Current public sentiment towards the housing market?

[gearoidmm]

E75.000 to live in Moyross

http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?search=Search+%BB&s[cc_id]=ct5&s[a_id][0]=3711&s[mnb]=&s[mxb]=&s[mnp]=&s[mxp]=&s[pt_id]=&s[search_type]=sale&s[refreshmap]=1&limit=10&id=116896

You must be joking

 

[room305]

The playing field of specuvestors vs FTBers isn't level in the first place, its grossly weighted in favour of the specuvestors.

How so? They don't necessarily have more money and even if they do, is that a reason for the government to intervene? Every market favours the wealthy, it's impossible not too. I don't go beating down the door of my local politician if I get outbid on ebay by someone I suspect has more wealth than me.

What? Your posts are becoming increasingly schizophrenic... This is even on the same page. My head hurts from speed of the u-turn.

Land tax is about the only tax that doesn't interfere with or distort the free market. If you tax labour then you create an incentive not to work, if you tax wealth then you disincentivise the creation of the same, if you tax goods and services you discourage their consumption. However, if you tax the land (not the houses) that people own then little interference results. It is also proportionally fair - if the government builds rail services with public money that increases the worth of your land then you pay a correspondingly increased tax.

I would say that supporting land tax is very much in line with my "laissez-faire" beliefs would you not?

 

[gabhla]

I think it was overpriced to begin with, but think I'll hold off buying in Donegal,for the moment.





Hello,
Please click on the link below to view the latest property on our books. The asking price of this property (Ref 429) has been reduced from €350,000.00 to €310,000.00. This property is complete with fitted kitchen, utility room, wooden floors and fireplace and is ready to walk in to. It boasts unrestricted views over the Atlantic Ocean and Arranmore Island. Beaches are a five minute walk away, Cruit Island Golf Club is a five minute drive.
http://www.campbells.ie/CruitIsland.htm

 

[Chieftain]

Mate the house will probably be sold in the end for a figure in the high 200K. A house on that street went for 500K (I viewed it) but it was done up smartly. These, yes, are due a severe correction.

Was this the one on the other side of the road with the nice back garden?

 

[Remix]

Cribs: Irish Style

If any Irish in America are reading and considering a return to Ireland....

This is the dream that a million hard-earned dollars can buy you and your family in a South Dublin Suburb...

[broken link removed]=

Why does it cost so much ? Well, the celtic tiger economy is just boomin'.. and you can be part of it
(covers mouth to suppress laughter).

Hurry now, auction's on soon.

 

[tententwenty]

How so? They don't necessarily have more money and even if they do, is that a reason for the government to intervene? Every market favours the wealthy, it's impossible not too. I don't go beating down the door of my local politician if I get outbid on ebay by someone I suspect has more wealth than me.

Yes, thats why only the rich get decent healthcare in Ireland, the scoundrels. Oh no wait, they don't. Unlike in America, where they do. You're attitude is that the strong should win regardless. In matters of profit and loss, I agree. Home ownership shouldn't be a vehicle for profit, its a social requirement the very same as healthcare. Treating it as such encourages profiteering. And yet again, I am repeating myself.

Land tax is about the only tax that doesn't interfere with or distort the free market. If you tax labour then you create an incentive not to work, if you tax wealth then you disincentivise the creation of the same, if you tax goods and services you discourage their consumption. However, if you tax the land (not the houses) that people own then little interference results. It is also proportionally fair - if the government builds rail services with public money that increases the worth of your land then you pay a correspondingly increased tax.

I would say that supporting land tax is very much in line with my "laissez-faire" beliefs would you not?

I just can't track what this has to do with anything. Are you investing in apartments or something? Because if you are, then land tax will be perfect, along with any other high density housing. This is not what I would call an optimal solution.

 

[tententwenty]

Cribs: Irish Style

If any Irish in America are reading and considering a return to Ireland....

This is the dream that a million hard-earned dollars can buy you and your family in a South Dublin Suburb...

[broken link removed]=

Why does it cost so much ? Well, the celtic tiger economy is just boomin'.. and you can be part of it
(covers mouth to suppress laughter).

Hurry now, auction's on soon.

Bwaahahah! You need a leprechaun in there somewhere. I don't know where, just fit it in somehow!

 

[whathome]

Yes, thats why only the rich get decent healthcare in Ireland, the scoundrels. Oh no wait, they don't. Unlike in America, where they do. You're attitude is that the strong should win regardless. In matters of profit and loss, I agree. Home ownership shouldn't be a vehicle for profit, its a social requirement the very same as healthcare. Treating it as such encourages profiteering. And yet again, I am repeating myself.

Was listening to internet radio while reading above....the perfect soundtrack was playing....

[broken link removed][broken link removed]

Morrissey repeats himself in that song too

 

[room305]

Where exactly did I say that? Its no good putting words in my mouth. I've already said several times what I think should happen, which is higher property taxes for houses after the first, to make it uneconomical to even bid in the first place for speculators. Why am I repeating myself?

When it was suggested that the government should have stopped investors outbidding FTBs you agreed. You say the tax system should be altered to equalise this supposed imbalance. I think any interference by the government is a bad idea. Certainly any interference by the government so far has been completely counterproductive.

With rental yields what they are, there is zero chance of making a profit by letting the house out, so that idea goes out the window.

Now it is of course. Will it be this way forever? Only if we legislate it to be. Why are you so intent on tanking the rental market and punishing people who don't want to buy a house?

Yes, but only on properties after the first, with higher taxes annually for every subsequent property.

The idea of a yearly property tax is to cover local authority costs. This way areas with higher LA costs could have higher taxes. I don't see why this tax should change dependent on the number of houses you own or why someone who only owns one house should be exempt.

Splendid I'm very happy for you. You might consider passing on some of that wisdom to the rest of the country, however.

Why? If people want to spend their money on beer and skittles or overpriced houses in Ballivor let them. It's their money not mine.

Making the most important financial decision of their lives in ignorance is not something that should be advised, unless you are trying to pull a fast one.

Would you feel the same sympathy for someone who bought shares in a company that went bankrupt? If somebody doesn't know what they are buying they shouldn't be buying. If you are about to make the biggest financial investment of your life, shouldn't you make sure you are not ignorant about it?

 

[Glenbhoy]

You have repeatedly provided information that is both misleading and flat out wrong throughout this discussion to support your own points, asking questions that have already been answered, and have a habit of waiting until after a discussion has died down to come flying in from the wings with your knickers around your ankles, trying to score the odd parting shot. Perhaps someone else would like to field that.

I really don't see much point in discussing anything with you, either.

Good luck with those old hands, though.

What information have I provided that is misleading/wrong?
As for the questions already answered, I must apologise if that is so, it's just so hard to keep up with the volume of posts. So did you answer my request for information re endemic planning corruption that's evident to all?
Re the waiting around until the discussion has finished (getting a little paranoid are we?), well, working for one's self, I can't always devote the time required to read your latest posts on why government intervention is essential to protect the poor FTB's from the big bad speculators and developers.
Finally, what do you mean by "Good luck with those old hands, though", I genuinely don't understand.

 

[Calina]

The idea of a yearly property tax is to cover local authority costs. This way areas with higher LA costs could have higher taxes. I don't see why this tax should change dependent on the number of houses you own or why someone who only owns one house should be exempt.

I'm pretty sure you suggested that ALL taxation should be replaced by a land tax. Currently, we fund a great deal of other things through taxation beyond local authority expenses.

I fail to see why a land tax is more equitable than an income based tax. Maybe you might like to explain. Your claims of little interference make no sense whatsoever to me, because the ability to actually pay a land tax is still income dependent. How you plan to assess a landtax liability I imagine must be value dependent, and if there is a land tax, there is no incentive to own land at all which means no incentive to develop it either. I'm not entirely sure that is healthy either.

 

[room305]

Yes, thats why only the rich get decent healthcare in Ireland, the scoundrels. Oh no wait, they don't. Unlike in America, where they do. You're attitude is that the strong should win regardless. In matters of profit and loss, I agree. Home ownership shouldn't be a vehicle for profit, its a social requirement the very same as healthcare. Treating it as such encourages profiteering. And yet again, I am repeating myself.

My attitude is that people should be allowed spend their money on whatever the hell they want, be it housing or lollipops. If they overpay the market will punish them. How this relates to healthcare I'm not sure. Are you against all private healthcare? I'm not against social housing but I don't see why the government should step in if I want to pay more than anyone else for a house, regardless of whether I intend to live in it or let it out.

Without profit you'll find few developers want to actually build houses, so let the market dictate the price not the government.

I just can't track what this has to do with anything. Are you investing in apartments or something? Because if you are, then land tax will be perfect, along with any other high density housing. This is not what I would call an optimal solution.

Somebody else mentioned land tax and I added that I think land tax is a brilliant solution. Perfectly optimal. One of the state's main roles is in protecting a citizen's right to private ownership of land. So tax the land that people own. If it encourages more people to live in apartments and avoid the continuing sprawl of Dublin all the better.

 

[gearoidmm]

tententwenty

Please could you tell me what provision that you will make to ensure that renters like me will still have a place to live when you tax investors out of the market.

Oh, and the immigrants, students, school-leavers, job-movers, lower-incomes etc.

 

[tententwenty]

Your claims of little interference make no sense whatsoever to me, because the ability to actually pay a land tax is still income dependent.

A whole lot of what hes saying makes little sense to me, what with endless redundancy and schizophrenic points being made one in opposition to the other. At this point I wash my hands of it, himslef and glenbhoy. Life is too short.

 

[room305]

I'm pretty sure you suggested that ALL taxation should be replaced by a land tax. Currently, we fund a great deal of other things through taxation beyond local authority expenses.

Land tax not property tax. Such radical reform is unlikely so a good interim step would be too replace stamp duty with a property tax. This could fund local authorities rather than having the government pay them.

I fail to see why a land tax is more equitable than an income based tax. Maybe you might like to explain. Your claims of little interference make no sense whatsoever to me, because the ability to actually pay a land tax is still income dependent. How you plan to assess a landtax liability I imagine must be value dependent, and if there is a land tax, there is no incentive to own land at all which means no incentive to develop it either. I'm not entirely sure that is healthy either.

If I work super-hard and earn more money than my neighbour but we both enjoy the same state benefits, then why am I paying more money? So the incentive is there for me to work less and still enjoy the same state benefits Now, if the tax is low enough such a situation may be unlikely since it might mean a lower standard of living but the incentive is there nonetheless. The government is effectively encouraging citizens to earn less. Then the government decides to build a Luas line near our houses. Both myself and my neighbour benefit enormously because the price of our land increases, yet our tax bill doesn't increase proportionally. Why? If instead of taxing labour the government taxed land, then myself and my neighbour would pay an equal share for an equal benefit.

Since the tax is based on the value of the land, there is plenty of incentive to develop. If own land worth €1M and pay 10% tax, then I pay the government €100k a year even if the land lies idle. If I build a hotel on the land, the land is still worth €1M and I still pay the government €10k, regardless of what I make from the hotel.

 

[tententwenty]

tententwenty

Please could you tell me what provision that you will make to ensure that renters like me will still have a place to live when you tax investors out of the market.

Oh, and the immigrants, students, school-leavers, job-movers, lower-incomes etc.

Well thats a fair question. First of all there is a distinction between speculators for profit and buy to let landlords. The way to approach it is first of all to deal with the speculators by putting prohibitive taxes on the PURCHASE of second and subsequent properties, graded higher with each property. This prevents this endless tail chasing up the tower of price rises which we have today. Not to make it so prohibitive that its impossible to own a second or even a third house, but enough to take the profits out of flipping, and general speculation.

Secondly, landlords and buy to letters are already priced out of the market, so the situation as it stands is lethal for renters. With rental returns being so far below even interest repayments, there is no point in buying to let as of about last year some time. Its just not economical.

Thirdly, stricter controls need to be placed on landlords to prevent rackrenting, as happened the last time the Bacon ideas were introduced. This form of "mass financial protest" by landlords needs to not happen. There should be stronger protections for both tenants and landlords.

When these are implemented, an annual property tax should be put in place for houses which are not the primary dwelling place of the owner. Again, subsequently higher tax rates for each property after the first. That should get the empty homes reduced in a hurry. Again, we are talking about a gradiated tax, so it will be economically possible to have a house, apartment or maybe two for renting, but not many more than that.

Landlords will of course try to have 10 houses, but the rents in the last 8 will be too high to attract renters, and represent an annual loss for them, and so should be put on the market again. Likewise this will deal with speculators, who should be drummed out of the system permanently.

That should sort it out.

 

[BigM]

At this point I wash my hands of it, himslef and glenbhoy. Life is too short.

Maybe the pro/anti-speculators/Commie-vs-Capitalist/Govt intervention-vs-freemarket argument could be continued in a separate thread?
It may reflect people's current sentiment to housing/social/govt policy but not exactly towards the housing market.
Arguing the merits of various possible govt initiatives is not the same as arguing the affects of said initiatives.

 

[Calina]

Since the tax is based on the value of the land, there is plenty of incentive to develop. If own land worth €1M and pay 10% tax, then I pay the government €100k a year even if the land lies idle. If I build a hotel on the land, the land is still worth €1M and I still pay the government €10k, regardless of what I make from the hotel.

The value of the land is dependent on the possible income that it can raise. So if you do build the hotel on the land, the value of the land rises accordingly as the income derivable from that parcel of land goes up. I have no doubt you would endeavour to separate the hotel from the land, but that's fallacious as the hotel cannot exist independently of the land that it's built on. If you hire the land to the hotel owner (separate) to build on, the land is still earning money via the landhire agreement and as such, its value will still change accordingly. Your example is ill thought out.

 

[room305]

Well thats a fair question. First of all there is a distinction between speculators for profit and buy to let landlords. The way to approach it is first of all to deal with the speculators by putting prohibitive taxes on the PURCHASE of second and subsequent properties, graded higher with each property. This prevents this endless tail chasing up the tower of price rises which we have today. Not to make it so prohibitive that its impossible to own a second or even a third house, but enough to take the profits out of flipping, and general speculation.

That will kill the rental market stone dead. Who would be a full time landlord if it is only economical to let one house? It won't even impact 'flipping' because the flipper never actually takes possession of the house, only the contract.

 

[Calina]

Back with the subject at hand - I notice lately that the more expensive properties are turning up on MyHome and the less expensive (so called starter) properties are turning up more frequently on DAFT for parts of north County Dublin. Has anyone else noticed this sort of split?