Good news for tenants in budget 2018

beauf

It not about being one side or another.

Its just human behavior.

Also people don't realize when they are being manipulated.

Wheres Me Jumper?

beauf wrote: »

It not about being one side or another.

Its just human behavior.

Also people don't realize when they are being manipulated.

i am a LL and it is because of this very attitude, that i prefer to rent to non-Irish tenants. i find non-nationals do not have this anti-landlord baggage and from my limited experience have proven better tenants.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

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.

It's hardly begrudgery on my part, I own my own home in a good part of Dublin and as we know from this thread landlords are hardly the lucky ones - they are all losing money.

And like I say I know lots of landlords and I know they are not bad people.

The point is that housing will always be in limited supply, and in those conditions people who want to own a home (which is almost everyone) will inevitably see investors / landlords as an enemy. You can only be outbid by a cash buyer so many times (who then generously turns around and offers to rent you the house) before you start to get annoyed.

In that situation I believe the government should be on the side of the potential owner occupier, not the potential landlord. Which is where the thread began.

On the same point some on the thread still seem to think that when a landlord leaves the market the flat or apartment they sell vanishes into thin air. That is not how it works, which is why the government should be pretty relaxed about it as a phenomenon.

Samuel T. Cogley

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i am a LL and it is because of this very attitude, that i prefer to rent to non-Irish tenants. i find non-nationals do not have this anti-landlord baggage and from my limited experience have proven better tenants.

a very quiet +1

Samuel T. Cogley

Deleted User wrote: »

It's hardly begrudgery on my part, I own my own home in a good part of Dublin and as we know from this thread landlords are hardly the lucky ones - they are all losing money.


And like I say I know lots of landlords and I know they are not bad people.

No they're not, they've negative cash flow which is a problem when you're then hit with a deadbeat tenant.

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is that housing will always be in limited supply, and in those conditions people who want to own a home (which is almost everyone) will inevitably see investors / landlords as an enemy. You can only be outbid by a cash buyer so many times (who then generously turns around and offers to rent you the house) before you start to get annoyed.

The other side to this is there are people that want to rent. Cash buyers can also, generally, afford to purchase less desirable properties and improve them. There are plus and minuses to both sides hence why a balanced approach is needed.

Deleted User wrote: »

In that situation I believe the government should be on the side of the potential owner occupier, not the potential landlord. Which is where the thread began.

They shouldn't be on anyone's side. However if you think this government is pro-LL then you're simply not engaging with the reality.

Deleted User wrote: »

On the same point some on the thread still seem to think that when a landlord leaves the market the flat or apartment they sell vanishes into thin air. That is not how it works, which is why the government should be pretty relaxed about it as a phenomenon.

It's more likely it's bought by someone renting a room or living at home as they're about the only ones who can afford the deposit at the moment. One rental out does not equal one (ex)renter in.

The only solution to this is supply. Supply of PPRs, rental units and yes, LL's. The smallest amount of work possible is being done for the latter and it is being begrudged.

KevinCavan

Grumpypants wrote: »

Spot on. You always see the same voices moaning on about a housing crisis, but dare mention giving an incentive to those who are providing that much needed housing and the same people kick up about why should landlords get special treatment!

House prices are nearing Celtic Tiger levels and rents are higher than they have ever been. My last landlord had no mortgage ever on their property, they inherited it. My current landlord is a developer type, who owns the apartment block. I am paying extortionate rent this year. These are reasons why I don’t shed a tear for landlords.

Samuel T. Cogley

KevinCavan wrote: »

House prices are nearing Celtic Tiger levels and rents are higher than they have ever been. My last landlord had no mortgage ever on their property, they inherited it. My current landlord is a developer type, who owns the apartment block. I am paying extortionate rent this year. These are reasons why I don’t shed a tear for landlords.

The price of rental properties until recently have not been that high. Given that LL's are so rich, property is so cheap (relative to rents) and rents are so high, why are we seeing LLs exit the market, increasing demand further, and not a massive influx?

Fol20

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i am a LL and it is because of this very attitude, that i prefer to rent to non-Irish tenants. i find non-nationals do not have this anti-landlord baggage and from my limited experience have proven better tenants.

I also found them to live longer in properties instead of a typical year for Irish people.

4ensic15

Deleted User wrote: »

It's hardly begrudgery on my part, I own my own home in a good part of Dublin and as we know from this thread landlords are hardly the lucky ones - they are all losing money.

Just because you own a house doesn't mean you don't begrudge people who own more than one.

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is that housing will always be in limited supply, and in those conditions people who want to own a home (which is almost everyone) will inevitably see investors / landlords as an enemy. You can only be outbid by a cash buyer so many times (who then generously turns around and offers to rent you the house) before you start to get annoyed.

Housing is not always in limited supply. There are times of surplus. 6 years ago tenant were boasting about how much they had bargained down their rent.

Deleted User wrote: »

In that situation I believe the government should be on the side of the potential owner occupier, not the potential landlord. Which is where the thread began.

In the situation of a shortage of housing , the government should make the best use of the existing stock to avoid homelessness and keep rents down.

Deleted User wrote: »

On the same point some on the thread still seem to think that when a landlord leaves the market the flat or apartment they sell vanishes into thin air. That is not how it works, which is why the government should be pretty relaxed about it as a phenomenon.

When a landlord sells the unit is idle for months while it is on the market and it often results in a smaller household occupying it afterwards.

marieholmfan

jomalone14 wrote: »

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.

I suppose this is one of those cases where the huge majority of gombeen Gardai ruin things for the tiny minority of decent landlords.

Sleeper12

marieholmfan wrote: »

I suppose this is one of those cases where the huge majority of gombeen Gardai ruin things for the tiny minority of decent landlords.

Ive only met decent Gardai. You treat them with respect & they do likewise.

beauf

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The price of rental properties until recently have not been that high. Given that LL's are so rich, property is so cheap (relative to rents) and rents are so high, why are we seeing LLs exit the market, increasing demand further, and not a massive influx?

There isn't much evidence of a net loss of landlords per year rather it increases slowly. But demand is vastly out stripping supply.

But it's valid to askwhy aren't more entering the market to meet demand. Certainly Reits are increasing but they are only interested in the high end.

Sleeper12

beauf wrote: »

There isn't much evidence of a net loss of landlords per year rather it increases slowly. But demand is vastly out stripping supply.

But it's valid to all why aren't more entering the market to meet demand. Certainly Reits are increasing but they are only interested in the high end.

Real investors stopped buying around 1995 as prices were going too high to get a real worthwhile return. Plenty a single let landlords entered the market in the 0s right up to 2007/2008. Many of these are struggling now. Some professional landlords re-entered the market 2010/2012 & bought for cash. It's not a good investment right now as house prices are so high. It has nothing to do with the tax setup or not being allowed to claim for mobile phone calls. It's because house prices are too expensive. Getting a buy to let now you couldn't expect to draw a profit on a weekly basis & there is the risk of another world recession looming or Brexit. It's a brave landlord that will buy today

Technocentral

.The Rent Tax Credit and rent freezes for a few years should have been introduced at least in Dublin. Nothing in the budget at all for workers and renters

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

Just because you own a house doesn't mean you don't begrudge people who own more than one.

Why would I envy someone a life of misery, losing money hand over fist and having tenants trashing my property and refusing to pay rent all the time.

I have read the thread and I understand how tough landlords have it. That is why I encourage them to get out of the market and cut their losses while they can. The government should not be propping up this dying business model and instead looking to alternative ways to solve the housing crisis that don't put these demands on the owners of multiple properties.

Samuel T. Cogley

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would I envy someone a life of misery, losing money hand over fist and having tenants trashing my property and refusing to pay rent all the time.

I have read the thread and I understand how tough landlords have it. That is why I encourage them to get out of the market and cut their losses while they can. The government should not be propping up this dying business model and instead looking to alternative ways to solve the housing crisis that don't put these demands on the owners of multiple properties.

Dying business model? Some countries have people renting their entire lives and happy to do so. Why won't you get it into your head that some people should, or actually need to rent.

beauf

Because people are only looking at it from whatever angle effects then only.

Not the bigger picture.

marieholmfan

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Dying business model? Some countries have people renting their entire lives and happy to do so. Why won't you get it into your head that some people should, or actually need to rent.

Not for their entire lives they don't. The Germanic system is a terrible one.

Technocentral

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would I envy someone a life of misery, losing money hand over fist and having tenants trashing my property and refusing to pay rent all the time.

I have read the thread and I understand how tough landlords have it. That is why I encourage them to get out of the market and cut their losses while they can. The government should not be propping up this dying business model and instead looking to alternative ways to solve the housing crisis that don't put these demands on the owners of multiple properties.

Dying business model? Some countries have people renting their entire lives and happy to do so. Why won't you get it into your head that some people should, or actually need to rent.

Renting should not be profit based, it should be provided by the state only.

Grumpypants

Technocentral wrote: »

Renting should not be profit based, it should be provided by the state only.

State-controlled housing. That will end well.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

Because people are only looking at it from whatever angle effects then only.

Not the bigger picture.

Speaking for myself, I have no angle. I own a house (singular) and have no need to rent.

However, the double think around this issue is comical.

We have a certain amount of housing stock in this country (yes we should build more). We know, because research tells us time after time, that most people in this country would like to own a house.

We also know that the majority of people renting would like to own a house.

Yet we keep talking about the massive 'demand' for rental property, to the extent that we seriously think the government helping potential landlords outbid potential owner occupiers is a good idea.

Every time that happens we create and meet demand for rental accommodation at the same time. Nobody other than the landlord wins, and apparently the landlord doesn't even win either because the whole leasing out property business is a hiding to nothing!

So why are we allowing this to happen?

How about make it LESS attractive to be a landlord and see what happens when we give potential owner occupiers a better chance of buying their own home? Is that really such a crazy idea?

Sleeper12

Technocentral wrote: »

Renting should not be profit based, it should be provided by the state only.

All due respect but Daftest statement of the thread so far imo

Samuel T. Cogley

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Dying business model? Some countries have people renting their entire lives and happy to do so. Why won't you get it into your head that some people should, or actually need to rent.

If you can't make money doing it then it's a dying business model.

Are you expecting the government to prop up your business because you can't cut it?

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

All due respect but Daftest statement of the thread so far imo

It isn't that daft, it was done in the UK in the post war years and was extremely successful.

That doesn't mean it will always work but it's an option for sure.

marieholmfan

Grumpypants wrote: »

State-controlled housing. That will end well.

Yeah it will. Much better to have the state for a landlord than some gombeen. (of course not all landlords are gombeens but most are).

Mod Note
The above statement is similar to saying most tenants are gombeens. So the less of that the better please. No more generalisations.

Samuel T. Cogley

Deleted User wrote: »

If you can't make money doing it then it's a dying business model.

Are you expecting the government to prop up your business because you can't cut it?

I said atleast three times now (in fairness between this and the AH thread) it's not about the money, it's about the huge risks involved. I'd be more than happy with a return to sanity (about half of current rents) in return for proper legislation against deadbeat tenants.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

If you can't make money doing it then it's a dying business model.

Everyone makes a profit from renting property. What seems to have happened during the boom is that people were given false information about renting property. Many don't seem to have been told that it's a long term investment. The investment is the property. After 20 or 30 years you end up with a property that has totally paid for itself and you made a small profit. It's at this stage where the big profits comes in.

Many small landlords have been sold a pup in that they were led to believe that they would make big profits while at the same time paying the mortgage. As a result many small landlords feel cheated and frustrated with the system. Internet rates are historically low and rents are historically high. This is as good as it gets until the mortgage is paid off

Grumpypants

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet we keep talking about the massive 'demand' for rental property, to the extent that we seriously think the government helping potential landlords outbid potential owner occupiers is a good idea.

?

I keep seeing this, but what advantage has a landlord over a normal buyer? Reinstating the tax deduction that was unfairly taken away, just to bring them back in line with other landlords is not a gain.

Considering a buyer has multiple assistance in buying.

1. Can apply for a 90% mortgage (Not available to landlords).
2. Affordable Housing scheme (Not available to landlords).
3. Rebuilding Ireland home loan lets buyers get a 90% mortgage at 2% (Not available to landlords).
4. First time buyers can get up to 20K towards their deposit with the Help to buy scheme.(Not available to landlords).
5. They got Tax Relief at source. (has been phased out now) (Not available to landlords).

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

It isn't that daft, it was done in the UK in the post war years and was extremely successful.

If that successful it would still be the system in the UK. A new system will only survive if its better than the old system. It worked for awhile in the UK after the war because people didn't expect much after being on rations for years. Once they found out there was a better way they ran towards it.

Technocentral

People should buy and sell houses to live in, I've nothing against private ownership and profit, but renting should not be for profit.