Property Porn Hub

at

property

 

We’re back, baby!

Alan Daly writes:

TWO property supplements with the Irish Independent today. Could we be any more back?

59 thoughts on “Property Porn Hub

    1. Clampers Outside!

      It’s the…

      Irish Denis ‘I’m a petulant litigious little TD briber as proven in the Moriarty Tribunal and now I have ‘no good name and reputation’ but I’ll sue, and I’ll sue, and I’ll sue’ O’Brien Independent

  1. Punches Pilot

    We have got to massively tax house flipping or this cycle of property madness will go on and on and on. 70% minimum on all profits generated by buying and selling a house that is not your primary residence within the first 20 year period. That’ll put and end to this bonkers carry on.

      1. Punches Pilot

        They’re not. They’re speculating at a greater cost for society at large and generally of no benefit to anybody except those with a load of Wonga already. Family homes are not and should not be treated as a commodity yet they are. Buy a house to live in and stay it then taxes should be fook all. Buy it to profit and all of us should benefit i.e. 70% tax on all profits generated outta family homes. More money for Mr Tax man and more stable house prices for ordinary folk.

        This though does bring about another argument. What’s a family home and its something we don’t properly distinguish in our planning laws. There should be a clear definition between properties which can be treated as investment property and properties that are blindingly obviously built to provide homes for families. Without this it is society that pays in more ways than one. Don’t think free spending solves all problems. The very opposite is true and you end up paying the piper somewhere. Just look what we’ve had to do in this country for the last 7 years because of that kinda logic.

          1. Punches Pilot

            Cart before the horse here again. Gotta sort the bottom of the pile here first before we start thinking about short term gains for the few. Profit should not be gained on the very back of the lowest in society simply because you have the privilege of wealth already. That’s kinda the point of living in a social democratic republic, the one Connolly and the lads did all that fighting years ago for.

            “If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs”

            How true.

        1. Digs

          Ok, well if that’s true isn’t it great that people can make money selling stuff. I sell prophylactic tents if you want to invest. They’ll keep you safe from large solid structures and families?

      1. Punches Pilot

        With the greatest of respect I diverge. Everything is as it was before. The same ludicrous system that suits nout except profiteering is all that exists. The lowest of the low are suffering more than ever and simply suggesting that this needs to change somehow relates to me having my skull stuck in an orifice where most know it doesn’t fit. You know that right, it doesn’t fit.

        Be brave FFS and say when its wrong. Sheep go baaaahh

        1. Digs

          Yeah you kind make some good points, but isn’t it great that people can still rely on property as a sound investment? Great to see people doing well again.

          1. Punches Pilot

            Some properties, not family homes. Yup I agree, property shouldn’t be exempt from making money on, its just that I feel (strongly) that a family’s homes most certainly should be exempt from some other entity’s profiteering.

          2. Anomanomanom

            So really then your stance is, My home cost me X amount, Mr Smith wants to pay me Double what it cost so I now must pay 70% of my profit. Which I was going to use to buy a bigger more suitable Home.

          3. Punches Pilot

            @Anomanomanom If the tax is so high then there wont be a huge profit on your house and (importantly) there wont be such a gap between your existing house and the one you want to purchase. The only people who really benefit house price surges are bankers and people selling houses. You still have to buy somewhere else if you want to live somewhere.

          4. Anomanomanom

            Things don’t work like that Ireland. If that tax was in and I’m looking to make say a 40% profit but I know 70% of that profit will be tax, then I’m going to just account for 70% lose by adding it into the price which pushes up property price.

  2. TheDude

    Noonan is there fanning the flames trying to undo the mortgage cap, meanwhile building regulations are being reduced. So yeah, let’s all party selling each other property until the ponzi collapses, again!

    1. Reppy

      They’re not being reduced. They’ve been changed for one-off houses so that assigned certification fees don’t make the project unviable

      1. ivan

        yes, but the bigger picture is – of course – that one-offs aren’t good for society. They’re good for the person/family who wants to live in it, up to a point, but the downside is that the person living in the one off doesn’t tend to spend as much in their nearest town. They’re less likely to go for a few pints in the local boozer because the taxi there and back adds twenty quid to the night, they’re less likely to go for a bite to eat and a drink in the nearest town for the same reason…they’re more likely to do a ‘big shop’ and sure while they’re at it, going to Tesco a few miles further away than the nearest town makes more sense…

        that’s before the costs associated with providing services to one-offs. We pay 70c to post a letter. The cost of delivering a hundred letters in a town (where the postman can be on a bike or on foot) has to be a fraction of the cost of delivering a hundred letters out the sticks.

        So yeah, the building regs would have actually had an indirect benefit for towns, actually. Of course, if you’re the kind of fella that wanted to build the six bedroom monolith on a site the auld fella was giving you, they didn’t suit, but there you go. Swings and roundabouts.

          1. ivan

            I’ve been called a lot of things in my time, but being put in the same sentence as Thatcher is new…

            Surely what I’m saying is the opposite of Thatcherite? If I’d my way, I’d impose a ‘live in a one-off house’ tax of a million quid a year on people, and effectively force people (bar millionaires) to move to their nearest town. Not so that the cities would grow (they probably wouldn’t, much) but that towns of 2000 people with as many living in the surrounding five miles would get to grow*.

            Heck, if that’s anything it’s probably Stalinist. Which I’m not, really, either…

            (*yes, I know that couldn’t ever work – my point is that encouraging *more* one-offs and stimulating that part of the market isn’t anything akin to a progressive approach to anything. Unless the auld fella has a site marked out for you.)

    2. Annie

      Totally agree with this.

      Today Michael Noonan referred to “easing” the new deposit requirements for first-time buyers following lobbying by the Construction Industry Federation about the purchase price of “starter homes” being put of the reach of these buyers. Translation: the CIF want to build low-grade, low-quality “starter homes” which no doubt in Dublin will equate with being well-beyond the M50 with minimal public transport options but they also want a handsome return on their investment (high cost of building crap and all of that) in inducing first time buyers to cough up the desired purchase price of the CIF but with the carrot of government assistance and without the new deposit burden. Our history of property-purchase incentives, particularly in the recent past has been disastrous and has played no small part in causing property prices to rise even further. The CIF is no Robin Hood and is merely desirous of exploiting the current dearth of supply and limited options for first time buyers by hawking them low-grade “starter homes” and making sure the CIF get the profitable purchase price they want.

      Plus ça change….

  3. Vote Rep #1

    Heard on the radio this morning that since not enough first time buyers are actually able to buy places, rather then do something to try and let the prices come to down to a sustainable level, they are going to try and force the central bank to ease the borrowing restrictions so FTBs can borrow lots more! Excellent stuff. We have learnt nothing.

        1. Spaghetti Hoop

          You are kidding. Mortgages are long-term, and the younger you take one out, the faster you own your own property and pay nothing for it. Why would you want to spend any of that term lining someone else’s pocket?

          1. Rob_G

            House prices are a function of how much people are willing to indebt themselves to buy a house (and the how far the banks will allow them to do so). House prices are too high, so people want to ease the central bank restrictions allowing them to borrow more money. Everyone borrows more money, and the price of property goes up and up.

            The problem is one of supply of housing; the central bank lending restrictions are very sensible.

          2. Anne

            “House prices are a function of how much people are willing to indebt themselves to buy a house ”

            Not willing to… required to.

          3. Anne

            “The problem is one of supply of housing; the central bank lending restrictions are very sensible.”

            In what sense are they sensible? You seem to indicate that they’re sensible in that people will borrow more money pushing the price of houses higher..

            Yet you say the prices are already too high. So in what regard are they sensible?

          4. Rob_G

            “Yet you say the prices are already too high. So in what regard are they sensible?”

            – they stop the price of housing from going even higher.

          5. Annie

            Agree with Rob here: The CIF want to build low-grade, low-quality “starter homes” which no doubt in Dublin will equate with being well-beyond the M50 with minimal public transport options but they also want a handsome return on their investment (high cost of building crap and all of that) in inducing first time buyers to cough up the desired purchase price of the CIF but with the carrot of government assistance and without the new deposit burden. Our history of property-purchase incentives, particularly in the recent past has been disastrous and has played no small part in causing property prices to rise even further. The CIF is no Robin Hood and is merely desirous of exploiting the current dearth of supply and limited options for first time buyers by hawking them low-grade “starter homes” and making sure the CIF get the profitable purchase price they want.

          6. cluster

            Well put, Rob G.

            Over the next couple of years, borrowing costs are likely to rise anyhow.

            We have a housing supply problem. We need to deal with that rather than trying to expand the availability of credit.

          7. Anne

            “We have a housing supply problem. We need to deal with that rather than trying to expand the availability of credit.”

            It wasn’t dealt with, instead massive restrictions were put on buyers to come up with a whopping 20% deposit.. effectively trapping people renting.

          8. Annie

            @Anne – From past history, property purchase incentives have generally had a perverse effect on the market driving prices even higher. What is needed is property price stability – not the roller coaster market we have experienced. In my own area, a relatively safe and nice part of South County Dublin, three bed semi-ds have ranged in the space of less than 10 years on the same street from 355K at the trough to a builder’s finish renovation job selling for over 900K. There wasn’t a lot to distinguish these two houses bar the state of the market. Now you would need around 575K at least to be in with a chance of bidding for current offerings. Supply is definitely an issue but surely encouraging stability and not a market lending itself to the constant questioning by vendors of whether prices will rise even further is the sensible way to go. Diluting the current lending restrictions and opening up credit lines will certainly not encourage price stability, this is even more the case in a market that has such a lack of supply.

          9. Anne

            20% deposit is too much in my opinion.
            It only affects those at the bottom, trying to get into the market., not the ones looking at your 900k houses in South County Dublin.

          10. Annie

            If you think the ability of a builder’s finish renovation job three bed semi-d, albeit in a coastal South County Dublin suburb, to rise to the heady heights of 900K while a similar house on the same street a matter of a few months later sells for 355K is revelatory of a healthy property market, then you are kidding yourself. These homes while perhaps not starter homes should hardly ever be considered exclusive or premium despite the benefits. They would suit growing families with reasonable incomes but they are now well out of the reach of this demographic with current price tags up at 600K. Why shouldn’t first timers have the ability to aspire to a reasonably priced home conforming to good building regulations in a reasonably decent area, particularly of Dublin. I’m not suggesting Monkstown or Blackrock but when traditionally lower middle areas like Ballinteer are fast getting out of the reach of middle class first-timers or even second-time buyers, something is not right.

            Instead the CIF, appear to have convinced Noonan, to tackle the current lending restrictions with a plan revelatory of the worst excesses of Bertie Ahern’s attitude to the property market. Relaxing rules for first time buyers to hawk them low grade, low quality homes in unsuitable outlying areas is not going to improve the lot of these beleaguered buyers. It is merely an attempt to recoup a nice profit, exploiting the current death of supply and drive prices higher. The CIF want first timers to be able to pay the price the CIF desire for flinging up crap. The scheme is not to help first-timers but for the developer to get his desired price. There is nothing altruistic about this ridiculous plan which is merely about exploiting the dearth of supply and profiteering at the (further) expense of hard-pressed first timers. What the CIF decidedly does not want or desire – it is price stability particularly if they want to start building again.

  4. pedeyw

    A cap on rent would do more. There’s nothing wrong with the mortgage regs in place but potential first time buyers can’t save anything because all their money is going on rent.

  5. pedeyw

    A cap on rent would do more. There’s nothing wrong with the mortgage regs in place but potential first time buyers can’t save anything because all their money is going on rent.

    1. Rob_G

      A cap on the rent will make it less profitable for builders to build houses, more risky for banks to lend to builders – a cap on rent would only restrict the supply of housing even further, making things worse.

        1. Neilo

          Without a profit margin of some kind, there’s absolutely no incentive to buy land and develop housing. If size of profit is the problem, it can be addressed through taxation.

    2. Neilo

      Rent caps/rent controls can lead to landlords withdrawing properties from the market. In Germany, where the market is more equitably regulated, I understand that rent reviews etc. are easier to transact with built-in safeguards for both parties but the landlord class in that jurisdiction appears more professional while the rental market is well-established and mature. Here, we have more of your buy-to-let types up to their oxters in bank debt and understandably, maybe not justifiably, trying to sweat the asset under pressure from the lender. Short-term over long-term always: it’s the Irish way.

  6. Jimmy 2 tones

    Exactly were the scum in charge want it for a nice big home tax robbery coming soon. One big pyramid scheme organized by the criminals in power & the media.

    Well done everyone.

  7. Kolmo

    Ex-council house in Dublin 12 now hitting the Half-million euro mark – right back to July 2008!!
    Stupidity or complicity, Anti-social non-policies by the government, the citizen is an unprotected victim to be fleeced for as much profit as possible, and saddled with an anvil of debt around their neck – just to keep a roof over the head. Pyramid scheme in a pin-strip suit. knuts.

    1. Punches Pilot

      The vicious circle and when it all goes diddys again (which it will) then us puddings end up footing the bill for our own over priced sheds and every one else’s too.

Comments are closed.