I'm not sure I agree. We're coming dangerously close to not being able to own anything outright without owing some tax of some type on it. I guess it comes down to where you draw the line from a libertarian perspective, but if I own a holiday home that I don't visit for a year and a half, which i've paid for fair and square, why would I pay any additional tax over and above that which I already had to pay, to purchase it, just becomes someone else deems that it is 'vacant'?
I wouldn't be advocating that "vacant " being as you describe above, but it would need a definition that was pragmatic.I'm not sure I agree. We're coming dangerously close to not being able to own anything outright without owing some tax of some type on it. I guess it comes down to where you draw the line from a libertarian perspective, but if I own a holiday home that I don't visit for a year and a half, which i've paid for fair and square, why would I pay any additional tax over and above that which I already had to pay, to purchase it, just becomes someone else deems that it is 'vacant'?
You could point to the housing crisis, but I would argue that's feckless government mismanagement of an issue 20 years in the making. I'm not sure why I should be penalized for it. Carrots not sticks in my opinion. Remove tax on rental income from currently 'vacant' properties for 15 years from next year with an enhanced repair and lease scheme. That'll incentivize them to be done up and leased out in short order.
No we're not. That's a ridiculous statement. We have very low rates of tax on retained assets of any type. We have very high taxes on wealth creation (work) and very low taxes on wealth retention. A bit of rebalancing there to create a more egalitarian society would be no bad thing.We're coming dangerously close to not being able to own anything outright without owing some tax of some type on it.
Because the State incurs an ongoing cost by the virtue of your property existing.I guess it comes down to where you draw the line from a libertarian perspective, but if I own a holiday home that I don't visit for a year and a half, which i've paid for fair and square, why would I pay any additional tax over and above that which I already had to pay, to purchase it, just becomes someone else deems that it is 'vacant'?
You could, if you didn't understand why we have a housing crisis.You could point to the housing crisis, but I would argue that's feckless government mismanagement of an issue 20 years in the making.
You wouldn't be. You'd just be paying some tax, not being flogged.I'm not sure why I should be penalized for it.
Good idea but refurbishing is very labour intensive and we've a shortage of labour.Remove tax on rental income from currently 'vacant' properties for 15 years from next year with an enhanced repair and lease scheme. That'll incentivize them to be done up and leased out in short order.
The State spends vastly more per capita on services in Donegal than it does in places like Dublin or Limerick, Cork or Galway. You are getting far more for the taxes you pay than people in most of the rest of the country. That's the mature of things in less populated areas of the country.Dunno guys. Your threshold of acceptability of tax liabilities to live in a 'civilized society' is much higher than mine. Being from Donegal, there seems to be limited value in being a tax payer, given there is exceptionally high taxation, limited public transport, limited industry, limited state protection or guarantees on the safety of building materials (mica). Wealth retention in the form of property, if you manage to acquire it in the face of all of these economic disadvantages and overcome the MICA hurdles etc is the only thing you have left. You don't have the same opportunites for wealth creation as you do in pretty much the remainder of the country, although admittedly that gap is closing because of remote working. But closing, not closed.
Won't this be a very real issue.. Shortage of skilled labour to build /refurb.. Increasing taxes won't change this fact nor increase additional supply.. Piecemeal and populist approach to fend off the shinnersNo we're not. That's a ridiculous statement. We have very low rates of tax on retained assets of any type. We have very high taxes on wealth creation (work) and very low taxes on wealth retention. A bit of rebalancing there to create a more egalitarian society would be no bad thing.
Because the State incurs an ongoing cost by the virtue of your property existing.
Because the Sate needs money to run things and taking a bit from retained assets is socially equitable.
You could, if you didn't understand why we have a housing crisis.
You wouldn't be. You'd just be paying some tax, not being flogged.
Good idea but refurbishing is very labour intensive and we've a shortage of labour.
Donegal isn't some kind of gulag,people can leave to further themselves if they wish, and has a huge amount of holiday homes which were built at a profit. The MICA issue isn't confined to it either but let's be honest people chose whatever builder they wanted, now the rest of the country will pay for it to be fixed.Dunno guys. Your threshold of acceptability of tax liabilities to live in a 'civilized society' is much higher than mine. Being from Donegal, there seems to be limited value in being a tax payer, given there is exceptionally high taxation, limited public transport, limited industry, limited state protection or guarantees on the safety of building materials (mica). Wealth retention in the form of property, if you manage to acquire it in the face of all of these economic disadvantages and overcome the MICA hurdles etc is the only thing you have left. You don't have the same opportunites for wealth creation as you do in pretty much the remainder of the country, although admittedly that gap is closing because of remote working. But closing, not closed.
Now it is but solving the housing issue will probably take 2 generations .Won't this be a very real issue.. Shortage of skilled labour to build /refurb.. Increasing taxes won't change this fact nor increase additional supply.. Piecemeal and populist approach to fend off the shinners
But the state don't really want to own it, and have been actively trying to privatise social housing for years. The LAs are sitting on huge sums of debt from unpaid rent.Rent is 7500 per year, or 625 a month. That seems reasonable and state retains ownership of the property, through the local council.
"Public expenditure shouldn't ever be analyzed by financial and economic criteria."Social housing shouldn't ever be analyzed by financial and economic criteria.
No. 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.If our Social housing stock was treated properly by all those involved that stock would be useful for 3 or 4 generations .
The paradox is that the more properties councils build now, the bigger a burden they will have to shoulder in the future maintenance of these properties particularly if they are incapable of levying realistic rents from those properties. In short, it's a total money pit.I'll stand corrected here but Councils have huge amounts of land laying idle and if they were to develop this land sensibly there would be economic activity provided initially and during the years after would probably eliminate or at least vastly reduce any future maintenance costs.
Obviously a full and detailed financial model would need to be done using DCF on all cashflow which is probably beyond most CCs .
It's not just an Irish problem. The same issues that have bedevilled social housing in Ireland have been widespread internationally.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.
Looking forward to it but what about (re) introducing rates for housing not in productive use? Rate empty houses, run-down or otherwise, like commercial properties. If they are not brought into use as housing (occupied by families off the local housing list) the owners get levied with the full rateable valuation annually or some multiple thereof.
I agree. The tax should be levied on the site value, not the property.Were this to happen, a lot of the properties in question would mysteriously burn down or be 'accidentally' demolished overnight.
Same result.I agree. The tax should be levied on the site value, not the property.
It's very hard to burn down a site.Same result.
What happens the value of a site if there's a bad fire on it?It's very hard to burn down a site.
I think this is the main reason they have outsourced social housing to the private sector..The paradox is that the more properties councils build now, the bigger a burden they will have to shoulder in the future maintenance of these properties particularly if they are incapable of levying realistic rents from those properties. In short, it's a total money pit.
Not much.What happens the value of a site if there's a bad fire on it?
Instead of burning I'd go down the route of claiming it's not a vacant property, it's a rustic holiday home.Not much.
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."Public expenditure shouldn't ever be analyzed by financial and economic criteria."
Wow.
No. 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.
The paradox is that the more properties councils build now, the bigger a burden they will have to shoulder in the future maintenance of these properties particularly if they are incapable of levying realistic rents from those properties. In short, it's a total money pit.
It's not just an Irish problem. The same issues that have bedevilled social housing in Ireland have been widespread internationally.
I don't like the idea of the State providing things for people that those could should be able to provide for themselves. The solution to high property prices and high construction costs is not for the State to spend an ever increasing proportion of the Nations wealth and income on it. The solution is to reduce the cost of construction and the price of houses. We already know how to do what is within the scope of the States reach but it is difficult and requires considerable restructuring on the government side.I like Brendan's suggestion that social housing should be a much bigger part of any government housing policy. Council housing with secure tenancies, and reasonable rents are part of the answer. And no selling of said houses, full stop.
If you want to buy a house go into the private market. The council house stays in public hands and is passed onto the next person on the waiting list. Many people might, quite happily, spend their entire lives living in a rented house, if that rented house gave them lifetime security of tenure, with full maintenance costs covered, with a rent that simply covers those costs and original building costs.
The state's attempt to contract out this policy has been a disaster and way more expensive than direct building of housing projects.