Idbatterim wrote: » its very interesting, because there is allegedly no money for anything really, up to a few weeks ago and now they can pull twenty two billion euro plus out of their ass? quite interesting...
blanch152 wrote: » I can see you and a few others becoming voices in the wilderness on this as you repeat your discredited ideas. We have learned the hard way that three months of Sinn Fein policies on free healthcare, freezing rents and big increases in social welfare punch a huge hole in the States finances that is not sustainable - could be as much as 40bn for the year.
Bowie wrote: » If FG are involved in the next government after the crisis begins to subside, how will they be able to bring hospital staff, amenities and funding back to the crisis level it was before the Covid19 crisis? As with housing, it seems their answer is to give use of private clinics and hospitals to the public to make up any shortfalls, all funded through the tax payer. This will speed up the inevitable collapse of the country. I guess the strategy will be bleed as much public money out for private friends as possible and when the arse falls out state it was Lehmans Covid19 what did it. I can't see joe public buying it considering the players. Fiscally conservative how are you... I agree with the current moves to keep people from travelling unless needed, thankfully FG no longer have their Tans policing the countryside but at least they got in one of their own to head the police force.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I'd say Gerry is in his holiday home already laughing at how his party is occupying space in FG and FF heads. :D
smurgen wrote: » Weeks into lock down?
Edgware wrote: » Hopefully Gerry Adams wont be stopped on his way to his holiday home in Donegal and/or Louth. It might damage the Peace Process
blanch152 wrote: » Default reflex always comes out in a time of crisis. So much for their concern for the Irish trying to get back home.
Ballso wrote: » SF lads edging closer to Gemma O'Doherty style conspiracy theories every day it would seem. Desperate to stay relevant.
smurgen wrote: » More so than people in the country?there's logic
Mortelaro wrote: » Maybe the implication that people entering the country don't self isolate ?
smurgen wrote: » What part is untrue?
smurgen wrote: » Love the way FG and their journalists/ spin units are now shaming people regarding staying inside for the weekend making a big noise about holiday homes and having Garda issue fines etc while flights and Ferry's still arrive from the U.K,one of Europe's hotspots for Covid.
mattser wrote: » Where are people being shamed to stay inside ? I agree about the UK scenario.
markodaly wrote: » In summary, the AIB report is decent enough but remember they are a bank and have a certain vested interest in some of their recommendations being carried out. Not everyone either should be a property owner. Its good that most people can be and are I suppose but there will always be a 20-30% of people who for various reasons will not or ever be home owners.The two biggest issues to my mind are land costs and density. Put simply we build too many of the wrong homes in the wrong places. Tax breaks could work, for example for FTB who work. But they have to be nuanced and help those who actually can afford a home and need a home.
Yurt! wrote: » Because your posting history doesn't suggest you do precisely that with SF. Right Ted.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » For some people who hate FG and Leo they really dedicate most of their day in here talking about them!! Its weird it really is. Why let something you hate so much consume so much of your time? Like do yous act do anything else all day long except argue about FG and Leo!? I dunno, we are living in a crazy world at the moment so.....
efanton wrote: » I agree, there will not be as much money to invest in capital expenditure as there might have been without the virus epidemic. The issue is though, that thankfully there has not been a mass die off. The problems that were there before the virus will still be there once we return to normality they simply will not disappear with the virus. We will still have a housing crisis and it will still have to be dealt with in some way. Personally I am open to anything thing that will deal with that, I'm not stuck on a 'the only solution is to build 100,000 houses' solution. I do believe we are going to have to find a way to build significant numbers of homes, but personally I would sooner see that as some will be social housing and some will be affordable homes sold at near cost so that those working but unable to qualify for a mortgage currently have a chance at home ownership. This virus crisis has not finished yet, and we will not see the true effect on the private rental market until this epidemic is behind us. I think we will see a lot of landlords simply pulling out of the market because they cannot carry the losses that many landlords will have to endure during this crisis. There has to be other ways to reduce the need for a massive social housing building programme and that was why I suggested that the government could look at reducing taxation on both new homes and rental properties. That in itself will not solve he problem but it might reduce the number of homes that might need to be built. THe AIB produced a pretty good report back in January regarding the housing market but it appear to have fallen on deaf ears.https://aib.ie/content/dam/aib/corporate/docs/real-estate-finance/aib-housing-market-report-jan-2019.pdf
McMurphy wrote: » No doubt taking another swype at charlie and Leo's brain fart.
Ballso wrote: » I think in the midst of all this we can all agree that tan commemoration ****e they tried to pull was ****ing moronic. Absolute tone deaf morons.
markodaly wrote: » Part of the solution perhaps, but the savings would be nowhere near as much as you think, and there is zero guarantees that the savings would be passed onto buyers. With what money. See this is the nubb of your argument. "Make housing cheaper by making it all tax free" Then "Get the government to build more houses" You do realise that the less money the government has, the fewer houses it can afford to build? You do get that principle, right? The biggest cost of housing is land prices. I would suggest we look at that, before going down your road.
efanton wrote: » As I said earlier I read that article a few months ago. Simply cannot find it. Wish I had bookmarked it. in it they broke own every cent that found its way to government. That included income tax from labour cost , capital gains tax , fees, stamp duty etc etc.
Whether money goes to central or local government really isn't an argument. It is money collected by the state.
I'm prepared to accept it might not be the 40%, even though that what I read but I guess without the link I will have to concede that. but its certainly far greater than 25%.
The point I made in the first post was the government could help the housing crisis by reducing the taxes and fees collected by the state making new property cheaper rather than build thousands of social houses.
Would you not agree that reducing taxes and fees on new homes , or removing stamp duty for first time buyers might be part of the solution to the housing crisis. If new homes are cheaper more can afford to buy them or qualify for a mortgage.
Would you prefer the government to be building affordable homes instead?
efanton wrote: » When you add up the final VAT, stamp duty, planning, connection fees , VAT on materials and taxes on Labour costs it comes out pretty much around the 40% mark.
Again showing that the actual cost of building a house if less than than half the actual sale price.
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/why-does-a-new-house-cost-what-it-does-1.4001085
Despite not having that exact link any more or being ble to find it its easy to see that the government get far more out of a newly built house than the developers do when operating on a 15% profit margin.
markodaly wrote: » Source ?
The overall construction cost’ (building of the house from foundation to roof and completing the estate roads and drains etc.) is €150,251 which represents 45% of the overall cost of providing the house.It may come as a surprise to some commentators that the cost to build a house is less than half of the overall cost to provide the house. Non-construction factors, such as the cost of acquisition & development finance, design, sales & marketing, margin (including profit) and taxation elements such as levies and V.A.T. are all important elements influencing the economic and sustainable cost of a new house.
