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

The Goverment should be compensating landlords

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    DubCount
    Registered Users Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭DubCount


    mick087 wrote: »
    Buying a house to rent is an investment, to me any investment is a gamble.

    Im in favour of less private landlords and more decent social council homes being built. This then would cut out the private landlord.

    This never stops amazing me.

    Buying a house to rent out is an investment. So a LL can maximise their investment by increasing rent? No - buying a house to rent out is a social service. So should the state support losses incurred in providing a social service? No buying a house to rent out is an investment? So can a LL select the tenants they want based on their ability to pay? No - buying a house to rent out is a social service......

    Its a never ending game of Landlord heads I lose, tails I Lose.

    The state providing housing through council built and managed properties is a great idea - but we cant afford it, and the Councils dont want to do it anyway even if the tooth fairy provides the funding.

    For as long as we have a private rental sector, pick a side and stick to it. Its either and investment or a social service - its not what suits the government to hide from its own responsibilities.


  • Options
    #33
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    I have a house id like to sell.

    224 days notice due to tenants.
    I was going to give a full year.

    I cannot serve even a years notice under this emergency legislation .

    There was talk about the Govt stopping LLs from selling up. They said it would never happen because it would be unconstitutional.

    I know this is an emergency. But makes you think...


  • Options
    #34
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    The government's bailing out partime student workers at 350 week, and wage subsidies to people sitting at home doing nothing.

    How can lls be prevented from elling their property?


  • Options
    #35
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    The private rental market was forced into taking social housing. They didn't want it.

    Anyway no way will there be any payments for LLs. It would be too unpopular.


  • Options
    #36
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    The government's bailing out partime student workers at 350 week, and wage subsidies to people sitting at home doing nothing.

    How can lls be prevented from elling their property?

    You can't sell without vacant possession. You can't get a property vacant.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    beauf wrote: »
    You can't sell without vacant possession. You can't get a property vacant.

    I know. I'm the OP, wanting to sell.


  • Options
    #38
    Smouse156
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭Smouse156


    beauf wrote: »
    Investment, or "gambling" as you call it, has rebuilt the country.

    Its a very different country than it was 40yrs ago because of it.

    Can't make omelettes without breaking eggs.

    Agreed! But taking risks involves failure. One can’t have all the upside and then look for a bailout on the downside


  • Options
    #39
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Smouse156 wrote: »
    Agreed! But taking risks involves failure. One can’t have all the upside and then look for a bailout on the downside

    So your saying tenants shouldn't have got a bailout...


  • Options
    #40
    Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 443 ✭✭Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!


    If the government want to criminalise the eviction of non-paying tenants, then why don't they foot the bill for non-payers?

    Money should be stopped from wages or single mother's allowance etc.

    To the person who suggested recouping moneys through the courts? LOL. As if Jacinta the town bike could or would cooperate and even if she did there's no chance her single mothers allowance would be stopped.


  • Options
    #41
    perfectkama
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭perfectkama


    Thank god de pubs are open


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    Smouse156 wrote: »
    Agreed! But taking risks involves failure. One can’t have all the upside and then look for a bailout on the downside

    What are all the upsides exactly? Please show me how I can get them?

    How would you like it if the government forced you to work for your employer for 12 months after they stopped paying you?
    And if you refused to work for nothing you get fined 10 grand?


  • Options
    #43
    perfectkama
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭perfectkama


    op ur post has descended into most exciting black hole to which all contributors here should be part... now its not to late 4 de pub


  • Options
    #44
    An Ri rua
    Registered Users Posts: 4,475 ✭✭✭An Ri rua


    whippet wrote: »
    The point is If an individual sets up a company to rent a single property they are still paying personal rates of income tax ... but this mantra of landlords need to treat it as a business is nonsense as the system does not allow them to do so. Believe me .. I tried when I had one rental property and just sold it as it wasn’t worth the hassle and small long term returns .. investing in a fund was far more rewarding.

    Why do you think there are so many private landlords wanting to get out when rents are skyhigh? System is broken for both renters and landlords.

    I was also one of those landlords who had the misfortune of a rogue tenant destroying my property -€8k worst of damage and leaving with €6k of arrears.

    I went to the RTB got a determination and as the tenant was a social welfare recipient.. i never not will see a penny of that.

    Now .. if I was to just kick them out on the street like I wanted to rather than follow the tenant friendly process you can be sure I’d have had to pay over a significant 10 figure some to the scroungers


    This is the problem. It IS a business and unfortunately reluctant and accidental landlords, those with one or maybe two houses, aren't able or don't want to meet the regulatory requirements, be they tax, health and safety, legal etc. For a variety of reasons.
    The returns that small landlords expect from property is the problem. And unrealistic. 5% is good and 10% would be phenomenal. It's a long-term game. Not realistic to compare it to a fund as the asset is also appreciating. More akin to shares with dividends.
    Incidentally, shares with dividends cause income tax. Shares without cause CGT. Assuming profits of course.
    You mentioned setting up a company. In that case, the company pays corporation tax, and you as a director pay income tax on salaries taken. If you get it in your pocket, you'll pay income tax.
    If it's set up as trading as, you'll pay income tax and USC etc. Same as any sideline second income.


  • Options
    #45
    An Ri rua
    Registered Users Posts: 4,475 ✭✭✭An Ri rua


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    What are all the upsides exactly? Please show me how I can get them?

    How would you like it if the government forced you to work for your employer for 12 months after they stopped paying you?
    And if you refused to work for nothing you get fined 10 grand?


    Clearly there are downsides. Dodgy non paying tenants etc.
    But upsides? You have had tenants in constant occupancy such that they are entitled to 224 days notice (they earned that). Yes, those rules changed in very recent years and that's caught many landlords unaware. But they earned that security. Or a good measure of it, before the increases. Agreed?

    I assume they always paid their bills on time? Should be a given. But in business, how many pay their bills on time? I spent 1/3 of my month as a rep, back in the day, collecting (dragging) cheques out of customers.

    Also, have they been there 7 or 8 years? Close enough I think? Was the furniture and white goods new on day 1? What I'm getting at is did you claim allowances on a new 8 year cycle but the tenants didn't see those goods? I am sure many landlords do. I've had family and friends fall victim to it.. Charged a tidy sum but no refurb in 5-6-7-8 years, yet clearly old furniture and white goods on arrival. So that means the landlord has been claiming allowances at 12.5% per annum on goods bought for personal purposes or at least not for that tenancy anyway. Be very clear, I'm not insinuating anything about your practices. I'm saying that there are upsides to be had, though in that example marginal at best and dodgy at worst.

    The regulatory regime as it stands does not suit small landlords. It is most definitely aiming towards REITs and institutional investors. I wish you well in your sale and I hope the process works out well for both you and tenants. It's important for everyone to start well and finish well.
    Kind regards


  • Options
    #46
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    An Ri rua wrote: »
    in business, how many pay their bills on time? I spent 1/3 of my month as a rep, back in the day, collecting (dragging) cheques out of customers

    Were you at any stage compelled by law to continue supplying goods/services to those that didn't pay for 12 - 24 months (while paying customers were excluded)?


  • Options
    #47
    larva
    Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭larva


    Are LLs really expecting to get paid their due rent at the end of this from their tenants because there will be thousands owed that will take longer to pay back than the time left on a lease in many instances. Taking of a deposit for some compensation and the eviction if still non paying


  • Options
    #48
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    I expect most tenants who have come to an arrangement with their landlords will stick to them where they are able.

    I've no doubt there will be a larger number than usual that are either unwilling or unable to pay but I don't think it's helpful or accurate to suggest this will be the majority.


  • Options
    #49
    An Ri rua
    Registered Users Posts: 4,475 ✭✭✭An Ri rua


    Graham wrote: »
    Were you at any stage compelled by law to continue supplying goods/services to those that didn't pay for 12 - 24 months (while paying customers were excluded)?

    100% fair point.
    Just pick your tenants carefully.


  • Options
    #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Xterminator wrote: »
    no but they still pay rent gas and electricity and wages with no income coming in the door.
    .

    Rent yes, gas minimal when closed, electricity minimal when closed and government are paying 80% of wages if people are kept on or they can just lay them off so wage bills are minimal.


  • Options
    #51
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,578 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    whippet wrote: »
    That’s incorrect .. private landlords pay USC on all rental income and tax at the the full page rate on the rent also .. slight tax breaks for interest... when revenue take the guts of 50% of any companies revenue let me know.

    What you could add is that rental income is treated as unearned income and so the USC contributions don't count as real contributions which I think is horribly unfair.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement