fliball123 wrote: » I wonder if the powers that be could allow owners of commercial spaces the option to redesign and use it as residential it might be a way to help the housing crisis, obviously some spaces wont be suitable but some would
Cuddlesworth wrote: » Or you could just tax them based on the value of the property, regardless of use, to make land banking a risky venture and remove the profit from it. Value which is created primarily by the tax payer, not the owner. Taxation would cause property prices to stall, as there would be a correction between the value of a properly and the ongoing cost.
eagle eye wrote: » Shut down golf courses, forced cheap sale of lands? If you want that sort of stuff I'm sure there's some fascist dictatorship running some country you can move to.
pearcider wrote: » Your pointless comments on this thread say a lot more about you than me. Of course the property bulls will always try and shut down debate especially when all the evidence is stacked against them.
Padre_Pio wrote: » I don't think the market has had a chance to crash. Judging by my own anecdotal evidence, there's about 70% drop in property listings. Buyers and sellers are keeping their powder dry for the time being. That said, I spoke to my solicitor who told me her twenty or so clients were proceeding with purchase, but they have a longer term outlook and were much further in the process than me. Since I enlisted her services 6 weeks ago, no one else has called her regarding purchases.
Tallback wrote: » We went sale agreed on a property in Jan with a target May close (for vendor reasons). Our current thinking is to proceed as although there is likely to be property price drops, my sense is that these will take some time to manifest, and possibly greater than a year for suitable/attractive homes. In the first instance sellers will either maintain their existing pricing or just withdraw from the market - leading imho to a bit of a standoff for a while.
fliball123 wrote: » A lot of properties are being stiffened off and this will continue for the foreseeable future the majority of properties that will come on stream in the next year will be BtL where the owner is right in the crapper.
GreeBo wrote: Singapore is your comparison? Do you know what most people live in in Singapore? It's not a house anyway.
GreeBo wrote: Also the question was where would we build all theses houses in Dublin? High density belongs in city centres, not in suburbs, or bloody golf courses.
Tallback wrote: » Yeah - that's our sense of it, it took us a while to find a house that we were happy with even in the "normal" market. So - we might get a cheaper house but I think it would be in the medium term i.e. 1-3 years. On top of which there's always the risks around getting and maintaining mortgage approval - which reduces flexibility. I'm fairly sure that asking for any meaningful reduction in price will just collapse the sale. So, we'll prob proceed with our eyes open as much as possible.
fliball123 wrote: » Well if its a house that your happy to see negative equity in it for a few years and one which you will live out your days in then good luck with it but I would be trying to delay it as long as possible as if property does take a huge nose dive you might save yourself a fortune
Tallback wrote: Do you anticipate a "nose dive" within 1-3 months?
Tallback wrote: » How long to delay realistically though on this sale (which is in a chain)? Do you anticipate a "nose dive" within 1-3 months? I appreciate the point about potentially saving a fortune - but to achieve that it might be necessary to delay life for a couple of years at a minimum. Looking at the CSO pricing data, it took 15 months + for prices to drop 25% during the last crash and almost 5 years from peak to trough.
Hubertj wrote: » bull and bear bol*ox.... that says plenty about you. You seem to call anyone who disagrees with you a bull while you spout a load of "opinions" as "facts". Property prices will obviously fall, nobody is arguing that. Your just some lad posting on boards to make themselves feel big. If that helps you then enjoy
pearcider wrote: » I will continue posting my opinions on the property market. That is the point of the the thread after all. Your opinion of me means nothing to me.
eagle eye wrote: » I project early to mid-July, that's when all second quarter report numbers and projections based off of them become available.
pearcider wrote: » Your personal attacks on me are just childish as well as totally off topic and pointless. I will continue to post my opinions on the property market on this thread and your silly posts do not deter me in the slightest.
Hubertj wrote: » so they are opinions now and not facts. Thank you for clarifying. I also agree that my opinion of you should not matter to you or anyone else. That is very important on the internet.
pearcider wrote: » The facts I am referring to are for example the central banks actions of blowing up this insane asset bubble. Or the rising number of properties to rent. Lower prices and rents will be a good thing in the long run as the growth of the rentier class has been disastrous for both the real economy and social cohesion in the western world.
fliball123 wrote: The point is someone owns that land someone at some time had to pay for it. Why should they give it up for the greater good and you or I not give up anything that we have spare? why just a levy for vacant land why not a levy for when your not living in your gaff.. A levy when you go on holidays? Why not a levy on your car when your not using it. Is it a case of you don't have a vacant site so we should tax that?? Everyone everywhere wants the other person to pay and this is a simple case of it
fliball123 wrote: Why remove the profit from this. Why are you looking to punitively punish people who have an asset one which someone somewhere has paid good cash for at some stage. So hows about before we do what you ask you hand over all your wage as a tax on your profits and you can live off the same money people get on the dole. Why bother trying to better yourself and try to get ahead when people like you are looking to jump on your back and trying to slow you down or stop you altogether??
Villa05 wrote: » Offering a farmer market value + 25% for their land is hardly a punitive measure
ittakestwo wrote: » Its shocking how Elm golf club in D4, miltown golf club in D6 and clontarf are still being used in this wasteful way. All of these golf clubs are cycling/walking distance from town and also have the dart/luas lines running contiguous with thier perimeters. Go there on weekday and you might see a few old farts waddling around them yet they could be used for thousands of dwellings. The need to be moved out the N11/M1 into places like Wicklow and Meath There also not public spaces. If you go onto them you are trespassing if your not a member so nobody can start "we need green space" argument with private gold clubs. Dun Laoghaire council very successfully turned Dun Laoghaire golf club into high density housing so why aren't others.
Villa05 wrote: » The concept is quiet simple, a vacant site levy is there to discourage development land hoarding which is a problem. It is inefficient use of land Taxing inefficiency is much more beneficial to the economy than taxing work. Your argument amounts to throwing the toys out of the pram to get your way Again with regard to agricultural land as we have said before there is plenty of agricultural land in the country. Using land for agriculture where there is a dire need for housing/commercial property is inefficient use of an asset. Agri land values are highly inflated as result of subsidies from the EU. Offering a farmer market value + 25% for their land is hardly a punitive measure
Dwarf.Shortage wrote: But if losing that 4 acres splits their land in two or in some other way compromises and makes much more difficult the running of their farm they need to be compensated for that too.
fliball123 wrote: Ok so does that mean that when your in work and your inefficient like making a personal phone call or playing Tetris or logging onto boards and coming up with ridiculous taxes can the government tax you 100% for this or for any other inefficiencies going on in your life.
fliball123 wrote: Hows about we go through each employee and tax them as per their inefficiencies instead of what they earn? Thats in effect what your doing here with land/property.
fliball123 wrote: My argument is your forgetting that someone somewhere had to pay for the land and the cash used to pay would of been subject to them working, hense the money paid to buy the land is after tax money so that's one lot of tax paid, they would of had to stamp duty and VAT on certain land sites. If the person wants to sell they will also have to pay capital gains on any profit made on it. In my opinion the person who owns the land has already contributed regardless of their being an inefficiency there or not. Like I say lets start with your wage and tax you on your inefficiency and see how we go as if the criteria is inefficiency surrender yourself up first for the greater good
