1500 Children Homeless - Is there a better model for Property market?

dunsie2013

Over 125 years ago, Davitt Parnell and many more fought for three f's
Fair rent,
Fixed tenure
and free sale.
Not much has changed. Over 1500 hundred children officially classified as homeless, I think we need a serious discussion about rents, and how we buy and sell property. I am not a Socialist, and do believe private landlords are a key part of a good property market.
A fair return for an investor is fine, but a cap on greed needs to be in place.

he questions I have are:
What legislation or constitutional change would be required to amend the untouchable "property rights" of the individual, to balance it against the greater good of all the citizens.


Some ideas:
The supply chain - House prices are high because input prices are high.
- Limit sale value of development land, rezoning should not automatically inflate price of land exponentially. If sold for greater than 3 times agricultural use value, tax that profit accordingly.
- Profits above 50% on a development might be subject to 50% + tax rate (Supernormal profits tax)
- Landlords can not make greater than a 7.5% yield on an investment property in any one year, and 5% over 10 year period. Any profit in excess of this is subject to super normal profits tax.
- Private house sales should be via sealed bids on a fixed date, to an independent entity, and the identity of bidders would be available to other parties.Stop gazumping, and phantom bidders. The PPS number of bidders would also be recorded on central database for Revenue purposes.

We see Blackstone and other cashing out at huge profits. Why can we not tax the capital gains on these sales. If Capital gain exceeds 10% per year owned, then profit above that taxed at 75%.

Butters1979

So basically if someone can't afford something tax the ones who can afford even more. Those who have money and income are already taxed up to 50% of that income. Every time a house is bought 1% of the value goes to the government.

Homeless shelters and government housing needs to be increased. Not draconian socialist measures on a free market economy.

If I own something I sell it for or rent it out for however much I want. If I have money to spend I spend it on what I want. You've already taxed me on the money I earned and the money I spent.

dunsie2013 wrote: »

I am not a Socialist

Actually this is a fairly socialist view point. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, as everyone can have there own economic views, but I just don't agree with it at all.

eeguy

You talk a lot about tax, but chances are only a fraction of the money made on these taxes would find its way to actually benefiting those in need.

Maybe if developers were allowed to build upwards, they'd have more chance to recoup their costs, make profit and still be able to provide affordable accommodation.

handlemaster

OP . What happened a few years ago with the prices collapsing property prices and rents how would you assist those people ?

dunsie2013

I will rephrase my question.
As a country, can we have a better property market without huge peaks and troughs.
I made the suggestions about tax, because any other changes appear always deemed to be infringing on a citizens property rights.
As a Republic, our system should be about the greater good for all Citizens. That is not Socialism.

As for the free market system, Lehmans / Anglo / our very own bank guarantee!

Re the collapse in 2008,
For those who bought property, I do think the State could have done more, such as increased mortgage interest relief for properties bought after 2004.
For those who bought as landlords, those investors can retain those losses (2008-2012) and offset them against their higher profits in future years, therefore their yield would in fact be very low.
That said, anyone who bought from 2003 onwards as a landlord were nuts, as the investment never made sense, as the income could not generate a yield, they bought for Capital gain (foolish at best!)

eeguy

dunsie2013 wrote: »

I am not a Socialist, and do believe private landlords are a key part of a good property market.

- Landlords can not make greater than a 7.5% yield on an investment property in any one year, and 5% over 10 year period. Any profit in excess of this is subject to super normal profits tax.

The simple matter is: There's no enough houses.
The only people who have houses are the govt. and they're not doing anything with them.

There's also a misconception that in these times of no supply that landlords have all the power.
This is not true. Landlords have the same power they always have, which in reality, is not much.

Now the Govt. is determined to give even more power to tenants as seen in recent weeks, further weakening landlord's power to do what they want with their properties.

This will only lead to more conservative landlords, more tenant vetting, higher deposits and worse standards of accommodation as landlords are forced to financially insulate themselves against the real possibility of an unevictable tenant.

High rents aren't just greed. They're a response to the realities of modern renting.

dunsie2013 wrote: »

they bought for Capital gain (foolish at best!)

Easy to say in hindsight, but in a time when every second TV program was about buying and flipping houses, it made sense.

Butters1979

You either want a free market economy or you don't. I do.
People who over borrowed or lost their jobs are a casualty of that. We should have better insulation against these things, better insurance for job loss, better social housing programs and building programs, tax credits for landlords who keep rent low. All these are ideas.

Squeezing those who have (so far) not been unlucky will not achieve anything. The more an inefficient government who focus on votes rather than solutions interfere with a free market for housing the worse it will be.

Mrs OBumble

Butters1979 wrote: »

You either want a free market economy or you don't. I do.
People who over borrowed or lost their jobs are a casualty of that. We should have better insulation against these things, better insurance for job loss, better social housing programs and building programs, tax credits for landlords who keep rent low. All these are ideas.

Ideally 1500 "homeless" children should not face the consequences of their parents bad luck or stupidity. (not the kids fault who they got born to).

Unfortunately the side effect of the state stopping these kids being effected by the consequences would teach the kids that there is no need to take responsibility for themselves.

The long term cost of this this attitude to society is far more damaging than homelessness.

Butters1979

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ideally 1500 "homeless" children should not face the consequences of their parents bad luck or stupidity. (not the kids fault who they got born to).

Unfortunately the side effect of the state stopping these kids being effected by the consequences would teach the kids that there is no need to take responsibility for themselves.

The long term cost of this this attitude to society is far more damaging than homelessness.

Exactly what I am saying. The total tax revenue for this country is €50 billion. We already pay for the solution to this.

If they wanted to get 1500 kids off the street they can go do it. They do not need to pass new tax and market laws, or interfere with a housing market anymore. Just go do it. Write it into the budget. Any homeless kids? Get them into shelter, a flat, a house a hotel, doesn't matter. Here's the budget.

Ideas like the OP annoy me, it's not the landlords fault, it's not a home owners fault and it's not a vendors fault, yet their idea is to rinse these people a bit more instead of holding our government responsible at all.

Sorry but it's a bloody stupid idea. This socialist crap belongs in the politics section anyway.

riffmongous

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ideally 1500 "homeless" children should not face the consequences of their parents bad luck or stupidity. (not the kids fault who they got born to).

Unfortunately the side effect of the state stopping these kids being effected by the consequences would teach the kids that there is no need to take responsibility for themselves.

The long term cost of this this attitude to society is far more damaging than homelessness.

Just wondering what comes next, so do we just turf them onto the streets or put them in laundries? making an example of them might send the strongest message to society

snubbleste

It is a political issue, caller.
This could be solved next week if the will was there.

Paulw

Mode Note: Thread closed. This is a politics issue, not an issue for A&P.