New incentives for landlords may come to light.

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566102#Comment_121566102

Once again. You've inferred because you moved put at 18, You didn't get any assistance , financial housing or assets from anyone.

You could have moved out and into your dead grandmother's house I'm sallynoggin for all we know.

ELM327

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566116#Comment_121566116

mortgage interest, maintenance costs, inflation offset and risk provisioned.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566091#Comment_121566091

I have 2 jobs - my main one, and a 2nd where I manage and maintain a property that is rented out to tenants.

 or is landlordind a side hussle such is the latest craze to normalise the cattle mart of accommodation provision rather than homes for families to start lives.

Ah I see, it's a troll post. Nobody is actually this stupid. Nevermind so

ELM327

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566120#Comment_121566120

That;s a stretch and you know it. I have been moved out and working - and self sufficient renting or owning - since 18.

Same question, can you outline where I am misunderstanding legacy wealth and how it applies in my situation like you claim

Fred Cryton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566116#Comment_121566116

Whats ridiculous is your comment. If the rent received only covers the mortgage, then why not sell now if there's zero profit over the next 30 years of paying the mortgage, or even a loss?

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566189#Comment_121566189

Possibly as someone's paying down the mortgage and he ends up with a gaff paid for by someone. Often not covered.

Fred Cryton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566217#Comment_121566217

But you'll have paid all the bank interest over those 30 years. If you borrow 250k from the bank, you pay back 500k in total including interest.

So essentially, the money from the tenant goes to the banks profit. The landlord should have just sold in year 1.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566189#Comment_121566189

At any stage the landlord could sell and would get back all that equity + any asset appreciation.

They would receive more than they put in - like any other investment. No different to investing in bonds or a fixed term saving account except you get a better yield in renting as it's more work and higher risk.

The fundamentals are exactly the same, and if you do not understand the fundamentals of investing then do not become a landlord.

Fred Cryton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566257#Comment_121566257

See below comment and apologize for wasting my time.

But you'll have paid all the bank interest over those 30 years. If you borrow 250k from the bank, you pay back 500k in total including interest.

So essentially, the money from the tenant goes to the banks profit. The landlord should have just sold in year 1.

CorkRed93

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566019#Comment_121566019

its not my fault you are paying a big mortgage on higher rates! buy in cash instead. its funny how the mortgage card hadnt been used up until last year after they'd been coining it for donkeys years on historically low interest rate repayments

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566274#Comment_121566274

Rent received covers mortgage interest (& maintenance, risk) not the full mortgage in order to make a profit as a landlord. If you cannot understand this then you are economically illiterate.

If I borrow 250k and rent only covers interest and 3% of capital part of mortgage payment, I will have made a 3% yield on that investment. More if the asset has gone up in price (which they tend to do).

Expecting 100% of the mortgage to be covered by rent received is nonsense. It's literally getting a free house paid for by your tenant.

Fred Cryton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566324#Comment_121566324

If there's no profit to be made annually by the landlord, then the landlord can save 250k in interest by selling it now, right? Even if the price of the house goes up 100k over that time period, the landlord is still better off by selling and saving that 250k, agreed?

The ONLY way it make sense to hang on to a property is if the landlord is making a return above the cost, ie an annual profit. And it would have to be a non-trivial profit in order to make the numbers work.

Anyway, all the data agree with me. Landlords are selling up. So thats it.

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566379#Comment_121566379

Why do you have to turn a profit if someone's covering the mortgage and all expenses. You literally end up with an asset someone else paid for, regardless how how much profit the banks made.

It's like me rocking up and handing you a house. Here's a house buddy. See ya later.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566379#Comment_121566379

If there's no profit to be made annually by the landlord, then the landlord can save 250k in interest by selling it now, right? Even if the price of the house goes up 100k over that time period, the landlord is still better off by selling and saving that 250k, agreed

This does not make any sense. The interest is covered by the rental payments - the landlord wouldn't be able to save it as it should be covered by rent instead, otherwise the investment is an actual loss.

If the asset value goes up 100k during ownership, that's all profit once the landlord sells. If they never held on to the asset long enough for it to appreciate then they wouldn't get those gains.

Am I talking to chatgpt or something? Your counterexamples do not make any sense.

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565858#Comment_121565858

You have it bad.

ballyharpat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566461#Comment_121566461

And that would be very nice of you, but that's not what happens, here's a more honest description, you walk up and say -hey, I need a place to live, I might need it for a month or 10years or more, but how about you let me live in your house, I'll give you a small fraction of a percent every month, because I may not like the area, the house, the person I'm living with etc, so you can trust me with your 250k house-and pay for all the maintenance of it while I'm there. for as long as that may be, in fact, I may even stop paying rent and wreck the gaffe, not much you can do about it, as Ive no asset, so it's not worth taking me to court. Cheers buddy!

spaceHopper

This is some sort of kite flying, I can't make out why, the important part is

Mr O’Brien said this could be ­“further strengthened” to keep “good landlords” in the market after 12 months, if the measure was found to be working.

“You get a year to monitor how it’s working. Are we seeing a decrease in individual landlords leaving the markets? And you could look at further strengthening it by the way of the cost reduction,” he said.

He's not going to do anything now and ever if he did it would be worthless, he doesn't understand the problem. There is plenty of profit in rental so tax breaks won't help. The problem is there is no way to deal with bad tenants and there is a huge fear that LLs won't be able to sell if or when SF come to power.

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565426#Comment_121565426

No; they are doing it because the bulk are apartments which need forward funding guaranteed to completion. Small house builders can build 10-20 of an estate, sell these and use funds to build next 10-20. Very few, none really, can get finance to do 200 at a time.

Emblematic

The problem is the overall units built per year is too low. While giving landlords a tax incentive may cause some money to go into building houses and apartments, I think there's probably better, more direct, ways to encourage construction.

JVince

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565426#Comment_121565426

Can you point to any estate anywhere in Ireland where this has happened?

Exclude apartments that have "build to rent" designation and the sale to investors is assumed at the planning stage.

CorkRed93

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566820#Comment_121566820

Happened in maynooth 2 years ago, there was a massive backlash over it. 150 odd houses IIRC

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566673#Comment_121566673

That's a lie, your saying very few then saying none. There are a few large scale companies in Ireland building. Then selling bulk later on. There isn't none. Let's not fabricate the truth.

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566820#Comment_121566820

There are numerous non apartments examples. 2 seconds is all this took

https://www.businesspost.ie/news/global-property-investment-firm-buys-most-of-170-home-estate-in-kildare/#:~:text=A%20global%20property%20investment%20firm,estate%20in%20the%20commuter%20belt.

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121566614#Comment_121566614

Usher.

😎

the_pen_turner

this whole complaining about paying the mortgage is a load of rubbish. any other business can buy assets and pay for itself and generate profit for its owner and there is nothing about it..

if i start up a lawn care service in the morning with 10k of my money and a loan of 40 k the business will pay me back and pay the loan and pay me a salary for running it. at the end i will have built up assets that i can sell. everything there will have been paid for by the customers along the way. same for any hotel, resturant, shop, shopping center, factory, farm, garage etc. why is a landlord any diferent.

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121567347#Comment_121567347

I suppose landlords like to convince themselves and others they're providing a resource where there is a finite volume of units. And the price of units is pushed up by landlords big and small taking housing residential stock out of the home market. Seems substantially different to a lawn care company doesn't it. These analogies are mad tbh.

Comes back to the point that housing is ridiculously central to a healthy economy. Like incredibly so, yet we have an entire swathe of mickey mouse policy and encouraging random people and the markets to boost it. But we can't borrow as a state to produce it.

You tell me that's not extremely purposeful policy, profit profit profit and its usually for the folks at the top and anyone close enough to the coat tails or keen enough to jump on it.

As we can clearly see now wages are having to be forced up to keep up with it. All these things are intertwined. But we must protect the landlords..always.

listermint

Actually another thing that isn't right is government tds and ministers making policies that they themselves have keen interests in. That's wrong regardless of which way you shake it.

How many of them are landlords or landlord adjacent.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565144#Comment_121565144

Free market would be great. But that means no more HAP or public money subsidizing the market. Let the market reach the level the consumer can actually afford.

So be careful what you wish for!

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121567390#Comment_121567390

There's no such thing as the free market. The same people want others to own their losses when they come around. Its all spoof. 'Do stuff to suit me at the current moment so it suits me in that moment' would be a closer motto.

the_pen_turner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121567379#Comment_121567379

ordinerally i would agree. but every policy they have brought in over the last few years has beeen against the landlord and has been very pro tennant.