MacronvFrugals wrote: » Great jobs news today! "Intel to create 1,600 Irish jobs under global expansion plan"https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/intel-to-create-1-600-irish-jobs-under-global-expansion-plan-1.4518396
K.Hawksworth wrote: » Yep, and Workday announced 400 last week also.
awec wrote: » Stripe announced 1000 jobs in Ireland last week too I think.
Hulk Hands wrote: » He's simply saying that people aren't selling due to Covid, the only houses coming on stream are necessary sales due to elderly deaths and the construction ban is preventing new builds.
Villa05 wrote: » Are you confusing stating a market is in a bubble and saying a market is due to crash. REITs and Government have acess to free credit, REITS benefit from irrational taxation systems which become priced into property. The overwhelming majority were predicting a fall this time last year, They did not fall because of this activity in the marketBubbles have many causes Three chief conditions contribute to irrational exuberance and subsequent asset inflation:Low-interest rates: They make it easy to borrow money cheaply, which boosts investment spending.1 However, investors cannot receive a good return on their investments at these rates, so they move their money into higher-yield, higher-risk asset classes, spiking asset prices.2 Demand-pull inflation:This occurs when buyers' demand for an asset exceeds the available supply of that asset. As asset prices rise, everyone wants to get in on the profits.3 Asset shortage: This is when investors think that there is not enough of a given asset to go around. Such shortages make asset bubbles more likely because the imbalance between supply and demand leads prices to appreciate beyond the asset's value NO I am saying Mcwilliams in his first new rassle dassle show back in 2017 was saying we are back in a bubble
Three chief conditions contribute to irrational exuberance and subsequent asset inflation:Low-interest rates: They make it easy to borrow money cheaply, which boosts investment spending.1 However, investors cannot receive a good return on their investments at these rates, so they move their money into higher-yield, higher-risk asset classes, spiking asset prices.2 Demand-pull inflation:This occurs when buyers' demand for an asset exceeds the available supply of that asset. As asset prices rise, everyone wants to get in on the profits.3 Asset shortage: This is when investors think that there is not enough of a given asset to go around. Such shortages make asset bubbles more likely because the imbalance between supply and demand leads prices to appreciate beyond the asset's value NO I am saying Mcwilliams in his first new rassle dassle show back in 2017 was saying we are back in a bubble
fliball123 wrote: » I would go back even further 2017 - 2019 superstar economists like David McWilliams first show states that we are back in a bubble even do we had no easy access to credit and this is what is needed to inflate a bubble and in hindsight he was proven wrong, but a lot of people would listen to him and make the decision to not buy.
Three chief conditions contribute to irrational exuberance and subsequent asset inflation:Low-interest rates: They make it easy to borrow money cheaply, which boosts investment spending.1 However, investors cannot receive a good return on their investments at these rates, so they move their money into higher-yield, higher-risk asset classes, spiking asset prices.2 Demand-pull inflation:This occurs when buyers' demand for an asset exceeds the available supply of that asset. As asset prices rise, everyone wants to get in on the profits.3 Asset shortage: This is when investors think that there is not enough of a given asset to go around. Such shortages make asset bubbles more likely because the imbalance between supply and demand leads prices to appreciate beyond the asset's value
Hulk Hands wrote: » Plenty of opinions from people here and on the other thread on McWilliams opinion who clearly didn't listen to the podcast. The other thread is full of outrage that "McBoofball" is telling people to step out of the market for half a decade until they're old and grey. Suggestions that he has something to gain from asking people to wait (what exactly?). He's simply saying that people aren't selling due to Covid, the only houses coming on stream are necessary sales due to elderly deaths and the construction ban is preventing new builds. He advised not to buy in this mini bubble period where there's nothing new coming to the market, and once Covid subsides (in the next few months) the market will return to some sort of early 2020 normal where demand doesn't outweigh supply by a ridiculous factor. He just said don't do something stupid in the next 6 months while there are no viewings allowed. He's not trying to tank the market until 2026
PropQueries wrote: » But isn't that expected given we didn't have reits etc. 10 years ago. Given that small landlords were c. 100% of the market 10 years ago, it only makes sense that the percentage share of small landlords in the market has fallen in percentage terms as the reits etc. entered the market as we can't go above a total of 100%. The real question is has the actual supply of rental properties decreased?
christin wrote: » Interesting podcast from David McWilliams on house prices at the moment echoes what some people said on this forum already "Current market has no value for money, very few amounts of bad property, sellers don't want to list houses as there are no physical viewings...People are panicking and current market is a rerun of 2005, 2006" Cease and desist. Get out of the housing market right now, plus the 5 fundamental ways cities are changing on Castbox. Check out this episode! https://castbox.fm/vb/366562479
fliball123 wrote: » No maybe not but you cannot deny the fact that over the last 5 years the % of properties that were owned by small landlords has decreased and in the same period the amount of properties that REITS/Vultures control has increased, it may not be a 1 for 1 but there is a correlation there and the knock on effect is that property can be left empty to keep rents high
awec wrote: » I am not convinced that when a small landlord sells that it's one of the REITs doing the buying. It wouldn't fit their portfolio. It's either being bought by an individual for their own use, or it's being bought by another small landlord. REITs are increasing their stock by building more, or buying entire developments.
Mad_maxx wrote: » may i ask how you feel about small time property owners who have their houses - apartments leased to the local authorities ? i mean under long term leases , ten and twenty years , not referring to HAP
awec wrote: » Yes I have never really bought the argument that Ireland suffers when it loses it's small, amateur landlords. This was an argument thrown about all the time, particularly when the AirBnB rules were being discussed. "Don't do this or we'll sell!" Ok, great. Please do.
fliball123 wrote: » And now we have the big lads snapping up property left right and center and have the ability to soak up losses of not renting out some property in order to keep rents high..So yeah this is whats happening if the smaller landlord had been supported a bit more maybe there would be more competition in the rental sector
The_Conductor wrote: » I'd be looking at treating rental income wholly separate to any other income. I'd disallow any deductions, at all. I'd tax it at a reasonable rate across the board (say 25% of gross rental income) and the landlord covers their costs and any profit resides in the other 75% The whole concept of allowing the cost of borrowing against income as an allowable cost for landlords- is one of the concepts that I have most issues with. However, I don't think it should be allowable as a cost for anyone. If you have borrowing- that is your business, however, it shouldn't be an allowable cost (for any sector). The most equitable manner of looking at rental income- is to ringfence it separately from other 'unearned income' and treat it in an entirely different manner (such as a straightline tax with no allowable deductions whatsoever). We seriously need to think outside of the box on this one.
PropQueries wrote: » Well, at least the big players are also adding to the supply of housing. Yes, they're outbidding regular people but the actual supply of housing units is increasing because of them. A small landlord is just taking a house that is already built, outbidding regular people and adding nothing to supply. I really don't see how giving small landlords preferential tax treatment helps increase actual supply.
Mad_maxx wrote: » i know the Limerick city market well , bar circa 2014 at the latest , you could not buy apartments in Limerick city for 70 K anywhere bar the dumps on the Dock road around mount kennet and those are 100 k today.
fliball123 wrote: » Well it does if you leave the big players there as then they have the power to keep rents artificially high as they can afford to leave property vacant. So what in effect is happening is the small landlord is losing a huge % of overall rental property market in the country and REITS and vultures are gaining a larger % of the rental market. As I have pointed out there is already a quadruple tax on small landlords what your looking for will allow the big guys to get a bigger foothold on the market and rents will not be coming down any time soon. As this is what is currently going on. I think there needs to be some kind of threshold where the big guys pay more
PropQueries wrote: » But does it really matter if a landlord leaves the market. It's not like the house disappears with him. As long as it's occupied, then it's being used and a significant stick on ensuring such properties are occupied would ensure there's no removal of stock from the market. Whether someone buys it or rents it, it's still being occupied and solving the problem. If an electrician leaves Ireland because of high taxes, we are actually down an electrician and that's a problem. If a landlord leaves the market, we still have the house. It's not really a problem. Either way, taxes on all types of property owners (owners, investors etc.) are only going one way i.e. up as those assets can't leave the state (unlike an electrician who actually can take his asset (i.e. his skill) with him when he leaves the state) and it's an easy win from a Government revenue viewpoint IMO
fliball123 wrote: » The only thing I will say about that is a lot of smaller landlords will be paying 50% on profits already via the income tax model and they can only write off profits on the interest of the loan or any expense that are attached to the rented property, are they then been double taxed? Or Triple taxed with property tax or quadrupled taxed when you add in stamp duty. Is this not one of the reasons we are seeing small landlords vacate the rental market and now we have big companies who are so big that they are able to leave apartments empty for long periods of time so that they dont have to ask for lower rent. I think your proposition has a lot of unintended consequences that have shown this is the wrong way to do things.
