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

The proposal as I read it, is that the rent cap will only be removed when tenancy is changed.
So anyone in the world who wants to to pay the new ‘proper’ price can…except the sitting tenant, even if they wanted to.

I support the full removal of RPZ. I actually think the proposed change is more convoluted state intervention in pricing than the current one!

So you just made it up instead and make tenuous claims instead. That tracks with other comments made

I don’t think they are equivalent in reality. Breaking RPZ is pretty risky. It’s an easy thing to prove even years after the fact.

‘My son is moving back in…oh wait he didn’t actually need it for very long…I’ll offer the rental back to the old tenant as I’m legally required…oh you have a new place so don’t want it? I’ll put it up for rent again at double the price to a new tenant then.’

Is much less risky in my view. In fact there will be tonnes of cases where the above will be legitimately true.

The proposed new RPZ rules are that tenancies are linked to inflation increases only, but a new tenancy is uncapped and rent can be set at any level.

If a landlord evicts someone using family excuse, they can then legally start a new tenancy with no cap on rent.

Right now there is no advantage in evicting paying tenants to get a new tenancy, because properties have the rent restriction, not tenancies.

Move the rent restriction from property to tenancy and all of a sudden there is a big incentive to evict law abiding tenants, because a landlord could then legally re-let their property at market rates.

Very few single 45K earning workers will rent a one bed at 2k or over. You may get a couple who do it, however often one or more are earning greater than that . Most single workers stay in multi tenant units. Most are averaging around 800/ room. You often even get a couple sharing a room and the this drops the overall costs for other tenants

Thats my point. A worker on the average salary should be able to rent their own place in Dublin. They cant, but somone on the dole can.

You really don't know what you are talking about. When evicting somebody you have to state why and file it with the PRTB and then when you log an new tenancy you state the rent. PRTB can simply run a report to find people to find people doing as you say as they have all the information. The risk of being caught is high and if somebody is going to illegally evict somebody they are not going to abide by another rule not to raise the rent. You want to make up that people now will run to break a rule because they wouldn't break the next rule.

While I agree with you on many points including the changing definition being provided there are hidden unemployed and state benefits recipients. Community employment schemes take people off the live register and are often doing questionable jobs for example.

For many living on social welfare is much more appealing than getting a job. People end up on long term disability claims not because they can't do any work but because they can't do the kind of work they have skills for and can't be retrained.

It is better for some to be on social welfare than employed and most noticeable that is a single parent. They are the poorest households in the country but if they had to pay for housing and childcare they would find it very hard to get a well paying job to afford it all. The problem then is as the child grows up the state benefits start to lower and employment is expected and essentially forced on them. That is where many end up in community employment. There is a community employment scheme where they make sandwiches for schools for 15 hours over the week. They aren't showing as unemployed and get the same amount of money as if they were plus heating, children's allowance, rent/accommodation and medical card. It is worth about 40k.

Nobody in their right mind would want to live that way if they had better options but realistically they don't as minimum wage jobs is often all such people can achieve. For a lot more effort they often would end up with very little more. a 45k job would be a dream to them to get.

There are a grand total of 19k people in the state on CE schemes. And the longest amount of time you can spend on CE schemes is 3 years. Its not having a major impact on the very low number of long term unemployed in social housing in the state.

About 15% of the population of Ireland that has a disability is on Disability Allowance, I posted the numbers recently in this thread. Which would seem a reasonable ratio to me, but I'm open to seeing comparable data from other similar countries.

Its also quite a difficult process to get approved for these days, involving being accessed by multiple medical professionals, so I doubt there are many people on it "because they can't do the kind of work they have skills for and can't be retrained". Very few doctors are going to sign you off as unfit for any work because of that, nevermind the assessors in the welfare office.

If single parents were sigificantly better off on long term welfare than employed then we'd see huge numbers of them doing that. But the stats show we don't. Which would suggest thats not actually accurate, in the real world.

And the main things you list as being reasons why - housing, and childcare costs - are both well within the state's power to lower. And would benefit everyone, on welfare or not.

Thats the core of the whole issue, and my argument really - instead of spending time, energy and money focusing on investigating a statistically tiny number of long term welfare recipients being better off than a very, very specific, demographic of private sector workers we'd be better off on focusing on fixing the wider structural issues. Lower the costs of housing and childcare for everyone and any even theoretical welfare trap disappears.

But focusing on blaming some mythological welfare queens and ignoring the wider structural issues, as some posters have been doing, just has echoes of Leo Varadkar spending more on his "welfare cheats" advertising campaign in one year than was actually lost to fraud. Its fundamentally a bad use of tax payer euros even just financially - regardless of ones political views on the benefits of welfare or not.

70% of the population of the country doesn't live in Dublin, by your own admittance. That would suggest plenty of jobs are in reality not in Dublin.

But you're now moving the goal posts again from the starting point of an average worker in the entire country, to specifically someone earning between 40-45k, and in only Dublin. And now apparently only those who will never get a promotion beyond that. And who are renting an entire 2100eur (so fairly high end) apartment to themselves, and only in South Dublin.

Which is rather amusing, its an impressive level of backpedaling.

So again I'd ask, how many people in the country do you think fit that exact demographic criteria? Since you think there are so many of them.

"the potential for career progression" is exactly the point I repeatedly made also, that even in your very specific demographic of someone earning 40-45k they won't stay earning that for long - they'll get promoted out of that income band and then have singificantly higher net income over the rest of their life than someone on welfare long term. Which does mean your own post is now arguing against your initial claim that staying on long term welfare was more beneificial than working for the average worker.

Someone can qualify for HAP up to an income of €48,000 depending on family size, also. Which does even further limit your very very specific demographic I guess.

agreed that a landlord shouldnt be able to evict during a fixed contract term, but once the initial contract is up, they should always be able to give notice to the tenant.

If they cant do that, we will chase them out of the industry and drive up rents in the process.

It is their property; as long as they abide by the contract, its up to them how long they wish to rent their own asset.

https://www.businesspost.ie/news/knight-frank-state-paying-premium-prices-for-apartments-that-investors-cant-justify/

The state through councils and AHBs is paying up to 600k for apartments. Investors are rightly baulking at these prices why is the state picking up the tab? To keep prices high.

Throwing money at demand side never works

Nick the first with the bike shelter story has uncovered another scandal

A person seemingly residing in emergency accomadation in receipt of multiple contracts to house IPA and also has multiple tax judgements against him

https://x.com/Nick_Delehanty/status/1889984104495738981?t=l4L1RwHJ5hNOqGZmXaGImw&s=09