Houses prices to fall 20%

Re: Price for cash work - No!

Hi Rainyday

The purpose of a tax clearance cert is to confirm that according to Revenue records, the taxpayer has no known outstanding tax liabilities. It does not confirm, nor does it purport to do so, that the taxpayer is complying in full with tax regulations.

I know nothing whatsoever about Geoffrey's suspicions of iffy goings-on in the administration of various housing schemes but surely you know as well as everyone else that anyone in this country trying to highlight any sort of injustice, maladministration or corruption on the part of the State or State agencies, will have the odds (and the formidable legal and financial resources of the State) heavily stacked against them before they even succeed in making themselves heard, let alone having their suspicions or evidence checked out properly. In that context, I feel your "moral duty" admonition to Geoffrey is unfair.

Certainly, afaik, Geoffrey's point about the CRO and the new "zero tolerance" company law regime is 100% correct.
 
Re: Price for cash work - No!

In that context, I feel your "moral duty" admonition to Geoffrey is unfair.
Click to expand...

Hi Tommy - I'd accept that I may have been a bit harsh & no offence was intended. However, I was keen to highlight the general point that we all do have a moral duty as citizens to take action against corruption.

I get somewhat frustrated at the number of people who (during the course of the pub or lunch conversation) are "absolutely certain" that their local Guard/councillor/TD/priest/builder (take your pick) is corrupt, but are just as absolutely certain that they would not be prepared to take any action about this. The likely reason for their reluctance to act is that their 'absolute certainty' is actually nothing of the sort, and is nothing more than pub gossip being repeated and exaggerated each time the story gets told.

It's just a bit too easy to complain about the corruption without being prepared to do anything about it. If they are certain that the corruption is there, then they must have clear evidence that they can take to the authorities. if they don't have that clear evidence, then they don't really know that the corruption exists.
 
Re: Price for cash work - No!

Hi Rainyday,

I agree 100% with you.

If you substitute the word "corruption" in your post with "tax evasion" I'm sure you agree that this logic should also apply...?
 
Re: Price for cash work - No!

Rainyday.

You may think it is only spinning to object to government
spending on the basis that it benefits a tiny number of people
to a huge degree. The people who will get these houses are
"lucky", by any reasonable definition, relative to people on
two grand a year more than them. They are lucky relative to
people on the same salary but who didn't have their name drawn
out a hat or who have already stretched themselves to buy a
house. They are lucky relative to people on the waiting list
for a council house.

Because the system will work like a lottery, I object to
social spending where the receipt of a huge benefit can be
described as "occurring by chance or fortuitous" rather than
on the basis of suffering some sort of hardship.

I have to suspect that you are deliberately trying to
obfuscate things when you compare this scheme with medical
cards and drug refunds and other social spending. By doing
so, you seem to completely ignore the difference in magnitude
in basic human and social needs. Do you really think owning
your own home instead of renting is some sort of basic social
right on par with having access to health care?

I wonder whether you would support a first time car buyers
grant of ten grand or so? How about a ski holiday grant for
people with incomes under 25K? The amount of money we are
talking about here is very significant; if they do actually
reach the 10,000 homes, I estimate then you are talking of
between 5 and 10 billion being handed out. Can you really
claim that handing certain people a 100K should have priority
over other social or infrastructural spending?

All of the above points reflect a fundamental objection to the
principle of the scheme. A secondary objection I have is to
the way the scheme will be executed. This is less important
but still significant. Builders will be the other big winners
from this. Classic FF policy.

(Regarding your aside about formatting of posts. I type my
posts using an editor I've used for years and paste the result
into the askaboutmoney form. By default the editor
automatically breaks lines.)
 
Re: Price for cash work - No!

I have to suspect that you are deliberately trying to
obfuscate things when you compare this scheme with medical
cards and drug refunds and other social spending.
Click to expand...
Not true - these examples were used for the sole purpose that it is the job of Govt to direct resources towards specific areas - you seemed to reject this principle in your earlier posts.

Do you really think owning
your own home instead of renting is some sort of basic social
right on par with having access to health care?
Click to expand...
No, and I never said it was on a par with health care. However, housing for families is a basic social right, and like it or not, Irish people have a strong desire to own their homes, rather than rent. The ability to own a home has been ripped away from the current generation of FTB's by years of inaction & misdirected actions by Govt.

Can you really
claim that handing certain people a 100K
Click to expand...
No-one is being handed anything. People are being given the opportunity to participate in an affordable ownership scheme with built-in clawbacks to ensure that this benefit is repaid if they sell within a 20 year period.

if they do actually
reach the 10,000 homes, I estimate then you are talking of
between 5 and 10 billion being handed out.
Click to expand...
Check your sums - Even if I accept the idea of money being 'handed out' (which I don't), 5 billion for 10,000 homes gives a benefit of 500k per home in my book. Where did you get this from?

Can you really
claim that handing certain people a 100K should have priority
over other social or infrastructural spending?
Click to expand...

I do believe that at this point in time, use of this land in this way to let young couples get their first step on the property ladder is preferable to selling off the land at commercial prices and building another motorway.

A secondary objection I have is to
the way the scheme will be executed. This is less important
but still significant. Builders will be the other big winners
Click to expand...
There is a risk here, granted - but it is a manageable risk. If an open, competitive, international tendering process is used, no-one is going to cream it on these contracts. Indeed, if Geoffrey's friend submits his bid for 50k per house, he's going to leave all the other builders standing.


Just to be clear, Darag, it might help if you outlined what action (if any) you believe the Govt should be taking to resolve the current difficulties for FTB's?

Does anyone know if the clawbacks in this scheme also apply to renters, i.e. what happens if a purchaser decides to rent out their house after 1 year or 5 years?

Regards - RainyDay
 
100,000 loss, not gain

Darag you are of the opinion that people qualifying for this scheme benefit to the tune of 100,000.
The loss to the economy may be closer to the 100,000 you are talking about but the individuals involved do not benefit to that extent as they are not getting a house that is worth 100,000 more than they paid for them.

Houses sold in some of the developments sold for 130,000 have been given a market value of around 175,000 which is used to determine how much of a stake the Co. Co. has in the house.

So they are not getting a 100,000 windfall.
They are getting a house with strings attached and they are not getting a house that they'd normally want to buy.

If there is a loss to the economy of 100,000 for each house and the recipient isn't recieving the full amount then the remainder is attributable to inefficiency in the system(as is the case with any interventionist policy) and profit taking by those providing the house.

As I have said before the Government have purposely tried not to make the real market work.
Affordable housing has a role to play in housing policy along with council housing and free market housing but it's role has been overstated by the government because it suits them not to tackle the housing market.
 
Re: Price for cash work - No!

Hi Rainyday. You got me on the figures - I did the sum in my
head and yes the cost looks like being of the order of 1
billion. This is still a very significant amount of money by
any standards and I think it is fair question the
justifications for spending such a sum of money ostensibly for
social purposes.

Maybe we have some fundamental differences regarding
government social spending. I have never objected to
government spending for welfare purposes. However I challenge
you to argue that owning rather renting your home is a basic
welfare entitlement. You throw in a non-relevant claim
("housing for families is a social right") which simply
confuses or obfuscates the issue. As a matter of fact I agree
that having access to a roof over your head is a basic social
right but I don't know what this has to do with people who
want to own rather than rent.

I assume that you, like me, would not agree with the
government giving out a first time new car buyers grant
regardless of whether Irish people strongly desired owning
their own cars. I don't see this FTB scheme as being much
different.

So my first objection is that owning a house rather than
renting is not a basic social right. Secondly in principle
the criteria for receiving welfare benefits are usually set
by some measure of hardship. This scheme as constituted
can only work as a lottery.

Just to be clear, Darag, it might help if you outlined what
action (if any) you believe the Govt should be taking to
resolve the current difficulties for FTB's?
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think discussing other possible policies would
make things clearer. The core of my argument is simple and
clear: welfare spending should be used to address real social
needs and all such benefits should be distributed fairly. This
scheme goes against both of these principles.

I actually have other objections but these are probably the
fundamental ones I feel most strongly about.
 
affordable housing vs council housing

The point of affordable house was that it was preferable to county council housing.
With affordable housing the owner buys a stake in their home and is reponsible for it's maintainance which most would think is preferable to the state providing housing for everyone.
A real social need is shelter and Affordable housing is supposedly a more preferable cost effective means of providing shelter than county council housing.
Naturally buying your own home is preferable to affordable housing as a means of gaining long term shelter but this government sees nothing wrong with house prices in the open market being in excess of 250,000 in the Dublin Area.
 
Re: Price for cash work - No!

The core of my argument is simple and
clear: welfare spending should be used to address real social
needs and all such benefits should be distributed fairly.
Click to expand...
Hi Darag - Clearly we do disagree on the principle involved. But I'm interested in your view how the other benefits should be 'fairly distributed' - If you think that use of income as a criteria for this benefit is unfair, wouldn't it be equally unfair for other benefits, e.g. social housing etc?
 
Property - a dirty word

I have now come to my own conclusion - property is seriously languishing, and I (my opinion) would not touch it with a 50 foot pole .. Rents are falling like jobs and older houses are being left idle as tenants realise they'll get a better deal elsewhere... my friends, property will become a dirty word soon, as a buy-to-let friend says 'buy-to-fret', he sold his buy 2 let 6 months after buying, could not get ANY tenants to fill it ! He made a loss but he reckons alot bigger drop are coming .. I believe Prices _will_ drop early 2004 by 10%+
 
Re: Price for cash work - No!

rainyday said
In the one case with which I was directly involved, direct labour was synonomous with 'price for cash' and all that goes with that. I apologise to anyone whom I tarred inappropriately.
Click to expand...

I assume therefore that you presented any evidence of tax evasion to the relevant authorities? Was any action taken as a result?
 
Re: Price for cash work - No!

I assume therefore that you presented any evidence of tax evasion to the relevant authorities?
Click to expand...
Yes

Was any action taken as a result?
Click to expand...
Don't know - never heard anything back from Revenue
 
Re: Price for cash work - No!

For confidentiality reasons, it is Revenue policy not to provide feedback on third parties' tax affairs to a complainant or any other person. However if the person involved ends up paying a settlement to the Revenue in excess of €12,700 you can expect to see their name and the settlement details published in due course.
 
o

As a person struggling to get a house on a low income, just wondering if all those people who are pretending to be owner occupiers and are renting out their whole house and not living there, possibly as rent a room.. should be they reported to Revenue ?
 
Re: o

Hi BuyahouseOn20k - If you are saying you have evidence of this then of course they should be reported, but don't go on heresay.
 
How do the CoCo know?

If someone buys one of these affordable houses and then rents it out at market rates they will surely make a large profit each month as the mortgage repayment would be relatively small. How does the coco stop this happening?
 
Re: How do the CoCo know?

You must be resident in it. It can't be sub-let as mentioned above. You also have to attend some community meetings which are organised by the council. If you're asking how they enforce this I guess you have to sign something and also your neighbours would not be long smelling a rat if you were not living there.
 
Re: How do the CoCo know?

Whose to say the person isnt availing of the rent a room scheme. From what I understand of the affordbale housing scheme. You buy the house off the county council with a mortgage from them. The house is therefore your private property and therefore you could do what you like with it. People migth live in it for 2-3 years but then rent it out and move to another house rather than wait around 20 years to move. I can't see how the co co can stop people from subletting the property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register