.

If SF build 20k state land owned properties, with lower prices than the 10k homes delivered privately across town; the supply of fully owned, privately delivered homes has only increased by 10k.

If FFG oversee 30k new homes and 20k goto the private market, with 10k to affordable and cost rental, the demand led price increase for private homes is lower than it would be under SFs proposal.

SF would actually inflate the price of private homes, by introducing a two tier home ownership system which is baked in; because the SF home can never fully belong to the home owner and will always have a lower price than its private equivalent in the posh estate up the road.

You said deal-breaker now you are shifting the goalposts.

Stop it!

And yes I am aware of the opposition to ground rents.

I'm also aware of the opposition to the current model of screwing as much money - be it rent or to buy - out of the consumer that is currently happening. I lived for years in rented premises, and was evicted on several occasions by greedy landlords. Happily I am no longer beholden to one of those obnoxious fuggers. While I was renting I would have jumped at the chance to buy a property such as those under discussion, and i know well that I am not alone.

I see your points, but the homes would not be part of the same market.

There would be a two-tier market.

The SF semi-govt owned homes capped at say 300k have no bearing on the 500k homes in the private market, as long as the private market demand is active.

The private market buyer does not qualify for the SF home, because their income is too high.

If 20k prospective buyers are competing for 10k private homes, the price of the private home will go up.

It does not matter what happens to the SF govt owned homes.

I agree that SF are unlikley to get into power this time around.

I see no way SF could build 300k homes over the next 5 years anyway, as they would need to recruit large resources into the public construction sector in a very short space of time and those builders and tradesmen that SF must think are sitting at home twiddling their thumbs, simply do not exist.

Nothing at all wrong with leasehold tenure, so long as the leases are of sufficient length to match life expectancy.

Too much snobbery in this country as regards freehold tenure and being wedded to the idea of passing property on as assets.

The O'Broin proposal as I understood it, is that the cost of housing is managed using this method and that purchasers can sell on in the future with an inflation indexed margin.

Any family with 20-30yr olds like ours will look favourably on sensible measures like this, both the parents and the 20/30 yr olds. FG & FF have had long enough to piss in the pot and keep missing the target, one suspects deliberately. Time is up for FG in particular.

The inflation in private houses is currently driven principally by demand we are often told. Reducing demand by providing more reasonably priced housing can only cool down the market that we have now. I've never voted SF and would be wary of them but the present lot, partic FG have had their go and times up. I can see a forthcoming FF/ SF coalition.