Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rent

2

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭Assetbacked


    beauf wrote: »
    Really what it means is that some portion of development should always be set aside for social need and properly enforced. We aren't doing that. Also we have to control demand. You can't keep fueling a fire you are trying to put out.

    Absolutely, we are at full employment. It's time for the IDA to stop getting more companies to move here as we cannot handle the number of people at the current time. Public transport and housing services need to catch up on the explosion of the numbers working in Ireland the last 6 years.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭Salary Negotiator


    If your figures are correct that’s an average of 350k per house which isn’t outlandish by any means. That’s an average also so for sure there would have been houses cheaper on the estate too.

    I’m not sure how you would propose to stop a person selling to the buyer that they want to sell to, we aren’t a communist country.

    And another question is could the council have built the houses cheaper? Is the answer is no then it was good business for the council.


  • Registered Users Posts: 48 washburn73


    Absolutely, we are at full employment. It's time for the IDA to stop getting more companies to move here as we cannot handle the number of people at the current time. Public transport and housing services need to catch up on the explosion of the numbers working in Ireland the last 6 years.


    That is the most laughable suggestion I have ever heard.... Stop inward investment because we need infrastructure to catch up with the number of people in current employment? What do you think pays for the investment that we badly need in infrastructure (transport, telecommunications, education, health)?

    Taxes from economic activity.

    But your rationale is to close the door to any new activity to solve the current problem?!?!

    Wow, the Poles, French and Italians would love to have you in charge of Ireland. They'd welcome the ones you turn away with open arms.

    Absolute nonsense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,001 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Sussy wrote: »
    I think is greed. Also short term contracts and unfurnished properties on the rise on daft. Is absolutely out of control.

    Greed ? On what basis ? Unfurnished properties is the nlrm ouside of ireland. Llts of people on thjs forum wishing to rent unfurnised. Most of the laws are geared towards the tenants. Whats the issue ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    The well off in Irish society are those who own property. For people to have extra cash in their pocket from their salary each month as a result of not having to pay so much for somewhere to live, this is better for society as the cash would be spread around different sectors rather than having one sector hoover up that cash.

    We need to get to a point where it is possible to rent something really cheap for oneself, if desired, for the good of the social and emotional health of society. Then people can pay more for a better quality of place. This demands that property and land prices plummet.

    People who own property are not well off, they have scarificed and are paying or have paid for the property. It never ceases to amaze me that people who have made life choices should somehow be held responsible for those who made different life choices that did not work out for them.

    At what point should people actually have to live with their choices and accept the consequences of their choices.

    Why is it when something goes wrong its societies issue rather than the individuals.

    We did have low cost places to rent in the form of bedsits, the govt decided to close them at a time when we did not have any replacements. We know have a situation where we all went high standards of accommodation but don't want to pay for it.

    We have to decide what we need not want, we need accommodation, we want accommodation that meets very high standards. If we want the high standards then someone has to pay for it.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭Assetbacked


    People who own property are not well off, they have scarificed and are paying or have paid for the property. It never ceases to amaze me that people who have made life choices should somehow be held responsible for those who made different life choices that did not work out for them.

    At what point should people actually have to live with their choices and accept the consequences of their choices.

    Why is it when something goes wrong its societies issue rather than the individuals.

    We did have low cost places to rent in the form of bedsits, the govt decided to close them at a time when we did not have any replacements. We know have a situation where we all went high standards of accommodation but don't want to pay for it.

    We have to decide what we need not want, we need accommodation, we want accommodation that meets very high standards. If we want the high standards then someone has to pay for it.

    People who own property are the well off. I'm not begrudging, just stating a fact.


  • Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Ronaldinho


    washburn73 wrote: »
    That is the most laughable suggestion I have ever heard.... Stop inward investment because we need infrastructure to catch up with the number of people in current employment? What do you think pays for the investment that we badly need in infrastructure (transport, telecommunications, education, health)?

    Taxes from economic activity.

    But your rationale is to close the door to any new activity to solve the current problem?!?!

    Wow, the Poles, French and Italians would love to have you in charge of Ireland. They'd welcome the ones you turn away with open arms.

    Absolute nonsense.

    Assetbacked is dead right. Dublin is going through massive growing pains at the moment thanks to the Govt's pro-business agenda. Over the last 5 years, for every 12 jobs created only one home has been built.

    Going for 5%+ yoy economic growth and ***k the consequences is not a good policy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    And another question is could the council have built the houses cheaper? Is the answer is no then it was good business for the council.

    The cost of housing isn't simply build costs.

    Isn't most social provision run at a loss?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,864 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    People who own property are the well off. I'm not begrudging, just stating a fact.

    The vast majority of people who own property are more in debt then those who don’t, a mortgage is a debt and has to be repaid, usually with the proceeds from rental income on the property. The vast majority of LLs are also single rental property owners, many of whom have put their savings into it, and are relying on gains to make life easier as they plan for retirement. A considerable number have properties bought for more than they are now worth, even though prices have risen, so it’s a bit disingenuous to categorise all LLs as “well off”.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    People who own property are the well off. I'm not begrudging, just stating a fact.

    One person can own 2 houses worth the same as one other person's house. They aren't well off as a result. It isn't a fact they are well off it is your opinion.

    A landlord provides a service and you pay for it.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭Salary Negotiator


    beauf wrote: »
    The cost of housing isn't simply build costs.

    Isn't most social provision run at a loss?

    No it’s not, but in terms of acquisition it’s either build or buy. The on going costs, I guess, would be the same regardless of how the property was acquired.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    People who own property are the well off. I'm not begrudging, just stating a fact.

    So if you are in negative equity are you well off?


  • Registered Users Posts: 329 ✭✭The_Fitz


    Could anything be taken from the Berlin rent freeze and capping rent at a certain amount per square meter?*



    *I have no idea how this would work in practice.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    The_Fitz wrote: »
    Could anything be taken from the Berlin rent freeze and capping rent at a certain amount per square meter?*

    *I have no idea how this would work in practice.

    Nothing Berlin has done has worked. So based on that probably not.

    The stupid part is every one else copying what they did and expecting a different result.
    In 2015, a rent control mechanism was introduced across Germany. The research cites evidence showing that between 2015 and 2017 rents in central Berlin increased by almost 10%. Before the introduction of the control they had been rising by just 1% to 2% each year.

    https://www.propertywire.com/news/uk/rent-controls-hurt-tenants-by-drying-up-the-supply-of-homes-to-rent/
    Berlin’s plan to control surging housing costs is diverting investment from the squeezed market even before a rent freeze comes into force, according to the city’s largest residential landlord....

    ....Deutsche Wohnen has postponed construction projects in Berlin and will instead focus on other cities. The company said earlier this month that its inability to raise rents significantly, combined with potential mandated rent reductions, presents a risk to cash flow of as much as 330 million euros ($363 million) over five years.


    https://www.yahoo.com/news/berlin-biggest-landlord-warning-over-090000487.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD1j9ytbXpRBZV1sAh24wnIuoVOticoFLn2EOOIb7kLoxu4MrGOt-AW4DRxYOwmkVJd54sJ-ImvZQGTXpcpegVpB3IP2kAh7TSLdP-n6n3p5amLkmGu74i51jezEVo1NBpuI1HM70e8zXeLLB5BKw6OA1xch21xIpgD4cy9qvdu5

    I don't think anyone will be losing sleep abuot their profits. The only concern is how it effects supply.

    At this point though its pointless to suggest anything. No one is listening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,864 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    The_Fitz wrote: »
    Could anything be taken from the Berlin rent freeze and capping rent at a certain amount per square meter?*



    *I have no idea how this would work in practice.

    This came up on another thread, rent freeze does not apply to property built in the last five years. I was in Berlin recently and I was surprised at the number of derelict buildings in University area on way to airport, taxi told me construction had slowed due to new legislation introducing rent freeze.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,001 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Absolutely, we are at full employment. It's time for the IDA to stop getting more companies to move here as we cannot handle the number of people at the current time. Public transport and housing services need to catch up on the explosion of the numbers working in Ireland the last 6 years.

    This is absolute nonsensical drival.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭Field east


    It should be noted DAFT supplies data on asking rents, the actual RTB figures for current rents are lower. The figures bandied about in the media are DAFT's figures which are skewed by new entrants to the market.

    Another aspect that is never captured is the number of tenants involved re what is advertised for renting. The RTB have all the information to present this figure. All registered accommodation have to give the number of tenants and the weekly/monthly rent. I OFTEN WONDER why it does not produce this figure.
    This figure will tell us what the rent per month per occupant is. The Daft figs only give the asking price for a house/flat/ apt to rent but we have no idea the number of occupants that each can accommodate.

    Another possibility that is not captured is the following point.
    During the Celtic Tiger era we had so much money paying for accommodation was not a problem and the typical tenant could afford to rent ,for example, a two to three bedroom house and him/herself or / and wife / partner would be the sole occupants even though the accommodation could comfortably house another two to three people - depending.
    But during the austerity period - as far as expensive accommodation/ reduction in buying power is concerned- I would have expected that some tenants would have been very happy to shack up/ share their accommodation to keep the rent cost per head down


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭DubCount


    IMHO rent controls/rent freezes just do not work.

    The first thing to suffer is quality - why should a LL invest in painting, decorating, new furniture, fixing things or just about anything else, when he/she can achieve the same rent with or without the work being done?

    In other markets, it also tends to make cash top ups popular, as competing prospective tenants seek to secure a property by offering such top ups.

    It then makes any "new" rental properties more expensive, because artificially keeping the price of other properties low means a natural undersupply which is inflationary on whatever new stock becomes available.

    Being a LL is an investment choice. Choice is the key word - Irish property is not the only investment in the world. You need to create a situation where investors will choose Irish property as an investment, which is not happening right now. Artificially trying to keep prices down by rent control will simply not work.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭Assetbacked


    This is absolute nonsensical drival.

    We need to control immigration to Dublin. More people are arriving each week to work than there are beds coming available. We are at full employment and have made no progress on housebuilding for many years so it would not be a bad thing to either cut funding to the Ida or else to get them to stop promoting Dublin.

    Worst city in the world for housing. The world! That is astonishing. It's not even like the quality of places to live is exceptionally high. Desperate measures are needed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,001 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    We need to control immigration to Dublin. More people are arriving each week to work than there are beds coming available. We are at full employment and have made no progress on housebuilding

    for many years so it would not be a bad thing to either cut funding to the Ida or else to get them to stop promoting Dublin.

    Worst city in the world for housing. The world! That is astonishing. It's not even like the quality of places to live is exceptionally high. Desperate measures are needed.

    This is such a poor opinion. I really dont know what to reply


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,158 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    As a Landlord I would have no problem with fair rent freezes IF tax figures can be agreed or standardised beforehand for as long as the freeze applies. The problem with the rent freeze is that you don't know what your tax bill will be and its typically 6-9k per house assuming you have no major expenses (and even if you do, sure they have to be paid for).

    Some form of agreement could be done in my opinion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6 AK_47


    I think AirB&B destabilised the market big time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,864 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    AK_47 wrote: »
    I think AirB&B destabilised the market big time.

    Airbnb is a symptom not the disease. Property owners who previously wanted tenants no longer have confidence in the rental market. It is less risk and more profitable to short let.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6 AK_47


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Airbnb is a symptom not the disease. Property owners who previously wanted tenants no longer have confidence in the rental market. It is less risk and more profitable to short let.

    But why would landlords prefer to use AirB&B and pay 52% of tax and constantly deal with brand new short term guests rather than have one stable tenant who pays the bills and rent? If they are scared of the Part 4 tenants who after 6 months get more rights, then offer your place for 5 months only or secure yourself with 1 year lease.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    AK_47 wrote: »
    But why would landlords prefer to use AirB&B and pay 52% of tax and constantly deal with brand new short term guests rather than have one stable tenant who pays the bills and rent? If they are scared of the Part 4 tenants who after 6 months get more rights, then offer your place for 5 months only or secure yourself with 1 year lease.

    Less likely to overstay I would assume and higher margins.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    AK_47 wrote: »
    I think AirB&B destabilised the market big time.

    These problems existed before AirBnb. Problems started long before that.


  • Posts: 0 Analia Fat Cross


    AK_47 wrote: »
    But why would landlords prefer to use AirB&B and pay 52% of tax and constantly deal with brand new short term guests rather than have one stable tenant who pays the bills and rent? If they are scared of the Part 4 tenants who after 6 months get more rights, then offer your place for 5 months only or secure yourself with 1 year lease.

    1. I don't know where you're getting the tax figure from, but anybody I know who rented via airBnB paid zero tax
    2. Any Air BnB I've rented involved collecting the keys from one of those combination lock things connected to the railings outside or nearby, with very little interaction with the owner.
    3. Imagine the fcuking uproar on here if even a quarter of landlords just decided to only offer 5 month tenancies and a significant number of people had to move twice a year.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    1. I don't know where you're getting the tax figure from, but anybody I know who rented via airBnB paid zero tax
    2. Any Air BnB I've rented involved collecting the keys from one of those combination lock things connected to the railings outside or nearby, with very little interaction with the owner.
    3. Imagine the fcuking uproar on here if even a quarter of landlords just decided to only offer 5 month tenancies and a significant number of people had to move twice a year.

    If the paid no tax on Airbnb they are committing tax fraud. Very simple you declare and pay taxes on all income.

    The tax rate is no different to tax on rental income but margins are higher.

    Revenue have all the records from Airbnb and are going after landlords. Given planning is required to use a property for Airbnb they are also likely breaking planning laws as so few even applied. There could be hefty fines for a lot of people coming. They were warned so no excuse


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    We need to control immigration to Dublin. More people are arriving each week to work than there are beds coming available. We are at full employment and have made no progress on housebuilding for many years so it would not be a bad thing to either cut funding to the Ida or else to get them to stop promoting Dublin.

    Worst city in the world for housing. The world! That is astonishing. It's not even like the quality of places to live is exceptionally high. Desperate measures are needed.

    If we stop people coming to Dublin (which is where most would be located due to the location of the employment and the desire for access to facilities) where do they go.

    You do realise we are a small open economy who needs FDI. These would be high earning individuals paying income tax and spending in the economy. This self same tax that would be used to fund house building (be it social or affordable etc).

    Who do you expect to pay for the social and affordable housing ? is it the working middle income who are above assistance for state support but below what they need to get a mortgage?

    I am curious as to who you see funding this?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,864 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    AK_47 wrote: »
    But why would landlords prefer to use AirB&B and pay 52% of tax and constantly deal with brand new short term guests rather than have one stable tenant who pays the bills and rent? If they are scared of the Part 4 tenants who after 6 months get more rights, then offer your place for 5 months only or secure yourself with 1 year lease.

    Airbnb guests usually leave on Sunday morning, and payment is guaranteed, in advance. Also hosts apply a cleaning charge (€70 in my case) for the “hassle” of cleaning afterwards, that takes care of linen/cleaning costs.


Advertisement