PropQueries wrote: » Well if I'm right, the small residential investor landlord in Ireland is going to be paying on the double for not getting his documentation in order as of today i.e. 1. the big domestic and international residential property investors will soak up all the available cash allocated under the long-term leasing initiative long before they get a look-in and there won't be any cash left for the small time residential property investor by the time he does get his documentation in order and, 2. his taxes on rental income, property taxes, income taxes etc. will rise to meet the ongoing cost of these long-term leasing initiatives.
cnocbui wrote: » That article is pay walled. I am fed up hearing about all these supposedly vacant houses. I want to see advocates of their existense and suitability to go find 20 of them, post pics and specs and then make their case. Not just look at some numbers on a screen and invent fairy stories of lovely turn-key properties, good to go, hoarded by misers and property price manipulators.. If, as I suspect, they require significant capital injections to make them habitable, then they aren't exactly what people are making them out to be.
PropQueries wrote: » It’s because just like the government believes it should get its cut from your hard work, property investors believe they should get a similar cut. It is funny how they say “but you earn so much money”. What’s that got to do with the price a young person should pay for a property?Young people are also not going to get a pension so that should also be factored into the “disposable income” debate.
brisan wrote: » https://www.daft.ie/dublin-city/residential-property-for-rent/?advanced=1&cc_id=ct1&ignored_agents%5B0%5D=1551&s%5Badvanced%5D=1&s%5Bignored_agents%5D%5B0%5D=1551&s%5Bsort_by%5D=price&s%5Bsort_type%5D=d&searchSource=rental Probably a few on this list of nearly 3000
cnocbui wrote: » I really don't care. Ireland is a lost cause and I am in the process of trying to get out ASAP. The last thing I would ever think of is investing here, so the prospects for private landlords are of no interest to me.
cnocbui wrote: » Can't imagine why any of those aren't already snapped up. /s Something available for rent should not be included in any classification of 'vacant' properties.
brisan wrote: » Why not ??
brisan wrote: » Have to agree IMO Ireland is knackered and will be for the foreseeable future FFG are going from bad to worse and WHEN SF get in it will only go downhill
Claw Hammer wrote: » I know someone who used to put his property on daft at 3 times the market rent, in order to ensure no on asked for a viewing. It was very common when daft allowed properties to be listed indefinitely without charge after the first payment.
cnocbui wrote: » I disagree about your last pont, SF is the only hope for change by shaking the tree. No political party can f'up a country in one term. It would take SF getting in to have the other two mirror images wonder why SF won and take a hard look at themselves and perhaps consider serving the best interests of the people, for a change, instead of themselves and US multinational tax crooks. You have to stir the pot sometimes to stop the stufff sticking to the bottom. This put needs stirring. SF was the only party last time to actually propose a tax cut.
cnocbui wrote: » I disagree about your last pont, SF is the only hope for change by shaking the tree............... SF was the only party last time to actually propose a tax cut.
Augeo wrote: » Easy to make proposals based on magic fairy economics.
cnocbui wrote: » SF was the only party last time to actually propose a tax cut.
brisan wrote: » I think SF would stir up the pot especially around housing and tax on MNCs ,and that may be a good thing Even half of Apples 13 billion would build a lot of houses However it is what they would do to what they consider the wealthy in our population that worries me And by wealthy I mean anybody earning over 40k
brisan wrote: » To be fair to SF ,FFG have found the magic money tree that SF claimed they would borrow from and FFG said did not exist
Springy Turf wrote: » Sinn Fein's entire reason for existence is to achieve a socialist 32 country republic. They also have a huge property portfolio. Their stated goal is incompatible with tax cuts in the long run, but of course they have no qualms with offering free houses and tax cuts in the same breath. And thats all ignoring the whole army council thing.
Augeo wrote: » Covid has changed the financial landscape. SF were going to borrow to fund tax cuts and all the other stuff in their proposals in preCovid times ............ that's not financially prudent........ it has to be paid back sometime. If SP were in charge for the last few years they may well have found markets not too keen on lending them anything once Covid came along. SF are very appealing to the yellow vest brigade.
Springy Turf wrote: » I agree with you to some degree, but the environment for borrowing, as well as the EU monetary policy couldn't be any further away from the austerity policies of the past.
Idbatterim wrote: » so no different to FFG except they want the 32 county republic more than FFG?
Idbatterim wrote: » disagree, they would have won the most seats last election if they ran more candidates DURING A BOOM! how many do you see at the protests here?...........
Augeo wrote: » By yellow vest brigade I refer to anyone who swallows SF populist horsesh1t.
Idbatterim wrote: » well seeing as they would have won the most seats, had they run more candidates, thats quite a sizeable chunk!
Augeo wrote: » By yellow vest brigade I refer to anyone who swallows SF populist horsesh1t. Do you disagree with the rest of my post or just the yellow vest part? Every adult without their own property seems to reckon it's the gubernments fault.
Idbatterim wrote: » of course choosing to have rip off housing, appalling planning policies and giving away housing for free is the governments choice! who's choice do you think it is? early riser martyrs thinking they are doing their bit for the reich, sorry republic and supreme leader varadkar? ..
Idbatterim wrote: » ...........I mean look at the financial mismanagement FFG come up with (one example) covid payment of E350, even if you were only on 80 etc a week before, that is prudent is it? if SF implemented that, well...
Augeo wrote: » You reckon SF won't give away housing for free? It got money to everyone that lost their work quickly. Some benefitted disproportionately and iirc SF were b1tching and moaning at any steps to fine tune the process SF wanted anyone who got the €350 to keep on receiving it FFS Why did you never buy a house may I ask?