steddyeddy wrote: » Will we ever be happy to give up ownership aspirations like they do in other countries and be happy to rent for life? I personally think for that to happen the concept of a rented accommodation as a home has to be accepted by landlord and tenant.
James Bond Junior wrote: » I will be a landlord soon enough, semi intentionally and I am half scared shess that when I need to move back into the house in a few years time I will be unable to do so without a huge battle due to overly tenant biased regulations.
Frostybrew wrote: » I agree landlords should be able to evict non paying tenants who don't engage. But non paying tenants isn't a major problem, as this type of situation is only relevant to about 1% of tenancies. It doesn't apply to the vast majority of tenants who do pay their rent, and is really a borderline red herring argument. You must also remember that landlords also have to also agree to long term tenancies and I honestly can't see the majority of landlords doing this.Landlords are not getting beaten by the government with regulation. What has happened is a completely unregulated sector is now starting to get the legislation that it should have had years ago and those used to the old regime aren't able for it. The legislation is very necessary as most landlords (up to 85%) were paying no tax whatsoever on their rental earnings, and the standard of a sizeable minority of rentals was diabolical. As for those leaving in droves, any landlord who is unable to manage the very high rents that they are receiving should not be in the business of providing rental accommodation. I suspect though that most of those who are leaving are doing so to liquify capital gains as they believe that the housing market has peaked. They'll more than likely buy back property at a lower price in the years ahead.
James Bond Junior wrote: » I will be a landlord soon enough, semi intentionally and I am half scared shítless that when I need to move back into the house in a few years time I will be unable to do so without a huge battle due to overly tenant biased regulations.
steddyeddy wrote: » Well then why move out? It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it.
Ray Palmer wrote: » According to you I have been marvellously unlucky with tenants not paying their rent on time or fully. Tenants regularly skip payments with most not paying their last months rent so as to avoid deposit deductions. Where you got 1% is a mystery. When it does happen the lost to a landlord is at least a years rent. Nonsense about avoiding tax. The government has increased tax and charges and changed regulations all to favour tenants and adding costs to landlords while restricting rent increases. How that is not hammering landlords. Costs and charges mean many tenants are paying more rent while the landlord makes less profit. Landlords leaving the market aren't coming back they are leaving due to regulations.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Rent and mortgage payments can easily decouple. Interest rates go up. Rents go down. No idea why you think gearing would affect rental prices.
Frostybrew wrote: » Landlords are also forgetting recently enacted legislation which effectively guarantees their rental income to rise by 4% per annum. I'm not aware of any other business that receives this type of support, a guaranteed rise in income every year.
Matt Barrett wrote: » It's not about getting real. It's about government enabling private speculators to price the average Irish tax payer out of the market. Indeed, the time will come where the vast majority of working Irish tax payers pay rents to the wealthy, state assisted, foreign and homegrown few. Shameful and likely.
fash wrote: » Of course they can decouple- that is a risk a LL must calculate and charge a premium for carrying that risk. I don't understand how you think that rent can long term be below mortgage rates. You are getting a service - the LL is paying the mortgage, maintenance, depreciation, accountancy fees, PRTB and letting fees, LPT, work in organising etc. - how over time on average can or should that be below the price of paying a mortgage alone?
Johnnyhpipe wrote: » How do you afford rent after retirement (at which time a mortgage would be paid off)?
Frostybrew wrote: » You may have been unlucky. We can't say for sure as we don't know your situation. There's a also good chance that you may have been incredibly stupid and inexperienced as a landlord, as is often the case in these situations. Without an objective knowledge of the situation we can't really say for definite. It would be interesting to hear the tenant's side. What we can comment on is factual percentage. According to the RTB approximately 1.2% of tenancies had disputes for over-holding and/or non payment of rent for the year ending Q2 2018. This is also probably higher than normal due to the housing crisis. Even so it is evidently not the major problem for most landlords, that many landlords would like us to believe. As for the 85% this figure was widely publicised by revenue back in the early 2000s and is one of the reasons for the establishment of the PRTB in 2004 and the enactment of relevant legislation. Landlord tax evasion was widespread and accepted. Indeed all the places I rented till 2003 were strictly cash in hand affairs. Not a rent book to be seen anywhere. What landlords also seem to be conveniently ignoring is the amount of support the government has given them over the last ten years, mainly by keeping a huge amount of empties out of the market through entities such as Nama, and being reluctant to impose measures that would prevent opportunistic hoarding of vacant properties. A great example of this situation is the Elysian in Cork, Ireland's tallest building. 244 units, only 20 occupied until 2017. 224 vacant from 2008 until 2017. Kept off the rental market. Had these been released onto the rental market it could have easily driven over a hundred landlords in the Cork area to bankruptcy as their substandard properties wouldn't have been able to compete with the state of the art newly built apartments in the Elysian. Landlords are also forgetting recently enacted legislation which effectively guarantees their rental income to rise by 4% per annum. I'm not aware of any other business that receives this type of support, a guaranteed rise in income every year.
The Student wrote: » You have quoted a fig of 85% which was in the early 2000's which is now nearly 20 yrs old so is no longer valid today. What you appear to be ignoring is the tenant protection. It can take a year to evict a non paying tenant. Can you identify one privately owned business where you are forced to continue providing a service where you are not being paid and even if you do get an RTB award and try to enforce it you will get nothing as the tenant has nothing to secure the debt against. Properties were not "kept out of the market" by Nama. Anybody who had the cash could buy them.
Mad_maxx wrote: » Very few rogue tenants are evicted within a year, more often its two, they invariably walk away scot free afterwards
DS86DS wrote: I am renting off of my parents who own a few properties. I don't mind renting off of them as the money is going back into the family and will probably inherit the property one day.
fash wrote: » How or why would rent be lower than a mortgage repayment? Someone borrows money to provide a service and incurs additional costs in providing that service - and should sell their services for less than cost? As regards the general question, the only way long term rental could be a thing is if there are non-profit /local authority rentals. Anything else will have to be geared at getting a profit which means rents rising over the long term and potentially out of the range of a pensioner tenant - it doesn't make sense to rely on the rental market in that case.
DS86DS wrote: » There are literally no advantages in the long term of renting over a mortgage and home ownership. The latter will allow you to enjoy your retirement and maybe even travel the world.
Geuze wrote: » If this is the case, why do millions of Dutch, Germans and Swiss rent all their lives?
Ruraldweller56 wrote: » 'But other people do it' is no case for it at all. As far as I can see there are plenty of reasons not to and I would hope it never becomes normalised here. Could you maybe address some of the points that have already been made, or is 'but other people do it' the best case that can be made for it?
iamtony wrote: » This is what gets me. Every landlord feels they should be able to buy a property with a huge mortgage, rent it and make a profit every month and then when the mortgage is paid off have this asset standing them hundreds of thousands. Rent should be cheaper than buying, if a landlord has to put a bit towards the rental income every month then that's perfectly fine because its your mortgage as the owner of the property. And I HATE this stupid argument some people, who either own a home or are actually landlords make that people should rent for life. Bonkers argument. Nobody what's to to be paying rent till they die, if I had a rented house and I had to retire tomorrow and even with downsizing I'd still be paying a grand a month if I was lucky and my pension might be 1500 a month, yeah great life choice, everyone should do it and pay a few wealthy landlords so they can have a comfortable existence.
iamtony wrote: » But.. But... They are Swiss and Dutch and Germans if they are doing it it must be good!
