Then we need a wealth tax which includes the family home though there are very few people retiring who are still paying off a significant mortgage. Plus banks don't like retirees having mortgages.
Then we need a wealth tax which includes the family home though there are very few people retiring who are still paying off a significant mortgage. Plus banks don't like retirees having mortgages.Then watch banks offer a product that goes interest only when you hit retirement or an LTV of 20% or whatever.
The tax system should be indifferent to how you finance your purchase IMO and should not encourage leverage.
Take a retiree with a €1m house, a €2m pension fund, and a €100k outstanding mortgage.Then we need a wealth tax which includes the family home though there are very few people retiring who are still paying off a significant mortgage. Plus banks don't like retirees having mortgages.
Take a retiree with a €1m house, a €2m pension fund, and a €100k outstanding mortgage.
A bank would very happily structure an interest-only product for retirement if it brought down the retiree's tax bill.
It would be a tax subsidy for people rich enough to take on debt.
It is not. The ongoing debate about the housing crisis suggests there is State owned land sufficient to build 114k properties. Raw material prices and labour costs are the only costs applicable.Though the inflated value of their property is leading to the need for more costly state housing.
Who is saying that?It is not. The ongoing debate about the housing crisis suggests there is State owned land sufficient to build 114k properties. Raw material prices and labour costs are the only costs applicable.
Property prices are determined by the Demand Curve, just like everything else.Property prices are in the main dictated by location (finish to some degree also) but in the main house prices are based on land value. If a large cost is removed IE the land value how are other properties increasing the price of properties built on State owned land?
If you are building houses on State land then only net cost the State incurs is labour and material costs. All other costs like development levies, VAT etc are costs charged by the State on itself so is net cost to the State.Who is saying that?
We don't have the capacity to build the houses and the cost of land and construction only account for about 60-70% of the total costs. Hard costs (Construction) account for 52% of total.
Property prices are determined by the Demand Curve, just like everything else.
Property development costs are determined by construction costs, land prices, development levies, Taxes, finance costs etc.
When there is increased demand for existing housing stock and new housing completions are not keeping up with demand because of multiple factors (Labour shortages, raw material inflation, delays in planning etc) then we have inflation driven by supply shor
The primary driver is that there is more demand than supply.Property prices are indeed determined by the Demand curve but what determines the demand curve. In the main its location, why would somebody pay the same price for identical properties one in an area with all the amenities and one with none? Both people will want to get the best value for their euro.
I agree completely there. I'd also have a needs assessment every 5 years on social housing so that there is maximum bedroom utilisation. We have 235,000 social housing units in this country and there are lots of 3 bed units with a single occupant. State social assets should be used for the greatest social good.We need to be utilising our existing housing stock better. There are a whole myraid of schemes which could be utilised to increase how we use the existing stock we have. For example look at the Fair Deals scheme and the properties that are empty because of how the scheme operates. Look at the number of properties where parents have built "Granny Flats" and moved into them to allow their children raise a family in their homes
I think inheritance taxes are high enough TBH.
I think inheritance taxes are high enough TBH.
Banks may not like it as you say, but they know only too well that there are plenty of retired people who are paying, or part paying mortgages for "so called" children. No goverment will change the rule on inheritance downward from where it is. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas and you can talk all day long about the rights and wrongs of that, it won't make any difference. Why not incentivise older people to move somewhere smaller while they're alive, that way everyone gains if it was structured and implemented correctly.Then we need a wealth tax which includes the family home though there are very few people retiring who are still paying off a significant mortgage. Plus banks don't like retirees having mortgages.
Do that as well.Why not incentivise older people to move somewhere smaller while they're alive, that way everyone gains if it was structured and implemented correctly.
Banks may not like it as you say, but they know only too well that there are plenty of retired people who are paying, or part paying mortgages for "so called" children.
But Purple, in most cases they made €82k to net them €40k so they could buy the house.Do that as well.
Do we want a country where one group of people get massive tax free capital appreciation which they can pass on to their children at very low rates of tax while capital inflation and wage stagnation sees everyone else getting poorer in real terms?
I find is wrong that for a working person to save a net €40k they have to earn €82,000 but someone who owns a house worth €800,000 can make that €40k tax free with a 5% increase in the value of their home. They can then pass it on to their 3 children tax free.
For the record I'm a high earner who will benefit from the generous inheritance tax system we have.
No they didn't. In most cases they bought the house for a much lower figure and benefitted from tax free capital appreciation. We see from the report the other day that people born in the 60's are twice as likely to own their home than people born in the 80's.But Purple, in most cases they made €82k to net them €40k so they could buy the house.
But Purple, perhaps that’s the case for the older generation but that ship has sailed in the main for younger people.No they didn't. In most cases they bought the house for a much lower figure and benefitted from tax free capital appreciation. We see from the report the other day that people born in the 60's are twice as likely to own their home than people born in the 80's.
Fundamentally we need to introduce wealth into discussions about income and taxation. If I earn €60k a year but own my home outright and my neighbour earns €120k a year but has a €300k mortgage then not only am I wealthier than him but I also have a much higher discretionary income. There's no way he should be hit with a tax increase before me.
That's true and that's why I'd like to see the outstanding mortgage deducted from the property tax.But Purple, perhaps that’s the case for the older generation but that ship has sailed in the main for younger people.
There’s a danger that we legislate on the basis of what happened before and just punish people who have fought hard to earn the money to “overpay” for their home.