What do people think?
Is buying a house from NAMA or The Banks at firesale prices the same as getting an affordable social house that is subsidised by the taxpayer? It is after all the taxpayer that will fund the difference through picking up NAMA losses and re-capitalising the banks,
I know there is supposed to be a levy if NAMA loses money but that will be passed on to us as well through higher charges.
I await your abuse!
It’s true that it would reduce the cost to the taxpayer but it would still be a heavily subsidised house for the person that buys it.
There is no way that the government can stop the people who already made vast amounts of money during the boom (and did not lose it) from making even more by buying these properties cheap.
Should the government remove stamp duty for primary residences and impose heavy stamp duty on investment properties to avoid the above?
I think you should use the search function and contribute to one of the many topics that exist on these subjects.