General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Now once you have that house you can sell it at market rates for as much as you can get or you can sell it above cost, making a smaller profit.
Profit is the gain you make over and above the cost.

The margin here is anything from 8-12%.
So your €330,000 semi-D bog-standard house in greater Dublin, can be 'built' for around €300,000.

However, why would a developer build something for no profit?

If you are the council or state you can sell to people at a smaller profit because you are trying to supply affordable housing, by keeping the price lower than the average market rate.

Again, who is building the house? A developer is not going to agree to build a house just to break-even.
If you want the state or the LA to become the developer as well that is a whole new ball game and something that could be well illegal under EU law.

I got the 200,000 off you Marko.
Pay a contractor to build. See above. People make a good living building for other people. If you wanted to build a house on some land what would you do? Likely hire a building contractor. The state/LA does/did/would do the same.

Yes, and they the contractor/builder/developer will have their profit margin built into the quote they give to the LA. There is no real substantive savings here, unless the land is given away.

That's unlikely. If that were true nobody would ever build anything anywhere and would just buy houses built by...the faeries?

Clearly you have a short memory. You can buy a house in many places of the country for less than €100,000, which is less than the building costs. We had this crash in 2008 if you dont remember. :rolleyes:

Last time. The cost would be basically the same. The council/LA choosing to take a smaller profit on sale would be the difference in price.

Again, why would a developer or builder not build with a profit margin built into their quote or tender? These people are not going to work for anything. It does not matter if its a private build or a public build, the developer will tender and quote the same. The LA will pay the going rate for new homes. You seem to think there is some magic sauce at play here when there is not.

The only magic sauce is free land or some tax incentives given via the state.

I contend if offered a two up, two down council house, people would jump at it.

If built to 2019 standards, sure but they will be much more expensive to build than the 1930's variety. In other words, you have no idea on the costs of building a new house.

I said once health and safety is met. It's unfortunate I have to spell everything out. A two up, two down house built to current standards. How's that?

More expensive for sure.


Again, I got the number of 200,000 off you.

Yet you contend that a developer is making €150,000 of every build if they sell at €350,000. No builder is making those margins.

the cost is the same if I built a house to sell or the council built a house to sell. The difference is I want to make as much profit as I can, the council can opt to sell at a lower profit to keep the price cheaper.

Yes, the cost is the same, so that is why the cost to build a 3-bed semi house is about €300,000 in the greater Dublin region and that is without the developer making a profit. So good luck trying to get developers involved in your public housing schemes.... this is Ireland, not China where developers and builders cannot be forced to build houses for free essentially.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Have you ever seen an Irish slum?
Me neither. I have seen slums though, in the likes of Africa, Asia and South America.

I take it you're having a laugh.
Why? Is it because we start building social housing in the 1930's? Is the fact we have more children homeless than we did ever in the history of the state related to the fact that we stopped building social housing in any great number?

markodaly wrote: »

Do these houses greet you personaly in the mornings? :pac::o

Good one.....
So the poster says they are mostly knocked or rebuilt, I disagree citing knowing thousands still in use and you resort to a little humour. Okay.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

The margin here is anything from 8-12%.
So your €330,000 semi-D bog-standard house in greater Dublin, can be 'built' for around €300,000.

However, why would a developer build something for no profit?

Are we no longer using your 200,000? Okay.
Same principle.
If the build costs 330,000, he'd likely sell it for as much more as he can get.
If we pay him to build, he gets 330,000. We sell above cost for a smaller profit.

I think what might be confusing you is that the cost to build includes his fee and the wages of the workers. So he's paid for organising the build and seeing it complete. What we do with the house after we pay him to build won't effect his fee. He's paid. Have you never paid someone to carry out a task? People will do work for money.

markodaly wrote: »

Again, who is building the house? A developer is not going to agree to build a house just to break-even.
If you want the state or the LA to become the developer as well that is a whole new ball game and something that could be well illegal under EU law.

Again? I've answered this 3 times Marko.
No a developer is not going to agree to build a house to break even Marko.

The state/LA has paid for thousands of houses to be built all over the country since the 1930's.
If you want a house built you are not a developer, you hire a developer and pay him for his time. You end up with a house.

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, and they the contractor/builder/developer will have their profit margin built into the quote they give to the LA. There is no real substantive savings here, unless the land is given away.

How do you seem to understand it correctly here, but not by the comment you made above?
There is savings. You are paying for the developers labour. Profits on the market are completely different. He'll charge what he likes to build and we'll either go with him or not. None of this has anything to do with the market price of buying a house. Two separate things.

When you buy a house on the market the builder is covering cost, (which included his wages and everybody else's wages) and looking to make as much extra, profit, over and above the cost. When we have a house built we only pay the cost.

markodaly wrote: »

Clearly you have a short memory. You can buy a house in many places of the country for less than €100,000, which is less than the building costs. We had this crash in 2008 if you dont remember. :rolleyes:

You showed me. Well done.

markodaly wrote: »

Again, why would a developer or builder not build with a profit margin built into their quote or tender? These people are not going to work for anything.

They do. They pay themselves a wage. It's worked into the quote. Plumbers fixing your sink do it ffs.

markodaly wrote: »

It does not matter if its a private build or a public build, the developer will tender and quote the same.

Exactly.

markodaly wrote: »

The LA will pay the going rate for new homes. You seem to think there is some magic sauce at play here when there is not.

The magic sauce is paying the cost of a build verses buying at market rates where sale profit above cost comes into play.

markodaly wrote: »

The only magic sauce is free land or some tax incentives given via the state.

At this point Marko I don't believe you are being genuine. You are either not getting it or not reading my comments and possibly not even your own.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I contend if offered a two up, two down council house, people would jump at it.



I said once health and safety is met. It's unfortunate I have to spell everything out. A two up, two down house built to current standards. How's that?

I can't believe there are people out there calling for two-up two-down builds to address the housing problems in Dublin.

We need higher densities like that. Building two-up two-down is what got us into this problem.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are we no longer using your 200,000? Okay.
Same principle.
If the build costs 330,000, he'd likely sell it for as much more as he can get.
If we pay him to build, he gets 330,000. We sell above cost for a smaller profit.

I think what might be confusing you is that the cost to build includes his fee and the wages of the workers. So he's paid for organising the build and seeing it complete. What we do with the house after we pay him to build won't effect his fee. He's paid. Have you never paid someone to carry out a task? People will do work for money.

Ok, I will explain it you in simple words.

Builder is building houses and selling them. It costs €300,000 to build each one, and he sells them for €330,000, making a profit of €30,000 on each one.

Council comes along and asks him to build houses for them for €300,000, meaning he gets no profit. Builder laughs and keeps building his own houses.

Council beg him again. Builder thinks about it, and realises there is a hassle and extra cost to dealing with the council, probably around €10,000 per unit. He offers to build houses for the Council for €340,000, so he can keep his €30,000 profit.

What should Council do?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I can't believe there are people out there calling for two-up two-down builds to address the housing problems in Dublin.

We need higher densities like that. Building two-up two-down is what got us into this problem.

Just to catch you up, the comment was nobody would want them if offered. That is all. Also stopping building anything is what got us into this problem.

blanch152 wrote: »

Ok, I will explain it you in simple words.

Builder is building houses and selling them. It costs €300,000 to build each one, and he sells them for €330,000, making a profit of €30,000 on each one.

Council comes along and asks him to build houses for them for €300,000, meaning he gets no profit. Builder laughs and keeps building his own houses.

Did you read my replies to Marko?
I pay builder to build me a house, it costs 330,000. I pay him. He goes home.

I pay builder 330,000 to build a house. I pay him. He goes home. I sell it for a much as I can get.

The council/state pays a builder 330,000 to build a house. They pay him. He goes home. The council sells it at a smaller profit to provider lower cost housing.

The 330,000 includes a wage for the builder. What He builds or for what purpose doesn't matter to him. He gets paid, costs, materials, a wage. When you call a plumber to put in a toilet. He charges you for the materials, and his time.
When you hire someone to build a house he charges you for the materials and his time.
If we build rather than buying at market, we save money because the market price will be higher than the build price.

blanch152 wrote: »

Council beg him again. Builder thinks about it, and realises there is a hassle and extra cost to dealing with the council, probably around €10,000 per unit. He offers to build houses for the Council for €340,000, so he can keep his €30,000 profit.

What should Council do?

The National Children's Hospital is not being built by a developer who will then put it up on daft.ie for sale.
He was contracted to build a hospital. He'll be paid for his time, materials wages etc. That's how the councils/state has built social/affordable housing in the past. We pay for the service of having houses built and pay the builder accordingly. This is school children level commerce.

Topgear on Dave

The NCH is a fine example of state construction with its tight budgets and sharply on time delivery.

James Brown

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

The NCH is a fine example of state construction with its tight budgets and sharply on time delivery.

Yeah, that's another story. Hardly ideal. TBF to the government neither the housing nor finance not health ministers were aware....

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are we no longer using your 200,000? Okay.
Same principle.
If the build costs 330,000, he'd likely sell it for as much more as he can get.
If we pay him to build, he gets 330,000. We sell above cost for a smaller profit.

The €330,000 is the selling price. Did you even read the links I posted? You would have educated yourself a little bit on this.

I think what might be confusing you is that the cost to build includes his fee and the wages of the workers. So he's paid for organising the build and seeing it complete. What we do with the house after we pay him to build won't effect his fee. He's paid. Have you never paid someone to carry out a task? People will do work for money.

Yeap, paid the €330,000. So again, where are the 'savings'?

No a developer is not going to agree to build a house to break even Marko.

Agree.

The state/LA has paid for thousands of houses to be built all over the country since the 1930's.
If you want a house built you are not a developer, you hire a developer and pay him for his time. You end up with a house.

Yes, you end up with a house. But again, where are the magical savings?

How do you seem to understand it correctly here, but not by the comment you made above?
There is savings. You are paying for the developers labour. Profits on the market are completely different. He'll charge what he likes to build and we'll either go with him or not. None of this has anything to do with the market price of buying a house. Two separate things.

When you buy a house on the market the builder is covering cost, (which included his wages and everybody else's wages) and looking to make as much extra, profit, over and above the cost. When we have a house built we only pay the cost.

You realise that the developer will tender at the market price?

You showed me. Well done.

https://www.daft.ie/roscommon/houses-for-sale/rooskey/4-riverwalk-rooskey-roscommon-2277932/
https://www.daft.ie/donegal/houses-for-auction/derrybeg/3-cul-na-toinne-magheraclogher-derrybeg-donegal-2273077/
https://www.daft.ie/mayo/houses-for-sale/crossmolina/17-abbeytown-crossmolina-mayo-2276052/

3 houses around the country, all 3 bed and all under €100,000. These are below cost prices.

markodaly wrote: »

These people are not going to work for anything. It does not matter if its a private build or a public build, the developer will tender and quote the same.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Exactly.

Right, so agree with me on that. So again I ask where is the saving coming from.
You harp on about less profit but I think you are getting confused about the term profit.

If a developer builds a house and sells it to Joe Bloggs for €330,000 this gives them about 10% profit.
If a LA approaches a developer to build houses, the developer will also sell the LA the house for same. The developer will not care who buys the house of them, they get paid regardless and will make their margin.

Now though the LA becomes the middle man as they now own a property which they need to sell on, and this adds an extra layer on top of the process. You are saying then that the LA will sell on that house to someone for 'less profit' which actually means they will sell it for more than the €330,000 they bought it from in the first place. Makes sense right?

So again, where are these magical savings coming from?

The magic sauce is paying the cost of a build verses buying at market rates where sale profit above cost comes into play.

Which ends up costing the LA the same price as the open market price to build and buy from a developer.

At this point Marko I don't believe you are being genuine. You are either not getting it or not reading my comments and possibly not even your own.

The common denominator here is yourself. I am not the only person here confused by your South Park gnome economic logic.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I pay builder to build me a house, it costs 330,000. I pay him. He goes home.

I pay builder 330,000 to build a house. I pay him. He goes home. I sell it for a much as I can get.

The council/state pays a builder 330,000 to build a house. They pay him. He goes home. The council sells it at a smaller profit to provider lower cost housing.

Did anyone else chuckle at this?

How in god's name can a council sell a house for a profit but sell it at a loss?

If we build rather than buying at market, we save money because the market price will be higher than the build price.

The costs are the same, you even admit it yourself.

The National Children's Hospital is not being built by a developer who will then put it up on daft.ie for sale.
He was contracted to build a hospital. He'll be paid for his time, materials wages etc. That's how the councils/state has built social/affordable housing in the past. We pay for the service of having houses built and pay the builder accordingly. This is school children level commerce.

Yes, the NCH is a fine example of prudent financial cost savings by the state, isnt it?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Just to catch you up, the comment was nobody would want them if offered. That is all. Also stopping building anything is what got us into this problem.



Did you read my replies to Marko?
I pay builder to build me a house, it costs 330,000. I pay him. He goes home.

I pay builder 330,000 to build a house. I pay him. He goes home. I sell it for a much as I can get.

The council/state pays a builder 330,000 to build a house. They pay him. He goes home. The council sells it at a smaller profit to provider lower cost housing.

The 330,000 includes a wage for the builder. What He builds or for what purpose doesn't matter to him. He gets paid, costs, materials, a wage. When you call a plumber to put in a toilet. He charges you for the materials, and his time.
When you hire someone to build a house he charges you for the materials and his time.
If we build rather than buying at market, we save money because the market price will be higher than the build price.



The National Children's Hospital is not being built by a developer who will then put it up on daft.ie for sale.
He was contracted to build a hospital. He'll be paid for his time, materials wages etc. That's how the councils/state has built social/affordable housing in the past. We pay for the service of having houses built and pay the builder accordingly. This is school children level commerce.

This is comedy gold.

First while a developer can build and sell houses for €330,000 and make a profit, somehow the council can get the same builder to build a house for €330,000 and sell it on at a smaller profit. Given transaction costs of 2% costing €6,600, the council would have to seek at €336,601 to make a €1 profit. Why would anyone buy a dearer house from the council? This doesn’t make any sense.

Secondly, the National Children’s Hospital is the example given of how the State can build things.

Good loser

I've posted this before


In Dublin the average cost of building a social home on land owned by the Council is €300,000


54 Social houses in Teresa's Gardens cost €500,000 each. Half of these were 2 bed or 1 bed.


Info from the Council Housing Dept.

Geuze

In 2012 the cost to build a 3-bed semi house was as follows:

110 sqm

129,674 for house and site costs
Other costs = 41,700
Margin/profit = 25,706

Total = 197,080, this excludes VAT and land costs

Adding VAT we get 224k approx.


I'll get more recent data later.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

This is comedy gold.

First while a developer can build and sell houses for €330,000 and make a profit, somehow the council can get the same builder to build a house for €330,000 and sell it on at a smaller profit. Given transaction costs of 2% costing €6,600, the council would have to seek at €336,601 to make a €1 profit. Why would anyone buy a dearer house from the council? This doesn’t make any sense.

Secondly, the National Children’s Hospital is the example given of how the State can build things.

Nope. You're confused. He'd be paid a wage he worked into his costs. Wages earned versus profit. Profit would be whatever he sells it for above costs. It's how business work.
The cost of building was 330,000. What he sells it for is irrelevant to the point.
You really should re read my comments it's spelled out very clearly.
Are you purposely not getting this?

I pay builder to build me a house, it costs 330,000. I pay him. He goes home.

I pay builder 330,000 to build a house. I pay him. He goes home. I sell it for a much as I can get.

The council/state pays a builder 330,000 to build a house. They pay him. He goes home. The council sells it at a smaller profit to provider lower cost housing.

The 330,000 includes a wage for the builder. What He builds or for what purpose doesn't matter to him. He gets paid, costs, materials, a wage. When you call a plumber to put in a toilet. He charges you for the materials, and his time.
When you hire someone to build a house he charges you for the materials and his time.
If we build rather than buying at market, we save money because the market price will be higher than the build price.

Nope again. It's an example of the principle in motion. A developer is paid to build. FG making a mess of it is par for the course.

To recap:
So far, SF led council. No.
Council needs to hire tradesmen to build and keep them on, pay them a pension. No.
We can't get the builders. We can.
Buying is cheaper than building. No.

Spell it out Blanch. Instead of jumping in to try knock the idea, do you think buying off the market is cheaper than building housing?

It's the concept folks.
Let's say building costs come to 1,000000.
Costs include salaries and materials and after spending 1,000000, everyone is paid and you have a house.
You can sell it for 1,500000 or sell it for 1,300000.
If the council pay 1,000000 and have a house they can choose to sell it to a member of the public for 1,300000.
OR
Buy it for 1,500000 off someone and use it as social housing.
It's as simple as I can spell it out.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nope. You're confused. He'd be paid a wage he worked into his costs. Wages earned versus profit. Profit would be whatever he sells it for above costs. It's how business work.

Wages form part of the overall tendering process. There will be a profit built into any tender work.

The cost of building was 330,000. What he sells it for is irrelevant to the point.
You really should re read my comments it's spelled out very clearly.
Are you purposely not getting this?

Well, if it costs €330,000 then selling it at is break even, right? So the LA will have to buy at the market rate regardless.

Buying is cheaper than building. No.

Its amazing that you still go on about this when I have proven to that this is not always the case.

Spell it out Blanch. Instead of jumping in to try knock the idea, do you think buying off the market is cheaper than building housing?

What you do not seem to understand is that building new houses IS buying at the market. You are buying the land and all the other associated costs to hire a developer to build you a bunch of houses. THAT is the market....

It's the concept folks.
Let's say building costs come to 1,000000.
Costs include salaries and materials and after spending 1,000000, everyone is paid and you have a house.
You can sell it for 1,500000 or sell it for 1,300000.
If the council pay 1,000000 and have a house they can choose to sell it to a member of the public for 1,300000.
OR
Buy it for 1,500000 off someone and use it as social housing.
It's as simple as I can spell it out.

Sure, it is us, not you.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Wages form part of the overall tendering process. There will be a profit built into any tender work.

No it's not. Any extra money added on goes in wages not profit. Unless you consider your pay packet profit. You are paying people to carry out a task, that task is building you a house. There is no profit being made above the money worked into the tender for the build.

markodaly wrote: »

Well, if it costs €330,000 then selling it at is break even, right? So the LA will have to buy at the market rate regardless.

In this case you are paying someone to build you a house. If you then decide to sell it at what it cost to build that would be breaking even.

markodaly wrote: »

Its amazing that you still go on about this when I have proven to that this is not always the case.

It's amazing we are going over the same simple ground time and again.

markodaly wrote: »

What you do not seem to understand is that building new houses IS buying at the market. You are buying the land and all the other associated costs to hire a developer to build you a bunch of houses. THAT is the market....

Sure, it is us, not you.

It is not. You do not understand. I cannot continue to spell it out.


When you buy at market you are paying for profit. When you pay for a build you are paying the cost, (incl. salaries).

Build = cost
buying = cost + profit.

Buying is more expensive. This is a practical fact.
Case in point, I posted an article a few pages back were a developer was building new houses. Set to make millions in profit.
Now if he were building for someone else he's make what ever he tendered for, but not a skys the limit profit based on whatever the market going rate was.

Same question I asked Blanch, do you think buying off the market is cheaper than building houses?

tobsey

Matt that is fairytale stuff. Why would a developer enter into a tender when they could make more money building and selling?

If there are two sites on a road, one owned by the council and one by a developer. 10 houses to be built on each at a cost of 300k per house. Market value of the houses is 350k each. So the developer could build 10 on their own site and sell them for €3.5 million. How much do you think their response to the tender from the council would be?

James Brown

tobsey wrote: »

Matt that is fairytale stuff. Why would a developer enter into a tender when they could make more money building and selling?

If there are two sites on a road, one owned by the council and one by a developer. 10 houses to be built on each at a cost of 300k per house. Market value of the houses is 350k each. So the developer could build 10 on their own site and sell them for €3.5 million. How much do you think their response to the tender from the council would be?

Yes. It happens all the time. Some don't have the money to build on their own to do that.
There are all levels. Some build to sell, some build for others. Some companies do both, get hired to build and build their own developments. Common practice.

You're mixed up. The two are unrelated.
If you build for me you get paid. Everyone wins.

You build for yourself, you can sell for more profit.

It's not an either or situation. When you ask someone to build you a house they don't say, 'sure if I built my own I could sell it for more'. They'll take the money for the work offered.

tobsey

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes. It happens all the time. Some don't have the money to build on their own to do that.
There are all levels. Some build to sell, some build for others. Some companies do both, get hired to build and build their own developments. Common practice.

You're mixed up. The two are unrelated.
If you build for me you get paid. Everyone wins.

You build for yourself, you can sell for more profit.

It's not an either or situation. When you ask someone to build you a house they don't say, 'sure if I built my own I could sell it for more'. They'll take the money for the work offered.

Getting paid and making a profit only differ on the basis that one is an employee and the other is self employed. When a developer makes a profit that is them paying themselves from the fruits of their labour. They don't pay themselves and then take a large profit also. If a council wants a developer to built houses then the developer will expect to be paid the same amount as the amount of profit they could make from the same work. Why else would they do it?

The only way for a council to build at the same cost level as a developer is for them to manage the project. They would need to hire all the professionals and subcontractors and manage the finance. That would require employees of the council to do so, employees which don't exist because the councils have had no need for them for decades. Therefore they would have to employ someone, adding to the cost of the project.

Your posts show a complete lack of understanding of business operates.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nope. You're confused. He'd be paid a wage he worked into his costs. Wages earned versus profit. Profit would be whatever he sells it for above costs. It's how business work.
The cost of building was 330,000. What he sells it for is irrelevant to the point.
You really should re read my comments it's spelled out very clearly.
Are you purposely not getting this?



Nope again. It's an example of the principle in motion. A developer is paid to build. FG making a mess of it is par for the course.

To recap:
So far, SF led council. No.
Council needs to hire tradesmen to build and keep them on, pay them a pension. No.
We can't get the builders. We can.
Buying is cheaper than building. No.

Spell it out Blanch. Instead of jumping in to try knock the idea, do you think buying off the market is cheaper than building housing?

It's the concept folks.
Let's say building costs come to 1,000000.
Costs include salaries and materials and after spending 1,000000, everyone is paid and you have a house.
You can sell it for 1,500000 or sell it for 1,300000.
If the council pay 1,000000 and have a house they can choose to sell it to a member of the public for 1,300000.
OR
Buy it for 1,500000 off someone and use it as social housing.
It's as simple as I can spell it out.

More nonsense.

If it costs a developer €300,000 to build a house, and he sells it for €330,000, his wages/profit is €30,000.

He doesn't pay himself wages out of the €300,000 (unless it is tax-efficient to do so).

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the developer would be willing to build houses for the council for less profits and wages than he would get for building them for himself. I could see him doing that in a recession if nobody was buying or if he was a peculiarly risk-averse developer, but the most likely outcome would be that the incompetent local authority would leave out some component of the build and the builder would overcharge for the extras giving him greater profit and a cost to the local authority of €400,000.

Local authorities have never been able to do anything efficiently in this country. From motor tax to driving licences, from LPT to business water charges, from national roads to sewage infrastructure, from education welfare offices to vocational education we have had to take work off them every decade or so since the formation of the state because of their complete incompetence.

In the DeValera era of the 1930s when the State built nearly everything, it was possible for the councils to build social housing but they don't have the ability, they don't have the expertise and they don't have the skills anymore.

I would like it to be different, because an element of social housing should always be there in society but a three-bed house with a trampoline in the garden for everyone in the audience is a socialist utopian dream and a nightmare for climate change.

James Brown

tobsey wrote: »

Getting paid and making a profit only differ on the basis that one is an employee and the other is self employed. When a developer makes a profit that is them paying themselves from the fruits of their labour. They don't pay themselves and then take a large profit also. If a council wants a developer to built houses then the developer will expect to be paid the same amount as the amount of profit they could make from the same work. Why else would they do it?

The only way for a council to build at the same cost level as a developer is for them to manage the project. They would need to hire all the professionals and subcontractors and manage the finance. That would require employees of the council to do so, employees which don't exist because the councils have had no need for them for decades. Therefore they would have to employ someone, adding to the cost of the project.

Your posts show a complete lack of understanding of business operates.

They do if hired to build houses.
No they wouldn't nor would they get it.
Paying him to build he'd get a set price.
If he builds his own he can make more selling on market, this does not mean he never builds for other too. Do you think a developer will turn down work?

No they absolutely would not. They would hire a developer who would look after that.

Your post shows a complete lack of understanding.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

More nonsense.

If it costs a developer €300,000 to build a house, and he sells it for €330,000, his wages/profit is €30,000.

He doesn't pay himself wages out of the €300,000 (unless it is tax-efficient to do so).

You continue to misrepresent my comments to suit your blarney.

There's paid to build for someone else and building your own. Two separate things.
If you are building for someone else you work in your wage/fee.
Selling your own build on market is a different matter.
I can't make it any more basic for you.

blanch152 wrote: »

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the developer would be willing to build houses for the council for less profits and wages

I keep saying no I don't, you keep willfully missing that.
It's two different things.
Hired to build versus building to sell. Not related.

blanch152 wrote: »

Local authorities have never been able to do anything efficiently in this country....

Different conversation. Neither has government.

blanch152 wrote: »

In the DeValera era of the 1930s when the State built nearly everything, it was possible for the councils to build social housing but they don't have the ability, they don't have the expertise and they don't have the skills anymore.

That's why they pay others to do it.

blanch152 wrote: »

I would like it to be different, because an element of social housing should always be there in society but a three-bed house with a trampoline in the garden for everyone in the audience is a socialist utopian dream and a nightmare for climate change.

'Johnny, we'll pay you if you build us 100 houses'. "Are you codding? No way, sure I'll build me own. I'll make more". 'You could do both Johnny" 'No, I don't want paid work!'.

It's cheaper than buying off the market or renting out hotel rooms.
As a tax payer I want more social and affordable housing. It's cheaper and a better deal for the tax payer. Not so great for vulture funds or companies building to rent.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There's paid to build for someone else and building your own. Two separate things.
If you are building for someone else you work in your wage/fee.
Selling your own build on market is a different matter.
I can't make it any more basic for you.

Why would you take an option that makes you less?

Whether he building for someone else or selling his own build on the market, a developer will want the same cut, that means he sells on the open market for €330,000 or to the council for €330,000 giving him the same profit/wage.

So yes, they are two separate things, but a builder will do the one that makes him personally the most money, and only do the other if it pays the same. Which bit of that do you not understand?

In fact, given that the local authority would have to tender under EU law for the contract, it would probably cost the builder a lot more to build for the local authority and the price to the local authority would be higher.

Hotblack Desiato

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So the poster says they are mostly knocked or rebuilt, I disagree citing knowing thousands still in use and you resort to a little humour. Okay.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The 1930s homes were of a high standard for the time.

I was talking about when we tried to build social housing on the cheap in the 50s and 60s - crappy flats and horrible little 'maisonettes' for senior citzens - these were substandard, a maintainance nightmare and have mostly been knocked.

You seem to be suggesting that instead of building high quality homes we build substandard ones, it's been tried and it was a failure.

Cina

Can someone explain how there isn't more outrage or panic over the £5bn increase in National Public Debt, considering it's already the 3rd highest in the OECD? At a time when they Government actually have the money to reduce it, they're increasing it. Is that not incredibly alarming?

Loafing Oaf

Cina wrote: »

Can someone explain how there isn't more outrage or panic over the £5bn increase in National Public Debt, considering it's already the 3rd highest in the OECD? At a time when they Government actually have the money to reduce it, they're increasing it. Is that not incredibly alarming?

IMO the main reason is that no political party is advocating fiscal conservatism in any sustained, principled way. And when there's no criticism of the increase in the national debt coming from within the political system, it's hard for any alarm-raising by journalists, economists etc. to gain traction.

PeadarCo

Cina wrote:

Can someone explain how there isn't more outrage or panic over the £5bn increase in National Public Debt, considering it's already the 3rd highest in the OECD? At a time when they Government actually have the money to reduce it, they're increasing it. Is that not incredibly alarming?

Because what you are proposing is increasing or at the very least not reducing taxes and keeping a lid on public expenditure which includes the amount spend on wages and services in general. Neither of these two things are very popular as the reaction to the property tax, water charges and the austerity measures at the end of the last decade showed.

Idbatterim

Cina wrote: »

Can someone explain how there isn't more outrage or panic over the £5bn increase in National Public Debt, considering it's already the 3rd highest in the OECD? At a time when they Government actually have the money to reduce it, they're increasing it. Is that not incredibly alarming?

Lol if the **** hits the fan here again! Lol !

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would you take an option that makes you less?

Whether he building for someone else or selling his own build on the market, a developer will want the same cut, that means he sells on the open market for €330,000 or to the council for €330,000 giving him the same profit/wage.

So yes, they are two separate things, but a builder will do the one that makes him personally the most money, and only do the other if it pays the same. Which bit of that do you not understand?

In fact, given that the local authority would have to tender under EU law for the contract, it would probably cost the builder a lot more to build for the local authority and the price to the local authority would be higher.

It's not an either or situation.
He'll want the same cut and likely get it.
No it doesn't, one is being paid to build, the other is building your own to sell. Two completely different scenarios. Is it because in both scenarios houses are built that's throwing you?

If he has no choice but to choose one or the other, sure. That'll likely never come up. I'd say it's completely unheard of in fact.

If you have land and a budget and put out a tender to have homes built, you are putting out a tender to have homes built. The developer can't say he'll build his own, it's your land and your budget.

If he's building his own to sell that's his business and has absolutely no relevance to you having land and a budget to put out the tender on building houses.

If he wants the work for the builds he puts in a quote, gets paid it. Developers do this every day of the week. Be it a road, school, hospital, social housing, laying pipes for Irish Water, the same principle. Tenders are put out, companies apply, (unless Dinny is in the mix then all bets are off), the successful applicant gets the work.

Separately, completely unrelated....
If he has the money and land he'll build give himself and his crew a wage. THEN, on top of that he'll sell on market and anything he gets above COST, will be PROFIT. The amount of PROFIT will depend on the market going rate at the time.
Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with you putting out a tender with your budget, to have houses built on land you have. They are different ways houses can be built. The most common is by private enterprise which is often a company.....hiring a developer to build houses for them. Happens everyday for generations. It's how business works.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The 1930s homes were of a high standard for the time.

I was talking about when we tried to build social housing on the cheap in the 50s and 60s - crappy flats and horrible little 'maisonettes' for senior citzens - these were substandard, a maintainance nightmare and have mostly been knocked.

You seem to be suggesting that instead of building high quality homes we build substandard ones, it's been tried and it was a failure.

No I'm not. I'm talking about social housing. I'm not talking about building replicas of 1930's housing.

Agreed. They wanted to build up, which is a good concept but in that incarnation was flawed. High density little to no amenities.

No I'm not. Marko suggested nobody wanted a two up two down, I disagreed. Especially if that's all that was on offer, providing they met current standards. The no double glazing, no heating was his thing, I left him to it.

Do you believe buying housing at market rates to use as social is a better deal for the tax payer than building social housing?

Just to add, the very last thing any LA should be doing is selling off public land during a housing crisis. The idea that simply having more houses on the market will make them more affordable is nonsense. Likely the tax payer will be buying to use as social at market rates or renting them off some Noonan-esque vulture fund.

Geuze

Cina wrote: »

Can someone explain how there isn't more outrage or panic over the £5bn increase in National Public Debt, considering it's already the 3rd highest in the OECD? At a time when they Government actually have the money to reduce it, they're increasing it. Is that not incredibly alarming?

What 5bn increase in the public debt are you referring to?

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gfsa/governmentfinancestatisticsapril2019/