Is part five of the planning and development act 2000achieving its aim
- This topic has 9 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 18 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
@mauriceroche200 wrote:
Is part five of the planning and development act 2000achieving its aim
No, clearly not but then Cullen basically knobbled the whole thing.
-
@mauriceroche200 wrote:
Is part five of the planning and development act 2000achieving its aim
No. any legislation that allows a developer a get out clause of paying cold hard cash is doomed from the start.
-
Part V is a tax on suppliers. Supplier taxes result in higher net consumer prices.
The income from Part V is allocated by lottery to ‘people in need’. This is welfare by lucky dip.The introduction of these measures was frightening – how could anything so dumb be even considered? It’s the same mindset that prints more money to help the economy. Mammoth stupidity or bottomless cynicism. You decide.
One reason may be that the government’s real aims are contradictory: to provide affordable housing without allowing house prices to fall.
Affordable is another word for low prices and prices drop when supply increases (given constant demand). The primary constraint on supply is planning regulations which are determined by government.
I predict that Part V will soon be abandoned as houses become ‘more affordable’ over the coming years.
*POP*
-
I couldn’t agree more with you, Frank. However anytime I’ve tried to explain to people why I believe the notion of “Affordable Housing” not only to be misguided but in fact nasty and deeply immoral, I usually get the impression that extolling the virtues of pedophilia or gassing Jews would get a better reception. I.e. what sort of cold-hearted bastard could be against the government helping people to get a foot on the housing ladder?
The idea that the government operate what is effectively a lottery with prizes ranging in value between 50k and 100k is absolutely repellent to me. The idea that such a scheme could be considered progressive “social policy” is laughable. What’s next, an “Affordable Mercedes” scheme? Why not a scheme to give everyone in the country a free million quid? The childish nature of the policy is frightening. I hope it dies quickly.
-
@jimg wrote:
I couldn’t agree more with you, Frank. However anytime I’ve tried to explain to people why I believe the notion of “Affordable Housing” not only to be misguided but in fact nasty and deeply immoral, I usually get the impression that extolling the virtues of pedophilia or gassing Jews would get a better reception. I.e. what sort of cold-hearted bastard could be against the government helping people to get a foot on the housing ladder?
The idea that the government operate what is effectively a lottery with prizes ranging in value between 50k and 100k is absolutely repellent to me. The idea that such a scheme could be considered progressive “social policy” is laughable. What’s next, an “Affordable Mercedes” scheme? Why not a scheme to give everyone in the country a free million quid? The childish nature of the policy is frightening. I hope it dies quickly.
ROFL 😀
jimg, I disagree totally with you but your post is one of the funniest things Ive read in ages …
Sign me up for the Affordable Mercedes scheme right away 😀
-
This thread reminds me to put my entry in. It’s €50 to play with prizes of around €50,000, all paid for by the unlucky losers who pay increased prices for their houses. Max income to be considered a hard case is €55,000 single or €75,000 for a couple.
-
Gentlemen. Let’s focus on the question asked ” Is Part V achieving it’s aim” If the aim of Part V is to provide Affordable Housing then the answer is clearly No, as very few houses have been delivered.
However if the aim is to provide affordable Mercedes the answer is probably Yes. Bear in mind that it is at the discretion of housing officials as to whether a developer gets an exemption in exchange for cash and it would be naive to assume that said officials are not quietly shown some appreciation for decisions that are saving developers enourmous amounts of money.
-
Note aswell that part V taxation is only applied to urban and suburban development. Rural housing is mostly exempt.
In one sense part V is achieving its aim as it makes everyone believe that the government is doing something to provide affordable housing.
-
@mauriceroche200 wrote:
Is part five of the planning and development act 2000achieving its aim
🙂 A valuable reference for this discussion can be found at…
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
