Good news for tenants in budget 2018

Samuel T. Cogley

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you actually not capable of understanding that the existence of buy-to-let landlords makes it less likely that people are able to afford their own home?

This is a genuine question. Do you understand that prices are a function of a) supply and b) demand and that buy-to-let investors contribute to b) and as a result drive up prices - particularly when for whatever reason supply is restricted?

It's over 20 years since I did my economics degree but I probably have a few old textbooks I can dig out if you need to borrow them.

Do you understand that there are people that either need or want to rent, and they can't do that without landlords?

I guess 20 years is too late to get a refund from them?

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

...Do you understand that prices are a function of a) supply and b) demand and that buy-to-let investors contribute to b) and as a result drive up prices - particularly when for whatever reason supply is restricted?.....

The the issue is still supply.

Without supply there is nothing to buy or let.

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Do you understand that there are people that either need or want to rent, and they can't do that without landlords?

I guess 20 years is too late to get a refund from them?

There are some for sure.

But not nearly as many as most people think, and not nearly as many as we have forced into the private rental market today.

The idea that we 'need' landlords to meet the demand of all the people who are in private rental accommodation is misguided.

Most evidence suggests that given a choice between owner-occupation, (decent) social housing and rental in the private market, the last option is the least popular.

It probably suits a few people but really not many, so we should stop pretending that 'supplying' private rental accommodation by removing housing from the stock for owner-occupation is doing anyone a favour.

If you want to make a quick buck and you can then fair enough (I have a few friends who are classic 'accidental landlords'). But the government should really have more cop on than to be encouraging it.

Samuel T. Cogley

Deleted User wrote: »

There are some for sure.

But not nearly as many as most people think, and not nearly as many as we have forced into the private rental market today.

The idea that we 'need' landlords to meet the demand of all the people who are in private rental accommodation is misguided.

Most evidence suggests that given a choice between owner-occupation, (decent) social housing and rental in the private market, the last option is the least popular.

It probably suits a few people but really not many, so we should stop pretending that 'supplying' private rental accommodation by removing housing from the stock for owner-occupation is doing anyone a favour.

If you want to make a quick buck and you can then fair enough (I have a few friends who are classic 'accidental landlords'). But the government should really have more cop on than to be encouraging it.

Do you honestly think they're encouraging new LL's. The current backdrop to being a LL is very bleak indeed and we're exiting the market. The alternatives (REITs) is good news for no one. This is yet more smoke an mirrors to make it look as if something is being done.

Sleeper12

beauf wrote:

The the issue is still supply.

100 percent correct.

Heard the minister for lack of housing on the radio last week. He was being clever with his words. He says we're bringing on stream 6000 new social housing. He spits this out almost immediately after talking about building, building, and building. Problem is this isn't 6000 newly built homes. Many of them are older houses that have been bought. So not 6000 homes added to the market. He always skirts the question of how many new units.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

There are some for sure.

But not nearly as many as most people think, and not nearly as many as we have forced into the private rental market today.

The idea that we 'need' landlords to meet the demand of all the people who are in private rental accommodation is misguided.

Most evidence suggests that given a choice between owner-occupation, (decent) social housing and rental in the private market, the last option is the least popular.

It probably suits a few people but really not many, so we should stop pretending that 'supplying' private rental accommodation by removing housing from the stock for owner-occupation is doing anyone a favour.

If you want to make a quick buck and you can then fair enough (I have a few friends who are classic 'accidental landlords'). But the government should really have more cop on than to be encouraging it.

The problem is the Local Authorities/Got got rid if their social housing stock and stopped building any more. They out sourced this to the private rental market.
Then there was the crash and the funding for new building, and also for people to buy, borrow was drastically reduced. But its gone on too long.
So its the Govt inaction on social housing, and allowing the banks to dictate building by limiting access to funding, that has caused this pressure on the private rental.

The growth private rental is a symptom not a cause.

On the back of this (and the tax and regulatory changes) it makes it attractive for new investment funds to enter the market.
They however want to squeeze max return. So they are going mainly for the lucrative high end rentals.
They didn't cause this situation, but they are going to milk it as long as they can.

I'm not sure why you give the Govt a free get out jail on the housing crisis, and shift the blame elsewhere.

Sleeper12

Did the changes mentioned in the opening post come in today on the budget today after all? I can't see anything about it online

beauf

beauf wrote: »

The problem is the Local Authorities/Got got rid if their social housing stock and stopped building any more. They out sourced this to the private rental market.
Then there was the crash and the funding for new building, and also for people to buy, borrow was drastically reduced. But its gone on too long.
So its the Govt inaction on social housing, and allowing the banks to dictate building by limiting access to funding, that has caused this pressure on the private rental.

The growth private rental is a symptom not a cause.

On the back of this (and the tax and regulatory changes) it makes it attractive for new investment funds to enter the market.
They however want to squeeze max return. So they are going mainly for the lucrative high end rentals.
They didn't cause this situation, but they are going to milk it as long as they can.

I'm not sure why you give the Govt a free get out jail on the housing crisis, and shift the blame elsewhere.

I don't?

Agree 100% about social housing. The government should set up a proper state agency that builds and lets good quality social housing, it should be run properly on a break-even basis and all involved need to work hard to remove stigma relating to social housing.

They also need to think clearly about goals and what housing is for. Most importantly, housing stock should not be seen as an investment. It exists to give people somewhere to live, not to give people a way to make money. Imho there should be strong negative incentives for owning multiple properties - because the problem isn't just supply, it is supply AND demand (it always is).

So I am criticising the government. They seem to have become hopelessly muddled on this issue so that they are constantly thinking about 'how to help landlords' and 'how to help developers' and so on, rather than starting from first principles and asking - how do we give the people who live and work in this country access to good quality housing at a fair price?

If they asked that question they would soon realise the answer has little to do with subsidising private landlords, which is my whole point and has been all along.

beauf

I think its not useful to define all housing as housing.

An 8 million house or apartment, is not simply a roof over someones head.

Likewise you can treat social housing or affordable housing the same as someone holiday home in the middle of nowhere.

Fol20

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Providing housing? Landlords do not provide housing. People who build houses provide housing.

Let's imagine a single village containing ten families and ten houses. Daddy in one lucky family inherits a lot of money and buys all the houses in the village. His family live in one and he lets the other 9 out to the other 9 families.

Would you say that the landlord in this case is 'providing housing'? Do you think it makes sense to make it easier for him to buy these houses and make more money from them? Should the government get involved to help this poor chap?

More importantly, if he left the market and sold up, and the other 9 families got a home of their own - did we lose something?

Developers build houses, landlord and council provide housing for renters

Yes you did loose something. If no one wants to be a landlord including the fella that won the lotto. All you will be left with is people who buy and live in their properties with no spaces for renters.

Fol20

Browney7 wrote: »

50% allowance of the use of a car and phone for the 2 visits a year to inspect the property and if you change tenant once a year, another visit? So maybe 300 Kms on average per LL out of 10000 Kms a year a person drives. Revenue would be better off providing a driver for the landlord than letting him offset 50% car usage costs.

I've seen my landlord at the property three times in 2 years and had him ring me once. 1% of phone use is more reasonable (ie pennies).

None of this will ever happen anyway so it's all academic.

That’s a very micro view of a property, I have had tenants in the past where I have not talked to them for multiple years while with others I have to go the property once or twice a month depending on issues.

Your right. 50pc would be well to expensive. That’s why I suggested flat rates, were not talking enormous money here but at least it would appease ll somewhat to say, “yes the government are finally doing something for ll after 10years of battering our heads in with tax and legislation” instead they give us interest relief that was coming in anyway.

Fol20

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you actually not capable of understanding that the existence of buy-to-let landlords makes it less likely that people are able to afford their own home?

This is a genuine question. Do you understand that prices are a function of a) supply and b) demand and that buy-to-let investors contribute to b) and as a result drive up prices - particularly when for whatever reason supply is restricted?

It's over 20 years since I did my economics degree but I probably have a few old textbooks I can dig out if you need to borrow them.

Are you actually capable of understanding the fact that the rental market is necessary in society. Not everyone can buy or wants to buy. I also find it funny that you believe the housing costs are increasing due to btl investors when most of the market at the moment are people buying to live in them self. Please do get out your economic books as supply and demand is the biggest factor here. Nothing else

Fol20

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are some for sure.

But not nearly as many as most people think, and not nearly as many as we have forced into the private rental market today.

The idea that we 'need' landlords to meet the demand of all the people who are in private rental accommodation is misguided.

Most evidence suggests that given a choice between owner-occupation, (decent) social housing and rental in the private market, the last option is the least popular.

It probably suits a few people but really not many, so we should stop pretending that 'supplying' private rental accommodation by removing housing from the stock for owner-occupation is doing anyone a favour.

If you want to make a quick buck and you can then fair enough (I have a few friends who are classic 'accidental landlords'). But the government should really have more cop on than to be encouraging it.

The options you provide offer no context to a situation you even add(decent) social housing instead of just social housing and are lobsiding your defense. I’m sure people would prefer it in the order you provided as option one - they would own the house, option 2 - it’s cheaper and is”decent” social housing option 3- more expensive accommodation that is temporary in nature.its obvious what people prefer but you need to be realistic of what is achievable. I would prefer a Ferrari and maybe one day I can get one but right now I might be stuck with my Ford Fiesta.

Fol20

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't?

Agree 100% about social housing. The government should set up a proper state agency that builds and lets good quality social housing, it should be run properly on a break-even basis and all involved need to work hard to remove stigma relating to social housing.

They also need to think clearly about goals and what housing is for. Most importantly, housing stock should not be seen as an investment. It exists to give people somewhere to live, not to give people a way to make money. Imho there should be strong negative incentives for owning multiple properties - because the problem isn't just supply, it is supply AND demand (it always is).

So I am criticising the government. They seem to have become hopelessly muddled on this issue so that they are constantly thinking about 'how to help landlords' and 'how to help developers' and so on, rather than starting from first principles and asking - how do we give the people who live and work in this country access to good quality housing at a fair price?

If they asked that question they would soon realise the answer has little to do with subsidising private landlords, which is my whole point and has been all along.

Wow, you say you did economics yet this just boggles my mind.you want to discentivise developers, landlords.

You want to government to provide everything for you with no private envolvement. I’m afraid that’s not how a capitalist system operates. Go to Russia if you want that. Without incentives, the vast majority of housing isn’t build, there will be no rentals on the market, you won’t have your big and fries on the weekend. The list goes on.im not sure if your trolling but please take a look at how capitalism works

Fol20

Fol20 wrote: »

Wow, you say you did economics yet this just boggles my mind.you want to discentivise developers, landlords.

You want to government to provide everything for you with no private envolvement. I’m afraid that’s not how a capitalist system operates. Go to Russia if you want that. Without incentives, the vast majority of housing isn’t build, there will be no rentals on the market, you won’t have your big and fries on the weekend. The list goes on.im not sure if your trolling but please take a look at how capitalism works

I know how capitalism works thanks. I also know that Russia has been capitalist for over 25 years so I'm a little confused about that particular remark but we'll let it pass.

Most sensible people believe that as a) land is finite and b) shelter is a basic human need, we can do better than sitting back and letting the market decide when it comes to housing policy. What works for providing the public with a "big and fries" doesn't when it comes to ensuring people in Ireland have somewhere to live.

I don't want to discourage development. Of course we need to build houses, with public and private money. I have never said otherwise.

I do believe that there's absolutely no need to offer incentives to private landlords, and certainly not on the basis of 'it's hard to be a landlord, I'm just trying to provide a service' sob stories. If it's tough, get out. We'll figure out how to cope I am sure. Private landlords, one way or another, will always be with us after all.

The whole point of building and re-invigorating social housing is to remove the dependence on private rental, which again suits very few people (which is why it is almost always the option that people reject when they have a choice)

marieholmfan

We have the same toxic relationship with housing that Americans have with healthcare.

Deleted User wrote: »

I know how capitalism works thanks. I also know that Russia has been capitalist for over 25 years so I'm a little confused about that particular remark but we'll let it pass.

Most sensible people believe that as a) land is finite and b) shelter is a basic human need, we can do better than sitting back and letting the market decide when it comes to housing policy. What works for providing the public with a "big and fries" doesn't when it comes to ensuring people in Ireland have somewhere to live.

I don't want to discourage development. Of course we need to build houses, with public and private money. I have never said otherwise.

I do believe that there's absolutely no need to offer incentives to private landlords, and certainly not on the basis of 'it's hard to be a landlord, I'm just trying to provide a service' sob stories. If it's tough, get out. We'll figure out how to cope I am sure. Private landlords, one way or another, will always be with us after all.

The whole point of building and re-invigorating social housing is to remove the dependence on private rental, which again suits very few people (which is why it is almost always the option that people reject when they have a choice)

gaius c

Grumpypants wrote: »

Sometimes they do but generally no they don't physically build them. That is a team of builders and subcontractors and professionals. But landlords so buy them and then provide those houses to people in need of housing.

And compete with ordinary house buyers who they have now been given a significant advantage over.

Fol20

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I know how capitalism works thanks. I also know that Russia has been capitalist for over 25 years so I'm a little confused about that particular remark but we'll let it pass.

Most sensible people believe that as a) land is finite and b) shelter is a basic human need, we can do better than sitting back and letting the market decide when it comes to housing policy. What works for providing the public with a "big and fries" doesn't when it comes to ensuring people in Ireland have somewhere to live.

I don't want to discourage development. Of course we need to build houses, with public and private money. I have never said otherwise.

I do believe that there's absolutely no need to offer incentives to private landlords, and certainly not on the basis of 'it's hard to be a landlord, I'm just trying to provide a service' sob stories. If it's tough, get out. We'll figure out how to cope I am sure. Private landlords, one way or another, will always be with us after all.

The whole point of building and re-invigorating social housing is to remove the dependence on private rental, which again suits very few people (which is why it is almost always the option that people reject when they have a choice)

You don’t know we will always have rentals. the amount of rental supply(not amount of ll or reit) is decreasing and is worsening the conditions for renters be in price or lack of options forcing them to choose sub par housing. Yes more houses need to be built however if ll will not enter the market then all these houses will not do them good.

Your right. We defeninitly need to build social housing. The big item I am afraid of is the finer details of how they will manage this. The government are not known for managing money very well and already I don’t like the fact they are going to subsidize purchases of property instead of buying them and keeping them for good for social housing

Fol20

marieholmfan wrote: »

We have the same toxic relationship with housing that Americans have with healthcare.

Intriguing statement, I don’t know enough about the USA healthcare. what do you mean by that?

Grumpypants

gaius c wrote: »

And compete with ordinary house buyers who they have now been given a significant advantage over.

What advantage is that?

Samuel T. Cogley

gaius c wrote: »

And compete with ordinary house buyers who they have now been given a significant advantage over.

I would venture the vast majority of LL's own apartments which Irish people don't want to live in long term, they want to rent them.

DubCount

Deleted User wrote: »

If it's tough, get out. We'll figure out how to cope I am sure.

:D:D

I'm just relieved I'm not trying to secure a rental property while landlords are getting out, rental demand is increasing, and best solution on offer is "we'll figure out how to cope I'm sure".

Why is there such resentment against a small landlord trying to make money from property? Tesco and McDonalds make money from selling food - a requirement for living - yet this gets a free pass.

4ensic15

DubCount wrote: »

:D:D

I'm just relieved I'm not trying to secure a rental property while landlords are getting out, rental demand is increasing, and best solution on offer is "we'll figure out how to cope I'm sure".

Why is there such resentment against a small landlord trying to make money from property? Tesco and McDonalds make money from selling food - a requirement for living - yet this gets a free pass.

Good old Irish begrudgery. Most of the modern apartments in Dublin city centre were only constructed because of the buy to let market. They simply wouldn't be there had there not been S23 incentives and full interest relief for the landlords.

beauf

DubCount wrote: »

:...Why is there such resentment against a small landlord trying to make money from property? Tesco and McDonalds make money from selling food - a requirement for living - yet this gets a free pass.

Historical. Also the govt likes the focus to be on landlords as it distracts people from the reality that it's the govt that is doing almost nothing to improve supply

Fol20

beauf wrote: »

Historical. Also the govt likes the focus to be on landlords as it distracts people from the reality that it's the govt that is doing almost nothing to improve supply

We werent around for the historical stuff though. If you went down the historical path, The irish would hate the Brits and protestants.

beauf

Yet you've replied only to the historical bit. Its a historical narrative that's not entirely true too. People fall back on stereotypes.

marieholmfan

DubCount wrote: »

Why is there such resentment against a small landlord trying to make money from property?

Because most of them are greedy gombeens.

gaius c

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I would venture the vast majority of LL's own apartments which Irish people don't want to live in long term, they want to rent them.

I would venture that you're making stuff up.

Fol20

beauf wrote: »

Yet you've replied only to the historical bit. Its a historical narrative that's not entirely true too. People fall back on stereotypes.

Beauf, I actually think i miss read what you were trying to say.i agree with the rest of what your saying. Im a ll myself and am pro ll.

jomalone14

marieholmfan wrote: »

Because most of them are greedy gombeens.

And you know most of them, do you?

Please don't tar the majority of decent landlords with the same brush as those LLs that actually deserve that accolade.