They can add what they like. It won't be based on profit. There is no profit in that scenario.
Profit is what you make after expenses and paying yourself. There is no profit in working for someone, there is payment.
If you pay someone to build a house to live in. No profit.
If they build a house and put it on the market. Anything they get for sale above costs and paying themselves their fee, is profit.
We avoid that higher pricing by building, not buying.
I cannot be more clear.
Developers do not work for free until if and when they sell something they built. They pay themselves and factor that into costs, be they building for themselves or others.
This is very interesting.
My understanding of profit is when the revenue generated (money paid to a business) from a business activity (sales or service), exceeds the expenses, costs, and taxes involved in sustaining the activity (including salaries and wages), the difference is the profit. So, if you pay someone to build something for you, and their costs (including salaries and wages) are less than what you paid, the difference is profit.
Now, the opposite is true for a business loss, if you pay someone to build something for you, and their costs (including salaries and wages) and more than what you paid them, then they will incur a loss.
This is broadly in line with what you claim profit to be, yet here are some questions that you posted:
"When you upgrade someone's office block where is this profit coming from? When you build a tunnel where is this profit coming from? When you build houses for someone to live in where is that profit coming from?"
and then there was this:
"No they get paid. Payment is not profit. You don't know what profit means.
Where is the profit coming from in any scenario I asked about?
If I pay you to build me a bridge, or lay pipe, where's the profit?
If I pay architects and engineers to build me a holiday home where is the profit? They'll be paid for their work."
Now, I have to agree with you that "payment is not profit", but if we look at your definition of profit, if the payment received is more than the cost incurred, there is a profit. One could also say there is a profit when, to quote you, "revenue generated from a business activity exceeds the expenses, costs, and taxes involved in sustaining the activity in question."
I don't know many businesses that stay in business when they keep making a loss, and I don't know many businesses that stay in business when they only ever break even, but I am sure that there are some out there, just not many.
It does seem to me that your definition of what profit is does not agree with a lot of what you have posted.
Why would tenants stay 25 years in the same social housing? One of the biggest problems with social housing is that we still have single old people living in social housing built for families.
Its thinking of public land and homes as assets that has us where we are, in a decades long housing crisis.
Leasing or renting would make sense tackling an emergency we might expect to pass in the short term.
We committed to paying those leases for 25 years and at the end any tenants are out on the street and will need housing. Its putting it on an expensive long finger.
Meanwhile we could have housing built, we own and can rent as we see fit. Recouping money rather than paying it out. And before any of the usual chime in with council rent arrears, the same tenants will be in the leased properties.
You've lost the room on this one, so you hire an architect firm. Are you saying the quote they will supply is purely based on the wages and materials cost of the architect who work on the design? Or will they charge a margin on top of that?
a) At market rates, the owner is no worse or better off than if they rented to someone else.
b) There are lots of reasons why an authority wouldn't want to tie up capital in an asset, mostly what else they can do with that money within the budget within the year
I don't have any details of what the deal around those apartments were, but just trying to get some facts about why leases are used over buying in a lot of cases.
And that still doesn't answer the question of how SF will convince planning to go ahead with their plans.
And if that was a bad deal, why the authority would be able to build on time and on budget, it is literally an argument for them not to do so.
So you consider your weekly wage packet 'profit'? I've said all along they would get paid, even completion bonuses in some cases. I'm not sure were I lost you.
What Is Profit?
Profit describes the financial benefit realised when revenue generated from a business activity exceeds the expenses, costs, and taxes involved in sustaining the activity in question. Any profits earned funnel back to business owners, who choose to either pocket the cash or reinvest it back into the business.
Costs would include wages.
Can you explain what you believe it means or like blanch are you confusing it with payment?
Can you please post what you think profit means.
If you pay me, a developer to build a bridge, I have certain costs - materials, workers etc. I will work those out and add a margin of X% to those costs and give you a price. The margin of X% is my profit. For you, I will add on 2X% of a margin. You might consider it a bargain.
No they get paid. Payment is not profit. You don't know what profit means.
If I pay architects and engineers to build me a holiday home where is the profit? They'll be paid for their work.
All you are doing here is telling everyone that you don't have the slightest clue what the word "profit" actually means.
I mean - you can't really be stupid enough to think that companies intentionally take on contracts that are only break-even or that are loss-making?
What does your crystal ball tell you? You are using a nonsense to try deny a 25 year lease with no option to buy is a bad idea. I think ten years or so of the same policies making things worse is a sound basis.
So you have nothing other than a straw in the wind, fair enough.
They all show work they carried out for payment. When you upgrade someone's office block where is this profit coming from? When you build a tunnel where is this profit coming from? When you build houses for someone to live in where is that profit coming from? You are confusing profit with payment.
Yes. Based on a decade or data I can confidentially predict it will be worse than today. Unless we change policy in the interim.
I didn't see any link to a developer forsaking profits, maybe you would point me in that direction (though I am sure that some of them do good work for charity).
That depends on the future forecast for social housing demand. Have you got accurate projections for the level of social housing demand in 25 years time?
(1) Conor Foley (@ConorFoley32) / Twitter
another shinnerbot caught out telling lies , and spreading the false narrative party lies ......
It happens all over the world every day. I posted links to companies bragging about works they designed and built for people. I think some of you are so indoctrinated to the current way of doing business you have trouble conceiving anything else.
Leasing for 25 years with no option to buy leaves us back at square one but with less money and less land in 25 years, also in 25 years would we have paid the initial cost we 'saved? Its short term and short sighted. Makes great profit for private concerns though.
Most of what is being built today won't be on land with spurious ownership (in those cases there would often have been a lease in place for a nominal rent of a few euro or there could have been a right of way or right of access as might be the case for an electric substation). The entirety of land ownership is moving digital which will (slowly) resolve a lot of those older cases.
But it would not impact the vast majority of new builds today.
The other reason for leasing would be not tying up capital, you can pay €30,000 per year instead of €1M up front and do something else with that €1M, or it could have been agreed before building commenced that it would be a leasing situation as the developer doesn't want to sell, without knowing the ins and outs it's impossible to say. I'd be more concerned that high value housing was being used for council/social tenants, but the law is that at least a % of every new development includes such housing (we've already seen the case where council tenants were excluded from facilities in an apartment complex, is that the pattern to follow instead? Build a worse luxury house if it's for the council?). If the developer is getting market rent, then they're not making anything above what they would be anyway, who's taking advantage in the case?
I have to Mark people keep making whacky claims.
Who's 'we are all? You in a gang?
I thought we both knew a developer wasn't a one man band and it didn't need spelling out. Earlier I said he wouldn't be sitting watching brickies all day. Any way.
Here's a list of companies that will build followed by some websites from companies that will design and build for you. They do it for other people all the time. In fact their websites have examples of projects were they were paid to carry out designs and builds and they got paid I imagine.
They'll have a price they want paid built in. Thats not profit. You don't know what profit is.
Bruce, you have repeated the same line on here for months and months
"Building is cheaper than buying"
Who is to say that if a LA hires a developer like BAM to build them 2000 houses that BAM will turn around the screw the LA after the tender has been awarded?
"Building is cheaper than buying" is not some universal law of physics you like to believe, in fact, we are all laughing and bemused at your inability to grasp very fundamental rationale here.
You won't fool ol Marko though.
If you are not paying for the site and retaining ownership,you are saving upon site costs??(and deffo not handing it away to private ownership either-which is a form of brainwashing caused by privitisation)
Admitedely double-accounting same as oppurtunity cost when doing profitability of farming and not something im particularly comfortable with,
but theres a whole aspect to finicial world,which always seemed set up to defraud people and something.to steer well clear of (off topic,but crypto just seems a hyper version of it all really)
No they won't. Thats not how business works. Experts and professionals take paying jobs every day.
A developer is not a one man band, like an accountant or a solicitor. They are a team of people who build houses from scratch and comprise of many different specialities. When you hire a developer you are hiring a company or a firm, who you have to pay and the developer will have a profit margin built into it.
The fact that you cannot see that a developer hired by a LA will quote a price back to LA to build x houses won't have a profit margin built into said tender leads me to believe that you are unwilling or unable to see the simple truth of it here.
TLDR: Developers won't work for free regardless of who is footing the bill.
Seriously? Are you suggesting we buy hospitals off daft.ie? We have a government who are either on the take or incompetent. Thats part of the problem we have with the NCH. The finance and previous health minister were not keeping an eye on it and played, I hope for their sake, dumb as regards oversight. Its a ridiculous situation that it seems nobody was keeping an eye. They don't do accountability after all.
OK, so the whole mantra of building is cheaper than buying is now null and void? Brucie wont be happy that you are taking his talking points and tearing them to shreds. :)
TLDR: There is no guarantee that building is cheaper than buying given the way LA's work.
Exactly. The prevailing market rate they sell at sets how much profit, on top of costs the buyer is paying for.
Selling public land for a percentage of housing is something I'm against.
It didn't fail in the past. We went from slums to housing hundreds and thousands all over the country.
On a small scale leasing or renting is a good option for people on lower incomes. Not a country. I would hope neither SF nor any other new government would enter into such stupid deals.
There's no clause. Leasing luxury or regular apartments instead of building is not a good deal. Instead of putting families in state owned housing and charging rent we are putting them 8n privately leased properties. On a short term small scale, maybe. But not long term and so broad. Its bad for the tax payer.
The land deos not necessarly go with the property,we had fairly protracted issues with regards a council pumphouse on an outside farm,built in 1940s,as we owned the site,but not pumphouse (which hadnt been used in like 40 years),and had some anti-social issues and wanted to buy out council and demolish before coming to resolution
The exact ins/outs and wordings of the law,im unsure of,but the council have deeds to that house,while we have it mapped into our land....but seemingly its not uncommon owmership structure for them handpumps you see on side road in particular
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)