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
-
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.
Its about managing the difficulties both sides have.
The challenge is how much is enough to keep a landlord happy.
Buy a landlord out and that's it done and dusted.0 -
marieholmfan wrote: »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.
Your terminology speaks volumes. You want to "force" small landlords so you are anti small landlord.
Do you really think it would be easier to monitor and "punish" professional landlords.
You don't seem to realize if you give power to a small number of suppliers they have the power to control the market and thereby dictate the terms of the market.
But sure hey lets vilify the small landlord who is just like you an everyday person trying to get by.0 -
Old diesel wrote: »Its about managing the difficulties both sides have.
The challenge is how much is enough to keep a landlord happy.
Buy a landlord out and that's it done and dusted.
But what if a landlord does not want to be bought out and want's to control their own destiny be it good or bad!0 -
The Student wrote: »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.
So if you bought a unit for 500k and depreciated it at 2.5% per annum so after 20 years your book value is now 250k. If you then sell if for 1 million, you pay CGT on the 1 million sale price less the depreciated value of 250k at the prevailing rate of CGT. Is this what you are advocating?
What was the tax rate on a unit renting for 1200 a month in 2014 versus the tax rate for the same unit now? Standard rate thresholds were lower and wasn't the marginal rate 41% instead of 40% currently. Hasn't USC been restructured also? The anti LL measures you cite (presumably RPZ legislation) hasn't changed your tax liability by any significant measure - it's just put a cap on what you can earn?
Tax rates are punitive for everyone in this country because we have made a policy decision to tax businesses and corporates very little and someone has to pay the bills.
I've specified before that a small flat rate allowance of one to 200 for costs in renting a property (petrol to get to inspections and other ancillaries) should be extended to landlords and a possible allowance for making LPT tax deductible. Nailing down the exact tax treatment for property is difficult though because it is seen as an investment by revenue and a business for regulatory reasons.0 -
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?
Well firstly, the unit doesnt disappear when it is sold.
My solution is for the state via whatever channel it could - set up "housing Ireland" or use housing co-operatives - and build 50000 2 bed apartments in various locations in Dublin and cork near public transport in the next five years and rent them to whoever wants them for 900 or 1000 a month (insert reasonable rent figure here) and treat it like a private tenancy. The state can borrow for twenty years at rates sub 2% and provided they don't sell the units for a fiver, they will have an asset at the end of 20 years. The rental income should be sufficient to pay interest and upkeep. As it stands, it is using its tax revenue to pay HAP and other subsidies which have a high annual cost and the state has nothing to show for it at the end of the day.
On the flip side, this will make rents come down (why would anyone on middle income pay 1700 a month if the state will rent to them at 1000 per month?) And will probably effect house prices so it's never going to happen.
Also, the state indebted itself to the hilt after our big bang and loves to engage in creative off balance sheet activities. Each time a person is put onto HAP the state should set aside the next ten years of rent as a cost because at the end of the day, that person won't be coming off HAP for a long time. Instead, the state acts like it can stop paying it in the morning (like our pension timebomb)
A solution like this will never happen (no political will and anything that threatens to decrease house prices is the devil's work) and we will bumble along for another 5 years having people pay 1500 a month for one bed tinderboxes in Finglas and Coolock and other not very salubrious areas, have people living in B and Bs and hubs, and just general misery and LLs will still be in fear of the rogue tenant that can ruin everything0 -
Advertisement
-
So if you bought a unit for 500k and depreciated it at 2.5% per annum so after 20 years your book value is now 250k. If you then sell if for 1 million, you pay CGT on the 1 million sale price less the depreciated value of 250k at the prevailing rate of CGT. Is this what you are advocating?
What was the tax rate on a unit renting for 1200 a month in 2014 versus the tax rate for the same unit now? Standard rate thresholds were lower and wasn't the marginal rate 41% instead of 40% currently. Hasn't USC been restructured also? The anti LL measures you cite (presumably RPZ legislation) hasn't changed your tax liability by any significant measure - it's just put a cap on what you can earn?
Tax rates are punitive for everyone in this country because we have made a policy decision to tax businesses and corporates very little and someone has to pay the bills.
I've specified before that a small flat rate allowance of one to 200 for costs in renting a property (petrol to get to inspections and other ancillaries) should be extended to landlords and a possible allowance for making LPT tax deductible. Nailing down the exact tax treatment for property is difficult though because it is seen as an investment by revenue and a business for regulatory reasons.
Yes to your first paragraph as this is how normal businesses operate.
The anti landlord stance that I cite is not the RPZ (as people can only pay what they have). The anti landlord stance I cite is the ability to do with my property as I want. Now I am restricted as to what I can do with my property to one of three scenairo's as dictated by law.
Either sell it, use it for a family member or renovate it. What if I decided I wanted to leave it sit idle. I am not allowed do that as I would be charged a tax for leaving my asset idle.
Tax rates are indeed punitive for a lot of people (not all). But with been a landlord you take all of the risk, if you a PAYE employee you don't take the same risk it is your employer who takes the business risk, it is your employer who can carry income losses forward. A landlord can't carry income losses forward, they can carry Capital Losses forward but not income losses.0 -
Herein lies the duplicity and deep hipocrisy of the Irish govvie. Either it is a business or it is not, the current situation is very convenient for the Irish govvie and very detrimental to small landlords.There has not been a single regulatory measure in favour of landlords since 2008, every single measure (either tax or regulatory) was negative which means it implied additional costs or time wasted to comply with regs. The reduction of USC and increased bands of income tax of the last few years where for the general taxpayer and not directed at landlords otherwise there would have been an outcry from the general public.. Nailing down the exact tax treatment for property is difficult though because it is seen as an investment by revenue and a business for regulatory reasons.
Just on the tax side since 2008: reduced mortage interest allowances from 100% to 75% which has not been reversed yet (and will take many years), NPPR introduction and then LPT, RTB fee 70 to 90 and now Murphy, with new proposed legislation, wants annual registration (so he is effectively increasing the RTB fees up to 600% for long tenancies) and finally a whopping 65% increase of CGT take from 20% to 33% (compared with 10% offered to "entrepreneurs").
On the regulatory side the situation has been even worse I can't even remember how many costs were added by the massive amount of regulations (I am including also health and safety, electrical, security, ...) that came out in the mean time to which most tenants writing in this forum are totally oblivious to (or worse chose to ignore it in the childish belief that rent will not be affected by such measures). Most landlords who stayed in the market in the period between 2009 and 2013 stayed at a loss. Landlords that were leveraged went broke or abandoned in that period: simple supply and demand 101 economic course which a lot of posters in this forum prefer to ignore hiding behind socialist ideologies that failed multiple times.0 -
-
Herein lies the duplicity and deep hipocrisy of the Irish govvie. Either it is a business or it is not, the current situation is very convenient for the Irish govvie and very detrimental to small landlords.There has not been a single regulatory measure in favour of landlords since 2008, every single measure (either tax or regulatory) was negative which means it implied additional costs or time wasted to comply with regs. The reduction of USC and increased bands of income tax of the last few years where for the general taxpayer and not directed at landlords otherwise there would have been an outcry from the general public.
Just on the tax side since 2008: reduced mortage interest allowances from 100% to 75% which has not been reversed yet (and will take many years), NPPR introduction and then LPT, RTB fee 70 to 90 and now Murphy, with new proposed legislation, wants annual registration (so he is effectively increasing the RTB fees up to 600% for long tenancies) and finally a whopping 65% increase of CGT take from 20% to 33% (compared with 10% offered to "entrepreneurs").
On the regulatory side the situation has been even worse I can't even remember how many costs were added by the massive amount of regulations (I am including also health and safety, electrical, security, ...) that came out in the mean time to which most tenants writing in this forum are totally oblivious to (or worse chose to ignore it in the childish belief that rent will not be affected by such measures). Most landlords who stayed in the market in the period between 2009 and 2013 stayed at a loss. Landlords that were leveraged went broke or abandoned in that period: simple supply and demand 101 economic course which a lot of posters in this forum prefer to ignore hiding behind socialist ideologies that failed multiple times.
Are you saying that landlord income attracts a higher USC as it's unearned income or that in your view it doesnt count beacuse the changes applied to everyone in the state and not landlords in isolation?
Taxes went up for pretty much anyone who earns a crust in Ireland and are still higher than 2008 levels - it was a catastrophic crash and we elected politicians that dealt with it poorly and we are carrying the can. CGT increase applies to everyone, not just LLs, LPT is for everyone and is a proxy wealth tax. The money has to be got from somewhere to pay for everything. 2007 conditions aren't coming back any time soon for anyone.0 -
They'll sell the units for a lot less than a fiver as it means they'll no longer have to deal with the repairs.
Take it as 250k per unit cost so 2% a year in interest servicing. If they are rented for 12k per annum that leaves 7k to pay for upkeep, repairs and maintenance. They could get them built and tender them out the backdoor to a property REIT on a mandate that rent has to be at a certain level.
Look it, cost rental is never going to happen and there's probably a shortage of builders but giving tax cuts isn't going to magic up a supply of builders or property either. At the end of it all, the housing shortage where people want to actually live isn't going to improve in the next five years unless we get another crash triggering mass emigration. Government can build directly or bribe developers to try and stand still0 -
Advertisement
-
Are you saying that landlord income attracts a higher USC as it's unearned income or that in your view it doesnt count beacuse the changes applied to everyone in the state and not landlords in isolation?
Taxes went up for pretty much anyone who earns a crust in Ireland and are still higher than 2008 levels - it was a catastrophic crash and we elected politicians that dealt with it poorly and we are carrying the can. CGT increase applies to everyone, not just LLs, LPT is for everyone and is a proxy wealth tax. The money has to be got from somewhere to pay for everything. 2007 conditions aren't coming back any time soon for anyone.
Well for starters USC is deducted before capital allowances, so its deducted before our gross profit.
PRSI was added, adding an extra 4pc.
Rental rates plummeted during that while we still had to maintain paying a mortgage.
Yes the money has to be got from somewhere but the underlying issue here is that it still needs to be a viable business or as your seeing now, accidental ll are getting out now as their not in neg equity, but more importantly, small time ll or even larger investors are getting out of it also as they are fed of all of the liabilities without any positives.0 -
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.
I'm totally serious, it's ridiculous that you pay tax on rental income at the marginal rate. You are taking a risk and investing your money you should be rewarded by seeing most of the profit in your pocket.
Its also not unusual to have special tax treatment for various reasons. I can rent out land at a tax rate of 0% regardless of my income. I can rent a room in my house and earn up to 14k per year at a rate of 0% tax. If I own a horse and I win money I pay tax at a rate of 0% etc etc.0 -
Kinley Blue Rattler wrote: »I'm totally serious,
I feared as much...Kinley Blue Rattler wrote: »it's ridiculous that you pay tax on rental income at the marginal rate. You are taking a risk and investing your money you should be rewarded by seeing most of the profit in your pocket.
Nobody is forcing you to take that risk. There are other, more productive, more morally decent, ways of earning a living (as opposed to a profit) than buying a home (that might otherwise be bought by someone who wants to actually live in it) and renting it to someone at an inflated price, while offering them precious little security of tenure in return.
This is why the state needs to build loads and loads of housing for rent and offer it not just to people on low incomes, but to people on higher incomes too: to kill off profit-hungry private landlords for good, because they do society no good.0 -
The Student wrote: »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.
If revenue allowed depreciation on residential property, it would all be repaid on the profit on disposal (ie sp - nbv).
Really the tax is fair compared to case I. Tax is high across the board.0 -
Stricter leases need to be implemented. At the minute leases are useless to both landlords and tenants alike. Part 4 tenancies should be abolished. If a tenant signs a 1 year lease then that's all they should be guaranteed...not like the way it is now where a tenant can stay in a property for 6 years after being there for 6 months.
If a tenant falls into arrears the correct notice period should be given and enforced with the strong arm of the law. The tenants financial problems shouldn't become the landlord's.
Landlords should only be allowed to sell at the end of a lease period. If they have offered their property to a tenant for a year, 2 years, 5 years or whatever then they need to stick to their side of the bargain.
A database should be set up for bad tenants too so landlords can check a tenants history before handing over their most valuable asset to a stranger.
Deposits should be held by a third party so there is more transparency in relation to them being returned at the end of the tenancy.
Tenant insurance could also be introduced where a tenant takes out an insurance policy to cover any damages that may occur to a property during their tenancy similar to the insurance taken out when hiring a car. This would make the tenant more appealing to a landlord and give them some peace of mind.
At the minute the way things are with government interference and lack of protection from bad tenants for landlords if my tenant was to move out I would probably only offer 6 month leases.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.
That’s discriminating against people who own their rental property outright. Why should they have to pay more tax just because they don’t have mortgage repayments?0 -
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »That’s discriminating against people who own their rental property outright. Why should they have to pay more tax just because they don’t have mortgage repayments?
Also whats to stop a landlord reducing their mortgage to 10 years instead of 25 or 30 and increasing mortgage payments and then writing them all off against their tax?0 -
marieholmfan wrote: »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.
Still want small landlords out?
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dozens-of-tenants-stage-protest-as-landlord-hikes-rents-by-up-to-25pc-37390012.html0 -
Mod Note
Yer Da sells Avon / garhjw, I have deleted your last few posts. Quit the personal digs.0 -
If we could accept that the current rental model isn't up to the job of supplying what tenants actually need - yes NEED then wed actually get somewhere.
If the current suppliers of rental accommodation can't deliver then room must be created for a system that can.
I feel a strong correlation between how Ryanair changed Irish air travel to UK/Europe and what needs to happen in a housing situation.
Pre Michael O Leary - a flight to London was hundreds of pounds. Aer Lingus had a monopoly and could set an expensive price.
O Leary took a decision to say okay let's go for lower airfares - let's put extra capacity into the market. More seats - lower costs.
While housing is different in some ways - there is nonetheless obvious scope for a system that sets out to deliver cost effective long term housing at reasonable predictable costs.
A PROPER business model operated well looks at what the user's of that service actually want.
The reason a Kia Sportage 1.7 diesel on PCP is a *thing* is because it's meeting customer demands.
The Sportage has that jacked up SUV look people like these days, it's diesel which many commuters like.
And you can have PCP because people like predictable competitive monthly payments on a new car.
The contrast to housing is stark.
You can get through life very easily with a leased Kia that isn't yours. No one needs to care about telling Kia they can't sell it.
Because that market actually regulates itself relatively well and isn't dependent on the decisions of random people with a couple of cars in the back yard on done deal.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's the pure randomness of the sector that's a problem. Random people jumping into and out of the sector delivering random properties.
Sustainable long term supply of housing for all needs required from social housing, through rental options - right up to purchase options.
Random Paddy on daft.ie can't deliver what's required even if he was genuinely interested0 -
The Student wrote: »Still want small landlords out?
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dozens-of-tenants-stage-protest-as-landlord-hikes-rents-by-up-to-25pc-37390012.html
well that's is what will happen if large companies or housing associations come in and own the all the rental houses.
Maybe some of the properties have never had a rent increase in years or have had upgrades to each of the apartments e.g. Making them more energy efficient?
Tenants can go to rtb just like in the case of small time landlords.0 -
Stricter leases need to be implemented. At the minute leases are useless to both landlords and tenants alike. Part 4 tenancies should be abolished. If a tenant signs a 1 year lease then that's all they should be guaranteed...not like the way it is now where a tenant can stay in a property for 6 years after being there for 6 months.
If a tenant falls into arrears the correct notice period should be given and enforced with the strong arm of the law. The tenants financial problems shouldn't become the landlord's.
Landlords should only be allowed to sell at the end of a lease period. If they have offered their property to a tenant for a year, 2 years, 5 years or whatever then they need to stick to their side of the bargain.
A database should be set up for bad tenants too so landlords can check a tenants history before handing over their most valuable asset to a stranger.
Deposits should be held by a third party so there is more transparency in relation to them being returned at the end of the tenancy.
Tenant insurance could also be introduced where a tenant takes out an insurance policy to cover any damages that may occur to a property during their tenancy similar to the insurance taken out when hiring a car. This would make the tenant more appealing to a landlord and give them some peace of mind.
At the minute the way things are with government interference and lack of protection from bad tenants for landlords if my tenant was to move out I would probably only offer 6 month leases.
Landlords should also be allowed to rent to who they want and not be forced into taking a tenant on housing schemes where the house is no longer up to spec in current building standards. No landlord can afford to take a tenant in below market rent and then have to pay maybe 10-15k in refurbish costs.0 -
Old diesel wrote: »If we could accept that the current rental model isn't up to the job of supplying what tenants actually need - yes NEED then wed actually get somewhere.
If the current suppliers of rental accommodation can't deliver then room must be created for a system that can.
I feel a strong correlation between how Ryanair changed Irish air travel to UK/Europe and what needs to happen in a housing situation.
Pre Michael O Leary - a flight to London was hundreds of pounds. Aer Lingus had a monopoly and could set an expensive price.
O Leary took a decision to say okay let's go for lower airfares - let's put extra capacity into the market. More seats - lower costs.
While housing is different in some ways - there is nonetheless obvious scope for a system that sets out to deliver cost effective long term housing at reasonable predictable costs.
A PROPER business model operated well looks at what the user's of that service actually want.
The reason a Kia Sportage 1.7 diesel on PCP is a *thing* is because it's meeting customer demands.
The Sportage has that jacked up SUV look people like these days, it's diesel which many commuters like.
And you can have PCP because people like predictable competitive monthly payments on a new car.
The contrast to housing is stark.
You can get through life very easily with a leased Kia that isn't yours. No one needs to care about telling Kia they can't sell it.
Because that market actually regulates itself relatively well and isn't dependent on the decisions of random people with a couple of cars in the back yard on done deal.
You are confusing the property market with social housing. Landlords are not saying don't build social housing. We are saying leave the property market alone. If the state needs to house those who can't afford to house themselves then let the state provide them with housing. Don't expect the landlords to do it with all the risks stacked against the landlords.0 -
The Student wrote: »You are confusing the property market with social housing. Landlords are not saying don't build social housing. We are saying leave the property market alone. If the state needs to house those who can't afford to house themselves then let the state provide them with housing. Don't expect the landlords to do it with all the risks stacked against the landlords.
Lots of people on here (I've no idea whether they're landlords themselves, or just very sympathetic towards them) do seem to have a problem with the idea of building social housing. 'Communism', according to some...
Their fears aren't without foundation either. It's inevitable that the building of social housing would have an effect on the property market. Would you be ok with that kind of change in the risk:reward ratio? Or should the numbers be limited to prevent the market from being affected?0 -
Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »Lots of people on here (I've no idea whether they're landlords themselves, or just very sympathetic towards them) do seem to have a problem with the idea of building social housing. 'Communism', according to some...
Their fears aren't without foundation either. It's inevitable that the building of social housing would have an effect on the property market. Would you be ok with that kind of change in the risk:reward ratio? Or should the numbers be limited to prevent the market from being affected?
Social housing won't be built on the scale needed. We as a society have an issue with holding people to account. The state does not want to house people because of the hassle involved. It is political suicide to evict a council tenant for outstanding rent. It is easier to play the landlord s the bad guy. Unless we as a society change our mindset things won't change.
There will always be a demand for private rental and the market will meet that demand if its profitable to do so. At the moment it is not as the rewards are not enough to match the risks. As a small landlord if I get a bad tenant who does not pay rent it will ruin me financially if I can't evict them quickly.0 -
Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »Lots of people on here (I've no idea whether they're landlords themselves, or just very sympathetic towards them) do seem to have a problem with the idea of building social housing. 'Communism', according to some...
Their fears aren't without foundation either. It's inevitable that the building of social housing would have an effect on the property market. Would you be ok with that kind of change in the risk:reward ratio? Or should the numbers be limited to prevent the market from being affected?
There is no doubt social housing needs to be built but it should be a limited amount also. I have very little desire to fund any more free houses for other people than I absolutely have to from already very my already large tax bill every year while also paying for a place to live myself. There are far too many people in this country expecting to be housed by the government.0 -
The Student wrote: »You are confusing the property market with social housing. Landlords are not saying don't build social housing. We are saying leave the property market alone. If the state needs to house those who can't afford to house themselves then let the state provide them with housing. Don't expect the landlords to do it with all the risks stacked against the landlords.
I was illustrating Michael O Leary and Kia to consider how we mIght apply thinking of other industrys to some housing.
Other industries fulfil demand so flights just happen all the time. If extra demand you add more flights.
Ditto - cars - they can deliver supply as required.
Housing needs to evolve to being seen as a basic need.
A need that needs to be delivered by someone.
That someone could be local authority, approved housing body, pension fund, REIT, landlords.
I'm not worried who is doing the supplying.
But I don't want to be depending on suppliers who aren't interested in the needs of decent people who need the homes they supply.
The musical chairs approach to renting houses needs to stop.0 -
Old diesel wrote: »I was illustrating Michael O Leary and Kia to consider how we mIght apply thinking of other industrys to some housing.
Other industries fulfil demand so flights just happen all the time. If extra demand you add more flights.
Ditto - cars - they can deliver supply as required.
Housing needs to evolve to being seen as a basic need.
A need that needs to be delivered by someone.
That someone could be local authority, approved housing body, pension fund, REIT, landlords.
I'm not worried who is doing the supplying.
But I don't want to be depending on suppliers who aren't interested in the needs of decent people who need the homes they supply.
The musical chairs approach to renting houses needs to stop.
Reits do not care about the needs - they want profit
Small time ll don’t care about the needs - they want profit
The government don’t care about needs - they want votes
The housing charity agency do care about needs - they have no money
There is some good options for you there now.0 -
Advertisement
-
Council houses are a very inefficient way to allocate housing, a relatively small number of people get accommodation far below the market rate, while others have to subsidize them via taxation and pay full market rates.
A better solution would be to increase the supply of accommodation by reducing taxation on home building, and on renting. Also it should be easier to quickly and efficiently evict non-paying tenants making it more attractive to rent. Also decreasing the higher rate of income tax to make it easier for people to afford to buy a home.
People who cannot afford market rents should get help with paying rent. Any council houses built, should have enforceable policies to quickly remove non-paying and anti-social tenants, a home is not a right, secure, warm, clean accommodation is which is not the same thing.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement