Everyone is suggesting a levy (some have come up with the idea that their magic version of a levy won’t be passed onto the customers)
Maybe offer a rebate of sorts to first time buyers?
Alternative is scrap the levy and put a higher tax on few chips. Also, the levy isn’t the full price of this scheme, other funding is coming from other areas of taxation.
The meat of Lyon’s point:
>. . . Once the site and state costs are included, it is very difficult to build a new home for under €300,000.
>To be able to afford such a home with a 90 per cent mortgage means having a household income of €77,000 per year under the current mortgage rules. If we wanted those households earning €70,000 a year to be able to afford to buy their own three-bed home, we would need the all-in cost of a home to be €275,000, rather than €300,000 and if we wanted those on €60,000 to be able to buy their own home, that cost would have to fall to €235,000.
>These may sound like small enough differences in incomes but going from a cut-off of close to €80,000 to €70,000 and even down to €60,000 changes fundamentally the share of households that are included. The Revenue Commissioners produce periodic estimates of the income distribution. Their most recent figures suggest that, of the 500,000 or so joint-earner households, roughly 86,000 or one in six earns between €60,000 and €75,000. A further 5 per cent earn between C75,000 and €80,000.
>The SCSI estimates that the 10 per cent levy will add roughly €4,000 to the cost of the typical home. This is a cost that will be borne by those who live in newly built homes, whether bought or rented, not by those building them due to the simple fact that those building homes have a cost of capital that, if unmet, means that they will be unable to build the homes at all.
>. . .
>It is bad enough that senior members of Cabinet have come out and, apparently earnestly, suggested that it will be the sector that is contributing to the redress when basic economics informs us that it will be the residents of newly built homes that will have to pay it instead. This will have impacts throughout the system but will be most visible indeed it already is visible for those who are building their own home and thus know the cost structure. With roughly 5,000 homes built every year as one-offs, it is likely that this move will backfire politically as those trying to put together the resources they need for their own home feel like they are being forced to pay for someone else’s on top.
r/micascandal
Tax payer C should shoulder the cost, The A and B tax payer pays enough taxes already.
Can anybody on the inside explain, in lay terms, why homebond/insurance etc won’t cover these issues?
I know somebody that stiffed with a pyrite apartment and Iirc the case against homebond was looking good but the high Court did a u turn on it.
Why not put a levy on construction company profits over a certain revenue?
Environmentally this levy should be introduced either way. Cement production is insanely damaging to environment. It shouldn’t be introduced to bail insurers out of a Mica scandal though.
The levy both simultaneously nudges towards keeping the housing crisis going, and feeds the myth of construction expenses being the reason for it.
Can anyone explain why there hasn’t been an investigation to find out who was at fault and sue them?
just getting a single paragraph of waffle before they suggest i pay €200 for membership lol
Can someone explain to me why was there a levy put on concrete? Just curious.
11 comments
Everyone is suggesting a levy (some have come up with the idea that their magic version of a levy won’t be passed onto the customers)
Maybe offer a rebate of sorts to first time buyers?
Alternative is scrap the levy and put a higher tax on few chips. Also, the levy isn’t the full price of this scheme, other funding is coming from other areas of taxation.
The meat of Lyon’s point:
>. . . Once the site and state costs are included, it is very difficult to build a new home for under €300,000.
>To be able to afford such a home with a 90 per cent mortgage means having a household income of €77,000 per year under the current mortgage rules. If we wanted those households earning €70,000 a year to be able to afford to buy their own three-bed home, we would need the all-in cost of a home to be €275,000, rather than €300,000 and if we wanted those on €60,000 to be able to buy their own home, that cost would have to fall to €235,000.
>These may sound like small enough differences in incomes but going from a cut-off of close to €80,000 to €70,000 and even down to €60,000 changes fundamentally the share of households that are included. The Revenue Commissioners produce periodic estimates of the income distribution. Their most recent figures suggest that, of the 500,000 or so joint-earner households, roughly 86,000 or one in six earns between €60,000 and €75,000. A further 5 per cent earn between C75,000 and €80,000.
>The SCSI estimates that the 10 per cent levy will add roughly €4,000 to the cost of the typical home. This is a cost that will be borne by those who live in newly built homes, whether bought or rented, not by those building them due to the simple fact that those building homes have a cost of capital that, if unmet, means that they will be unable to build the homes at all.
>. . .
>It is bad enough that senior members of Cabinet have come out and, apparently earnestly, suggested that it will be the sector that is contributing to the redress when basic economics informs us that it will be the residents of newly built homes that will have to pay it instead. This will have impacts throughout the system but will be most visible indeed it already is visible for those who are building their own home and thus know the cost structure. With roughly 5,000 homes built every year as one-offs, it is likely that this move will backfire politically as those trying to put together the resources they need for their own home feel like they are being forced to pay for someone else’s on top.
r/micascandal
Tax payer C should shoulder the cost, The A and B tax payer pays enough taxes already.
Can anybody on the inside explain, in lay terms, why homebond/insurance etc won’t cover these issues?
I know somebody that stiffed with a pyrite apartment and Iirc the case against homebond was looking good but the high Court did a u turn on it.
Why not put a levy on construction company profits over a certain revenue?
Environmentally this levy should be introduced either way. Cement production is insanely damaging to environment. It shouldn’t be introduced to bail insurers out of a Mica scandal though.
The levy both simultaneously nudges towards keeping the housing crisis going, and feeds the myth of construction expenses being the reason for it.
Can anyone explain why there hasn’t been an investigation to find out who was at fault and sue them?
just getting a single paragraph of waffle before they suggest i pay €200 for membership lol
Can someone explain to me why was there a levy put on concrete? Just curious.