Will rent controls effect the general quality of rentals in the long run

Graham

Murrisk wrote: »

But do I feel sorry for someone not being able to charge €1600 a month for a crappy two bed apartment? Not even a little bit.

Ahhh ok, I get it now.

Landlord baiting.

What is the current market rent for a spacious arched brick-built residence conveniently located under a road?

Murrisk

Kehlani Greasy Ringworm wrote: »

House prices are high so rents have to be high. A monthly rent should always be more (considerably so) that a mortgage repayment.

No they shouldn't. With every mortgage payment, you are gaining more ownership of your house. Monthly rent vs mortgage payment will always be in flux and, by the way, by suggesting that rent should always be higher is suggesting a rent control in the other direction so that rent can't fall below a certain level. If you are opposed to rent being kept artificially low, then that works both ways.

Murrisk

Graham wrote: »

??

This is getting absurd. Should we also force local butchers to sell below cost in case it prevents people saving?

As you well know, there is a huge difference between your weekly shop at the butchers and rent. Yes, if people with healthy salaries are struggling with the rent, there is something wrong with the picture, nothing absurd about it.

Samuel T. Cogley

Murrisk wrote: »

As you well know, there is a huge difference between your weekly shop at the butchers and rent. Yes, if people with healthy salaries are struggling with the rent, there is something wrong with the picture, nothing absurd about it.

That's not for private landlords to sort out, no more than the price of caviar is the job of a fishmongers to sort out. The government should step in and give TENANTS a break. An easy way to do this is make rent fully tax deductible, a blanket reduction in rents of 20-50% overnight.

Why isn't that being done do you think?

rsynnott

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

That's not for private landlords to sort out, no more than the price of caviar is the job of a fishmongers to sort out. The government should step in and give TENANTS a break. An easy way to do this is make rent fully tax deductible, a blanket reduction in rents of 20-50% overnight.

Why isn't that being done do you think?

Beyond the potential problems in making principal repayments tax deductable, why would this lead to lower rents? We'd still be just as supply constrained.

Murrisk

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

That's not for private landlords to sort out, no more than the price of caviar is the job of a fishmongers to sort out. The government should step in and give TENANTS a break. An easy way to do this is make rent fully tax deductible, a blanket reduction in rents of 20-50% overnight.

Why isn't that being done do you think?

As someone who can't work currently due to a very serious illness (which nobody would begrudge me not working because of, obviously I'm not going to elaborate here), tax breaks aren't much good to me. That's a very good reason for tax deductiblity being a non-runner, I'm far from the only one in this situation but we still need somewhere to live. But I don't qualify for social housing and many people don't, which I won't get into here. Luckily I have a landlord who charges a very reasonable rent and didn't seem bothered at all by the introduction of rent controls. Lucky me. :cool:

Graham

Murrisk wrote: »

As you well know, there is a huge difference between your weekly shop at the butchers and rent. Yes, if people with healthy salaries are struggling with the rent, there is something wrong with the picture, nothing absurd about it.

Thanks for the laugh over the last few pages but I'll bow out of this particular sideline now you're shifting the conversation into socialist housing policy.


Getting back to the topic at hand, is there much evidence of below-market-rent property being upgraded in order to bring it back into line with current market rates?

Samuel T. Cogley

rsynnott wrote: »

Beyond the potential problems in making principal repayments tax deductable, why would this lead to lower rents? We'd still be just as supply constrained.

There was rent relief previously. This measure solves the problem over night. People renting simply write to the revenue at the end of the year including proof of their rental income, there are load of benefits including a stamping down on LL's dodging tax and a paper trial of annual rents.

I'm still vehemently opposed to rent controls but they would go hand in glove with this policy, preventing LL's simply upping rents to counter the relief tenants are getting and at least this way one could see a holistic approach is being taken and the rent controls would be there for a better reason then manipulating a few dolts into voting for continued shaftings.

Murrisk

Graham wrote: »

Thanks for the laugh over the last few pages but I'll bow out of this particular sideline now you're shifting the conversation into socialist housing policy.

You haven't really earned that level of condescension. I'm out too.

Murrisk

Murrisk wrote: »

No they shouldn't. With every mortgage payment, you are gaining more ownership of your house. Monthly rent vs mortgage payment will always be in flux and, by the way, by suggesting that rent should always be higher is suggesting a rent control in the other direction so that rent can't fall below a certain level. If you are opposed to rent being kept artificially low, then that works both ways.

For every rent payment you are getting a fully looked after property worth 100's of thousands to use as our own. Damage fixed, broken appliances replaced etc etc of course rent should exceed the mortgage repayments (and its rarely this is not the case from my experience often considerably so). That's befor you take into account the LL is absolutely robbed in tax which should be far lower rather than at the marginal rate.

rsynnott

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

There was rent relief previously. This measure solves the problem over night. People renting simply write to the revenue at the end of the year including proof of their rental income, there are load of benefits including a stamping down on LL's dodging tax and a paper trial of annual rents.

I'm still vehemently opposed to rent controls but they would go hand in glove with this policy, preventing LL's simply upping rents to counter the relief tenants are getting and at least this way one could see a holistic approach is being taken and the rent controls would be there for a better reason then manipulating a few dolts into voting for continued shaftings.

Ah, sorry, totally misread you; thought you were talking about landlord mortgage repayments for some reason. It has been a long day.

rsynnott

Kehlani Greasy Ringworm wrote: »

That's befor you take into account the LL is absolutely robbed in tax which should be far lower rather than at the marginal rate.

Why, exactly? I don't see why it'd make sense for tax on rental income to be lower than on earned income..

Samuel T. Cogley

Murrisk wrote: »

As someone who can't work currently due to a very serious illness (which nobody would begrudge me not working because of, obviously I'm not going to elaborate here), tax breaks aren't much good to me. That's a very good reason for tax deductiblity being a non-runner, I'm far from the only one in this situation but we still need somewhere to live. But I don't qualify for social housing and many people don't, which I won't get into here. Luckily I have a landlord who charges a very reasonable rent and didn't seem bothered at all by the introduction of rent controls. Lucky me. :cool:

You should be qualifying for social housing and that housing should be available straight away. Alternatively you should qualify for a payment to house you.

That social housing is not there becuase of successive government policies, that payment is not accepted by many LL's because of the nightmare it is to deal with.

I have to disagree with Graham's point here - socialist housing polices are EXACTLY what we should be doing. Socialism isn't identifying one subset of society and penalising them and whipping up resentment of them. I pay my bloody tax to support the above, and I'm happy to do it - hands off my property though.

Murrisk

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You should be qualifying for social housing and that housing should be available straight away. Alternatively you should qualify for a payment to house you.

That social housing is not there becuase of successive government policies, that payment is not accepted by many LL's because of the nightmare it is to deal with.

I have to disagree with Graham's point here - socialist housing polices are EXACTLY what we should be doing. Socialism isn't identifying one subset of society and penalising them and whipping up resentment of them. I pay my bloody tax to support the above, and I'm happy to do it - hands off my property though.

This will all cause your rents to drop too, just by a different mechanism.

Oh and I'm very sorry that "people like me" (whoever that is) are able to vote. You know that not everyone who votes will share your viewpoint, right? And that your views and values are no more valid. You know that, yeah? Unless that was a remark on my intelligence. Well, either way, I have a vote so... yeah

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I have to disagree with Graham's point here - socialist housing polices are EXACTLY what we should be doing. Socialism isn't identifying one subset of society and penalising them and whipping up resentment of them. I pay my bloody tax to support the above, and I'm happy to do it - hands off my property though.

To be clear, my point was that's getting political rather then A & P related. Absolutely nothing against the efficient provision of social housing where it's necessary.

Murrisk

Kehlani Greasy Ringworm wrote: »

For every rent payment you are getting a fully looked after property worth 100's of thousands to use as our own. Damage fixed, broken appliances replaced etc etc of course rent should exceed the mortgage repayments (and its rarely this is not the case from my experience often considerably so). That's befor you take into account the LL is absolutely robbed in tax which should be far lower rather than at the marginal rate.

By saying that rents should always be higher than mortgage payments, you seem to suggesting some kind of controls, as that is the only way to ensure that. Are you fine with controls if it benefits you?

Graham

Murrisk wrote: »

By saying that rents should always be higher than mortgage payments, you seem to suggesting some kind of controls

Why would there need to be any such controls, it's something a sensible landlord is always going to strive for.

Samuel T. Cogley

Murrisk wrote: »

This will all cause your rents to drop too, just by a different mechanism.

Jesus it's just not getting through is it? :pac:

I've never deviated from my position that the market will do what the market is going to do. That is the ENTIRE basis of my arguments. What is patently unfair is when the market is at a low have it one way and when it's at a high to do something else.

Believe it or not I'm a socialist. I believe in high taxes, loads of services and big government. I have no problem with Government increasing income tax to 75% because that's a fair and transparent measure dealing with an issue. I do have a massive issue with them deciding that they are going to find one subset of people - LLs and screw them.

I would be delighted with a government that causes rents to plummet due to proper social housing being available - that's the way it should be. I would be delighted to see supply come on stream and take pressure off too. I would be delighted to see tenants get tax breaks on rents, people being able to avail of government sponsored deposit schemes and about 50 other polices I could come up with sitting on the toilet.

Samuel T. Cogley

Graham wrote: »

To be clear, my point was that's getting political rather then A & P related. Absolutely nothing against the efficient provision of social housing where it's necessary.

Sorry I was standing on your shoulders to shout louder :P

Murrisk

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Jesus it's just not getting through is it? :pac:

Could you and Graham be any more patronising? If you think it's not getting through, explain your position better. If you can't explain your position better, that doesn't necessarily mean I am thick though naturally that's the the easiest conclusion to draw. If that's what you want to think go ahead. OR explain your position better.

Samuel T. Cogley

Murrisk wrote: »

Oh and I'm very sorry that "people like me" (whoever that is) are able to vote. You know that not everyone who votes will share your viewpoint, right? And that your views and values are no more valid. You know that, yeah? Unless that was a remark on my intelligence. Well, either way, I have a vote so... yeah

I let people's posts including my own show their level of intelligence and open mindedness. My issue isn't so much with limitations on the first, it's limitations on the second, it's people unwilling to engage in meaningful debate. To be clear in your case I've no idea about your intelligence but to me personally you don't seem very open minded about this issue or willing to look at alternate ways of fixing it. To me and me personally you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about LL's. I dunno maybe you're just engaging in a robust defense of your position.

Murrisk wrote: »

Could you and Graham be any more patronising? If you think it's not getting through, explain your position better. If you can't explain your position better, that doesn't necessarily mean I am thick though naturally that's the the easiest conclusion to draw. If that's what you want to think go ahead. OR explain your position better.

Myself and others have tried to explain the position over and over again. I have to say at this point maybe it's not us? And that's not suggesting being thick at all but I do fall back on the perceived chip.

Edit: However apologies for any implication I was calling you think, it was not intended. I'll give you that you're at least engaging in debate on the subject which is way more than many.

Murrisk

Graham wrote: »

Why would there need to be any such controls, it's something a sensible landlord is always going to strive for.

Of course every landlord should strive for it. But we can all strive for things that often won't happen. Many landlords going into it with money signs in their eyes will often be disappointed. And of course won't have done any kind of business plan. Because why would you, even though apparently renting a house is a business like any other.

Murrisk

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I let people's posts including my own show their level of intelligence and open mindedness. My issue isn't so much with limitations on the first, it's limitations on the second, it's people unwilling to engage in meaningful debate. To be clear in your case I've no idea about your intelligence but to me personally you don't seem very open minded about this issue or willing to look at alternate ways of fixing it. To me and me personally you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about LL's. I dunno maybe you're just engaging in a robust defense of your position.

Arrah, everyone has things they are close-minded on. You, me, everyone. In fact, I would suggest that you and others here have displayed close-mindedness yourselves at times on this thread. One poster poured scorned on socialism. Close-minded, perhaps? And feeling strongly about something does not necessarily mean close-mindedness.

Lamenting my ability to vote was a cheap shot. Pathetic really.

Samuel T. Cogley

Murrisk wrote: »

Arrah, everyone has things they are close-minded on. You, me, everyone. In fact, I would suggest that you and others here have displayed close-mindedness yourselves at times on this thread.

Please demonstrate where? I've even conceded that these control could be used as part of a wider solution. I think I've suggested about twenty alternatives at this point. I am close minded on individuals having their constitutional rights violated - I'm funny that way.

Murrisk wrote: »

Lamenting my ability to vote was a cheap shot. Pathetic really.

I was lamenting the right of the closed minded and easily manipulated, if that's you it's not pathetic it's just sad. If it's not you, then no harm no foul.

Samuel T. Cogley

I'm going to bow out here as on rereading the OP I think we've probably done the law student mistake of talking about the first bit of the question and not realising it has context of standards. If you want to continue the debate please feel free to quote my post and start a new thread if not I'll concede the last word to you (on my part anyway).

Murrisk

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I was lamenting the right of the closed minded and easily manipulated, if that's you it's not pathetic it's just sad. If it's not you, then no harm no foul.

You lamented people like me voting (that is specifically what you said) and by that you meant the easily manipulated and close-minded? I haven't insulted anyone here and you had to stoop to that... just... wow. Well, that just makes YOU look bad.

Note: someone disagreeing with you does not make them close-minded OR easily manipulated. It just means they disagree with you.

Fol20

Fian wrote: »

Actually.......

There are two reasons why I do disagree with this.

1 - Why should a person with a passive rental income be able to write off their rent against tax while other tenants in PAYE jobs are unable to do so? If someone makes €100k per annum in salary and then further rental income why should they be able to write their rent off against tax while someone with a job and no property can't?

If the possibility of tax write downs were extended to all tenants it would just amount to an enormous subsidy of landlords and would be devastating for people on lower tax bands or unemployed - they would have little or no chance of competing.

2 - this would be too easy to game, it would be possible to transfer your home to a company you own, and then rent it from that company on the basis of a tax write off. Meanwhile the company is repaying the loan you extended to it to enable it to buy your own property from you and so that loan repayment is being used to fund your rental payments. Effectively a cost free tax write off.

Your logic makes no sense. Rental properties are a business and should as such be treated as a business from a tax point of view. No risk no reward. If people that don't have houses want to invest in something else like a coffee shop etc they can and treat that like any other business. As we have seen over the past decade. It isn't all rosy for landlords. A lot of become bankrupt because of what they tried to do while people that didn't have houses are still fine.

Fol20

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Jesus it's just not getting through is it? :pac:

I've never deviated from my position that the market will do what the market is going to do. That is the ENTIRE basis of my arguments. What is patently unfair is when the market is at a low have it one way and when it's at a high to do something else.

Believe it or not I'm a socialist. I believe in high taxes, loads of services and big government. I have no problem with Government increasing income tax to 75% because that's a fair and transparent measure dealing with an issue. I do have a massive issue with them deciding that they are going to find one subset of people - LLs and screw them.

I would be delighted with a government that causes rents to plummet due to proper social housing being available - that's the way it should be. I would be delighted to see supply come on stream and take pressure off too. I would be delighted to see tenants get tax breaks on rents, people being able to avail of government sponsored deposit schemes and about 50 other polices I could come up with sitting on the toilet.

I'm the polar opposite. I believe in capitalism. If you increase tax to 75pc, why would anyone ever try and be an entrepreneur when your basically giving your money to other people who are not working hard enough. It isn't a given that people in Ireland should own a house. So they shouldn't bring in these deposit schemes. I believe in affordable housing however housing laws are too strict on size of houses. In France people live in 10m apartments. We should also be building up to accommodate more people instead of out. At least that way more people can get on the property ladder if they want. A family friend of mine bought an apartment in France recently for 60k, although it may not be the best for a family home. It allows people to get on the property ladder for a small one bed. The money for giving tax breaks etc has to come from somewhere if you discentive everything from a business point of view it will make things worse or the rich will just move their assets elsewhere while the middle class get hit even more than they already do.

Electric Sheep

mrslancaster wrote: »

maybe unfurnished, a six months bond, speedy resolution to deal with over holding or rent arrears or damage..?

that would seem to be the model in other countries...:)

Unfurnished is SO much better than furnished, there is room for both though. Students and the like will always want furnished, but more mature renters and families would almost certainly prefer unfurnished.

Is there some reason that Irish landlords don't do credit checks on potential tenants? Is the cost too high? It's the norm in the US except among the dodgy type of landlord.

Electric Sheep

Murrisk wrote: »

It will work for the renters who don't have to pony up extortionate rent. It is seriously effecting people's ability to save currently. And as someone else said up-thread, the standard of rental properties in Ireland is poor as it is. From my experience, most landlords do the bare minimum anyway. How much worse can it get? Dramatic pronouncements from landlords on here sound like little more than foot-stamping. Lads, rentals aren't generally in good nick anyways, to do less to them would mean letting them fall into abject disrepair which seems counterproductive. And there are things that you are required to provide, you won't be able to weasle out of those obligations.

And leaving the market? In that case, an LL will either sell, releasing the house to the property market OR just leave it empty, in which case they have questionable business skills. Not getting enough in rent, so lets take in NO rent? Yeah, yeah, AirBnB. That will soon require planning permission and might already actually. And even if it didn't, a mass exodus to AirBnB would mean reduced business for everyone who does it. I would think there is not endless business to go around on AirBnB.

I think the standard of furnishings in a lot (probably most) of Irish rentals is far below what would be expected in an AirBnB letting. I can't see that being a success for most, unless the LL is willing to seriously upgrade what is on offer. Nobody wants to vacation in a dump.