I'd do both.
I'd do both.Instead of burning I'd go down the route of claiming it's not a vacant property, it's a rustic holiday home.
How would our luxury holiday home owning "left" wing TDs feel about second homes - vacant or just mostly vacant - being taxed more heavily than PPRs.
I would go down that route first, I see hypocrisy in just targeting vacant properties, which aren't always owned by people with substantial resources, whereas a holiday home generally is.
And that decision has been a huge success.......Councils are still paying and end up with nothing of importance.I think this is the main reason they have outsourced social housing to the private sector..
Sorry I have big fingersAnd that decision has been a huge success.......Councils are still paying and end up with nothing of importance.
I meant both when I said "vacant or just mostly vacant". A tax (extra on top of LPT) second and third homes will automatically bring vacant properties into the equation. Owning a holiday home is a luxury - and should be taxed liked one. At the moment the problem isn't just eating into the supply of houses, it's also tying up labour as many holiday home owners can afford to overpay to get work done.I'd do both.
Well keep saying no isn't going to solve the issue
If our Social housing stock was treated properly by all those involved that stock would be useful for 3 or 4 generations .
And comparing against other countries isn't going to solve the issue.
I agree.I meant both when I said "vacant or just mostly vacant". A tax (extra on top of LPT) second and third homes will automatically bring vacant properties into the equation.
We should structure our taxation system to create the greatest societal benefit, not because we are jealous of those who have more than us. I'm reminded of the old line that middle class socialists don't give a damn about the poor, they just hare rich people. What they don't realise is that many middle class socialists are rich people, they just don't have very high incomes.Owning a holiday home is a luxury - and should be taxed liked one. At the moment the problem isn't just eating into the supply of houses, it's also tying up labour as many holiday home owners can afford to overpay to get work done.
What a peculiar argument. The idea that odd-job men and washing machine repairers could start building much-needed housing if only their existing work could slacken off a bit is frankly bizarre.it's also tying up labour as many holiday home owners can afford to overpay to get work done.
I don't like it when people take my quote and use two words of it out of context to make a point, it shows a lack of manners.Again in referring to the international experience of social housing, I was merely rebutting your claim that this is a "uniquely Irish" problem.
Out of context my nelly.I don't like it when people take my quote and use two words of it out of context to make a point, it shows a lack of manners.
The quote was "uniquely Irish attitudes " kindly stop this .
If you're taking umbrage with this being used to mention a reference to "uniquely Irish", you have little to worry about.There are solutions available but the amount of vested interests, parochial mind sets and a host of uniquely Irish attitudes seem intent of finding any.
I never once said that the problem was " distilled down to uniquely Irish attitudes " on this and multiple occasions I have suggested that the problems faced in our housing strategies have multiple issues, both quantifiable and non quantifiable and if all these factors must be addressed if we are going to solve it.Out of context my nelly.
This is what you said.
If you're taking umbrage with this being distilled down to "uniquely Irish attitudes ", you have little to worry about.
And as for my manners, I have been unfailingly polite to you throughout all this. Feel free to report any relevant comments if or when I'm not.
Which is it?You have been polite and I have no issue with your posting , but ... I find that rude
I'll allow you to work it out.Which is it?
No, you can't credibly claim in the same breath that I'm both polite and rude.I'll allow you to work it out.
Buy to let investors, can get interest only loans and they can then sell the asset, after 20 years, to pay back the original cost of purchase. They can also charge a rent which provides them with a substantial profit, ie; the difference between the interest only rent, maintenance costs and the actual rent they charge. They then get to keep the profit from both of these agreements, if there is any, and walk away.Thanks. A 1% rate of return before maintenance and after interest isn't remotely economic though. How many decades until the original €250k outlay will be recouped?
Remember also that in most cases especially nowadays the build cost will be much higher than €250k, and there will be a site cost, and site-related costs. And the unit will in time require substantial refurbishment and renewal. And there will be need to budget for contingencies, just as there is in apartment and estate management companies.
Buy to let investors, can get interest only loans and they can then sell the asset, after 20 years, to pay back the original cost of purchase. They can also charge a rent which provides them with a substantial profit, ie; the difference between the interest only rent, maintenance costs and the actual rent they charge. They then get to keep the profit from both of these agreements, if there is any, and walk away.
Social housing, of course, should not be based on profiteering, but the state retains the asset, so that future generations can use the house.
We don't have to allow the market to rule everything. Its not, always, the most efficient or fairest way of doing things.
Thanks. A 1% rate of return before maintenance and after interest isn't remotely economic though. How many decades until the original €250k outlay will be recouped?
Yet..Social housing, of course, should not be based on profiteering, but the state retains the asset, so that future generations can use the house.
Very few houses and fewer apartments remain useful for 3 or 4 generations without huge investment in renovation and refurbishment. The typical older house is as much a liability as an asset and will deteriorate to an uninhabitable state if left unoccupied or neglected for even a decade.
You mean that the State should blow huge amounts of money on something that will in time generate no economic return?We don't have to allow the market to rule everything. Its not, always, the most efficient or fairest way of doing things.
One challenge with trying to use a lot of these properties to the rental or social housing is that it is perfectly acceptable to live in such a house yourself, but there are strict requirements for rental or social housing that many of these could not meet without very significant investment. Most houses of that era will suffer from damp, mould, and heat retention issues that mean a deep retrofit would be required to bring them up to standard.Well keep saying no isn't going to solve the issue, on the generational usage a close friend lives in a house that was built in 1938 and bought in 1939 a simple 3 bed and it hasn't changed infra structurally, yes it has been modified for gas heating , new kitchens, painting etc., but essentially still a very habitable home.
Oh I accept all this and wasn't for one minute saying that the cost of such work be ignored completely, but a rudimentary view is that retrofitting these properties would be cheaper, perhaps not , than shoving subsidies into developers pockets.One challenge with trying to use a lot of these properties to the rental or social housing is that it is perfectly acceptable to live in such a house yourself, but there are strict requirements for rental or social housing that many of these could not meet without very significant investment. Most houses of that era will suffer from damp, mould, and heat retention issues that mean a deep retrofit would be required to bring them up to standard.
But they are not " blowing huge amounts of money", they are building an asset, which will appreciate over time.You mean that the State should blow huge amounts of money on something that will in time generate no economic return?
But they are not " blowing huge amounts of money", they are building an asset, which will appreciate over time.
You clearly misunderstand the meaning of economic return.The economic return cannot just be measured in a profit figure, it can be measured in the service that the housing project brings to the community.
There isn't a social housing unit in the country that has been in use for 100 years. And what exactly is the "phenomenal" return on say €500k of taxpayers' money being spent to house a single family or series of individuals over a generation or two, any more than say sending a few of them off to train as barristers?By housing families or individuals, over 100 year periods the " return" is phenomenal.
If the sites had never been built on, they'd still be commanding these valuations, so whatever relevance that has to the economic viability of social housing escapes me.Some council houses have been used by 3 or 4 generations, at this stage. Councils have been generating a return, by selling their sites and housing to private developers. Many of those sites, purchased and developed 70 or 80 years ago are, currently, valued in the hundreds of millions. I think thats a terrible mistake, but it does show the sites have significant value, if that's your beef.
You'll find that when these people buy their holiday home they probably want a bit more than a washing machine repaired.What a peculiar argument. The idea that odd-job men and washing machine repairers could start building much-needed housing if only their existing work could slacken off a bit is frankly bizarre.