Including compromised TDs with vested interests?
I bought an old bungalow myself and have bit by bit done it up temporarily while we decide what to do with it. We were originally going to keep the structure and extend but being in it for a while highlights all the issues with it not to mention how little they thought about where the light was coming for when they built it. It’s defo getting demolished now.
3 Likes
If you have the money I’d say demolish it
2 Likes
Bought an old cottage, that had adhoc extensions added over the years. Went about extending it and redoing the internal layout. The cottage part which was built around 1900 was perfect, the extensions that were added in the 70s / 80s were in a desperate state and ended up having to demolish them and rebuild. Added about an extra 25% to the cost of the job, but looking back delighted I did it.
3 Likes
Article in the paper today saying that savings jumped to €5.3 billion by the end of June vs €2 billion same time last year.
That’s a lot of cash out there that could be spent on houses (or that the gov want spent in shops/restaurants/hotels etc)
1 Like
This’s is exactly the same original cottage which must be only 50m2 built in 50s is in perfect condition with insulated cavity wall. The extension is built out of cavity block built in the 80s and is a mess.
1 Like
All you can do with that (apart from demolishing) is external insulation. Dry lining will create a mould hazard.
1 Like
The wide consensus here seems to be you’d be much better off build a brand new house from scratch and/or bulldoze the existing house if it’s in bad nick (which would likely coincide with being built in the 70s/80s/90s).
If you could buy a ramshackle old bungalow or cottage on a nice site it would make the planning process a lot easier
2 Likes
You’d see some lovely houses where they have done that; preserved or restored the original cottage to the front and then built on the modern structure at the back. Would be worth getting a good architect on board for a job like that.
4 Likes
Amazingly it hasn’t aroused the interest of DG comp
Yeah but that suited Europe the last few years too.
Problem with that is half the house is half the house isn’t. Demolishing is the only option.
1 Like
If you want to build your own house in most parts of the country, unless you are near home, buying an existing house and demolishing is the only option really. But you will pay through the nose for it most likely
1 Like
Farm yards and boundary walls are the only place you should see those fuckin things.
I suspect you’d just drive the black market.
In any case, it’d only work if you taxed punitively higher than that.
It is taxed at over 50% already for higher rate taxpayers. That’s pretty punitive. If you were getting 2k taxed or 1200 untaxed it’s an easy decision
You talking about non progressive tax then, when you’re taxed on the entire amount if you charge more than whatever the govt decides?
Communism to an extent. Not saying it’s a bad thing, but it’s as anti free market as you’ll get.
Alternatively, it’s just 50% less above the base amount.
What about all the air b&bs that came on the rental market during covid?
Yes. 100% that’s what I am talking about. We are terrified of these taxes. I think, and open to correction, but there is no tax on rents on long term lettings to local authorities… So there is a precedent there.
It’s a crude measure but aside from the lost tax where is the downside? It suits the tenant, it suits the landlord. It frees up huge amounts of disposable income