The Irish Taxpayer Funds 50% of Private Tenancies in the State

bugler

The real story in this article isn't that Rent Supplement is to be reduced, it's the sheer scale of government involvement in the rental market. Not only is this a massive drain on public finances, it is an artificial support that keeps all private sector rents higher than they otherwise would be.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0610/rent.html

Maximum rent supplements limits are to be reduced by up to 36% for tenants who are entering into new leases or renewing leases.

However, the supplements for single people are to remain largely untouched.

Minister for Social Protection Eamon Ó Cuiv said the reductions were designed to reflect the reductions in the rental market and would ensure that landlords are not charging artificially high rents.
Advertisement

The rate for couples or one parent families with one child has dropped from between €568-€932 to between €400 and €930.

The rate for couples or one parent families with three children has been reduced from between €663-€1,110 to between €500-€1,100.

The Minister says the measure is expected to save up to €20m this year.

He said these rates related to the next eighteen months but that they would be reviewed if rents increase during that period.

95,000 households are supported by rent supplement, which the Department of Social Protection says is about half of the total private rented market in Ireland.

In 2009 the Department paid over €500m in rent supplement.

The Irish taxpayer funds 50% of private tenancies in this country to some degree. Is there are actually any point to this government and country other than to make landlordism, landholding, and property speculation as profitable as circumstances allow?

jimmycrackcorm

What surprises me is that they reckon they will only save €20 million this year with an average 30% or thereabouts cut

Head The Wall

That cut is only on new leases. People already on rent supplement will keep getting what they are getting.

Govt must never have heard about renegotiating leases.

It's a waste of an effort at this stage. Everyone's relief should be cut and the landlords would just have to grin and bear it

edellc

but if they cut everyone's supplement do you really think that greedy landlords would reduce rent NO and that means that low income families will then have to give more of their low income into the rent creating worse poverty in low income families
(just in case anyone says it not everyone is in a position to move)

what is needed are laws relating to rental properties as the ones we have now certainly dont fit with the times

ei.sdraob

edellc wrote: »

but if they cut everyone's supplement do you really think that greedy landlords would reduce rent NO and that means that low income families will then have to give more of their low income into the rent creating worse poverty in low income families
(just in case anyone says it not everyone is in a position to move)

what is needed are laws relating to rental properties as the ones we have now certainly dont fit with the times

theres alot of oversupply in the market

rents have already fallen alot and will continue to do so

but this of course props up the prices

edellc

agreed
but again not everyone can move....thats in reply to

"It's a waste of an effort at this stage. Everyone's relief should be cut and the landlords would just have to grin and bear it" Head the wall

however if lease is up i see no problem in rent supplement being reduced....but still at lot of substandard rental properties especially in dublin and way to many greedy landlords we really need a change in the law

murphaph

edellc wrote: »

but if they cut everyone's supplement do you really think that greedy landlords would reduce rent NO and that means that low income families will then have to give more of their low income into the rent creating worse poverty in low income families
(just in case anyone says it not everyone is in a position to move)

what is needed are laws relating to rental properties as the ones we have now certainly dont fit with the times

Speaking as a so called GREEDY landlord (I left Ireland in 2009 to work abroad and I decided not to sell my old home but to rent it out instead) I can assure you that you are 100% wrong. My (lovely) tenants are on RS and when it was reduced last time, they showed me their paperwork and I reduced the rent accordingly. If tenants are decent, landlords like me will strive to keep them in situ. Only an idiot landlord would refuse to lower his asking price in the face of a falling market and reduced RS payments. One month of no rent wipes out any benefit of keeping the rent higher than the market dictates, plus there's all the hassle of advertising and interviewing tenants again.

I can categorically assure you, that if my tenants' RS is cut again, I will deal with them to keep them happy and in situ. The only people who have anything to fear by reductions to RS are lousy tenants and lousy landlords. Mine play ball with me and I play ball with them, the way it should be.

murphaph

edellc wrote: »

agreed
but again not everyone can move....thats in reply to

"It's a waste of an effort at this stage. Everyone's relief should be cut and the landlords would just have to grin and bear it" Head the wall

however if lease is up i see no problem in rent supplement being reduced....but still at lot of substandard rental properties especially in dublin and way to many greedy landlords we really need a change in the law

The laws do need changing, to better protect BOTH sides. I know there are some sh!tty rentals out there that are barely fit for human habitation, but there are also plenty of sh!tty tenants out there who have absolutely no respect for fairness (ie, stop paying rent and just sit there until they are evicted, meanwhile the landlord's house is being reposseessed by the bank!) or other people's property (intentional destruction of plasterboard etc. on leaving the property, no chance of getting the costs back from tenant or getting a conviction against same). I see it clearly in Germany: tenants have more rights BUT they have more responsibilities too, and they fullfil their end of the bargain more often than not.

Count Dooku

Head The Wall wrote: »

That cut is only on new leases. People already on rent supplement will keep getting what they are getting.

Govt must never have heard about renegotiating leases.

It means that main goal is to keep tenants with existing landlords to prevent market fall further…

Head The Wall wrote: »

It's a waste of an effort at this stage. Everyone's relief should be cut and the landlords would just have to grin and bear it

95,000 “greedy” landlords will overthrow any government, which will decide to reduce their incomes

The_Honeybadger

About time, myself and my partner rent, and will be renting for the forseeable future, that RS was putting an artificial floor in the market and perhaps we may now get value for money when looking for a new place. Can't for the life of me see why they wouldn't cut it across the board, doubt many would complain, although it would probably effect house prices if rents dropped too much, and we can't have that, now can we

AlekSmart

Not only is this a massive drain on public finances, it is an artificial support that keeps all private sector rents higher than they otherwise would be.

Too true by half....

However the real reason may have more to do with the Government not wishing to poke a sleeping dog,for fear of gettin bit !!

As Bugler states,the level of active State involvement in the rental market is incredible.

In a high proportion of RS cases the actual benefit is but one of a "package" being claimed.
It would not be unusual to come across dei-facto "families" where the menu of benefits would include.
Lone Parent Benefit
Jobseekers Allowance
Childrens Allowance.
Disability/Disablement Benefit.
Fás Training Allowance.
Back to School/Childrens footwear allowance.

Generally where a couple are co-habiting,the combined total of benefit payments can amount to a healthy sum.

In many areas there is no attempt made to disguise the contradiction of a cohabiting couple being in reciept of Lone Parent Benefit AND Jobseekers Allowance at the same address.

It seems that in some areas Social Welfare officials have an unwritten convention which allows them to blind-eye such contraventions in the interests of maintaining the peace.

However Murphaph,not for the first time identifies a rather more basic element in all of this....

I see it clearly in Germany: tenants have more rights BUT they have more responsibilities too, and they fullfil their end of the bargain more often than not.

Its altogether too obvious that we as a people are on intimate terms with our "Rights" whilst having a very strongly held antipathy to the "Responsibilities" which are all part of the Social Package (Well.....ok...SHOULD be a part of the Social Package) :rolleyes:

Welease

edellc wrote: »

(just in case anyone says it not everyone is in a position to move)

Who is not in a position to move? and why?

There is an abundance of empty property in this country, pick any town and there are plenty of properties available for rental who would welcome new tenants... noone is asking anyone to move cities...

gurramok

And Dublin ain't touched by this 'reduction' :mad:

bad2dabone

sometimes I wonder why I fvcking bother paying the mortgage when I could get my rent paid for.

Taxipete29

These figures are a disgrace. I hate the idea of rent supplement. It creates more problems than it solves as it traps people in a cycle of welfare dependancy and it is an impediment to taking up employment. It is also as many have said an artificial floor in the market.

The Govt have no real interest in bringing down the cost of renting. Too much of a vested interest.

edellc

Welease wrote: »

Who is not in a position to move? and why?

There is an abundance of empty property in this country, pick any town and there are plenty of properties available for rental who would welcome new tenants... noone is asking anyone to move cities...

there may be an abundance of poor quality properties

I'm actually not even going to continue with this its pointless unless you are in the situation i am in your never going to understand or have any compassion and are going to continue on having your hard line far right opinions and no matter what anyone argues in this post or anyother post like it you will never understand :mad:

so off with you and rant back im really not interested in what you have to say

Welease

edellc wrote: »

there may be an abundance of poor quality properties

I'm actually not even going to continue with this its pointless unless you are in the situation i am in your never going to understand or have any compassion and are going to continue on having your hard line far right opinions and no matter what anyone argues in this post or anyother post like it you will never understand :mad:

so off with you and rant back im really not interested in what you have to say

Congrats on being able top glean all of that from my statement asking who was not in a position to move...

What you mean is.. you can't actually provide any information, so therefore it's easier to attack me personally and pretend you have the high moral ground...

Demonon

Welease wrote: »

Who is not in a position to move? and why?

There is an abundance of empty property in this country, pick any town and there are plenty of properties available for rental who would welcome new tenants... noone is asking anyone to move cities...

I could be interpreting this post wrong, (tell me if I am) , but this isn't how NAMA works. The government can't just take all the vacant properties and use them to house social welfare tenants, because the government do not own those vacant properties. Legally the developers do. All that's changed is instead of the developers owing the money for those vacant properties to the bank, they now owe it to NAMA. Whether NAMA want to acquire the properties if the developers default, is yet to be seen.

Welease

Demonon wrote: »

I could be interpreting this post wrong, (tell me if I am) , but this isn't how NAMA works. The government can't just take all the vacant properties and use them to house social welfare tenants, because the government do not own those vacant properties. Legally the developers do. All that's changed is instead of the developers owing the money for those vacant properties to the bank, they now owe it to NAMA. Whether NAMA want to acquire the properties if the developers default, is yet to be seen.

I don't specifically mean NAMA properties.. I mean there are plenty of emtpy rental properties owned by private individuals (and companies) available in towns/cities across this country. The previous poster is implying that we cannot force some form of market forces on the market because there is no alternative local properties for people to avail of. I believe that to be untrue.

Sleepy

Implement the reduction along with legislation that all landlords in receipt of rent from RA tennants must accept rental payments reduced by that amount until the end of the current lease. simples.

maninasia

Who owns properties...
http://www.independent.ie/business/tds-top-up-their-pay-with-rental-income-2209703.html

hiorta

Should the Government be made to publish a monthly bulletin that clearly shows the full picture of all such subsidies levied on the taxpayers?

The Public Representatives and the Opposition - and the 'vigilant' Press - are clearly failing to do so, opening a door to croneyism and theft of the country's revenues.

oflahero

edellc wrote: »

...are going to continue on having your hard line far right opinions...

It's surprising to see something like this trotted out in defence of what is quite obviously a subsidy to landlords.

If 'hard line far right opinions' means questioning the wisdom of propping up 50% of the market with taxpayers' money, then I'm Hitler.*

*Yay! Godwin's Law breach!

thebman

maninasia wrote: »

Who owns properties...
http://www.independent.ie/business/tds-top-up-their-pay-with-rental-income-2209703.html

This is it in a nutshell and part of the reason why our politicians fueled a property bubble.

They buy property and fuel a bubble and sell at the end. Darn that sudden burst at the end that stopped many from doing so.

It does show some believed their own hype that some politicians didn't sell before the bust and still believed in a soft landing.

I don't know why anyone would think we were so special that we would have a soft landing though.