2% max rental increase allowed inflation 7% plus

If you believe in this position, why not force a rent cut of 50%? Why not force a price cut of 50% on petrol? Or iphones? The reality is that it is an irrational idea and only tolerated because houses evoke emotional responses and it is electorally popular.

The 2% rent cap is bad, because it causes market distortion, hurting renters. The expected effects of rent controls, don't happen overnight, but what we see in the market now is consistent with those predictions.

To be fair the value of our investments increased by more than 7% in the last year.

You can't have everything!

While the long-term effects of rent controls are largely perverse (as evidenced by the exodus of private landlords), a fixed 2% increase irrespective of overall inflation is just plain daft. Better to have a formula related to overall prices or earnings, if you have to have controls.

How many times has the 2% rule changed over the past decade? Shows that they just make daft things up.

Appliance replacement isn't covered by the tenant. Nor are repairs to plumbing or electrics or the billding (unless the tenant broke things). Or property tax. Or insurance. Of management company charges.

Landlords will just leave if the government is determined to disadvantage them, and have been. It appears to me that the idea is to be replace Irish landlords with huge foreign trusts, the infamous vulture funds, who can have the means to spread their costs over a great many unit. However they have no interest whatsoever in anyone who cannot afford a premium rent unless someone (say the County Council) pays for it. It is now also nearly impossible to get a mortgage for a rental property and property costs cannot be written off in the same way as other businesses. The government, no government is going to rack up taxes to mass build council houses, at least not for Irish people (or so Roderic O'Gorman envisages), vulture funds have no interest in poorer tenants, and so private rental should fill the gap. It cannot because government seems content to squeeze them regardless of the social cost. The government is determined that a section of business owners cannot be allowed to cover their costs. Rent control just means no one will enter the market except large scale property speculators with replacement (appliances, furniture) and repairs becoming ever more difficult.

I don't really see it as a business. More like a speculative investment with some dividends thrown in.

Do you know what it leads to after you run them all away?

Is that not the definition of a business venture?

I hear this a lot, is there any statistical proof to back it up. I can see that the rental market is a crazy one at the moment but what is driving that? Is it really landlords departing the market?

What do you think will happen if the government are pushing all the private ll out of the market??

If you have 100 properties to rent and 100 people looking to rent today and in 5 years, you have 70 properties to rent and 100people, what do you think will happen to the prices. if you think prices will remain the same, dont bother even replying..

In the real world, if you actually knew how it worked, you would know that the yields on property are decreasing given the very expensive capital costs incurred - Its an investment and if you can get the same yield elsewhere with less risk and work, why invest in property in ireland?

For the most part, it is not profitable until the debt is paid off. Until then, if your lucky, you might be break even in cashflow while you will have a fully unencumbered property in 30 years. if you think its acceptable to use your own PAYE and take on substantial risk for 30 years. then you clearly dont understand investing.

Taxation in Ireland takes 52pc of any profit that is incurred so if your paying 20k in rent to your "grubby" landlord, over 10k goes to the tax mans.

Please familiarise yourself with how the real world operates before spewing absolute emotive statements and explain how LL are extorting outrageous profits

Did a landlord run over your dog or something?

Ignoring your utterly sociopathic opening line...

Some people are landlords because they are stuck in negative equity and are renting out their home through no choice of their own, they need the income to cover the mortgage.

Some people are landlords because they have a mortgage on a buy to let property which might be feeding into their primary residence.

Some people are landlords purely as a business.

It's not just a load of fat cats sitting in a room, wearing monocle and smoking cigars, there are endless reasons people are landlords.

Sorry, but that makes little sense: for the past several years the ECB rate was practically zero or negative. What does that say about how rents should change from year to year?

So this person did not make their profit as a landlord, maybe they bought it as a speculative investment, if it was an auction, they either had cash or access to a lot of credit. they made 25% in about 3 years, so, how much would they have made in the stock market?

What is your point exactly?

Why is it ok for every other investment or business to make money, but if a landlord does it, they are greedy?

If they sell the property at a loss, should the general public help them out?