P
phoenix_n
Guest
Made an inquiry on the property to test the market. Said i would be interested in viewing but my ceiling was max 340K. He was open to my offer.
Phibsboro terrace price decreased from to [broken link removed]
And all the kings horses and all the kings men.....
Not a good analogy. A place to live is a necessity. A bottle of wine?
Come on now, I'm selling my house, it still won't leave me homeless. Housing is a commodity. The state has a duty of care to make sure the less well-off aren't homeless but that doesn't mean every citizen in the state should be able to afford to buy a home.
And right there is where you miss the crucial point. Wealth didn't increase, debt increased. We're running debt at 190% of GDP. There are few people who are much richer now than in 2000; there are however a staggering number who are indebted to the eyeballs.
Government "interference" is the only thing that will make sure that this doesn't happen again. You are talking about laissez-faire economics, the survival of the fittest and the idea that monopolies will never exist.
I agree with that statement to a certain extent, but at the moment the only way
people CAN buy a house is if :
a) They have substantial wealth
or
b) They get into debt up the their eyeballs for the next 35-40 years.
Surely it doesn't have to be that way.
With proper planning and regulation there should be no need for a government to intervene in the market. Surely no rational person can look at the housing market in Ireland today and think the solution is even more government intervention?
The seller doesn't dictate the price, the buyer does.
We're not living off savings, we are living off future earnings. Why is this so hard to understand?Did house prices not increase prior to 2000? Are we not wealthier as a nation since the early 90's? However, since 2000/2001 we have turned inward, decreasing exports, increasing imports. Like someone no longer working but continuing to live off their savings.
I just described the situation you seem to want.You mentioned laissez-faire economics not me.
Thats a false dichotomy, its not an either-or situation.The state has a duty to make sure the less well-off aren't exploited but that duty doesn't extend to making sure every couple can afford to buy a 3 bedroom house within commuting distance of Dublin.
Black market houses, indeed. They'll be smuggling them in with the chinese in containers via the channel tunnel. Who is talking about fixing prices here? Knock out investors whose only purpose is to drive property prices up, to the detriment of society as a whole, and the idea of a property tax is sounding more and more appealing to me. No property tax for your primary living home, cumulatively increasing property taxes for every house after the first that you own. That sounds about right. Landlords can factor that into the rent if they like, and it will provide a serious incentive not to own too many residential properties.What would you call government price fixing of a commodity? It sounds very like socialism and almost always ends in tears. If the government fixes house prices then builders will have no incentive to build good houses since they'll get paid the same amount anyway. In fact they'll be postively incentivised to build the cheapest dump the regulations will allow them get away with. If the government implements a law to prevent investors outbidding FTBs then a black market will spring up around that.
Proper planning and regulation ARE government interference. In my opinion, no rational person would be looking at the property market in in Ireland today. They'd be off in the middle of the most affluent sections of New York City, buying property for the same price as in Phibsboro.With proper planning and regulation there should be no need for a government to intervene in the market. Surely no rational person can look at the housing market in Ireland today and think the solution is even more government intervention?
The seller doesn't dictate the price, the buyer does. Once buyers expectations are for lower prices then the sellers will have to lower their prices accordingly. It doesn't need government intervention, just a little cop on from buyers.
Planning and regulation is, in of itself, market intervention. Central Bank regulation of lending criteria is also market intervention. Are you saying that it is not?
The seller can dictate a minimum price and your scenario only works in a situation where a sale is mandatory. The seller always has the option to wait out.
The seller can dictate a minimum price and your scenario only works in a situation where a sale is mandatory. The seller always has the option to wait out.
Made an inquiry on the property to test the market. Said i would only be interested in viewing but my ceiling was max 340K. He was open to my offer.
Yes, but when something is a necessity and it's in short supply, the buyer doesn't
have a choice in dictating the price. Hence a "seller's market" when supply exceeds
demand the tables turn.
What am I against is the government directly intervening in the market (e.g. price caps on houses, insisting investors cannot outbid FTBs etc. - all the stuff that is being suggested here). I consider the stock market and commodities markets to be "free markets" but regulation is still required to limit abuse of the system.
Let people play, just give them rules to play by and referees to ensure the rules are obeyed.
You're the only one suggesting these things. Making it hard for investors to outbid FTBs means putting significantly higher taxes on property purchases after the first, so it doesn't make economic sense to buy houses for investment.(e.g. price caps on houses, insisting investors cannot outbid FTBs etc. - all the stuff that is being suggested here).
Interesting one from the Times in London.
I enjoyed the "Debt is now so ubiquitous it brings a certain complaicancy". What differs between the UK and Ireland is that in the UK the complaicancy comes from lack of understanding of the basis of mortgage arrangements and loans. In Ireland it seems to come from the irrational belief that "the gubbernent will save me" if/when the bank send in the bailiffs to repossess.
came across this in todays indo -
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=302&si=1686895&issue_id=14635
im no karl marx myself - quite the opposite actually - but taxation is one of the few levers left to elected democratic government to influence the society it governs on behalf of.
The arrogance of those who have gained hugely from the recent property boom is really something to behold.