General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Cina · 02-10-2019 12:15pm

Geuze wrote: »

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

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

Even worse actually, 6.6bn.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0930/1079198-comptroller-and-auditor-general/

The report also reveals that Ireland's gross national debt increased by €6.6bn in 2018 to €205.3bn.

markodaly · 02-10-2019 12:48pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's not an either or situation.
He'll want the same cut and likely get it.

Exhibit A

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?

Exhibit B

You are constantly contradicting yourself.

Not once have you actually stated HOW one is cheaper than the other.
You admit that the developer (exhibit A) will quote the same price to a LA yet seem to magicly think that its somehow cheaper (exhibit

if a LA hires a developer to build for them.

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.

That is the market my friend.

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.

Of course it does. If all his subcontractors are tied up building commerical real-estate or hotels, and his pipeline for work is steady for a few years, he is not going to drop everything to shoehorn in cheap affordable housing out of the goodness of his heart. If he has capacity, he will submit a quote for the tender.
You seem to think developers work in a vacuum.

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.

We have this..

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.

Then this..

One absolutely has something to do with the other. Building costs are not static. Wages are not static. Land costs are not static. Demand is not static. Margins are not static. Labour is not static.

A LA by law has to put out to public tender all work. A developer is free to quote for a build but this quote will be THE market price.
This is something for whatever reason you either refuse to acknowledege or contemplate.

A kilo of cement will cost the same for a private build or a public build.
A bricklayer will charge the same for a private build or a public build.
Coper wiring and pipes will cost the same for a private build or a public build.

These costs are not cheaper just because a LA is involved.
The developer will take a profit and build in a margin for managing and delivering/developing the project and hand it over to the LA.
This margin would be about the 10% mark. This will be included in any quote given to the LA.

So again, how in gods name can one be cheaper than the other.
The only way it can be, is that the LA already owns the land.If a LA has to buy land to build on, then the price of a house is more or less the same as the open market.

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.

Making up stuff now.

No young family will want a two up/two down house.
The energy efficiency requirements for housing is no my thing, its an EU regulation that requires ALL new developments to be compliant to energy standards. This in turn makes houses much more complicated and expensive to build then the yesteryear two up/two down house.

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

Both are the same thing my friend.

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.

I thought you would get it by now, but the LA's in many cases are not selling off public land in a sense. They are doing deals with developers to build them affordable houses.
The LA hands over a parcel of land to the developer, in return the developer makes x number of affordable/social houses for the LA. The developer also uses a portion of this land to sell off houses privately.

markodaly · 02-10-2019 12:49pm

Cina wrote: »

Even worse actually, 6.6bn.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0930/1079198-comptroller-and-auditor-general/

Very worrying.
In a time of strong economic growth that we are still borrowing so much.

But I guess we need to give all these people their 'forever homes'.

markodaly · 02-10-2019 12:57pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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.

Comedy gold.
Tenders have no profit margin built into them. :P

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

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

There are about another half dozen other posters equally as confused as I, over your total lack of economic know-how on this topic.

In other words, its not us, its you.

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.

Tender = Buying. You are buying a developer to build you a bunch of houses.

Buying is more expensive. This is a practical fact.

I have completely made a fool of you a number of times in relation to this point. There are a whole bunch of houses around the country that are below the cost of what they cost to build. So, its not a fact, its not even a good opinion. In fact its undiluted bull$hit.

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.

Ah, so he does make a profit for his tendered work. I cant keep up with the number of times you do a u-turn.

You do know that house prices are now falling? How does that fact work into your gnome economic theory?

Cina · 02-10-2019 12:59pm

markodaly wrote: »

Very worrying.
In a time of strong economic growth that we are still borrowing so much.

But I guess we need to give all these people their 'forever homes'.

I don't think it's from borrowing, it's from interest payments, which is even worse because they'll only get bigger and bigger.

James Brown · 02-10-2019 2:24pm

markodaly wrote: »

Comedy gold.
Tenders have no profit margin built into them. :P

That's true. There is absolutely no profit over and above the fee. Do you get paid your salary and consider it profit? I don't think you understand commerce.

markodaly wrote: »

There are about another half dozen other posters equally as confused as I, over your total lack of economic know-how on this topic.

In other words, its not us, its you.

I assure you it's you.

markodaly wrote: »

Tender = Buying. You are buying a developer to build you a bunch of houses.

I have completely made a fool of you a number of times in relation to this point. There are a whole bunch of houses around the country that are below the cost of what they cost to build. So, its not a fact, its not even a good opinion. In fact its undiluted bull$hit.

Do you think buying houses to use as social housing is cheaper than building houses to use as social housing, (second time asking)?

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, so he does make a profit for his tendered work. I cant keep up with the number of times you do a u-turn.

I think you mean the amount of times you contradict your own misunderstandings in one post.
I literally say the opposite in the line you quote. He makes money as he is paid for a job of work. Your whole badgering has come down to the definition of 'profit', well done.
Likely you'll raise the no profit in a tender thing at a later time.

markodaly wrote: »

You do know that house prices are now falling? How does that fact work into your gnome economic theory?

Makes absolutely no difference to the principle. If you understood you'd know that.

You put out a tender. The developer puts in a quote based on wages, costs etc. If accepted, he builds, gets paid goes home. Happens every day of the week Marko. Have a nice day.

markodaly · 02-10-2019 4:03pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's true.

So all tenders have no profit or margin for the developers

I don't think you understand commerce.

Pffttt..

You are making a complete fool of yourself here.

There is absolutely no profit over and above the fee. Do you get paid your salary and consider it profit?

Equating a daily or weekly wage to a business contract or tender.

To repeat, again, the tender will have a margin built into it. You admitted this yourself, yet denied it just as often for some odd vexatious reason.

Do you think buying houses to use as social housing is cheaper than building houses to use as social housing, (second time asking)?

It depends.

In many parts of rural Ireland certainly cheaper to buy. In urban areas, the costs would be the same, unless you are talking prime locations like D4 or D6 where the LA would have to go out and buy very very expensive land.

In essence getting developers to build you houses will not really save you money, even if the LA just bought properties outright after they are built or off the plans.
The only game-changer really is who owned the land in the first place.

I think you mean the amount of times you contradict your own misunderstandings in one post.
I literally say the opposite in the line you quote. He makes money as he is paid for a job of work. Your whole badgering has come down to the definition of 'profit', well done.
Likely you'll raise the no profit in a tender thing at a later time.

I don't want to be mean, but your ability to convey a simple message or point by the written word is poor, to say the least. I am not the only one utterly confused by your logic and rationale here. You have been given lots of time to clear up any misunderstandings yet you write contradictory points within the same paragraph that have readers utterly bemused and confused.

Anyway, you do admit that a developer will make a profit in a tendered build for a LA. So where are the savings?
The word profit is not a complex word to misunderstand, so it really goes back to your own limited knowledge of business and the English language.

Just because you get a quote to get the house painted, does not mean the painters are just paying themselves a simple hourly wage and supplying the paint, they will have a margin in there for themselves. Maybe the head painter hires a few guys to do the work for him, while he sorts out the supplies, supervises the job, does paperwork and admin side of things. He will take a profit for himself. He may not lift a brush, but he will certainly make money from the job.

Developers would be the same, only on a much bigger scale. These guys will quote and will not being thinking profit in terms of salary or hourly wage for themselves, they will be thinking that they can make €X profit from this project or that project and tender accordingly.

Tender is too high? Risk losing out to someone else who is cheaper.
Tender too low? Risk-taking on a job that will lose them money.
They will want to be competitive but not shoot themselves in the foot either.

Sometimes, if a project gets delayed or something unforeseen happens, they may only break even or generate a loss. They just have to ride it out and do a better job getting it right the next time out. Its a highly risky business to be, as we saw 10 years ago. There was barely a developer left in Ireland that didn't go bankrupt. Some of them committed suicide.

Makes absolutely no difference to the principle. If you understood you'd know that.

Makes no difference? Then why can you buy a 3 bed semi-d house in places like Co. Clare or Roscommon for way under €100,000 when the bare-bones cost of these are at least €120,000 if not more. Did you hear of the crash that happened 10 years ago?

You are thinking that the property market is like a game of Ludo, while in reality its more like chess. Lots and lots of moving parts with many different variables influencing the price of a property.

You put out a tender. The developer puts in a quote based on wages, costs etc. If accepted, he builds, gets paid goes home. Happens every day of the week

Yes, and the developer will also build in a profit to his quote, otherwise they are working for free.

So after all of this, where is this magical savings to be had vs buying on the market. (you know that its all the one market essentially)
It is a very very simple question.

James Brown · 02-10-2019 4:51pm

markodaly wrote: »

So all tenders have no profit or margin for the developers

Depends on what language you are using today Marko. You read the numerous times I said he puts in wages/fees? Well to clarify, he puts in wages/fees. This would be what he gets out of it.

markodaly wrote: »

Pffttt..

You are making a complete fool of yourself here.

You realise we are covering the same ground and decent lad I am I'm rephrasing the same things to try help you out. Now you've started with the pedantry.

markodaly wrote: »

Equating a daily or weekly wage to a business contract or tender.

No Marko. Showing the difference between profit made on a sale to earning a fee/wage.

markodaly wrote: »

To repeat, again, the tender will have a margin built into it. You admitted this yourself, yet denied it just as often for some odd vexatious reason.

Yes.
I assure you I did not. I think you half read these things TBH.

markodaly wrote: »

It depends.

In many parts of rural Ireland certainly cheaper to buy. In urban areas, the costs would be the same, unless you are talking prime locations like D4 or D6 where the LA would have to go out and buy very very expensive land.

In essence getting developers to build you houses will not really save you money, even if the LA just bought properties outright after they are built or off the plans.
The only game-changer really is who owned the land in the first place.

At fear of confusing you further, if a company can hire a developer to build houses and make a profit, so too can the LA/state.

markodaly wrote: »

I don't want to be mean, but your ability to convey a simple message or point by the written word is poor, to say the least. I am not the only one utterly confused by your logic and rationale here. You have been given lots of time to clear up any misunderstandings yet you write contradictory points within the same paragraph that have readers utterly bemused and confused.

Marko, you keep changing the goal posts. I'm doing gymnastics here trying to rephrase the same simple thing.
The LA/state pays developers to build things every day of the week.
The fact that you can't separate the concepts of being paid to build and building to sell, is your problem.

markodaly wrote: »

Anyway, you do admit that a developer will make a profit in a tendered build for a LA. So where are the savings?
The word profit is not a complex word to misunderstand, so it really goes back to your own limited knowledge of business and the English language.

As a courtesy I'll cover this again.
When you pay to build you pay the salaries of those who build. That's the cost to you for the build. Deal done. You have a house.
You can sell that house for as much as you can get, to make a profit.
OR
You can sell it at a smaller profit as affordable housing.

If you buy off the market you could be paying any price above cost depending on the going rate, (now, cost is everyone involved in the build getting paid).

Companies hire developers to build houses every day Marko. It's most certainly always cheaper when you get to development size over one off.

markodaly wrote: »

Just because you get a quote to get the house painted, does not mean the painters are just paying themselves a simple hourly wage and supplying the paint, they will have a margin in there for themselves.

Yes. They would. You can call that profit if you wish. I'm super fine and dandy with that.

markodaly wrote: »

Developers would be the same, only on a much bigger scale. These guys will quote and will not being thinking profit in terms of salary or hourly wage for themselves, they will be thinking that they can make €X profit from this project or that project and tender accordingly.
Tender is too high? Risk losing out to someone else who is cheaper.
Tender too low? Risk-taking on a job that will lose them money.
They will want to be competitive but not shoot themselves in the foot either.
Sometimes, if a project gets delayed or something unforeseen happens, they may only break even or generate a loss. They just have to ride it out and do a better job getting it right the next time out. Its a highly risky business to be, as we saw 10 years ago. There was barely a developer left in Ireland that didn't go bankrupt. Some of them committed suicide.

Yes.

markodaly wrote: »

Makes no difference? Then why can you buy a 3 bed semi-d house in places like Co. Clare or Roscommon for way under €100,000 when the bare-bones cost of these are at least €120,000 if not more. Did you hear of the crash that happened 10 years ago?

You are not going to pay for someone to build if they are charging more than market buy pricing.
I see here you acknowledge that building and buying have different price tags. Work on that.

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, and the developer will also build in a profit to his quote, otherwise they are working for free.

10/10

markodaly wrote: »

So after all of this, where is this magical savings to be had vs buying on the market. (you know that its all the one market essentially)
It is a very very simple question.

The fact that you think a profit from building over buying is 'magical' is worrisome.
When you build you are not paying based on the property sale markets whims. You are paying for a job of work, a build. If you pay me 350,000 to build you a house. You end up with a house for 350,000.

If you try buy a similar house on the market it could go for as much as 450,000/500,000.

Figure it out now.

In fact, I posted an article a few days back were a developer was buying public land and he was set to make a fortune. Be nice if the LA built and saved us on renting or buying off this gent.

blanch152 · 03-10-2019 12:53am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Depends on what language you are using today Marko. You read the numerous times I said he puts in wages/fees? Well to clarify, he puts in wages/fees. This would be what he gets out of it.

You realise we are covering the same ground and decent lad I am I'm rephrasing the same things to try help you out. Now you've started with the pedantry.

No Marko. Showing the difference between profit made on a sale to earning a fee/wage.

Yes.
I assure you I did not. I think you half read these things TBH.

At fear of confusing you further, if a company can hire a developer to build houses and make a profit, so too can the LA/state.

Marko, you keep changing the goal posts. I'm doing gymnastics here trying to rephrase the same simple thing.
The LA/state pays developers to build things every day of the week.
The fact that you can't separate the concepts of being paid to build and building to sell, is your problem.

As a courtesy I'll cover this again.
When you pay to build you pay the salaries of those who build. That's the cost to you for the build. Deal done. You have a house.
You can sell that house for as much as you can get, to make a profit.
OR
You can sell it at a smaller profit as affordable housing.

If you buy off the market you could be paying any price above cost depending on the going rate, (now, cost is everyone involved in the build getting paid).

Companies hire developers to build houses every day Marko. It's most certainly always cheaper when you get to development size over one off.

Yes. They would. You can call that profit if you wish. I'm super fine and dandy with that.

Yes.

You are not going to pay for someone to build if they are charging more than market buy pricing.
I see here you acknowledge that building and buying have different price tags. Work on that.

10/10

The fact that you think a profit from building over buying is 'magical' is worrisome.
When you build you are not paying based on the property sale markets whims. You are paying for a job of work, a build. If you pay me 350,000 to build you a house. You end up with a house for 350,000.

If you try buy a similar house on the market it could go for as much as 450,000/500,000.

Figure it out now.

In fact, I posted an article a few days back were a developer was buying public land and he was set to make a fortune. Be nice if the LA built and saved us on renting or buying off this gent.

I have to say I agree with Mark here, you don’t appear to have a clue about how economics and markets work, it is quite astonishing.

There are plenty of others on here who understand how markets work, but fundamentally disagree with the capitalist principles and promote a form of communism. Mad though their ideas are, they at least understand the market. You don’t.

James Brown · 03-10-2019 1:56pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I have to say I agree with Mark here, you don’t appear to have a clue about how economics and markets work, it is quite astonishing.

There are plenty of others on here who understand how markets work, but fundamentally disagree with the capitalist principles and promote a form of communism. Mad though their ideas are, they at least understand the market. You don’t.

I'm explaining a process that happens on a daily basis.
Companies hire developers to build housing every day.
The LA/state can do same, has done same for generations.

Both yourself and Marko seem to be going to great pains to make something so common place that happens daily seem like 'magic sauce' as Marko put it.
From SF led council, to developers not wanting to work for free, to a complete lack of knowledge of common business practice.
If you can think of another way to ask any question you feel I haven't answered adequately, I will endeavour to respond once again.

The LAs/state can build social housing using a developer/contractor. The DCC are in the process of selling public land so another party can build housing.

Maybe one of you bright sparks can tell me how buying houses off the market to use as social housing is cheaper than building social housing?

markodaly · 03-10-2019 2:56pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Depends on what language you are using today Marko. You read the numerous times I said he puts in wages/fees? Well to clarify, he puts in wages/fees. This would be what he gets out of it.

The English language Matt, something which appears you have difficulty with.

No Marko. Showing the difference between profit made on a sale to earning a fee/wage.

And the difference is, what exactly?

I assure you I did not. I think you half read these things TBH.

You didnt admit that a tender has a margin built into it?

This is your quote.

There is no profit being made above the money worked into the tender for the build

You Sir are lying.

At fear of confusing you further, if a company can hire a developer to build houses and make a profit, so too can the LA/state.

Not what you originally said but anyway, again it depends. You think this is some this 'fact' is self-evident when it's not.

The fact that you can't separate the concepts of being paid to build and building to sell, is your problem.

Thats lovely, but you cannot explain how this will leave us to a place where we can build lots of low-cost affordable housing. Why? Because getting a LA to pay a developer to build for them, is essentially the same thing costs wise as 'building to sell' as you crudely put it.

[As a courtesy I'll cover this again.
When you pay to build you pay the salaries of those who build. That's the cost to you for the build. Deal done. You have a house.

Yeap, the open market price.

You can sell that house for as much as you can get, to make a profit.

You watch too much TV about flipping houses. If you buy a house week one and try and sell it the next week, without any substantial refurbishment, you will not make any money.
Getting a build done and selling it once complete will not generate the huge profits you think it will. Property prices are falling, so in today's market, that will generate a loss off the bat.

You can sell it at a smaller profit as affordable housing.

You mean sell it at a loss (a great return for the tax payer :pac:)

If you buy off the market you could be paying any price above cost depending on the going rate, (now, cost is everyone involved in the build getting paid).

You can also save money in a falling market, like today.

Companies hire developers to build houses every day Marko. It's most certainly always cheaper when you get to development size over one off.

Economies of scale sure, but what is your point here. You are beginning to ramble.

Yes. They would. You can call that profit if you wish. I'm super fine and dandy with that.

Oh, so an hourly wage is now a profit. Your subjective use of the English language is impressive. :rolleyes:

You are not going to pay for someone to build if they are charging more than market buy pricing.
I see here you acknowledge that building and buying have different price tags. Work on that.

My friend, you again are lying again. The constant untruths you write is quite disturbing.
I demonstrated that buying rather than building can sometimes be cheaper. You deny this, yet again I have destroyed you on this point.

The fact that you think a profit from building over buying is 'magical' is worrisome.
When you build you are not paying based on the property sale markets whims. You are paying for a job of work, a build. If you pay me 350,000 to build you a house. You end up with a house for 350,000.

If you try buy a similar house on the market it could go for as much as 450,000/500,000.

When has the market moved by 35% in one year? This did not even happen in peak Celtic Tiger boom times.

Getting a developer to build you a bunch of houses will not offer you a savings, especially in todays market.

Figure it out now.

In fact, I posted an article a few days back were a developer was buying public land and he was set to make a fortune. Be nice if the LA built and saved us on renting or buying off this gent.

The article did not give us a breakdown of how much profit the developer made. Will you be so kind as to give us the details here? Or are you confusing revenue and Capex with profit?

James Brown · 03-10-2019 4:05pm

markodaly wrote: »

The English language Matt, something which appears you have difficulty with.

I'm nice enough to try answer your repetitive questioning. Thanks.

markodaly wrote: »

And the difference is, what exactly?

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.

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.

markodaly wrote: »

You didnt admit that a tender has a margin built into it?

See above.

markodaly wrote: »

This is your quote.

You Sir are lying.

You are being pedantic. Your unwillingness to understand does not make me a liar. My quoted comment shows you can't or won't understand.
You are contradicting your early comments.

There is no profit being made above the money worked into the tender for the build

This means the money he gets is the fee he works into the tender. If you want to call that profit, as I said earlier, fine by me. That does not make me a liar.

markodaly wrote: »

Not what you originally said but anyway, again it depends. You think this is some this 'fact' is self-evident when it's not.

Just to inform you, companies hire developers to build housing all the time. That's a fact. You being unaware of it doesn't make it less true.

markodaly wrote: »

Thats lovely, but you cannot explain how this will leave us to a place where we can build lots of low-cost affordable housing. Why? Because getting a LA to pay a developer to build for them, is essentially the same thing costs wise as 'building to sell' as you crudely put it.

No it is not.

When you pay to build you pay the salaries of those who build. That's the cost to you for the build. Deal done. You have a house.
You can sell that house for as much as you can get, to make a profit.
OR
You can sell it at a smaller profit as affordable housing.

If you buy off the market you could be paying any price above cost depending on the going rate, (now, cost is everyone involved in the build getting paid).

markodaly wrote: »

, the open market price.
You watch too much TV about flipping houses. If you buy a house week one and try and sell it the next week, without any substantial refurbishment, you will not make any money.
Getting a build done and selling it once complete will not generate the huge profits you think it will. Property prices are falling, so in today's market, that will generate a loss off the bat.

Leave the goal posts were they are thank you. How much profit depends on the market at the time, yes.

markodaly wrote: »

You mean sell it at a loss (a great return for the tax payer :pac:)

No, this is your problem Marko. You don't understand what selling at profit is. You can sell at a smaller profit and still make a profit.

markodaly wrote: »

You can sell it at a smaller profit as affordable housing.You can also save money in a falling market, like today.

It's also cheaper to build in bulk but I'm afraid you'll have a stroke if we get into that.

markodaly wrote: »

Economies of scale sure, but what is your point here. You are beginning to ramble.

Housing estate aren't built one house per tender. You are looking to side track.

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, so an hourly wage is now a profit. Your subjective use of the English language is impressive. :rolleyes:

You don't know what profit means. You decided the fee/wage built in was profit. I'm okay with that as I've said twice. You are tripping up on your own pedantry.

markodaly wrote: »

My friend, you again are lying again. The constant untruths you write is quite disturbing.
I demonstrated that buying rather than building can sometimes be cheaper. You deny this, yet again I have destroyed you on this point.

The fact that you might get a one off house in the sticks for cheaper than a one off build doesn't change anything. I acknowledged you previous comment. You are again calling me a liar.

markodaly wrote: »

When has the market moved by 35% in one year? This did not even happen in peak Celtic Tiger boom times.

Getting a developer to build you a bunch of houses will not offer you a savings, especially in todays market.

Figure it out now.

I guess vulture funds and the like just like losing money on builds. The chap featured in the article is set to make millions building. You've either no clue or you're just taking the piss.

markodaly wrote: »

The article did not give us a breakdown of how much profit the developer made. Will you be so kind as to give us the details here? Or are you confusing revenue and Capex with profit?

More proof you're not paying attention or unable to. It's literally the headline.

€67m profit

I think there's been enough embarrassment on this.
I support building to use as social and affordable, over buying to use as same. That is all. Good day.

tobsey · 03-10-2019 5:37pm

For your scenario to work Matt, as in for the council to hire a developer to build instead of buying houses on the market, and for it to be cheaper for the council, is for the council to pay for it to be built on council owned land. Yes in that case they would pay less money for the house, but they would be using land they own and have to incorporate the value of that into the cost of the new houses. If they added the value of the site to the amount paid to the developer it would be at least as much as an equivalent house on the open market.

Yes it would cost less in terms of cash, but they would have lost the site.

blanch152 · 03-10-2019 6:24pm

tobsey wrote: »

For your scenario to work Matt, as in for the council to hire a developer to build instead of buying houses on the market, and for it to be cheaper for the council, is for the council to pay for it to be built on council owned land. Yes in that case they would pay less money for the house, but they would be using land they own and have to incorporate the value of that into the cost of the new houses. If they added the value of the site to the amount paid to the developer it would be at least as much as an equivalent house on the open market.

Yes it would cost less in terms of cash, but they would have lost the site.

Exactly. There is no way that a council can produce houses cheaper than a developer unless it uses its own land (in which case they lose the land) or they directly hire people to build it at rates cheaper than a developer would pay (so why would people work for them).

It just does not add up.

James Brown · 03-10-2019 6:30pm

tobsey wrote: »

For your scenario to work Matt, as in for the council to hire a developer to build instead of buying houses on the market, and for it to be cheaper for the council, is for the council to pay for it to be built on council owned land. Yes in that case they would pay less money for the house, but they would be using land they own and have to incorporate the value of that into the cost of the new houses. If they added the value of the site to the amount paid to the developer it would be at least as much as an equivalent house on the open market.

Yes it would cost less in terms of cash, but they would have lost the site.

Yes. This has been covered. It's not an either/or scenario. It's work being offered. There is no 'instead'.
You tender out and people put in a bid or they don't.

No it most certainly would not. Anyone selling is trying to get as much as the can. The point of affordable is selling at a rate that's cheaper than the going market rate. This can be done by taking a smaller profit. It's been done. We've had affordable housing schemes.

Lost the site by building their own homes on their own land? I don't see how.

FYI: 'My scenario' is tried and tested since the 1930's to recent years.

blanch152 wrote: »

Exactly. There is no way that a council can produce houses cheaper than a developer unless it uses its own land (in which case they lose the land) or they directly hire people to build it at rates cheaper than a developer would pay (so why would people work for them).

It just does not add up.

You are correct. Never said they could. Never once suggested the cost was cheaper for either party. Once again making up your own claims and ascribing them to others.

Interesting..

Although the O'Devaney plan was passed by the previous council in January 2017 there have been increasing demands for the deal to be renegotiated or even scrapped altogether in favour or more public housing and cheaper affordable units.

Councillors are due to vote on the plan next Monday and the Dublin Agreement group which consists of Green Party, Fianna Fáil, Labour and Social Democrats, and which holds a majority on the council, are meeting on Friday night.

Fine Gael are in favour of the plan, the Social Democrats are opposed while Fianna Fáil and the Green Party have yet to decide on a final position.

Meanwhile, Sinn Féin wants a renegotiation and most Independents and People Before Profit will vote against.
https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/1003/1080940-odevaney-gardens-development-plan/

tobsey · 03-10-2019 7:32pm

Matt you are confusing a developer with a builder. Also your point about more or less profit shows you’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Please just stop. You’re wrong, enough people have explained it to you at this stage.

James Brown · 03-10-2019 7:36pm

tobsey wrote: »

Matt you are confusing a developer with a builder. Also your point about more or less profit shows you’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Please just stop. You’re wrong, enough people have explained it to you at this stage.

You asked a question and I was good enough to respond.
You don't understand. That's on you. How do you explain it being common practice for decades?

I build a house for 350,000. I put it on the market for 450,000 or sell it as affordable for 400,000. Both are selling at profit. This is very basic.

The affordable housing schemes aimed to help lower-income households to buy their own homes. They offered eligible first-time purchasers the chance to buy newly constructed homes and apartments at prices significantly less than their market value.
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/help_with_buying_a_home/affordable_housing.html

L1011 · 08-10-2019 2:12pm

That rather sounded like Decentralisation 2.0 snuck in there, in the bit about future offices for the public sector...

abcabc123123 · 08-10-2019 3:42pm

9 million allocated for cycling. Fine Gael's approach to transport is stuck in the 1970s.

FreudianSlippers · 09-10-2019 9:03am

markodaly wrote: »

Very worrying.
In a time of strong economic growth that we are still borrowing so much.

But I guess we need to give all these people their 'forever homes'.

If we were a household, I'd agree; we're a country so this is not an issue. We should be borrowing all we can at the moment at our great bond yields currently.

Geuze · 10-10-2019 2:15pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If we were a household, I'd agree; we're a country so this is not an issue. We should be borrowing all we can at the moment at our great bond yields currently.

The public debt is already huge, and you suggest we borrow more?

We owe 200bn approx., plus huge unfunded pension liabilities.

FreudianSlippers · 11-10-2019 9:20am

Geuze wrote: »

The public debt is already huge, and you suggest we borrow more?

We owe 200bn approx., plus huge unfunded pension liabilities.

Yeah, why not? Have a look at Germany, USA, etc. or look into macroeconomics generally.

Geuze · 11-10-2019 9:41am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yeah, why not? Have a look at Germany, USA, etc. or look into macroeconomics generally.

They have lower public debt.

Our public debt is approx 100% of GNI*.

Hotblack Desiato · 11-10-2019 3:19pm

True, but we also have a rapidly growing population and massive infrastructural deficits including water, health, housing and transport.

Geuze · 11-10-2019 9:51pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

True, but we also have a rapidly growing population and massive infrastructural deficits including water, health, housing and transport.

Indeed, which should be financed out of taxes, not more borrowing.

Hotblack Desiato · 12-10-2019 7:40pm

Borrowing to invest in things which will produce a positive return to the economy is entirely justified. Especially now with the cost of borrowing being so low, it's actually irresponsible not to.

We never would have built the Shannon Scheme, never mind electrified the country without borrowing. We wouldn't have any motorways without borrowing. Etc...

Geuze · 14-10-2019 10:18am

I'm all for borrowing, if our existing debt was low.

It's not.

Although our fiscal position has improved, yes, and the interest bill is less than expected, all good.

See here, slides 33-36:

https://www.ntma.ie/uploads/publication-articles/Investor-Presentation-August-2019.pdf

Our GG debt to GG revenue is at 250%, it's about half that in Germany.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 16-10-2019 11:08pm

Geuze wrote: »

Indeed, which should be financed out of taxes, not more borrowing.

Infrastructure and capital expenditure is never financed out of taxation. It would be next to impossible to do that.

Let’s not forget that the main reason for our high debt is the bailout. And were QE in operation that might not have been necessary.

At a time of low (even negative interest rates) borrowing is cheap and the debt to GDP ratio should be higher, Maastricht guidelines are for a different era.

purifol0 · 17-10-2019 12:33am

No the main reason for our 200B debt was the unsustainable and unjustified spending on Public Sector pay & pensions AKA vote buying on a truly disgusting scale. The second is welfare, which I'm sure everyone is aware of where that money goes - plenty of threads on After Hours about that. Bank bailout was 46B, most of which is gone but BOI will return a profit to the exchequer.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 17-10-2019 8:34am

purifol0 wrote: »

No the main reason for our 200B debt was the unsustainable and unjustified spending on Public Sector pay & pensions AKA vote buying on a truly disgusting scale. The second is welfare, which I'm sure everyone is aware of where that money goes - plenty of threads on After Hours about that. Bank bailout was 46B, most of which is gone but BOI will return a profit to the exchequer.

No it wasn’t. This is fairly typical of how right wing ideology trumps reality. The country entered the recession with a small debt to gdp ratio and a low deficit. Therefore we weren’t over spending.

It was the collapse of the banking industry which meant that (retrospectively) we were over paying on welfare and it was both the bank bailouts and the deficit caused by an unsustainable financial model which caused the problem. It was lack of government involvement and control which allowed the financial system to go off the rails. The problem was with financial capitalism.

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments