VAT rate cut for hospitality is back on the table - but will it be enough?
One of the shake-outs from last year's
general election
and the subsequent Government formation talks is that cutting the
VAT
rate for the hospitality sector to 9 per cent from 13.5 per cent now looks almost certain to happen.
Ahead of last year's budget the idea was knocked back, with Department of Finance officials particularly opposed to the idea, calling it unjustified.
'The cost is very significant. For instance the cost of a further temporary VAT reduction to 9% for a full year is estimated to be €764 million,' the department said at the time.
So what changed?
READ MORE
Aside from the election and a new Coalition, Ireland's budgetary position looks much more precarious as the impacts of Donald Trump's tariffs ripple across the globe, with Ireland and its bounteous corporation tax revenue particularly vulnerable.
As a result, as Cliff Taylor notes,
the Government has considerably less room to manoeuvre this year
in terms of tax cuts than last year, and the mooted cut in VAT for hospitality is likely to eat up most of the available resources. The move has the potential to become a big political issue.
Firstly, there is likely to be much less by way of an income tax package for households. As Taylor notes: 'If income tax bands and credits are not adjusted for inflation each year, then taxpayers end up seeing a bit more of their income taken in tax – for example due to a higher proportion of their income being payable at the higher 40 per cent rate.'
Just doing nothing, the tax burden creeps higher.
Secondly, other SMEs may wonder why they are being left out. And finally customers are unlikely to see much by way of a benefit, other than holding down the rate of inflation they face while eating and drinking out, at least for a while.
And what of the benefit for the hospitality sector? The sector remains under pressure with regular reports of businesses closing down, with high costs a frequently cited factor.
However, the sector faces a wide range of domestic price pressures, including sharply rising food prices and stubbornly high energy and insurance costs.
The more challenging issue for the sector and the Government is that
Ireland is now the second most expensive country in the European Union
with only Danes expected to pay more for a range of goods and services.
When it comes to alcohol and tobacco, prices here are the most expensive, while food and non-alcoholic drink prices in Ireland are third highest in the EU, though this is a slight improvement on recent years.
This is likely to be a factor in the decline in inbound tourism – a key pillar for the hospitality sector - this year, with
the Central Statistics Office reporting
a 4 per cent fall in tourism numbers in April and a 10 per cent decline in spending.
While a VAT rate cut may provide short-term relief for the hospitality sector, it is unlikely to deal with the structural challenges it faces.
Five Key Reads
Annie McCarrick's family in Long Island speak out:
'The gardaí did not investigate who we thought was guilty in the very beginning' - The mother, aunt and oldest friend of the American woman who went missing in Ireland in 1993 talk about how they would take comfort in having their long-standing belief validated.
Family Fallouts:
'I can't describe the heartache of not having a relationship with my sister' - When sibling relationships fall apart, it can have devastating consequences on our emotional wellbeing and our physical health. Roe McDermott explores how sibling bonds can become emotionally charged, distant, or even estranged - and the impact this can have.
Dolores McNamara: Whatever happened to the €115m lotto winner?
This week the country was gripped by the news that an
Irish winner
had scooped a €250 million EuroMillions jackpot. To mark the occasion, Conor Pope reflects on the fortunes of Limerick woman Dolores McNamara, who won the then largest ever
EuroMillions jackpot
of €115 million in 2005. The tale encompasses country estates, possibly misguided foreign investments, and security.
How AIB came back from the brink:
Sixteen years after its initial rescue amid the crash, AIB - once worth less than its art collection - returned this week to full private ownership as the Government
sold its final 2 per cent stake
to market investors. The Irish bank is now hugely profitable, but, as Joe Brennan writes, the legacy of the bailout still lingers.
How the death of an 'old boy from Ireland' in London-Irish suburb sparked a misguided viral appeal:
A handwritten notice in a shop window of the death and upcoming funeral of Sligo man Martin Fallon in London recently triggered a well-intentioned but misguided campaign to find Fallon's family. Mark Paul examined what the viral campaign got wrong, as well as Fallon's life story and what it says about the changing nature of a London-Irish enclave.
As always, there is much more on
irishtimes.com
, including rundowns of all the latest movies in our
film reviews
, tips for the best restaurants in our
food section
and all the latest in
sport
. There are plenty more articles exclusively available for Irish Times subscribers
here
.
We value your views. Please feel free to send comments, feedback or suggestions for topics you would like to see covered to
feedback@irishtimes.com
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
How are fluctuating oil prices affecting motorists at the pumps?
Motorists are feeling the pinch at the pumps this month, as both petrol and diesel prices are rising. While the month-on-month changes are relatively minor, they still add financial pressure especially for those commuting regularly and long-distance drivers. Several factors are driving these price hikes including rising global oil costs, domestic tax policies, and the seasonal surge in summer travel. Electric Vehicle (EV) charging prices, however, remain stable, continuing to offer a reliable alternative. Higher when the price of oil goes up it can directly increase the cost of producing electricity. And in Ireland, many power plants rely on oil and gas to generate electricity. According to AA Ireland's figures, fuel prices in Ireland have been steadily climbing in recent months, with petrol costing €1.80 per litre and diesel costing €1.77 per litre during the months of February, March and April. A fuel price drop in May saw petrol down to an average of €1.76 per litre, down 4 cents, while diesel fell to an average of €1.68 per litre, down 9 cents. But this month saw increases creeping up again with petrol now costing an average of €1.77 per litre, up 1 cent since May and diesel has risen to an average of €1.69 per litre, up 1 cent month-on-month. Wholesale oil prices have been fluctuating wildly in recent months, particularly in June when the Israel-Iran conflict broke out. Global benchmark Brent futures went from a high of $75.47 a barrel on April 2 to a four-year low of $58.40 on April 9. It saw another low on May 5 but since then Brent has been trending higher, reaching $70.40 a barrel on June 12, the day before Israel launched its bombing campaign against Iran. The Israeli attacks and the subsequent US bombings saw crude spike to a five-month high of $81.40 a barrel on June 23, before the risk premium evaporated with a ceasefire deal announced by US President Donald Trump. Oil prices rose on Friday (June 27) though they were set for their steepest weekly decline since March 2023, as the absence of significant supply disruption from the Iran-Israel conflict saw any risk premium evaporate. The cost of petrol, diesel and home heating are increasing here as fuel retailers in Ireland are responding to international costs that are outside their control. Industry group Fuels for Ireland, the representative body for the liquid fuels sector, is warning that recent increases are putting renewed pressure on households and businesses. CEO of Fuels for Ireland, Kevin McPartlan warns how fuel is taxed is a matter for national policy. "When fuel prices go up, so does the State's tax take automatically, that may be fiscally efficient, but it can be economically and socially regressive," said Mr McPartlan. "This underlines the urgent need for a comprehensive review of how fuel for heating and transport is taxed." How is the price at the pump formed? The price of petrol and diesel is a combination of global and local factors. Crude oil is the main driver which is then influenced by costs such as refining and distribution, taxes, and retailer margins. In Ireland fuel taxes include excise duty, carbon tax and VAT, this means if you take AA Ireland's price for petrol in June of €1.77 per litre, then more than one euro is going to the government due to these levies. Brent crude prices are constantly shifting, when a refiner buys crude oil at a certain price on a certain day, they must refine it and transport it onwards. So as an input cost into the pump prices, there is a lag of about two weeks on crude prices when you see the trend where Brent goes up and down, and when the pump price is up and down. Exchange rate fluctuations can also affect the price in local currencies as refined fuels are often sold in US dollars. Crude price two weeks ago at the start of the Israel Iran conflict were going up, and that impact is still being felt now. But wholesale prices have flattened again as the ceasefire is seeing prices decline and are expected to stabilise. "What you would hope and expect now is pump prices have begun to fall already and over the next couple of days that fall will continue as people get new deliveries in," said Mr McPartlin. "They'll have bought at a lower wholesale price, and it seems to have levelled out, or there hasn't been any dramatic change in the last 24 hours (Friday 27)". What is Brent crude? Brent crude is a specific type of light, sweet crude oil which can be easily refined into petrol and diesel. The price of Brent crude is a major benchmark for the purchase of oil worldwide, so it can influence the price of other crude oils and refined products worldwide. It is the benchmark used for the light oil market in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Higher energy costs can make many goods more expensive across the world. Ireland imports 100% of its fuel needs and is therefore fully exposed to global markets. What are can motorists expect for the coming months? It is impossible to say. No one could have predicted the US bombing Iran, the ensuing ceasefire, the doubts over the ceasefire and the wild excesses it would cause on wholesale prices. But traders always factor risk into the market, whenever there is any uncertainty the wholesale prices go up straight away. Markets are reacting to risk, not just reality, with the speculative effect driving up prices, even in the absence of supply shortages. In Ireland even If all the storage tanks were completely full, they would hold around enough fuel for 10 days, but not all tanks are full at any one time. There is a reliance on ship deliveries and stocks are constantly running down. "It's never the case that people are sitting on high levels of stocks, we run on a just in time delivery basis throughout the supply chain," said Mr McPartlan. He is cautiously optimistic that the fear or concern the important shipping route The Strait of Hormuz would be closed is diminishing, and if that continues then wholesale markets will reflect that in prices. However, this expectation of some kind of stability for now is no indication of what could lie ahead. "To suggest what's going to happen weeks from now in a market which is really very dynamic would be foolish in the extreme," said Mr McPartlan. What could be done to ease costs for consumers? Fuels for Ireland said Irish motorists pay more tax on fuel than any other EU Member State, and Ireland has a higher dependency on oil than all but one of them. They are calling on the Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe to establish a group of experts to review how fuel for heating and transport is taxed. "Price volatility is largely and overwhelmingly a result of global events over which we have very little influence," said Mr McPartlan "The one thing that we do have control over in this country is the taxation." Fuels for Ireland is proposing the group would include representatives from the fuel industry, environmental experts, economists, consumer groups including different demographics and people from rural areas. The aim, according to Mr McPartlan, is to achieve shared objectives of making sure the state gets a fair return on tax from fuels, that renewable and sustainable options are supported and that they don't make it unaffordable for people. "We think that all of those different interest groups, all the stakeholders could buy into that as a model for a conversation, we're hoping the Minister will do that and that he will make some changes in time for budget 2026." Mr McPartlan said the Minister has agreed to meet with them, and they are waiting to set a date.
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Bombs away - what happens in the aftermath of US attack on Iran?
You can actually understand why Donald Trump was a bit miffed about the public (i.e. media) reaction to last weekend's bombing raid on Iran. It actually was an astonishing feat of arms. Don't get me wrong - there absolutely is a need to critically review that operation, and the US media has mostly done the job it's supposed to: examine the official version, to see how public money is spent. And be in no doubt - this one cost billions. And academics and think tankers did what they are supposed to do: think deeply on the consequences of the action. The various intelligence services did what they are supposed to do too: coldly assess information that the public does not have access to and report the line to political bosses. Sometimes that stuff gets leaked - for all sorts of reasons. So yes, we'll do a little bit of critical analysis of our own later. But first - the mission. The details and the background are useful in assessing the usefulness or otherwise of the US intervention against Iran. Apparently, it's the first time the US has ever directly gone into battle on the Israeli side. That in itself is remarkable, all the more so as the president campaigned on the promise of not allowing the US to be dragged into foreign wars. Yet dragged in, it was. And rather rapidly. Lots of people in America pointed that out. And questioned the efficacy of the raid. That didn't please the president, who took it personally and his administration went on the offensive personally - targeting named reporters from a number of outlets, including CNN and Fox News. At the NATO summit on Wednesday, he posted 28 times on social media complaining about the coverage. He also accused the media of disrespecting the bomber crews and other military who took part and downplayed the difficulty of the operation (in fact the media coverage did neither, but hey). Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth went on the warpath on behalf of his boss, losing the last shreds of his coolness and composure at an ill-tempered press conference on Thursday, even denouncing a one-time colleague at Fox News by name (the reporter in question is a very highly-regarded 18-year veteran of the Pentagon beat). How was the mission was carried out? But back to the mission. The highlight of that news conference on Thursday was the presentation by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Dan Caine, who gave a lot more of the background to the mission. And it goes a long way to explain the presidential umbrage of the previous days. General Caine revealed that the bombing raid on Fordow was not something whistled up in a week by order of the Commander in Chief (let alone cogged from the plot of Top Gun: Maverick). It was in fact a hugely-costly, incredibly-complex operation that has been fifteen years in the making. He told us about the Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a little-known annex of the Pentagon that is based in Fort Belvoir in North Virginia. Back in 2009 a DTRA officer was "brought into a vault at an undisclosed location and briefed on something going on in Iran", according to Genral Caine's account. "He was shown some photos and some highly classified intelligence on what looked like a major construction project in the mountains of Iran. He was tasked to study this facility, work with the intelligence community to understand it, and he was soon joined by an additional teammate." These two individuals immersed themselves in what is now known to the world at the Fordow nuclear facility. "For more than 15 years, this officer and his teammate lived and breathed this single target: Fordow, a critical element of Iran's nuclear weapons program," General Caine said. "He watched the Iranians dig it out. He watched the construction, the weather, the discard material, the geology, the construction materials, where the materials came from. "He looked at the vent shaft, the exhaust shaft, the electrical systems, the environmental control systems—every nook, every crater, every piece of equipment going in, and every piece of equipment going out." Pretty soon they realised that the US didn't have a weapon capable of destroying such a facility. Which of course is the point of burying it deep under a mountain. So, the DTRA officers set about getting one that might do the job. Which is how the US ended up with the "Bunker Busters", the 13 tonne bombs also known as Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), or the more prosaic official designation, GBU-57. General Caine revealed the MOP has been in development since 2004, but the Iran mission focused minds and sprang resources. The top military advisor to the President revealed the massive investment in developing the technology: "In the beginning of its development, we had so many PhDs working on the MOP program doing modeling and simulation that we were quietly and in a secret way the biggest users of supercomputer hours within the United States of America." "They tested it over and over again, tried different options, tried more after that. They accomplished hundreds of test shots and dropped many full-scale weapons against extremely realistic targets for a single purpose: kill this target at the time and place of our nation's choosing," the General said, and showed video of one of those tests. And that is the only video we have seen so far. A skeptical public is asking why haven't they seen video of the actual raid yet? No doubt the Pentagon wants to keep as much of its secrets as it can, at least until it thinks there is little an adversary can gain from its release (we are still not getting colour images of past bombings, because the military likes to strip out details). But with pilots in following planes reporting explosions "as bright as daylight", no doubt the public would like to see it too. After all they paid for it. And judging by General Caine's backgrounder, it didn't come cheap. Estimated development cost of the MOP was about half a billion dollars, with another $400 million in production contracts. No wonder the US is reported to possess only 20 or 30 of these bunker busters. Now minus the 14 used last weekend. So, America has used either half or two thirds of its stash of bunker busters in just one raid. Then there is the cost of the flying bit. The B2 bombers flew a 37-hour round trip from an airbase in Missouri, pretty much in the middle of the US. And it's the hourly flying cost of planes that are the thing to watch. For the B2, the Pentagon reports it costs about $65,000 an hour. That works out about $2.4 million per bomber. And there were seven of them, so that's $16 million and change. "So, for technical brilliance in the art of aerial warfare, this mission was amazing." In all, there were 125 aircraft of different sorts on the raid, ranging from a fleet of refueling tankers (modified versions of big passenger planes) to F-35 fighters, which cost $42,000 per hour to operate. (President Trump also said the F-22, Americas most advanced fighter also took part: the plane, which is not available to any US allies, costs a reported $80,000 per hour to operate). General Caine said the analysts had identified two ventilation shafts at the Fordow site as being possible vulnerabilities that the bunker busters could use to get down to the underground factory where the Iranians are presumed to have operated centrifuges to enrich uranium. This immediately set off some movie-related memes, as people recalled the plot of Star Wars. In fact, it was closer to Top Gun Maverick: "miracle one and miracle two", blowing a concrete cover off the ventilation shafts, then dropping the munition down the shaft, with a fuse set to detonate up to 100 metres below ground. But unlike Top Gun, the bombers dropped not one, but five bunker busters down each of the two main ventilation shafts. That's five, 13 tonne, bombs, dropped from 13 kilometres up, entering a concrete tunnel a few metres wide. In two locations. Just think about that. For contrast, consider the World War Two-era B-17 "Flying Fortress", each of which carried about four tonnes of bombs, only 20% of which fell within 300 metres of their targets. So, for technical brilliance in the art of aerial warfare, this mission was amazing. That said, the key point of the criticism remains valid too: we don't know much about the impact of this mission on Iran's nuclear programme. Even behind closed doors briefings for Senators and Congressmen on Thursday by General Caine and the head of the CIA left us (and them) none the wiser. Party politics dominated the public comments afterwards: For Democrat Senator Chris Murphy, the raid has set back the Iranians by as little as three months: for Republican Senator Linsey Graham, its set the programme back many years. Only President Trump and his political acolytes are using the word "obliterated", which is not a term of art used by military or intelligence professionals to formally describe the kinetic effects of ordinance. What's next for Iran? Pete Hegseth, the Defence Secretary, was right when he said the only way to know for sure is to get out a shovel and dig at Fordow. Which the Iranians may well do. If they find their structural defences worked as planned, and protected their stockpile of uranium presumed to be stored there, then they could get back in the nuclear game relatively quickly - if only to develop a so called "dirty bomb" to spread radioactive dust around an enemy city, contaminating rather than destroying it. The big question for the Iranians is do they want to? Just as America has spent a fortune to incapacitate the Iranian nuclear programme, so too has Iran spent a much bigger fortune to start and sustain that programme. And to fortify it in underground sites like Fordow cost vast amounts of money (there is another site, in somewhere called by Western Intelligence "Pickaxe Mountain", where another suspicious underground facility was reportedly close to coming into use in recent weeks). On his recent trip to the Middle East, President Trump took time to contrast the discontents of ordinary Iranians with the apparently more lavish lives of the Arab nations on the south side of the Persian Gulf. While one oil rich state spent its liquid gold on nuclear weapons and funding proxy forces in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen - the other oil rich states behaved like oil rich states, and built glittering towers, bought football teams and tried to shift their economies (and their populations future prosperity) beyond oil and into new technologies. Mr Trump held out the prospect of a similar boost to lifestyles and aspirations for the Iranians - but only if they give up their nuclear ambitions and stop trying to subvert neighbouring states. He didn't call for regime change – no American officials have. But they must hope that ordinary Iranians, having witnessed forty years of the Islamic Republic's policy and billions of dollars in investments go up in smoke, will balk at the idea of just picking up and starting over with the same plan. "Tehran may be forced to accept negotiated restrictions on its nuclear programme." Of course, the most dangerous time for any repressive regime is when it starts to change, which inevitably means loosening its grip on society. Which may explain why Iran's supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is in no hurry to enter talks with the Americans on what happens next. President Trump would like to begin talks next month, presumably picking up where his envoy Steve Witkoff left off. Much as he might wish it, it probably won't turn out to be that easy. Amir Asmar, a former Middle East analyst for the US Department of Defence and now a scholar with the foreign policy think tank The Atlantic council, has outlined three scenarios for the Iranians, based on how much of their programme survived the Fordow raid. In the first scenario, if the Fordow complex and its cascade of centrifuges - the machines that enrich the uranium to weapons grade - are damaged and not functional, Tehran may be forced to accept negotiated restrictions on its nuclear programme. But if much of the machinery emerges unscathed, then in Asmar's view "nothing short of endangering the regime itself would cause Tehran's present leaders to permanently abandon decades of commitment to an indigenous nuclear programme". Hence his conclusion that a partially damaged Fordow will only trigger at best a pause – in both Iran's nuclear programme, and in Israel's efforts to smash it. Further attacks, he feels, would be inevitable, with or without US involvement. In a second scenario, Asmar posits the total destruction of Fordow, with none of its highly enriched uranium stock surviving. In this case he thinks the Iranian leaders would calculate they cannot benefit from holding out in nuclear talks because it would take many years (and tens of billions in oil revenues) to reconstitute the programme, and its ballistic weapons programme, which has also been badly smashed up. And as everybody is watching, any efforts to restart the programmes would probably be easily spotted and would probably lead to Israeli raids at the very least. He says compliance would require even more intrusive monitoring by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran considers withdrawing from Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty That agency's head, Rafael Grossi, said the centrifuge machines at Fordow and elsewhere are "extremely vibration-sensitive", and given the huge explosive effects unleashed by the B2 Raid, "very significant damage is expected to have occurred". But Iran's parliament has already begun steps to end Iran's membership of the IAEA and prevent the inspections that come with it. Iran is also considering withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which commits signatories to not acquire nuclear weapons, and subjects them to IAEA inspection in return for access to nuclear technology for energy and other peaceful purposes. Although Iran's extensive development of nuclear facilities that go far beyond peaceful means suggest it was not adhering to the NPT anyway (enriching uranium to 60% is far beyond the needs of a nuclear energy programme), the treaty has other practical uses. It provided the legal justification necessary for the UN Security Council's sanctions on Iran. Without the NPT Iran's only legal barrier to developing a nuke would be Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa against it. Iran could easily leave the NPT and develop a bomb without the prying eyes of the IAEA. "The long-term prospects for regional security and stability would be destroyed." Writing in The Atlantic magazine, Thomas Wright, who served as senior director of strategic planning at the National Security Council during the Biden Administration, claimed this was the main problem with the Presidents insistence that the Iranian nuclear programme had been "obliterated". "Trump could have managed that risk by telling the public that although the strikes appeared to have been successful, fully ascertaining their results would take time. "He could then have insisted on a week-long cease-fire for the purpose of concluding a diplomatic agreement with Iran - one that would have insisted on limits to Iran's nuclear programme and continued access for the IAEA, whose inspectors remain in Iran but have not been admitted into nuclear sites. "Given the likely damage done to the programme, he could have afforded to stop short of demanding full dismantlement and settled instead for strict limits on enrichment, as well as round-the-clock inspections with no expiration date. "But Trump took a very different path by declaring the problem fully solved and not using the moment of leverage to extract commitments from Tehran. Tensions between Washington and Jerusalem seem all but inevitable in the aftermath of this choice," he wrote. The danger of a half-done job - or worse, scarcely inflicting any damage at all - is that Iran's Supreme leader decides to go for broke, speeding up development of an A-Bomb and detonating one - to show adversaries Iran is in the nuclear club and deter future attackers. The long-term prospects for regional security and stability would be destroyed. From Gaza to Yemen, Kurdistan to Afghanistan the likelihood of a grand bargain to bring peace to this most troubled of regions would slip further away. This is precisely the opposite of what the attacks were intended to achieve. No wonder the effectiveness of the raid has been such a touchy subject for the President. There may be a ceasefire - but now what?
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Where is the value in increasing the Help-to-Buy scheme threshold?
Pre-budget submissions are all about pleadings. Every special interest group in the State makes a pitch for more resources. They all consider their proposals to be in the wider public and economic interest. Some are worthy, many more are largely self-interested. This year the whole process appears to have kicked off earlier than usual, perhaps on the understanding that the largesse of recent years is unlikely to be repeated this time around. In the first place, there is no election. Worries for the medium-term health of Europe's most open economy in a climate where tariffs, trade wars and an absence of consistency on policy are increasingly the norm also will inevitably push Ministers towards a more cautious approach. And for what money is available, the need is to prioritise investment in infrastructure. Expensive upgrades to electricity, water and sewerage networks that are increasingly being cited by foreign direct investors among factors counting against Ireland Inc are needed. READ MORE An EY survey on Friday found that more than two-thirds of Irish businesses 'are worried about securing enough energy to meet future needs', which is an extraordinary number. Put together, it means more things are going to be a tough ask to get over the line. [ First-time buyers in Dublin now locked out of Help-to-Buy scheme, warns Savills Opens in new window ] It seems a strange time then for estate agent Savills to be picking CSO house price data to press for an increase in the upper threshold for the Help-to-Buy scheme. Savills says first-time buyers in Dublin are paying an average of €515,000 for a home, putting them beyond the €500,000 ceiling for Help-to-Buy. It wants that ceiling increased to at least €621,000 to take account of inflation, it says. First, averages are notoriously prone to manipulation by singular expensive property sales. Second, the more reliable median data from the same CSO note shows that prices exceed €460,000 only in Dún Laoghaire Rathdown among the four Dublin local authority areas. [ Developers are bluffing when they say lower prices would undermine viability of house building Opens in new window ] Then there is the maximum available tax refund under Help-to-Buy, which is €30,000. Ignoring that when calling for a higher ceiling is not making property more affordable for first-time buyers in general, only for the very wealthy. It is worth remembering that while the marketing speaks about providing a helping hand for first-time buyers – with even the scheme's name selected for the same reason – Help-to-Buy was from the start a scheme put together to help developers make the numbers stack up on building starter homes. That's not happening, as supply constraints (and prices rising at their fastest rate in 10 years) attest, so for the State – and those first-time buyers – what is the value of widening the incentive?
