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*

1908909911913914943

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    I said it before and I will say it again, the government have lots of land around the country (I would start in the Pheonix park where our President resides and who really in essence does phuck all and gets paid handsomely to do so). They need to hire the most cost effective workers from different countries (as our domestic construction workers take the p1ss when it comes to compensation) and get them manufacturing and delivering modular homes. Incentivize them by giving them a 5 year target say 500k or 10 year target of 1 million modular homes and if they complete that the company and all of their workers when they are leaving the country will get back every cent of tax they paid (income, VAT, etc). On the flip if they don't deliver our procurement procedure should start implementing time penalties which is common in the private sector when building things. Imagine what would of happened had they done this when building the children's hospital it would be definitely by now.

    The government can then use these homes to house those on welfare / homeless / refugees. It would allow actual housing to be used for the private sector it would have the knock on effect of bringing down both property and rent prices. The issue is they have let too many vultures and too many bleeding hearts dictate the housing supply and demand. If they approached it this way our issues would be sorted and at a fraction of the price. The question is has anyone got the b0ll0x to phuck over the domestic construction industry/REITS and the bleeding hearts who want 5 star all the way for every sad story going.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,709 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Rent caps should only have been a temporary measure until more housing got built. The govt introduced rent caps and didn't stimulate house building… That was the wrong thing to do. Nobody disagrees with that

    How do you protect tennants by keeping their rents affordable and at the same time make it profitable for landlords to increase the number of rental properties? I don't think you can, you have to choose to protect one or the other



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 839 ✭✭✭poop emoji


    It all goes back to not building enough homes and apartments

    Something we used to do well, too well

    Punishing landlords only ensures things get worse and worse for renters as they exit the market and sell to first time buyers, who at end of the day are the ones snapping up homes with large state sponsored subsidies at expense of renters

    It’s not renters vs landlords, it’s renters vs landlords→FTBs in a market where the pie is not growing anywhere as fast as the population



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Yeah you can a number of things can be done here.

    Have longer term leases as the norm 5/10/15/20 years (like other EU countries.) . If tenant wants out of long term lease there will be a penalty and same with the landlord.

    Rogue tenants don't get years to live in a place without paying rent and then walk away without payment or punishment and in a lot of cases wrecking the place on the way out.

    Implement a policy of the government not taxing rental income at the high cost it is now. If you told a landlord we will stop taxing you as much but you have to pass on 50% of that cost saving to the tenant and have proof of that. It would mean more profit for landlord and less rent to pay for tenant.

    Allow landlords to write off on tax the full amount paid for the full mortgage costs not just the interest before paying tax. The state would still get their dividend when the landlord sells with CGT.

    There are ways and means some may not be popular but until we build the 1 million modular homes I outlined in my last post this would go a long way to easing the rental side of things.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,351 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    The allowed reasons to evict people has not changed or being changed so no the landlord cannot legally evict people to get higher rent.

    There are existing rules set a limit on rent increase which are not being removed. That is not limited to 2% which only will apply to existing tenants. Security of tenure still exists.

    I know many people who were not effected by covid in terms of wages and were working from home. They decided to drop their rentals and move back home as they weren't needed in the offices in Dublin. Either way landlords lost money and not a tenant cared. You want landlords to think of the people but don't consider the tenant should think of the people who are landlords. That is why neither should and keep it professional. Many people were able to save for deposits while at home and is a big reason why house prices have risen outside of Dublin

    You really are exaggerating to make your points and don't know what is going on.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,709 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Agreed it's all to do with supply. There's also a big demand at the moment not helping matters. A demand that I expect will ease off in time to come as peace breaks out in Ukraine and Syria

    Punishing tennants only ensures things get worse and worse for the homeless figures as they exit their homes with nowhere else to go. Anything that's done in the immediate future, whether it's to punish tennants or landlords will be a double edged sword, at least in the short term. It's important to note that first time buyer grants are only for new builds so lets not incorrectly try to make FTBs look like the problem

    Will the removal of rent caps increase the supply of rentals? Hard to say, probably not in the short term as house and apartment prices are so high, but it might put a slow-down on the numbers of landlords leaving the sector which would obviously be a good thing. Homeless figures will also sky-rocket



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 839 ✭✭✭poop emoji


    There is a-lot more than grants (I didn’t even think of those!), first time buyers also get better interest rates and very generous tax treatment

    Only solution is to cut down in all the 🐂 💩 which is slowing down homebuilding and making it multiples more expensive than it used to be two decades ago when we overbuilt



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Changing the laws on rogue tenants would have the biggest influence on supply for rent, you cant expect someone to give a property over to someone they don't know with the law stacked on the tenants side which gives the tenant the legal right to dig in and not pay rent for years and then leave the place trashed without punishment or any cost to them. While that scenario is allowed to continue private landlords (in particular who have one or two properties) will be hesitant to give their property to anyone. Remember property prices have gone up by 50% since 2020 so just by leaving it vacant they are still on a winner.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    In addition the cost of finance is exceptionally high. Let's say it's roughly priced at 10%

    Cost of finance is highly correlated to risk. When a significant risk has been removed like a guaranteed buyer on completion, that cost should fall significantly. 5% would be a more appropriate charge in such circumstances

    That another 5% plus margin 1% total 6%

    Add the 12% savings made yesterday and we have 18% reduction in the cost per unit

    That's a saving of close to 100k per unit for FTB's, but the savings for FTB don't end there. Tax on new builds is 13.5% so if a ftb is now buying a home for 300k that originally cost 400k. That's a further saving for the buyer of €13,500 for the buyer

    Over 100k in potential savings to ftbs from one low cost simple measure.

    Get rid of all the grants and make admin savings also



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,709 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Can a landlord still evict somebody to put a property on the market? I know they used to be able to stick the property on daft for a few days, reject any offers and decide to keep it with new and better paying tennants when there was a 2-year rental increase rule.

    I do agree though the landlord-tennant relationship should be kept professional, the only crowd that should be thinking of the people is the govt.

    Just to be clear, FTBs don't get better interest rates and nor do they get generous tax treatment. Interest rates tend to favour the lower LTV rates which actually benefits non-FTBs more. They also have to pay the same levies and taxes as every other buyer!

    The only difference between a first and a second+ time buyer is that FTBs have to have a 10% deposit saved and everybody else needs to have 20%

    You have to balance rogue tenants with rogue landlords though

    I will say, whatever about the various laws, the speed at which a landlord can evict a rogue tennant is much too slow



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    I hear you on landlords there are some out there who are terrible and the laws were changed to try and even the playing field but went way to far to benefit the tenant and all it does is encourage landlords to stay off books or to take the property off the market. The quicker the powers that be build modular homes on a large scale for people who are not paying for rent/mortgages themselves and alleviate the pressure that has built up in both the buying and rental markets.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,351 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    A landlord to my knowledge has never been allowed to evict somebody to re rent a property at a higher rate. The certainly haven't been allowed for at least 20 years. You don't know anything of the such that landlords could advertise for a few days to get higher rent. That is a mixture of half stories you thought you understood but clearly didn't.

    Some landlords told tenants they were selling and evicted them but put it up for rent a short while later at a higher price without offering it back to the original tenant at the original rent. That is/was illegal. What you also conflated was where a landlord went to sell but didn't and then but it back to rental. If a landlord proved they were trying to sell such they did nothing wrong but still had to offer it back to the original tenant at the original rent. Which is/was legal. The RPZ meant it didn't matter who rented the rent had to be the same as the last rent and only go up 2% annually. I know some landlords did try what you think was allowed but they got fined. The same way some tenants trash places and don't pay rent but it not allowed but there really isn't any punishment for them.

    You didn't agree earlier about keeping things professional as you thought landlords should have compassion to their tenants and not think business. You also stated that if tenants' income dropped the landlord should take the hit and a lease meant nothing. Clearly you haven't actually joined up thinking.

    FTBs can get discounts/grants on buying new housing through things like affordable housing in estates. I paid 20k in stamp duty and now also have LTV so present FTB have gotten off certain levies others paid.

    You really should actually check what you are saying before you post because you don't know what you think you do.

    If you think rent can go up to 50% if RPZ is removed that means some landlord is subsidizing the tenants rent because of government mandates. If you see that as fair then why don't you pay to subsidize somebody else rent? Why should you make a landlord do it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,709 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    A landlord has to offer the original house back to the tenant if they don't sell, that is true, but only for a defined period of 12 months. In that time the tenant is likely after moving and settling in somewhere else

    What you are saying about FTBs is simply untrue. Affordable housing is only for those on a housing list, nothing at all to do with FTBs. You also have LTV, yes but for switchers and non-FTBs the LTV is generally lower so can attract lower interest rates. FTBs pay the exact same levies and duties and taxes as everybody else

    Take away RPZs and rents go up, that's simply a fact that you seem to struggle to understand

    You really should actually check what you are saying before you post because you don't know what you think you do

    Post edited by Red Silurian on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,709 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    At one point rents were going up 20%-30% with wages and inflation going up by single digit figures. Something had to be done to make things more fair. Was it right to introduce rent controls, yes, did the govt do a lot wrong in the implementation? Also, yes!

    But if you were the housing minister what would you do to bring in more landlords, and at the same time protect tennants?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,351 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    You and I can believe rents will go up if the RPZ is done away with will go up but it certainly doesn't make it fact. So I agree it will likely go up but you are ignoring who is getting this discounted non market rent and who is paying for it. I completely understand it where as you are ignoring a huge part of the equation of who pays for the discounted rent. The fact is RPZ punished landlords for not keeping their rent inline with the market rate of rents forcing them to keep rents low for every substantial tenant. You are also ignoring the other rent limit restrictions in place.

    https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning-a-home/help-with-buying-a-home/first-home-scheme/

    "First-time buyers and certain other people who want to buy a new home"

    This doesn't exist according to you and you must be on a housing list. I already pointed out I paid a levee FTBs aren't paying that I did but you ignored that.

    How does what you claimed about landlords kicking people out for higher rent have have a bearing on reality? Seems if a landlord spent a year trying to sell it seems reasonable for them to rent it out do you think it doesn't? You never answered why a landlord should subsidise a tenant and why you aren't. You could at least acknowledge you got it wrong or do you claim it is still true?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Encourage long term tenancies at a fixed rate say 5/10/20 years at the rate the market is currently so no increase not even the 2% a year and it cant be broken by tenant or landlord without a hefty penalty and the government giving the landlord a tax incentive to do this as in you the landlord don't pay as much tax but the trade is you cant put your price up for the next 5/10/20 years. Also the government could act as a kind of escrow account as in the tenant could leave the deposit with them and top this up with a small % of the rent each month as its going to cover any kind of damages they cause in the long term so no issues damages just comes out of this, same goes with the landlord they would pay a % of the rent received here if they have a case to answer for mistreating a tenent

    I would of also been building modular homes over the last 3/4 years as the housing issue exploded beyond a crisis, If you look at Oz they will have an additional 1.2million homes modularly built by 2029 at a low low cost of 54million. Why cant we do this and take the demand for homes coming from welfare, students and refugees off the private sector as I said this would bring down both the price to buy and to rent? - The cynic in my thinks there are too many vested interests for anything like this to happen.

    https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/more-homes-more-quickly-albo-promises-prefab-homes-to-answer-housing-pinch/news-story/5b4069830046d867bff47c6f4642c2a0?utm_source=chatgpt.com



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,709 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Discounted rent is 2k a month in your books… Funny…

    That's the first home scheme, if you follow your own link you will se it's not only open to FTBs.

    To be fair most homes don't come with a levee. If you bought a house with a long narrow ridge of material running along the banks of a river surely that was your choice.

    When it comes to taxes what a FTB will pay and what a second+ time buyer will pay are the exact same,

    I'm not sure why you continue to make up stuff, maybe you're in some landlord alliance or something trying to spread disinformation but it is getting tiring now and thankfully not working



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,709 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Yeah, on the one hand I was scratching my head with the 2% rent hike allowance when it first came in, with inflation at zero I felt it was unfair. Inflation the last few years hit double-digits, which also made the 2% rate unfair in my books. I think rental increases should be the same as inflation or a fraction of it. Long leases are a great idea. Another idea is if local authorities or some independent body were to set the prices the landlords can charge based on location and size

    I'm not sure modular homes are necessarily the answer. With the weather we get here they would need to be pretty sturdy, not saying they aren't or indeed that there wasn't some dodgy stuff in the past but it's a consideration. I think they had a modular homes idea a few years ago but it was going to cost €250k each before you even look at buying the land they sit on. A far cry form the AU$45 per home you've quoted, which I suspect is missing a few zeros

    You may have hit the nail on the head with vested interests comment. The current situation allows property developers and banks to make big profits of the back of the people, I suspect the landlords will get their way also regarding the RPZs.

    These are FF and FGs 3 biggest voter groups. Why look after the homeless when they probably won't vote for you?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,351 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    If the going rent for the area is 3k yes 2k is a discounted. Why should 2 identical houses beside each other have tenants paying a 1k difference? This is happening at the moment and I am asking you to explain why you think that is fair. You have yet to answer why such a situation is fair on landlords and tenants?

    Well done auto correct allowed you make a funny. Reality is I paid 20k more than and FTB are exempt from a new build stamp duty.

    Tell me exactly what I made up.

    What you made up is

    1. Claimed that landlords could legally kick out a tenant for higher rent
    2. Landlords could put up an ad for a few days to rent at a higher price and it was legal
    3. The proposed changes to RPZ was the removal of RPZ
    4. Landlords can raise rent by any amount if RPZ was removed
    5. FTB have no help
    6. You know for a fact what will happen for an event that hasn't happened or even proposed
    7. People on minimum wage are paying full rent to live on their own

    You can correct me if I am wrong and I will do the same for your claims.

    Pretty sure I have answered all your question but you just ignore mine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 839 ✭✭✭poop emoji


    ”so no increase not even the 2% a year”

    That’s financial illiteracy right there

    Inflation target is 2% by central banks

    Why would anyone invest 100s of thousands at zero % interest below inflation and endue all the hassle when even Irish government own bonds give 100% guaranteed savings with higher interest that tax free over at statesavings.ie



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,709 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Perhaps explain why you think FTBs are exempt from stamp duty and also why you think you paid 20k more than a FTB equivalent

    Your grasp of putting sentences together is so bad I'm not sure if you're trying to say First Time Buyers are exempt from stamp duty? Regardless that's simply not true, first time buyers pay stamp duty.

    I'm actually not even going to waste my energy on replying to what you think I made up



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,351 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Because you can't as you obviously didn't know what you are talking about and have been caught. FTB are exempt for stamp duty on new builds under 125sqm. I didn't say I paid 20K more than FTB at the time just I paid it. The stamp duties changed but a FTB would have paid less.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Read my suggestion in the round as I said the difference would be made up by the reduction/abolition of taxes paid on the income of the rental and after the period of time the landlord is free to up the rent to the market value. I reckon no landlord would object providing they are getting as much if not more into their hand at the end of the month. Along with an asset that from 2020 to now (less than 5 years) has gone up by 50% in value so it would outstrip your state savings idea and then some



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 839 ✭✭✭poop emoji


    How much an asset goes up is a pointless metric if one can’t evict tenants to sell

    And houses with tenants sell at lower prices, that’s assuming those tenants don’t create thousands of euro worth of damage and get away with it as they always do

    Eitherway it’s a daft suggestion that would further hurt renters

    Just cut down on the bullshit that’s preventing homes being built, the answer is more homes, everything else just ensures renters get screwed more and more



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Did you read any of my posts?? as I am with you on this and I have stated the biggest issue for landlords is asking them to put their property on the rental market to someone completely unknown and where the law favors them and almost promotes a tenant acting the b0ll0x and not paying rent for years and doing damage as there is zero repercussions.

    How would it hurt renters if the savings made by not taxing a rental is shared 50/50 by both landlord and tenant it would reduce rent prices and the landlord would make more.

    If the bullsh1t that is preventing building on a higher scale was possible to alleviate quicker I think it would of all ready been done. I have suggested building modular homes on a much higher scale and using these to rent or house the homeless, dolees and refugees and leave housing to the private market.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,709 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    The problem with relying on the asset going up in perpetuality is, well, that's a very bad thing to rely on... A tax exemption for landlords isn't a bad idea and could even be introduced as things stand. Even something as simple as a relief on the first few thousand € earned could woo some landlords back or just stop them from leaving

    But you would need to couple that with building more homes. You could incentivise this at near zero costs by making the planning permission system more straightforward, and I think most crucially, faster!

    The current system is up to 30 weeks long. Bring that down to about 20 and you'd have a gamechanger on supply for a near zero cost



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    In the history of property in Ireland its very rare for the price to dip and in the long term prices will always go up just like inflation and prices of most things. As I say the domestic construction industry are creaming profits on any kind of construction work , have you got any kind of construction work done over the last while these boyos do not get out of bed unless its mega bucks even small extensions have gone through the roof (excuse the pun) . The gov needs to get workers in on a lower wage creating modular homes quicker and less expensive to take the heat completely out of the market.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 839 ✭✭✭poop emoji


    ok fair enough I see now where you coming from



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,351 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Given the majority of rentals are large companies that actually don't pay tax on rental income that just won't work. It would only be a small section of rentals that could work like that. It is like you have no understanding of the actual rental market and are just making stuff up.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,709 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Sadly if we want to get houses built we need the construction industry to be creaming profits. Modular homes are probably a part of the solution as well. Not sure they will be cheaper here but they'll add an option to stabilise the price at least



Advertisement
Advertisement