Residential tenancies bill 2016 proposals and discussion

Graham

beauf wrote: »

We don't build housing with a mix of types suitable for different people and family structures. So you can't move people into more suitable housing in their area it usually doesn't exist.

The appropriate planning/incentives could/should change that.

beauf

The problem is not that social housing got sold to the tenants. But that the govt stopped building new stock to replace it, and out sourced it to the private sector. But provided no incentive for the private sector to provide social housing.

It's musical chairs. The numbers will never add up no matter how you move people around.

beauf

Graham wrote: »

The appropriate planning/incentives could/should change that.

The same planning that has got us here in the first place.

Planning decisions in this country are inexplicable. Unbelievably short sighted.

handlemaster

There seems to be a lot of focus by the government on the landlords the providers of housing. Nothing about tenants that are anti social or dont pay rent. There's a hugh issue in ireland with this which makes landlords less likely to rent to social welfare tenants. This announcment is nothing but a deflection from a government that has failed at housing policy. Its easier to attack the landlords than have a balanced approach for all.

The_Conductor

beauf wrote: »

You can't rip older people out of their social infrastructure and community as you are suggesting. It can be devastating especially for an older person.

We don't build housing with a mix of types suitable for different people and family structures. So you can't move people into more suitable housing in their area it usually doesn't exist.

Not to mention the getto it creates. That people can buy their house stabilises an area. Many rougher areas become more stable as it ages and matures, as people invest their own resourses not just in a property but in an area.

What happens in any other country (with the possible exception of the UK) is properly resourced retirement villages are built for elderly people, well resourced, doctor/nurse on site, daily excursions, people have their own apartments- which are theirs for life, no issue with a family member staying over, etc etc. My granny lived in one of these villages for over 20 years- in Doylestown in Pennsylvania- it anticipated her every need, and fulfilled it, and then some.

We are an aging society in Ireland- however, we have not made that progression to supporting our people as their needs differ in later life. This is a fundamental step that needs to be addressed. Getting elderly people out of unsuitable larger older family homes- is not the aim- its to provide more suitable accommodation for them- if/when there is a perception that there is a far better solution for our elderly- they can decide of their own volition whether, or not, they wish to avail of it. We have not crossed that rubicon thus far.

Baby01032012

So no agreement reached with Fianna Fáil to support the bill. In terms of the tax incentives that FF wants introduced. I know the dail committee is to look into this.I haven't seen any detail proposal from FF. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what form of tax incentive could be brought in.

CFC007

So much for the 4% increase just after getting notice of a 40% increase! Lovely timing but was over due a rent review but still 40% is a lot. Will have to contact the rental board to see if I have any comeback.

Baby01032012

CFC007 wrote: »

So much for the 4% increase just after getting notice of a 40% increase! Lovely timing but was over due a rent review but still 40% is a lot. Will have to contact the rental board to see if I have any comeback.

Why would you do that. Is it in line with other rents for similar properties in the area. The required notice of rent review requires the landlord to give 3 examples of similar properties at the market rent that they wish to increase to.

If rent review is due and he has given the above and 90 days notice and rent is in line there is nothing you can do.

The proposed legislation has and may not come into effect. Any landlord who hadn't given a rent review and one is due will do now because of the proposed legislation to limit rent increases to 4% per annum.

The_Conductor

Baby01032012 wrote: »

So no agreement reached with Fianna Fáil to support the bill. In terms of the tax incentives that FF wants introduced. I know the dail committee is to look into this.I haven't seen any detail proposal from FF. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what form of tax incentive could be brought in.

Though I very much doubt it- how about a flatrate tax on gross rental income for all landlords- big and small- of say 12.5% (the corporation tax rate) with no deductibles of any nature for any landlord- no tax shelters, no charitable statuses, no mortgage interest relief etc etc- a simple flatrate tax of 12.5%?

I know I'm dreaming with this proposal- however, I firmly believe it would be a very progressive step- and it would encourage landlords to pay down debt- as there would be no incentive to load up on debt, if it weren't a tax deductible expense (and indeed, if there were no tax deductible expenses).

If/when significant volumes of properties come on stream- and landlords have to entice tenants- having the funds to keep properties to a high standard (new heating systems, good BERs etc- will in themselves entice tenants who actually care about the standard of their accommodation.

Underpinning all of this- is there are now >18,000 new dwellings expected to be completed in 2017 (according to the ESRI report which was published yesterday). This is a vast increase on previous assumptions- though that said, it is still far below the 30,000 new dwellings we are stated to need per annum, simply to keep pace with demand.

So- a flatrate 12.5% rate on gross rental income- who'd bite?
Seems very fair to me- if it managed to fully capture absolutely all residential rent in the country- and it would probably generate a hell of a lot more for Revenue- if it stopped the REITs etc- from sheltering all their income in stupid charity trusts and other vehicles. Just charge a flatrate on the gross income- and the landlord can do whatever the hell they want with the rest- perhaps simultaneously specify higher and higher standards for rental properties- but also allow the letting of unfurnished properties- an allow a little more laissez faire in the industry- while protecting tenants- and getting rid of all the tax avoidance (and evasion- I'm sure there is plenty of evasion happening too) for once and for all?

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Graham

The_Conductor wrote: »

What happens in any other country (with the possible exception of the UK) is properly resourced retirement villages are built for elderly people, well resourced, doctor/nurse on site, daily excursions, people have their own apartments- which are theirs for life, no issue with a family member staying over, etc etc. My granny lived in one of these villages for over 20 years- in Doylestown in Pennsylvania- it anticipated her every need, and fulfilled it, and then some.

+1

My US Grandparents sold their house when they retired and moved into a small house in a gated community specifically designed for over 60s. My UK based grandmother sold the 4 bed family house and moved about a mile down the road into a lovely complex of 2 story apartment blocks/terraced bungalows with great facilities on-site.

In both cases, the move was their own idea/choice, partly incentivised I'm sure by the costs (including property tax) of maintaining an unnecessarily large house. Freeing up a large chunk of a lifetimes worth of capital also gave them the financial freedom to enjoy a much more comfortable retirement.

beauf

Graham wrote: »

+1

My US Grandparents sold their house when they retired and moved into a small house in a gated community specifically designed for over 60s. My UK based grandmother sold the 4 bed family house and moved about a mile down the road into a lovely complex of 2 story apartment blocks/terraced bungalows with great facilities on-site.

In both cases, the move was their own idea/choice, partly incentivised I'm sure by the costs (including property tax) of maintaining an unnecessarily large house. Freeing up a large chunk of a lifetimes worth of capital also gave them the financial freedom to enjoy a much more comfortable retirement.

I'm not sure moving to the UK or US is going to be an option for many people....

Fian

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Investment is a function of risk and return.

If landlords did not have the risk of non-payment of rent rental yields would be lower. It is not realistic to expect the state to subsidise landlords to this extent - to allow 87.5% of the rent tax free and to absorb all risk of non-payment of rent. If this were the case pension funds would move wholesale out of stocks and into rental property - causing a huge spike in the cost of rental property. We would have an unsustainable bubble in the cost of rental property that would collapse when eventually the State couldn't continue to absorb the risk.

Even apart from that can you imagine the potential for fraud?

"Hey [girlfriend/brother/friend] let's agree a ridiculous rent, you don't pay it, sure you will get evicted but in the meantime I will pay you 20% of the rent I am getting from the State while you live in my place rent free."

Graham

beauf wrote: »

I'm not sure moving to the UK or US is going to be an option for many people....

Despite evidence to the contrary in recent years, I understand we are now quite capable of building, changing planning requirements, enacting legislation and changing tax policy

Donal55

Graham wrote: »

Despite evidence to the contrary in recent years, I understand we are now quite capable of building, changing planning requirements, enacting legislation and changing tax policy

Your first sentence illustrates the problem.

Seanachai

Graham wrote: »

+1

My US Grandparents sold their house when they retired and moved into a small house in a gated community specifically designed for over 60s. My UK based grandmother sold the 4 bed family house and moved about a mile down the road into a lovely complex of 2 story apartment blocks/terraced bungalows with great facilities on-site.

In both cases, the move was their own idea/choice, partly incentivised I'm sure by the costs (including property tax) of maintaining an unnecessarily large house. Freeing up a large chunk of a lifetimes worth of capital also gave them the financial freedom to enjoy a much more comfortable retirement.

I think there could be a cultural obstacle here in that regard though, I know a good few elderly couples or widows/widowers still living in the family home and they would not be open to any suggestion of moving, to put it mildly. My own parents would be like this too, there isn't a hope in hell that they would leave their home.

Rumpy Pumpy

The disgusting politics being played by FF on this issue will backfire spectacularly on them. That Barry Cowen represents the very worst office gombeen politics. He's twice as belligerent and thick as his brother - some achievement.

Seanachai

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

The disgusting politics being played by FF on this issue will backfire spectacularly on them. That Barry Cowen represents the very worst office gombeen politics. He's twice as belligerent and thick as his brother - some achievement.

It seems like throwing shapes to me, let on that you're quarreling with FG and then send a civil servant over with the compromise solution and take all the praise for finding the middle ground. If this government survives this is what it's going to like for the full term.

Graham

Seanachai wrote: »

I think there could be a cultural obstacle here in that regard though, I know a good few elderly couples or widows/widowers still living in the family home and they would not be open to any suggestion of moving, to put it mildly. My own parents would be like this too, there isn't a hope in hell that they would leave their home.

Culture changes over time particularly when new influences/options start to appear.

karloseqm

Urgently there should be something done! to fix renting market, get rid off deposit for first time buyers

pilly

The governments dithering on this fecking proposal now is going to cost tenants a fortune in raised rents before it comes in. Why on earth did they announce it if they didn't have agreement?? It's maddening. Such a stupid stupid move.

beauf

Seanachai wrote: »

I think there could be a cultural obstacle here in that regard though, I know a good few elderly couples or widows/widowers still living in the family home and they would not be open to any suggestion of moving, to put it mildly. My own parents would be like this too, there isn't a hope in hell that they would leave their home.

Also many older people only can manage independently because they are in familiar surroundings. move them and the may need to be hospitalized, and/or taking into care. Then you have people with things like dementia and Alzheimer's or perhaps just mobility problems and they rely on family friends and neighbours.

This is because we won't built enough housing, so we want to take if off the elderly and vulnerable. Its shameful.

beauf

Fian wrote: »

Investment is a function of risk and return....

No ones investing.

Rental stocks is at its lowest level historically.

How do you increase investment, or simply halt the decline.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

Then you have people with things like dementia and Alzheimer's or perhaps just mobility problems and they rely on family friends and neighbours.

Local alternative housing adapted specifically for their needs sounds like a good solution. Even more so if the necessary support can be provided on site.

pilly

Graham wrote: »

Local alternative housing adapted specifically for their needs sounds like a good solution. Even more so if the necessary support can be provided on site.

That would be an excellent idea but requires forward thinking on behalf of the government. Our population is aging rapidly and there is no planning for this.

Michael D Not Higgins

karloseqm wrote: »

Urgently there should be something done! to fix renting market, get rid off deposit for first time buyers

That didn't end well during the boom. The reason for a deposit is insurance for the bank against a dip in the market. It ensures the buyer has a stake in the property large enough for them to not just walk away from their obligations.

The_Conductor

karloseqm wrote: »

Urgently there should be something done! to fix renting market, get rid off deposit for first time buyers

Eh what?
Every house purchaser should have a deposit- its quite ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Whether this should be 10%, 20% or some other percent- is open to discussion. I'm not sure why you think its a good idea to get rid of deposits for first time buyers- or indeed any other category of buyer- frankly, it isn't. There are plenty of property owners out there even now- in deep negative equity- in property wholly unsuited to their needs- who can't move- so why are they less deserving than first-time-buyers in your eyes?

As to fixing the rental market- the solution- the irrefutable solution- is to increase supply. This is happening- just not fast enough. We are ramping up production of housing units- according to the ESRI we will exceed 18,000 units in 2017- which is excellent, but it is still aways off the 30,000 they reckon we need.

pilly

The_Conductor wrote: »

Eh what?
Every house purchaser should have a deposit- its quite ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Whether this should be 10%, 20% or some other percent- is open to discussion. I'm not sure why you think its a good idea to get rid of deposits for first time buyers- or indeed any other category of buyer- frankly, it isn't. There are plenty of property owners out there even now- in deep negative equity- in property wholly unsuited to their needs- who can't move- so why are they less deserving than first-time-buyers in your eyes?

As to fixing the rental market- the solution- the irrefutable solution- is to increase supply. This is happening- just not fast enough. We are ramping up production of housing units- according to the ESRI we will exceed 18,000 units in 2017- which is excellent, but it is still aways off the 30,000 they reckon we need.

There is not a hope in hell that 18,000 units will be completed next year. I'd bet my own house on it.

The_Conductor

pilly wrote: »

There is not a hope in hell that 18,000 units will be completed next year. I'd bet my own house on it.

I won't hold you to it- but its far from as farfetched a prediction as you seem to imagine. The ESRI are highlighting the expected completion rate next year in a warning to the government that the slack in the economy is largely gone, and the vast ramp up in construction is likely to bring the unemployment rate below 6% again by Q2 2017- on current trends.

The ESRI do not have a vested interest in misrepresenting the facts- in a manner akin to the CIF and other bodies.

Michael D Not Higgins

pilly wrote: »

There is not a hope in hell that 18,000 units will be completed next year. I'd bet my own house on it.

Why not? I haven't seen the ESRI research but what in particular is in question for you?