'If could bring in legislation to goddamn jail landlords, I would jail the Bastards"

yqtwqxqm

https://www.thejournal.ie/john-halligan-interview-2801068-Jun2016/

Well there you have it.

A minister for state wanting to solve his housing crisis by jailing landlords.

Maybe he should look at what the government have done to both cause and solve the crisis.

Well the solve side is easy to answer. Nothing.

But a minister coming our like that and wanting to jail the landlords is really going to help too.

What have we got running this country?

c montgomery

What an idiot.

If the government stick their nose into the housing industry the only sure thing to happen is house prices will increase.

Nomis21

There aren't enough properties to rent, that's the problem.

People don't want to become Landlords, that's the problem.

So threatening those people who are landlords with jail could be the solution.

Why didn't anyone think of that idea before? It's brilliant!

Wanderer78

c montgomery wrote:

If the government stick their nose into the housing industry the only sure thing to happen is house prices will increase.

Completely disagree there. The government needs to start building immediately, in fact they should have been doing this many years ago. This is an unholy mess that is gonna get much worse. They are trying to align the stars for the next building boom. Wait till you see what happens when this collapses

c montgomery

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Completely disagree there. The government needs to start building immediately, in fact they should have been doing this many years ago. This is an unholy mess that is gonna get much worse. They are trying to align the stars for the next building boom. Wait till you see what happens when this collapses

http://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/central-bank-rules-fuelling-homes-crisis-draft-report-34773288.html

Governments first step, give people more money so they can spend more money. More debt is what people need in their opinion, the banks need to prosper.

iainBB

Your looking at from the problem side. And trying to suggest solution will the cause will create more problems for you to TRY and solve. You need to look at from a cause side. . why is it like this?

LiamoSail

Haladay (sp?) really comes across as the idiots idiot. He wants to jail the landlords who contribute to the economy and provide a necessary service which, for reasons unknown, will then help the girl on rent allowance find a place that the market forces dictate she can't afford, rent allowance which is funded by those that contribute.

I don't know is this guy genuinely stupid or just ignorant, but either way he should be no where near a national parliament.

notharrypotter

LiamoSail wrote: »

Haladay (sp?)

I don't know is this guy genuinely stupid or just ignorant, .

Quite the opposite. Very clever.
Knows his target audience. And is playing to them.
He knows he cannot solve the problem but fully intends to milk it an his new role for all he can to get reelected.

c montgomery

notharrypotter wrote: »

Quite the opposite. Very clever.
Knows his target audience. And is playing to them.
He knows he cannot solve the problem but fully intends to milk it an his new role for all he can to get reelected.

So much for new politics then!!!

Same old milk it for all she's worth mentality.

iainBB

LiamoSail wrote: »

Haladay (sp?) really comes across as the idiots idiot. He wants to jail the landlords who contribute to the economy . ..
I don't know is this guy genuinely stupid or just ignorant, but either way he should be no where near a national parliament.

I think he is appealing to mass idiot out there who also have a deep un trust in landlord's. It's sad his views have any stage for people to to hear this bull.

c montgomery

The government takes over 50% of my rental income every month and are the greatest beneficiary of rent increases. Could he not do something about the tax rates?

Donnielighto

Raise the height limit in dublin and have a decent amount of saved space put aside for community features. Would drop rental prices by increasing supply while improving areas long term

quadrifoglio verde

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Completely disagree there. The government needs to start building immediately, in fact they should have been doing this many years ago. This is an unholy mess that is gonna get much worse. They are trying to align the stars for the next building boom. Wait till you see what happens when this collapses

They're spending money, but not building.
The councils are buying up property left right and centre because they no longer have the experience to build houses anymore apparently.
While long term, this is will help supply grow slowly, it won't do anything for the major supply issues currently

yqtwqxqm

In many countries a minister for state would be forced to resign for attacking one group with something like that.

athtrasna

Mod note

Can we stick to the accommodation and property angle of what was said please. Plenty of places to discuss the politics. Thanks

Speedwell

I live in county Sligo. I'm an immigrant from America. I took a drive around the county the other day (you know the sort of thing "get lost on purpose and rely on the satnav to get back). I already knew of over a hundred units of unoccupied housing within a few miles of where I live in different estates, not counting single units available for sale. I found more while I was out driving. They're just sitting there. Some of them look clean and neat and there are cars always parked outside a few, which makes me think they are just largely finished houses with sparse occupancy. Most of the estates have signs up that they are for sale, often as lots rather than individual houses.

Are these the "ghost estates" I've been hearing about? How do these figure into the housing crisis? I hear people saying "more houses need to be built" when there are so many perfectly good houses here. Is it just basically that Ireland more or less thinks of itself as consisting only of people within the metropolitan areas of Dublin, Cork, Galway, and Kilkenny?

April 73

^ you've hit the nail on the head there. Plenty of properties are available outside of Dublin, Cork & Galway. People want to live in these cities though for employment & family reasons.

Personally if I was living in a hotel room with my kids I'd be happy to take a house outside of my comfort zone. Life can be very good in country towns & villages.

Long commutes for people working aren't great for work/life balance & that's where building higher in cities has got to be accepted.

Carlos Orange

"The new minister of state had a visitor to his new office this week – a girl on rent supplement who gets a maximum of €475 per month. The cheapest one bed apartment she can find is €592."

Is rent supplement supposed to pay all your rent for you?

athtrasna

psinno wrote: »

"The new minister of state had a visitor to his new office this week – a girl on rent supplement who gets a maximum of €475 per month. The cheapest one bed apartment she can find is €592."

Is rent supplement supposed to pay all your rent for you?

No, but the rent supplement figure includes the 10% she pays herself, she is not legally permitted to top up by any more, so she can't sign a lease for any more than the rent supplement threshold

zef

A single person renting a Rent Allowance Studio at 475pm would be paying 30-odd euros per week, or approx 140p/m, out of her own pocket.

Labarbapostiza

c montgomery wrote: »

What an idiot.

If the government stick their nose into the housing industry the only sure thing to happen is house prices will increase.

What you talking about. The only reason there are high rents is how far the government has its' snout into the property market.

The property market is rigged. And it's rigged in favour of the no-money-down-buy-2-let-landlord.

What was NAMA all about, what was bailing out the banks all about? It was about raising the prices of property to bail the landlord class out. And NAMA, what the asset "management" means in the name is rigging the market by keeping properties unoccupied. The banks are at it too.

It's rigged, by the Danny Healy-Rae types for the Danny Healy-Rae types.

Canadel

It's easy to attack landlords. Lord knows many of them deserve it.

But the simple, straightforward solution is to increase supply.

There is also an argument for more rent control while we are in this situation. Now you'll see people jump on this issue straight away and argue against it. But really, it's just not true to say landlords are investing the increased profits they're making in maintaining and improving their properties. The standard of properties is as bad as it has ever been. So definitely there needs to be better regulation of the rental market in all aspects, that includes the demand side too with regards tenant's rights and bad tenants.

iainBB

Canadel wrote: »

It's easy to attack landlords. Lord knows many of them deserve it.

But the simple, straightforward solution is to increase supply.

There is also an argument for more rent control while we are in this situation. Now you'll see people jump on this issue straight away and argue against it. But really, it's just not true to say landlords are investing the increased profits they're making in maintaining and improving their properties. The standard of properties is as bad as it has ever been. So definitely there needs to be better regulation of the rental market in all aspects, that includes the demand side too with regards tenant's rights and bad tenants.

There is also a private housing/ social housing issue as is very little social accommodation being created. The private house sector being asked to take lower rent with no tennent database with no responsibility for damage that may occur. Landlord are being used as a scapegoat for decades of policy failure. People are falling for this trip. Tax alone is massive on landlord and then eviction proceedings costing a bomb.

the groutch

it's not landlords' fault she can't get somewhere to rent, it's the anti-landlord system that's the problem.

nobody wants to go near the RA system, because tenants can stop paying whenever they want, take up to two years (or a hefty backhander) to get rid of, and can cause thousands of euros of damage to the property with no reprocussions.

and this (along with the banning of "no rent allowance" ads), has meant most landlords will intentionally price themselves just beyond the RA limits.

Labarbapostiza

iainBB wrote: »

There is also a private housing/ social housing issue as is very little social accommodation being created.

The disengagement from building social housing is part of the strategy. The objective being to herd the tenant class like cattle into the milking parlours of the "private" sector.

They can't give a higher state pension to people of a higher social class, so they rig the market. It's all wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Increase supply with the intention of lowering property prices and rents is not on. That would crash the banks. Whose only business model is property prices rising at a rate higher than wages.......Wages being what makers earn...rents being what takers take.

iainBB

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The disengagement from building social housing is part of the strategy. The objective being to herd the tenant class like cattle into the milking parlours of the "private" sector.

They can't give a higher state pension to people of a higher social class, so they rig the market. It's all wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Increase supply with the intention of lowering property prices and rents is not on. That would crash the banks. Whose only business model is property prices rising at a rate higher than wages.......Wages being what makers earn...rents being what takers take.

So there is a conspiracy between most precious governments and current of course to under supply social housing to control people with debt.??

CatFromHue

psinno wrote: »

"The new minister of state had a visitor to his new office this week – a girl on rent supplement who gets a maximum of €475 per month. The cheapest one bed apartment she can find is €592."

Is rent supplement supposed to pay all your rent for you?

He's a Waterford man so I'm guessing his visitor was based in Waterford.

Just did a search on Daft in Waterford city for places a max of 450 per month and there is places available for that price.

newacc2015

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

What you talking about. The only reason there are high rents is how far the government has its' snout into the property market.

The property market is rigged. And it's rigged in favour of the no-money-down-buy-2-let-landlord.

What was NAMA all about, what was bailing out the banks all about? It was about raising the prices of property to bail the landlord class out. And NAMA, what the asset "management" means in the name is rigging the market by keeping properties unoccupied. The banks are at it too.

It's rigged, by the Danny Healy-Rae types for the Danny Healy-Rae types.

Wait until more and more REIT's own property. Every 24 months there will be a letter coming from their Texan landlord looking for market rents for the property. People might finally realise that Landlords regardless of whether they are a mom and pop or a global PLC want market rent for their properties.

If you think NAMA was set up for that reason, I suggest you start googling it. Also google Spanish and Italian books too. Italy has similar issues to Ireland. They have been telling themselves for the last 5/6 years that their banks are fine. Slowing Italian bank shares have been tanking and they are starting merge. Guess why? They have not looked at their balance sheet to basically get rid of the **** on it. What did NAMA do? It took the good and the bad off the banks. The end result is that we a some what healthy banking system now unlike Italy who will probably end up with a NAMA style bank in a few years.

4ensic15

MarkAnthony wrote: »

If I could bring in legislation to goddamn jail idiot politicians, I would jail the bastards and the country wouldn't be in such a mess.

If you could bring in legislation, you would be a politician. Maybe you would have different ideas then?

Speedwell

4ensic15 wrote: »

If you could bring in legislation, you would be a politician. Maybe you would have different ideas then?

I think that's the point of the comment, isn't it, that he would have different ideas?

yqtwqxqm

I think a lot of people, including government ministers it would seem are totally oblivious as to who is actually making a profit from rent.

Maybe there should be a breakdown of the rent in ads from now on.
Something like.

For rent. 2 bed apartment.

Governments share €600 PM (Taxes, levies, stealth taxes, quangos)
Banks Share €100 PM (interest)
Landlords Share €300 PM

Total Rent due : €1000 PM

All made up figure of course, but there are some posts on boards with accurate figures and these are close enough.

The_Conductor

c montgomery wrote: »

The government takes over 50% of my rental income every month and are the greatest beneficiary of rent increases. Could he not do something about the tax rates?

54% including USC etc.
The government have structured the manner in which it taxes landlords such that there is a perverse incentive to load as much debt as possible on rental properties- there is a clear disincentive to repay debt- which is bizarre, given all our economy has gone through........

MarkAnthony

4ensic15 wrote: »

If you could bring in legislation, you would be a politician. Maybe you would have different ideas then?

I'm perfectly happy with competent politicians bringing in legislation. This guy is simply pandering. As I've said ad nauseum on numerous threads, the biggest beneficiary of the current rental situation is the exchequer.

At €1000 a month - I'm a fully compliant landlord and even went a bit lower than market rent to get good tenants, I don't cover the cost of the property. Now as I've said before I realise I have an asset at the end of it but when you look at it in the cold light of day there are much better performing investments with a lot less hassle.

The cost of renting could be solved tomorrow if the government would allow rent to be tax deductible. The average renter in Dublin would be between €3000 and €7000 a year better off. This is only a short term fix of course, but one has to ask themselves why won't the government apply this band aid when it's so easy to do? The simple answer is they need the money to prop up the rest of the State, primarily the absolute mess they've created with RA and lack of social housing.

MarkAnthony

The_Conductor wrote: »

54% including USC etc.
The government have structured the manner in which it taxes landlords such that there is a perverse incentive to load as much debt as possible on rental properties- there is a clear disincentive to repay debt- which is bizarre, given all our economy has gone through........

I was against LL's deducting interest on loans until I realised in any other business you get 100% relief of debt interest on assets. I don't think they've structured it deliberately - just ended up with some intermediate solution as general business assets depreciate and property doesn't (in the very long term).

Debt isn't really an issue, especially given the record low interest rates, it's the tax burden indirectly placed on tenants. At the moment that can't be solved by relief at the LL side but it could be solved - short term - by relief on tenants. IIRC there always was a tax allowance for rent before the crash.

Michael D Not Higgins

If rent was tax deductible, and if I take a simplified case where two buy to let apartments are let to the other owners for the same rent then no tax is paid on either. I'd say the government would stand to lose millions if that came in.

As a back of the envelope calculation, there's roughly 500,000 rentals in the country. Average rent 1000 per month, let's say 25% goes to the government coffers. That's €1.5 billion a year.

MarkAnthony

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

If rent was tax deductible, and if I take a simplified case where two buy to let apartments are let to the other owners for the same rent then no tax is paid on either. I'd say the government would stand to lose millions if that came in.

As a back of the envelope calculation, there's roughly 500,000 rentals in the country. Average rent 1000 per month, let's say 25% goes to the government coffers. That's €1.5 billion a year.

But the owners are still paying income tax on the rental income which only serves to underscore the double taxation that's currently going on.

That said of course when I'm bringing in my legislation I'm careful to ensure not presidents don't dingy the system :pac:

The_Conductor

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I was against LL's deducting interest on loans until I realised in any other business you get 100% relief of debt interest on assets. I don't think they've structured it deliberately - just ended up with some intermediate solution as general business assets depreciate and property doesn't (in the very long term).

Debt isn't really an issue, especially given the record low interest rates, it's the tax burden indirectly placed on tenants. At the moment that can't be solved by relief at the LL side but it could be solved - short term - by relief on tenants. IIRC there always was a tax allowance for rent before the crash.

This very point comes up again and again- and some high profile publications- such as The Economist- have dedicated forums and conferences to debating just this point.

In short- it is a perceived shortcoming- however- its an international shortcoming- so until such time as the manner in which debt is treated is dealt with internationally- small, or even larger economies- who try to tackle the bizarre treatment of debt- instantly put themselves at a disadvantage in comparison to their neighbours.

In an Irish context- there is a double inequity- because some REITs etc- can structure themselves in such a manner that all of their debt is tax deductible- while smaller operators- are not afforded a similar treatment. Some of the REITs even manage to lend their Irish wings the entirety of the funding- at bizarre interest rates- between 12 and 15% not being unusual- in order to structure their Irish holding companies so they are never ever profitable.

The Revenue Commissioners are acutely aware of these shenanigans- however, seemingly powerless to do anything about it.

scream

Is he the same clown who wanted smoking allowed in pubs again? The reality is there are generations of workshy able bodied people who have been happily living on benefits and having their rent paid for them and it needs to stop. So many people think that the State should provide lifetime accommodation for them and that has to stop. All of these rent payment schemes should only be provided for a maximum of 3 years, after that people should be providing for themselves. Many of them haven't worked a day in their lives. I'm all for providing support for people who need it, but not allowing them to make a choice to live their lives on benefit having child after child.

Voipjunkie

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/john-halligan-interview-2801068-Jun2016/

Well there you have it.

A minister for state wanting to solve his housing crisis by jailing landlords.

Maybe he should look at what the government have done to both cause and solve the crisis.

Well the solve side is easy to answer. Nothing.

But a minister coming our like that and wanting to jail the landlords is really going to help too.

What have we got running this country?

A little out of context it wasn't a reference to all landlords just to those hiking rents and putting people out on the street to hike rents.

Michael D Not Higgins

Voipjunkie wrote: »

A little out of context it wasn't a reference to all landlords just to those hiking rents and putting people out on the street to hike rents.

Landlords aren't a charity though. They're a business and when a commodity is in short supply prices go up, this is only natural economics. Landlords are an easy scapegoat for populist politics, implementing legislative change to encourage more housing supply is clearly more difficult.

MarkAnthony

scream wrote: »

Is he the same clown who wanted smoking allowed in pubs again? The reality is there are generations of workshy able bodied people who have been happily living on benefits and having their rent paid for them and it needs to stop. So many people think that the State should provide lifetime accommodation for them and that has to stop. All of these rent payment schemes should only be provided for a maximum of 3 years, after that people should be providing for themselves. Many of them haven't worked a day in their lives. I'm all for providing support for people who need it, but not allowing them to make a choice to live their lives on benefit having child after child.

TBH I'm not sure how you do it without affecting the innocent parties (multiple kids) but I am for building estates - with reasonable facilities - in the Midlands and letting people get on with it to a certain extent.

If you want to move back to Dublin/Cork/Galway/Limerick, fine - all you need to do is show proof of a job and let's find you suitable social housing. Frankly I think everyone would be happier given the propensity to have horses etc. roaming around housing estates.

I've also been completely converted to allowing people to buy their council homes at rates roughly equal to the private sector. Every penny you put into the house (earned rather than welfare payments) should be equity. You can pull that equity out if you want to move and buy a property in the private sector or you can purchase your home with contributions commensurate with your income. Maintenance costs would be deducted from equity or you can pay for it yourself at a more competitive private rate.

If this sort of thinking is occurring to me, a man of fairly limited imagination, why isn't it occurring to ministers of state? The answer is because it's easier and more profitable to use LLs as scapegoats.

scream

MarkAnthony wrote: »

TBH I'm not sure how you do it without affecting the innocent parties (multiple kids) but I am for building estates - with reasonable facilities - in the Midlands and letting people get on with it to a certain extent.

If you want to move back to Dublin/Cork/Galway/Limerick, fine - all you need to do is show proof of a job and let's find you suitable social housing. Frankly I think everyone would be happier given the propensity to have horses etc. roaming around housing estates.

I've also been completely converted to allowing people to buy their council homes at rates roughly equal to the private sector. Every penny you put into the house (earned rather than welfare payments) should be equity. You can pull that equity out if you want to move and buy a property in the private sector or you can purchase your home with contributions commensurate with your income. Maintenance costs would be deducted from equity or you can pay for it yourself at a more competitive private rate.

If this sort of thinking is occurring to me, a man of fairly limited imagination, why isn't it occurring to ministers of state? The answer is because it's easier and more profitable to use LLs as scapegoats.

I always felt that selling off Council housing was a bad idea, they aren't building them anymore and it just removes more stock. It's ridiculous that you have a single person or a couple, whose children are now adults and living in their own homes and are still in 3 or 4 bedroom houses while people are living in emergency accommodation in hotels/hostels. A logical way of doing things would be to downsize people to 2 bedroom accommodation once they no longer have dependent children living with them.

Labarbapostiza

scream wrote: »

The reality is there are generations of workshy able bodied people who have been happily living on benefits and having their rent paid for them and it needs to stop. So many people think that the State should provide lifetime accommodation for them and that has to stop.

Workshy able bodied people expecting free money and free houses.........I think you're talking about landlords there.

MarkAnthony

scream wrote: »

I always felt that selling off Council housing was a bad idea, they aren't building them anymore and it just removes more stock. It's ridiculous that you have a single person or a couple, whose children are now adults and living in their own homes and are still in 3 or 4 bedroom houses while people are living in emergency accommodation in hotels/hostels. A logical way of doing things would be to downsize people to 2 bedroom accommodation once they no longer have dependent children living with them.

There are clear advantages to selling the old stock and building new stock. In regards to downsizing etc. Absolutely but let people chose to do that and release equity for their own care later in life. If done properly it really is a win-win. It's counter intuitive in many ways and something I've only recently done the research on.

Obviously it's contingent on building new stock but again why not? It creates jobs.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Workshy able bodied people expecting free money and free houses.........I think you're talking about landlords there.

I'm not sure how you work that out, I work PT and study and the wife works FT and we're still having to subsidise the apartment we rent out. If the tenant needs something it gets done immediately regardless of what we need doing that month. We've held of plopping out sprogs until we can afford them to the point of maybe having to forego it completely now (mid-thirties).

All the while 30% of my wages and 50% of the wifes + around 40% of our rental income goes to the State. I don't resent that I would prefer to see a more equal society and I don't mind paying, even more, than my fair share of tax. I do kinda resent being made out to be a bastard for doing it though.

scream

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Workshy able bodied people expecting free money and free houses.........I think you're talking about landlords there.

Nope, it's the work shy able bodied, never worked, never will work people who are happy to sponge off society for their entire lives. We have generations in this country who drop out of school and have child after child that they have never and will never do an honest days work to put food on the table for or roofs over the head of those children.

There's no shortage of landlords willing to take absolute scum and house them in private estates to the detriment of the working people in those areas. I'm all in favour of a system that after 2 years of unemployment switches from Benefit cash to Benefit paid in food stamps and that after 3 years takes away entitlement to Social housing.

The only way to stop the cycle of sponging by those who refuse to work is by removing the incentives that enable them to do so.

Labarbapostiza

MarkAnthony wrote: »

If this sort of thinking is occurring to me, a man of fairly limited imagination, why isn't it occurring to ministers of state? The answer is because it's easier and more profitable to use LLs as scapegoats.

The minister for housing, Simon Coveney, is a landlord.

That really should tell you all you need to know.

Michael D Not Higgins

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Workshy able bodied people expecting free money and free houses.........I think you're talking about landlords there.

Mod note: this is veering into 'us vs them' territory. We encourage criticism and debate but please do so in a constructive manner.

relax carry on

c montgomery wrote: »

The government takes over 50% of my rental income every month and are the greatest beneficiary of rent increases. Could he not do something about the tax rates?

Over 50% of your rental income monthly suggests you apparently have zero tax deductible expenses relating to your rental property and have other income sources above 33800. That is not painting a particularly bad picture.

iainBB

Landlord run a business and just happen to be in accommodation the live in a free market that we all enjoyed like the rust of us They are in the business of making profit only.the are not a charity. there is 23000 charity in Ireland . the government are in control of a lot of variables here tax on landlord income 50%, planning restrictions, house supply, relief on income for rental ,social housing selling and not buying/ building, infrastructure. Rental benefit amount and other payment HAP scheme rent price fixing ,no welfare adds . decentralised of people . But no no it's the landlord fault. I wonder who is passing the buck.

The_Conductor

relax carry on wrote: »

Over 50% of your rental income monthly suggests you apparently have zero tax deductible expenses relating to your rental property and have other income sources above 33800. That is not painting a particularly bad picture.

With all due respect- the fact that c montgomery has income other than rental income- is not relevant or pertinent- and deliberately drawing attention to the salient fact that he must have gainful employment elsewhere on an annual salary >33,800- simply makes you sound bitter. He is entitled to be employed elsewhere- as indeed are you or I.

The point that is being made- and which you are choosing deliberately to misconstrue- is that unless you raise debt against a rental property- the potential tax take on it- is over 54% (and you have RTB registration fees- unpaid vacancies- and overholding tenants who aren't paying rent- to contend with too).

I accept you're not a landlord- however, the very least you can do is try to understand where both tenants and landlords are coming from.

What is happening here- is the same old story as usual- the politicians are deflecting attention from themselves- and setting one party against the other- sure if you sling enough mud, some of it has to stick..........

Allied to the lack of any meaningful construction happening in the country- is the irrefutable fact- that small scale landlords in particular- are deserting the sector- which in turn is exacerbating the situation for tenants everywhere.

The international investors who bought up apartment blocks and continue to buy 30/40/50 apartments when they come available- did so on the basis of capital appreciation- and a stated income flow increasing at a rate of 10-15% per annum- which is plain nuts. Have a read of some of the other threads in this forum- the principle driver of rent rises in many areas- are now the REITs- and not the individual landlords at all- and what is most galling- is by and large- they're not paying tax- in some cases- at all- because they have structured their holdings such that they are loss making on paper (for example by lending the money to purchase the properties to their Irish holding companies- at 15-20% interest rates- which has happened even with reputable investors- such as the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund.

It suits the politicians to make the small scale investors with one or two properties- bogeymen- and threaten them with jail- is it any wonder they're queuing up to leave the sector.

MarkAnthony

The majority of Landlords (and even business owners) in Ireland are one man/woman bands. Yes many of us have modest household incomes beyond our rental properties and do it for a number of reasons. Personally I was forced into it by being a silly boy during the boom, others do it as a little side line as they want to, others got in before the tiger and do it because despite it all it's profitable for them.

My household income is a little over €80K - okay not bad at all, but I'm paying every cent I should (we should) in tax. Fair enough if you want to begrudge me that - frankly is't not entirely unreasonable for a couple in Dublin to be earning that. My wife is the main breadwinner and I'm retraining as a barrister. Her prospects are probably a modest increase is salary, she has a pension. Me I'll be 50+ before I have a decent (over 40K) income and the likelihood is I'll never have a pension.

Do you really want to take the rental sector out of the hands of people like myself and push it into the realms of companies, generally large multi-nationals, who'll pay sod all tax? Personally I want the rental sector to go away almost entirely and the majority of people to own, that's not happening anytime soon though.