# Tax incentives for construction market failure?



## Firefly (13 Aug 2007)

Yesterday's Sunday Business Post

‘‘Consideration will be given to the selective application of new tax incentive measures *in areas of evident market failure*, particularly with National Spatial Strategy gateways and hubs.”

The regional towns designated as gateways in the strategy were Dundalk, Sligo, Letterkenny and a linked gateway comprising the midland towns of Athlone, Tullamore and Mullingar.

A spokesman for the Department of Finance confirmed that proposals were expected before the budget from the Department of the Environment. 


- Do ye think this is market failure?????


----------



## markowitzman (13 Aug 2007)

*Re: Tax incentives for construction Market Failure??*

ah sure a few of the lads in the tent in Galway asked the gov to set up the merrygoround again as the builders/developers see things cooling!


----------



## Jaid79 (26 Aug 2007)

Firefly said:


> Yesterday's Sunday Business Post
> 
> ‘‘Consideration will be given to the selective application of new tax incentive measures *in areas of evident market failure*, particularly with National Spatial Strategy gateways and hubs.”
> 
> ...


 
What sort of tax incentive would become available?

Jaid


----------



## room305 (27 Aug 2007)

Firefly said:


> - Do ye think this is market failure?????



The government has no business trying to correct some perceived failure of the market.

If I grew apples and sold an apple juice product for €15 a litre, which few people showed any inclination to buy - there would be no talk of "market failure". People would recognise the problem for what is - my product was priced higher than the market was willing to pay. Either I increase the quality or decrease the price, or both.

Of course, as we know, house building is not subject to the usual laws of supply and demand.


----------



## Jaid79 (27 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> The government has no business trying to correct some perceived failure of the market.
> 
> If I grew apples and sold an apple juice product for €15 a litre, which few people showed any inclination to buy - there would be no talk of "market failure". People would recognise the problem for what is - my product was priced higher than the market was willing to pay. Either I increase the quality or decrease the price, or both.
> 
> Of course, as we know, house building is not subject to the usual laws of supply and demand.


 
Why? Are you been ?

Jaid


----------



## MOB (29 Aug 2007)

"The government has no business trying to correct some perceived failure of the market."

A bit of an overstatement surely.  Surely one of the main reasons for having a state sector at all is the belief that an unrestricted free market would fail to deliver important elements of infrastructure, education, healthcare, employee protection, protection of the environment etc.   While many disagree on what constitutes an appropriate amount of government interference in the market, there is no country in which the government does not address perceived market failure to some extent; this is in fact exactly what government is supposed to do.


----------



## room305 (30 Aug 2007)

MOB said:


> A bit of an overstatement surely.  Surely one of the main reasons for having a state sector at all is the belief that an unrestricted free market would fail to deliver important elements of infrastructure, education, healthcare, employee protection, protection of the environment etc.   While many disagree on what constitutes an appropriate amount of government interference in the market, there is no country in which the government does not address perceived market failure to some extent; this is in fact exactly what government is supposed to do.



It is one argument to have publically-funded state bodies that deliver services that the public do not wish to entrust entirely to the private sector - infrastructure, healthcare, policing, social housing etc.

It is something else entirely to have the government tamper with the market because it decides it doesn't like the price the market has set. Why do we allow markets to set the price in the first place? Why not have the government change the prices for anything they are unhappy with?

Markets allow for the most efficient allocation of resources because people respond to the price signal. If something is in short supply, the price will increase and production will be increased to meet demand. If a good is in oversupply, the price will fall and production will be decreased. That's why there has never been a famine in a free-market economy.

I stand by my statement - the government has already exacerbated the situation through continual tinkering with the market. A better case could be made for intervening if prices were rocketing in these areas and for some reason the demand/supply balance could not be redressed through normal market mechanisms (usually as a consequence of some other government intervention or other). Acting to increase supply now when the market is clearly signalling an oversupply is madness.

By bailing out their friends at the expense of the taxpayer I can confidently predict that not only will this attempt end in dismal failure but it will cost us a lot of money. I for one think I'm grossly underpaid and wouldn't mind if the government stepped in to _correct the perceived market failure_ of my salary ...


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> The government has no business trying to correct some perceived failure of the market.
> 
> If I grew apples and sold an apple juice product for €15 a litre, which few people showed any inclination to buy - there would be no talk of "market failure". People would recognise the problem for what is - my product was priced higher than the market was willing to pay. Either I increase the quality or decrease the price, or both.
> 
> Of course, as we know, house building is not subject to the usual laws of supply and demand.



I don't agree. As a student in Galway in the mid-1980s I found myself walking home about 1am one night through Shop Street and Quay Street. Quay Street was absolutely deserted and was in a state of semi-dereliction, so much so that I genuinely feared for my safety. At the time, there were similarly "dodgy" areas in every large town in Ireland. The transformation of these areas was triggered by tax breaks that incentivised the redevelopment and repopulation of these areas. I don't think anyone could argue that this was not a good thing.

Whether tax incentives have been over-used or abused in the meantime is a separate issue. The point is that government intervention in the market is sometimes worthwhile and indeed absolutely necessary.


----------



## room305 (30 Aug 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> I don't agree. As a student in Galway in the mid-1980s I found myself walking home about 1am one night through Shop Street and Quay Street. Quay Street was absolutely deserted and was in a state of semi-dereliction, so much so that I genuinely feared for my safety. At the time, there were similarly "dodgy" areas in every large town in Ireland. The transformation of these areas was triggered by tax breaks that incentivised the redevelopment and repopulation of these areas. I don't think anyone could argue that this was not a good thing.
> 
> Whether tax incentives have been over-used or abused in the meantime is a separate issue. The point is that government intervention in the market is sometimes worthwhile and indeed absolutely necessary.



Section 23 relief was introduced in 1981 so that's a fairly loose definition of "triggered". How would you define "over-used or abused" - do you mean as in fraudulently applied for, or do you simply mean too many people availed of the incentive? 

I don't consider government intervention in the market place ever to be effective or necessary. Any business is either worthwhile - in which case it will go ahead regardless of tax breaks - or not worthwhile, in which case the government has no business encouraging it.

Another problem with the government implementing tax breaks on some developments is that the market distortion can lead to overbuilding in areas with no demand, leading to an undersupply in areas with a high demand.

These days it seems almost every venture needs a tax break before it can get going (because otherwise it is starting at an immediate disadvantage to industries with tax breaks). The army of civil servants trying to monitor and implement tax breaks continues to grow and hordes of tax consultants spend countless hours figuring out how trying to abuse them. 

Before you know it, the government will be directing everything and we'll have a centrally planned economy.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Section 23 relief was introduced in 1981


There was no evidence of any take-up of Section 23 (or property development of any sort) when I lived in Galway up to 1988. 



room305 said:


> so that's a fairly loose definition of "triggered".


Not necessarily.


room305 said:


> How would you define "over-used or abused" - do you mean as in fraudulently applied for, or do you simply mean too many people availed of the incentive?


The property tax breaks outlived their usefulness in most (but not all) areas. Most of them should have been scrapped around 1997. There was never much  of a case for the Rural Renewal Relief or the Seaside Resorts Scheme, among others.



room305 said:


> These days it seems almost every venture needs a tax break before it can get going (because otherwise it is starting at an immediate disadvantage to industries with tax breaks).


Really? My own neck of the woods is bursting at the seams with new property developments, and new service-sector businesses, none of which have benefitted from tax breaks.


room305 said:


> The army of civil servants trying to monitor and implement tax breaks continues to grow and hordes of tax consultants spend countless hours figuring out how trying to abuse them.



A slight exaggeration, perhaps?


----------



## room305 (30 Aug 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> There was no evidence of any take-up of Section 23 (or property development of any sort) when I lived in Galway up to 1988.



That's the point. They didn't taken up until a decade or more after their introduction when it was profitable to do so, at which point they were redundant.


----------



## MOB (30 Aug 2007)

"I don't consider government intervention in the market place ever to be effective or necessary. Any business is either worthwhile - in which case it will go ahead regardless of tax breaks - or not worthwhile, in which case the government has no business encouraging it."

This is just not true, and it does not promote useful debate when such a polarised view is adopted.  As a business proposition, it is never going to be worthwhile to open public libraries in deprived areas - they just can't pay their way.  It is never going to be worthwhile to carry out environmental improvements to farmland (as subsidised by REPS schemes and such like) because these improvements add nothing to farm profits.   It is never going to be worthwhile to go into business in a market where there is a dominant player with deep pockets who can undercut you by selling below cost for long enough to put you out of business (a practice which government - by its interference in the market -  makes illegal).

The free market does not deliver effective policing.  The free market does not deliver effective fire brigade services (though of course fire brigades were originally a private sector endeavour).  The free market does not deliver universal education (though in fairness I have seen some well-reasoned arguments that it could).  The free market does not deliver effective competition in many areas where it is clear that the greater good would be served by ensuring such competition.

In short, is quite obvious that there are some markets where government intervention is both necessary and desirable.  It is also quite obvious that there are markets where government intervention is neither necessary nor desirable.   The 'government interference in the market' type issues which deserve reasoned debate may therefore be loosely categorised as being:

1.  Markets where government do not interfere enough, and where it is argued that they should do more.  

2.  Markets where the government interfere too much and where it is argued that they should do less.


----------



## ang1170 (30 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Markets allow for the most efficient allocation of resources because people respond to the price signal. If something is in short supply, the price will increase and production will be increased to meet demand. If a good is in oversupply, the price will fall and production will be decreased. That's why there has never been a famine in a free-market economy.


 
What a crass statement. I suggest you check out your history books (hint: Ireland, 1840s).


----------



## Bronte (31 Aug 2007)

Re government intervention, I see a Section 50 student accommodation recently built (in last 2 years I guess) that is advertised on the Daft website as a 4 bed student accommodation and the estate agents say it's easily convertable into a 2 bed unit.  It's on a street where I don't see the need for government intervention but interesting to note that it seems it would be better to convert it into a 'normal' apartment than a student room type accommodation and so recently after having been built it seems strange to me.  Is this happening to a lot of the Section 50 properties or maybe this is a one off.  Certainly seems to be a failure of the government policy.  Don't they have rules that prevent this.


----------



## room305 (31 Aug 2007)

ang1170 said:


> What a crass statement. I suggest you check out your history books (hint: Ireland, 1840s).



Why is my statement _crass_? 

An occupied colony where the majority of the people were suffering religious oppression and wealth confiscation by the occupier (i.e. Ireland in 1845)  is a fairly perverted form of a "free market economy". Might be no harm to have a re-read of those history books yourself.


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> An occupied colony ...



Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom in the 1800s. It was not a colony in any sense of the term.


----------



## room305 (31 Aug 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom in the 1800s. It was not a colony in any sense of the term.



It must have been considered a colony in _some_ sense of the term as the country was ruled by a centralised London government in which Irish Catholics (90% of the population) were denied representation. The Penal Laws were only repealed in the late 1820s, denying Catholics the right to buy land, forcing them to continually subdivide their holdings which in turn was one of the leading causes of the famine.

Without getting into an endless discussion of the history of the Irish famine I think it's fair to say that the political system in place was decisively undemocratic and the trading markets were anything but free. It might have been clearer if I said that there was never been a famine in a country with free markets and representative democracy, something I consider a pre-requisite for a liberal economy.


----------



## room305 (31 Aug 2007)

MOB said:


> "I don't consider government intervention in the market place ever to be effective or necessary. Any business is either worthwhile - in which case it will go ahead regardless of tax breaks - or not worthwhile, in which case the government has no business encouraging it."
> 
> This is just not true, and it does not promote useful debate when such a polarised view is adopted.  As a business proposition, it is never going to be worthwhile to open public libraries in deprived areas - they just can't pay their way.  It is never going to be worthwhile to carry out environmental improvements to farmland (as subsidised by REPS schemes and such like) because these improvements add nothing to farm profits.   It is never going to be worthwhile to go into business in a market where there is a dominant player with deep pockets who can undercut you by selling below cost for long enough to put you out of business (a practice which government - by its interference in the market -  makes illegal).



I'm not lobbying for anarchy nor am I pretending that _free markets_ are the natural order of affairs. Of course few private enterprises will engage in ventures considered to be unprofitable. However, charitable institutions, religious organisations or the government sometimes decide to fill that gap and fund an unprofitable venture they deem worthwhile from tax revenue or donations. So they build a library in a disadvantaged area. No harm done.

If the government decided that the reason for a dearth of private libraries in disadvantaged areas was that books were overpriced and took measures to force the price lower, this would be interfering with the market. It would also cause a shortage of books and a black market for books at the non-government set price. Similarly, if the government decided to incentivise private library building in disadvantaged areas by providing tax breaks to private library builders, this can only be seen as interfering and usually has unforeseen consequences (rampant over-building for one).

As for environmental improvements to farms being unprofitable, this is as a result of an externality. Polluting the environment - say publically held rivers, or the air, is a cost borne by everyone but the benefits (increased profit/production, lower cost etc.) are accrued directly by the farmer. Hence the incentive to pollute. The solution is simply to try and remove these negative externalities to avoid a "tragedy of the commons" effect, with regard the environment.

I am totally against any below cost selling bans (I thought these were no longer illegal?). The threat of a new entrant can often be enough to keep costs down even in cases where there is only one provider - Ryanair is a good example of this in practice.



MOB said:


> The free market does not deliver effective policing.  The free market does not deliver effective fire brigade services (though of course fire brigades were originally a private sector endeavour).  The free market does not deliver universal education (though in fairness I have seen some well-reasoned arguments that it could).  The free market does not deliver effective competition in many areas where it is clear that the greater good would be served by ensuring such competition.



I am of the personal perhaps unsurprising opinion that the government would be best getting out of the education game. The enforced one-size-fits-all solution provided is nothing short of barbaric. I've only every seen what could be described as a private police force in operation once when I lived in the US, and it seemed to work as well as any other. I'm not sure it is necessarily the most desirable prospect but I think it could be made to work. I'm not quite clear what you mean by "_the free market does not deliver effective competition in many areas where it is clear that the greater good would be served by ensuring such competition_" - surely competition is always desirable? Perhaps you could illustrate with an example?



MOB said:


> In short, is quite obvious that there are some markets where government intervention is both necessary and desirable.  It is also quite obvious that there are markets where government intervention is neither necessary nor desirable.   The 'government interference in the market' type issues which deserve reasoned debate may therefore be loosely categorised as being:
> 
> 1.  Markets where government do not interfere enough, and where it is argued that they should do more.
> 
> 2.  Markets where the government interfere too much and where it is argued that they should do less.



I'm not advocating the government should stand idly by while the Coca-cola factory arms itself and forces the residents of Louth to increase their Coca-cola consumption at gunpoint. The rule of law must be respected. However, the government has no business getting involved in price-fixing, or attempting to "direct" individual markets through taxation policy.


----------



## MOB (31 Aug 2007)

"I'm not quite clear what you mean by "the free market does not deliver effective competition in many areas where it is clear that the greater good would be served by ensuring such competition" "

What I mean is, there are markets where - due to high costs of entry, large economies of scale, or other reasons - the emergence of a dominant player, or a small group of dominant players, is so commonplace as to be almost inevitable unless there is government interference to prevent this.  In other words, the unregulated free market does not result in price competition.  Two examples of this would be the cement industry (and indeed the related readymix and aggregates industries) and the plastic components industry (i.e. cheaper commodity type plastic products).  In most western democracies, these industries have to be heavily policed by Competition Authorities.

Regarding pollution and the comment that "The solution is simply to try and remove these negative externalities to avoid a "tragedy of the commons" effect, with regard the environment."  that is all very well, but how exactly does one 'remove a negative externality' whilst not interfering in a market?  Is it not the case that this is a situation where it is demonstrably appropriate for government to interfere in the market?

"surely competition is always desirable? Perhaps you could illustrate with an example?"  

I am reminded of the old cliched joke from student debating days "I propose that there should be a second Monopolies Commission".  Google 'natural monopoly' and you will find any amount of useful reading.  Here is a good starting point:  [broken link removed]


----------



## ang1170 (31 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Without getting into an endless discussion of the history of the Irish famine I think it's fair to say that the political system in place was decisively undemocratic and the trading markets were anything but free. It might have been clearer if I said that there was never been a famine in a country with free markets and representative democracy, something I consider a pre-requisite for a liberal economy.


 
If the economy of the time wasn't a free market, what exactly was it? 

The UK in the 19th century was probably one of the purest forms of free markets that has ever existed.

You mentioned nothing about representative democracy in your original point. It's not clear how the political organisation of a country would have any impact on the economic point you were making (apart from the obvious, that a democratic government would be forced to intervene in the "free market" to prevent or resolve a crisis: but that kind of negates the point you were making about free markets).


----------



## room305 (12 Sep 2007)

ang1170 said:


> If the economy of the time wasn't a free market, what exactly was it?
> 
> The UK in the 19th century was probably one of the purest forms of free markets that has ever existed.



That's a bold and inaccurate statement unless you consider government supported racial and gender-based slavery to be somehow consistent with free market principles.

The _usual_ definition of a laissez-faire economy, is where the state has a role in arbitrating a civil law system - tort, property, contract etc. but abstains from intervening in the market to regulate price, supply, or demand.

This is hardly compatible with a system in which the UK government prevented 90% of the population of Ireland from even purchasing land.



ang1170 said:


> You mentioned nothing about representative democracy in your original point. It's not clear how the political organisation of a country would have any impact on the economic point you were making (apart from the obvious, that a democratic government would be forced to intervene in the "free market" to prevent or resolve a crisis: but that kind of negates the point you were making about free markets).



I don't see how free markets, or a system of laissez-faire capitalism is compatible with any other political system than democracy hence the intuitive leap.

Remember I said free markets not anarchy.


----------



## diarmuidc (24 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> This is just not true, and it does not promote useful debate when such a polarised view is adopted.


Why is room305's view polarised? I though it was the most sensible and obvious statement in the whole thread.


----------



## MOB (24 Sep 2007)

Hi Diarmuidc,  
The view expressed was indeed  a polar view.   It may be that Room305's  views are not quite as black and white as the comment with which I took issue, which was:

"I don't consider government intervention in the market place ever to be effective or necessary............ "  

This ignores the obvious point that every time that a government:

1. Taxes anything at all, be it sale of alcohol or tobacco, income from labour, income from investments, a property transaction or anything else
2.  Subsidises or supports anything, be it the provision of roads, healthcare, education, Irish language programming, fire services, 
3. Regulates the manner in which any transactions may be conducted, be it banks  insurers, landlords, employers, airlines etc.

then, in every such case the government is in one form or another intervening in the market place.  This is, in fact, one of the roles of government.   

A viewpoint which states that there should never be any government intervention in the marketplace is obviously a polarised viewpoint; one which, in my opinion, does not add usefully to a debate about the role of government.   At the other end of the spectrum would be the equally polarised viewpoint that we should have a centrally planned economy and that there is no place for individual enterprise, a view which is of course utterly discredited but which held some sway in the not so distant past.

The area for useful and informative debate is smack in the middle of the grey areas where we get to ask questions like 'is this too much state intervention?' or 'is this an area where more state intervention would be appropriate?' or  ' is this the right sort of state intervention?'


----------



## room305 (26 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> This ignores the obvious point that every time that a government:
> 
> 1. Taxes anything at all, be it sale of alcohol or tobacco, income from labour, income from investments, a property transaction or anything else
> 2. Subsidises or supports anything, be it the provision of roads, healthcare, education, Irish language programming, fire services,
> 3. Regulates the manner in which any transactions may be conducted, be it banks insurers, landlords, employers, airlines etc.



Government intervention in the marketplace refers specifically to government attempts to control the supply, demand or price of a commodity, good or service. This can be done through taxation, excessive regulation, or some other means but always with the aim of forcing the market to align with the government's view of what the "correct" price for a good or service is.

In a free market, all participants can respond to the price signals, which should (in theory at least) lead to greater efficiency over time. It's not so much that the market will automatically determine the most efficient price but that the effects of government intervention are unknowable and the risks therefore incalculable.

1. Yes, tax is to a certain extent intervening in the market place. However, by applying a taxation policy similar to a Fair Tax or Flat Tax, such intervention can be neutralised or greatly reduced. This is indeed the polar opposite of the view that says market participants should always be bullied into behaving in a certain way through taxation policy.

2. Yes subsidies for anything are an intervention in the market place, that's why they should all be eliminated. I've never seen them work effectively anywhere but I'd be delighted to hear of any good examples you may have.

3. Regulation is not necessarily intervention. Especially when you consider some of the industries you mention are self-regulated (i.e. private sector regulation). However, excessive regulation certainly is. Most people in favour of free markets are not against regulation per se, just government regulation. Especially if it is excessive as it usually only serves as a barrier to block new entrants to the market (e.g. the pub trade).



MOB said:


> then, in every such case the government is in one form or another intervening in the market place. This is, in fact, one of the roles of government.
> 
> A viewpoint which states that there should never be any government intervention in the marketplace is obviously a polarised viewpoint; one which, in my opinion, does not add usefully to a debate about the role of government.



Are you saying the role of government in the economy should never be debated? Isn't that a little undemocratic?



MOB said:


> At the other end of the spectrum would be the equally polarised viewpoint that we should have a centrally planned economy and that there is no place for individual enterprise, a view which is of course utterly discredited but which held some sway in the not so distant past.
> 
> The area for useful and informative debate is smack in the middle of the grey areas where we get to ask questions like 'is this too much state intervention?' or 'is this an area where more state
> intervention would be appropriate?' or ' is this the right sort of state intervention?'



I find this whole stance quite curious. Just because my own philosophy is for non-interventionist government, this shouldn't leave me unable to contribute to a discussion on whether or not the government should intervene in the housing market at this juncture. Would you be similarly dismissive of contributions by Rainyday or others who adopt a more left leaning stance?

Unless you believe the state should _always_ intervene in the market (which as you pointed out is a centrally planned economy), it surely follows that the state should on occasion decline to intervene in the market. In which case, why only solicit arguments only from those who will argue that state intervention is necessary?

EDIT: Removed line mentioning MOB as confusing free market capitalism with anarchism


----------



## MOB (26 Sep 2007)

Hi Room305

"it surely follows that the state should on occasion decline to intervene in the market."

Agreed.   The words 'on occasion' are of course what allow us to agree.  This is a wholly different proposition from saying that the state should on every occasion decline to intervene in the market.

"Government intervention in the marketplace refers specifically to government attempts to control the supply, demand or price of a commodity, good or service. "

Nope - can't agree.  This is too narrow a definition of intervention - and I think it tends to focus on the intention behind government action rather than the effects of government action.   (btw I hope this is not going to turn into a 'words mean what I say they mean' discussion.) This describes many government interventions in markets but certainly not all.  Many government interventions in the marketplace are merely an incidental result of goverment action.  For example some interventions are simply about raising revenue - the market distortion is an inevitable result (and an accepted cost of government doing its business), but not the actual intention.  Of course, with some taxes, such as that on cigarettes, the market interference is an actual goal.  Some interventions in the market are simply about maintaining state sector employment for historic political reasons. 

"Are you saying the role of government in the economy should never be debated? "

Nope - clearly not.  I am simply saying that a viewpoint that goverment should create absolutely no interference in any market is an extreme view, as is one which suggests that the government should control every market. 

 "this shouldn't leave me unable to contribute to a discussion on whether or not the government should intervene in the housing market at this juncture. "

It doesn't.  Of course, the government currently intervenes in the housing market in all sorts of ways, by charging VAT, by charging stamp duty, by exempting certain transactions from stamp duty, by charging different rates of stamp duty for different transactions and so on.     I suppose that a position which states that the government should not intervene in the housing market at this juncture might easily be re-phrased as saying that the current amount of government intervention in the housing market is just right.

"Would you be similarly dismissive of contributions by Rainyday or others who adopt a more left leaning stance?"

Yes - if Rainyday (or anybody else) adopted the position that government should intervene in every market.  In fairness, I don't think I have been dismissive; a touch blunt perhaps; sorry if it irritated.


----------



## webtax (26 Sep 2007)

Firefly said:


> Yesterday's Sunday Business Post
> 
> ‘‘Consideration will be given to the selective application of new tax incentive measures *in areas of evident market failure*, particularly with National Spatial Strategy gateways and hubs.”
> 
> - Do ye think this is market failure?????



Not market failure, but government failure to implement a successful regional strategy (aer lingus at shannon being the latest example). Would be in favour of tax incentives if they were going towards setting up new businesses or research... but is the government seriously suggesting that in worsening economic times tax payers in the large cities with massive house prices should provide tax subsidies to people in rural towns who have far cheaper housing already? And let not forget that the tax breaks from S23 etc. go straight into the developers pocket when they inflate prices to reflect the tax break.

Although it is a predictable response of this government to economic problems: lets build more houses.


----------

