Government to cut rent supplement

murphaph

antoobrien wrote: »

Interesting logic, care to explain it or is the second part of the argument the only reason you think that way?

I think it's pretty self evident: few people in Ireland (not in receipt of RS) see renting from a private landlord as anymore than a stop gap. Most fully anticipate buying a property so we don't have any citizens movement towards better legislation. No association of renters etc. in each county, as would be common on the continent.

daltonmd

murphaph wrote: »

I think it's pretty self evident: few people in Ireland (not in receipt of RS) see renting from a private landlord as anymore than a stop gap. Most fully anticipate buying a property so we don't have any citizens movement towards better legislation. No association of renters etc. in each county, as would be common on the continent.

I don't fully agree - I see your logic as long as you can see that the "stop gap" has lengthened considerably, but people, for the most part, don't really have that choice anymore.

A lot of renters are happy renting and *may* buy in the future if it suits them.
A lot of renters are not happy renting but cannot buy because of the finances involved.
A lot of renters now actually do own their own homes and are tenants/landlords.

Most can fully anticipate what they want, but if they can't get finance and are looking at reduced disposable income, rising taxes, rising indirect taxes, stealth taxes and higher costs of borrowing for the next few years then the rental market will be forced to change.

Hotblack Desiato

murphaph wrote: »

Of course these %age figures would be MUCH lower if more people rented in general in Ireland.

Yes, and lower still if all tenancies were registered like they're supposed to be.
Presumably the 40% figure is based only on registered tenancies.

snubbleste

ninja900 wrote: »

Yes, and lower still if all tenancies were registered like they're supposed to be.
Presumably the 40% figure is based only on registered tenancies.

Why would you presume that?
There are plenty of rent supplement tenants renting a room living with the owner of the house. Those are not registered tenancies.

djpbarry

murphaph wrote: »

The property should be clean, dry and capable of being heated reasonably efficiently, with running water and electricity supply and inside toilet.

Legislation shouldn't really be necessary to ensure the above though. Surely it should be common sense that a tenant should not be handing over their cash for a property that doesn't have central heating, for example? It seemed to me (and I accept that this is purely anecdotal) that a large number of tenants in Ireland don't even have a proper lease - that's just asking for trouble.

daltonmd wrote: »

Most can fully anticipate what they want, but if they can't get finance and are looking at reduced disposable income, rising taxes, rising indirect taxes, stealth taxes and higher costs of borrowing for the next few years then the rental market will be forced to change.

But the point is that the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland don't want to rent long-term. Some may have been forced into that situation, but the only viable long-term plan in the minds of many is owning property.

daltonmd

djpbarry wrote: »

Legislation shouldn't really be necessary to ensure the above though. Surely it should be common sense that a tenant should not be handing over their cash for a property that doesn't have central heating, for example? It seemed to me (and I accept that this is purely anecdotal) that a large number of tenants in Ireland don't even have a proper lease - that's just asking for trouble.
But the point is that the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland don't want to rent long-term. Some may have been forced into that situation, but the only viable long-term plan in the minds of many is owning property.

I see your point, but the reality is that while most people don't want to rent long term, for the moment they have no choice. It is a long term plan for many, my self included, but as long as I can't get a mortgage or fear for my income/job then I won't be buying.

People looking to enter the market now will not make the mistakes that they have seen their family/friends make.

They may not like renting - but it will always be the more preferable option to Negative Equity.

Tragedy

snubbleste wrote: »

Why would you presume that?
There are plenty of rent supplement tenants renting a room living with the owner of the house. Those are not registered tenancies.

That's his point. They're comparing total amount of people being claiming rent supplement against total amount of registered tenancies. As many people claiming RS won't be registered tenants and as many other renters won't be registered tenants, the %age figure given for how much of the market RS controls will be vastly overstated. This is something no-one seems interested in picking up on, despite e-mailing Joan Burton, Ronan Lyons etc.

AlekSmart

daltonmd wrote: »

I see your point, but the reality is that while most people don't want to rent long term, for the moment they have no choice. It is a long term plan for many, my self included, but as long as I can't get a mortgage or fear for my income/job then I won't be buying.

People looking to enter the market now will not make the mistakes that they have seen their family/friends make.

They may not like renting - but it will always be the more preferable option to Negative Equity.

The main reason for this negative perception of Rental is the continued refusal of the State to give due recognition to it's benefits.

It would appear that Irish Government policy remains firmly rooted in getting the Property Ladder back up against the wall from which it has fallen.

Whilst owning and enjoying one's own property has many benefits,it also brings with it responsibilities,expense and inflexibility...or at least it does everywhere else except Ireland,where it's promoted as a constitutionally enshrined entitlement.

If the Irish State even moved slightly towards providing effective regulation and monitoring of Rental,particularly of Long-Term rental,it would free up a large amount of currently frozen resources,both monetary and phsychological.

It does'nt have to be revolutionary or threaten the security of the State and it's institutions,but the constant dumbing down of the Rental option needs to stop.

However it seems the Developers,Financial Institutions and associated Boomtime Rats remain the sleeping dogs which Government is unwilling to put outside the door.

daltonmd

AlekSmart wrote: »

The main reason for this negative perception of Rental is the continued refusal of the State to give due recognition to it's benefits.

It would appear that Irish Government policy remains firmly rooted in getting the Property Ladder back up against the wall from which it has fallen.

Whilst owning and enjoying one's own property has many benefits,it also brings with it responsibilities,expense and inflexibility...or at least it does everywhere else except Ireland,where it's promoted as a constitutionally enshrined entitlement.

If the Irish State even moved slightly towards providing effective regulation and monitoring of Rental,particularly of Long-Term rental,it would free up a large amount of currently frozen resources,both monetary and phsychological.

It does'nt have to be revolutionary or threaten the security of the State and it's institutions,but the constant dumbing down of the Rental option needs to stop.

However it seems the Developers,Financial Institutions and associated Boomtime Rats remain the sleeping dogs which Government is unwilling to put outside the door.

Couldn't agree more - one of the fears that I have is renting into my old age - I'm terrified that if I continue renting I'll be kicked out and 70 looking for a deposit back from a Landlord lol.
Seriously though - as long as rental means lack of security and the deposit issue then Irish people won't want to rent long term.

djpbarry

daltonmd wrote: »

I see your point, but the reality is that while most people don't want to rent long term...

That's the nub of the issue - why is renting seen by the Irish as being so much worse than ownership?

daltonmd wrote: »

Couldn't agree more - one of the fears that I have is renting into my old age - I'm terrified that if I continue renting I'll be kicked out and 70 looking for a deposit back from a Landlord lol.

But your landlord can't just kick you out for no good reason - you have rights! This isn't the 1800's.

daltonmd

djpbarry wrote: »

That's the nub of the issue - why is renting seen by the Irish as being so much worse than ownership?
But your landlord can't just kick you out for no good reason - you have rights! This isn't the 1800's.

He might wish to sell, he might be forced by the bank to sell, he might have to move back into the home? He might increase my rent to an unaffordable amount?

Edit - right on cue http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=43653.

Dellony25

What really bugs me is the people who are in Receipt of rent supplement and then turn down a perfectly good house from their local council because they dont want to live in a council house yet hav no problem in getting the state to pay their rent!! The RS should be scrapped altogether!!

Nothingbetter2d

the government should rent out all the nama properties and use that as a means to bring down rent rates in ireland.

Nothingbetter2d

Dellony25 wrote: »

What really bugs me is the people who are in Receipt of rent supplement and then turn down a perfectly good house from their local council because they dont want to live in a council house yet hav no problem in getting the state to pay their rent!! The RS should be scrapped altogether!!

if the offer me a house i'd take it.... it would be a damn site better than the shoe box im renting now

djpbarry

daltonmd wrote: »

He might wish to sell, he might be forced by the bank to sell, he might have to move back into the home? He might increase my rent to an unaffordable amount?

Ignoring for a moment that each of those scenarios is relatively unlikely in the case of any one landlord, you still have rights - you can't just be turfed out of rented accommodation.

daltonmd

djpbarry wrote: »

Ignoring for a moment that each of those scenarios is relatively unlikely in the case of any one landlord, you still have rights - you can't just be turfed out of rented accommodation.

I may have rights - but I don't have security.

djpbarry

daltonmd wrote: »

I may have rights - but I don't have security.

Well that depends on how one defines security. A landlord needs a very good reason to terminate a tenancy and they also need to give plenty of notice. As for being forced to sell, well that's very unlikely - why would a bank force someone to sell a property that's generating rental income? And as for raising the rent, yeah, that can happen, but mortgage payments can increase too!

daltonmd

djpbarry wrote: »

Well that depends on how one defines security. A landlord needs a very good reason to terminate a tenancy and they also need to give plenty of notice. As for being forced to sell, well that's very unlikely - why would a bank force someone to sell a property that's generating rental income? And as for raising the rent, yeah, that can happen, but mortgage payments can increase too!

Sorry - I don't agree. It's shaky everywhere at the moment - no long term security for tenants. A lot of landlords are to the pin of their collars.

djpbarry

daltonmd wrote: »

Sorry - I don't agree. It's shaky everywhere at the moment - no long term security for tenants.

Ah, so we're referring exclusively to the present climate? Ok, how do home-owners, who are currently losing money on their properties hand over fist (and whose mortgage payments are likely to increase substantially in the event of an economic recovery), have more "security" than renters in the present climate?

daltonmd wrote: »

A lot of landlords are to the pin of their collars.

I'm not familiar with that expression?

daltonmd

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, so we're referring exclusively to the present climate? Ok, how do home-owners, who are currently losing money on their properties hand over fist (and whose mortgage payments are likely to increase substantially in the event of an economic recovery), have more "security" than renters in the present climate?
I'm not familiar with that expression?

Well of course we are referring to the present climate, it's their property in the first instance so any change will be instigated by them or dictated by their banks - but - they are privvy to them, unlike tenants.

To the pin of ones collar - unable to take anymore increases in BTL charges and/or unable to take anymore increases in taxes or reductions in personal income.

Edit to add - I refer to Patrick Holohans recent statement about BTL properites - he believes that banks should take a more active role in these issues - meaning, protect home ownership but BTL up in the air.

Tragedy

I hope people don't mind me bumping this thread as the post is relevant.

Firstly, the 2011 census figures were published in 2012. This revealed that on census day, 428,040 people described themselves as living in rented accommodation. Remember, this is only for people who A) Filled out the census form and Filled it out correctly, so the real number is undoubtedly higher. Perhaps this will once and for all stop the nonsense that "Rent Supplement controls 50% of the rental market" (where the truer figure is likely to be 15-20%).

Secondly, over a year since the first cuts in Rent Supplement started to take effect and... From Q4 2011 to Q4 2012, rental prices in Dublin increased by between 3.8% and 6.4%. Rental prices across the country in general decreased by a very small amount - and if one looks at the trend of rental price falls over the past few years, one can see that the trend is continuing with no noticeable distortionary effect from the RS cuts. (http://www.daft.ie/report/Daft-Rental-Report-Q4-2012.pdf is very informative, as is http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/prices/2012/rppi_dec2012.pdf for correlating house price falls with rental price falls).


So, rent supplement wasn't setting an artificial price floor and the cut seems to have had no tangible effect on prices.

(PS: If mods are irrationally anti bumping, can you split this off into a new thread?)

Godge

Tragedy wrote: »

I hope people don't mind me bumping this thread as the post is relevant.

Firstly, the 2011 census figures were published in 2012. This revealed that on census day, 428,040 people described themselves as living in rented accommodation. Remember, this is only for people who A) Filled out the census form and Filled it out correctly, so the real number is undoubtedly higher. Perhaps this will once and for all stop the nonsense that "Rent Supplement controls 50% of the rental market" (where the truer figure is likely to be 15-20%).?)

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/10/13/00015.asp

According to Joan Burton, the number of people claiming the allowance was 95,700 as of October 2011.

http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

According to the Census there were 2.7 people per household. Multiplying 95,700 by 2.7 gives 258,390, approximately 60% meaning that rent supplement is now covering 60% of the rental market.

Tragedy wrote: »

Secondly, over a year since the first cuts in Rent Supplement started to take effect and... From Q4 2011 to Q4 2012, rental prices in Dublin increased by between 3.8% and 6.4%. Rental prices across the country in general decreased by a very small amount - and if one looks at the trend of rental price falls over the past few years, one can see that the trend is continuing with no noticeable distortionary effect from the RS cuts. (http://www.daft.ie/report/Daft-Rental-Report-Q4-2012.pdf is very informative, as is http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/prices/2012/rppi_dec2012.pdf for correlating house price falls with rental price falls).


So, rent supplement wasn't setting an artificial price floor and the cut seems to have had no tangible effect on prices.

(PS: If mods are irrationally anti bumping, can you split this off into a new thread?)

have you taken into account the effects of the new rules on bedsits. If you eliminate the cheapest form of accommodation, the average rent will rise regardless of the general direction of rental prices. I am surprised therefore that the increase is so low.

Tragedy

Godge wrote: »

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/10/13/00015.asp

According to Joan Burton, the number of people claiming the allowance was 95,700 as of October 2011.

http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

Sorry, I typo'ed. According to the census: Total rented dwellings (Number) 449,352 (of which 305,377 are private rented households with the rest being rented from a 'Voluntary Body' or 'Local Authority', both of which are eligible for RS payments). So a maximum of 95,700 households out of a minimum of 449,352 households are funded by RS. That sets the theoretical maximum at 21% of the market being controlled by RS, with the very real likelihood that it is significantly less (e.g. there are 110,000 undergraduate students , a large proportion of which will be living in campus accomodation and rented accomodation and not filling in census forms)

One can see here that despite the amount of RS recipients dropping by only 6,800 (or 7%), the amount of the rental market funded by the RS scheme has magically dropped by 10%(40% of market to 30%). Awesome work by the DSP, as per usual.

have you taken into account the effects of the new rules on bedsits. If you eliminate the cheapest form of accommodation, the average rent will rise regardless of the general direction of rental prices. I am surprised therefore that the increase is so low.

I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense for a very many reasons.
#1 There weren't a large amount of bedsits, and they were localised in a few specific areas. All areas of Dublin (even those in the suburbs that have very few if any apartments) saw large growth in rents.
#2 Very few(anyone?) chose to live in a bedsit if they could afford better.
#3 Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 2008 statutory instrument had a 4 year grace period that only ended in January of this year, with enforcement only beginning in Spring 2013. How could you possibly believe that that drove rental price increases throughout the whole of 2012?
#4

Villa05

Tragedy wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense for a very many reasons.
#1 There weren't a large amount of bedsits, and they were localised in a few specific areas. All areas of Dublin (even those in the suburbs that have very few if any apartments) saw large growth in rents.
#2 Very few(anyone?) chose to live in a bedsit if they could afford better.
#3 Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 2008 statutory instrument had a 4 year grace period that only ended in January of this year, with enforcement only beginning in Spring 2013. How could you possibly believe that that drove rental price increases throughout the whole of 2012?

1. Would it be enough to cause a 3% rise in rents
2. Given we have the mother of all recessions. Define affordable in Dublin
2. A grace period is a period to rectify the issue, not a sit on your hands period, although given Ireland's history I'm open to correction

djpbarry

Villa05 wrote: »

Given we have the mother of all recessions.

Ireland is not in recession and has not been for some time.

Villa05

djpbarry wrote: »

Ireland is not in recession and has not been for some time.

Technically we are back in recession

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/ireland-back-in-recession-as-new-figures-confirm-two-quarters-of-gdp-contraction/

djpbarry

Villa05 wrote: »

Technically we are back in recession

Ok, the country has just about slipped back into recession for the first time since 2009, but (a) GDP is still on a general upward trend and (b) it's a long way from the "mother of all recessions", as you described it.

MMAGirl

the only effect that cutting rent allowance has had is that people who cant afford a standard of living must now move somewhere, where they can. freeing up the better properties for those who can afford them.

AlekSmart

MMAGirl wrote: »

the only effect that cutting rent allowance has had is that people who cant afford a standard of living must now move somewhere, where they can. freeing up the better properties for those who can afford them.

Or....the same people have to consider diverting income from...erm....other sources into paying the difference between RA and the rent being sought ?

By this I mean reducing the spend on Cigarettes,Tobacco,Mobile Phone credit,alcohol and substance purchases,clothing and jewellery to name but a few.

I am also aware personally of upfront RA recipient/s who can still manage to run a car (fully Taxed and NCT'd too !),which I fully admit is not to be taken as indicative of ALL such recipients,but still demonstrates that austerity is an elastic term to many.

not yet

AlekSmart wrote: »

Or....the same people have to consider diverting income from...erm....other sources into paying the difference between RA and the rent being sought ?

By this I mean reducing the spend on Cigarettes,Tobacco,Mobile Phone credit,alcohol and substance purchases,clothing and jewellery to name but a few.

I am also aware personally of upfront RA recipient/s who can still manage to run a car (fully Taxed and NCT'd too !),which I fully admit is not to be taken as indicative of ALL such recipients,but still demonstrates that austerity is an elastic term to many.

But think of the childer....

I am sick to death of listening to the sh1te about bread lines and the like.the real poor in this country are people working on 25-40k simple as.