Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

No not really. You kept hammering on about a punitive tax with no real way to introduce it along with not knowing anything about current tax rules and laws. You did omit details of the survey that specifically shows the public view does not line up with your view. You did cherry pick one part and even suggested it was something that has changed to favour your view.

Disingenuous at best but I would see your comment as trying to lie about the results that don't follow your wishes

No that didn't happen you cherry picked one details and ignored the rest of the results which show people understand landlords and developers are needed not punitive taxes. You were joined with others that were all about punitive taxes and didn't care one bit about who supplies housing

The figures for housing completions in 2024 were under what was expected / claimed (and hugely under whats required) in the low 30,000s. And the figures for 2025 are looking similar.

I would suspect the government is now panicking slightly about those numbers, and looking for any way to boost the numbers of houses becoming available to the market.

Encouraging a chunk of Ireland's 160,000 vacant homes back into the market, via a vacant property tax that doesn't negatively impact 95%+ of voters, is an easy - and it turns out very popular - way of doing that.

Just as a point. I’d be pro removal of RPZs, pro developer subsidies, pro tenant over holding enforcement etc. but also pro vacancy taxes

Wanting vacancy taxes is not anti landlord. It’s anti…not being a landlord…

Investors want to make money (be they small or large). The property investment market has been made toxic hence rational business people (again be the small or large) are steering clear of it.

Hoarding land/vacant property does not make business sense hoping just for capital appreciation. if we go into a recession (which appears likely because of Trump policies) then investors may end up losing on capital appreciation.

Are all the owners of the vacant properties and development land wrong? Or is there another reason they are not utilising their assets? Business logic would suggest develop vacant properties get the rent and capital appreciation but owners/investors are not doing so. Maybe if they were asked why they are not then that would go someway to addressing the issue?

You are missing the fact the government own the majority of the vacant property and planning delays and causes many vacant properties. The government would effectively cause many councils to owe tax and make them less likely to afford to fix them up if the tax was so punitive. It just wouldn't work

If you could please link to where I missed that fact, that would be great so I can correct my mistake.

No, I do not fundamentally believe in offering incentives to people who have been engaged in behaviour that I consider to be detrimental to society.

That is a moral position but also a pragmatic one. The problem with incentives is they are rarely time bound so they do not discourage behaviour. If anything, they might encourage more of the behavior to get the subsidy or hope it gets increased. The carrot is not time bound so no urgency is created.

Someone willing to leave a property vacant is by definition willing to leave a very large carrot (some of the highest rental yields in the world) to rot away. Why place another carrot in front of them that they can ignore or eat at their leisure.

Annual, recurring costs are absolutely more likely to drive behavioural changes in the short term and are also more palatable for those not engaged in the detrimental behaviour.

Read my post about 10 back. I am pro removal RPZ. Pro tenant eviction enforcement.

We were talking about vacancy. Not landlords. I assumed you’d read those posts so we’re talking about carrots specifically for vacant homeowners. Eg. Vacant home grant .

I don’t follow the thread that closely but pretty sure every single person I’ve ever seen arguing for vacancy taxes takes that same position.

Then the new schemes should not have to reduce their car parking availabilty.

Hopefully ABP overturn the decision anyway, but the point is that if we are discouraging car use at govt level, then local councils blocking a development because it doesnt have enough car spaces shouldnt be allowed.

Will Dublin City apartment prices drop if there are more layoffs like those at TikTok this week?

The population is also on the rise so no surprise the # of cars is going up nationwide. But in cities where decent PT is available we should not always be providing for car use. Car parking spaces take up massive amounts of space and ultimately just add to the cost of new builds.

The VHT is ineffective, as the definition of vacant is so generous.

If it's occupied for 31 / 365 days, it's not vacant.