Varadkar talking common sence which contrary to popular belief is not very common within the SF party.
Housing is a human right.
I can predict we're this will go.
Leo Talking common Sense is a rare thing, he does make a fair point as there are clearly two sides to the rental crisis coin but the "common sense" comment is not going to actually achieve anything sensible. More a sound bite and utterly meaningless.
Intriguing the added comment about the SF party, it would seem not a single thing, Leo says or does can not have a slight thrown in about SF thrown into the mix.
I listened to the late Debate last night and my god, it is very clear where this Housing for all plan is going, clearly not much common sense put into its drafting and indeed by all accounts its implementation. The FG representative (Limerick City) was savaged and wasn't talking any sense at all.
Common Sense not at all evident it would seem.
Its to late an accountant friend does work for LLs says there is a mass exodus ATM Tax regs and pending changes to happen in the next goverment.
Good for those who can buy or want or free right to housing mongrels but the working poor will pay dearly for accommodation if they can find
Is it ? Why aren't the government providing it , or the one before this one or the one before ? There is not interest from the public to mass fund large social building projects by additionally burdening tax payers. Sure we have the sound bites from opposition parties like yours but actually funding it is a different issue.
So is food.
But we don't make the government provide it for everyone.
Bunch of small portfolio landlords are already leaving the market due to the punitive changes in the way their income is taxed
When these properties disappear it's not gonna help with the supply issues people keep talking about
Because home owners and landlords with an interest in ensuring that rents stay high and house prices stay high are more likely to vote for the likes of Fine Gael.
Great news. I'll have a 5 bed in Howth with a sea view and tennis court please.
I am not a landlord and I very rarely agree with Varadker . I do however agree with Leo 100 percent here.
Why would that be ? The majority of the people own their own property so I don't see what your issue is.
I agree with Leo. Landlords income should be protected but rents should not rise any further, I'm in favour of a cap. Landlords should have the right to kick out non-paying and problematic tenants easily within a couple of months and not a 2-3+ year process that it currently is. But nobody seemingly wants to implement landlord rights nowadays.
We literally do. There are all sorts of social welfare payments to help people stay off the poverty line as much as possible. Even for people who are totally destitute, there are homeless shelters and food banks etc. No-one should starve to death in Ireland. It is a cornerstone of our social contract I would say. The famine still looms large in people's collective memories despite being so long ago.
There are housing payments. So there's that sorted so?
There is a massive contradiction in people's constant demands for better housing supply on the one hand, and the denigrating of landlords on the other.
Landlords bring housing into the market place. Thats what we want. So lets kick them. Lets do everything we can not to encourage them.
Makes no sense.
Here's a novel idea , if a taxi man decided to ask a hundred quid to drive passengers from o connell St to Croke Park, the passenger would quickly notice that a nearby taxi was willing to do it for a tenner or less .
The point being, the only thing that drives down prices for consumers is choice
Supply is the only remedy to rental prices ,sure punishing landlords has always been a goal in of itself for socialists ( and its the left who dominate the debate here ) but in the end only more supply - choices will help renters
SF have made opposing development a cornerstone of their Dublin strategy
A rental cap is a direct intervention in the market. If his reason against direct intervention is that it would negatively affect the income of a certain selection of society, i.e. it would distort the market, then that same reason holds for indirect intervention.
That would mean no more government schemes or reliefs for any developer/investor and also no more intervention in the housing market by the State. So no subsidised rents, no payment of rent to private landlords for social housing, and also no purchasing or building of social housing. If you want to take it to the full extreme, it would also mean removing standards and protections.
I personally think that the government should indeed be intervening directly in the market by encouraging and promoting development and by penalising those who hinder it.
I would, however, be against the concept of market caps, but for a different reason. That being that they could only ever be a short term relief. If you have a market cap, then the only way to increase profit is to decrease costs. A landlord would have no natural incentive to ever upgrade or improve a property for a tenant.
People should work and aspire to own a home.
If they don't have to and its given to them then we might aswell all pack in our jobs and stay at home.
By the way, shelter is a human right, not housing.
People do. But if you live in Dublin and pay nearly €1800 a month on rent, how are you supposed to also save for a deposit?
Has the cost to a landlord of renting a house out gone up by the levels of the rent increases of the past few years? I can't imagine it has, mortgage repayments won't have anyway...
Do landlords bring housing to the market?
I suppose it could be argued large institutional landlords (nearly universally seen as the Bad Guys) do by financing new apartment developments or pre-purchasing them from developers.
But small landlords (generally seen as the Good Guys being screwed by the government, at least on this forum) have no impact on supply surely?
I suppose it could be argued if being a landlord was very attractive that would add demand and maybe additional supply but we have had loads of demand from FTBs for a good few years now and very little additional supply.
Small landlords are, in general, merely rent seekers (the economic meaning of the term).
Varadkar is playing up to a portion of FG's base, the same way we would expect Mary Lou to say there should be an indefinite rent freeze which would appeal SF's base.
The fact that he's not going further (eg suggesting removing RPZs) suggests he reckons the current deal is as good as would be politically possible to achieve for landlords in the circumstances.
They are surely removing housing from the market (rentals that is. Obviously people are buying the ex-rentals).
Who can you rent from if there are no landlords.
Landlords supply rental properties to the private market. Govt should supply social housing, and affordable housing.
You've made yourself look exceptionally stupid with those few words.
I already have a house. But I'm interested in investing some money.
You need a house because you have nowhere to live and don't own one.
There is one house for sale. Just us two bidding. I outbid you and proceed to rent the house to you.
Aren't you the lucky person in that scenario that you have me to rent it from? Because if I hadn't bought it out from under you, you wouldn't be able to rent it from me 🤔
Right well look at what Leo is saying in response to a three year tent freeze: it's someone's income.
Would a normal person be unable to go without a pay raise for three years - after massive pay raises in previous years which outpace inflation?
Lessen the tax burden for small landlords, and make it possible to evict troublesome/non-paying tenants if you're worried about their livelihoods.
There is no "tax burden for small landlords".
They pay the same tax as everyone else. They pay tax on their income.
A non-landlord cannot write off payments into a regular investment plan against their income and then receive a tax free disbursement at the end. Why do amateur landlords think they should be allowed to? I see it here all the time.
There would be no option to rent privately if there were no landlords and that would create problems of its own.
It doesn't change the fact that individual small private landlords, in general, don't add to the overall housing supply.
Right but the SF policy is ALSO going to keep rents high. A rent freeze will not lower rents, will it? It will keep rents where they are - high.
Are landlords actually looking for a policy which will keep rents continually bouncing proportionally higher than wages and inflation generally?
(edit)
Fair enough. I'm not an LL, I rent.
They seem to use the excuse of having to pay tax to continually raise rents.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a605da6df673e065ac5a7e976411f425.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c5c4b46ae312233298c2bc29182ae3e.svg)
