Okay, I didn't say otherwise. but you agree with that so why the smart This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language remark below?Well obviously, but not in sufficient quantities to satisfy market demand at a time when the population is at a historic high.
How many people have sold up because the price of their house has gone up? Do they then live in a tent or a camper van?I honestly don't know where to start with this. It's not 1 April, is it?
I made no "This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language" or other smart remark.Okay, I didn't say otherwise. but you agree with that so why the smart This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language remark below?
I know hundreds who have done so. The town and region where I work is full of such people, who typically sold in Dublin, bought in East Cavan and banked a profit. I know others who emigrated and only sold up when property prices improved. And others still who sold and moved back home.How many people have sold up because the price of their house has gone up? Do they then live in a tent or a camper van?
Red herring. I haven't mentioned throwing money at anything.It is idiotic to think that throwing more money at that will solve it. It doesn't work for the Health Service and it won't work for the housing sector.
You're having a laugh here, right?Either you're trolling or you haven't the first clue about economics. It's a truism that taxes on an activity disincentivise that activity. And a tax on land hoarding will clearly disincentivise property development as it's impossible to be a property developer without some level of land hoarding.
If you think that people sell their homes simply because the price has gone up then I'm wasting my time.If you're prepared to claim that people don't sell houses because their prices have gone up, I'm only wasting my time here, sorry.
We clearly both are.If you think that people sell their homes simply because the price has gone up then I'm wasting my time.
I know people who have downsized because they have retired. I know people who have up-sized because they have more kids. I don't know anyone who sold only because the price went up. That's a nonsensical proposition.I made no "This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language" or other smart remark.
I know hundreds who have done so. The town and region where I work is full of such people, who typically sold in Dublin, bought in East Cavan and banked a profit. I know others who emigrated and only sold up when property prices improved. And others still who sold and moved back home.
Do you really know nobody in any of these cohorts?
You keep talking about increasing prices as if it will increase supply.Red herring. I haven't mentioned throwing money at anything.
I know people who have downsized because they have retired. I know people who have up-sized because they have more kids. I don't know anyone who sold only because the price went up. That's a nonsensical proposition.
I thought you said you were wasting your time here?You keep talking about increasing prices as if it will increase supply.
No, I said if you think that people are selling simply because their house price has gone up I was wasting my time.I thought you said you were wasting your time here?
You've shown an amazing ability to not understand the issue so perhaps that's for the best.Anyway, I'm done here.
We all know people who sold houses and other assets because they were offered amounts that they couldn't refuse. It beggars belief that you can deny that this phenomenon even exists.No, I said if you think that people are selling simply because their house price has gone up I was wasting my time.
It seems you do. Wow.
You and me both so.You've shown an amazing ability to not understand the issue so perhaps that's for the best.
So they were perfectly happy where they were until someone called to their door and offered them a big wad of cash to sell up?We all know people who sold houses and other assets because they were offered amounts that they couldn't refuse. It beggars belief that you can deny that this phenomenon even exists.
Dereliction, often seen as a problem of poverty, is in fact a problem of wealth. Land is an asset and only the truly wealthy are rich enough to let an asset go to waste. Once we appreciate this slightly counterintuitive logic, things become easier. Bringing these properties or sites back to life involves encouraging good behaviour, which demands accurately identifying the buildings and then encouraging development. The site must be taxed to bring the property or the asset into use and to prevent hoarding by making hoarding expensive.
With reference to taxing zoned land as a way to get it back into use, from the article which started this thread;
Dereliction, often seen as a problem of poverty, is in fact a problem of wealth. Land is an asset and only the truly wealthy are rich enough to let an asset go to waste.
A very small proportion of the properties in this country are worth €100k or less.Easy to see that McWilliams hasn't been down the country much since Covid hit. Practically every small town and village has derelict and rapidly depreciating properties and the surrounding countryside has neglected and underutilised land. Allowing for a few exceptions here and there, it's a reliable rule of thumb that the further towards the west and north-west that you go, the worse this problem gets. And the problem is getting worse all the time.
Only someone totally out of touch with this reality of this decline could see it as a byproduct of true wealth. It is more often a byproduct of the sort of dysfunction described here: https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...ciaries-unwilling-to-complete-process.226485/
Patently untrue. Talk to any estate agent an hour or more outside the M50. And land even in remote areas, and middling at best for agriculture, is routinely going for over €10k an acre. But very little of it is being sold. If any significant volume of it went on the market at any one time, market values would collapse. The current use value of much of it is trivial.A very small proportion of the properties in this country are worth €100k or less.
Selectively untrue. The town where I'm based, Virginia - five minutes from a motorway and an easy 45 minutes from the M50 - is littered with derelict and decaying properties and also has a serious shortage of housing relative to demand. And runaway rents and property prices.The derelict properties in the places people want to live are, obviously, what is being discussed.
Okay, so I said that a small proportion of properties were worth less than €100k and you answered telling me the price of land.Patently untrue. Talk to any estate agent an hour or more outside the M50. And land even in remote areas, and middling at best for agriculture, is routinely going for over €10k an acre. But very little of it is being sold. If any significant volume of it went on the market at any one time, market values would collapse.
And the current cost of doing nothing with it is trivial. Therefore nothing is done with it. Tax it so that the cost of doing nothing is higher than the cost of doing something.The current use value of much of it is trivial.
You are arguing in favour of McWilliam's point and in favour of a site value tax.Selectively untrue. The town where I'm based, Virginia - five minutes from a motorway and an easy 45 minutes from the M50 - is littered with derelict and decaying properties and also has a serious shortage of housing relative to demand. And runaway rents and property prices.
Okay, so I said that a small proportion of properties were worth less than €100k and you answered telling me the price of land.
I've argued that a site value tax would discourage land hoarding and thus reduce land costs. You've argued against that but now in relation to land prices you say that "If any significant volume of it went on the market at any one time, market values would collapse".
And the current cost of doing nothing with it is trivial. Therefore nothing is done with it. Tax it so that the cost of doing nothing is higher than the cost of doing something.
No, I'm not. I simply don't believe it would work. I'm generally highly sceptical of the idea that higher or new taxes stimulate economic activity.You are arguing in favour of McWilliam's point and in favour of a site value tax.
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?