Not worth the hassle?

mrslancaster · 24-10-2018 3:57pm

RayCun wrote: »

Yes, but suppose you are a plumber, and spend June working for a customer, who doesn't pay (or takes ages to pay). Yes, you can work in July, but you have a lot of bills coming through that you were going to pay with June's income, and the July income, when it comes in, is already earmarked for a different set of bills.

At the end of the day, a month's income is a month's income, you can't help but notice the loss.

How about noticing the loss of 6 or 12 months income and not being able to do anything about it??

24-10-2018 4:01pm

cruizer101 wrote: »

True but in reality most LL with one tenant are doing it on top of other work as a way to get some extra money, so they are not getting no money.
If being a LL was the only income source I would expect them to have multiple tenants, and the chances of all overholding at them same time is very slim.
Thats not to say there isn't more needs to be done to deal with overholding anyway.

That doesnt make sense, and I mean its not reasonable, thats like saying if a plumber doesnt get paid by a customer1, he can expect customer2 to pay those bills,because the plumber is getting income from other sources, that money will be earmarked for costs related to customer2, and it assumes there is an alternative means of income at all or sufficient coming to cover such a situation.
How being only a LL means there are multiple tenants or tenancies is a big leap too, another assumption, a lot more needs to be done with overholding, its the cause of landlords getting out, who else is providing alternatives? not the State/Govt of the day, there is no appetite to get into it privately, 100% interest relief wont cut it, yet people bemoan that it is a landlords paradise because of that. As someone pointed out earlier, treated as a business in some regards and not in others, selected to suit the State/Govt, who are the main cause of increasing rents, they take well over half of all rent from tenants.

mrslancaster · 24-10-2018 4:02pm

RayCun wrote: »

And landlords can increase rent. Yes, there are some limits in RPZs, but their hands are not completely tied.

A quick google shows lots of offers of landlord insurance, in Ireland.

"Loss of rent up to 15% of combined Building Sum Insured & Contents Sum Insured if a buy-to-let property is uninhabitable following an insured loss"

" If a buy to let property is uninhabitable following an insured loss"

Afaik that means it the property is flooded or burned or something similar but not If the tenant stops paying rent

RayCun · 24-10-2018 4:03pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

How about noticing the loss of 6 or 12 months income and not being able to do anything about it??

Insurance?

Do you think landlords are the only people who have to deal with potential losses of income?
Do you think property investments should be risk-free?

Why not lease to the local authority?
https://www.housingagency.ie/housing-information/do-you-have-a-property-to-let.aspx

"If you have a residential property and would be interested in leasing it for 10 years or more, you can:
Get guaranteed rent.
Avoid losing rent during vacant periods."

mrslancaster · 24-10-2018 4:06pm

RayCun wrote: »

And landlords can increase rent. Yes, there are some limits in RPZs, but their hands are not completely tied..

Yes rent can be increased by 4% in a rpz after one year - how is that relevant if the tenant is not paying any rent?

4% of nothing is nothing...

24-10-2018 4:07pm

Risk free is one thing, having a customer steal from a business will have them end up in the hands of the Gardai if they are so easily caught and before the Courts, for items to the value of a lot less than a property or months of rent, add to that the potential for malicious damage,
Also letting to a local authority is not without risks, they place all the responsibility of dealing with the tenant on a LL and accept none themselves, with the added problem of not paying you, they wont even deal with you if there are problems.

RayCun · 24-10-2018 4:07pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

" If a buy to let property is uninhabitable following an insured loss"

Afaik that means it the property is flooded or burned or something similar but not If the tenant stops paying rent

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/landlords-can-insure-against-tenants-defaulting-on-rent-1.2973758

Ray Palmer · 24-10-2018 4:09pm

cruizer101 wrote: »

But didn't the same happen for everyone no matter what the business.
E.g Plumber, Electrician, Software Developer. In all cases taxes went up and business dropped with the recession meaning less money coming in.

Mortgage interest relief is now going back to 100%

Fair enough there should be better measures brought in to reduce the risk from overholding which could easily wipe out a landlord.
But otherwise it it that much different to other businesses.

No the same thing didn't happen. Landlord got all those increase plus USC and PRSI added to gross rental income. LPT and PRTB charges were also added. That was on top of rents dropping and their working incomes also having the tax increases everyone else got with many losing salary or complete jobs. The 100% tax relief on interest was also reduced. Reinstating it is good but it should never have been reduced.

Tax deductions on rental property are treated differently than business tax so it is radically different.

RayCun · 24-10-2018 4:09pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

Yes rent can be increased by 4% in a rpz after one year - how is that relevant if the tenant is not paying any rent?

4% of nothing is nothing...

You said

"You are also not considering that most businesses can charge more to other customers to offset a loss from a non-paying customer...As far as I know that option is not available to A LL."

Landlords can charge more to other customers.

If you only have one property, then you should factor in the risk of non-payment when setting rent. or get insurance. or lease to the council.

mrslancaster · 24-10-2018 4:11pm

RayCun wrote: »

Insurance?

Do you think landlords are the only people who have to deal with potential losses of income?
Do you think property investments should be risk-free?

Why not lease to the local authority?
https://www.housingagency.ie/housing-information/do-you-have-a-property-to-let.aspx

"If you have a residential property and would be interested in leasing it for 10 years or more, you can:
Get guaranteed rent.
Avoid losing rent during vacant periods."

If you know where 'LL insurance for loss of rent & tenant damage can be found please share...

The local council scheme might not suit everyone as it runs for ten years and individuals circumstances can change.

RayCun · 24-10-2018 4:11pm

1874 wrote: »

Also letting to a local authority is not without risks, they place all the responsibility of dealing with the tenant on a LL and accept none themselves, with the added problem of not paying you, they wont even deal with you if there are problems.

Not according to the information booklet

During the term of the lease:
• The local authority/AHB will guarantee payments to the owner.
• Payment will continue regardless of vacancy periods.
• The local authority/AHB will be responsible for day-to-day property
maintenance.
• The local authority/AHB will be the landlord to tenants.
In addition, property owners who have leased their properties to a local
authority will:
• Have no rent collection or rent arrears obligations.
• Not incur advertising or administrative overheads.
• Not have to register the Tenancy with the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB).

RayCun · 24-10-2018 4:12pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

If you know where 'LL insurance for loss of rent & tenant damage can be found please share...

https://rentassured.ie/

RayCun · 24-10-2018 4:14pm

mrslancaster wrote: »

The local council scheme might not suit everyone as it runs for ten years and individuals circumstances can change.

So the landlord's lot is a uniquely difficult one, because they choose to invest in property and want a guaranteed income from the property but don't want to enter a long-term arrangement that will guarantee that income.

Ray Palmer · 24-10-2018 6:44pm

RayCun wrote: »

So the landlord's lot is a uniquely difficult one, because they choose to invest in property and want a guaranteed income from the property but don't want to enter a long-term arrangement that will guarantee that income.

The rent is also below market rate and the standards of the property are higher than normal rentals.

It isn't we want a guaranteed it is we don't want the government to heap charges on us and treat us unfavourably as a business for tax purposes and unfavourable with legal protection.

We get it you don't care about landlords and think they should pay as much tax as possible and provide a service in a loss making manner to insure cheap rent.

Just explain how you think it is sustainable given rental investment has plummeted, less rentals and higher demand. You are looking at the tip of the iceberg if it continues because there are going to be less properties to rent. We have a huge lack of construction which isn't going to increase without investment. If you think the government can get their act together and provide all the housing you will be waiting till they catch up with the current mess and by that time it will be much worse.

It doesn't matter if you think landlords are making enough money those that invest don't see it that way and won't do it. I can tell you I won't build on land I have because it isn't worth it. I don't know anybody entertaining buying to rent. in this country. I will likely sell up in 6 years and invest elsewhere and it will be out of the country. I am not the only one.

RayCun · 24-10-2018 6:59pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The rent is also below market rate and the standards of the property are higher than normal rentals.

Yes, for an income guaranteed for ten years, and no need to deal with tenants.

Really, what more could you ask for?
You can be an independent landlord, taking the risks but also taking the profits from a market where rents are sky-high.
You could be an independent landlord, and offset some of the risks by buying insurance.
Or you can pass all the risks on to the council, for a guaranteed income.

Or, if you don't like any of those options, you can sell your property - again, prices are sky-high - and invest in something else.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

We get it you don't care about landlords and think they should pay as much tax as possible and provide a service in a loss making manner to insure cheap rent.

No, I don't. If you want to be a landlord, fine. If you don't think you can be a landlord without making a loss, then fine, don't be a landlord.
Just spare me the complaints about how persecuted you are, thanks.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I can tell you I won't build on land I have because it isn't worth it.

Ideally, you'd be taxed on that. Use it or sell it to someone who will.

RayCun · 24-10-2018 7:01pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

We have a huge lack of construction which isn't going to increase without investment.

Do you live in Leitrim? Donegal, maybe?

STB. · 24-10-2018 7:07pm

RayCun wrote: »

Yes, for an income guaranteed for ten years, and no need to deal with tenants.

Really, what more could you ask for?
You can be an independent landlord, taking the risks but also taking the profits from a market where rents are sky-high.
You could be an independent landlord, and offset some of the risks by buying insurance.
Or you can pass all the risks on to the council, for a guaranteed income.

Or, if you don't like any of those options, you can sell your property - again, prices are sky-high - and invest in something else.

What planet exactly are you living on ?

You clearly have not one iota on what you are pontificating.

These 10 year schemes you are talking about whereby the council guarantee everything with NO risks and NO dealing with the tenants DO NOT EXIST.

RayCun · 24-10-2018 7:11pm

STB. wrote: »

These 10 year schemes you are talking about whereby the council guarantee everything with NO risks and NO dealing with the tenants DO NOT EXIST.

https://www.housingagency.ie/Housing-Information/Do-You-Have-a-Property-to-Let/Final_Social-Leasing-Brochure_Web-pdf.pdf

STB. · 24-10-2018 7:19pm

RayCun wrote: »

https://www.housingagency.ie/Housing-Information/Do-You-Have-a-Property-to-Let/Final_Social-Leasing-Brochure_Web-pdf.pdf

Thanks for the fancy brochure. Heres the real life stuff.

Council insist that house is brought up to some form of housing that they dont provide themselves.

Bit like HAP the tenant stops paying the council, the council stop paying you.

All those property checks that are meant to happen, don't.

Tenant decides not to use the shower and just pour water over themselves in your bathroom (hey its apparently a cultural thing) place gets wrecked, you get the bill.

Tenant wont leave, deliberately overholds ? You are on your own with the PRTB. No rent, lengthy process, no comeback, big bills.

RAS, HAP, Keep changing the name, but nothing changes.

Real World.

RayCun · 24-10-2018 7:26pm

In the short term option, the landlord continues to deal with the tenant.
In the long term option, they don't.
Or are you saying that this is all completely made up?

beauf · 24-10-2018 7:32pm

RayCun wrote: »

and all businesses have problems with non-payment from customers. A landlord could have a tenant occupying their property and not paying rent, so they lose revenue. A plumber or a software developer could spend time doing work, thus missing out on other work, and spend months trying to get the money they are owed.

I doubt many would expose themselves to the amounts a LL is exposed to losing.

RayCun · 24-10-2018 7:38pm

beauf wrote: »

I doubt many would expose themselves to the amounts a LL is exposed to losing.

On the other hand, a landlord can get a good tenant in who stays for years, pays on time, and is no trouble at all. Few other businesses offer that kind of return.

STB. · 24-10-2018 7:46pm

RayCun wrote: »

In the short term option, the landlord continues to deal with the tenant.
In the long term option, they don't.
Or are you saying that this is all completely made up?

Short term, Long term, any problem at all.

Landlords have much comfort in knowing that when it comes to pursuing problems, they will be left on their own to deal with the PRTB even if it comes to regaining control, of their own property, months out of pocket with no rent. Hey the PRTB may even find in the property owners favour to the tune of thousands. But that piece of paper is really only worth using to wipe your arse because you havent a hope of getting the money back, ever.

And the fun doesn't stop there, now that you have your keys back, any damage done will be at your cost. The Council will laugh at you. Read the contracts, not the brochures.

Yes Ray, welcome to the real world

RayCun · 24-10-2018 7:52pm

You realize the lease option is different from both the options you mentioned, right?

Ray Palmer · 24-10-2018 7:59pm

RayCun wrote: »

Or, if you don't like any of those options, you can sell your property - again, prices are sky-high - and invest in something else.

That means people will make a loss but I see you don't care.

RayCun wrote: »

No, I don't. If you want to be a landlord, fine. If you don't think you can be a landlord without making a loss, then fine, don't be a landlord.
Just spare me the complaints about how persecuted you are, thanks.

You see this is where you lose the point of any reasonableness. Most landlords have been tenants along with having friends and relatives who are tenants. We want things to be even. You are completely disregarding the landlords because it somehow morally offends you.

You are literally saying landlords must lose money not accept losses may happen. Says it all

RayCun wrote: »

Ideally, you'd be taxed on that. Use it or sell it to someone who will.

I won't be as it is part of another property :P

I assume you use everything you own all the time or do you think people should just start charging you to own it or just take it off you. It isn't like their are laws protecting land ownership or do you think we should return to the ways of English rule?

STB. · 24-10-2018 8:00pm

RayCun wrote: »

You realize the lease option is different from both the options you mentioned, right?

You realise that I didn't mention two options at all. I responded to your question about whether the landlord has to deal with tenants in the short term or long term and my answer was always.

The lease option is nothing new. The scheme names can change all they want. When push comes to shove the standard contracts that are produced are not worth the paper they are written on.

The landlord IS left with the bills regardless. Light touch regulation, no social housing policies in the last 10 years, social housing obligations enforced on private property owners. All for 80%.

Who in their right mind would sign up to such shíte.

beauf · 24-10-2018 8:03pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You will not find an insurance product that covers rental losses like you are suggesting. It also requires an additional policy. Same goes for payment protection which you won't get for rental property.

The buy to let's were given out before the government added the extra taxes and costs.

You would have needed an exceptionally large margin to deal with the extra tax. People here are claiming the only margin of profit is when the mortgage is paid off. You do get it totalled 10%+ of gross rent for some?

The government moved the goal posts while rent dropped. Do you think that was fair and reasonable?

Fact remains they were badly over extended. Regardless of any changes. It wasn't the changes that tipped the balance for this couple.

As for the other stuff. If you're not making enough to cover taxes as your suggesting then it's not viable. End of.

The issue for me is not the taxes. Its that potential losses are too high for the potential income. There are ways to offset that if you are a larger LL but not a smaller one.

Ray Palmer · 24-10-2018 8:11pm

RayCun wrote: »

On the other hand, a landlord can get a good tenant in who stays for years, pays on time, and is no trouble at all. Few other businesses offer that kind of return.

Do you own a house? Do you know how much general maintenance is involved? A tenant who pays on time and causes no trouble is the basic requirement not a "good" tenant they are just a tenant. Their showers still break, heating stops working, appliances break etc... That still requires work.

Their are horror stories from HAP and it's various incarnations and lots of property costs much more to rent out.

It means this great deal you are talking about is

Not as good as you think Not financially possible A long term commitment that may not suit Your property may not pass higher requirements Requires a lower income
So it is only a subset of properties and landlords that can avail and it isn't even that good. So somethings to not like about it

beauf · 24-10-2018 8:19pm

RayCun wrote: »

On the other hand, a landlord can get a good tenant in who stays for years, pays on time, and is no trouble at all. Few other businesses offer that kind of return.

What do you think is the return into your hand on 1500 rent after tax, costs

Ray Palmer · 24-10-2018 8:24pm

beauf wrote: »

Fact remains they were badly over extended. Regardless of any changes. It wasn't the changes that tipped the balance for this couple.

As for the other stuff. If you're not making enough to cover taxes as your suggesting then it's not viable. End of.

The issue for me is not the taxes. Its that potential losses are too high for the potential income. There are ways to offset that if you are a larger LL but not a smaller one.

What margin do you think they should have had for them to not have been "over-extended"?

Are you saying that when taxes are increased and that makes your investment nonviable that is not a tax issue?

Fine if you wouldn't take the risk but do you not see that a sudden increase in taxes and expenses was an unexpected thing? That is on top of all the other risks a risk you wouldn't even consider by the government who are apparently always doing landlords favours.

RayCun · 24-10-2018 8:46pm

beauf wrote: »

What do you think is the return into your hand on 1500 rent after tax, costs per year.

No idea. Will depend to some extent on the property, what are the associated costs.
And whether that is a good return depends entirely on how much you have to pay back on a mortgage. Did you buy last year, five years ago, ten years ago, 15 years ago...? Equally, the kind of return you should expect right after buying is different to your average return over a mortgage lifetime.

pwurple · 24-10-2018 9:20pm

Assume above 1500 with no mortgage. Just for giggles.
What’s the take-home?

RayCun · 24-10-2018 9:27pm

pwurple wrote: »

Assume above 1500 with no mortgage. Just for giggles.
What’s the take-home?

No idea. What is the annual dividend on Apple shares? What was the average cost of a Dublin 2 apartment in 2003? What is the average rate of return on an Irish Life pension, managed fund, over the past five years? How much does bitcoin cost?

STB. · 24-10-2018 9:39pm

RayCun wrote: »

No idea. What is the annual dividend on Apple shares? What was the average cost of a Dublin 2 apartment in 2003? What is the average rate of return on an Irish Life pension, managed fund, over the past five years? How much does bitcoin cost?

We had too many wannabee economists in the celtic tiger days you know.

Thats why they get the respect they deserve these days and that just about as high as that earned by an estate agent. None.

beauf · 25-10-2018 1:41am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What margin do you think they should have had for them to not have been "over-extended"?...

They should be able to cover the mortgage if a tenant stops paying and one of the owners stops working. This is why there are rules to get mortgages....

Ray Palmer · 25-10-2018 9:08am

beauf wrote: »

They should be able to cover the mortgage if a tenant stops paying and one of the owners stops working. This is why there are rules to get mortgages....

Still wouldn't have been enough. Taxes and expenses also went up while rent went down. You keep ignoring this.

Rents would need to go up to cover the margin you think is needed. So rents go up and/or people don't invest and rents go up again because there is a shortage of supply.

Congratulations you created the situation we are in already but want to make it worse. Doomed to repeat the same mistakes

pwurple · 25-10-2018 9:12am

RayCun wrote: »

pwurple wrote: »

Assume above 1500 with no mortgage. Just for giggles.
What’s the take-home?

No idea. What is the annual dividend on Apple shares? What was the average cost of a Dublin 2 apartment in 2003? What is the average rate of return on an Irish Life pension, managed fund, over the past five years? How much does bitcoin cost?

Why? I'd make a fair stab at all those. I have apple shares, bitcoin, an apartment from around then, a pension. I know how all of those function, plus the tax implications now, and into the forseeable future. (Bar the apartment of course, because the tax on property changes on a pin). Does that make me well rounded enough to not be talking out of my backside?
It's a bit rich (heh) to claim to have no experience, or knowledge, even enough to make a best guess to base any assumptions or assertions on, and yet pontificate to the experienced folk that they know nothing about what they've been doing for decades.

beauf · 25-10-2018 9:42am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Still wouldn't have been enough. Taxes and expenses also went up while rent went down. You keep ignoring this.

Rents would need to go up to cover the margin you think is needed. So rents go up and/or people don't invest and rents go up again because there is a shortage of supply.

Congratulations you created the situation we are in already but want to make it worse. Doomed to repeat the same mistakes

People are investing. There is a net increase in landlords registering every year. I suspect an increased % of REITs. We aren't losing stock. Rather our population is increasing. So demand is increasing. The stock isn't increasing to match.

You seem to think you can run a business or buy a property a property without any contingency planning. That is just gambling.

Costs generally increase. At the crash a lot of landlords had to top up rent to cover the mortgage. I know someone who had to top up on three properties. But they had enough personal income to do this. Which is why they didn't have 10 properties. They knew they couldn't cover that.
Many who didn't had to get out of the business.

The larger landlord can spread losses over many properties if the majority are not losing money. Its only the smaller landlord who has no options.

All you're saying is if your are late to the market and have tight margins you do not have the buffer or contingency planning to absorb any increased cost. The numbers are telling you that should get out of the business.

For many people even if they are still in the black they are finding the risk and hassle just not worth the return of investment.

Ragnar Lothbrok · 25-10-2018 10:04am

Why does anyone ever buy a house that they don't intend to live in?

These two women wanted to make money by renting out properties and became greedy. They took on far more than they could afford and either didn't get sound advice, or else ignored the advice they were given.

They probably imagined that they could sit back and watch the money roll in, and it's turned into a nightmare for them. Hard to feel sympathy for them (although I do somewhat).

The Celtic Tiger years were fueled by unchecked greed.

beauf · 25-10-2018 10:10am

RayCun wrote: »

No idea. Will depend to some extent on the property, what are the associated costs.
And whether that is a good return depends entirely on how much you have to pay back on a mortgage. Did you buy last year, five years ago, ten years ago, 15 years ago...? Equally, the kind of return you should expect right after buying is different to your average return over a mortgage lifetime.

Nope no mortgage. Just rent and costs.

But you gave up before even starting.

beauf · 25-10-2018 10:20am

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Why does anyone ever buy a house that they don't intend to live in?

These two women wanted to make money by renting out properties and became greedy. They took on far more than they could afford and either didn't get sound advice, or else ignored the advice they were given.

They probably imagined that they could sit back and watch the money roll in, and it's turned into a nightmare for them. Hard to feel sympathy for them (although I do somewhat).

The Celtic Tiger years were fueled by unchecked greed.

I don't see how its greed to make a bad business or financial decision. If you invest in a pension or shares is that greed. If it's greed to be a landlord. Is it greed for a tenant to sub let.

If they hadn't got sick and had a bad tenant they probably would have been ok. So in one sense they were just unlucky.

They say you should have 6 month mortgage payments or rent set aside for emergencies. Many will not be able to do this.

I don't know where the greedy thing starts and ends. Minimalism? If most landlords only have one property it sounds like most are just looking for a modest income stream from it.

Ragnar Lothbrok · 25-10-2018 10:55am

beauf wrote: »

I don't see how its greed to make a bad business or financial decision. If you invest in a pension or shares is that greed. If it's greed to be a landlord. Is it greed for a tenant to sub let.

If they hadn't got sick and had a bad tenant they probably would have been ok. So in one sense they were just unlucky.

They say you should have 6 month mortgage payments or rent set aside for emergencies. Many will not be able to do this.

I don't know where the greedy thing starts and ends. Minimalism? If most landlords only have one property it sounds like most are just looking for a modest income stream from it.

I'm not saying every landlord is greedy at all. I'm just thinking that a couple who take on four extra mortgages, while obviously not having enough savings in case of emergencies, were probably driven by greed.

Becoming sick, having bad tenants and downturns in the economy are all things that this couple should have seriously considered before they over extended themselves. The more properties a landlord owns, the chances of one or all of those things negatively affecting you are increased. These possibilities can be easily ignored when driven by greed.

I don't understand why anyone would take on four extra properties unless they were driven by greed and the expectation of a quick buck.

If I were to inherit a house in the morning, the last thing I'd want to do is rent it out - I'd sell it as quickly as possible, even under market value. If I won the Lotto, the last thing I would do is buy properties with the intent of renting them out.

Ray Palmer · 25-10-2018 11:13am

beauf wrote: »

People are investing. There is a net increase in landlords registering every year. I suspect an increased % of REITs. We aren't losing stock. Rather our population is increasing. So demand is increasing. The stock isn't increasing to match.

You seem to think you can run a business or buy a property a property without any contingency planning. That is just gambling.

Costs generally increase. At the crash a lot of landlords had to top up rent to cover the mortgage. I know someone who had to top up on three properties. But they had enough personal income to do this. Which is why they didn't have 10 properties. They knew they couldn't cover that.
Many who didn't had to get out of the business.

The larger landlord can spread losses over many properties if the majority are not losing money. Its only the smaller landlord who has no options.

All you're saying is if your are late to the market and have tight margins you do not have the buffer or contingency planning to absorb any increased cost. The numbers are telling you that should get out of the business.

For many people even if they are still in the black they are finding the risk and hassle just not worth the return of investment.

What utter nonsense and contradictory comment to what you posted already.

The person you know didn't have the margin you said was required for this couple. All your friend dealt with was lower rent and higher taxes. They didn't lose a job and have non paying tenants. You stated that is the margin the couple should have had. Your friend was lucky.

Costs increase with inflation again you are ignoring the increased costs were brought in by the government. Name the other industries where the government increased the costs and taxes on!

We aren't talking about any increase in costs or drop in rent. We are talking explicitly about government added costs outside of the market. The lack of protection of landlords is disgraceful.

As for increase in PRTB registration it is a catch up as many were not registered before. Landlords are selling up and I am myself on a property. The shortage isn't just increase in population it has many factors such as the removal of bed sits and the requirement for a split couple with a child to both have a 2 bed places. If you think all the bed sits have been replaced and more rentals exist now you are dreaming.

You cannot write off losses if revenue don't see it as a loss and as pointed out adding more money to pay off the mortgage isn't profit. You are also talking about owning multiple properties when 80% of landlords own just one.

Browney7 · 25-10-2018 11:24am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What utter nonsense and contradictory comment to what you posted already.

The person you know didn't have the margin you said was required for this couple. All your friend dealt with was lower rent and higher taxes. They didn't lose a job and have non paying tenants. You stated that is the margin the couple should have had. Your friend was lucky.

Costs increase with inflation again you are ignoring the increased costs were brought in by the government. Name the other industries where the government increased the costs and taxes on!

We aren't talking about any increase in costs or drop in rent. We are talking explicitly about government added costs outside of the market. The lack of protection of landlords is disgraceful.

As for increase in PRTB registration it is a catch up as many were not registered before. Landlords are selling up and I am myself on a property. The shortage isn't just increase in population it has many factors such as the removal of bed sits and the requirement for a split couple with a child to both have a 2 bed places. If you think all the bed sits have been replaced and more rentals exist now you are dreaming.

In the last budget the government increased betting taxes which will hammer small independent shops and knocked a decent chunk off the share price of the largest bookmaker in Ireland. They reincreased the VAT rate on the hospitality sector. They took 0.6% per annum of the value of a persons pension pot as an "emergency measure". Brought in USC and higher income taxes for pretty much everyone - including on investment income from dividends and bonds etc.

Governments change tax regimes all the time - it's what they do. If someone wants to excessively leverage themselves and sail close to the wind from a solvency perspective (these people were severely in the hole solvency wise when the a4se fell out of our wonderful tiger market) and leave themselves in a precarious position that is very much their choice.

beauf · 25-10-2018 11:27am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

.. You are also talking about owning multiple properties when 80% of landlords own just one.

The case under discussion had multiple properties.

beauf · 25-10-2018 11:31am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

. .The person you know didn't have the margin you said was required for this couple. All your friend dealt with was lower rent and higher taxes. They didn't lose a job and have non paying tenants. You stated that is the margin the couple should have had. Your friend was lucky....

Also had a large contingency fund. Didn't need to use it as they could cover the shortfall with income. Was it luck or good planning not to stretch to more properties.

beauf · 25-10-2018 11:47am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

. ..

As for increase in PRTB registration it is a catch up as many were not registered before. Landlords are selling up and I am myself on a property. The shortage isn't just increase in population it has many factors such as the removal of bed sits and the requirement for a split couple with a child to both have a 2 bed places. If you think all the bed sits have been replaced and more rentals exist now you are dreaming....

Bedsits left the market ages ago. Even before the crash. How long are you going to carry that torch. People don't register a tenancy if you are leaving the market.

The stats all talk about the stock available to rent. That's at an all time low. But that's not the same as the stock that is rented.

The ratio of home ownership to rentals is decreasing. As it's less affordable to buy your own home.

As for population the numbers tell their own story

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-population-growth-five-times-eu-average-472747.html

I think we lost something like 50k LL after the crash and we got back something like 20k back since then I think it net gain of 2k per year. The figures are not very clear.

But compared to population growth....

beauf · 25-10-2018 11:49am

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

....
If I were to inherit a house in the morning, the last thing I'd want to do is rent it out - I'd sell it as quickly as possible, even under market value. If I won the Lotto, the last thing I would do is buy properties with the intent of renting them out.

I guess it's about do you spend the money till it's gone or invest it so you lose less or even grow it. Greed or prudent?

_Brian · 25-10-2018 11:54am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You are ignoring tax of 52% so rent 1400 after tax it is 672. That is why you can't make money on a property.

No matter what they lost money in a market where people claim that landlords are rolling in money

Nobody wants to acknowledge that’s a problem. It has driven down rentals across the country.

Ray Palmer · 25-10-2018 12:07pm

Browney7 wrote: »

In the last budget the government increased betting taxes which will hammer small independent shops and knocked a decent chunk off the share price of the largest bookmaker in Ireland. They reincreased the VAT rate on the hospitality sector. They took 0.6% per annum of the value of a persons pension pot as an "emergency measure". Brought in USC and higher income taxes for pretty much everyone - including on investment income from dividends and bonds etc.

Governments change tax regimes all the time - it's what they do. If someone wants to excessively leverage themselves and sail close to the wind from a solvency perspective (these people were severely in the hole solvency wise when the a4se fell out of our wonderful tiger market) and leave themselves in a precarious position that is very much their choice.

Are you seriously trying to equate 8% plus increase to 1% and below increase with one be the end of tax reduction?

That increase on landlords is hugely different due to restriction of entry and exit.

Neither the hotel are gambling industry are suffering drops in revenue when this tax is being added.

You know a hell of a lot of detail for your friend. Did they have a contingency for 2 years of non payment for the 3 properties and them losing a salary? According to you that is what they should have. I would be very surprised they have a bigger contigency than their intial investment.This is what they would need according to you. I don't believe it and it stinks of BS.

Not worth the hassle?

Comments