The market doesn't agree with you the futures market is priced for a March hike
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adb5l8wtu51A&refer=home
This really isn't the thread for it so we can can agree to differ
Unlike yourself I haven't made any definitive statement in this thread about the timing or direction of interest rate changes so the futures market agreeing or disagreeing with me doesn't arise. I merely questioned your assertion that the " Good news is that the rate rise won't happen till March instead of Feb. " I was curious as to your certainty about an event that you can't be certain about and I felt your statement might be misleading for some people reading this thread.
the hits dropped dramatically with budget speculation in late Nov and in early Jan it was only 100 hits in a week .
Does anyone still seriously believe that it was budget speculation that slowed the market? The only people still trotting out that line are the vested interests who want more than anything to convince us the party is still going. Buyers were not waiting to see what would happen in the budget - they knew that any decrease in stamp duty would not make buying a house any easier, it would merely go into the sellers' pockets.
Stamp duty is a tax on the seller, not the buyer. If anyone was waiting for the budget it would have been the vendors. There's an argument to be made that the stamp duty system in and of itself is damaging to the market because it hampers movement, and perhaps it should indeed be reformed, but no individual buyer is thinking about that when deciding to make the plunge on any one house.
Buyers were not waiting to see what would happen in the budget - they knew that any decrease in stamp duty would not make buying a house any easier, it would merely go into the sellers' pockets.
Stamp duty is a tax on the seller, not the buyer.
Eh tax on the buyer not the seller surely. Its paid by the buyer afterall
Eh tax on the buyer not the seller surely. Its paid by the buyer afterall
There is a bit of a myth about stamp duty as it is not a tax on the buyer but on the seller - nobody quite realises this. The former Minister for Finance was in full agreement with me in this regard....
Let me explain what I mean. If one buys a house and pays 6% or 7% of the cost as stamp duty, or 9% if one pays at the top rate, one must have the money to do so. One must have borrowed it or acquired it somehow and have it in one’s back pocket. If there were no stamp duty, one would pay the same price for a house because the price would simply increase accordingly. The buyer, who would have the money to pay if there were stamp duty, would be prepared to pay the same amount if there were none. It does not matter to the buyer whether the money is spent on stamp duty or on the house and therefore the person who is actually getting less from this system is the seller. Stamp duty is therefore a tax on the seller although it does not appear to be so.
.
.
The banks are also involved because they are lending money recklessly, thus increasing the price of houses. They do not care about the consequences for the buyer. They are lending recklessly in a period of very low interest rates. This is fine if one wants to borrow a lot of money at present but it will be bloody murder when interest rates increase suddenly. I am not referring to the gradual increases which I suspect will occur next month or next year......
Does anyone still seriously believe that it was budget speculation that slowed the market?
I first came across this paradox on Shane Ross's . Does make sense when you work throught the logic and consider what happened to prices after the last stamp duty adjustment.
[written 2005]
Yes they do. I had a conversation with two colleagues who said the stamp duty caused the slowdow but they were also surprised at my prediction on house prices this year (cant share as is banned) as it went against newspaper articles.
People believe what they read.
His argument is largely based on the premise that "If there were no stamp duty, one would pay the same price for a house because the price would simply increase accordingly ". The present stamp duty system would see €72000 payable on an €800k house, for example. How the removal of stamp duty would, de facto, result in that house price increasing to €872000 is beyond me and it would be an even more bizarre argument in a slowing or falling market imo.
Don't mean to pull this thread off topic but just a quick point. For 'second hand' homes that are just a year after being signed off, could it not be expected to get the same/a fraction more than the same house in the new phase of a development (selling off plans) on the basis that the new house would be builders finish as opposed to existing which owner has finished off ie. tiling, carpets,etc.?You're saying that second hand apartments are priced at more than new ones?!
Don't mean to pull this thread off topic but just a quick point. For 'second hand' homes that are just a year after being signed off, could it not be expected to get the same/a fraction more than the same house in the new phase of a development (selling off plans) on the basis that the new house would be builders finish as opposed to existing which owner has finished off ie. tiling, carpets,etc.?
Or perhaps, back on topic?!Don't mean to pull this thread off topic
The builder's finish versus owner's finish effect is approximately cancelled out by the stamp duty effect for owner occupiers, so I would expect second-hand in those circumstances to be about the same price or a little less, depending on the price levels. And, of course, the quality of the finish will have an effect, as will the degree of personalisation. High quality bland will generally get you a better price and a quicker turnaround, far as I can see.but just a quick point. For 'second hand' homes that are just a year after being signed off, could it not be expected to get the same/a fraction more than the same house in the new phase of a development (selling off plans) on the basis that the new house would be builders finish as opposed to existing which owner has finished off ie. tiling, carpets,etc.?
These homes are only going for €190-€220k(not a typo - just one of the least developed parts of the country!). Have I got it right in thinking stamp duty isnt a factor in this case?The builder's finish versus owner's finish effect is approximately cancelled out by the stamp duty effect for owner occupiers
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?