Whatever happened to the housing crisis ?

beauf

robinbird wrote: »

Very very few landlords would pay that if any. All sort of ways to offset rental income to avoid paying tax.

Last study I can find was that the of the taxable income earned 41% is offset by various things. Leaving 59% of it to be taxed at either 20 or 40%. So about 1.6 Billion comes in as tax from rental income. For most its not their primary income.

So your suggestion is that only a few few landlords are paying tax. So if the vast majority of LL only have one property, how are only a few them paying a billion in tax.

beauf

robinbird wrote: »

Yeah. Right. They really really really don't want that 900,000,000 a year. They have to be forced to take it.

That's his point. They ARE forced to take it.

https://www.thejournal.ie/wrc-landlord-latvian-woman-rent-allowance-hap-4844692-Oct2019/

trying to figure out in my head the moving parts and effects of x number of people seeking to buy their own place and leaving the rental market, with landlords selling up (if that it what happens in a property crash).

ceteris paribus this means fewer landlords, fewer houses available to rent.

but it also cuts the number of households seeking rented accommodation on a 1:1 basis.

presuming those getting to buy are those with better income, then the median income of those left chasing these rental properties would appear likely to drop and the likely % of those remaining in that rental market on HAP (for instance) would increase.

so comparatively similar numbers of households, with comparatively lower income, with HAP making up comparatively more of that market- would seem to set conditions for the govt to better control and influence rents downwards....?


id also disagree that HAP was designed to protect only landlords. it was designed to protect everyone with vested property interests- landlords. homeowners, banks and bank shareholders (including the govt at that time and by extension the taxpayer)

should property have been let go to the wall?

arguably. someone would have bought in again at some new level and our economy was resetting anyway. better for those who had risked- including landlords- to have taken the hit and the actual underlying economy that emerged from underneath the property boom to be correctly weighted.

this option didnt suit a dail full of propertied legislators, a voting bloc of propertied pensioners nor propertied homeowners/shareholders. so we got the "we all partied" act and FG spent the last few years of actual leeway ensuring nothing hurt property prices (which keeps their core vote/support happy) - mainly by keeping stock scarce.

should first time buyers who pay their own way as well as full taxes be competing with IRIS REIT (who pay comparatively little tax) on one side and those on benefits (who contribute comparatively little, especially nett) for the small supply of decent housing that is coming available?

certainly not. but i dont see the govt that seems focused on that group, unfortunately.

robinbird

Eric Cartman wrote: »

most non institutional landlords would be paying 40% incomes tax plus USC (bringing it over 50%) to revenue on their rental income.

Dublingirl80 wrote: »

Landlords all pay 40 percent tax on the rent they receive. ... they receive 40 percent of rent back in tax so it suits them for there to be high rents.

robinbird wrote: »

Very very few landlords would pay that if any. All sort of ways to offset rental income to avoid paying tax.

beauf wrote: »

Last study I can find was that the of the taxable income earned 41% is offset by various things. Leaving 59% of it to be taxed at either 20 or 40%. So about 1.6 Billion comes in as tax from rental income. For most its not their primary income.

So your suggestion is that only a few few landlords are paying tax. So if the vast majority of LL only have one property, how are only a few them paying a billion in tax.

That was not my suggestion. What I said is that very few landlords would pay 40% or 50% tax. And as your figures show very few if any do. On your figures they pay less than half that.

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

trying to figure out in my head the moving parts and effects of x number of people seeking to buy their own place and leaving the rental market, with landlords selling up (if that it what happens in a property crash).

....

It's not that simple. Supply dries up as no one has finance to build, finance dries up because no one can pay it. So no one can buy. The people you are expecting to sell don't, they leave them empty.

The market doesn't stop completely. It might feel that even if there's 30-40% drop in transactions.

Last time you would see villages turn to almost ghost towns almost with most of the retail, and tourism businesses all shut down.

But that was last time. This could be completely different worse. Could be not as bad as we are expecting. But we are expecting pretty bad. Maybe it will bounce.

and prices drop for a certain portion of the market where landlords cant afford to leave them empty or not sell.


everything moves according to the relevant pressure

beauf

robinbird wrote: »

That was not my suggestion. What I said is that very few landlords would pay 40% or 50% tax. And as your figures show very few if any do. On your figures they pay less than half that.

You said "if any". Which means paying little or no tax.

But that makes no sense if the tax income from rental is billions. It's not like the reits are paying it.

Also if it's such a gold mine why do the vast majority only have one property. That's illogical.

Also people wanted large "professional" (lol) landlords like reits who pay a fraction of the tax small landlords do, to replace small landlords. So how is tax the big issue if the populist choice of renter's is those who pay less tax. Also illogical.

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

and prices drop for a certain portion of the market where landlords cant afford to leave them empty or not sell.


everything moves according to the relevant pressure

Last time banks wouldn't let people sell. They dragged
it out for years and the banks both bankrupted the mortgage holder and the bank. Often to force them out of trackers. Those cases are still going on. They had no one to sell to, as the banks wouldnt finance to buy. Bank basically stuck their own foot in the door they were trying to close.

This time the banks acted quickly. So we've never had that happen before. All bets are off.

beauf

robinbird wrote: »

Yeah. Right. They really really really don't want that 900,000,000 a year. They have to be forced to take it.

So basically you don't want to give this to landlords but you want them forced to accept it. Makes perfect sense.

robinbird

beauf wrote: »

You said "if any". Which means paying little or no tax.

Someone said landlords pay 50% tax. I said few if any pay that which is perfectly correct.

beauf wrote: »

So basically you don't want to give this to landlords but you want them forced to accept it. Makes perfect sense.

I don't want to give the billion to landlords. Another poster said that they are being forced to take this money. I disagree.

beauf

robinbird wrote: »

Someone said landlords pay 50% tax. I said few if any pay that which is perfectly correct. .

You are being as imprecise as they are. Most will pay high rates of tax. But only on the taxable income. Using expenses to reduce taxable income means you have to have paid those expenses in the first place. It's not like you get the non taxable part for free.

The inference being they don't pay tax. But that doesn't reconcile with the tax take. Where 51% is taxed.

robinbird wrote: »

I don't want to give the billion to landlords. Another poster said that they are being forced to take this money. I disagree.

I suggest you become a landlord then make a loud public display of refusing these payments. Let us know how that works out for you.

Also start a campaign to remove theses laws preventing a landlord from refusing that payments. Also campaign on removing these payments in their entirety. Let us know how that works out also...

robinbird

beauf wrote: »

Also start a campaign to remove theses laws preventing a landlord from refusing that payments. Also campaign on removing these payments in their entirety. Let us know how that works out also...

If I were king.
Year 1
End the billion euro in payments to landlords.
Use a few hundred million on top up welfare payments
Spend 700 million building public housing on public land

Year 2
Spend a billion euro building public housing on public land

risteard7

The people roaming around Dublin all day and night who would rather a can of beer or drugs over a bed for the night? They are in accomodation now because Dublin is empty & there is nobody around to hassle & harry for money.

Mad_maxx

robinbird wrote: »

If I were king.
Year 1
End the billion euro in payments to landlords.
Use a few hundred million on top up welfare payments
Spend 700 million building public housing on public land

Year 2
Spend a billion euro building public housing on public land

What of the huge minority of social tenants who refuse to pay any rent in these new homes?

Eric Cartman

robinbird wrote: »

That was not my suggestion. What I said is that very few landlords would pay 40% or 50% tax. And as your figures show very few if any do. On your figures they pay less than half that.

But you havent shown that, your posts are just thinly veiled hatred for landlords and the old trope that theyre all tax evading slum lords pocketing the cash and inflating expenses.

The reality is your HAP landlord is more likely to be a retiree renting out his deceased mothers house or a couple whove rented out their family home after moving to look after a sick relative, the income they derive from it is taxed around 40% and theres almost no situation in this land where HAP would cover the tax bill and the mortgage payment

Eric Cartman

robinbird wrote: »

If I were king.
Year 1
End the billion euro in payments to landlords.
Use a few hundred million on top up welfare payments
Spend 700 million building public housing on public land

Year 2
Spend a billion euro building public housing on public land

Curiously Are you gainfully employed and a property owner / not a HAP tenant or trying to be one ?

beauf

robinbird wrote: »

If I were king.
Year 1
End the billion euro in payments to landlords.
Use a few hundred million on top up welfare payments
Spend 700 million building public housing on public land

Year 2
Spend a billion euro building public housing on public land

What would you do with all the people you've just made homeless while you build accommodation for them.

I note you didn't lift any of the laws and fines preventing LL from refusing these payments.

hatrickpatrick

beauf wrote: »

It's not that simple. Supply dries up as no one has finance to build, finance dries up because no one can pay it. So no one can buy. The people you are expecting to sell don't, they leave them empty.

The market doesn't stop completely. It might feel that even if there's 30-40% drop in transactions.

Last time you would see villages turn to almost ghost towns almost with most of the retail, and tourism businesses all shut down.

But that was last time. This could be completely different worse. Could be not as bad as we are expecting. But we are expecting pretty bad. Maybe it will bounce.

And this is exactly why we need more social housing, because to summarise your post, it's almost impossible to affect a meaningful and long term downward trend in private rents without decreasing supply. Ergo, the private market cannot solve the affordability problem.

Dublingirl80

robinbird wrote: »

If I were king.
Year 1
End the billion euro in payments to landlords.
Use a few hundred million on top up welfare payments
Spend 700 million building public housing on public land

Year 2
Spend a billion euro building public housing on public land

If someone can claim expenses they need receipts. The reasons we have hap and private landlords is because of the shortage of supply. I don't agree with the situation as a whole but your suggestions make no sense and you don't seem to understand that landlords paying tax on the 40 percent of the rent is benefiting the government.

Blaze420

robinbird wrote: »

If I were king.
Year 1
End the billion euro in payments to landlords.
Use a few hundred million on top up welfare payments
Spend 700 million building public housing on public land

Year 2
Spend a billion euro building public housing on public land

Yeah.....you'd be on the guillotine before you got to 6 months with a plan like that.

markodaly

efanton wrote: »

So in short, everything is SF fault. Every failure of the previous FF ad FG government is SF fault. Everything that that might go wrong in the future is SF's fault. Now that FF and FG have essentially become the same thing they and their supporters only have one party to blame.

Not sure how you got that idea. But my overarching point is
a) its more much complex a problem to solve than blame FG or FF
b) be aware of false promises from the likes of SF

You see what is happening here? FF/FG are blaming the party that has yet to go in to government for things it had no control of, and they will be damned if they will let them go into government just in case they are proven wrong yet again.

Again, a few things. SF did have control over this. They were the biggest party in DCC for 5 years and did **** all in that capacity to fix their local housing issues.
Oh, but they voted to reduce property taxes, and ask for handouts from the government to fix housing issues. Yeap, that is SF to a tee.

If FF/FG cant actually step up to the plate and really make the decisions this country needs then they should step aside, they talk a lot about making the tough decisions and making changes that benefits the majority of the people but for one excuse or another they never actually get around to doing that.

Step aside and let who exactly take over?
SF can try of course....

They claimed it was impossible for SF to build 100,000 homes during the election and yet to attract another party for their unholy coalition that is exactly what they promised last week in the Framework document. What is worse is that they claim that they can do with with no increase in income tax. At least SF were honest in their assessment that taxation would have to be increased by introducing a new tax band in order to pay for it.

Em, no. Try reading it again.
Also, there is NO programme for government agreed yet.

FF, actually more specifically Micheal Martin, claimed
“… the best interests of the Irish people are not served by a government made up of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. We made it very clear to the Irish people and those voting for us that we would not go into government with Fine Gael and we’re remaining consistent and true to that commitment.”

During the election Martin refuted absolutely without any caveat
“any government involving Fine Gael is not change.” He later said: “we will not be entering into a grand coalition … the people want change … they want Fine Gael out of office … they’ve been there too long … they haven’t delivered on the key issues of housing and health and the impact of the costs living.” He described any u-turn on a coalition with Fine Gael as “Jekyll and Hyde behaviour “.

Is that a question for me or Micheal Martin?

I do not believe for one second that the government cannot address the rent arrears. Making ridiculous excuses as to why they cannot is just laughable.
AS for SF councillor waiting in line to 'protect' those that abuse the system is laughable too. Dont forget for every one person abusing the system their are many more on the housing list hoping desperately to be assigned a home. Simple logic would tell you that they would get more people supporting them by forcing the county councils to enforce their rules than not and therefore they would be supporting more of their core voters by doing so.

What exactly should it set out to do so and what another political party out there agrees with your solution to fix rent arrears?

As to your last point, did you forget to remember the blowback Leo got when he asked people to dob in people cheating on the Dole? Did you support that initiative?

markodaly

efanton wrote: »

The government has chosen to keep the minimum wage at a low level, and there is obviously a cost to that in rent subsidies or providing social housing.


So the question you should be asking yourself is do we want to increase the minimum wage, or do we accept that the lowest paid will need financial support from the government?

All well and good but Ireland has the 3rd highest minimum wage in the EU 27. Low it is not.

Eric Cartman

markodaly wrote: »

All well and good but Ireland has the 3rd highest minimum wage in the EU 27. Low it is not.

and having the highest in cash social welfare payment correlating with that creates a huge vacuum of work where its not 'worth it' financially for an Irish person to do it.

beauf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And this is exactly why we need more social housing, because to summarise your post, it's almost impossible to affect a meaningful and long term downward trend in private rents without decreasing supply. Ergo, the private market cannot solve the affordability problem.

My comment was in relation to what happens next. Not reducing rents.

This issue with social housing and to a large extent affordable housing, is that its ideologically the opposite of a market who's sole purpose is to generate profit.

efanton

beauf wrote: »

My comment was in relation to what happens next. Not reducing rents.

This issue with social housing and to a large extent affordable housing, is that its ideologically the opposite of a market who's sole purpose is to generate profit.

Agreed, it is ideologically opposite to a free market.

But I challenge anyone on here to live on a take home pay of €1,300, pay their transport, groceries and utility bills and still have enough money to actually rent a home. The reality is in many locations this is nigh on impossible.
Yet this is what we expect those currently living on a minimum wage to do.

The government has chosen to keep the minimum wage low and that comes at a cost. It is good for business but not so good for those trying to live on a minimum wage. If the government chooses to keep the minimum wage at such low levels then it is obliged to either provide affordable housing for those on a minimum wage or provide subsidies or benefits so that they can rent in the private market. If it doesn't then we have people unable to exist on their meagre wages and instead choosing not to work at all, because the reality is they would be far better off.

The problem with providing rent subsidies such as HAP is that landlord will inflate their rents to avoid involvement in that scheme. This is bad for all renters, even those not on minimum wage. All HAP has done is actually force the cost of rents up in the rental market. It has never achieved what it was intended to do.

So the reality is that the state must step in and provide social housing or dramatically increase the minimum wage so that those that do work on minimum wage can afford to actually live. Either one works for me.

One of the biggest feck ups FG made was getting rid of the bedsits. While they were there those on minimum wage had ample affordable accommodation. Now we expect them to pay double the rent on more or less the same wage. The existing situation simply cannot work and that is the main reason why we have a housing crisis. So we are left with two choices, a very dramatic increase in the minimum wage so those on it can afford the going market rates for rental accommodation in the private market or a massive social housing program. Either way the HAP scheme should be gradually phased out as more affordable rental accommodation comes on to the market.

robinbird

beauf wrote: »

What would you do with all the people you've just made homeless while you build accommodation for them.
.

What you seem unable to grasp is that ending the billion euro subsidy to landlords would not affect supply. There would still be the same number of houses and flats. Now there may be a few landlords that will leave properties empty out of spite or evict tenants but most will simply have to accept what renters are able to pay. So it would not lead to an increase in homelessness.
I even offered to give another few hundred million to those on social welfare which they could then give to landlords.

efanton wrote: »

The problem with providing rent subsidies such as HAP is that landlord will inflate their rents. This is bad for all renters, even those not on minimum wage. All HAP has done is actually force the cost of rents up in the rental market. It has never achieved what it was intended to do.

So the reality is that the state must step in and provide social housing or dramatically increase the minimum wage so that those that do work on minimum wage can afford to actually live. Either one works for me.

Either way the HAP scheme should be gradually phased out as more affordable rental accommodation comes on to the market.

I disagree. HAP has achieved exactly what it was intended to do. To inflate rents and increase income for landlords. If you ended HAP you would have your more affordable rental model as rent rates would collapse and become affordable overnight.

beauf

efanton wrote: »

...If the government chooses to keep the minimum wage at such low levels then it is obliged to either provide affordable housing for those on a minimum wage or provide subsidies or benefits ....

I think the govt had proved it doesn't feel obliged to do anything about it...

efanton

robinbird wrote: »

What you seem unable to grasp is that ending the billion euro subsidy to landlords would not affect supply. There would still be the same number of houses and flats. Now there may be a few landlords that will leave properties empty out of spite or evict tenants but most will simply have to accept what renters are able to pay. So it would not lead to an increase in homelessness.
I even offered to give another few hundred million to those on social welfare which they could then give to landlords.




I disagree. HAP has achieved exactly what it was intended to do. To inflate rents and increase income for landlords. If you ended HAP you would have your more affordable rental model as rent rates would collapse and become affordable overnight.

So you agree with me and disagree with me in the same sentence?
You simply can not stop the HAP scheme overnight.

In your dream land you think landlords will accept massive reductions in rent.
A few might, but the majority will not.
Many landlords have taken out mortgages on buy to let schemes. Their mortgage is only viable because of the high rents. Once the rents do no meet or come close to the cost of the mortgage landlords will be forced to sell their properties. There's absolutely no question of that.
The result would be far fewer homes available to rent, and no homes at all for many of those on the HAP scheme.

If you want to get rid of HAP you need to make sure there is an alternative source of accommodation for many (not all) of the people that are currently on the HAP scheme. There would be only two ways of doing that, increase the minimum pay dramatically so that the low paid finally earn enough to pay rents without assistance, or provide alternative accommodation by building more social housing.

efanton

beauf wrote: »

I think the govt had proved it doesn't feel obliged to do anything about it...

Which is why we have a housing crisis.

If people do not earn enough to pay rents, or HAP is not sufficient to pay for rents what is the alternative?

beauf

robinbird wrote: »

What you seem unable to grasp is that ending the billion euro subsidy to landlords would not affect supply. There would still be the same number of houses and flats. Now there may be a few landlords that will leave properties empty out of spite or evict tenants but most will simply have to accept what renters are able to pay. So it would not lead to an increase in homelessness.
I even offered to give another few hundred million to those on social welfare which they could then give to landlords...

It's got nothing to do with supply. Landlords look for a payslip. The tenants you've made homeless can't provide a payslip. Makes no difference if you give the money to the tenant directly. In this hypothetical scenario private rentals are unavailable to you. How do you house them.

robinbird wrote: »

I disagree. HAP has achieved exactly what it was intended to do. To inflate rents and increase income for landlords. If you ended HAP you would have your more affordable rental model as rent rates would collapse and become affordable overnight.

No one's interested in hap. They are doing exactly what you said they wouldn't. Leaving them empty rather than accept hap or super low rents. Or tenants without a payslip.

"Spike in rental properties available - but many remain 'unaffordable', warns homeless charity"https://jrnl.ie/5059459