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

4 years is too long to wait.

Rumours that the cap will be raised to 4%, but that it will be removed completely when the tenant leaves, so the LL can then revert to market rent/whatever they want to charge.

That is why a proper punitive vacancy tax is needed.

In reality the LL already raise the rent to market rate once the tenant leaves if the are not registered with the RTB which many aren't so I dont see this making a huge difference in increasing investment in the private rental sector

The cap should never have been set as anything other than the rate of inflation. When they first introduced the 4% rate it was unfair as inflation was running at 0%, when inflation was running at 10%+ landlords were unable to keep up with their own costs

Removing it completely is a bad idea as then you are left with crazy high rents that lead to the much hated rent pressure zones and you are caught in an infinite loop

The rental sector is a very complex beast and regulating it needs complex legislation. I would propose that rental rates should be a set amount decided upon by an outside body. The idea of me paying more than my nextdoor neighbour or moving over the road to get cheaper rent is foolish

The cap in its current form can't stay. A cap that isn't directly reflective of inflation is crazy one way or another, but having no cap would drive rental prices nuts and add to our homeless figures, which are already in crisis mode.

Unless we build many more houses we need a cap to protect the people from homelessness

Not removing the cap will drive our homeless figures up. Simply because no new rentals will get built.

We cant build more homes for rent without removing the cap. Thats the point.

The govt will probably need to subsidise the rent increases that come from removing the cap, at least in the short term, until supply catches up and rents naturally deflate.

Sticking with what we are doing now and leaving the cap and RPZ in place is the worst option of all, as new supply will literally dry up and homelessness will increase; New jobs and investment will start to bypass the country altogether.

So the government down valued landlords properties by introducing the possible rent via RPZ and then get to buy them at a lower price. Doesn't sound fair.

I already explained why properties go up in value not related to inflation and you want to decide how much they can make and curtail the benefits of the risk they take. Why would a landlord buy a rundown property do it up and rent in an area hoping it would improve? In your eyes if that happens the landlord should not get the rewards but the tenants should. This is precisely how many areas become gentrified and areas improve. Of course shops can up their price in the area as it is a free market. That is not a equal playing field but a sense of entitlement to profits/income made by a landlord. Are the tenants going to pay the landlord if they lose money on their investment?

100% mortgages are a bad idea. Instant negative equity if something happens

If you start thinking about homes as places where people live, rather than profit machines, you'll see it makes complete sense

We have minimum levels required when a property is rented out... The landlord that buys the rundown property and gets it ready for rental has likely spent less on it than the landlord that buys turnkey