I agree. The need for social housing should be seen as a failure of public policy. Working people should be able to buy or rent their own homes. If they can't then the State is failing to manage the economy and society properly and there is an economic imbalance.I'd say the same for HAP - essentially you are turning private rental accommodation into publicly funded rental accommodation.
I agree RE VAT (its surprisingly high) but would make it a "temporary" use-it-now-or-lose-it to force site owners to build quickly or miss the opportunity.The help to buy is becoming a bit tiresome...I mean it works, kind of...but bold decisive action would be for the government to get out of the taxation of NEW incremental housing completely.....i.e. stop putting VAT on new build housing.
Its worse. HAP and RAS act as a floor on rents and drive up prices as there are no incentives whatsoever to charge anything less than the maximum HAP rate.I'd say the same for HAP - essentially you are turning private rental accommodation into publicly funded rental accommodation.
Use-it-now-or-lose-it incentives, mainly in relation to time-limited planning permissions caused a world of harm in the months leading up to and beyond the crash as developers scurried to commence works on sites that they hadn't the resources to finish. These places ended up as ghost estates.I agree RE VAT (its surprisingly high) but would make it a "temporary" use-it-now-or-lose-it to force site owners to build quickly or miss the opportunity.
The more profitable development is, the more people will develop and the more supply this will generate.On the other hand, nothing to stop a canny developer from simply leaving prices as is, and pocketing it as profit.
More supply will first dampen and then ultimately reduce market prices.It's the market (central bank rules and interest rates) which set the prices.
..
Taking the VAT off will make no difference except to the builder's profit margin.
The more profitable development is, the more people will develop and the more supply this will generate.
Taking the VAT off will make no difference except to the builder's profit margin.
Nail on head....more supply, lower house prices, normalized building margins....that is an enviable outcome but the basic monkey brained voter could not mentally bring himself to go through the envious pain they would feel during Step 1 as "greedy" developers get a pay day
The constraints on the supply of housing are:What does expanded builder profit margins equal......what happens when someone has juicy profit margins?.....people move into the space to try get some of those juicy margins themselves.....in turn driving down margins, increasing supply and destroying the juicy margins back to OK margins.
The result of VAT removal would be (Step 1)- at first a direct transfer of VAT money to existing developers & prices would remain the same (bad politics & bad initial outcome)......however (Step 2) more suppliers would enter the space at lower margins & supply would greatly increase......more supply, lower house prices, normalized building margins....that is an enviable outcome but the basic monkey brained voter could not mentally bring himself to go through the envious pain they would feel during Step 1 as "greedy" developers get a pay day
We haven't enough labour and we haven't enough developers but removing a tax wedge would be bad because it would if make it more worthwhile to supply labour and developer expertise?The constraints on the supply of housing are:
Labour; we don't have the people to build the houses.
The State; all States are inefficient but ours seems to be particularly so, it takes far too long to get planning and build homes.
Reducing or removing VAT may help but it will almost certainly cause significant price inflation (wages and materials etc) within the supply chain which will eat up much of the incentive the VAT reduction/removal would give developers to enter the market.
Do you think that the labour is available but deployed elsewhere?We haven't enough labour and we haven't enough developers but removing a tax wedge would be bad because it would if make it more worthwhile to supply labour and developer expertise?
My head is spinning.
I don't think that. I know it. The country is full of men working in factories, retail, farming, caretaking and a host of other roles who spent the 2000s building houses and then when the crash came switched to whatever job was available to make ends meet.Do you think that the labour is available but deployed elsewhere?
That was 15-20 years ago. Would they still be able to do the job?I don't think that. I know it. The country is full of men working in factories, retail, farming, caretaking and a host of other roles who spent the 2000s building houses and then when the crash came switched to whatever job was available to make ends meet.
I was speaking to one this week. He works in a reasonable but "boring" (his words) factory job but still misses the sites.
So 10-15 years later it might well be the case that he or those like him have a whole new skill set and have spent as long away from plumbing as they did in it.Yes, a cousin is a former plumber, but works in an MNC.
He states it's "full of plumbers".
I suppose they were burned by the boom-bust of construction.
Working in a medical devices or pharma MNC is clean, dry, there might be a pension plan, and health insurance. There are progression opportunities.
I can see why lads have not gone back to sites.
The guy I spoke to the other day is a carpenter. That work isn't especially dangerous.That was 15-20 years ago. Would they still be able to do the job?
It's hard physical dangerous work. Do they still want to do the job?
Were they labourers or skilled people?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?