How about a cash incentive for selling property - €10,000 grant?

Jaybor

So there is a problem with high rents and house prices, probably caused in no small part by lack of supply.

Since any cash incentive for buyers is just added on to the price of property and does nothing to help supply.

Why not give an incentive to sellers. Say a grant of €10000 when you sell your property.

Incentivises more supply. And has no upward effect anyway on the price that the property sells at. Gets the market moving in a good way.

It wont suit everybody, but im sure there would be a lot of people sitting on property that are on the fence about whether they should sell it or not. Or maybe they are waiting for higher prices since they see house prices rising. They think to themselves. I dont NEED to sell at the moment, i can hold off for a while.

I know that will be hard to stomach for some people who especially hate to see anyone profit from owning property, but it is something that should be looked into.

L1011

Considering the person selling is likely to need to buy something else, this would not actually increase the supply to demand ratio at all.

Jaybor

MYOB wrote: »

Considering the person selling is likely to need to buy something else, this would not actually increase the supply to demand ratio at all.

They would most likely be trading up, so the supply is increased where its needed.

And there are a lot of people with more than one property that they might be thinking of offloading.

Not to mention the people who now live abroad but have just let and havent sold their properties here in the hope that some day they will increase by orders of magnitude.

L1011

Unless any NE on second / vacant-or-rented-due-to-abroad properties are less than 10k, it won't change anything either.

And as goes trading up - there's plenty of lower-end housing available in Dublin still; its the mid market which is the first target of "trading up" that in massive demand and also not anything that requires ANY incentive to sell right now.

GetWithIt

Sell derelict building to wife/son/daughter/brother/sister for 2k. Get 10k grant.

Rinse and repeat.

Free money!

marathonic

The supply/demand ratio would only improve with more building and there's only going to be more building when prices increase further.

Where do you see the problem with high house prices? The only problem I see is lack of lending.

Jaybor

GetWithIt wrote: »

Sell derelict building to wife/son/daughter/brother/sister for 2k. Get 10k grant.

Rinse and repeat.

Free money!

I think revenue are competent enough to deal with any issues like that.

El_Dangeroso

I think a spare bedroom tax would do a lot to keep the property market a bit more free-flowing.

Downsizing your home after raising your family is not really a thing in this country, and it needs to be.

A spare bedroom tax would encourage people to change their accommodation to suit their stage in life.

riclad

THE problem is there a shortage of 3bed houses in certain area,s ,
very little new house building going on.
MAYBE there could be incentive for older people ,living alone to sell up,live in a smaller house or an apartment.
The have a spare room tax in england, it has been a disaster.

Nelbert

Or we could encourage the government not to intervene and let the market dictate its own selling prices (ya know like a functioning supply and demand based market in an economy should).

Why is having an "active" property market such a big thing for us, as a country? It should be as active as it would be without intervention, no more and no less unless we want the same to happen again? Supply and demand will dictate when it's worthwhile for builders to become active again, we shouldn't try to force it.

marathonic

The answer to all the supply problems would be, shock-horror, incentives for builders. Grants for selling as suggested by the OP would only further exasperate the issue of lack of supply (the expectation would be that current sellers would accept lower prices for existing houses due to the receipt of the grant making it less worthwhile for developers to build new houses).

If there were a budget for this, it would be much better spent offering builders a reduction in tax on profits on any new-build house started over the next 1-2 years. The government would probably actually gain from this - there'd be less tax taken in on more properties making it close to cost neutral. The construction industry would get a significant boost meaning people would be coming off the dole and, instead, paying the government income tax.

However much sense the above proposal would make, I can only imagine the backlash the government would get if they suggested it. The scorn felt by the general public towards the builders will go on for a long time to come.

The_Conductor

If you could structure this to incentivise particularly older people who are hogging family homes in high-demand areas- possibly by also guaranteeing them the ability to purchase an apartment, perhaps sheltered accommodation, in the vicinity- and then make sure that these new units, more suitable to an older population are actually delivered in a timely, cost effective manner- then you might have something to work with.

Managing the process- and making it attractive from a tax perspective, for the older population- possibly by hiking inheritance tax, but reducing it for disbursements perimortum- might assist.

A simple- heres 10g- sell your house- is not going to work on its own, you need the structures behind this- and appropriate targeting- to make it work.

loyatemu

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I think a spare bedroom tax would do a lot to keep the property market a bit more free-flowing.

Downsizing your home after raising your family is not really a thing in this country, and it needs to be.

A spare bedroom tax would encourage people to change their accommodation to suit their stage in life.

LPT is already based on the market value of the house - houses with more bedrooms will be worth more, and therefore higher LPT. Middle-class empty-nesters and retirees can generally afford to suck up the extra tax.

Some sort of gift-tax break for parents passing on the proceeds of down-sizing to their children might be an effective incentive, but wouldn't do much for social solidarity.

Zamboni

Yes. Great idea. The answer is definitely more interference.

El_Dangeroso

riclad wrote: »

The have a spare room tax in england, it has been a disaster.

How so? Genuine question, heard about it just yesterday.

loyatemu wrote: »

LPT is already based on the market value of the house - houses with more bedrooms will be worth more, and therefore higher LPT. Middle-class empty-nesters and retirees can generally afford to suck up the extra tax.

Some sort of gift-tax break for parents passing on the proceeds of down-sizing to their children might be an effective incentive, but wouldn't do much for social solidarity.

The difference in LPT is not huge between houses of 2 vs 4 bedrooms, at least not as much as would make you consider moving. I think your idea is really good though, better than the spare bedroom tax idea.

mountai

If the Clowns in the Dail were not so intent on robbing us all , then by reducing the CG tax down to what it was 20% , before they came into power, it would encourage owners of second houses to part with them. Remember when the rate was reduced before when the PDs dropped it to 20% , the coffers became full in no time.

zef

The spare bedroom tax in the UK is actually a cut in welfare benefit money to social housing tenants of approx £14 per week per bedroom. (14% for 1 bedroom, 25% cut for 2)
It was introduced last April to free up under-occupied homes and save money in the welfare budget.
It it lacking in data studies one year on as to the actual choices that the affected individuals have taken - i.e. move to a smaller property, getting a job and/ or discontinuing the housing benefit claim.
All the press i've read on the bedroom tax has been negative. It sparked protests accross the UK and is tied in with the whole 'benefits Britain' debate.
If it were brought in here it would have little effect on the nice 3 beds in Howth or Dalkey as it is a tax levied on the poor, and one year on from it's introduction two thirds of those affected are in rent arrears and one in seven is facing eviction.

The_Conductor

Zamboni wrote: »

Yes. Great idea. The answer is definitely more interference.

A scheme to encourage the elderly to vacate family homes and provide them with more appropriate accommodation to their needs. Kill several birds with the one stone? Yes- its interference- however, the social cohesion of yesteryear which enabled the elderly stay in family homes, cared for a spinster daughter- or the eldest son who is to inherit the lot- simply doesn't exist any longer.

You're damned if you do, and you're doubly damned if you don't- you can't win regardless of what you do, or do not do.........

Jaybor

mountai wrote: »

If the Clowns in the Dail were not so intent on robbing us all , then by reducing the CG tax down to what it was 20% , before they came into power, it would encourage owners of second houses to part with them. Remember when the rate was reduced before when the PDs dropped it to 20% , the coffers became full in no time.

This.
I think I would have sold several properties a few years ago but for this.
No need to sell them now, they are making a nice healthy profit, but i was seriously considering reducing the portfolio at one stage.

loyatemu

The_Conductor wrote: »

A scheme to encourage the elderly to vacate family homes and provide them with more appropriate accommodation to their needs. Kill several birds with the one stone? Yes- its interference- however, the social cohesion of yesteryear which enabled the elderly stay in family homes, cared for a spinster daughter- or the eldest son who is to inherit the lot- simply doesn't exist any longer.

that's more or less what I was suggesting a few posts up, but if there's been one general theme of the economic boom and bust it's been that those (now) aged 50+ have done alright whilst those under 40 have been left up the creek.

Many of those family homes in good areas that are in such short supply are owned by relatively well-off, middle-aged middle-class types, and throwing money at them to encourage them to move would be difficult to sell politically (particularly for Labour).

Jaybor

loyatemu wrote: »

that's more or less what I was suggesting a few posts up, but if there's been one general theme of the economic boom and bust it's been that those (now) aged 50+ have done alright whilst those under 40 have been left up the creek.

Many of those family homes in good areas that are in such short supply are owned by relatively well-off, middle-aged middle-class types, and throwing money at them to encourage them to move would be difficult to sell politically (particularly for Labour).

Maybe we should just tax them out of their houses eh?
Or a cull.
Im sure when you are in your 50's the under 40's will be saying the very same thing about you.

miss no stars

The_Conductor wrote: »

If you could structure this to incentivise particularly older people who are hogging family homes in high-demand areas- possibly by also guaranteeing them the ability to purchase an apartment, perhaps sheltered accommodation, in the vicinity- and then make sure that these new units, more suitable to an older population are actually delivered in a timely, cost effective manner- then you might have something to work with.

Managing the process- and making it attractive from a tax perspective, for the older population- possibly by hiking inheritance tax, but reducing it for disbursements perimortum- might assist.

A simple- heres 10g- sell your house- is not going to work on its own, you need the structures behind this- and appropriate targeting- to make it work.

This exactly.

There are so many old people rattling around on their own in big family homes that are too big for them to maintain and they live in fear of who's calling at the door.

Build luxury retirement villages. Serviced housing, if you will. Gated community, activities centre, on site physio, cleaners and landscaping maintained. Small homes - 1 or 2 beds, bathroom, kitchen diner and living room. Small rear garden. All on one level. On site security, newsagent and grocers. Couple of food options.

Either available to rent at - say - €1200pm or at a discount of €1000pm if their own home is made available to rent out, the renting of which looked after by retirement village organization and rent earnings from own house can be directly transferred to paying rent for retirement village.

It's a much better solution. Old people feel safer, more secure. Still have their own space and independence but in a warmer, more manageable home. Big family home then comes on the market for young family to move into.

Balmed Out

Its not just old people. Theres a 3 bed semi near me where the middle aged couples kids have all gone to college and the attached house next door has a gay couple, surely they should all be forced out of family homes.:eek:

pwurple

miss no stars wrote: »

This exactly.

There are so many old people rattling around on their own in big family homes that are too big for them to maintain and they live in fear of who's calling at the door.

Build luxury retirement villages. Serviced housing, if you will. Gated community, activities centre, on site physio, cleaners and landscaping maintained. Small homes - 1 or 2 beds, bathroom, kitchen diner and living room. Small rear garden. All on one level. On site security, newsagent and grocers. Couple of food options.

Either available to rent at - say - €1200pm or at a discount of €1000pm if their own home is made available to rent out, the renting of which looked after by retirement village organization and rent earnings from own house can be directly transferred to paying rent for retirement village.

It's a much better solution. Old people feel safer, more secure. Still have their own space and independence but in a warmer, more manageable home. Big family home then comes on the market for young family to move into.

I think I'd drive off a cliff on retirement if that's what was facing me.

Gated prisons it sounds like.

riclad

YOU could say older people ,who bought before 98 are better off,
Before the boom started .
they don,t have large mortgages or negative equity.NOBODY should be forced to do anything,
but the government could provide tax credits,if a couple or single person moves into an apartment or a smaller house.
IN areas, where there,s a shortage of houses for sale.

Uriel.

While I see the point of trying to free up family homes, I would be totally opposed to forcing "older" people to vacate their homes. Some incentives to encourage voluntary downsizing would be something I'd support, depending on how they are implemented, but that would be it.

I know my folks, mother in particularly, though quite a while from retirement age yet, would be absolutely devastated to be forced to leave her home. She has invested probably 2 times the purchase price, if not more, over the years perfecting it to her likings and takes great pride in it.

I am many more years from retirement age myself, I have no kids at the moment but will have in the next 5 years, so maybe I am alright for the next 30 years perhaps. But what then? I have home cinema set ups, Sonos systems throughout the house, inceiling speakers etc. I like to listen to my music and my films nice and loud. I hope to start work on a home bar soon.

What happens when I reach a magical age, or a magical number of residents in the house. Dismantle a life's work? move to an apartment and listen to my music and films through headphones, because the neigbhours have ASBOed me due to being kept up at night from the boom boom boom through the paper walls?

Needless to say I won't be voting for such a policy or any political party that would try to introduce one.

El_Dangeroso

Uriel. wrote: »

While I see the point of trying to free up family homes, I would be totally opposed to forcing "older" people to vacate their homes. Some incentives to encourage voluntary downsizing would be something I'd support, depending on how they are implemented, but that would be it.

I know my folks, mother in particularly, though quite a while from retirement age yet, would be absolutely devastated to be forced to leave her home. She has invested probably 2 times the purchase price, if not more, over the years perfecting it to her likings and takes great pride in it.

I am many more years from retirement age myself, I have no kids at the moment but will have in the next 5 years, so maybe I am alright for the next 30 years perhaps. But what then? I have home cinema set ups, Sonos systems throughout the house, inceiling speakers etc. I like to listen to my music and my films nice and loud. I hope to start work on a home bar soon.

What happens when I reach a magical age, or a magical number of residents in the house. Dismantle a life's work? move to an apartment and listen to my music and films through headphones, because the neigbhours have ASBOed me due to being kept up at night from the boom boom boom through the paper walls?

Needless to say I won't be voting for such a policy or any political party that would try to introduce one.

I don't think anyone would be for 'forcing' anyone out of their homes, neither is anyone suggesting that.

But definitely incentivising, many older people live in expensive to heat old properties and don't have the energy, inclination or funds to upgrade them.

My parents are in retirement age and I don't think any incentive would get them to move, they love their house. But I bet some people would jump at the chance for a CGT exempt sale to downsize or move to spain or whatever.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I don't think anyone would be for 'forcing' anyone out of their homes, neither is anyone suggesting that.

But definitely incentivising, many older people live in expensive to heat old properties and don't have the energy, inclination or funds to upgrade them.

My parents are in retirement age and I don't think any incentive would get them to move, they love their house. But I bet some people would jump at the chance for a CGT exempt sale to downsize or move to spain or whatever.

Nope, no they wouldn't, they have the same attitude as your parents. Here's the thing any of those suggestions about retirement villages have one major problem, (well actually a few but let's look at this one) and that is there's no land to build them.

For instance I live in a nice three bed semi in Foxrock and I've lived there for 30-40 years, I know all my neighbours, the pub, the shops etc. Now you tell me I have to go live in some giant apartment complex away from friends, possibly family etc?

There's no land in Foxrock or other desirable areas in Dublin to build these giant villages, so you'd be asking people to move to an area where they knew no one, sorry not going to happen.

Then there's the other side of it, living in an apartment as opposed to a house is horrible I know I've done both, no private garden, depending on where the apartment is, you lose light in the day a lot quicker, and then there's the whole servicing of it, we all know devlopments that started out fabulous and quickly fell asunder, we're not very good at this type of thing in Ireland.

Florida apartment homes they wouldn't be. Sorry not a solution, younger people will either have to earn more or move further out, unless there's a massive die off at once, and then one of their kids might move in.

Fact is land is a finite resource and at the moment where you want to live and where you can live are two different things entirely, unless you have a lot of cash that is.

Oh one ,more thing, there's a lifetime of memories for people in those houses, and that can mean a lot more than cash when you're at a certain age.

Ann Landers

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

But I bet some people would jump at the chance for a CGT exempt sale to downsize or move to spain or whatever.

It'd be CGT-exempt anyway if it's their principal primary residence.

GavMan

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I think a spare bedroom tax would do a lot to keep the property market a bit more free-flowing.

Downsizing your home after raising your family is not really a thing in this country, and it needs to be.

A spare bedroom tax would encourage people to change their accommodation to suit their stage in life.

Taxing older people out of their hard earned homes wont gain any traction here. Might as well bin that idea

El_Dangeroso

Typical Irish attitude. 12 reasons why an idea won't work but no ideas to offer of their own.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Typical Irish attitude. 12 reasons why an idea won't work but no ideas to offer of their own.

There was a solution, earn more money or move further out, like it or not, that's the only viable solution.

Balmed Out

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Typical Irish attitude. 12 reasons why an idea won't work but no ideas to offer of their own.

Typical Irish attitude, I don't have something I want so I begrudge those that do.

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

There was a solution, earn more money or move further out, like it or not, that's the only viable solution.

Deeply shortsighted and unsustainable. If we continue to live longer as is the current trend.

Balmed Out wrote: »

Typical Irish attitude, I don't have something I want so I begrudge those that do.

Ah, the old accusation of begrudgery, can't be that there's a looming issue with an ageing population and a housing crisis, no.

More Irish than begrudgery: Mé Féinism - 'Feck everyone else 'cos I'm grand'.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Deeply shortsighted and unsustainable. If we continue to live longer as is the current trend.



Ah, the old accusation of begrudgery, can't be that there's a looming issue with an ageing population and a housing crisis, no.

More Irish than begrudgery: Mé Féinism - 'Feck everyone else 'cos I'm grand'.

Nah, no it isn't you sound like you don't want to compromise and move to an area that suits your pay packet. Even if old people die or move out, it won't happen all at once, and people on much bigger salaries will buy the houses in the desirable areas, and you or other people who want to live there, still won't be able to.

It's not about feck everyone I'm grand, it's about not giving up something you bought and paid for and raised a family in, at the end of the day we live in a free society people can keep their houses if they want.

I live outside and commute in, that's the reality, and if you want a decent house that's a decision you'll have to come to.

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

Nah, no it isn't you sound like you don't want to compromise and move to an area that suits your pay packet. Even if old people die or move out, it won't happen all at once, and people on much bigger salaries will buy the houses in the desirable areas, and you or other people who want to live there, still won't be able to.

It's not about feck everyone I'm grand, it's about not giving up something you bought and paid for and raised a family in, at the end of the day we live in a free society people can keep their houses if they want.

I live outside and commute in, that's the reality, and if you want a decent house that's a decision you'll have to come to.

You are assuming a lot, you know nothing of my own personal situation. I don't live in Dublin, neither do I want to.

It's more like you made the decision to live and commute and now are saying it can never be any other way, because that justifies your own choice.

So you think there is no problem with a situation where as the population ages, there is more and more constraint on supply due to people living in houses that are no longer required for their needs? Because that's delusional.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You are assuming a lot, you know nothing of my own personal situation. I don't live in Dublin, neither do I want to.

It's more like you made the decision to live and commute and now are saying it can never be any other way, because that justifies your own choice.

So you think there is no problem with a situation where as the population ages, there is more and more constraint on supply due to people living in houses that are no longer required for their needs? Because that's delusional.

Nah not really I like where I live, and still have property in Dublin so could live here if we wanted.

The problem isn't anything to do with an aging population, it's a supply problem and that needs to be addressed, however if you want to live on the east coast of Dublin I'd assume there'd be a problem there, because there's no room to build, so limited supply.

It's the exact same in any city across the globe, you pay to live in a desirable area, and that's it.

Ann Landers

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Typical Irish attitude. 12 reasons why an idea won't work but no ideas to offer of their own.

Not "typically Irish" at all actually.

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

Nah not really I like where I live, and still have property in Dublin so could live here if we wanted.

The problem isn't anything to do with an aging population, it's a supply problem and that needs to be addressed, however if you want to live on the east coast of Dublin I'd assume there'd be a problem there, because there's no room to build, so limited supply.

It's the exact same in any city across the globe, you pay to live in a desirable area, and that's it.

Things I didn't say:

1. If only we were able to kick old people out of their homes there would be no issue with housing supply
2. Desirable areas should be within the reach of everyone

Now, do you care to address the things I did say? Or is there absolutely zero problems with an ageing population in a country where people stay in the same house until they die?

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Things I didn't say:

1. If only we were able to kick old people out of their homes there would be no issue with housing supply
2. Desirable areas should be within the reach of everyone

Now, do you care to address the things I did say? Or is there absolutely zero problems with an ageing population in a country where people stay in the same house until they die?

No, no, you're right of course, the government should own all property, and when residents reach a certain age, they should be quietly euthanised, and a new young family should take over.

The_Conductor

The Spider wrote: »

No, no, you're right of course, the government should own all property, and when residents reach a certain age, they should be quietly euthanised, and a new young family should take over.

I seem to remember doing an Irish short story for the leaving cert- almost 25 years ago- which had that plot- think it was called 'Halla an Suaimhneas'..........

Speaking of the government owning all property- we are but a Republic in name these days- we have lost our grasp of what it means to live in a Republic, and so few people are willing to play a part- even here, all we do is bitch about the politicians, there are so few people willing to stand up and be counted.

I don't think incentivising people to move to smaller properties, more appropriate to their life stages- is akin to quietly euthanasing the elderly though- there are many people who would be only too happy to sell their big houses and move into smaller managed units which have little upkeep and might be closer to public transport and utilities and amenties that might not be available in more traditional type dwellings.

Children do not care for the elderly any longer. Its a simple observation- they don't. The next best thing is to assist the elderly to live as independent and fulfilling lives as possible- and to enable them to enjoy their twilight years as best they can. I know- I don't want to be worrying about painting the house when I'm 60, or 70- I want some place with the minimum of fuss- where I can enjoy whatever life I have left- preferably with the minimum of interference from anyone.

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

No, no, you're right of course, the government should own all property, and when residents reach a certain age, they should be quietly euthanised, and a new young family should take over.

What ludicrous nonsense you come out with in lieu of a cohesive argument.:) You're not capable of discussing the point so you're just playing sillybeggars.

You didn't even read my post by the sounds of it.

Glenbhoy

marathonic wrote: »

The answer to all the supply problems would be, shock-horror, incentives for builders. Grants for selling as suggested by the OP would only further exasperate the issue of lack of supply (the expectation would be that current sellers would accept lower prices for existing houses due to the receipt of the grant making it less worthwhile for developers to build new houses).

If there were a budget for this, it would be much better spent offering builders a reduction in tax on profits on any new-build house started over the next 1-2 years. The government would probably actually gain from this - there'd be less tax taken in on more properties making it close to cost neutral. The construction industry would get a significant boost meaning people would be coming off the dole and, instead, paying the government income tax.

However much sense the above proposal would make, I can only imagine the backlash the government would get if they suggested it. The scorn felt by the general public towards the builders will go on for a long time to come.

The problem isn't lack of supply so much as lack of supply of a certain type of property in certain areas. There's no point in builders building, unless they're going to build family homes in in SCD.

As others have said, if the govt had stayed out of this whole malarkey from day one, we would be in a much better position now, prices might have been allowed to find their own level and we might be confident by now that the bottom has actually been reached rather than just been kicked on down the road for another year.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

What ludicrous nonsense you come out with in lieu of a cohesive argument.:) You're not capable of discussing the point so you're just playing sillybeggars.

You didn't even read my post by the sounds of it.

Because your post is nonsense, it boils down to basically:

We have a shortage of houses and the ones we have are occupied by older people who would be better off in some retirement home, correct?

You then propose various ways to encourage (for encourage read tax) them out of their homes so younger people can buy them, correct?

Now outside of the inequity of working your whole life to pay for your home only to then have it taxed out from under you, which demographic consistently votes more than any other demographic?? ( its the elderly)

Now what government is going to tell them they want to take their houses?

On the other side you've addressed none of he issues I've mentioned, like being shipped off out of the area you've lived in for years to some retirement village in god knows where.

Your idea is defunct, a non runner, dead, immature and really hasn't been thought through!

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

Because your post is nonsense, it boils down to basically:

We have a shortage of houses and the ones we have are occupied by older people who would be better off in some retirement home, correct?

No. Not correct, read my posts again.

The Spider wrote: »

You then propose various ways to encourage (for encourage read tax) them out of their homes so younger people can buy them, correct?

No. Not correct, I mentioned a spare bedroom tax, but then someone else mentioned incentives and I think that's a much better idea. Again, I suggest you read my posts instead of assuming.

The Spider wrote: »

Now outside of the inequity of working your whole life to pay for your home only to then have it taxed out from under you, which demographic consistently votes more than any other demographic?? ( its the elderly)

Now what government is going to tell them they want to take their houses?

On the other side you've addressed none of he issues I've mentioned, like being shipped off out of the area you've lived in for years to some retirement village in god knows where.

And again you have misrepresented what I said, tell me where I said that people should be shipped to a remote retirement village. Again I advise you to read before sounding off.

The Spider wrote: »

Your idea is defunct, a non runner, dead, immature and really hasn't been thought through!

'My idea' is something that you have made up in your head as a strawman argument as you can't think of a valid point to make.

Your idea (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is to entirely ignore the issue.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

No. Not correct, read my posts again.



No. Not correct, I mentioned a spare bedroom tax, but then someone else mentioned incentives and I think that's a much better idea. Again, I suggest you read my posts instead of assuming.



And again you have misrepresented what I said, tell me where I said that people should be shipped to a remote retirement village. Again I advise you to read before sounding off.



'My idea' is something that you have made up in your head as a strawman argument as you can't think of a valid point to make.

Your idea (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is to entirely ignore the issue.

Straw man my hoop! You basically said older people should be encouraged to downsize through a bedroom tax.

I have read your post, and my suggestion remains the same, warn more month or move to an area you can afford, the basics of any market.

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

Straw man my hoop! You basically said older people should be encouraged to downsize through a bedroom tax.

I have read your post, and my suggestion remains the same, warn more month or move to an area you can afford, the basics of any market.

You were creating a strawman argument. You said that I was proposing:
a. Forcing people out of their homes
b. Encouraging euthanasia to free up houses
c. Sending people into retirement villages far from their communities

Now, I'll ask you again, in the context of an ageing population where people tend to stay in one house that doesn't meet their requirements and may in fact be an additional burden in terms of maintenance and where young families stuggle to find suitable accommodation, what is your proposed solution?

So far I've got from you: Do nothing and ignore the problem.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You were creating a strawman argument. You said that I was proposing:
a. Forcing people out of their homes
b. Encouraging euthanasia to free up houses
c. Sending people into retirement villages far from their communities

Now, I'll ask you again, in the context of an ageing population where people tend to stay in one house that doesn't meet their requirements and may in fact be an additional burden in terms of maintenance and where young families stuggle to find suitable accommodation, what is your proposed solution?

So far I've got from you: Do nothing and ignore the problem.

It's not about ignoring the problem, it's about letting the market work, I told you my solution three times now, earn more or move out.

Your solution seems to be punish the elderly by taxing spare rooms in their house.

Again it's a nonsense, elderly ate the biggest voters, there's a lot of assumptions going on here.

Even though you say your parents would never give up their house, you think others would? You're not the only one who said it.

In fact it's all assumption the only thing I get from this thread is that the elderly people you and others know, would not give up their homes, and somehow without a shred of evidence you and others seem to think the elderly will be clambering to offload their houses, if only they could, be it downsizing, retirement village or whatever.

Uriel.

The Spider wrote: »

Again it's a nonsense, elderly ate the biggest voters, there's a lot of assumptions going on here.

So that's how they have all the influence

MouseTail

Its a non runner.
- Politically unpalatable
- It won't ease supply anyway in any meaningful way, our age demographic is a pyramid
- We already have tax incentives to build retirement villages, Developers haven't been clamouring to avail of them, because culturally we are averse.

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

It's not about ignoring the problem, it's about letting the market work, I told you my solution three times now, earn more or move out.

Your solution seems to be punish the elderly by taxing spare rooms in their house.

Again it's a nonsense, elderly ate the biggest voters, there's a lot of assumptions going on here.

Even though you say your parents would never give up their house, you think others would? You're not the only one who said it.

In fact it's all assumption the only thing I get from this thread is that the elderly people you and others know, would not give up their homes, and somehow without a shred of evidence you and others seem to think the elderly will be clambering to offload their houses, if only they could, be it downsizing, retirement village or whatever.

So, all that rambling can be summed up with:

'Do nothing and ignore the problem'. Gotcha.