Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
14-01-2020, 23:10   #46
InstaSte
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,956
I’m surprised there isn’t more landlords in Dublin since everyone here seems to think it’s a great gig altogether.
InstaSte is offline  
Advertisement
14-01-2020, 23:17   #47
Donald Trump
Registered User
 
Donald Trump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by InstaSte View Post
Who said anything about risk free?

Landlords who bought apartments in Clongriffin in 2007 for €350,000 are about €100,000 in negative enquire right now, whilst paying at least half the mortgage.

Why do tenants think they should be entitled to decent rental accommodation provided by private landlords?

They should live within their means, out of the city, save up and get a mortgage like those before us.

Well, you see, plenty of greedy entitled amateurs pushed up demand which pushed up prices which meant those renters couldn't afford, or wisely chose not to, buy those clongriffin places. Why should they cover the mistakes of the eejits who got money thrown at them by stupid bank managers?

I'm not sure if yours is a serious post. You want the tenants to move out of houses and move to somewhere more affordable for them. I'd be for that too. It would bring rents down. It won't help the eejits with multiple apartments in Clongriffin but sure that's their loss.
Donald Trump is offline  
14-01-2020, 23:21   #48
Donald Trump
Registered User
 
Donald Trump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by InstaSte View Post
I’m surprised there isn’t more landlords in Dublin since everyone here seems to think it’s a great gig altogether.

Who said it's a great gig? There are plenty on crying that it should be a great gig i.e. that they should be allowed to gazump on a house or apartment and then have the rival bidder rent it from them and pay for their mortgage.

Why not just have what is effectively the equivalent rule? That if you see a house that you think will be nice for your pension in 30 years, that you can let Jimmy buy it and pay the mortgage and then in 30 years you are allowed to take it from him and sell it. It's the same attitude. In both scenarios it is the Bank's money you are buying it with. In both scenarios Jimmy will pay the mortgage. And in both scenarios you can sell it in 30 years and keep the money.
Donald Trump is offline  
14-01-2020, 23:35   #49
jacdaniel2014
Registered User
 
jacdaniel2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 560
Jobs need to be moved away from Dublin City Centre. It has to happen!

While property is a big issue, traffic congestion is even worse.

I moved to Navan. Most of my commute home is queuing to get out of Dublin. Took me an hour today to get from Santry to Blanch. It’s 2 stops on the motorway like, ridiculous.
Only 20 mins then back to Navan.

Creating jobs elsewhere will help with both property and traffic.
jacdaniel2014 is offline  
14-01-2020, 23:38   #50
Padre_Pio
Registered User
 
Padre_Pio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Trump View Post
Who said it's a great gig? There are plenty on crying that it should be a great gig i.e. that they should be allowed to gazump on a house or apartment and then have the rival bidder rent it from them and pay for their mortgage.

Why not just have what is effectively the equivalent rule? That if you see a house that you think will be nice for your pension in 30 years, that you can let Jimmy buy it and pay the mortgage and then in 30 years you are allowed to take it from him and sell it. It's the same attitude. In both scenarios it is the Bank's money you are buying it with. In both scenarios Jimmy will pay the mortgage. And in both scenarios you can sell it in 30 years and keep the money.
That's in no way a fair comparison.
Hertz uses the bank's money to buy a fleet of cars. Renter's cash pays the banks. After X years Hertz is left with fully paid off cars + profit. How is this different?

You also fail to mention the following:
"Jimmy" has no obligation or investment in the house.
Jimmy gets the use of the house immediately, for no cost other than a deposit and rent.

House burns down? no loss, save his posessions that happen to be inside.
Stuff breaks? Who cares? Landlord pays.
House price crashes? Not a problem. Walk away.
Want to move? Just leave.

And of course in Ireland:
Dont want to pay rent? That's fine.
Decide to pull the copper out of the walls? Go for it!
Decide to sublet to a group of lads who wreck the place? No problem.

Buy to let is an investment. If people arent allowed to rent and make an eventual profit then your argument is an argument against renting ANYTHING.
Padre_Pio is offline  
Advertisement
14-01-2020, 23:40   #51
InstaSte
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre_Pio View Post
That's in no way a fair comparison.

"Jimmy" has no obligation or investment in the house.
Jimmy gets the use of the house immediately, for no cost other than a deposit and rent.

House burns down? no loss, save his posessions that happen to be inside.
Stuff breaks? Who cares? Landlord pays.
House price crashes? Not a problem. Walk away.
Want to move? Just leave.

And of course in Ireland:
Dont want to pay rent? That's fine.
Decide to pull the copper out of the walls? Go for it!
Decide to sublet to a group of lads who wreck the place? No problem.

Buy to let is an investment. If people arent allowed to rent and make an eventual profit then your argument is an argument against renting ANYTHING.
Couldn’t have said it better myself
InstaSte is offline  
(2) thanks from:
14-01-2020, 23:40   #52
lainey_d_123
Registered User
 
lainey_d_123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 1,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacdaniel2014 View Post
Jobs need to be moved away from Dublin City Centre. It has to happen!

While property is a big issue, traffic congestion is even worse.

I moved to Navan. Most of my commute home is queuing to get out of Dublin. Took me an hour today to get from Santry to Blanch. It’s 2 stops on the motorway like, ridiculous.
Only 20 mins then back to Navan.

Creating jobs elsewhere will help with both property and traffic.
Or even changing the work culture to allow more remote working. Most office workers don't need to be in the office. At a time when almost everyone has access to fast broadband and can dial into meetings, it's obscene that people are making ridiculous commutes to get to an office in Dublin when they live miles away. I don't know what job you personally do but imagine if you were able to work from home and only go to the office once a month or once a fortnight...all that time saved, money saved, pollution saved, and less pressure on the Dublin rental market.

Employers in Ireland need to get with the times and be more open to flexible work patterns and working from home.
lainey_d_123 is offline  
14-01-2020, 23:45   #53
Donald Trump
Registered User
 
Donald Trump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre_Pio View Post
That's in no way a fair comparison.
Hertz uses the bank's money to buy a fleet of cars. Renter's cash pays the banks. After X years Hertz is left with fully paid off cars + profit. How is this different?

You also fail to mention the following:
"Jimmy" has no obligation or investment in the house.
Jimmy gets the use of the house immediately, for no cost other than a deposit and rent.

House burns down? no loss, save his posessions that happen to be inside.
Stuff breaks? Who cares? Landlord pays.
House price crashes? Not a problem. Walk away.
Want to move? Just leave.

And of course in Ireland:
Dont want to pay rent? That's fine.
Decide to pull the copper out of the walls? Go for it!
Decide to sublet to a group of lads who wreck the place? No problem.

Buy to let is an investment. If people arent allowed to rent and make an eventual profit then your argument is an argument against renting ANYTHING.
If Hertz uses 1million of the banks money to buy a fleet of cars, rents them for 10 years, pays off the loan, do you think that when they go to sell them in 10 years that they'll also have the 1million money back?

Your Hertz example is actually closer to what I explained for the professional investor who will try to target that at the end, that the value of the asset will cover any outstanding debts. The amateur, as was indicated above by another poster, requires that the tenant covers the mortgage so that the "owner" gets a free house in 30 years.

As for insurance, do you think that landlords insure tenants possessions? Do you not realise that most property owners will insure their property?

The other stuff is precisely the reason why it should be professional landlords.

Last edited by Donald Trump; 15-01-2020 at 00:03.
Donald Trump is offline  
15-01-2020, 00:02   #54
Padre_Pio
Registered User
 
Padre_Pio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Trump View Post
Lol dude.

If Hertz uses 1million of the banks money to buy a fleet of cars, rents them for 10 years, pays off the loan, do you think that when they go to sell them in 10 years that they'll also have the 1million money back? Actually, maybe you do think that
If Hertz didn't make their money, they wouldn't be around. The cars are worth almost nothing after a few years, but the rental cost is more than enough to cover depreciation and turn profit. Obviously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Trump View Post
As for insurance, do you think that landlords insure tenants possessions? Do you not realise that most property owners will insure their property
Landlords don't insure tenants posessions, or at leasst have the most basic contents protection. No landlord has gone room to room, totted up the value of what I have and increased their coverage.
Yes a landlord will have house insurance, but the tenant doesn't give a f*ck, they can just move on.


My point stands. There are many luxuries to renting. I've never had to fork out to fix a boiler in my rented house. Never had to paint a room. Never had to change flooring, or a kitchen. Never bought an appliance or a matress.

I moved into a brand new build and all I paid was a few thousand. I won't need the hassle of selling, never have to pay estate agent. LPT doesn't concern me. If a pipe bursts and the foundations are f*cked, I don't care.

I pay my rent. Some people say it's dead money. I say that it's perfect for me right now. I'll buy a house when I see one I like and assume all the responsibility that comes with it. For now though, I have a worry free life.
Padre_Pio is offline  
(4) thanks from:
Advertisement
15-01-2020, 00:17   #55
Donald Trump
Registered User
 
Donald Trump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padre_Pio View Post
If Hertz didn't make their money, they wouldn't be around. The cars are worth almost nothing after a few years, but the rental cost is more than enough to cover depreciation and turn profit. Obviously.


Landlords don't insure tenants posessions, or at leasst have the most basic contents protection. No landlord has gone room to room, totted up the value of what I have and increased their coverage.
Yes a landlord will have house insurance, but the tenant doesn't give a f*ck, they can just move on.


My point stands. There are many luxuries to renting. I've never had to fork out to fix a boiler in my rented house. Never had to paint a room. Never had to change flooring, or a kitchen. Never bought an appliance or a matress.

I moved into a brand new build and all I paid was a few thousand. I won't need the hassle of selling, never have to pay estate agent. LPT doesn't concern me. If a pipe bursts and the foundations are f*cked, I don't care.

I pay my rent. Some people say it's dead money. I say that it's perfect for me right now. I'll buy a house when I see one I like and assume all the responsibility that comes with it. For now though, I have a worry free life.

I still don't understand you point.

If I rent a house I insure the contents.

If I buy a house, I insure the contents and the building. I probably have to as part of the mortgage requirements. Are you saying that the landlord deserves to own the property because he paid for the buildings insurance???

You're renting because it suits you. But then do you not see the folly in a lot of amateur landlords who think that they should be entitled to have a renter or renters pay their mortgage for them? By all means let them invest in what they want. But I think that the conventional general recommendation is not to have more than 10% in property. It's the same thing as putting all your money on Facebook shares. You can do it if you want but don't expect any sympathy if they tank in 10 years just because everyone else was doing it and prices were going up. You have the additional complication that the house brings added headache that the "investor" might not be able to deal with efficiently.


If people are investing and putting up all the capital or perhaps buying equity in a vehicle that will put the money up to develop a property then that has some value to society. But if they are getting a high LTV mortgage from the Bank and just outbidding the local family by 5k on an already built house or apartment then that adds very little.
Donald Trump is offline  
15-01-2020, 00:37   #56
AngeloArgue
Registered User
 
AngeloArgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelga View Post
Why is the cost of property, esp renting, so high in Dublin?
Demand driven by FDI and immigration
AngeloArgue is offline  
Thanks from:
15-01-2020, 00:49   #57
sasta le
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,105
Lack of building,high welfare rents paid,1000s of foreigners moving here
sasta le is offline  
15-01-2020, 00:57   #58
$hifty
Registered User
 
$hifty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Trump View Post
Well, you see, plenty of greedy entitled amateurs pushed up demand which pushed up prices which meant those renters couldn't afford, or wisely chose not to, buy those clongriffin places. Why should they cover the mistakes of the eejits who got money thrown at them by stupid bank managers?

I'm not sure if yours is a serious post. You want the tenants to move out of houses and move to somewhere more affordable for them. I'd be for that too. It would bring rents down. It won't help the eejits with multiple apartments in Clongriffin but sure that's their loss.
You're talking in circles here. Those renters chose not buy those places, wisely, you say? Yet they've spent how much in rent since then? How many people were in a position to buy in 2007, chose not to, and regret it today, would you say? Even as a percentage? I reckon its 95%+.

Also, your last line really shows your true colours. Landlords who are struggling to make payments on their property due to low rents = their loss. Tenants struggling to find a place abd/or pay the rent = somebody please help! Why is it OK for you to say 'their loss' but not OK for others to say it to those renting today?

People bought like mad in the early noughties, rightly or wrongly. The crash happened, and there was a wave of smug complacency from those who hadn't bought anything. Rents fell like lead and the consensus was "tough, should've thought of that earlier."

Now the market has swung the other way due to lack of supply and the smugness has disappeared, mostly. Instead it's "people can't buy cos they're stuck paying higher rents."

Well, should've thought of that earlier.

I know for a fact that a bigger 2 bed in that Santry development linked earlier was available for €750 per month in 2009. That same apartment is rented out for €1400 now, and the only reason it's not higher is because the LL did the 2010 tenants a favour for sticking with him through the bad times and kept rent well below market rate. They moved out 3 months after the RPZ legislation came in because they'd saved a deposit. The LL has increased it by the max every available opportunity since then and he's still 6000 per year worse off than if he'd been a bad guy.
$hifty is offline  
Thanks from:
15-01-2020, 01:09   #59
Donald Trump
Registered User
 
Donald Trump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by $hifty View Post
You're talking in circles here. Those renters chose not buy those places, wisely, you say? Yet they've spent how much in rent since then? How many people were in a position to buy in 2007, chose not to, and regret it today, would you say? Even as a percentage? I reckon its 95%+.

Also, your last line really shows your true colours. Landlords who are struggling to make payments on their property due to low rents = their loss. Tenants struggling to find a place abd/or pay the rent = somebody please help! Why is it OK for you to say 'their loss' but not OK for others to say it to those renting today?

People bought like mad in the early noughties, rightly or wrongly. The crash happened, and there was a wave of smug complacency from those who hadn't bought anything. Rents fell like lead and the consensus was "tough, should've thought of that earlier."

Now the market has swung the other way due to lack of supply and the smugness has disappeared, mostly. Instead it's "people can't buy cos they're stuck paying higher rents."

Well, should've thought of that earlier.

I know for a fact that a bigger 2 bed in that Santry development linked earlier was available for €750 per month in 2009. That same apartment is rented out for €1400 now, and the only reason it's not higher is because the LL did the 2010 tenants a favour for sticking with him through the bad times and kept rent well below market rate. They moved out 3 months after the RPZ legislation came in because they'd saved a deposit. The LL has increased it by the max every available opportunity since then and he's still 6000 per year worse off than if he'd been a bad guy.

What are you trying to say? You wrote a lot of words but actually made no point. It's all over the shop.
Donald Trump is offline  
15-01-2020, 01:31   #60
Padre_Pio
Registered User
 
Padre_Pio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Trump View Post
What are you trying to say? You wrote a lot of words but actually made no point. It's all over the shop.
He's saying that people can't have a functional rental sector while vilifying the people who provide it.

The government needs landlords to provide rental accommodation and it had plenty up until recent times.

The government wins votes by f*cking over landlords at every opportunity because Irish people have a weird cultural thing about owning property, see renting as "dead money", while also seeing their rented house as a home.

Landlords sell, supply goes down, rents go up, housing crisis is exacerbated. The government puts rental caps. Landlords leave, rent goes up The government introduces HAP. Rent goes up.

The government reaps what they sow.
Padre_Pio is offline  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search