Only in Ireland. How can that be possible that you own a place and you are not allowed to access your own home because of a stupid ban. It is her own home.
This law is bordering on insanity. And somehow dictatorship.
Pretty soon, there will be no landlords left, none.
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/housing-planning/2022/12/12/landlord-couch-surfing-and-sleeping-in-car-due-to-winter-eviction-ban/
Tell the class how much tax you paid on any profit you drew from it last year?
They're expecting you to say 12.5%. Don't disappoint now
absolutely irrelevant to this discussion.
I've an aunt who worked for the same place for 50 years............Must have been a bit of a pain only being entitled to protections that were available to employees in the 1970's
Is it not similar to the situation with companies hiring employees though? The rules generally change to favor the employee, or at least that has been the case for a long time.
I don't think we need the small landlords. There are too many issues, looking for the property back for a family member, wanting to sell up or on holidays when the boiler in the property fails.
Well blame the silly poster who brought it up..... Their post is below
It is precisely why agreement is required on contract negotiation between two parties. In the case of workers when the agreement changes for good or bad. When regulations change businesses are forewarned when it is coming in so they can adjust. Even with government policies they consult the unions but they did not talk to landlords.
So what you are saying is the government have behaved badly by not acting how they do normally. It would be like the government suddenly making employees not be able to leave their job, look for a pay raise, buy better equipment etc... That is what the government did to supplier of a needed service that is accommodation provision.
Dumb landlord came back from Dubai without guarantee of her having place to live and we're supposed to feel sorry for her?
While I do feel sorry for her not being able to live in the house she owns, her and those in similar situations are bottom of the list of people I feel sorry for.
Also nothing stopping her from selling her house now and buying a vacant one somewhere else!
I never mentioned anything about the 12.5% - that was you.
No its not like an employment law.
Well you have the examples in other countries of what happens when the big landlords become dominant, and we have our own Tyrrelstown Amendment.
But some people can't learn that fire is hot without getting burnt. The Rental market seems to be like that.
At a time of crisis in supply, you want to reduce supply. Good luck with that.
Well you will need to elaborate then on why you are complaining about them being "taxed as an individual". How would you like them to be taxed?
no need to elaborate - registered businesses have totally different tax treatments to individuals.
Maybe we should introduce 3 month deposits and tenants have to return the property newly painted as they got it. But make it apply to existing tenants.
No, in this case the landlord is more similar to the employer in my analogy. Landlords can leave the market if it is not profitable, but they can't do it without limitations, similar to redundancy payments when a business shuts down. Likewise, a company might like to pay staff less, but there is a minimum wage. Increased maternity leave, parental leave, right to request WFH, 45 hour max week (EU) have all come in, regardless of what companies think.
Is it that you don't know, or you don't want to say, because you were indeed referring to the 12.5% corporation tax?
(Not every business' profit is actually taxed at that rate btw. Sole traders for example)
You can contact your local TD and suggest it to them if you wish.
So your suggesting we shouldn't feel sorry for people who are homeless. So we didn't need this moratorium in the first place.
So thats a yes then.
So you should be able to fire a tenant.
One house. Two people who want to live there. One is the legal owner. The other lives there and it is her home. The latter has possession as the former willingly gave it to her.
At the end of the story, one person will be "homeless". My "side" is basically that the tenant is in the right.
The landlady did a silly thing. She made a bad decision relative to her own personal circumstances. Bad decisions have consequences. The tenant did nothing wrong.
You can if they also work for you. But you will have to respect current employment law rather than what it was when you originally hired them. You can't fire someone who doesn't work for you. The same as you can't break up with someone you aren't going out with
..... btw...........Flinty997...........
You can if they breach the terms, but if they are there long enough (6 months) they have rights (similar to 1 year in employment). So, you have to go through the proper process with the RTB, similar to putting an employee on a PIP. You can't just fire an employee that has been there over a year without proper process you know, it isn't the US.
If she's homeless then we have tens of thousands of additional homeless people not accounted for in official figures.
What is you obsession with a token percentage. Is it that you thought I'd take the bait?
businesses and individuals are totally different as to how accounts are handled and the tax liability at the end of the year .. that is my issue .. but you want to be able to issue a stock response you have prepared !
Explain what tax treatment you want for individuals that call themselves landlords? Explain what income it should apply to for them? Their rental income or also their employment income if they are in a 9-5?
All you did is fired off a meaningless soundbyte which alluded to a frequently espoused misconception by landlords (see any thread on here for evidence) that corporations don't pay any (or else very little) tax so they shouldn't have to
Well she has no home...
If they changed the law so you have no employment rights. That would ok then.
Yep. Now you are getting the hang of it. The individual may have individual unenumerated rights from elsewhere. But the employment statutes would be gone. The law would be changed. New rules then
Well actually you can't. That's the point of the moratorium.
it would be like the law was change so you have no rights and we can just fire you like the US. That would ok then.
So hence its fine evicting people if you need the property back.
Of course you are going to think the landlord is the employer. Landlords can't leave the market is actually the situation which you claim the can leave. A redundancy fund is legislated for and has to exist and it is state backed so really nothing like a landlord in anyway. Tenants have a bunch of rules to stick to but landlords have little to no support for enforcement so much more like an employee that doesn't have the government enforcing the regulations.
People can be very bias on their views but using a bad analogy that can be easily knocked over should be called out by all.
Landlords don't have the control and are being continually regulated further restrict their options much more like an employee. There aren't many jobs you are expected to do at a loss to yourself but seems to be a situation like landlords to be in.
