"Building more expensive housing helps everyone"

[Purple]

Well obviously, but not in sufficient quantities to satisfy market demand at a time when the population is at a historic high.

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 honestly don't know where to start with this. It's not 1 April, is it?

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?

The problem here is a supply side issue. We can't build houses fast enough.
Making them more expensive won't change that.
Increasing the money supply hasn't increased supply.
We don't have the people to build them using our Dickensian construction methods.
We can't get the planning approved using our byzantine planning structures.

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.

 

[T McGibney]

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 made no "This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language" or other smart remark.

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 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?

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.

Red herring. I haven't mentioned throwing money at anything.

 

[Purple]

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.

You're having a laugh here, right?
You say that taxing an activity will disincentivise it and then you say that a tax on land hoarding will not free it up. To be clear, those who hoard the land and those who develop the land are not the same people. The developer buys the land and develops it as fast as they can.

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.

If you think that people sell their homes simply because the price has gone up then I'm wasting my time.

 

[T McGibney]

If you think that people sell their homes simply because the price has gone up then I'm wasting my time.

We clearly both are.

 

[Purple]

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?

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.

Red herring. I haven't mentioned throwing money at anything.

You keep talking about increasing prices as if it will increase supply.

 

[T McGibney]

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.

You keep talking about increasing prices as if it will increase supply.

I thought you said you were wasting your time here?

Anyway, I'm done here.

 

[Purple]

I thought you said you were wasting your time here?

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.

Anyway, I'm done here.

You've shown an amazing ability to not understand the issue so perhaps that's for the best.

 

[T McGibney]

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.

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.

You've shown an amazing ability to not understand the issue so perhaps that's for the best.

You and me both so.

 

[Purple]

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.

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?
Or where there other factors which drove the decision?

 

[Purple]

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. 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.

 

[T McGibney]

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.

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/

 

[Purple]

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/

A very small proportion of the properties in this country are worth €100k or less.
The derelict properties in the places people want to live are, obviously, what is being discussed.

 

[T McGibney]

A very small proportion of the properties in this country are worth €100k or less.

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.

The derelict properties in the places people want to live are, obviously, what is being discussed.

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.

 

[Purple]

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.

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".

The current use value of much of it is trivial.

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.

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.

You are arguing in favour of McWilliam's point and in favour of a site value tax.

 

[T McGibney]

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 didn't. I answered and then I mentioned the price of land separately, explaining how it's overvalued.

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.

The State and the EU decided decades ago that it's better from an environmental viewpoint not to have it fully utilised. I don't see the logic of taxing it to generate a different outcome.

You are arguing in favour of McWilliam's point and in favour of a site value tax.

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.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Folks we should be able to have a discussion on important topics without insulting each other.

I have deleted the last few posts. I am not going to read the entire thread to see who started it.

If someone makes a personal comment in future - please just ignore it in your response or if you are offended, report it.

Don't respond in kind.

Brendan