Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Will lifetime renting in Ireland become viable?

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    scamalert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭scamalert


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    If you're paying rent, somebody is making a profit off of you.




    So what your saying landlords should rent at a loss or just to split even, maybe do charity and give it for free, as you say young dont plan yet one using their second head and popping kids here and there are somehow at a loss because they didn't plan it.


    Boggles my mind how some think.


  • Options
    #123
    Ruraldweller56
    Registered Users Posts: 938 ✭✭✭Ruraldweller56


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's the current fad of 'tough **** go f*** yourself' I see popping up here and there. Corporations and banks get state aid and light taxes to help them make a profit, but a tax payer looking for a dig out to rent or buy a home is a sponger looking for something for nothing, as they story goes.
    If you're paying rent, somebody is making a profit off of you. Therefore, if possible you should buy a house over renting every time. The idea that renting is the way to go might suit a young person with no plans but it's not financially or security sound for most especially families.

    ********
    If you had money, and your son was in tough times, would you pay towards your sons rent or build a house and rent it to him at a rate he could afford, with you still getting money back? Would you pay a builder to help the builder build a house and then have your son try buy it at market rates or would you pay to build your own house and sell it to your son at a profit to you but still cheaper than he'd get at market rates? Or would you pay to put your son up in a hotel? These are the option the state currently has for the tax payer suffering the housing crisis.

    I guess in ideal world both options would co exist peacefully. Renting should be an option for people who cannot afford (or maybe don't want to, for whatever reason) to buy. That said in my mind anyway, if the ordinary person wants to buy they certainly shouldn't be prohibited from doing so for no other reason than 'but muh renting is the norm in Europe'. As someone already said - dystopia. To me it's a horrible idea.

    That said the situation here where rents are higher than mortgage repayments is a disaster that can't sustain itself. Its the backwards of what it should be.


  • Options
    #124
    iamtony
    Registered Users Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭iamtony


    scamalert wrote: »
    So what your saying landlords should rent at a loss or just to split even, maybe do charity and give it for free, as you say young dont plan yet one using their second head and popping kids here and there are somehow at a loss because they didn't plan it.


    Boggles my mind how some think.
    no he is saying that even if a tenant is paying 500 a month and your mortgage is 1000 a month your are still making a profit because a landlords mortgage is nothing to do with the rent he receives. When the mortgage is paid the landlord will be able to get back all his invested money by either continuing to rent or selling and getting his money back plus all that money back plus whatever value the house has increased by(assuming it's increased). Boggles my mind how landlords think. If you can't afford to cover your mortgage is the property is empty then you've no business buying a rental property as an investment in my eyes. The rent you receive and the mortgage you pay are two totally different things and shouldn't be put together in a landlords head.


  • Options
    #125
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I was referring to the poster who was waiting to inherit off his parents as being in the hand-out category.

    Hardly. I'd love if I was left a house. What's wrong with that? Hardly a hand out.
    scamalert wrote: »
    So what your saying landlords should rent at a loss or just to split even, maybe do charity and give it for free, as you say young dont plan yet one using their second head and popping kids here and there are somehow at a loss because they didn't plan it.


    Boggles my mind how some think.

    Hold on there horse. To explain, if you are paying rent, someone is making a profit off you. To explain further, your rent is paying someones mortgage and/or a nice tidy profit. So to rent is you making other people money. If possible, buy. The suggestion was renting is fine over buying.
    You comment is your own making.


  • Options
    #126
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Ruraldweller56 wrote: »
    That said in my mind anyway, if the ordinary person wants to buy they certainly shouldn't be prohibited from doing so for no other reason than 'but muh renting is the norm in Europe'. As someone already said - dystopia. To me it's a horrible idea.

    And it’s not true. Except for Switzerland more houses are owned than rented. Most European house ownership is higher than Ireland, the U.K., or the US. It’s a belief that will never die though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Ronaldinho
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Ronaldinho


    Matt Barrett wrote: »


    Hold on there horse. To explain, if you are paying rent, someone is making a profit off you. To explain further, your rent is paying someones mortgage and/or a nice tidy profit. So to rent is you making other people money. If possible, buy. The suggestion was renting is fine over buying.
    You comment is your own making.

    You're completely ignoring the myriad of risks and expenses associated with buying an investment property, which the investor needs to be compensated for.

    There is also a value in the optionality of being able to walk away from a rental as a tenant.


  • Options
    #128
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Ronaldinho wrote: »
    You're completely ignoring the myriad of risks and expenses associated with buying an investment property, which the investor needs to be compensated for.

    Not much of a free market if you need to be compensated for your investment. Take the risk yourself.


  • Options
    #129
    devlinio
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 172 ✭✭devlinio


    Hope not. How will my parents get their high rents then.


  • Options
    #130
    Ronaldinho
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Ronaldinho


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Not much of a free market if you need to be compensated for your investment. Take the risk yourself.

    Do you not get that the yield or return that an investor demands is dependent on the risk associated with that asset?

    We can argue about what a fair rental yields would be and I'd like to see them a damn sight lower, but Matt Barrett is just totally ignoring those risks borne by the landlord.


  • Options
    #131
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Ronaldinho wrote: »
    Do you not get that the yield or return that an investor demands is dependent on the risk associated with that asset?

    You said compensated for the risk. Not that the risk is priced in.
    We can argue about what a fair rental yields would be and I'd like to see them a damn sight lower, but Matt Barrett is just totally ignoring those risks borne by the landlord.

    And those risks are always priced in. Otherwise why wouldn’t people leave their money in the bank?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,364 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    What utter BS being spread here.

    Mortgages have always been cheaper than renting. That is pretty much the same everywhere.

    If you exclude taxes to work out how much a landlord makes off a property based on the fact interest on the mortgage is an allowable expense is completely disingenuous. It isn't even a month since that returned and PRSI and USC still is paid on the income.

    1.2% tenants over holding is nonsense. They are the cases brought to RTB. As I said the majority of tenants with hold at least the last months rent. There is no point going to the RTB. They are the last resort. If you want to play silly buggers with stats then it is completely equal to say there are extremely small amount of landlords doing anything wrong. It also requires ignoring the financial risks

    I would like to see some report of this alleged 85% of landlords not paying tax even if it is 19 years old.

    As for the idea I am unlucky and inexperienced is nonsense I have been renting properties for over 20 years following on from other family members. I certainly have had more tenants than most people have had landlords.

    As for inheriting property and renting it out there is inheritance tax which I have had to get a mortgage to pay off.

    The reality is REITs will be able to earn more charging less rent than an Irish citizen. They can afford losses small landlords cannot. You are playing right into the hands of big business. There should be more landlord protection due the large risk they take. I know people who lost their own homes because tenants didn't pay rent.


  • Options
    #133
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,364 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    iamtony wrote: »
    no he is saying that even if a tenant is paying 500 a month and your mortgage is 1000 a month your are still making a profit because a landlords mortgage is nothing to do with the rent he receives. When the mortgage is paid the landlord will be able to get back all his invested money by either continuing to rent or selling and getting his money back plus all that money back plus whatever value the house has increased by(assuming it's increased). Boggles my mind how landlords think. If you can't afford to cover your mortgage is the property is empty then you've no business buying a rental property as an investment in my eyes. The rent you receive and the mortgage you pay are two totally different things and shouldn't be put together in a landlords head.

    Like a a business where by you don't assume you will not get paid for providing a service. Do you think a shop assume they are going to make no money for over a year and can survive? You don't have a clue on investment. If you think loans for businesses aren't attached to what they charge you are truly clueless and really shouldn't talk on the subject.


  • Options
    #134
    iamtony
    Registered Users Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭iamtony


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Like a a business where by you don't assume you will not get paid for providing a service. Do you think a shop assume they are going to make no money for over a year and can survive? You don't have a clue on investment. If you think loans for businesses aren't attached to what they charge you are truly clueless and really shouldn't talk on the subject.
    and round and round we go. Im out lads I can't take any more, peace.


  • Options
    #135
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,364 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    iamtony wrote: »
    and round and round we go. Im out lads I can't take any more, peace.

    Grand you are completely clueless. Using capital acquisition as the gauge of earning is nonsense and not economically viable for businesses. To get off the merry go round all you needed to do was understand that is not a sound investment plan.


Advertisement