Sir, – Cliff Taylor (Opinion, October 28th) suggests that house prices are higher than they should be, due to the many various financial supports being given to first-time buyers.
Another article suggests a 27-acre piece of land suitable for 340 dwellings should fetch ¤16 million or about ¤575,000 an acre, equating to a individual site cost of approximately ¤47,000 per site, when agricultural land, in other words the same grassy field shown in the article, but not zoned for building, would fetch only ¤15,000-¤20,000 an acre. Even with additional reasonable compensation to the landowner, the site cost could be as low as ¤3,000 per site.
So ¤3,000 versus ¤47,000 per site. Which one wouldn’t need a taxpayers’ subsidy?
Meanwhile, the wealthiest in society complain they pay too much income tax and want to raise taxation on the poor, while cutting their own.
MG’s impressive small hybrid undercuts Toyota and Renault on price
Buying a home on your own: Here is how to navigate the perils and pitfalls
‘Our daughter blames us for not realising years ago that she was autistic’
Kamala Harris’s storming opening salvo has left Donald Trump scrambling to regain his early momentum
Perhaps if our Government dealt with the price gouging in land for building, there would be no need for price-supporting tax handouts for buyers and less reason for the high tax rates that higher earners are paying.
Dealing with the farce of overpriced rezoned land could reduce house prices by far more than the “help” being given to home purchasers, which is actually inflating prices and also forcing higher tax rates to pay for these ultimately unsustainable subsidies to landowners, developers and the banks. – Yours, etc,
DAVID DORAN,
Bagenalstown, Co Carlow.