2% max rental increase allowed inflation 7% plus

Lol. I post about 4 posts and you're not able for it.

No need to mask your inability to come up with a counterargument. I wasn't expecting you to come up with one.

At the end of the day, if you can't handle the business, you should probably get out of it. It won't be healthy for you in the long run to have to deal with all the stress and associated negativity inside yourself

Any investment is a business decision (made by an individual or a business, both are not mutually exclusive). A person/business investments to make a return (that is the basic tenet of any business be they for profit or not for profit, costs must be covered be it from income or grants/subsidies etc).

If you invest then one way to describe you is an "investor" being an investor is a business activity even as an individual it is still a business activity. An investor does and does not become involved on a daily basis on those investments they invest in. Look at employee shareholders who are simply employees of a company but are also shareholders.

Newsflash. Society changes. Rules change. If you go into a long term investment, be aware that things can change during that time. If you don't know and you learn the hard way, then you are still learning. So look on the bright side

The small landlord vs. low income tenant is a phony war.

Small LLs are being driven out of the market by the government in order to benefit institutional money, financial corporations etc. who are gobbling up hard assets to create a future cornered market.

There are regulars on this forum who would rather cut their own arm off than admit that.

The gloating that normal tenants will eventually have nowhere to live is pathetic.

LLs who have taken their ball and gone home (understandably) should be honest about who has put the squeeze on them financially.

The ironic thing is that you are also having a moan about ll. You just fail to realise it...

They may not have to do anything other than make income tax returns but they have made a business decision to continue to remain in the business of being a landlord and also to charge below market rent (for their own reasons).

Whether you accept it or not somebody is maintaining the property either by your siblings, a management/estate agent or directly by the tenants themselves. Being inactive is in itself being actively engaged in the business. They are choosing to be actively inactive.

They may not describe it as a business but it is a business even if your siblings don't consider it so. The vast majority of landlords both individual and professional landlords do see it as a business.

Not to take away from the general gist of your post, but just to highlight that the family got well remunerated by the looks of it if the housing estate replaced their pub. Not to say it isn't bad for the local community or the family to lose a family business, but there are no "financial losers" here.

Has PRSI gone up for the tenant?

Normally tenants work for companies and the company pays the PRSI. LL have to pay the PRSI themself.

If you look at it another way. If your an investor looking to use your capital, why invest in property right now?

Like the way if you go into a restaurant and have dinner and refuse to pay for it. The restaurant is legally obligated to continue to feed you for free for the next 18 months.

Some reasons:

1) "Risk free" alternatives currently have a very small return. You can put 500k in a 10 year state savings bond and be guaranteed to have 550k in 10 years time. Put that into a 500k house and you'll have 50k income in less than 2 years.

2) Stamp duty is only 1% for residential properties

3) Returns are quite good compared to other income streams, especially passive ones

4) Property tends to be a good hedge for inflation over the long-medium term.

Anything that you invest in subject to changing environment and regulations. You can buy a share of a sweet shop tomorrow and in 5 years the government might bring in a regulation regarding having to pay for regular specialised cleaning and certification for example.

You are wrong. The landlord is not, save for statutory notice periods and accrued rights like Part IV, obliged to allow the tenant to stay in the property.

That it might take a while to remove the tenant from the property is a different matter.

You can call it a technicality, but that is the situation.

Commercial leases can have an automatic right to renew the lease

If a builder builds an extension for Pat and Pat decides not to pay, the builder can't legally break into the house and take out the appliances he bought and was never paid for, even though Pat is still using them.

I beg to differ. There are only 4 situations when a tenancy can be ended by a landlord. Intention to sell, Intend to use property for own use or family member, substantial renovation or failure to pay rent.

The tenant has an automatic right to remain in the property for 8 yrs after the first 6 months of the tenancy has elapsed at which point they gain part 4 rights.

Why do you reference commercial leases? They are not bound by rpz legislation. A renewal of a commercial lease is a result of commercial negotiations.

Is Pat decides not to pay the builder can take legal action and at least Pat has an asset that the builder can place a judgement mortgage against. A tenant has no assets to obtain a judgement against.

So I will ask the question again what other business continues to provide a service for no payment?

Lots of made up assumptions there and no basis for them. Now we have it that no renters have any assets. You also won't be able to enforce a judgment mortgage (correct spelling) against a property held in a joint tenancy FYI. But don't let fact get in the way of your own ramblings.

Plenty of subcontractors are often left hanging and unable to retrieve property they paid for but were not reimbursed for.

I reference commercial leases as you asked for other examples.

BTW, your assertions on ending an tenancy are not correct. You are mentioning some criteria for breaking a tenancy. You are forgetting just giving sufficient notice before the end of the term. The terms are mandated under Part IV, but they are not infinite.

There's an idea..!