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
Do landlords in Ireland have it as tough as they think?
Options
Comments
-
-
Ray Palmer wrote: »You seem to be mixing up the government subsidising stuff with landlords being stopped making a profit. You want landlords to subsidise tenants until the landlord owns the property. Landlords aren't the government nor a charity. They simply won't provide a service for free and pharma companies don't either hence they are subsidised by governments.
Why don't you start giving some of your wages to homeless charities rather than expecting landlords to do it as a business plan that nobody in their right mind would start.
Actually you asked about being stopped from collecting the market rate. In other words you think rents should be even higher. I gave several examples where you don't pay the market rate and far from it.
You think LLs are struggling because rents aren't high enough?0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »
Why don't you start giving some of your wages to homeless charities rather than expecting landlords to do it as a business plan that nobody in their right mind would start.
It's not just homeless people. The fact is that anyone on or below the median wage is being crushed by rent. And they're the most likely to be renting. It's not unusual to see people pay more than 50% of their wages. Rents are at an all time high. Higher than the boom. And yet we have people complaining that landlords can't make enough money.
Rents are increasing by nearly 20% a year in some places. It's hardly a squeezed business.0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »Actually you asked about being stopped from collecting the market rate. In other words you think rents should be even higher. I gave several examples where you don't pay the market rate and far from it.
You think LLs are struggling because rents aren't high enough?
No rents are not high enough in proportion to the risk factor of renting a property in this country. A security bond of at least 12 months rent should be held in trust or the laws changed to protect the landlord from damage and non payment of rent.0 -
It's not just homeless people. The fact is that anyone on or below the median wage is being crushed by rent. And they're the most likely to be renting. It's not unusual to see people pay more than 50% of their wages. Rents are at an all time high. Higher than the boom. And yet we have people complaining that landlords can't make enough money.
There is more tax and costs on rent since the boom, the landlord isn't getting the increase. The landlord's costs and losses are not connected to somebody else's wage. Due to losses in the life time of keeping the property available as a service landlords took losses that they have to recoup at a higher tax rate.
When rent was dropping 20%+ and taxes and costs increased on landlords did you care? As I explained €1 increase in income to the landlord means and €2.40 increase to the tenant. When a landlord has to recover a €500 loss it means the tenant pays an extra €1200. This is simple maths regardless at what level you consider it to be an acceptable profit margin or rely on capital investment as the reward.Rents are increasing by nearly 20% a year in some places. It's hardly a squeezed business.
It makes property investment highly dangerous but meanwhile REITs get preferential tax treatment and have no financial restrictions of access to finance.
Look there are landlords that have no mortgages and it is mostly profit. Those people generally paid 17%+ on their mortgages while renting out property. Have paid a lot in taxes, invested money in the property, dealt with problem tenants etc... The now pay a higher percentage of the income on tax than they ever originally planned. The tax if they leave it to their children keeps increasing, I am just not sure who exactly is taking money of whom. Sounds like multiple taxation on the same income and assets.0 -
Advertisement
-
The more I look at the state of the buy to let mortgage market, the more I wonder why the fuck we even allow them in the first place? If someone already has the money to purchase an investment property outright, fine - but what the fuck are we doing encouraging property speculation, through buy to let mortgages?
There are interest-only BTL mortgages out there -and the rates on all BTL mortgages are high. We don't want a market full of amateur investors who don't know what they are doing, leveraging silly amounts of Private Debt, and competing with people who want a home to live in (rather than as an investment) - driving up house prices (and rents, through what look like overleveraged mortgages) in the process.
We had the same kind of amateur mortgage overleveraging 10-15 years ago, from morons who believed they were burgeoning investment experts - and we are seeing much the same thing again, now.
Business-based property lending, should be restricted to property construction - not competing for the existing property stock or new builds on the residential market.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »Can you tell us which countries do this at present? When do we take property off everyone that owns it and start distributing it via the state?
People made the same argument about the smoking ban. Doing the right thing is not predicated upon someone else already doing it.Property rental is a business nothing is going to change that.
Anything at all can be changed by democratic policy making. Anything.The world economy relies on it.
The world economy is under the almost total control of democratically elected governments. If those governments choose to upend a policy, the world economy will either adapt or collapse, and be replaced by an economy which does adapt.Every pension plan is some way relies on it as do the banks and governments.
Again, these can change by democratic consensus. As can literally anything.Construction now is not allowed be a profit making industry too according to you.
Residential construction shouldn't be.It is never going to happen.
I'm sure there were people in the past who said this about public healthcare, public transport, public sanitation, public water supply, etc. Every idea is radical until it becomes normalised.Plainly stupid idea given the economic realities of the world.
Democracy takes precedence over economics.How do you plan to solve the devaluation of the entire world economy?
By democratic consensus. If society decides to devalue one thing and put value into something else, the economy will follow. The economy is predicated on societal consent, not the other way around.0 -
Excellent point again by another brainiac.
After you finish saving the world with this outstanding economic policy, can you work on groceries and fuel next please. I find it absolutely abhorrent that companies are allowed to continually profit from my hunger and need to drive to work.
Thanks.
I agree that these should be brought under democratic control as well, they're just not (at present) as urgent as accommodation. One step at a time is a reasonable approach to democratic reform, no?0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »Actually you asked about being stopped from collecting the market rate. In other words you think rents should be even higher. I gave several examples where you don't pay the market rate and far from it.
You think LLs are struggling because rents aren't high enough?
I think cordy phrased it perfectly. Its all relative to proportion of money you have invested. 5 years ago at the bottom of the market, although rents were at a all time low, the gross yield relative to what you invest was at least 2-3pc higher. That might sound small but when your talking about an investment worth 100k+. that is massive. Since house prices have risen quicker than the rental cost. It is not as viable a business as it once was.0 -
The more I look at the state of the buy to let mortgage market, the more I wonder why the fuck we even allow them in the first place? If someone already has the money to purchase an investment property outright, fine - but what the fuck are we doing encouraging property speculation, through buy to let mortgages?
There are interest-only BTL mortgages out there -and the rates on all BTL mortgages are high. We don't want a market full of amateur investors who don't know what they are doing, leveraging silly amounts of Private Debt, and competing with people who want a home to live in (rather than as an investment) - driving up house prices (and rents, through what look like overleveraged mortgages) in the process.
We had the same kind of amateur mortgage overleveraging 10-15 years ago, from morons who believed they were burgeoning investment experts - and we are seeing much the same thing again, now.
Business-based property lending, should be restricted to property construction - not competing for the existing property stock or new builds on the residential market.
its allowed because the government i.e. the people do not want to build public housing0 -
Advertisement
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »
Democracy takes precedence over economics.
By democratic consensus. If society decides to devalue one thing and put value into something else, the economy will follow. The economy is predicated on societal consent, not the other way around.
You think people are going to democratically vote to bring in communism ideals? You are deluding yourself. Democracy means all those that own property are going to vote to have it taken off them. Not ever going to happen.
Economics overrides democracy all the time and always has. What do you think wars and conscription were about?
Do you think people are going to vote to have their parents house taken off them. Collapse industries like financial service and construction and remove peoples pension.
Who would vote for that? Not only that you have to get the entire world to do it. That is not going to happen without war.
I have seen people talk about ideals but never have I met somebody so removed from reality that they think it is possible on a global scale.
You don't even realise healthcare is not a free public service in the world.0 -
No rents are not high enough in proportion to the risk factor of renting a property in this country. A security bond of at least 12 months rent should be held in trust or the laws changed to protect the landlord from damage and non payment of rent.
As has been mentioned previously it's not unusual to find that people on middle incomes pay over half of their salary on rent. You think they should pay more? That's why landlords are considered the poor mouth. You're telling people who pay over half of their wages that you expect more and simultaneously expect people to have sympathy for your situation because you're business model isn't paying off.0 -
I think cordy phrased it perfectly. Its all relative to proportion of money you have invested. 5 years ago at the bottom of the market, although rents were at a all time low, the gross yield relative to what you invest was at least 2-3pc higher. That might sound small but when your talking about an investment worth 100k+. that is massive. Since house prices have risen quicker than the rental cost. It is not as viable a business as it once was.
Here's the thing. It completely depends on the investment. Some landlords here are demanding more rent to cover an investment that they assumed would generate either a large profit margin or completely cover your mortgage.
Yourself and Cody don't seem to think that rents should only take into consideration the investment of the landlord (which is variable) and not take into account the percentage of the renter's wage it consumes. In other words all of Irish society should be based around the questionable investments of some landlords. For instance buy to let mortgages in my view are not something that society should suffer for.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »Yeah I am sure he will like the fact they ship elderly and disabled people out of the nice areas
Ray you'd get more sympathy if you criticised some of the landlords here expecting people to pay more than 50% of their wages on rent instead of just renters who say rent is too high for them.0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »Here's the thing. It completely depends on the investment. Some landlords here are demanding more rent to cover an investment that they assumed would generate either a large profit margin or completely cover your mortgage.
Yourself and Cody don't seem to think that rents should only take into consideration the investment of the landlord (which is variable) and not take into account the percentage of the renter's wage it consumes. In other words all of Irish society should be based around the questionable investments of some landlords. For instance buy to let mortgages in my view are not something that society should suffer for.
Its not the landlords problem to take into considerations the renter's wage.
People here want to live within 30 mins of the city or work. Here's an idea....
Move to an area you can afford!!!!!
Why should LL's support your lifestyle choice.
Looking on daft i.e., there are numerous properties for rent under 1000 p/m within 90 mins commute of the city. Most people in the real world (other than Ireland) spend up to 90 mins commute each way daily.
And once again as long as the law protects tenants from not paying rent for up to 2 years who is going to cover the loss to the LL?
In very simple terms, you wish to live with socialist views but expect a capitalist wage. Do you not see the irony in your views?
It does make one wonder, why so many youth wish to live under a socialist system but yet choose to live in a democratic country. I am more than sure North Korea, China and Russia would more than welcome anyone wishing to relocate.0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »As has been mentioned previously it's not unusual to find that people on middle incomes pay over half of their salary on rent. You think they should pay more?
I think the government should stop doing things that drive up prices. Pretty much everything they have done to the rental market just causes more problems and deflects from the poor policies in place. They must be delighted that people think landlords are the problem here.0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »Ray you'd get more sympathy if you criticised some of the landlords here expecting people to pay more than 50% of their wages on rent instead of just renters who say rent is too high for them.
You seem to think landlords should price rent based on what the tenant earns regardless of actual costs. Why is it the landlords fault the tenant earns so little? People are renting the properties so people can afford it.
You are making it out landlords increased prices for no reason other than greed or they made bad investments.
THE GOVERNMENT INCREASED TAX AND EXPENSES TO LANDLORDS. They made them go to a loss making situation. They were warned these expenses would increase rent later on.
Imagine if the government increased tax on your wages while your employer cut your wages. Then brought in a rule so you couldn't get a pay rise. Even when you get the same salary as before you still get less and have a debit from the years you weren't getting your normal salary.
Yes terrible people spend so much on rent from their wages but no relationship to costs of the landlord. Why do you think the landlord should take the losses and subsidise tenants? What is the logic where somebody who lost money should make more losses and be happy. Would you stay in that situation or get out of the situation?0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »You seem to think landlords should price rent based on what the tenant earns regardless of actual costs. Why is it the landlords fault the tenant earns so little? People are renting the properties so people can afford it.
You are making it out landlords increased prices for no reason other than greed or they made bad investments.
THE GOVERNMENT INCREASED TAX AND EXPENSES TO LANDLORDS. They made them go to a loss making situation. They were warned these expenses would increase rent later on.
Imagine if the government increased tax on your wages while your employer cut your wages. Then brought in a rule so you couldn't get a pay rise. Even when you get the same salary as before you still get less and have a debit from the years you weren't getting your normal salary.
Yes terrible people spend so much on rent from their wages but no relationship to costs of the landlord. Why do you think the landlord should take the losses and subsidise tenants? What is the logic where somebody who lost money should make more losses and be happy. Would you stay in that situation or get out of the situation?
Speaking from a ll point of view, i actually think that taxation doesnt play any part in how much i charge. I think it is normal that i would like to get as much as possible for a given service. Its the same for my day job. if i could get a million a month for the same work i, i know i would take it. The reason rental prices are increasing is not because of ll being greedy, or the government taxing people to kingdom come. Its down to supply and demand and since the market is no longer appealing to new ll and more are getting out, supply is going down while demand is going up thus increasing the cost.
The only way to increase supply which should decrease the the rent tenants pay is to make it more appealing to ll which will in turn increase margins for ll. Tenants dont like giving stuff to ll however in the long run, it is the only way they can save money. This can be in the form of tax incentives or decreasing the risk. Something does have to give though or else it will get worse and we will be here again in 3 years time complaining about the same thing. People also keep bringing up the fact that ll dont build houses. Yes we dont build houses however if ll dont buy houses to let out, you can build as many house as you want however if none are rentals, it will not help the rental industry. Most people dont recognize this and put their head in the sand and complain that ll are to blame for all of this when its far from the truth. Most are just trying to get by yet at the same time have a small bit extra in the pension at the end of it.
At the moment, the government are hurting both tenants and landlords as both are feeling the pain with the way the market is going at the moment.0 -
Speaking from a ll point of view, i actually think that taxation doesnt play any part in how much i charge. I think it is normal that i would like to get as much as possible for a given service. Its the same for my day job. if i could get a million a month for the same work i, i know i would take it. The reason rental prices are increasing is not because of ll being greedy, or the government taxing people to kingdom come. Its down to supply and demand and since the market is no longer appealing to new ll and more are getting out, supply is going down while demand is going up thus increasing the cost.
The only way to increase supply which should decrease the the rent tenants pay is to make it more appealing to ll which will in turn increase margins for ll. Tenants dont like giving stuff to ll however in the long run, it is the only way they can save money. This can be in the form of tax incentives or decreasing the risk. Something does have to give though or else it will get worse and we will be here again in 3 years time complaining about the same thing. People also keep bringing up the fact that ll dont build houses. Yes we dont build houses however if ll dont buy houses to let out, you can build as many house as you want however if none are rentals, it will not help the rental industry. Most people dont recognize this and put their head in the sand and complain that ll are to blame for all of this when its far from the truth. Most are just trying to get by yet at the same time have a small bit extra in the pension at the end of it.
At the moment, the government are hurting both tenants and landlords as both are feeling the pain with the way the market is going at the moment.
If you calculated out your expected income and worked on a tight margin tax certainly effect the rent you charge.
Supply and demand does of course play a part but only is so far as it means the rent can go up to recoup losses. The government have made it so landlords have to maximise rent as much as they can.
When demand was low the government increased taxes and charges knowing landlords couldn't pass it on immediately. They also knew it would be added to rent at twice the amount due to taxation. The public didn't care. They have no regard for a sustainable renting model and are delighted to see landlords lose money. In that situation the government are meant to be the sensible ones. Instead the went with populist decision and damaged the market causing a shortage of rentals knowing that there was a lack of housing coming. This is not good for anyone.0 -
I do feel sorry for landlords who get the nightmare tenants and I read another thread where someone can't drop the rent for relatives because it would screw them over in the long term. And measures like that really suck. I'm not too familiar with rules and regulations governing rental properties, but there are probably some areas where I feel some sympathy for them.
However, at the same time there's an entire thread dedicated to ridiculous properties and conditions to rent and news stories about the same (I've encountered one ad myself where it was a case of renting Monday to Thursday and you're not allowed there for the weekend). I'm not a fan of seeing talk of not making much from the property - when at the end of the day you are having a mortgage paid for. Even if it doesn't cover all of it, you'll have a second property for a fraction of the cost that it should have cost. One attitude I saw (and possibly in this thread) that did rankle me was the solution that those unhappy renting or having a landlord should simply buy. For starters, if someone didn't have two houses there would be more of a supply.
I'm sure they have it tough in ways, but I don't think it's as tough as some of them would make it out to be...🤪
0 -
Advertisement
-
I do feel sorry for landlords who get the nightmare tenants and I read another thread where someone can't drop the rent for relatives because it would screw them over in the long term. And measures like that really suck. I'm not too familiar with rules and regulations governing rental properties, but there are probably some areas where I feel some sympathy for them.
However, at the same time there's an entire thread dedicated to ridiculous properties and conditions to rent and news stories about the same (I've encountered one ad myself where it was a case of renting Monday to Thursday and you're not allowed there for the weekend). I'm not a fan of seeing talk of not making much from the property - when at the end of the day you are having a mortgage paid for. Even if it doesn't cover all of it, you'll have a second property for a fraction of the cost that it should have cost. One attitude I saw (and possibly in this thread) that did rankle me was the solution that those unhappy renting or having a landlord should simply buy. For starters, if someone didn't have two houses there would be more of a supply.
I'm sure they have it tough in ways, but I don't think it's as tough as some of them would make it out to be...
I see what your trying to say however in your example if you get a house worth 200k with 100k mortgage. More than likely at the end of it, you will pay back about 275k
If a ll has 2 houses and sells one. There would be a greater supply of houses to buy and live in, however it more than likely means that there is one less rental property on the market this potentially increasing the cost of rentals.0 -
I see what your trying to say however in your example if you get a house worth 200k with 100k mortgage. More than likely at the end of it, you will pay back about 275k
If a ll has 2 houses and sells one. There would be a greater supply of houses to buy and live in, however it more than likely means that there is one less rental property on the market this potentially increasing the cost of rentals.
It isn't just one less property to be rented it is less capacity used. Rented property has a higher occupancy rate than privately owned. So when a house holding 5 adults is sold it may well mean 2 adults live there now meaning 3 more people looking for a place when there is one less property.0 -
Fixed that for you.It does make one wonder, why so many youth bums wish to live under a socialist system but yet choose to live in a democratic country. I am more than sure North Korea, China and Russia would more than welcome anyone wishing to relocate.
And make no mistake, this place is a socialist utopia (states pays convicted criminal bums upwards of an effective 80k salary!)0 -
Just curious, do people here think that landlords should be taxed differently depending on whether they buy to let or own outright. We're talking about an investment that won't pay off instantly VS profit.0
-
Its not the landlords problem to take into considerations the renter's wage.
People here want to live within 30 mins of the city or work. Here's an idea....
Move to an area you can afford!!!!!
Why should LL's support your lifestyle choice.
Looking on daft i.e., there are numerous properties for rent under 1000 p/m within 90 mins commute of the city. Most people in the real world (other than Ireland) spend up to 90 mins commute each way daily.
And once again as long as the law protects tenants from not paying rent for up to 2 years who is going to cover the loss to the LL?
In very simple terms, you wish to live with socialist views but expect a capitalist wage. Do you not see the irony in your views?
It does make one wonder, why so many youth wish to live under a socialist system but yet choose to live in a democratic country. I am more than sure North Korea, China and Russia would more than welcome anyone wishing to relocate.
I'm an educated professional that also made an investment in education that didn't pay off for years. Why should I pay most of my wages to make your investment pay off? My lifestyle choice put me on decent wages. Yet you seem to think I should suffer to subsidise yours.0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »I'm an educated professional that also made an investment in education that didn't pay off for years. Why should I pay most of my wages to make your investment pay off? My lifestyle choice put me on decent wages. Yet you seem to think I should suffer to subsidise yours.
Im not asking you to pay off my investment, if you can't afford to rent a house I own then don't.
As I said live in an area you can afford, not one you aspire to live in.
p.s also how much of the state's tax dollar subsidised your education seeing you brought it up? So its ok for the tax payer to subsidise your education but not offer the LL tax incentives for their investment?0 -
I have followed this thread with interest and don't normally comment all that much but I felt that I had to on this one as I can't understand the inability of some landlords on here to accept the simple facts.
If you are taking out a mortgage to buy a property to rent you are not really making an investment you are taking on a liability to purchase an asset. The rent should, by all means, provide a return on that asset but to expect it to pay for the mortgage, any and all tax liabilities, repair and upkeep and any other costs as well as providing a "profit" while trying to argue that owning the asset let alone any appreciation in that asset does not count as profit does smack of greed.
I have rented and have had good and bad landlords and I think have been a reasonably good tenant but the direction the current situation is going is completely unsustainable as the percentage of take-home pay that is going to pay rent is completely out of whack and is completely unaffordable to many. The mortgage crisis of the crash has been replaced by a rental crisis and I fear that things will get a lot worse if there are not some fundamental changes in how this "business" is regulated.0 -
Im not asking you to pay off my investment, if you can't afford to rent a house I own then don't.
As I said live in an area you can afford, not one you aspire to live in.
p.s also how much of the state's tax dollar subsidised your education seeing you brought it up? So its ok for the tax payer to subsidise your education but not offer the LL tax incentives for their investment?
Love it when people are caught out. Good point about education subsidy.0 -
Ken McCarthy wrote: »I have followed this thread with interest and don't normally comment all that much but I felt that I had to on this one as I can't understand the inability of some landlords on here to accept the simple facts.
If you are taking out a mortgage to buy a property to rent you are not really making an investment you are taking on a liability to purchase an asset. The rent should, by all means, provide a return on that asset but to expect it to pay for the mortgage, any and all tax liabilities, repair and upkeep and any other costs as well as providing a "profit" while trying to argue that owning the asset let alone any appreciation in that asset does not count as profit does smack of greed.
I have rented and have had good and bad landlords and I think have been a reasonably good tenant but the direction the current situation is going is completely unsustainable as the percentage of take-home pay that is going to pay rent is completely out of whack and is completely unaffordable to many. The mortgage crisis of the crash has been replaced by a rental crisis and I fear that things will get a lot worse if there are not some fundamental changes in how this "business" is regulated.
It’s already too regulated. The rules we have here are actually more strict that eu counterparts such as France. The more you regulate when it’s already heavily regulated means more ll will get out of the market when you need more to enter it to bring down rent costs. Just out of interest, What piece of regulation would you like to bring in to help the rental sector?0 -
Advertisement
-
It’s already too regulated. The rules we have here are actually more strict that eu counterparts such as France. The more you regulate when it’s already heavily regulated means more ll will get out of the market when you need more to enter it to bring down rent costs. Just out of interest, What piece of regulation would you like to bring in to help the rental sector?
I think getting rid of "buy-to-let" mortgages would be a good first step and unpopular as this might be there should be rent control as a percentage of the value of the property, I would be suggesting 5% but it is only that a suggestion. Increases should be in line with the CPI too but seeing as 4% is regarded as too little here I imagine that will be an even less popular suggestion.
I do think that the whole PRTB setup needs to be reviewed too with the ability to evict for non-payment after a maximum of 90 days and stricter controls on the quality and standard of rental units. Maybe being a landlord should be licensed in the same way as being a publican or taxi driver and there should be some sort of escrow system for deposits to protect both landlords and renters.
I am curious as to what elements of regulation that currently exist that you feel as a landlord are too onerous, you say are more regulated than France but in what way, genuinely curious here as rentals seem to exist in continental Europe for many many years in a way that provides for both landlord and tenant without any of the issues we are having here.0
Advertisement