Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

1859860862864865943

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,322 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    They will need to be here more then a wet week, to be claiming the full 30k.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,037 ✭✭✭Villa05


    3 work colleagues and there families from a small group received notice to quit over the last 18 months.

    Maybe the landlords were smart and took advantage of the tenant in situ scheme and sold the rpz restricted apartment and purchased an unaffected one and potentially doubled the rent

    A more likely reason is that tax rental credits has flushed out non compliant landlords

    Extending the first home scheme to used properties potentially maxs the price achieved at a time when rents are stabilising in some areas. Landlords exiting in such an environment might be wise



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,132 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Hmm good points.

    I agree that if subsidies were to cease entirely, prices would go down. However, there would still be a shortage of housing that would not correct itself unless immigration were to go down, or indeed reverse. That could happen, but I just don't see how as things stand.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    Further exodous? I'm starting to ask the opposite question of why there are any that haven't already bolted..



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I think things are unlikely to change, because I think that government will keep adding fuel to the fire, as evidenced by extending HTB and FHS for example.

    But that's different from saying prices are built on solid fundamentals. It's government policy driving the market. The fundamentals are shaky.

    I get the sense there's a feeling that prices simply cannot fall because we it is impossible to build enough new houses that would make a difference. But this totally ignores the potential of second hand stock as a source of pent up supply.

    Everybody talks about how low new build numbers have been for the past 15 years or so, but it is equally true that the quantity of second hand stock bought and sold has been very low for the same period. In fact relatively speaking it is even lower in comparison to new builds by historical standards.

    Sooner or later that supply will come on market - if it just trickles on in dribs and drabs and government can find measures to mop it up at increasing prices then nothing will change.

    But it is entirely possible that as supply begets supply, a trickle could turn into a flood, and then we'll be scratching our heads wondering where all the houses came from.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Over half of renters receive state subsidies. If the subsidies were removed overnight, alot of people would find themselves homeless. This is why the subsidies cannot be removed.

    There are plenty of people capable of paying current market rents that cannot find a property to rent.

    If the subsidies were removed, these people would move in & pay the market rate.

    In other words, without a significant uptick in building, removing subsidies wont matetially descrease rents; but it would turbo charge homelessness.

    And so it cannot happen.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    That chart shows competions to Q3 for 2024, not full year. We will be over 30k for the full year.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,325 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    No housing units would spontaneously evaporate if subsidies were removed



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,132 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    If the subsidies were to stop, it would take millions of available capital out of the market. This would reduce rent prices. Subsidies don't keep people off the streets; they keep rent prices up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Remove the subsidies but implement a temporary eviction ban (as was done during covid, so is entirely possible) to give time to let the market reset.

    The state can buy the properties of any landlord "exodus" from the market for social housing, if one actually happens, instead of block buying expensive new build properties as its doing at present.

    Rents would drop drastically to a more rational rental market, and the state would save a fortune on rental supports (iirc heading towards €1bn a year at present?) at the same time.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Nobody is saying they would.

    They would become occupied by other renters who can afford market rents, however.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    As long as there are enough people in the private rental market to pay the current rent prices, the rent prices wont come down.

    There are plenty of potential renters that are living at home or house sharing that can't find property to rent. Remove the subsidies and those folks will step in & pay the rents.

    And when they do, where do you put all the subsidised renters that are now homeless?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    So landlords would be forced to have tenants overholding in their property and would receive no rental income, by state decree.

    The only way out for the landlord is to sell the property to the state, so it can be turned into social housing.

    Given that over 50% of rentals are state subsidised, we could be looking at the state purchasing over 50% of the entire rental stock across the country and converting it to social housing.

    We have now removed 50% of the private rental market, so what happens to the cost of private rents?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭herbalplants


    Yes Dublin city centre, Georgian Dublin used to have lots of tenants living 2 or 3rd floow now above 2nd floor pigeons are living in them.

    The area should be properly developed for people to live in.

    Remember the shills only get paid when you react to them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 350 ✭✭jo187


    I won't agree with statement plenty of people can afford the high rents and would just swap over with those who lost homes overnight.

    The issue is rent is to high and this need to be tackled.

    Why are taxes being used to fill landlord profits?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Almost every new apartment scheme in Dublin goes to the rental market and they all rent out at those high prices. There are plenty of folks in Dublin that can afford them and there is pent up demand.

    Taxes are being used to pay rent subsidies because the govt doesnt have enough housing stock to house those that cannot afford market rents.

    That is not the fault of the landlord, it is the fault of the govt.

    The govt provides the subsidy in order to secure the property from the private market.

    If they did not do this, the property would rent on the open market anyway (at least in Dublin) and would rent for the going rate.

    The local councils housing list however, well that would grow ever longer. .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,325 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Where are those other renters today?

    In a simplistic sense, you are basically of the opinion that for every 1000 people renting today, 500 of them are getting subsidised, and if those subsidies were removed, then those 500 would be replaced by another 500 who could pay the rent. So I'm wondering where those other 500 who could pay the rent, but who aren't renting right now, are living currently?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,675 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Could they be referring to people who can afford rent but can't actually find homes to rent? (Such as people in their 20s/30s living in their parents box rooms?)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,325 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    That's not very realistic though now is it? For every person on HAP or other form of rent assistance, there is an individual living at home, earning enough to rent that spot, and dying to be given the opportunity to rent it.

    Do you think it's realistic? An anecdote about a friend's cousin who can't find a place to rent isn't proof to the contrary.

    The couple with the two kids, working and on HAP, well there is an early 20-something living in their childhood box-room with the money and desire to jump in that and rent that apartment instead……….



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    100% of tenants are not going to stop paying rent because of a tempory eviction ban. We literally have a real world example of the state doing just this during covid - and nothing terrible happened, everything functioned just fine during and afterwards.

    The idea that we were able to do it in 2022, but if we did the exact same thing now it would be cataclysmic, is just very clearly not rational or logical, or based on real world evidence.

    100% of landlords are also not going to sell their homes. There has been talk of a landlord "exodus" when every new measure was brought in like RPZs and it turns out our numbers of landlords are actually going up.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 350 ✭✭jo187


    Generally speaking those 20/30 are saving up to buy, even if they were rentel options, most would stay home to try and save.

    Not all of course.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 350 ✭✭jo187


    I would say if 50 per cent of people need subsidies it would show the rents to high.

    I don't blame the landlords but their happy to take advantage. Plenty of LL getting top ups and extras on top of the rent.

    The government love this as saves them the hassle of dealing with council housing. But it not the long term solution and been doing it over 10 years.

    It never discuss in housing plans as it suits government, many tds are landlords.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,675 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    No you're are 100% right, there is nobody living at home who would jump at the opportunity to rent a property currently being rented to a HAP recipient if the property was made available to the private rental market.

    If you cut out HAP, there would be nobody who would full these tenancies from any other current living situations. None at all.

    They'd literally be private properties left empty with nobody to put in them.

    Our private housing situation would be reversed from over subscribed to vastly under subscribed over night with landlords all defaulting on their mortgages.

    I get your posting style now, it's fun to speak in absolutes with zero nuance.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    The rental solution seems to be pretty simple on the face of it. If 50% of private tenancies need to be subsidised by the taxpayer then clearly either rents are too high or wages are too low. But in either case that is for the market to fix not the taxpayer.

    Remove the crazy RPZ rules that penalise landlords for lowering rent and then incrementally reduce HAP support payments per month over 12 months to reduce to say for eg. a third of current levels.

    Couple this to a stiff vacancy tax that applies to every property in the country that is not either the owner's or a connected person's PPR or occupied by a registered RTB tenancy. If it is a connected persons PPR and they're living rent free or at reduced rates tax them at CAT rates for the BIK.

    So if a couple are renting a one bed flat in Dublin for €2500k per month, €1250 of which is subsidised by HAP, both they and their landlord have plenty of notice that in 12 months time their HAP payment is going to be €412.50 so tenants can pay €1662.50 and be no worse off.

    Landlord has a choice, he can give them notice and hope to find a non HAP tenant who will pay €2500 a month, or he can reduce the rent. Maybe he doesn't reduce it all the way down to 1662.50, maybe he meets tenant in the middle. Who knows.

    One of two things will happen over the course of twelve months. Either rents will go down or wages will go up.

    If there are tens of thousands of young adults living at home or in house shares, chomping at the bit to pay current market rents, then the landlord can give notice and these other well off, currently unhoused would be tenants can move in and pay the 2500.

    If this happens across the market, employers in time of full employment will have no choice but to raise wages to retain staff as otherwise their employees will be forced to move further afield, and employers business cannot function with no staff.

    FWIW I think this scenario is unlikely.

    What is more likely is that there are not hordes of wannabe renters who would love to pay current rents and landlords will reduce rents to a lower level because the taxpayers largesse has dried up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,325 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Eh, you appear to think that the removal of all subsidies wouldn't make any difference to the rental market. We don't even need to get into "nuances" here. It's in the realm of the absurd

    As I anticipated, an anecdote about a friend's cousin who can't find a place to rent isn't proof to the contrary.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Living with parents, living in house shares and new arrivals from abroad that relocate for work.

    Plenty of workers from abroad that accept jobs in Dublin and then have to reject the job because they cant find accommodation, not because they cant afford it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    The govt needs to build more council housing, including affordable and cost rental.

    Landlords arent taking advantage, they are not allowed to refuse HAP tenants.

    If someone on HAP can pay the market rent with the help of the HAP subsidy, the landlord cant refuse them.

    If your issue is that the tenant shouldnt be getting the subsidy in the first place, how would the tenant pay the market rent, if the subsidy was removed?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    State subsidies were still paid during the covid eviction ban.

    If you were to stop the subsidies completley as you suggest, a large majority of landlords that rent to subsidised tenants would not recieve their rent payment in full.

    Landlords are still receiving full payments today, with the majority of those payments being subsidised by the state. The fact they are able to receive market rents via govt subsidy helps keeps them in the rental game.

    Removing the state subsidy and therefore denying full rental payment to over 50% of the landlords across the country, whilst at the same time imposing an eviction ban for tenants who are not able to pay market rent, is 100% going to drive landlords out of the market.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    What people forget was during the eviction ban post Covid only no fault evictions were stopped. If you stopped rent subsidies it would increase homeless and people could no longer afford the rental market. The only benefit any eviction ban would have is increase the amount of homes in the 2nd hand market. If you require state support this doesn't help you, it only helps those who relatively wealthy (ie able to save enough for a deposit and have a big enough income for a mortgage) renting and those living at home who also want to buy. On top of that owner occupied housing tends to have a lower occupancy level than rented. Even worse any new builds that come onto the market can be let at market rent where as older properties rented are limited by rent pressure zones making rents even more expensive. So all the idea does is reduce rental stock and increase rent costs. With the added negative that you've also increased homeless. It's a crazy idea.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,325 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    I think you are living in fantasy land if you think there are enough people sitting there, with the money and desire, waiting on their chance to take the position of 50% of the current renters with no impact to the market.

    In some ways, your position could be turned on its head as an additional argument to remove all state subsidies. Because if you are correct, then all that will happen would be a swapping of those who can't afford current rents for those who can. Those that are currently renting can just go and live where those not currently renting are living. They can simply swap places and the State can save billions over the next few years………………..



Advertisement
Advertisement