
Irish Housing and Wages, 1977 to 2006: Portrait of a Scam
Author: Conor McCabe of Dublin Opinion
Published: June 8th, 2010
Discussion: 14 comments ↓
Possibly Related: Irish Economy, Irish Housing
There’s a comment often bandied about when it comes to housing in Ireland: ‘our parents got through it, so can we.’
Well, our parents didn’t get through this, because our parents never faced what Ireland is facing now - at least in terms of housing debt.
The sheer level of theft which has taken place - and I’m not even talking about NAMA - is completely unprecedented.
The tsunami of debt which is the Irish mortgage market has yet to hit us, but when it does there will be very few cards on the table as the government played most of them in setting up NAMA in order to save the architects of this Celtic Babel.
And this was orchestrated. Note the date when things really go crazy, i.e. just after 1997 and just after Fianna Fáil gain power.
Best practise has house prices at 2.5 to 4 times the average industrial wage.
Once this ratio is broken, we’re into bubble territory.
The CSO lists the Average Industrial Wage back to 1977 for those in the manufacture of transportable goods.
Taking that as the base wage, and taking the average price of a house as the average between the price of new and second/hand houses, we get the figures above, and the affordability ratio below.
It shows us that apart from the recession years of the mid-1980s, housing in Ireland has been overpriced for the past 33 years.
However, it only goes completely nuts after 1997, when Charlie McCreevy is made Minister for Finance and implements the various tax breaks and incentives as outlined here.
The figures belie the current myth of the ‘Good’ Celtic Tiger which ran up to around 2002, and the ‘Bad’ Celtic tiger which ran from 2002 to 2007.
In 1979, on the cusp of Ireland’s last major recession, the house affordability ratio breached 5.0.
In 1997, house prices once again breached 5.0, and just kept on climbing.
By the time the ‘Good’ Tiger ended in 2002, the affordability ratio stood at 8.17. In 2007, at the end of the ‘Bad’ Tiger, it stood at over 11.
And these figures for affordability are based on the average industrial wage (transportable goods).
In 2006, when that yearly wage was, gross, €30,000 Euro, the median income in Ireland was €25,000, and 2/3 of ALL incomes were below €30,000.
It is hard to know what will be left of the Irish economy once this government leaves office.
[House prices going back to 1975, adjusted to Euro, are available here.
The Average Industrial Wage(Transportable Goods) for years 1977 to 2006 is available in the yearly Statistical Abstract/Yearbook of Ireland, published by the CSO.]
Discussion
We welcome and encourage lively discussion from the public about articles on Irish Left Review. You can leave a comment using the form at the bottom of the page. Please read through the existing comments before posting your own.
Leave a Comment
Sins of the Father
Subscribe by Email
Latest Articles
Best of the Web
‘The Greek debt workout will establish a benchmark for sovereign debt haircuts across the Eurozone‘
I tried to reduce the size of this quote, but I kept on leaving important stuff out. The whole article is a must read, particular the point made earlier that the negotiations being finalised now between the ECB and private bond holders will ‘establish benchmark terms for other struggling Euro sovereigns as well. Thus, it is possible that the valuation of sovereign debt across all Euro nations will be established in relatively short order’. Anyway, this article by a couple of ‘humble investors’ provides plenty of clarity.
No comments »We have not reached the end of history. Mankind evolves, as does capitalism and its many brands. But not that much. An objective look at our modern economic ecosystem shows clearly one unified global banking system that is actually made stronger by predictable, publicly aired tensions among competing political and economic theorists and practitioners. As long as lawmakers and we, the people that must obey them, continue quarrelling among ourselves, those that control money are free to do as they like. When the people revolt against the symbols of political power (storm the Bastille, storm the winter palace), then the people succeed in forcing those that control money to alter the political structure. Only when lawmakers take steps to limit bank system access to the nation’s resources by indenturing the factors of production (dumping tea overboard, storming the Eccles Building), can the nation’s capital shift back to the people.
Today we have an oligopoly of central banks issuing the world’s baseless currencies and, by having successfully promoted substantial household and sovereign debt assumption, can now dictate resource allocation and fiscal policy terms. Against this power there is fragmentation - (mostly) democratically elected officials overseeing republics of generally obedient populations. Lenin knew; “by continuing the process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens”. John Maynard Keynes himself agreed: “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose”.
We argue that indebted governments have ceded that power to banking systems without conscience or public accountability. If the global banking system has ultimate power over how global wealth is perceived, (as it does), and it is the only institution powerful enough to keep indebted governments in control of their societies, (which it is), then the only reasonable strategy for an independent investor is to think like a Rothschild. Don’t fight the Fed - bet on it.
Protest at cuts in small rural schools Dublin, 1st February 2012
Hundreds of teachers, parents and school children came from all over Ireland to protest at Minister Ruairí Quinn’s proposed cuts to small schools in Dublin when the Dáil was debating the bill.
No comments »Ireland has one of the most attractive tax rates for fracking companies in the world
Very important point made by Natural Gas Europe here (posted on Shell to Sea) about the licencing agreement around Shale Gas (Fracking) and needs to be understood in the context of the news today that Tamboran Resources initial exploration in north Leitrim has found that they could ultimately reach 2.2 trillion cubic feet of gas, worth $55 billion at today’s prices. Meanwhile Pat Rabbitte has asked the EPA do an environmental study, but this is very, very unlikely to veer from the assessment of the European Commission consultancy study on licensing hydraulic fracturing which found that there is no need for specific new legislation governing the mining activity.
2 comments »Besides the environmental impact, the financial cost of both that gas line and the potential shale gas excavation has caused consternation. Currently, Ireland has one of the most attractive tax rates for companies in the world. Companies in Ireland are, in most cases, required to pay only 25 per cent corporation tax, a much lower rate than most other countries with possible shale gas reserves; Ireland also does not require companies to pay any royalties to the government on saleable gas. Tamboran, Lough Allen Natural Gas and Enegi may be required to pay between five and fifteen per cent over this rate, but, even at a higher rate, the gain for the government will be lower than for most other countries in comparable situations. Pundits and protestors alike say that the government is effectively giving away a valuable resource, owned by the Irish people, to outside companies, for very little in return.
Conflict of interest is so deeply embedded in Ireland, no one seems to notice
The cops were very swift to close down the demonstration in the NAMA building that Unlock NAMA occupied on Saturday the 28th. They haven’t been as swift though to investigate Anglo Irish Bank. A big blow to that investigation is due, apparently, to the fact that the cop leading it went to work for Bank of Ireland. It is not unusual for people from the fraud squad to move into the private banking sector, we are told, just as we were told that it isn’t unusual for people to move from the regulators office or the Central Bank (when they were separate bodies) to the boards of private banks. Unlock NAMA revealed that the building they occupied was in a very bad state of repair. Add to that the difficulty in establishing that it was a NAMA building at all, considering that it was added to the foreclosure list incorrectly. This should open up discussion on what is happening to all the other NAMA buildings, at the very least. At the most there should be uproar about the massive stock of properties that NAMA controls the loans of which is being allowed to rot and devalue. These properties are being held on to simply to try and artificially hold the price on property and provide the means for future speculation.
Senior garda fraud specialist retires to work for Bank of Ireland
The senior garda detective who was in charge of the Anglo-Irish investigation for 18 months took early retirement at the end of last year and is now working with Bank of Ireland, it has emerged.
Former detective superintendent Pat Collins, 52, was regarded as the Garda’s top expert in corporate fraud investigation. He spent much of his career in the Fraud Squad and before taking charge of the Anglo investigation he spent time on secondment with the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement working with its director, Paul Appleby.
Former colleagues say his departure — on full pension after having served 30 years in the force — will be a major blow to the investigation.
Coveney adviser’s patriotism stressed to secure special pay
Elsewhere, Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney is in the news for asking for a €130,000 salary for his special advisor Fergal Leamy, a former chief executive of Greencore USA. The cap as we are well aware after all the breeches of it is €92,672. Leamy didn’t last long, despite Coveney pleading that he was desperate to do the state some service he left after four months. He got an offer from an equity firm in the London that he couldn’t refuse. However, the story also reveals that Simon Coveney’s brother, Patrick Coveney is chief executive of Greencore. Of course Greencore has a long and controversial history, which Shane Ross referred to as a template for the worst excesses of corporate Ireland, a close rival to DCC.
No comments »Can We Still Write Big Question Sorts of Books? | David Graeber
David Graeber and the model of his ‘popular’ yet scholarly book Debt: The First 5000 Years
1 comment »So: what was to be the model for a big questions sort of book, and how to write a book that would still be scholarly, but not academic?
This is what I came up with:
Of all the models I considered, the most amenable turned out to be the approach adopted by Marcel Mauss. This might seem odd. especially because Mauss never actually wrote a book; he’s mainly famous for a series of essays. Yet many of these essays-not just the Gift, but his essay on the person, techniques of the body (where he coins the term “habitus”), sacrifice and magic-really have had a profound effect both on all subsequent scholarship, and, to differing degrees, political and social debates ever since. Mauss had an uncanny ability to ask the right questions-often, questions he was the first to pose, and which have become mainstays of theoretical debate ever since. His was also an appealing model because Mauss was both a serious, committed activist (he was especially active in the French cooperative movement), and a scholar of remarkable erudition. His problem-and this, I suspect, is why he never did write a proper book, despite numerous attempts-was that he was also almost unimaginably disorganized, and therefore, terrible at exposition. I suspect if alive today he would have been quickly diagnosed with severe ADD.
Irish ‘SOPA law’ another under the radar attack on digital rights by a craven government pandering far too easily to corporate interests
Very strong and accurate piece from Karlin Lillington in the Irish Times today, making no bones about the motivations behind the changes in copyright law that Sean Sherlock and the Irish government are trying to sneak in. It’s odd at a time when the SOPA law in the US, which is similarly motivated to the Irish law, has just been dropped.
FOR THREE governments in a row, “short-sighted” and “sneaky” seem to have become the relevant terms in operation when bringing in controversial, high-impact legislation on digital issues.
In the past, from the government’s perspective, this approach has worked well in shoving in poorly drafted, unscrutinised law on the controversial area of data retention, giving the Republic one of the most severe, internationally criticised, anti-business retention regimes in the world.
This time around, the Government is trying again to use secondary legislation - a statutory instrument requiring no discussion and no debate in the Oireachtas - to (supposedly) protect intellectual property for a narrow band of hard-lobbying entertainment industries.
For despite what the ‘hard-lobbying entertainment industries’ might say internet piracy is not killing off its profits. That assumes for a start that the amount produced is static, which given the amount of ‘content’ flooding towards us each day is absurd.
3 comments »But more importantly, there is evidence (from numerous mainstream studies and reports) that industry claims about piracy decimating revenue, jobs and creativity are vastly overstated. A careful analysis of such claims by Julian Sanchez on Ars Technica ( iti.ms/wT8l02), picked up and further discussed by Forbes ( iti.ms/xQJXhg), indicates piracy has actually had only a minor impact on these industries.
The record industry in the US, for example, has about double the new releases it had a decade ago, when piracy was barely on its radar. The film industry also has more releases now than in pre-piracy days and its most pirated movies are also those that made staggering box office profits. Sanchez cites evidence that the music industry is making back profits lost to piracy through “complementary purchases” such as concert tickets. And a recent report issued by a US anti-piracy lobby group rather farcically indicates its clients are doing quite well, thank you.
Davos dilemma | Michael Roberts
The majority of those at Davos think that Capitalism isn’t working, but don’t feel there is a need to change anything because its working rather well for them. It’s up to those not in the 1% then to change it.
No comments »The strategists of capital are attending their annual jamboree in the snow playground of the super-rich in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. Many of the top 0.1% of income earners are there. And this year the main theme is whether capitalism works and is fair.
Capitalism is in crisis - and this time the word ‘crisis’ is not hyperbole. Even the 2600 attendees at Davos recognise that. According to a survey by the financial broadcaster, Bloomberg, almost 70% of those asked believed that the capitalist system is in trouble, with 32% saying it needs “radical reworking”. Less than 20% reckoned ‘free enterprise’ is working. Most Davos 0.1 percenters are really worried that this failure of capitalism to work could lead to ’social instability’ in one form or another.
And more than half who were asked at Davos thought that inequality of income and wealth under capitalism was damaging economic growth. But only one in five wanted any urgent action on the issue! It seems that greed triumphs over economic logic - or should we say, class interest rules
The Promissory Notes | Tom McDonnell
Economist Tom McDonnell of TASC provides a brief primer on IBRC promissory notes, which is available on Slideshare. Click here to view it in it’s own web page.
Tom mcdonnellpromnotes240112No comments »View more presentations from TASCslidesMichael Taft talks to Doug Henwood of Left Business Observer about the Irish Economy| 7th of January
Michael Taft talks to Doug Henwood of Behind the News in a detailed 30 minute discussion about the Irish economy which was posted on the 7th of Jan. The second half of the show is given over to a discussion with Jodi Dean about Occupy Wall Street and ‘demands’. It’s also worth reading Jodi Dean’s article on Occupy Wall Street and the Left which was published today on Critical Legal Thinking.
[display_podcast]
No comments »What are bankers doing inside EU summits? | Corporate Europe Observatory
Important information here on the extent of bank lobbies influence in the resolution of the Greek debt crisis, particularly when it comes to plans which require ‘private sector involvement’.
No comments »At the Euro Summits in July and October 20111, crucial decisions “to save the Euro” and “to save Greece” were made. It was agreed to restructure Greek debts and banks were asked to accept a ‘haircut’ to their profits to avoid a Greek default and the risk that some banks might default as a result. In Summer 2011, the press was full of stories about the informal negotiations between EU leaders and the banks about the level of private sector involvement in restructuring Greece’s debts.
The Institute of International Finance (IIF), a lobby group established in 1983 by the biggest banks and financial institutions in the world to deal with the question of sovereign debt2, became the EU’s interlocutor on the Greek debt issue. Its proposals -described as ”offers”- received red carpet treatment.
Authors
- Aaron Rogan
- Aditya Nigam
- Aidan Regan
- Aidan Rowe
- Aiden Lloyd
- Alan Jude Moore
- Alana Lentin and Gavan Titley
- Alex Klemm
- Ali Abunima
- Alison Spillane
- Andrew Flood
- Andy Storey
- Angela Nagle
- Anna Szolucha
- Anne B. Ryan
- Anne Costello
- Audrey Bryan
- Birgitta Jónsdóttir
- Brendan Young
- Bryan Mukandi
- Budapestkick
- CEO
- Chekov Feeney
- Cian O Flaherty
- Cian O'Callaghan
- Ciaran O Kelly
- Ciarán Wallace
- Clive Hamilton
- CMK
- Conor McCabe
- Conor McCarthy
- CPOI
- Cultural Boycott
- Damian OBroin
- Daniel Finn
- Dara McHugh
- Darren Broomfield
- David Cronin
- David Lacey
- David Limond
- David Lordan
- David Lundy
- David Lynch
- David Manning
- Debbie Ging
- Deirdre Ní Dúr
- Dermot Casey
- Des Derwin
- Donagh
- Donnacha O'Briain
- Eamonn Crudden
- Ed Walsh
- Editor
- Editor
- ejh
- Eoin O'Broin
- Fergus O'Rourke
- Fíona Ní Chinnéide
- Francisco Herreros
- Gavan Titley
- Gavin Gleeson
- Gerry Burke
- Gilbert Leung
- Gordon Hewitt
- Graham Stull
- Grupo Raíces
- Harry Browne
- Helena Sheehan
- Hugh Green
- Hugo Martínez Abarca
- Illan Rua Wall
- Irish Left Review
- Jamie Kenny
- JC Skinner
- Jenny Muir
- Jimmy Billings
- Joanne Spain
- Joe Costello
- Joe Higgins
- John Baker
- John Bissett
- John Green
- John Hurston
- John O’Farrell
- John Ross
- José Antonio Gutiérrez
- Justin Frewen
- Justin O'Hagan
- Karl Kitching
- Kenneth Haar
- Kevin Brannigan
- Kevin Higgins
- Kevin McLoughlin
- Kevin O'Shea
- Kevin Squires
- Kieran Allen
- Kimberly Campanello
- Kit Fryatt
- Laurence Cox
- Liam Duffy
- Liam Herrick
- Mairead Enright
- Manolis Kalaitzake
- Manuel Estimulo
- Marie Mulholland
- Mark Byrne
- Mark C
- Mary Murphy
- Maryam Monalisa Gharavi
- Maryjane O'Leary
- Michael Burke
- Michael Perelman
- Michael Pierse
- Michael Taft
- Michael Youlton
- Mick O'Broin
- Miriam Cotton
- Murray Smith
- Niamh Kelly
- Niamh O’Grady
- Nicky Dempsey
- Nicola Griffin
- Nihil Kashnkarry
- nineteensixtyseven
- Oisín Wall
- Oliver Farry
- Patrick Barry
- Patrick Cotter
- Paul Bowman
- Paul Doran
- Paul Murphy
- Paul OMahony
- Paul Sweeney
- Paula Geraghty
- Paule Masson
- Peadar Kirby
- Phil Edwards
- Philip Coleman
- Philip Pilkington
- Pirooz Daneshmandi
- Prenderghast
- Proinnsias Breathnach
- Quincy R. Lehr
- Ramona Wadi
- Raymond Deane
- Research Section
- Richard
- Rob Hartnett
- Robert Navan
- Rod Stoneman
- Roderick Flynn
- Rónán Burtenshaw
- Sarah Clancy
- Seán Sheehan
- Seanachie
- Sergio Cesaratto
- Sheila Killian
- Sinead Kennedy
- Sinn Fein Keep Left
- Siobhán O’Donoghue
- Smiffy
- Stephanie Lord
- Stephen Kinsella
- Terrence McDonough
- The People's Movement
- Therese Caherty
- Thomas McDermott
- Tom Griffin
- Tom O'Connor
- Tombuktu
- Uninomade Collective
- Vincent Wood
- Wendy Lyons
- William Wall
- WorldbyStorm
- Wu Ming
- Yanis Varoufakis
Topics
- Art
- Banking
- Book Reviews
- Budget 2009
- Cinema
- Citizenship
- Class
- Consumerism
- Corporate Finance
- Cost of Living
- Credit Crisis
- Criminal Justice
- Economics
- Education
- Employment
- European Union
- Fascism
- Film
- Financial Crisis
- France
- Gender
- Government
- Health
- History
- Humour
- Immigration
- Income
- Industrial Relations
- Infrastructure
- Inheritance Tax
- International Media
- International Politics
- Irish Media
- Lesbian & Gay Issues
- Lisbon Treaty
- Marx
- Middle East
- Neo-liberalism
- Occupations
- Philosophy
- Policing
- Press Council
- Public Finances
- Public Private Partnerships
- Recession
- Reproduction
- Social Partnership
- Spain
- Sport
- Strategies
- Taxation
- US Election 08
- Wages - income
- Women's Issues

Comment by: Charlie
Jun 9th 2010 at 05:06
The capitalists don’t only want to own as much money as possible, they want to own us! So they can - at the end - do whatever they want (with us).
Comment by: Small Girl
Jun 9th 2010 at 09:06
Ref tax breaks 1997, I’ve heard a few people around me saying that Section 23 has ruined this country. In 1997, Section 23 was introduced in the Taxes Consolidation Act and it was an incentive for rented residential property in a tax incentive area. I think that a good few middle-aged people (electricians, plumbers, ITers etc) who were working hard and had extra income bought a Section 23 not because they imagined themselves building a property portfolio, they bought a second property as their pension. And they did this because government encouraged them to. So they too, along with the first time buyers who got 100% mortgages, are paying the price. You’re right Conor, that’s not development, that’s theft.
Comment by: Conor McCabe
Jun 9th 2010 at 13:06
Thanks for the comment, small girl. I think that if we try to make sense of all of this with supply and demand, we will fail each time. And this is because supply and demand - that somehow the buyers can help us explain all of this this - does not factor in the massive, state-sponsored speculation which occurred not only when McCreevy got to the Dept. of Finance of course, but which really hit the stratosphere once he took up that portfolio. and section 23 is part of that, no doubt.
But, home mortgage market doesn’t explain commercial property speculation, although they are linked by the availability of cheap money. How much of NAMA is commercial property? Middle-aged teachers and guards buying pension homes don’t even come close to explaining the Ringsend Bottle Plant fiasco.
These worlds are not hermetically sealed, they are linked, but the link is the credit markets and the change in the production of credit and, indeed, currency, since the early 1990s which took place internationally. I think one of the last comments of our former financial regulator before he was decommissioned was that as long as the money is available on the international markets for Irish banks to buy, there is no credit/debit problem in Ireland.
I think we should always keep our eye on the credit itself, where it was coming from, how it was disseminated in Ireland, and to whose benefit. It’s what I’m trying to do anyway.
Comment by: Small Girl
Jun 9th 2010 at 14:06
Food for thought indeed.
Comment by: Charlie
Jun 9th 2010 at 18:06
Yous guys forgetting that capitalism - or call it “free market system” - is not only based on supply and demand. It is also based on depts. Every Euro currency generates also a growing amount of debts. On the one hand there is the money which wants to reproduce and enhance its power (possession). On the other hand there is a growing demand of money from the “real” economy to keep things going and to grow. Put that together and you’ll get the answer to your question. The capitalist system - as unsustainable as it is - is condemned to collapse from time to time, that’s its nature. Only the damage caused by that will grow every time as we’re desaling with more and more money (virtual values). And I personally believe that the intermissions between these downturns will become shorter and shorter.
Comment by: Conor McCabe
Jun 9th 2010 at 19:06
Yeah, that bit in my last comment where I talk about the importance of credit and credit markets in understanding what is going on, and in the post where I say how debt is a form of theft, that must be where I forgot that capitalism “is also based on depts (sic)” but sure thanks for the lesson anyway. Much appreciated.
Comment by: Charlie
Jun 9th 2010 at 19:06
On the one hand the capital hungry to reproduce and enhance influence. On the other hand an economy - more or less producing supply AND demand - which can only grow, or even survive, in making more depts.
Comment by: Small Girl
Jun 10th 2010 at 10:06
Hmm Charlie, it always seems to me that reducing everything down to ‘ah shur that’s capitalism for you’ doesn’t help me to understand our now a bit better.
Excuse my rambling for a bit, I can’t seem to help it! Accepting that we live, whether we like it or not, within phases of capitalism, I don’t think it’s useless to look at how capitalism governs people and how people should try and govern capitalism. For instance, during the capitalist phase called Keynesism regulation kept the capitalist momentum from spiralling out of control, and you could say that was better for people because there was better (not brilliant) redistribution. How? Through taxation on the profit makers. So Keynesism is capitalism but it’s important to look at taxation which controls it.
Then the rules changed with the Washington Consensus and we ended up with neo-liberalism and here we are today with a multitude of social and environmental disasters across the world. When it comes to the rules of society or the social contract some people like it the way it is, some would like uncorrupt socialism, and most people don’t think about the system but they would like stability and a fairer distribution of wealth. So a trade off middleground (while we’re waiting on the revolution) might be through taxation on financial transactions (which create the virtual values of credit) like the Tobin Tax which was shafted in favour of the Basel II process ie. corporate social responsibility. Capitalists policing themselves was never going to work. Keynesism wasn’t perfect, it didn’t reject capitalism but it did regulate it. So taxation is important.
To link that to the national level, you might think that individuals paying more tax is not a good idea but to understand how taxation provides for people you need to look at how it is gathered and how it is spent on housing, medical care, care for children and the elderly, education etc. The Irish government spent money on creating a housing bubble which was to create a bouyant economy and this was meant to trickle down to all and sundry. That is not the same as providing housing. Now the Irish government is spending money on the banking abyss. This is a failure of the system and as you say Charlie the system is designed to fail intermittently but for me it’s also a failure of the nation state which should and can regulate within its borders. So it’s not just about the system and credit and debt, it’s also about how the state should act in ‘the national interest’ in regulating this. And what Conor’s article does is to provide a link between capitalism proper and housing in Ireland.
I think it’s important to separate the big system from national governance, am I bonkers? What do you think Charlie? Maybe you have a different take on that.
Comment by: Conor McCabe
Jun 12th 2010 at 14:06
Small Girl, I’m reading Frank Mcdonald and Kathy Sheridan’s book, The Builders at the moment. Just came across a passage that you might find interesting.
“The biggest loophole of all was Section 23, a tax break first introduced in the 1981 Finance Act with the purpose of reviving the construction industry. Initially the measure could be applied to any qualifying residential property; from 1992 it was applicable only in areas designated for urban renewal under the regime established by the 1986 Urban Renewal Act. Section 23 allowed investors to write off all but the site costs of an apartment against their total rental income in the first year, including rents from other properties owned, with any unused tax relief being carried forward indefinitely. After a slow start, Section 23 eventually became one of the main drivers of development, with investors often snapping up the lion’s share of new housing schemes. And, if this wasn’t enough to keep the developers happy, further tax-breaks were made available over the years for multi-storey car parks, holiday homes in jaded seaside resorts, hotels anywhere and everywhere, and student accommodation. In most cases, these incentives meant that the capital cost of qualifying new developments could be written off against an investor’s tax liability over a 10-year period. What’s more, anyone leasing office or retail space in a designated area got tax allowances equivalent to double their annual rent bill and didn’t have to pay a penny in commercial rates for 10 years.
The incentives – some of which were eliminated or amended following publication of the Bacon Report on residential housing in 1998, and others, subsequently by Brian Cowen, who took a more jaundiced view of them than McCreevy – had nothing to do with aiding the frequently invoked ‘first-time buyer.’ ‘The government was quite disingenuous, harping on about the first-time buyer,’ says an insider, ‘when it was simply aiding and abetting what the builders were doing. Because the legislation they brought in was pitched at the new homes market, it allowed all of that building to go on unchecked.’ By making it cheaper to operate as a landlord, the tax incentives actually hurt prospective first-time owner-occupiers by attracting investors into the market; developers could charge a premium of up to €100,000 on apartments in Dublin city centre, for example, compared to similar units that didn’t have tax-relief designation.” (pp.5-6)
Comment by: Small Girl
Jun 14th 2010 at 11:06
Thanks for this Conor, I didn’t realise Section 23 was introduced so early. Have you noticed that we, including myself, don’t even talk about homes anymore, just housing.
Comment by: Conor McCabe
Jun 14th 2010 at 11:06
True. it’s a good point.
Comment by: Donagh
Jun 17th 2010 at 11:06
Frank McDonald goes into this in his Irish Times Op-Ed today:
Comment by: daltonm
Jan 10th 2012 at 16:01
@ Conor, I was going to link this which I thought you’d find useful ( before your post) , even though some of the tax reliefs “ended” in 2006, they lasted for 7 years. http://www.finfacts.ie/celtictigereconomyireland.htm#The_Rise_of_the_Celtic_Tiger
Not only that but developers were encouraged to re-invest profits to future developments as a way to avoid paying tax…
Comment by: Conor McCabe
Jan 10th 2012 at 17:01
That’s great daltonm, thanks for the link.