Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,673
credit would be more expensive and so property would be cheaper.
We could achieve that by taxing interest. So if the bank charges you 3%, you must also pay 1.5% in tax. That would be ridiculous.
credit would be more expensive and so property would be cheaper.
Point taken but I think developers should spend less time whinging and lobbying and more time looking at their own efficiencies.For example, at the moment, developers cannot build apartments at a profit. If the prices fall 20%, there will be even fewer built.
That wouldn't spread the risk so yes, it would be ridiculous.We could achieve that by taxing interest. So if the bank charges you 3%, you must also pay 1.5% in tax. That would be ridiculous.
Land is expensive because from 1963 onwards planning permission was required to build any non-exempt development. Supply of land for development was annihilated without a corresponding reduction in demand resulting in massive price increases.Land is expensive because credit is cheap and the world is awash with money.
Essentially you'd be creating house price deflation by deliberately provoking housing finance inflation.credit would be more expensive and so property would be cheaper
Well if you want to selectively quote my post then that's correct. What I said was "In my opinion the advantage of a system where all mortgages were non-recourse is that credit would be more expensive and so property would be cheaper. That falls down in the international market we are now in where the price is not set by retail (private) buyers but by massive amounts of international capital looking for a home in a low bond yield environment."Essentially you'd be creating house price deflation by deliberately provoking housing finance inflation.
This would benefit people who are already wealthy and can buy houses without requiring a mortage.
But it wouldn't benefit people who are already wealthly mainly because they own a house; it would make them less wealthy by devaluing their house. It would only benefit wealthy people who don't own a house, and wealthy people who have substantial assets apart from houses.
And, of course, it wouldn't benefit people who want to buy a house but require a mortgage to do so. It doesn't make home ownership any more affordable for them — the opposite, in fact.
All in all, I can't see this being a wildly popular proposal.
Thank goodness they did. There's more than enough one-off housing and other rubbish blighting the countryside.Land is expensive because from 1963 onwards planning permission was required to build any non-exempt development. Supply of land for development was annihilated without a corresponding reduction in demand resulting in massive price increases.
That's lesson 1 of any foundation level economics course.
. . . are driving up Irish house prices? I think I'm missing something here.massive amounts of international capital looking for a home in a low bond yield environment.
Yeah, a little more rape and murder is exactly what we need around here!!!If you find a law or policy anywhere which has no negative aspects then you'll be the first in history. There's downsides to everything.
Capital that builds homes isn't, but rent controls have made that less attractive.I'm still not seeing how international capital is driving up Irish house prices.
The State is the main actor bidding against first time buyers but the market is also being inflated by money from outside Ireland. The same thing is happening all across Europe.Is international capital coming to Ireland and bidding against Irish residents for homes?
I don't think so. There's remarkably little competition within the mortgage market. The fact that it's almost impossible to repossess a home in Ireland is probably a factor in that.Or are you suggesting that Irish residents are finding it easier and easier to get larger and larger mortgages because international capitalists find the Irish home loan market a lucrative one?