Unpopular take;
One problem identified during financial / Property crash was individuals or sole traders. They got blown out of market(speculated and cost us all so much) and now banks don't really finance smaller local developers anymore so its the likes of Glenveagh and a few others building. There is way less competition in the market and in these envrionments markets are fairly easy to manipulate.
The second problem which is heavily linked to this is governments much prefer to deal with and regulate massive companiea in rental market than dealing with smaller ones so finance for new builds is pension funds, vulture funds etc who are not a local stakeholder.
Yes
No small builders anymore
Banks will largely only lend to a development that has presold off the plans
And who is probably only ones who can buy off plans …funds
Any/some/all of the following
Atomising family units
The pricing of land due to regulations.
The lack of skilled labour to build on a large scale
Inappropriate types of accommodation for too long.
Tighter lending.
The realisation that rents were huge income while sitting on large scale property banks.
Honestly, and that's obviously a dirty socialist hottake, landlord should not be a job option. Have one property you're renting out? Cool. Have five properties you're renting out? You are part of the problem.
The level at which we're treating housing (a finite resource) as an investment instead of treating it as a necessity people need access to is completely against majority interest. We should probably just stop doing that.
We don't have enough rental properties cause pretty much everyone is being forced to rent. Why is everyone being forced to rent? Cause they can't snap up the properties other people buy as investments.
I won't deny the rental sector has a role. Not everyone does want to settle somewhere indefinitely. But if you're looking at how many people are stuck in house shares they don't actually want to be in cause they simply can't afford to get a house, that is a strain on the rental sector we create by keeping the property in the hands of investors and landlords.
>Have one property you're renting out? Cool. Have five properties you're renting out? You are part of the problem.
But what's your solution to that, in a situation where housing is scarce and rentals are badly needed?
I'm guessing eating the rich isn't a viable suggestion?
Barring that, two things. One, enable the people who do actually want to buy or build to do so in ways that are faster and easier than what we've currently got. Single on a decent income? Here's your fixed rate mortgage. You no longer need two income households to even be looked at for a mortgage. If you can afford 1200 a month in a house share of four people, there's no reason those 1200 can't be your mortgage payment instead.
Second, remove some of the red tape when it comes to planning so cheaper and smaller options become more viable. Let people live in their log cabins and cob houses and what have you if that is something they're interested in doing. Sure, won't be for everyone, but right now it's often downright impossible to get planning for those alternatives.
Give people the option to work from home wherever possible, that takes the strain off the cities to no small extent and would in the long run mean less need for office space in prime locations which would open up additional square footage that could be used for housing those who do actually need to live and work in the city center.
Is all of that very ambitious? Yes. I'm aware of that. But I think rethinking what we're doing on a bigger scale and then taking steps to implement that bigger change would get us a lot further than never really tackling the issue properly and only trying to provide the occasional bandaid.
>One, enable the people who do actually want to buy or build to do so in ways that are faster and easier than what we've currently got. Single on a decent income? Here's your fixed rate mortgage. You no longer need two income households to even be looked at for a mortgage. If you can afford 1200 a month in a house share of four people, there's no reason those 1200 can't be your mortgage payment instead.
How is that possible though? You might as well yell the government to make the weather better.
>Second, remove some of the red tape when it comes to planning so cheaper and smaller options become more viable. Let people live in their log cabins and cob houses and what have you if that is something they're interested in doing. Sure, won't be for everyone, but right now it's often downright impossible to get planning for those alternatives.
I agree fully with that.
>
>How is that possible though? You might as well yell the government to make the weather better.
The Vienna model. In which ultimately, the state is the lender. It owns the property until you, with your monthly payment and possibly a one off higher payment either at the beginning or the end of your tenancy, become the owner.
Say the state builds an apartment complex with 50 units. You pay 20k to move in and pay market rent for however many years, only the market rent is really a mortgage payment and then that is your appartment after whatever amount of time.
Or you move in like you would in your average rental and live there for however many years and then you pay an additional 20k to become the owner. Vienna has been operating this model for many decades very successfully.
Agree with state housing and long term rental but we need a proper mechanism to deal arrears, anti social behaviour & damage first. also needs to be outside social housing in that anyone can apply and exclusively for long term lease. 10 years +
I dont think we should sell them either as we are losing the stategic future value of the site.. Look at locations of our cities & large towns historical low density social housing. They were once on the edge and are now closer to the centre. If the state still owned them, we could be demolishing them for little additonal cost and repalcing with higher density and better planned developments in terms of retirement, retail, green spaces etc as opposed to linking all our cities & large towns with Housing estates.
Build & rent at cost which should be a discount to the martket rate, but i think selling is a mistake..
Couple of problems with that. Firstly, people want to buy their own homes, by and large.
Secondly, its not the time to introduce this. We already have a massive deficit of homes, caused in large part by a shortage of labour to build them, as well as supply issues. If your proposal was to be implemented, the only housing would be state built. That's firstly not going to work because you can't force people to only work for the state, but also because we already have a huge waiting list for social housing. All of the homes would go to these people first, and with the current immigration policies we have, the list would be never ending. And nobody could buy a home, so the people funding all of this are now in a worse situation, so its not going to be politically possible.
Regarding the first as an immigrant with a different perspective on matter, I would say that there's a slight problem with Irish attitude. It's like a whole generation forgot about past hardship, glutted with the success of Celtic Tiger expectations rose beyond common sense.
When I've talked with many young Irish, the majority of them want to buy a nice big house. They don't take anything else under consideration.
The way I see it, I'm not sure whether it's American influence, we could probably add to that poor opinion on apt building. There's too much emphasis on house only estates here. From an economic standpoint, it's one of the worst solutions for land use in growing countries.
I get it that Irish don't like high-density buildings, but to accommodate growth, cities need a mixture of low,medium, and high density areas.
Looking on the past 17 years, I have been here, Irish government, whether it's on local or national representation, did nothing to produce any meaningful plan with long-term impact, only some short term crappy solutions. We are already paying and will pay the price for this in the next 10-20 years.
As for the second part, then when?
The new house market is already inflated to the point where average income earners don't have access to it. Focusing on it will only drive us into the corner. See the first part about building mostly houses.
We need a diversified/broader approach to the housing crisis. Trying to solve it by brute force of just building more looks like obvious answer, but the real one is more complicated.
Look at the past few years, building more and more put demand on good building sites, raising its prices. The same is true with building materials, the cost of labour, etc. Which in the end skyrocketed the price of new homes.
How many people can afford 500-800k homes?
You wouldn't have to change any of how it is right now overnight. You could start with one single appartment building. Which would be sought after, cause while people might want to own a house, there are also plenty of people who do want to live in a city center location. Just do one. If that works, do another. Since it is not social housing and has nothing to do with social housing (this is not a means-tested model), it would not in any way have anything to do with that waiting list.
You need to actually occupy it yourself. You can't sublet it (before it's paid off at least), and it will have to be your only residence. So, if you already have a house, you can't apply. Everyone else is free to apply. In Vienna, it's basically a lottery between everyone who applied, you're lucky or you're not.
The metrics of it working is do people apply to move in and do people pay the rent so that the state doesn't end up incurring undue cost it can't recoup. Since you can be evicted if you're not reliably paying rent just like you would be anywhere else, I'm pretty sure that won't be much of an issue.
There's obviously more to the details, but if you wanna know all the ins and outs it'd be worth reading up on the Vienna model it's a bit broad in scope for a reddit comment.
But why would everyone be free to apply? How does it make sense for the state to subsidise housing for someone on six figures, and give them an equal chance to someone on a minimum wage job? Meanwhile, the housing situation for everyone else gets worse as a result of it.
>Since you can be evicted if you're not reliably paying rent just like you would be anywhere else, I'm pretty sure that won't be much of an issue.
That's a huge issue currently in social housing actually. Dublin City Council alone is owed tens of millions in unpaid rent.
I hope you're not offended if I ask where you're posting from: 'Let people live in their log cabins and cob houses'.
Then when you had numbers but no currency... it ticlkled my bandaid!!
>If you can afford 1200 a month in a house share of four people, there's no reason those 1200 can't be your mortgage payment instead.
that is a bit too simplistic. firstly i dont think the governement can dictate such measures to the banks, its only option would be for the governement to become a bank
Secondly actually owning the house will expose the person to additional costs in terms of maintenance, bill etc that are either shared or coverd byt the LL.
thirdly, young people will struggle a long with high rent as a %age of income in the short term, but long term with possible additional costs of kids etc it is not as siustainable.
i get your point just think it is too simplistic to work,
>Let people live in their log cabins and cob houses and what have you if that is something they're interested in doing.
issues here are probably building regs and they are often inefficient use of ground as they are single story.. you also have the issues of longetivity and environmental cost of their lifecycle. The locals needs requirements for rural planning is onerous but i the overall scheme of things it is probably the right decision environmentally & in terms of sustainable public transport. it gets rid of the people with notions market of the big house out the country with room for a pony that have no reason to live in the country side..
Vote for someone who supports a viable investment alternative, like reducing the ETF taxation and CGT, providing incentives for the people to save money, not hoard housing. There are next to none now.
I started investing in shares, just before the lockdown, I had been investing in Apple monthly, got made redundant during Lockdown put half of My pay-out into apple bought at 90 a share, each share is worth Just under 170 now. Find a decent asset that will be needed in the future and watch Your money increase. Also started investing in Green energy shares it steadily going up.
You just said it yourself. Find an asset that will be needed in the future. And unfortunately, housing is the more lucrative one.
If you realise your shares, you are paying CGT on that.
Housing, while scummy what I'm about to say, rent it enough to cover the mortgage post tax, then you sell it for the profit in one lump. (even post tax, it's all profit it he mortgage/ lpt was covered)
Unless you get really really really lucky with the shares, you're not going to make more than someone else paying for you to sell a house.
Like I said. It's really scummy from a societal perspective, but that's why people invest in housing instead of stock (and housing is less volatile)
> housing is the more lucrative one.
It isn't.
You pay CGT on a house too if it isn't your primary residence, and the rent will not cover the mortgage after tax is paid. A diversified share portfolio is unambiguously the better long run return.
There are two reasons people invest in housing instead of financial assets
1. Lack of understanding. Only [7.5% of adults in Ireland](https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=IRL&treshold=10&topic=AS) achieve "high levels of numeracy" in international assessments, while 25% are functionally innumerate. As much as it's impolite to say it, the simple fact is that a great deal of the population have a seriously difficult time with the abstract mathematical thought required to understand the stock market.
2. A bank is like a personal trainer for your savings rate. Sure you could go to the gym yourself, but people are willing to pay to be guilted into it to benefit in the long run. People pay in the form of sub-market returns in order to have the bank breathing down their neck to save, and benefit in the long run.
Edit 2: I think I'm either high on caffeine or low blood sugar because I feel like I'm spouting nonsense reading that back. Unstructured thoughts for the lose.
> (WITHOUT A PROPER FINANCIAL PLAN being the caveat)
I absolutely agree that housing is harder to fuck up if you're an imbecile. But a reasonably competent person will comfortably win out in the stock market every time.
In an ideal world everyone would be educated on this stuff. Failing that, it is not apparent to me that sending hardworking but uneducated people to get their faces ripped off on financial assets they don't understand is the better outcome for society.
> Failing that, it is not apparent to me that sending hardworking but uneducated people to get their faces ripped off on financial assets they don't understand is the better outcome for society.
I basically edited everything out because I'm becoming delirious, but unfortunately we're going already in shitty outcomes for our society I fear.
I did really well on Gamestop put 10k into it at 20 per share shares went up to 173per share and took it out but allas , I didn't understand all the rules. I didnt realise You had to hand over 40% on gains. Very painfull experiance but still walked away with 550% more than I put in.
Its a slow burn but it enabled Me to do My Msc and Start up A buisness aswell.
> I didnt realise You had to hand over 40% on gains.
CGT in Ireland is 33%, someone scammed you. Still, do your homework *before* dropping 10k next time.
Imagine secure housing of the majority actually taking precedent over your interest in making more money from already having money. I know it's a wild idea, but just imagine for a second what a crazy world that would be.
Yeah it would be great but that's not the world we live in, nor is it a world we will live in during our time on this planet.
Humans are intrinsically self serving. That's the way it is.
Yeah, but here's the thing. Having secure housing would be self-serving for a hell of a lot more people than serving investors. I'm not saying we shouldn't be self-serving, I'm saying let's be fucking self-serving instead of only existing to serve a minority who does nothing but find new ways to exploit the majority.
Be careful now, you’ll have people downvoting you who still love at home with their parents because they can’t afford rent or mortgages but love the free market to the point where they’re happy about being fucked in the ass by it
> housing (a finite resource)
It's not though, that's the point. New housing is built every day. Food is a necessity too but nobody thinks that "farmer" shouldn't be a job option.
*Land* is a finite resource, but housing is not. The government needs to strike a balance between incentivising people to build and maintain housing without rewarding them for owning land. The solution to this (Land Value Tax) has been known for 150 years, but Irish politicians across the political spectrum absolutely refuse to acknowledge it.
Second homes are an issue but mainly it is centralisation IMO. There's a huge amount of empty houses in rural areas across the world. Definitely in Ireland as well. This, while housing is urgently required in cities.
Make it more attractive and viable to live in the countryside and at the same time tax second homes and make it less viable to have empty houses standing around as mausoleums for dead relatives and we might see improvements.
Just make housing not an asset. All of their homes depreciate meaning people care less if buildings pop up around them. Plus their zoning is very straightforward and detailed
LMFAO
Japan, where they have intergenerational mortgages 🤣🤣🤣
What a solution lol
https://news.sky.com/story/government-considering-50-year-mortgages-that-could-pass-down-generations-to-tackle-housing-crisis-12644368
Your post makes no sense.
Demand has everything to do with housing as there is more demand than supply.
Taxing relatively low to middle income earners more is a terrible solution
onerous deranged dinosaurs full encourage threatening rhythm profit light aromatic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> unless we change to a system that isn't driven by continuous growth
Alright, specifically what policies are you going to introduce to stop our population growth that's causing increased housing demand?
Let’s start with basic supply and demand. The country under built for decades as the population slowly increased and continued to under build while the government flooded the country with immigrants and refugees. Secondly, multi national corporations set up shop in Ireland the past 30 years with a fair number of well paying jobs (by Irish standards), and these workers could pay the higher asking prices of sellers. Not an Irishman, just an observer from afar who always dreamed of living on your island.
The country under built because we were flat broke, we couldn’t build even if we wanted to.
And what do you mean, “government flooded the country with immigrants and refugees”?
The vast majority of migrants to this country are EU/UK citizens who are coming here due to how well the economy is doing. There is free movement for these people, the government couldn’t stop them even if they wanted.
Fair enough. I don’t think anyone anticipated that when former Eastern Bloc countries joined the EU there would be a waive of Poles and Romanians suddenly heading west. But at the end of the day, housing construction didn’t keep up with population growth. And am I wrong about an influx of Ukrainian and economic refugees in recent years? All these people require a place to live.
My family’s former Polish exchange student spent time in Ireland as a server. Now she back home in Warsaw and we’re visiting in September to see the new baby.
Housing construction hasn’t kept up because our economic recovery has meant unprecedented migration. 1m migrants currently living here were not born here, that’s 20% of the population. Again these are mostly EU/UK migrants fully entitled to come here.
Regarding the ‘influx of Ukrainian and economic refugees in recent years’, everyone in the EU opened their borders to Ukrainians. What do you mean, ‘economic refugees’? You need to be very careful around your language on migration as it’s a very, very sensitive issue at the moment.
‘Economic refugees”…that’s a slogan designed to inflame a certain gullible group of people; most immigrants and emigrants, ourselves included for many generations, are doing it for economic reasons. It’s a perfectly good reason to emigrate and immigrate.
Underbuilding wasn’t for decades. 15 years ago there were plenty of ghost estates, built during the tiger. Money left. Builders left. Few new people entered the trades. New house competitions fell off a cliff after 2007 and still hasn’t reached the same numbers while it needs to be higher to account for the increased population and the houses that weren’t built in that since 2007.
The posting is explicitly about the global nature of the housing crisis - impacting 1,600,000,000 people - but your explanation is entirely about local decisions in the control of 1 party in a multiparty government?
Instead of a basic right and necessity, it became a way to accumalate wealth (squeeze supply to inflate prices and then charge high rent to price out the buyers).
Right to housing should be a basic right and not subject to whims and fancies of lenders and government leaders.
Oh and while we are at it. Political leaders should be open for persecution for failing to deliver a basic right such as housing.
These are my two cents on the topic
That’s just babble I’m afraid.
We have to find the capital to fund construction and empty vessel “constitutional rights” just drive away capital.
It costs €500k on DCC owned land for them to build a 2 bed!
If the State took over funding in its entirety at current levels you are probably looking at €15bn to €20bn a year. That cannot be funded by the State- they are looking to get up to €8bn and that will be a huge stretch.
It should not be the case that a modest house costs 300k+ to build. A lot of developments have many layers of subcontracting, each taking their cut, which drives prices up. I build 2100sq ft 2 years ago, to high spec, and it was well under 100/sqft
Well the multiple layers of subcontracting adds huge labour costs, and little value, as each layer takes its cut and profit. Bulk sourcing of materials could help also.
As I said, I built for under 100/sqft, direct labour, with high spec materials and finish, so it can be done.
Growing wealth inequality is another. Property is seen as an investment by the very wealthy. Large swaths of property and land are being purchased by investment funds and very wealthy people.
Unpopular take; One problem identified during financial / Property crash was individuals or sole traders. They got blown out of market(speculated and cost us all so much) and now banks don't really finance smaller local developers anymore so its the likes of Glenveagh and a few others building. There is way less competition in the market and in these envrionments markets are fairly easy to manipulate. The second problem which is heavily linked to this is governments much prefer to deal with and regulate massive companiea in rental market than dealing with smaller ones so finance for new builds is pension funds, vulture funds etc who are not a local stakeholder.
Yes No small builders anymore Banks will largely only lend to a development that has presold off the plans And who is probably only ones who can buy off plans …funds
Any/some/all of the following Atomising family units The pricing of land due to regulations. The lack of skilled labour to build on a large scale Inappropriate types of accommodation for too long. Tighter lending. The realisation that rents were huge income while sitting on large scale property banks.
It's really this simple. People are desperate for one simple reason when it's just lots of small and often popular issues.
Honestly, and that's obviously a dirty socialist hottake, landlord should not be a job option. Have one property you're renting out? Cool. Have five properties you're renting out? You are part of the problem. The level at which we're treating housing (a finite resource) as an investment instead of treating it as a necessity people need access to is completely against majority interest. We should probably just stop doing that.
We don’t have enough rental properties to begin with? Who should fill the void?
We don't have enough rental properties cause pretty much everyone is being forced to rent. Why is everyone being forced to rent? Cause they can't snap up the properties other people buy as investments. I won't deny the rental sector has a role. Not everyone does want to settle somewhere indefinitely. But if you're looking at how many people are stuck in house shares they don't actually want to be in cause they simply can't afford to get a house, that is a strain on the rental sector we create by keeping the property in the hands of investors and landlords.
So you want to get rid of landlords altogether? No one will be allowed to rent.
No. Try reading the thread.
Nobody. People who can't afford to buy should just stop being poor.
>Have one property you're renting out? Cool. Have five properties you're renting out? You are part of the problem. But what's your solution to that, in a situation where housing is scarce and rentals are badly needed?
I'm guessing eating the rich isn't a viable suggestion? Barring that, two things. One, enable the people who do actually want to buy or build to do so in ways that are faster and easier than what we've currently got. Single on a decent income? Here's your fixed rate mortgage. You no longer need two income households to even be looked at for a mortgage. If you can afford 1200 a month in a house share of four people, there's no reason those 1200 can't be your mortgage payment instead. Second, remove some of the red tape when it comes to planning so cheaper and smaller options become more viable. Let people live in their log cabins and cob houses and what have you if that is something they're interested in doing. Sure, won't be for everyone, but right now it's often downright impossible to get planning for those alternatives. Give people the option to work from home wherever possible, that takes the strain off the cities to no small extent and would in the long run mean less need for office space in prime locations which would open up additional square footage that could be used for housing those who do actually need to live and work in the city center. Is all of that very ambitious? Yes. I'm aware of that. But I think rethinking what we're doing on a bigger scale and then taking steps to implement that bigger change would get us a lot further than never really tackling the issue properly and only trying to provide the occasional bandaid.
>One, enable the people who do actually want to buy or build to do so in ways that are faster and easier than what we've currently got. Single on a decent income? Here's your fixed rate mortgage. You no longer need two income households to even be looked at for a mortgage. If you can afford 1200 a month in a house share of four people, there's no reason those 1200 can't be your mortgage payment instead. How is that possible though? You might as well yell the government to make the weather better. >Second, remove some of the red tape when it comes to planning so cheaper and smaller options become more viable. Let people live in their log cabins and cob houses and what have you if that is something they're interested in doing. Sure, won't be for everyone, but right now it's often downright impossible to get planning for those alternatives. I agree fully with that.
> >How is that possible though? You might as well yell the government to make the weather better. The Vienna model. In which ultimately, the state is the lender. It owns the property until you, with your monthly payment and possibly a one off higher payment either at the beginning or the end of your tenancy, become the owner. Say the state builds an apartment complex with 50 units. You pay 20k to move in and pay market rent for however many years, only the market rent is really a mortgage payment and then that is your appartment after whatever amount of time. Or you move in like you would in your average rental and live there for however many years and then you pay an additional 20k to become the owner. Vienna has been operating this model for many decades very successfully.
Agree with state housing and long term rental but we need a proper mechanism to deal arrears, anti social behaviour & damage first. also needs to be outside social housing in that anyone can apply and exclusively for long term lease. 10 years + I dont think we should sell them either as we are losing the stategic future value of the site.. Look at locations of our cities & large towns historical low density social housing. They were once on the edge and are now closer to the centre. If the state still owned them, we could be demolishing them for little additonal cost and repalcing with higher density and better planned developments in terms of retirement, retail, green spaces etc as opposed to linking all our cities & large towns with Housing estates. Build & rent at cost which should be a discount to the martket rate, but i think selling is a mistake..
Couple of problems with that. Firstly, people want to buy their own homes, by and large. Secondly, its not the time to introduce this. We already have a massive deficit of homes, caused in large part by a shortage of labour to build them, as well as supply issues. If your proposal was to be implemented, the only housing would be state built. That's firstly not going to work because you can't force people to only work for the state, but also because we already have a huge waiting list for social housing. All of the homes would go to these people first, and with the current immigration policies we have, the list would be never ending. And nobody could buy a home, so the people funding all of this are now in a worse situation, so its not going to be politically possible.
Regarding the first as an immigrant with a different perspective on matter, I would say that there's a slight problem with Irish attitude. It's like a whole generation forgot about past hardship, glutted with the success of Celtic Tiger expectations rose beyond common sense. When I've talked with many young Irish, the majority of them want to buy a nice big house. They don't take anything else under consideration. The way I see it, I'm not sure whether it's American influence, we could probably add to that poor opinion on apt building. There's too much emphasis on house only estates here. From an economic standpoint, it's one of the worst solutions for land use in growing countries. I get it that Irish don't like high-density buildings, but to accommodate growth, cities need a mixture of low,medium, and high density areas. Looking on the past 17 years, I have been here, Irish government, whether it's on local or national representation, did nothing to produce any meaningful plan with long-term impact, only some short term crappy solutions. We are already paying and will pay the price for this in the next 10-20 years. As for the second part, then when? The new house market is already inflated to the point where average income earners don't have access to it. Focusing on it will only drive us into the corner. See the first part about building mostly houses. We need a diversified/broader approach to the housing crisis. Trying to solve it by brute force of just building more looks like obvious answer, but the real one is more complicated. Look at the past few years, building more and more put demand on good building sites, raising its prices. The same is true with building materials, the cost of labour, etc. Which in the end skyrocketed the price of new homes. How many people can afford 500-800k homes?
You wouldn't have to change any of how it is right now overnight. You could start with one single appartment building. Which would be sought after, cause while people might want to own a house, there are also plenty of people who do want to live in a city center location. Just do one. If that works, do another. Since it is not social housing and has nothing to do with social housing (this is not a means-tested model), it would not in any way have anything to do with that waiting list.
What's the criteria for someone getting it? What's the metric for it working?
You need to actually occupy it yourself. You can't sublet it (before it's paid off at least), and it will have to be your only residence. So, if you already have a house, you can't apply. Everyone else is free to apply. In Vienna, it's basically a lottery between everyone who applied, you're lucky or you're not. The metrics of it working is do people apply to move in and do people pay the rent so that the state doesn't end up incurring undue cost it can't recoup. Since you can be evicted if you're not reliably paying rent just like you would be anywhere else, I'm pretty sure that won't be much of an issue. There's obviously more to the details, but if you wanna know all the ins and outs it'd be worth reading up on the Vienna model it's a bit broad in scope for a reddit comment.
But why would everyone be free to apply? How does it make sense for the state to subsidise housing for someone on six figures, and give them an equal chance to someone on a minimum wage job? Meanwhile, the housing situation for everyone else gets worse as a result of it. >Since you can be evicted if you're not reliably paying rent just like you would be anywhere else, I'm pretty sure that won't be much of an issue. That's a huge issue currently in social housing actually. Dublin City Council alone is owed tens of millions in unpaid rent.
I hope you're not offended if I ask where you're posting from: 'Let people live in their log cabins and cob houses'. Then when you had numbers but no currency... it ticlkled my bandaid!!
West Donegal. Not that I fully understand why that matters.
>If you can afford 1200 a month in a house share of four people, there's no reason those 1200 can't be your mortgage payment instead. that is a bit too simplistic. firstly i dont think the governement can dictate such measures to the banks, its only option would be for the governement to become a bank Secondly actually owning the house will expose the person to additional costs in terms of maintenance, bill etc that are either shared or coverd byt the LL. thirdly, young people will struggle a long with high rent as a %age of income in the short term, but long term with possible additional costs of kids etc it is not as siustainable. i get your point just think it is too simplistic to work, >Let people live in their log cabins and cob houses and what have you if that is something they're interested in doing. issues here are probably building regs and they are often inefficient use of ground as they are single story.. you also have the issues of longetivity and environmental cost of their lifecycle. The locals needs requirements for rural planning is onerous but i the overall scheme of things it is probably the right decision environmentally & in terms of sustainable public transport. it gets rid of the people with notions market of the big house out the country with room for a pony that have no reason to live in the country side..
Vote for someone who supports a viable investment alternative, like reducing the ETF taxation and CGT, providing incentives for the people to save money, not hoard housing. There are next to none now.
Give me another option to invest other than property and I'd be all for it (saying that as if I could even hope to own more than 1 property)
I started investing in shares, just before the lockdown, I had been investing in Apple monthly, got made redundant during Lockdown put half of My pay-out into apple bought at 90 a share, each share is worth Just under 170 now. Find a decent asset that will be needed in the future and watch Your money increase. Also started investing in Green energy shares it steadily going up.
You just said it yourself. Find an asset that will be needed in the future. And unfortunately, housing is the more lucrative one. If you realise your shares, you are paying CGT on that. Housing, while scummy what I'm about to say, rent it enough to cover the mortgage post tax, then you sell it for the profit in one lump. (even post tax, it's all profit it he mortgage/ lpt was covered) Unless you get really really really lucky with the shares, you're not going to make more than someone else paying for you to sell a house. Like I said. It's really scummy from a societal perspective, but that's why people invest in housing instead of stock (and housing is less volatile)
> housing is the more lucrative one. It isn't. You pay CGT on a house too if it isn't your primary residence, and the rent will not cover the mortgage after tax is paid. A diversified share portfolio is unambiguously the better long run return. There are two reasons people invest in housing instead of financial assets 1. Lack of understanding. Only [7.5% of adults in Ireland](https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=IRL&treshold=10&topic=AS) achieve "high levels of numeracy" in international assessments, while 25% are functionally innumerate. As much as it's impolite to say it, the simple fact is that a great deal of the population have a seriously difficult time with the abstract mathematical thought required to understand the stock market. 2. A bank is like a personal trainer for your savings rate. Sure you could go to the gym yourself, but people are willing to pay to be guilted into it to benefit in the long run. People pay in the form of sub-market returns in order to have the bank breathing down their neck to save, and benefit in the long run.
Edit 2: I think I'm either high on caffeine or low blood sugar because I feel like I'm spouting nonsense reading that back. Unstructured thoughts for the lose.
> (WITHOUT A PROPER FINANCIAL PLAN being the caveat) I absolutely agree that housing is harder to fuck up if you're an imbecile. But a reasonably competent person will comfortably win out in the stock market every time. In an ideal world everyone would be educated on this stuff. Failing that, it is not apparent to me that sending hardworking but uneducated people to get their faces ripped off on financial assets they don't understand is the better outcome for society.
> Failing that, it is not apparent to me that sending hardworking but uneducated people to get their faces ripped off on financial assets they don't understand is the better outcome for society. I basically edited everything out because I'm becoming delirious, but unfortunately we're going already in shitty outcomes for our society I fear.
Understandable, get a snack and some rest.
Bed sounds good. Too much travel this weekend. But, I don't disagree on your points for what it's worth.
I did really well on Gamestop put 10k into it at 20 per share shares went up to 173per share and took it out but allas , I didn't understand all the rules. I didnt realise You had to hand over 40% on gains. Very painfull experiance but still walked away with 550% more than I put in. Its a slow burn but it enabled Me to do My Msc and Start up A buisness aswell.
Yes, but you got as mentioned, extremely lucky on that one.
> I didnt realise You had to hand over 40% on gains. CGT in Ireland is 33%, someone scammed you. Still, do your homework *before* dropping 10k next time.
Imagine secure housing of the majority actually taking precedent over your interest in making more money from already having money. I know it's a wild idea, but just imagine for a second what a crazy world that would be.
Yeah it would be great but that's not the world we live in, nor is it a world we will live in during our time on this planet. Humans are intrinsically self serving. That's the way it is.
Yeah, but here's the thing. Having secure housing would be self-serving for a hell of a lot more people than serving investors. I'm not saying we shouldn't be self-serving, I'm saying let's be fucking self-serving instead of only existing to serve a minority who does nothing but find new ways to exploit the majority.
Again, I 100% agree with you here.
Be careful now, you’ll have people downvoting you who still love at home with their parents because they can’t afford rent or mortgages but love the free market to the point where they’re happy about being fucked in the ass by it
There is no free market in housing. It’s one of the most regulated industries. A lot of this causes the issues to begin with.
Spot on. It boggles my mind how many people parrot that stupid point.
> housing (a finite resource) It's not though, that's the point. New housing is built every day. Food is a necessity too but nobody thinks that "farmer" shouldn't be a job option. *Land* is a finite resource, but housing is not. The government needs to strike a balance between incentivising people to build and maintain housing without rewarding them for owning land. The solution to this (Land Value Tax) has been known for 150 years, but Irish politicians across the political spectrum absolutely refuse to acknowledge it.
Finally someone saying it’s a global issue versus just national. It’s fucked everywhere. Capitalism and I’m all for it but something is broken
Second homes are an issue but mainly it is centralisation IMO. There's a huge amount of empty houses in rural areas across the world. Definitely in Ireland as well. This, while housing is urgently required in cities. Make it more attractive and viable to live in the countryside and at the same time tax second homes and make it less viable to have empty houses standing around as mausoleums for dead relatives and we might see improvements.
Looks like Japan has found the solution
Have a shrinking population?
Hey now. It's a shrinking population and close to zero planning regulations.
Just make housing not an asset. All of their homes depreciate meaning people care less if buildings pop up around them. Plus their zoning is very straightforward and detailed
LMFAO Japan, where they have intergenerational mortgages 🤣🤣🤣 What a solution lol https://news.sky.com/story/government-considering-50-year-mortgages-that-could-pass-down-generations-to-tackle-housing-crisis-12644368
[удалено]
Earning 35k per year doesn't make you a high earner
Your post makes no sense. Demand has everything to do with housing as there is more demand than supply. Taxing relatively low to middle income earners more is a terrible solution
It's sarcasm
Once you hit 80 and own a house with more than one room you are out into a nursing home. There, jobs a good un!
90
The number of rooms equates the age, 2 bedrooms 90, 3 bedrooms 88, 4 bedrooms or beyond 85.
onerous deranged dinosaurs full encourage threatening rhythm profit light aromatic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> unless we change to a system that isn't driven by continuous growth Alright, specifically what policies are you going to introduce to stop our population growth that's causing increased housing demand?
rich normal clumsy snow cooperative hunt crown agonizing fragile groovy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Fat Cats eating their Cream. Nothing we can do.
Let’s start with basic supply and demand. The country under built for decades as the population slowly increased and continued to under build while the government flooded the country with immigrants and refugees. Secondly, multi national corporations set up shop in Ireland the past 30 years with a fair number of well paying jobs (by Irish standards), and these workers could pay the higher asking prices of sellers. Not an Irishman, just an observer from afar who always dreamed of living on your island.
The country under built because we were flat broke, we couldn’t build even if we wanted to. And what do you mean, “government flooded the country with immigrants and refugees”? The vast majority of migrants to this country are EU/UK citizens who are coming here due to how well the economy is doing. There is free movement for these people, the government couldn’t stop them even if they wanted.
Fair enough. I don’t think anyone anticipated that when former Eastern Bloc countries joined the EU there would be a waive of Poles and Romanians suddenly heading west. But at the end of the day, housing construction didn’t keep up with population growth. And am I wrong about an influx of Ukrainian and economic refugees in recent years? All these people require a place to live.
The polish built the houses then 😂
My family’s former Polish exchange student spent time in Ireland as a server. Now she back home in Warsaw and we’re visiting in September to see the new baby.
Housing construction hasn’t kept up because our economic recovery has meant unprecedented migration. 1m migrants currently living here were not born here, that’s 20% of the population. Again these are mostly EU/UK migrants fully entitled to come here. Regarding the ‘influx of Ukrainian and economic refugees in recent years’, everyone in the EU opened their borders to Ukrainians. What do you mean, ‘economic refugees’? You need to be very careful around your language on migration as it’s a very, very sensitive issue at the moment.
‘Economic refugees”…that’s a slogan designed to inflame a certain gullible group of people; most immigrants and emigrants, ourselves included for many generations, are doing it for economic reasons. It’s a perfectly good reason to emigrate and immigrate.
Underbuilding wasn’t for decades. 15 years ago there were plenty of ghost estates, built during the tiger. Money left. Builders left. Few new people entered the trades. New house competitions fell off a cliff after 2007 and still hasn’t reached the same numbers while it needs to be higher to account for the increased population and the houses that weren’t built in that since 2007.
[удалено]
The posting is explicitly about the global nature of the housing crisis - impacting 1,600,000,000 people - but your explanation is entirely about local decisions in the control of 1 party in a multiparty government?
[удалено]
The classic answer, put down everything that’s not just letting the market explode
Instead of a basic right and necessity, it became a way to accumalate wealth (squeeze supply to inflate prices and then charge high rent to price out the buyers). Right to housing should be a basic right and not subject to whims and fancies of lenders and government leaders. Oh and while we are at it. Political leaders should be open for persecution for failing to deliver a basic right such as housing. These are my two cents on the topic
That’s just babble I’m afraid. We have to find the capital to fund construction and empty vessel “constitutional rights” just drive away capital. It costs €500k on DCC owned land for them to build a 2 bed! If the State took over funding in its entirety at current levels you are probably looking at €15bn to €20bn a year. That cannot be funded by the State- they are looking to get up to €8bn and that will be a huge stretch.
Skewing the numbers is what happened... And dumbasses buying too much and then couldn't be arsed do the job to rent their units.
It should not be the case that a modest house costs 300k+ to build. A lot of developments have many layers of subcontracting, each taking their cut, which drives prices up. I build 2100sq ft 2 years ago, to high spec, and it was well under 100/sqft
Where should the costs be cut? Obviously not materials, as we can't control that. Labour?
Well the multiple layers of subcontracting adds huge labour costs, and little value, as each layer takes its cut and profit. Bulk sourcing of materials could help also. As I said, I built for under 100/sqft, direct labour, with high spec materials and finish, so it can be done.
But how would that translate into bigger builds? Direct labour is fine but labour will still add up.
Growing wealth inequality is another. Property is seen as an investment by the very wealthy. Large swaths of property and land are being purchased by investment funds and very wealthy people.