I'm not a fan of that approach I must say. It's private property afterall and not the responsibility of those who own a holiday home to provide housing.Will disincentivizing second property ownership through a larger property tax not push more people to sell vacant or second properties helping the situation? It won't solve it obviously but could make some difference.
It's definitely not the responsibility of second home owners. But it is the responsibility of government and I think they should be incentivizing primary home ownership over the status quo.I'm not a fan of that approach I must say. It's private property afterall and not the responsibility of those who own a holiday home to provide housing.
Also, most holiday homes (by their nature) are nowhere near places of high employment, so not sure how effective it would be if they came on the market.
They've been doing this for the past 14 years and it has decimated the rental sector, causing significant hardship to those who either prefer to rent or alternatively have no option but to rent.It's definitely not the responsibility of second home owners. But it is the responsibility of government and I think they should be incentivizing primary home ownership over the status quo.
Whilst this may be true, I do have to agree this thread is starting to diverge into looking at a wide range of factors effecting house prices. However it's not really questioning policy issues on the current split provision of housing.The good news is that despite the massive increase in our population our house price growth is lower than many other developed countries and price to income ratios are lower here than in some of the countries that people are supposedly moving to because they can't afford a house here.
So change the method. The goal stays the same.They've been doing this for the past 14 years and it has decimated the rental sector, causing significant hardship to those who either prefer to rent or alternatively have no option but to rent.
Is it not 25%?That on;y comes into effect if the proposed works affect more than 75% of the envelope of the building, and while it does involve additional expense, it makes a lot of sense as not doing so would create damp issues. Most people undertaking so significant a development will tell you it's often cheaper to knock the existing structure and starting from scratch. Much of Europe is at or moving to similar requirements under NZEB targets.
This is an important point. Building new houses requires construction workers, but we currently subsidize retrofitting. Young people may not want to do these jobs, as we can always import such workers from abroad, but, assuming the number of construction workers who wish to work in Ireland is limited, such workers are currently directed at state-subsidized retrofitting projects.One of the main factors is that very difficult to hire construction workers now, young people no longer want to do these and other physical jobs ,
couldn't have put it better myself, we are using scarce resources for retrofitting rather than building new houses and appartments. Obviously renovating unused buildings like over shops also falls into new builds rather than retrofitting as it is bringing more units onto the market. That is a political decision though as Eamon Ryan and the greens are heavily involved in the retrofitting program and alot of money has gone there to keep them on board. Maybe SF should be directing their ire against this rather than Daragh O Brien the housing ministerRetrofitting does not increase the number of dwellings. It has a slight welfare effect, i.e. a property owner may over time benefit from lower heating costs, but it has no productivity effect. You are not increasing the number of dwellings for rent/purchase. Basically, you are standing still and not directing labour towards an increase in housing supply. Building a new dwelling has a productivity effect. You can buy it and get a positive return on rental or can live there and get a positive return when you sell. To increase productivity at the national level and to provide dwellings for those who wish to buy/invest, considering labour and related constraints, public policy should be directed towards new builds and not retrofitting.
True to an extent, but lets not kid ourselves in thinking the irish construction process is a lean mean 6 sigma process driven industry.Another factor is the build specifications are too high, fire regulations, insulation and green agenda stuff adds massively to cost of building and slows down output especially in renovating existing properties. It's way higher here than in uk, if you ever look at the social housing in uk, the standard is lower and more basic than here but the corollary of that is that they have a far larger social housing inventory still in situ rather than derelict like alot of council stock in this country.
It is all very well to have high standards but surely quantity and now is the priority, if they had council staff actually inspecting building construction like in uk we would rule our alot of legacy issues
That disparity is driven by the inflation of Capital (wealth) relative to wages. Those who own Capital can buy more capital (houses), those who don't can't. There's a reason we've seen a massive increase in tax receipts from capital intensive industries (Corporation tax) relative to income taxes, despite having very high marginal income taxes. The State then uses those tax receipts to bridge the gap between earned income and capital values, or rents on capital. Those who rely on wages only are disadvantaged. That leads to a bigger State that needs to intervene more and more to provide people with what they used to be able to provide for themselves. That leads to a kind of poverty trap.Whilst this may be true, I do have to agree this thread is starting to diverge into looking at a wide range of factors effecting house prices. However it's not really questioning policy issues on the current split provision of housing.
The main issue originally raised in my post is the disparity in the cost of housing between tenure types in the same developments. And how as a result people across a large range of income levels are better off on lower incomes in socially rented housing than larger incomes in other tenures.
Unless everyone is regarding the main solution to this to be the prices of housing being more affordable for purchase, relative to incomes.
I think you are getting to the very knub of the issue here. The huge corporation tax receipts have facilitated the creation of a large state sector in Ireland. We all know that the state is highly inefficient in delivering services and infrastructure. Thus government is by far the worst in that regard, it has built virtually nothing. Even the infamous ff government of bertie and Brian cowen built a huge amount of infrastructure and housing. That big state is interfering in the private market by buying up housing , renting hotels and giving out cash for hap payments. The middle income workers are competing against all this and only lately belatedly they have begun to lift them a bit out of the high income tax bracketThose who rely on wages only are disadvantaged. That leads to a bigger State that needs to intervene more and more to provide people with what they used to be able to provide for themselves. That leads to a kind of poverty trap.
Yes, but it's an international problem. That's why so many countries are facing housing affordability issues, many worse than ours.I think you are getting to the very knub of the issue here. The huge corporation tax receipts have facilitated the creation of a large state sector in Ireland. We all know that the state is highly inefficient in delivering services and infrastructure. Thus government is by far the worst in that regard, it has built virtually nothing. Even the infamous ff government of bertie and Brian cowen built a huge amount of infrastructure and housing. That big state is interfering in the private market by buying up housing , renting hotels and giving out cash for hap payments. The middle income workers are competing against all this and only lately belatedly they have begun to lift them a bit out of the high income tax bracket
Sorry, you're right! It is.Is it not 25%?
Right on the point. The government is not building or creating. It's is simply purchasing in the private market. Therefore it's the biggest competitor to individuals in the private market. It's flooding public tax money into private markets.I think you are getting to the very knub of the issue here. The huge corporation tax receipts have facilitated the creation of a large state sector in Ireland. We all know that the state is highly inefficient in delivering services and infrastructure. Thus government is by far the worst in that regard, it has built virtually nothing. Even the infamous ff government of bertie and Brian cowen built a huge amount of infrastructure and housing. That big state is interfering in the private market by buying up housing , renting hotels and giving out cash for hap payments. The middle income workers are competing against all this and only lately belatedly they have begun to lift them a bit out of the high income tax bracket
The government can't even build a children's hospital.The government can build. It can compete amongst the private market.
The government isn't building the new children's hospital. BAM is after a tender. Same as with public housing the government is simply purchasing it from the private market. In fact it's actually a great example of how relying on the private market for everything isn't a panacea.The government can't even build a children's hospital.
BAM also building the intel fab34 facility, a 17billion investment, it dwarfs the national children's hospital, biggest private investment in history of state Therefore blaming everything on private contractors which varadker tried to do and then backed off when bam threatened to pull out doesn't wash. Alot of delays in intel construction and housing were caused by government shutting down the whole construction industry during covid, which nobody else did to that extent. The problems with children's hospital can be layer at state own tendering and procurement policiesThe government isn't building the new children's hospital. BAM is after a tender. Same as with public housing the government is simply purchasing it from the private market. In fact it's actually a great example of how relying on the private market for everything isn't a panacea.