Unbelievable rental prices : Mod warning Post #2

off.the.walls

€650 for a room with a "Kitchen" bed and toilet in it! Who the hell do these people think they are we may as well be considered a third world country with the state of some of the properties that are advertised for rent in dublin! The price vs the size of places in dublin is just ridiculous... <MOD SNIP >

What does everyone else think?

athtrasna

Mod note

Re-opened following mod review.

Landlord (or tenant) bashing generalisations are not welcome on this forum so posters are asked to be mindful of that and the forum charter before posting on this thread. There will be no second chances. Thanks for your help.

newacc2015

People seem to think that when you pay a Landlord €1k a month for a 1 bed room apartment, that it is pure profit. Since 2007 Landlords have to pay PRSI and USC. That is 13% for most. Then they only get 75% mortgage interest relief, which used to be 100%. Meaning landlords have to taxes on rent to then pay their mortgage interest. In any other business, you can write off tax entirely. The Government doesnt see it this way. Landlords now have to pay LPT. If they are on a variable mortgage, they are generally being ripped off by their bank.

Even if a Landlord is charging €1000 a month. They are still making far less money than if they were getting €1000 in 2007. If you are looking to blame anyone for high rental prices, blame the Government for heavily taxing landlords for the last few years.

iainBB

off.the.walls wrote: »

€650 for a room with a "Kitchen" bed and toilet in it! Who the hell do these people think they are we may as well be considered a third world country with the state of some of the properties that are advertised for rent in dublin! The price vs the size of places in dublin is just ridiculous... <MOD SNIP >

What does everyone else think?

It's a simple supply and demand issue.
More houses less rent costs.
Perhaps properties should be advertised excluding changes fees taxes etc to demonstrate government imposed expenses.

House rental is a business not a charity it's the sad reality world we live in .

beauf

off.the.walls wrote: »

€650 for a room with a "Kitchen" bed and toilet in it! Who the hell do these people think they are we may as well be considered a third world country with the state of some of the properties that are advertised for rent in dublin! The price vs the size of places in dublin is just ridiculous... <MOD SNIP >

What does everyone else think?

The world is a big place?

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/index/europe
http://www.cheapestdestinationsblog.com/2014/12/26/the-cheapest-places-to-live-in-the-world-2015/

Brego888

newacc2015 wrote: »

People seem to think that when you pay a Landlord €1k a month for a 1 bed room apartment, that it is pure profit. Since 2007 Landlords have to pay PRSI and USC. That is 13% for most. Then they only get 75% mortgage interest relief, which used to be 100%. Meaning landlords have to taxes on rent to then pay their mortgage interest. In any other business, you can write off tax entirely. The Government doesnt see it this way. Landlords now have to pay LPT. If they are on a variable mortgage, they are generally being ripped off by their bank.

Even if a Landlord is charging €1000 a month. They are still making far less money than if they were getting €1000 in 2007. If you are looking to blame anyone for high rental prices, blame the Government for heavily taxing landlords for the last few years.

What percentage of their monthly rental income does a landlord lose on average with all these charges do you reckon?

Boskowski

<MOD SNIP >

Anyway. Obviously there is a realistic expectation behind this to actually find a tenant for a place like that and for that money. Out of interest, would people here generally think that's ok if the market allows it or would people rather think if thats where things are going something seems a bit wrong?

davo10

Brego888 wrote: »

What percentage of their monthly rental income does a landlord lose on average with all these charges do you reckon?

When you consider income tax and mortgage repayments, most if not all of that €1000 will be gone. A considerable percentage of LL are having to supplement the rent in order to meet mortgage payments, that of course is of no consequence to the tenant but the combination of supply/demand and mortgage repayments will ensure that rents will always be set at the max which can be achieved. This is not particular to Ireland, I have lived/been a LL in the UK and tenant in the U.S and it was exactly the same.

beauf

Boskowski wrote: »

<MOD SNIP >

Anyway. Obviously there is a realistic expectation behind this to actually find a tenant for a place like that and for that money. Out of interest, would people here generally think that's ok if the market allows it or would people rather think if thats where things are going something seems a bit wrong?

Defensive how? Rant? Its just truisms.

This is all old news. What answer do you want? The reasons for it are mainly political (which we can't discuss in this forum) and then resulting from that supply and demand. Dublin is more expensive than elsewhere. Same is true of London and similar. You might ask why does everyone need to be in Dublin. Then that again is partly a political discussion. A short term solution is rent controls, and we have some of that now, but it may make the problem worse in the long term.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap18p1.html

Short term it works for some alright.

But what answer do you want?

dearg lady

newacc2015 wrote: »

People seem to think that when you pay a Landlord €1k a month for a 1 bed room apartment, that it is pure profit. Since 2007 Landlords have to pay PRSI and USC. That is 13% for most. Then they only get 75% mortgage interest relief, which used to be 100%. Meaning landlords have to taxes on rent to then pay their mortgage interest. In any other business, you can write off tax entirely. The Government doesnt see it this way. Landlords now have to pay LPT. If they are on a variable mortgage, they are generally being ripped off by their bank.

Even if a Landlord is charging €1000 a month. They are still making far less money than if they were getting €1000 in 2007. If you are looking to blame anyone for high rental prices, blame the Government for heavily taxing landlords for the last few years.

I don't believe it has anything to do with that. It's purely supply and demand. It wouldn't matter how much landlords expenses had gone up by, if there was no one willing to pay the €1,000 then it would remain unrented! I was renting a 2 bed apartment in Dublin city centre for €800 in 2013 when taxes were even higher than now. That same apartment would easily rent for €1,300 now.

handlemaster

Landlords give most if not all rent back to the government or to the bank . Its only when you become a property owner that you realise that money literally goes into so many places your in most cases better off renting

4ensic15

Hardly unbelievable.
All predicted years ago. Interesting to read the discussion in light of the later developments.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79006148

worded

But there is capital appreciation on the property.

I've heard that property investment yields average 6% for the last 300 years (I was told that by someone I respect, but I've no reference / link)

Inflation is killing off the value of money so property as an investment makes sense

For a LL with one rental property that's washing its own face or needs +1-300 PM for the mortgage that's a pension plan

Has anyone a graph of average mortgage repayments and average rents over the life of mortgage? So the LL or mortgage holder surfers at the start but is in a way better situation 10 years later where rents tend to be to the max.
The mortgage repayments will have been hit with inflation and be way lower

That's my understanding.

MarkAnthony

The state of some properties is shocking. As a landlord myself I am fully aware of the costs involved, but in some cases places should be condemned.

Welcome to Ireland, a country of many laws, bugger all enforcement and no one blaming the right person/body.

beauf

worded wrote: »

But there is capital appreciation on the property.

I've heard that property investment yields average 6% for the last 300 years (I was told that by someone I respect, but I've no reference / link)

Inflation is killing off the value of money so property as an investment makes sense

For a LL with one rental property that's washing its own face or needs +1-300 PM for the mortgage that's a pension plan...

I'd say a lot of those with buy to let in arrears, buried in debt thought the same. or indeed people who bought and then need to move or sell but couldn't, so rent out instead.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/will-buy-to-let-properties-in-arrears-come-to-the-market-1.2099715

If it all works out great. If it doesn't, well not so great.

I guess you have to ask, why the shortage if its such a sure thing.

April 73

Brego888 wrote: »

What percentage of their monthly rental income does a landlord lose on average with all these charges do you reckon?

Here's a rough idea for you based on receiving rent of €1050 a month.
Costs per month = €888 (mortgage, insurance, property tax, management company & estimate for repairs/replacements)
Total "profit" = €162

Tax bill per month €420 (7 years left on mortgage, low interest write-off)

Total cost to me per month of having a property to rent is approx €260. About €3000 a year. (I'm not complaining - I went into this to supplement my private pension but landlords are not coining it on rents of €1000 a month)

Property was not bought at the height of the boom, had good deposit, & a tracker mortgage. I can only imagine that it could cost other landlords far more per month to rent a property out.

P. Breathnach

Let's think about economics.

In the short term, rent levels are not determined by landlords' costs. They are the result of supply and demand. If there are more people seeking to rent than there are places available, there is upward pressure on prices.

Suppose I had a property which costs me €500 p.m. If I rented it out at €600, I'd be in reasonable profit. But if I meet somebody who seems likely to be a good tenant and who is willing to pay me €1000 p.m. because there is a shortage of accommodation in my location, I'd be a fool to refuse it.

In the longer term, if landlords are making good profits, other landlords might enter the market and drive rents down.

yqtwqxqm

The state makes far more money form your LLs property than your landlord does.
They are not going to give up that nice little earner.

handlemaster

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Let's think about economics.

In the short term, rent levels are not determined by landlords' costs. They are the result of supply and demand. If there are more people seeking to rent than there are places available, there is upward pressure on prices.

Suppose I had a property which costs me €500 p.m. If I rented it out at €600, I'd be in reasonable profit. But if I meet somebody who seems likely to be a good tenant and who is willing to pay me €1000 p.m. because there is a shortage of accommodation in my location, I'd be a fool to refuse it.

In the longer term, if landlords are making good profits, other landlords might enter the market and drive rents down.

If your costs were 500 per month and were getting 600 per month rent youd be losing money every month

P. Breathnach

handlemaster wrote: »

If your costs were 500 per month and were getting 600 per month rent youd be losing money every month

No, I wouldn't, because I know how to compute costs.

And it's a quibble, anyway, because it has no bearing on my substantive point.

kefir32

A bit off topic but read somewhere that the LPT is ensuring that any non compliant landlords are flushed out with time by revenue for non declaration of rental income. I suppose the LPT has some good unintended consequences.

johnnyskeleton

newacc2015 wrote: »

Then they only get 75% mortgage interest relief, which used to be 100%. Meaning landlords have to taxes on rent to then pay their mortgage interest. In any other business, you can write off tax entirely. The Government doesnt see it this way.

Really? What other income generating asset can I buy with a loan and write 100% of the loan interest off against my return?

newacc2015

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Really? What other income generating asset can I buy with a loan and write 100% of the loan interest off against my return?

If you were a sole trader. You can write off your interest expenses, as they are incurred by running the business. Farmers can write off interest paid on their loans for the likes of sheds, etc. Where as landlords can only write off 75%.
http://www.teagasc.ie/advisory/farm_management/loans/taxissues.asp

If you were a hire shop and rented out land mowers. You can write the interest off against the business. The rental industry is the only business where the Government says you can only write off a proportion of the interest.

They treat the taxation of passing on a farm differently to passing on rental properties.

lcwill

I am a probably a landlord with the best possible situation - apartment owned outright (no mortgage) and living overseas (flat rate tax of 20% on rent after allowable expenses).

Even in this situation I only count on keeping 60% of the rent that comes in - after paying building management fees, letting agent fees, LPT, PRTB, insurance, accountant, repairs and depreciation and tax

If you are paying a mortgage and higher rate tax I doubt there is any monthly profit but at least you own the property after a few decades.

stateofflux

its not gonna change any time soon OP. that social housing the govt. is proposing to build will take at least 2 years..unless they can fast track the planning permission etc

pwurple

I have friends who were searching for a new place to rent because their old landlord sold the place they were living in. They were 1 of 20 people who showed up to see a place. Phone bids were taken. They offered 150 euro per month above the asking price to get it. It's gone bananas.

You can blame tax firstly. If you have a landlord who has a job as well, then over 50% of the rent is going into tax, and the rest into insurance, maintenance, interest, fees etc. My best performing property... Last year, I ended up with 3% of the rent. It's a terrible return. I'm hanging in there because I don't want to phunt good tenants out on their ears when I sell, and I hope to see that yield Improve in a few decades.

Then, you can add into the mix the new rules which block the abilty to change rent for two years. This has people spooked (me included. I raised rent across the board where I was going to hold tough this year)

Then there's the risk. Say you put your savings in a bank, and you earn 1 or 2% interest. You maybe buy an investment 'product' where you take higher risk.... might earn 4 or 5%. Now take the risk of renting out a property. tenants who put their fist though a wall, tear out doors. People you can't evict when they stop paying rent, for years. And now you are taxed so much that the return on investment drops off to below selling up and sticking it in a bank? I wonder what will happen next....

Landlords are leaving the market. Nothing new is being built. Buyers are buying to occupy, less rental stuff available. Tenants crawling over eachother to offer more and more rent to get any kind of decent place to find somewhere to live. Govt taking the lions share of any rent.

All of above = rents increasing. I can't see any other outcome.

johnnyskeleton

newacc2015 wrote: »

If you were a sole trader. You can write off your interest expenses, as they are incurred by running the business. Farmers can write off interest paid on their loans for the likes of sheds, etc. Where as landlords can only write off 75%.
http://www.teagasc.ie/advisory/farm_management/loans/taxissues.asp

If you were a hire shop and rented out land mowers. You can write the interest off against the business. The rental industry is the only business where the Government says you can only write off a proportion of the interest.

They treat the taxation of passing on a farm differently to passing on rental properties.

A business can claim interest as an expense if the loan is for paying other business expenses or if it was used to finance plant or machinery used in the business. You cant write off interest on a loan used to buy the business in the first place nor can the business write off interest on a loan it takes out to buy shares, for example.

So youre not comparing like for like. If a landlord borrowed €2k to pay for repairs or management fees, I think they can claim 100% of that interest. Its the interest on the money used to acquire property that is a special exemption.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/running/allowable-expenses.html

iainBB

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A business can claim interest as an expense if the loan is for paying other business expenses or if it was used to finance plant or machinery used in the business. You cant write off interest on a loan used to buy the business in the first place nor can the business write off interest on a loan it takes out to buy shares, for example.

So youre not comparing like for like. If a landlord borrowed €2k to pay for repairs or pmanagement fees, I think they can claim 100% of that interest. Its the interest on the money used to acquire property that is a special exemption.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/running/allowable-expenses.html

Expenses can be claimed while assets payoffs can't be. Profit is profit if you want to pay off the mortgage with it its your fault.

RainyDay

newacc2015 wrote: »

Where as landlords can only write off 75%.

Not quite true. If you're getting a better return on your savings than you are paying interest on your loan, you can write off 75% of interest on an interest-only loan every year, which adds up to an awful lot more than interest paid on a repayment loan over the lifetime of the mortage.

kippy

April 73 wrote: »

Here's a rough idea for you based on receiving rent of €1050 a month.
Costs per month = €888 (mortgage, insurance, property tax, management company & estimate for repairs/replacements)
Total "profit" = €162

Tax bill per month €420 (7 years left on mortgage, low interest write-off)

Total cost to me per month of having a property to rent is approx €260. About €3000 a year. (I'm not complaining - I went into this to supplement my private pension but landlords are not coining it on rents of €1000 a month)

Property was not bought at the height of the boom, had good deposit, & a tracker mortgage. I can only imagine that it could cost other landlords far more per month to rent a property out.

It's important to give a full picture I think.
While you're figures there are indicative of your own situation there are many many landlords out there who do not have the same expenses as you do (ie any landlord no longer with a mortgage on their property)
(Just pointing that out)

Also, any landlord using a rental property as a pension investment is usually basing this over the length of ownership of the property and final sale price.
As others have said, supply and demand are bigger factors in this side of things and currently demand far outstripes supply in areas. There are multiple reasons for this, almost all can be put down to a lack of state intervention in resolving the issues the state can directly resolve (Social housing comes to mind)

Ray Palmer

4ensic15 wrote: »

Hardly unbelievable.
All predicted years ago. Interesting to read the discussion in light of the later developments.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79006148

That is funny to read. I was being dismissed for what has actually happened. Some other stuff happened on top of what I was saying and made matters worse. It really was predicted but you can see how people were laughing it off and so dismissive of what was there.

yqtwqxqm

Another thing that seems to have been laughed off too were the predictions that all the punishment of landlords with higher taxes etc would come back on the average renter in higher rents and it was the renter who would suffer in the long run.

People were rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of landlords having to bend over and take the extra charges.

newacc2015

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A business can claim interest as an expense if the loan is for paying other business expenses or if it was used to finance plant or machinery used in the business. You cant write off interest on a loan used to buy the business in the first place nor can the business write off interest on a loan it takes out to buy shares, for example.

So youre not comparing like for like. If a landlord borrowed €2k to pay for repairs or management fees, I think they can claim 100% of that interest. Its the interest on the money used to acquire property that is a special exemption.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/running/allowable-expenses.html

But if the business took out a loan to buy a premises, they would be allowed to write off 100% of that interest and not 75% if they were a residential landlord. Revenue defines a tax deductible expense as something wholly used by the business. A property for letting is wholly used for letting. It is not comparable to buying company shares in an existing business.

gaius c

newacc2015 wrote: »

People seem to think that when you pay a Landlord €1k a month for a 1 bed room apartment, that it is pure profit. Since 2007 Landlords have to pay PRSI and USC. That is 13% for most. Then they only get 75% mortgage interest relief, which used to be 100%. Meaning landlords have to taxes on rent to then pay their mortgage interest. In any other business, you can write off tax entirely. The Government doesnt see it this way. Landlords now have to pay LPT. If they are on a variable mortgage, they are generally being ripped off by their bank.

Even if a Landlord is charging €1000 a month. They are still making far less money than if they were getting €1000 in 2007. If you are looking to blame anyone for high rental prices, blame the Government for heavily taxing landlords for the last few years.

We had this discussion a while back. Full relief on mortgage interest gives investors extra financial firepower and disadvantages people looking to buy a home. A few posters even tried to argue in favour on relief on capital repayments too...

Mind you, if they ran their letting business as a proper business, they could avail of much more favourable tax conditions.

gaius c

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

Another thing that seems to have been laughed off too were the predictions that all the punishment of landlords with higher taxes etc would come back on the average renter in higher rents and it was the renter who would suffer in the long run.

People were rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of landlords having to bend over and take the extra charges.

The only thing that is laughable is thinking that increased rents are down to increased landlord costs.

It's supply and demand, nothing else.

4ensic15

gaius c wrote: »

The only thing that is laughable is thinking that increased rents are down to increased landlord costs.

It's supply and demand, nothing else.

Increased costs eventually lead to reduced supply by encouraging existing landlords to exit the market and discouraging new purchases by prospective landlords.

P. Breathnach

4ensic15 wrote: »

Increased costs eventually lead to reduced supply by encouraging existing landlords to exit the market and discouraging new purchases by prospective landlords.

Yes, but it's difficult to judge the timescale. The lag on decision-making might be 2-3 years.

RainyDay

newacc2015 wrote: »

But if the business took out a loan to buy a premises, they would be allowed to write off 100% of that interest and not 75% if they were a residential landlord. Revenue defines a tax deductible expense as something wholly used by the business. A property for letting is wholly used for letting. It is not comparable to buying company shares in an existing business.

The problem of course, is that the landlord was typically not repaying the loan at all, and was keeping it 'interest only' for the life of the mortgage, available of the state subsidy on his interest payments and putting any spare cash on deposit. If landlords hadn't gamed this one, the 75% reduction would never have come into place.

Ray Palmer

gaius c wrote: »

The only thing that is laughable is thinking that increased rents are down to increased landlord costs.

It's supply and demand, nothing else.

I really don't think people understand supply and demand correctly as it is more complex than people comment on.

Supply is determined by costs the same way demand is determined by income. When you increase landlord costs it will always be passed on as it increases the cost of supply. Supply is provided on the basis of cost plus profit. Increase costs and reduce profits less people supply. That is part of supply and demand.
Now because there is a lag in entry and exit to a market like property people don't exit the market and take reduced profit of even loss. What happens then is when the market picks up the supply side tries to catch up on the profits or losses from previous years. That makes supply aim for what is super normal profits on a short timescale but isn't to the supplier in the long term.
So yes it is supply and demand but that doesn't mean increased costs aren't a guiding factor.

4ensic15

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes, but it's difficult to judge the timescale. The lag on decision-making might be 2-3 years.

What of it? The rental price of a unit today depends on the supply and demand today. The rental price of a unit in 2 years time depends on what happens to supply and demand in between.

P. Breathnach

4ensic15 wrote: »

What of it? The rental price of a unit today depends on the supply and demand today. The rental price of a unit in 2 years time depends on what happens to supply and demand in between.

Time lag is very important in a market like this.

Suppliers (actual or potential) make decisions based on today's market conditions. But it might take a couple of years for decisions to be implemented (because the property market can be cumbersome, and many suppliers are small players; further, if new building is required then the timeframe can stretch even more).

In the meantime, the market is in a short-term equilibrium rather than a long-term one - perhaps with artificially-high prices. This might give a supplier expectations that are unrealistically optimistic, and lead to unprofitable investment.

In the meantime, also, the factors driving demand (employment being a big one) might change. So by the time supply has adjusted to market forces, the matket has changed.

It's almost inevitable that the Irish market for rented accommodation is volatile.

gaius c

4ensic15 wrote: »

Increased costs eventually lead to reduced supply by encouraging existing landlords to exit the market and discouraging new purchases by prospective landlords.

And properties get demolished if they are not purchased by another landlord?

And the number of landlords selling because they are in arrears on their borrowings would surely be a lot more significant that those selling because of ephemeral "costs"?

NIMAN

The only way rent prices will come down is if people stop paying the high prices, leave LLs with unrented properties, then they will reduce the price to get tenants.

Thats simple supply and demand, and obviously there is the demand at present to pay these prices.

Welcome to the free market.

murphaph

gaius c wrote: »

And properties get demolished if they are not purchased by another landlord?

Multi-occupancy dwellings (your typical 3 bed semi house share in the suburbs) being removed from the rental market and sold to young FTB families, who were previously maybe renting a 1 bed apartment which became too small for them, will obviously lead to an overall reduction in the number of units to rent. In my example the 3 former tenants renting individual rooms in the semi are now fighting for the one unit freed up by the young family vacating.

I think you are intelligent enough to already know this though.

Michael D Not Higgins

NIMAN wrote: »

The only way rent prices will come down is if people stop paying the high prices, leave LLs with unrented properties, then they will reduce the price to get tenants.

Thats simple supply and demand, and obviously there is the demand at present to pay these prices.

Welcome to the free market.

Where do these people live while waiting for the prices to come down? You're not going to stop people living where they want to live and paying for that privilege.

NIMAN

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Where do these people live while waiting for the prices to come down? You're not going to stop people living where they want to live and paying for that privilege.

No idea .... and thats the free market for you, I'm afraid.

If young people can't afford rents, I guess they will live at home for longer. I am sure stats over the years have shown the age people leave home at has increased dramatically.

If you're a family, I guess you join the list of homeless we are hearing so much about. Or else downgrade? Perhaps you are 2A and 2C and are looking for a 3 bed? Maybe have to make do with a 2 bed with both kids in one bedroom?

It sounds harsh but at present there are no other alternatives. Can hardly expect LLs to lower their prices just because there is a shortgage of houses.

gaius c

murphaph wrote: »

Multi-occupancy dwellings (your typical 3 bed semi house share in the suburbs) being removed from the rental market and sold to young FTB families, who were previously maybe renting a 1 bed apartment which became too small for them, will obviously lead to an overall reduction in the number of units to rent. In my example the 3 former tenants renting individual rooms in the semi are now fighting for the one unit freed up by the young family vacating.

I think you are intelligent enough to already know this though.

Thank you for the sincere comment on my intellectual capabilities. I'm also intelligent enough to spot a self-serving anecdote when I see it. Our old apartment when sold was no longer occupied by 2 single people. It was bought by a couple with children thus the occupancy of the property doubled.

Fact of the matter is it can go either way. The only "support" for the notion that supply/demand has some sort of "costs" fudge factor is the fervent wish that it be so by folks who are part of that equation themselves.

To show how wrong you are, look at what was happening to the rental market when the ECB was dialling up the rates at the end of the noughties. Landlords attempted to "pass on" their increase in costs but the demand wasn't there, the vacancy rate shot up and rents eventually had to come down. The rental dam broke at the start of 2008 but rates stayed up until October of that year.

Any example "demonstrating" costs as a factor in increasing rents can be better explained by supply/demand and right now the simple fact is that far more people are renting than there were ten years ago and that available stock is feeble.

Michael D Not Higgins

NIMAN wrote: »

No idea .... and thats the free market for you, I'm afraid.

There is a limit to supply and demand, many assumptions are made to come up with the idealised curve and most likely doesn't take ability to pay, the inter-connectivity of the rental and sales markets and other factors into account.

My point was that the supply and demand model you propose is too simplistic and the change in the curve can be effected by a number of outside factors beyond simple number of renters v number of properties.

Tar.Aldarion

It's not just the price I have a problem with, it's the state of the apartments. They are shocking compared to other countries from my experience. Old, falling apart, no storage, damp places are a grand+ a month. Hell I think the studio apartments in Amsterdam are preferable to most one beds here (just have experience of these to compare). They are simply built to good standards.

The two year rent increase thing hit hard this year too, landlords putting up more money to cover themselves understandably. Mine was put up 150, my brothers landlord tried 300 but didn't get it in before the change came into affect.

NIMAN

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

There is a limit to supply and demand, many assumptions are made to come up with the idealised curve and most likely doesn't take ability to pay, the inter-connectivity of the rental and sales markets and other factors into account.

My point was that the supply and demand model you propose is too simplistic and the change in the curve can be effected by a number of outside factors beyond simple number of renters v number of properties.

Of course there will be a few other factors, but the bottom line is that if a property has a person willing to pay its rent, no matter how high it is, then we are alwats going to have a crisis.

And at present, renters must be willing to pay big money for substandard properties.

murphaph

gaius c wrote: »

Our old apartment when sold was no longer occupied by 2 single people. It was bought by a couple with children thus the occupancy of the property doubled.

Fact of the matter is it can go either way.

Oh come off it. A family buying a 2 bed apartment is much rarer than them buying a 3 bed semi and you know it.