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
In the Dail today
Options
Comments
-
Ignorance is bliss my friend. The grass is always greener
Right back at you!
When you look for alternative means of investment and realise the risk/rewards on offer you'll be crying about how your attitude towards renters let you lose the market.
As with any business that does not understand the needs of its customers, e.g. taxi companies before deregulation and RTE and its demands for the TV Licence hikes in the age of the internet video streaming.
But don't worry, I'm sure you'll have something smart to say in the meantime.0 -
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=462968&stc=1&d=1538658222
This table shows exactly what is wrong with the whole concept, why would anybody want to better themselves and increase their income? If you increased your salary from 41k to 61k you would increase your take home pay by around €750 a month but have to pay out an extra €550 a month in rent.
Was nothing learned from the failed communist experiments of the past?0 -
Right back at you!
When you look for alternative means of investment and realise the risk/rewards on offer you'll be crying about how your attitude towards renters let you lose the market.
As with any business that does not understand the needs of its customers, e.g. taxi companies before deregulation and RTE and its demands for the TV Licence hikes in the age of the internet video streaming.
But don't worry, I'm sure you'll have something smart to say in the meantime.
Yes i know if you invested in stocks and shares a few years ago at the bottom of the recession, you could have earn more gross profit from it however thats why its always recommended to spread your portfolio among several assets classes.
REIT will use local agencies to manage their portfolio. I know of several large agencies managing in excess of 500-1000 properties who reputation proceeds them. I have friends who have first hand experience of how they have been treated and provided advice on how to deal with some of the laughable things these agencies have done.
Yes there is also some terrible private ll that cant manage something for the life of them, but they are more personable and like anything in life. If you pay someone to manage it for you, your just another number to them. If your talking directly to the owner, there can(not always) be more leaway.
Please expand your thoughts as i do understand the my clients. They want cheaper rent thus making it not economical for ll to be in the market unless you pay no tax. I believe you dont seem to understand how basic economics work and supply is the only item causing the housing crisis, nothing else. This is not about keeping up with the times similar to uber or the tv license, this is purely and simply, supply not meeting demand. Its the same for everything else. If everyone could be a doctor, the wages they command would go down completely. If the supply of water decreased, the cost of water increased.0 -
Again where will they get the money for this. It’s all good and well saying they can stop paying millions for HAP but where are they going to go when they allocate the funds to build houses which would taken several years to be processed? 15pc of yourbwage towards rent is laughable. It’s much higher than that for everyone including working professionals. It would be more fair to be closer to 25pc and even then it’s not realistic given current costs to build.
The money would have to be borrowed, obviously, as usually happens with huge infrastructural projects that benefit society. Few people, regardless of their ideological persuasion, have an issue with borrowing money for road-building, etc, so I don't see why this should be a particular problem.
15% is close enough to current rates for council tenants. If you read the document I linked to, they advocate 30% for all income above the current limit (€35,000). Of course, it could be adjusted, but it seems that we've grown so accustomed to people paying >50% of their monthly wage to a private landlord that the idea of working people paying significantly less than that, and being able to live a decent quality of life, seems like a giveaway, rather than simply a reasonable amount. How often do we hear people say they hate their job, "but at least it pays the rent/mortgage"? Society should probably aspire to something better than that.Fol20 wrote:Everything is just a form of self-entitlement where they want something without the hard work that goes with it. Take a look at the trailer for survivor for season 33 that perfect encapsulates millenials vs gen x. 20/30 years people got mortgage with extortionate interprets rates and got by though through hardworking grit. Now people want to have their cake and eat it but doing very little to get it. Why should someone on 100k a year 60hrs a week be paying a ton in tax compared to someone who may not have worked as hard to get to where they are but expect to be equally compensated.
I was talking to my dad recently about mortgages (just one of the many wild conversations we have) and he mentioned how much easier it was for him and my mother, 38 years ago, in their early 20s, to buy a three-bedroom semi-detached in the greater Dublin area, compared with people in a similar situation nowadays. Yes, it required a few years of saving and interest rates were extremely high, but they managed it, despite the fact that they were both in relatively precarious entry-level private sector jobs and rarely working more than 39 hours a week. And if he hadn't been able to get a mortgage, he would have been able to get a council house relatively easily, as the state hadn't started selling them off yet. This 'Millennial snowflakes v hard-working Gen. X' stuff is absolute bollocks. As far as housing is concerned, this generation has it far tougher than the previous one.0 -
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=462968&stc=1&d=1538658222
This table shows exactly what is wrong with the whole concept, why would anybody want to better themselves and increase their income? If you increased your salary from 41k to 61k you would increase your take home pay by around €750 a month but have to pay out an extra €550 a month in rent.
Was nothing learned from the failed communist experiments of the past?
You'd be paying €1,181 a month in total. That's just €21 more than I'm currently paying for a one-bedroom apartment, and I'm earning less than half of €61,000.0 -
Advertisement
-
I believe you dont seem to understand how basic economics work and supply is the only item causing the housing crisis, nothing else. This is not about keeping up with the times similar to uber or the tv license, this is purely and simply, supply not meeting demand. Its the same for everything else. If everyone could be a doctor, the wages they command would go down completely. If the supply of water decreased, the cost of water increased.
See this is why the small-time LL are deluded. They think that if we had a water shortage and people were dying of thirst, then shops should just be in a position to raise prices for bottles of water and the government won't step in and secure the water provision.
When the Gov steps into their market LL cry fowl even though it is clear that the property market, both renting and FTB isn't working and needs to be managed to prevent people from protesting on the streets.
You do realise that people that protect your investments, like junior Gardai also rent, right? You piss them off enough with your attitude they might decide not to protect your "investment". This is why you are not in touch with your clients and how markets work, friend! Supply and Demand while important only work close to equilibrium, when it's completely out of whack you need drastic measures.0 -
Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »I was talking to my dad recently about mortgages (just one of the many wild conversations we have) and he mentioned how much easier it was for him and my mother, 38 years ago, in their early 20s, to buy a three-bedroom semi-detached in the greater Dublin area, compared with people in a similar situation nowadays. Yes, it required a few years of saving and interest rates were extremely high, but they managed it, despite the fact that they were both in relatively precarious entry-level private sector jobs and rarely working more than 39 hours a week. And if he hadn't been able to get a mortgage, he would have been able to get a council house relatively easily, as the state hadn't started selling them off yet. This 'Millennial snowflakes v hard-working Gen. X' stuff is absolute bollocks. As far as housing is concerned, this generation has it far tougher than the previous one.
You don't have to go back that far. I bought my house in 1996 in my early 20s. Could not possibly buy it now on my much higher current income0 -
This far left socialist crap is mad stuff altogether. It doesn't work yet you are all for it.0
-
You don't have to go back that far. I bought my house in 1996 in my early 20s. Could not possibly buy it now on my much higher current income
Yup, I remember my next door neighbour's house was sold in the mid-90s for around £60,000. My parents were amazed at the time because when the house was built in 1980, it would have cost €22,000. In 2007 (ouch), the same house was sold again for €450,000.This far left socialist crap is mad stuff altogether. It doesn't work yet you are all for it.
Building enough council houses to meet demand is (a) not far-left, and (b) does work. The current system does not work. It is failing. And that is why people are open to the idea of an alternative.0 -
See this is why the small-time LL are deluded. They think that if we had a water shortage and people were dying of thirst, then shops should just be in a position to raise prices for bottles of water and the government won't step in and secure the water provision.
When the Gov steps into their market LL cry fowl even though it is clear that the property market, both renting and FTB isn't working and needs to be managed to prevent people from protesting on the streets.
You do realise that people that protect your investments, like junior Gardai also rent, right? You piss them off enough with your attitude they might decide not to protect your "investment". This is why you are not in touch with your clients and how markets work, friend! Supply and Demand while important only work close to equilibrium, when it's completely out of whack you need drastic measures.
How will the government step in? They can either reduce taxes so water is charged at cost, or if we get our water from other countries, we will have to pay market rate or other countries will buy it off them instead
the government have stepped in so many times over the past few years and their plans have worked so well :rolleyes:.. Their actions have made it worse for both tenants and landlords..
It sounds like you would like a communist environment, take a look at how well other communist countries are going and see if you would like to live there. Do you want complete anarchy in our society if police are not defending peoples rights? if so every multinational will abandon us and we would be completely screwed.
You do realise its a too way street, you do not understand the ll.. You dont understand how the market operates my friend.. Ll are getting out of the market in mass, what will the government do if we are all gone? The rental market is a necessary service as everyone is not able to afford buying a house and the less of us in the market the more rent will cost.
Drastic measures will de-stabalize the market even further. Macro planning should not involve knee jerk reactions and should be planned over the long term.
Yes social housing needs to be built, there is no hope they can build the required amount over the short term due to lack of funding coupled with infrastructure and man power. Ireland should not offer affordable housing as some people may never be able to afford a house, what they should do is build social housing which the retain and do not sell at a massively discounted rate. If they did this, we would have had a much more robust infrastructure but instead they decided to sell it all off in the past. We should not borrow to build as we are already over spending and just kicking the can down is not viable. The highest earners in ireland pay the majority of tax and are also the most mobile. If they are taxed further, some will just emigrate thus decreasing cash flow.
Supply and demand is fundamental to capitalism. Our rental sector is not working right now however a happy equilibrium needs to be met and you my friend dont seem to recognise that every piece of legislation over the past 5 years has been targeting landlords.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »You'd be paying €1,181 a month in total. That's just €21 more than I'm currently paying for a one-bedroom apartment, and I'm earning less than half of €61,000.
I think you're missing the point, why would you want to work hard and earn 61k instead of 41k when almost all of your extra income would be swallowed up by a rent increase.0 -
-
The basic issue here is that there is a serious gap between what thousands of random individuals want or are able to deliver and what is actually required.
If random landlords cant deliver - then no problem. But a new way is needed.
1) housing co ops....
2) housing associations (Approved housing bodies).
3) adjusted social housing criteria so higher incomes can be eligible.
4) public housing via cost rental. if you can't afford cost rental then Government makes up the difference between what you can afford and what the cost rental rent is.
Relying on thousands of random people on daft.ie for housing isn't workable.
There needs to be RELIABLE access to affordable/workable housing solutions at all times for decent type people. Whether that's continuing with current accommodation OR a replacement.
From November 2002 to 2012 in ONE town I lIved in FIVE different places - because the landlords sold up.0 -
Well the communists are really going for it trying to remove all rights from the owners of property. Best 1 I heard was they want to prohibit evictions for the purpose of selling. Is the best they can come up with unworkable and unenforceable motions.
I’m on the fence about that one. If it’s being sold as an investment property then there’s no reason to evict a tenant. However if it’s bring sold as a PPR they need to evict.0 -
I’m on the fence about that one. If it’s being sold as an investment property then there’s no reason to evict a tenant. However if it’s bring sold as a PPR they need to evict.
The problem is that the ll will want to get the most bang for his buck and it’s best to just sell it where the new owner can choose what they want to use it for with vacant possession. It’s also better to have vacant possession as you can clean it up and make it look nice and tidy0 -
See this is why the small-time LL are deluded. They think that if we had a water shortage and people were dying of thirst, then shops should just be in a position to raise prices for bottles of water and the government won't step in and secure the water provision.
When the Gov steps into their market LL cry fowl even though it is clear that the property market, both renting and FTB isn't working and needs to be managed to prevent people from protesting on the streets.
You do realise that people that protect your investments, like junior Gardai also rent, right? You piss them off enough with your attitude they might decide not to protect your "investment". This is why you are not in touch with your clients and how markets work, friend! Supply and Demand while important only work close to equilibrium, when it's completely out of whack you need drastic measures.
You are not comparing like with like. Water is controlled by the State via Irish Water and as such the provision of water is already secure. Even if it was not the Govt can if the need arose purchase water at the market price and if it does not like the local market price it can purchase elsewhere.
This is not the same as the housing market. The Govt is not purchasing at the market price. It is using legislation to fix the market price.
If I can expand a bit on your understanding of a market in economic terms if I may. Supply increases when supernormal profits and being earned and new entrants are attracted to the market to get a share of those supernormal profits thereby eroding the supernormal profits to normal profit.
Based on my observations and those in the media small landlords are leaving the market and are not being replaced. If the laws of economics were to work in the normal fashion then there would be an increase in landlords entering the market rather than a decrease.
On a general note you seem to be missing the principle of exactly what a market is " a market is where willing buyers and sellers come to meet to exchange goods and services at a price agreeable to both". There is the rental market and then there is the social housing provision.
They are not the same and forcing one into the other will cause resistance.0 -
Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »The money would have to be borrowed, obviously, as usually happens with huge infrastructural projects that benefit society. Few people, regardless of their ideological persuasion, have an issue with borrowing money for road-building, etc, so I don't see why this should be a particular problem.
15% is close enough to current rates for council tenants. If you read the document I linked to, they advocate 30% for all income above the current limit (€35,000). Of course, it could be adjusted, but it seems that we've grown so accustomed to people paying >50% of their monthly wage to a private landlord that the idea of working people paying significantly less than that, and being able to live a decent quality of life, seems like a giveaway, rather than simply a reasonable amount. How often do we hear people say they hate their job, "but at least it pays the rent/mortgage"? Society should probably aspire to something better than that.
I was talking to my dad recently about mortgages (just one of the many wild conversations we have) and he mentioned how much easier it was for him and my mother, 38 years ago, in their early 20s, to buy a three-bedroom semi-detached in the greater Dublin area, compared with people in a similar situation nowadays. Yes, it required a few years of saving and interest rates were extremely high, but they managed it, despite the fact that they were both in relatively precarious entry-level private sector jobs and rarely working more than 39 hours a week. And if he hadn't been able to get a mortgage, he would have been able to get a council house relatively easily, as the state hadn't started selling them off yet. This 'Millennial snowflakes v hard-working Gen. X' stuff is absolute bollocks. As far as housing is concerned, this generation has it far tougher than the previous one.
Ironically enough I too have a similar conversation with my Dad on this very topic. What you fail to realize is the differences between then and now. My family bought in the mid 70's in Tallaght. The house was a new build house that had wooden windows, no central heating, no garden walls, no insulation, there were gaps under the front door and back doors. The house was cold in winter and we were a good couple of years in the house until we got central heating and single glaze windows.
We had one bus an hour and if you missed it then tough. We had no local schools nor any local shops.
The infrastructure eventually was provided where we now have shops, buses etc.
The point I am trying to make is that build costs and associated regulations have led to increased prices.0 -
The problem is that the ll will want to get the most bang for his buck and it’s best to just sell it where the new owner can choose what they want to use it for with vacant possession. It’s also better to have vacant possession as you can clean it up and make it look nice and tidy
Other countries manage it. I’m sure the logistics could be worked out.0 -
Other countries manage it. I’m sure the logistics could be worked out.
Other countries have different laws around tenancies also and since this countries protect people at all costs when they live somewhere, it hurts us in other ways. There is a reason why we pay at least 1-2pc for mortgages compared to the continent.0 -
Advertisement
-
Other countries manage it. I’m sure the logistics could be worked out.
There is no need to work out logistics, its a stupid idea to force a LL to keep tenants when selling. It will make the property less valuable, it will mean he is cutting of about 3/4 or more of potential buyers and of the ones who are looking to buy to let they won't want sitting tenants who they haven't vetted, a place they can't renovate to their standards, a lease in place that they haven't written and approved of etc etc.
As has been said by many the sooner some people realise tenants are temporarily staying in a property which they don't own and just face the facts that they should not have more rights than the owner and realise that being asked to leave is just part of renting, always has and always should be. If you want full rights to a property then buy simple as that.
LL's should always have avenues to take back control of the property they own, imo its already too limited as things stand.0 -
It's clear alternative models of housing are needed.
We hear all the time in Brexit talks about the backstop to prevent the hard border.
A backstop is clearly needed for housing in the same way.
So Government and housing associations and the like need to develop a housing supply chain to fill any gaps between what is on offer in rental market and the actual need for rental properties.
Do this - and terminating to sell isn't an issue.
The issue with terminating to sell right now is that the state could end up paying thousands to keep a family in a hotel because someone randomly decide to sell up a property.
The problem with rental right now is that random people are making BIG decisions with no bigger picture thinking.
There is potential for handling property sales in these circumstances in a manageable way.
If a fast immediate sale is needed with vacant provision then a system where the NEED is demonstrated could be put in place.
Perhaps with the state buying the property at full market rate for an empty property but keep the tenants on board.
If the landlord is selling up because they are putting 500 quid of their own money into property each month - then the state paying that landlord 700 a month extra is a lot cheaper then 5 k to a hotel.
If a sale could be planned for 12 months time with the state providing all required financial assistance to landlord in the meantime - then we could deliver alternatives for tenants in that time OR state buys the home for vacant provision market value plus 20 percent. Market Value would be the higher of....
1) the market value when landlord originally signalled a need to sell.
Or
The market value after 12 months.
So if prices drop the landlord gets the pre drop value - and if they increase - Landlord gets full increase0 -
If they're Part IV, their tenancy is never finished.JigglyMcJabs wrote: »Don't really see a problem with that, if the tenant is good they should be able to stay until their tenancy is up, sale or no sale.0 -
Old diesel wrote: »It's clear alternative models of housing are needed.
We hear all the time in Brexit talks about the backstop to prevent the hard border.
A backstop is clearly needed for housing in the same way.
So Government and housing associations and the like need to develop a housing supply chain to fill any gaps between what is on offer in rental market and the actual need for rental properties.
Do this - and terminating to sell isn't an issue.
The issue with terminating to sell right now is that the state could end up paying thousands to keep a family in a hotel because someone randomly decide to sell up a property.
The problem with rental right now is that random people are making BIG decisions with no bigger picture thinking.
There is potential for handling property sales in these circumstances in a manageable way.
If a fast immediate sale is needed with vacant provision then a system where the NEED is demonstrated could be put in place.
Perhaps with the state buying the property at full market rate for an empty property but keep the tenants on board.
If the landlord is selling up because they are putting 500 quid of their own money into property each month - then the state paying that landlord 700 a month extra is a lot cheaper then 5 k to a hotel.
If a sale could be planned for 12 months time with the state providing all required financial assistance to landlord in the meantime - then we could deliver alternatives for tenants in that time OR state buys the home for vacant provision market value plus 20 percent. Market Value would be the higher of....
1) the market value when landlord originally signalled a need to sell.
Or
The market value after 12 months.
So if prices drop the landlord gets the pre drop value - and if they increase - Landlord gets full increase
Why are we complicating the whole issue.
Give tenants a tax break to allow them save for a home of their own. With the increase in numbers of people with deposits developers will be encouraged to build as there will be buyers for what they build.
Encourage landlords to stay in the market to buy time for the supply of houses to increase.
I find it amazing that people suggest complicated methods that require huge amounts of admin work to provide them when the systems for the above already exist.0 -
The Student wrote: »Why are we complicating the whole issue.
Give tenants a tax break to allow them save for a home of their own. With the increase in numbers of people with deposits developers will be encouraged to build as there will be buyers for what they build.
Encourage landlords to stay in the market to buy time for the supply of houses to increase.
I find it amazing that people suggest complicated methods that require huge amounts of admin work to provide them when the systems for the above already exist.
Tax on rent needs to be significantly reduced also to make it profitable for LL's to enter the market and stay in the market along with a drastic increase in rights for LL's. A flat rate of around 20% on rental income regardless of other income would help. Another addition would be the ability to write off the entire mortgage repayment against tax not just the interest.0 -
Kinley Blue Rattler wrote: »Tax on rent needs to be significantly reduced also to make it profitable for LL's to enter the market and stay in the market along with a drastic increase in rights for LL's. A flat rate of around 20% on rental income regardless of other income would help. Another addition would be the ability to write off the entire mortgage repayment against tax not just the interest.
Not logical. It would make more sense to force all small professional landlords out of the market and allow only large professional landlords to remain. These would be easier to regulate monitor and punish.0 -
Kinley Blue Rattler wrote: »Tax on rent needs to be significantly reduced also to make it profitable for LL's to enter the market and stay in the market along with a drastic increase in rights for LL's. A flat rate of around 20% on rental income regardless of other income would help. Another addition would be the ability to write off the entire mortgage repayment against tax not just the interest.
What term mortgage payment should be allowed to be written off? A ten year mortgage capital repayment? 20? 30? It would also make leveraged property the investment of choice for everyone again driving asset prices nuts - we saw how well that turned out the last time with taxpayer bailouts?
You keep banging this drum on offsetting the capital repayment against tax which is an absolutely daft and bonkers notion which has no basis in tax law anywhere.
Landlords were happy to rent under a more punitive tax code in 2013/14/15 when rents were lower in the market and only now the tax code rate is a problem when rents are above good aul tiger levels?
If LL's are cashing in their chips to close out negative equity positions while they can and get on with their lives after making a disastrous "investment" or have seen the end of the property price rise rollercoaster and wish to lock in gains and deploy their capital elsewhere, more power to them.0 -
What term mortgage payment should be allowed to be written off? A ten year mortgage capital repayment? 20? 30? It would also make leveraged property the investment of choice for everyone again driving asset prices nuts - we saw how well that turned out the last time with taxpayer bailouts?
You keep banging this drum on offsetting the capital repayment against tax which is an absolutely daft and bonkers notion which has no basis in tax law anywhere.
Landlords were happy to rent under a more punitive tax code in 2013/14/15 when rents were lower in the market and only now the tax code rate is a problem when rents are above good aul tiger levels?
If LL's are cashing in their chips to close out negative equity positions while they can and get on with their lives after making a disastrous "investment" or have seen the end of the property price rise rollercoaster and wish to lock in gains and deploy their capital elsewhere, more power to them.
Your right, the minute the allow capital expenses, house will spike again and it would go back to celtic times.
The tax code is different. USC and PRSI are hitting ll hard due to what has changed.
LL are not able to increase rents to market rate
LPT is not expensable
Gross yields on property was more viable a few years ago where you could get a 12-15pc yield while now yield can be as low as 5pc.
Yes some ll are considering to jump ship and lock in those gains. You dont sound too worried but what you forget to realise is that they are jumping in mass and what will be left will be a skeleton rental sector where rents will still be even higher.
Whats your solution?0 -
Kinley Blue Rattler wrote: »Tax on rent needs to be significantly reduced also to make it profitable for LL's to enter the market and stay in the market along with a drastic increase in rights for LL's. A flat rate of around 20% on rental income regardless of other income would help. Another addition would be the ability to write off the entire mortgage repayment against tax not just the interest.
I'm not sure if you are serious. No way in hell would it be appropriate to have a 20% rent on unearned income (rent) while the marginal rate on salries is so much higher.0 -
Advertisement
-
What term mortgage payment should be allowed to be written off? A ten year mortgage capital repayment? 20? 30? It would also make leveraged property the investment of choice for everyone again driving asset prices nuts - we saw how well that turned out the last time with taxpayer bailouts?
You keep banging this drum on offsetting the capital repayment against tax which is an absolutely daft and bonkers notion which has no basis in tax law anywhere.
Landlords were happy to rent under a more punitive tax code in 2013/14/15 when rents were lower in the market and only now the tax code rate is a problem when rents are above good aul tiger levels?
If LL's are cashing in their chips to close out negative equity positions while they can and get on with their lives after making a disastrous "investment" or have seen the end of the property price rise rollercoaster and wish to lock in gains and deploy their capital elsewhere, more power to them.
If you treat being a landlord as a business then the cost of the house is depreciated over a 25 yr period. The cost of the depreciation is a business expense so you pay tax on the income (excl of depreciation).
When the property is sold you are liable to capital gains on the value of the asset when sold. If the property has increased in value the capital gains is charged accordingly. This is how every business operates.
Landlords were not happy to rent under the punitive tax code of 13/14/15 when rents were lower because (a) that's all the rents were acheiveable and (b) it was not as anti landlord as it is now.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement