bluelamp wrote: » Agreed - which is why I would bet the TWSS / PUP wont stop before next summer - because it's probably actually the cheaper option for the taxpayer long term. The state will be paying regardless, whether it be in the form of the TWSS or PUP as they are now, or in the form of jobseekers / rent allowance / HAP / council housing / back to education etc if they stop the covid payments. At least with the current set up you're keeping people limping along in their jobs, or at least maintaining a connection with their employer, and keeping them in private housing - so hopefully they can get back on their feet quickly when the time comes. The alternative is to let tens of thousands of people become unemployed who work in the pubs, clubs, restaurants, hotels, hostels, airlines, aircraft leasing, public transport, event and conference spaces, theatres, wedding venues, catering, anything else tourism related.... the list goes on. Unless this government wants to vastly increase the "homeless" figures, put thousands more on the public housing list, pump millions more into HAP, allow thousands more become become officially unemployed, the covid payments are staying.
brisan wrote: » If the covid payments stop in Sept -October and job looses happen straight away (which I believe they will ) we may see it earlier than that .
schmittel wrote: » that may all be true, but my point is it should not be the landlord picking up the tab. It should be the tenant, or if the government decides that it is too big a burden for the tenant to bear, cost should be borne by the taxpayer.
brisan wrote: » And a lot of them are quite happy renting a private house in a private estate with the Gov picking up the tab and will refuse council houses if they are offered them So they do not really want a househttps://www.thejournal.ie/social-housing-refusals-ireland-4607803-May2019/
Cantstandsya wrote: » I want a private jet, what way does that affect private jet prices?
Wanderer78 wrote: » security of accommodation is critical human need
brisan wrote: » If he was a good tenant before covid and is now paying rent ,why evict . You are not getting arrears either way and just adding more expense on to yourself
Cyrus wrote: » dont be surprised at all these firms are very reactive to current economic activity, its not like they leave a lot of money in the firm,the partners take the bulk of it out every year. cutting staff hours and bonuses safegaurds the partners take for the year.
Claw Hammer wrote: » After the initial build, during which your builders will buy a few pints and roles in the local pubs and shops, you will contribute little or nothing to the local economy. You will make it harder for locals to obtain housing as you have taken a site. You will spend very little money in your holiday area, as you will be mostly self catering and quite likely bringing in your supplies from outside the area. Unoccupied holiday homes in resort areas are a blight. They contribute very little to the local economy and cause a lot of problems.
MrMusician18 wrote: » My point is if they are dying to get back to Dublin, there is nothing stopping them from relocating back now. And indeed nothing forced them to relocate to the countryside in the first place.
Wanderer78 wrote: » having a job also isnt a guarantee of getting a mortgage, neoclassical economics is clearly failing, price alone is a dreadful method of gauging the critical needs of society
schmittel wrote: » I probably wouldn't evict him if he was making attempt to pay off arrears. I am talking about scenarios where tenants stopped paying completely, built up covid arrears and then wish to continue the tenancy with the arrears written off. I also suspect a large amount of covid rent arrears are opportunistic. i.e strategic default for renters.
Marius34 wrote: » Price/Inflation change most common measure is annual YoY change, as well called inflation rate. In most case you don't even need to specify if it's YoY. You may need to rewrite majority of articles that has price/inflation in their titles, as in many case it's not explained this in details in the titles when they use standard YoY measure. I believe problem is not that they didn't specify in the title that it's YoY, but that it's not what you want to read.
brisan wrote: » If there is say 6 months covid arrears and the tenant starts paying the full rent again and lets say 100 a month off the arrears . Why would you evict him ? You end up with no arrears ,possibly another months rent lost,decorating costs ,EA fees etc. if he was a good tenant before covid he will probably be a good tenant after covid .
Assetbacked wrote: » What surprised me was hearing about the big law firms cutting hours, bonuses, partners' equity and salaries so soon into lockdown. Across the big Irish firms the best cases have to date only cut partners' equity payouts but a couple of the top 6 have cut bonuses and put staff on 4 day weeks. The surprising part was that it happened so soon as this industry would've been a booming industry the last few years. The massive banks in the US have made billions of euro worth of bad loan provisions and mortgage delinquencies in the US are rising. It's just very ominous in terms of the economy.
Assetbacked wrote: » The house prices did not rise in May just gone, they are higher than May last year but the rise from May last year didn't actually happen in May. I would say "House prices higher in May 2020 than May 2019" or something along those lines. Snapshots are just snapshots, they serve a purpose but need to also be taken in a wider context.
JimmyVik wrote: » The ones ive spoken to about it , their reasons were Save money, why pay rent, and wanted to look after parents during lockdown.
brisan wrote: » If the covid payments stop in Sept -October and job looses happen straight away (which I believe they will ) we may see it earlier than that . One small example My local has 12 full time employees ( 8 barmen and 4 in the food section ) plus numerous part timers All are on a covid payment of one type or another . When these stop ,and business at less than 50% than a lot of layoffs are in the pipeline and the staff know this The Airline industry ,the Aviation Leasing industry, the tourist sector ,the hotel and bar trade,the restaurant business and high street retail are all on their knees Covid payments are stopping them from going under . They stop and we will see major job losses . We will follow the same path as Britain and the states
schmittel wrote: » Ok fair enough, as long as landlord has ability to take back the property I have no problem with the idea of the LL bearing the cost of arrears. I was approaching the discussion in context of JimmyViks point that he expects to see legislation banning evictions because of Covid related arrears. If that were to happen I think it would be unwise to expect LLs to suck up the arrears.
Marius34 wrote: » Are you saying that headline is misleading, because price metrics should be compared on MoM and not YoY?
Assetbacked wrote: » This is the bane of my tenant existence, not being able to kick tenants out for non-payment of rent. It should be a simple one-month process and they're gone. Otherwise it just hurts good tenants! In the current circumstances, I don't know how prevalent it actually is that there are tenants taking this law for a ride but there is some merit to preventing evictions temporarily. However, perhaps this time has passed and the government should start to be putting money into the problem hole as it persists with ridiculous reopening plans.
Assetbacked wrote: » Headline; "House prices rose slightly in May despite lockdown limiting sales". Article; "Month on month there was a fall of 0.1pc in May."It's purposely misleading as house prices did in fact fall in May, it is in comparison to May of last year that they are slightly higher.
Assetbacked wrote: » My point was just that the headline was misleading. But that data on house prices falling or stalling is pre-covid impact so the trend was for a slight correction/downward trend. I think 15-20% drops aren't actually big if in 2 years they gradually reduced by these amounts. However, what is more concerning is that once there is a bit more normality to the economy (i.e. no government eviction bans and covid payments) the job losses will come. It is extremely worrying what has already occurred in respect of job losses and salary cuts. The pandemic is raging on and likely to be be mixed up in flu season hysteria in a few months so perhaps we could see re-introductions of restrictions on off into next year. If things went back to close to normal by September/October, we wouldn't see housing data on the impact of covid until the post-June 2021 (i.e. Q2 reports due to the lag between unfreezing the economy and house transactions getting up and running again to be reflected in data), but potentially the way we are crawling through the pandemic, it could be Q3 and Q4 next year when we start to see the initial impacts on the housing market!
schmittel wrote: » And under these circumstances do you think that the landlord should be able to end the tenancy for non payment of rent?
Assetbacked wrote: » It is the landlord or the tenant who has no savings and precarious employment who would be on the hook for the arrears otherwise. It is effectively one group over the other. That bit in bold above is the outcome on whoever has to suck it up - my point is that the government, when they introduced these laws, knew they would be shafting the landlords as there is no way the arrears will be paid by a good faith tenant who accrued arrears due to their precarious financial state caused by covid.
schmittel wrote: » Property investment is speculative because of various future risks such as long vacancy periods, property damage, capital losses etc. In the case we are talking about the landlord has already provided the service in good faith - i.e these are historical arrears. The sure they can afford it attitude sets quite a dangerous precedent. What other services could such logic apply to? It could feasibly apply to any commercial transaction. I have no problem with government deciding that richer people should pay to support poorer people, but the way to do that is raise taxes and then pick up these sort of costs collectively.To simply tell individuals, tough sh*t, suck it up, sure you can afford it, will create many more problems than it solves. Be careful what you wish for to quote Bass Reeves et al.
Deub wrote: » It should be tenants only. If the state uses taxpayer money, being landlord would become a risk free business.
Cyrus wrote: » so year over year they rose, slightly, month over month they fell (even more slightly) they chose to look at the year over year figures, either way its marginal, but isnt pointing to the 15-20% drops the hungry horde here are suggesting (mostly because they are in the market :P)
