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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Why is the cost of property, esp renting, so high in Dublin?
Comments
-
Deleted User wrote: »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.0 -
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.0 -
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.Donald Trump wrote: »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 :pac:
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.Donald Trump wrote: »As for insurance, do you think that landlords insure tenants possessions? Do you not realise that most property owners will insure their property
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.0 -
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.0 -
-
Lack of building,high welfare rents paid,1000s of foreigners moving here0
-
Donald Trump wrote: »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.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »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.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Donald Trump wrote: »What are you trying to say? You wrote a lot of words but actually made no point. It's all over the shop.
Reading comprehension not your strong point, no? As well as the points put forward by the other poster above, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your average Irish person.
People were delighted they had the foresight to not jump on the property ladder. Homeowners were openly mocked on boards for being stupid enough to buy a gaff. Now, it turns out that buying at that time was a worthwhile investment and the naysayers are blaming the homeowners for being heartless greedy bastards.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »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.
Why does property have to have some value to soceity? A landlord has a property to rent a tenant wants to rent a property a simple business transaction, supply and demand.
This is a business pure and simple if a person does not think or can't afford rent prices then buy.
Do you think that landlords should have some moral obligation to tenants to charge them what they can pay rather than what the market decides?
Being a landlord is a business pure and simple and every business tries to earn the maximum profits it can.
Seriously it never ceases to amaze me how many people come onto boards wanting landlords who are professional but don't want to pay for it.
It's like people want professional landlords but somebody else has to pay either the landlord with lower rent or society through subsidized rent.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »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.
It's not at all the same as putting all in FB shares, stocks are far more volatile than property, never mind the fact a stock can go to zero
Even a buy to let is owned debt free, it's a precarious environment right now as the tenant can go rogue without any real sanction, allowing Marxists to dictate policy this past number of years has only hurt decent tenants. The left despise property owners and are prepared to sacrifice the majority of tenants in order to hurt the property owning class
There is about a hundred billion in deposits sitting in banks here, just think how much good that idle capital could do if investors were able to deal with rogue tenants in a swift and efficient manner, most would be content with a circa NET yield of circa 4%, instead it's people like eoin o Broin ( with the backing of the left wing media) who wants to nationalise all property, who are settling the agenda, investors are terrified0 -
The Student wrote: »Why does property have to have some value to soceity? A landlord has a property to rent a tenant wants to rent a property a simple business transaction, supply and demand.
This is a business pure and simple if a person does not think or can't afford rent prices then buy.
Do you think that landlords should have some moral obligation to tenants to charge them what they can pay rather than what the market decides?
Being a landlord is a business pure and simple and every business tries to earn the maximum profits it can.
Seriously it never ceases to amaze me how many people come onto boards wanting landlords who are professional but don't want to pay for it.
It's like people want professional landlords but somebody else has to pay either the landlord with lower rent or society through subsidized rent.
You have to understand that ideology is often the enemy of reason, the people who are influencing the cluster fcuk policy in this area, the likes of threshold, Peter McVerry, eoin o Broin, Ruth coppinger and the bulk of the media
Those people are ideologically opposed at best to the idea of property investment, they call it rent seeking0 -
You have to understand that ideology is often the enemy of reason, the people who are influencing the cluster fcuk policy in this area, the likes of threshold, Peter McVerry, eoin o Broin, Ruth coppinger and the bulk of the media
Those people are ideologically opposed at best to the idea of property investment, they call it rent seeking
Exactly.
The idea that, in cities, anyone who wants a house should have a house is ridiculous and it forms a two tier housing system.
There's many different ways to handle the cost of housing. Unfortunately our government has worked to only make it more expensive and then people can either:
A: Work to get a decent job, then scrimp and save for years then pay off a 35 year mortgage
B: Keep your income low or none, then apply to social housing and get one for essentially free, if certain criteria are met. A fantastic deal in the long term, though tough in the short.
Strange how there's no middle ground.0 -
You have to understand that ideology is often the enemy of reason, the people who are influencing the cluster fcuk policy in this area, the likes of threshold, Peter McVerry, eoin o Broin, Ruth coppinger and the bulk of the media
Those people are ideologically opposed at best to the idea of property investment, they call it rent seeking
I was looking at PrimeTime last night and both Sinn Fein and Labour were advocating a dramatic increase in building social housing on state land.
It struck me how we never seem to learn regarding a concentration of social housing and the associated anti social behaviour associated with it.
I fully accept that there is anti social behaviour in private areas but social areas seems to get a bigger share of the issues than private ones (one of the reasons people are reluctant to live in social housing areas).
If a large concentration of social housing is built and unruly/anti social behaviour is not tackled we are storing up a world of problems.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Student wrote: »I was looking at PrimeTime last night and both Sinn Fein and Labour were advocating a dramatic increase in building social housing on state land.
It struck me how we never seem to learn regarding a concentration of social housing and the associated anti social behaviour associated with it.
I fully accept that there is anti social behaviour in private areas but social areas seems to get a bigger share of the issues than private ones (one of the reasons people are reluctant to live in social housing areas).
If a large concentration of social housing is built and unruly/anti social behaviour is not tackled we are storing up a world of problems.
That's a law enforcement issue0 -
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.
This is bullshit in fairness. What happens when your average amateur landlord sells up? Do they bulldoze the house into the ground?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Reading comprehension not your strong point, no? As well as the points put forward by the other poster above, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your average Irish person.
People were delighted they had the foresight to not jump on the property ladder. Homeowners were openly mocked on boards for being stupid enough to buy a gaff. Now, it turns out that buying at that time was a worthwhile investment and the naysayers are blaming the homeowners for being heartless greedy bastards.
I think that the issue with the comprehension is on your part dude.
I don't know what any of that has to do with what I said. Seems like you just wanted an opportunity to interject with some predefined regular incoherent phrases0 -
It's not at all the same as putting all in FB shares, stocks are far more volatile than property, never mind the fact a stock can go to zero
Even a buy to let is owned debt free, it's a precarious environment right now as the tenant can go rogue without any real sanction, allowing Marxists to dictate policy this past number of years has only hurt decent tenants. The left despise property owners and are prepared to sacrifice the majority of tenants in order to hurt the property owning class
There is about a hundred billion in deposits sitting in banks here, just think how much good that idle capital could do if investors were able to deal with rogue tenants in a swift and efficient manner, most would be content with a circa NET yield of circa 4%, instead it's people like eoin o Broin ( with the backing of the left wing media) who wants to nationalise all property, who are settling the agenda, investors are terrified
Yes, on your last point. If landlords were able to better deal with problem tenants then things would be better. You should not be surprised if an amateur landlord finds it difficult to do so
And your point about "not being at all like FB shares" gives the impression that you should get proper advice before investing your money. Yes they are different asset classes but you seem to think that it would or should be impossible for the value of a property investment to go to zero. If you actually believe that, I have some luxury houses in Bulgaria that I will sell you off the plans if you are interested?0 -
The Student wrote: »Why does property have to have some value to soceity? A landlord has a property to rent a tenant wants to rent a property a simple business transaction, supply and demand.
This is a business pure and simple if a person does not think or can't afford rent prices then buy.
Do you think that landlords should have some moral obligation to tenants to charge them what they can pay rather than what the market decides?
Being a landlord is a business pure and simple and every business tries to earn the maximum profits it can.
Seriously it never ceases to amaze me how many people come onto boards wanting landlords who are professional but don't want to pay for it.
It's like people want professional landlords but somebody else has to pay either the landlord with lower rent or society through subsidized rent.
That's mad that you wrote all that in response to my post. It has no relevance to anything I said. It is also very very badly written.0 -
Advertisement
-
Donald Trump wrote: »This is bullshit in fairness. What happens when your average amateur landlord sells up? Do they bulldoze the house into the ground?
Four people might be renting, two might move in post sale
Loss of two places0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »Yes, on your last point. If landlords were able to better deal with problem tenants then things would be better. You should not be surprised if an amateur landlord finds it difficult to do so
And your point about "not being at all like FB shares" gives the impression that you should get proper advice before investing your money. Yes they are different asset classes but you seem to think that it would or should be impossible for the value of a property investment to go to zero. If you actually believe that, I have some luxury houses in Bulgaria that I will sell you off the plans if you are interested?
The laws surrounding eviction are the same whether the owner of the property is a person with a single property or a REIT
Reits don't want to own apartments in athlone or drogheda so the small guy will be needed for a while yet
Bringing up Bulgarian property makes you look like what you accuse others of
A BS merchant0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »This is bullshit in fairness. What happens when your average amateur landlord sells up? Do they bulldoze the house into the ground?
When LLs sell, the property is not being bought by investors for rental purposes. A recent study showed 50k LLs have left the sector since 2013 and the amount of available rental units has significantly decreased. A rudimentary understanding of the rental market should be enough for you to understand that when LLs leave the market and the property is no longer available for rental, that reduces supply at a time when demand increases.
I know you didn’t want to read the links I posted earlier, had you done so you would be more informed about institutional investors buying unfinished developments so rents can be maximised. This only applies to Dublin, less so to other Irish cities and towns where the small/amateur landlords you seem to despise so much, are the only LLs providing accommodation.
Of course the property is not bulldozed, hyperbole rarely makes a good point, but unless another small investor buys that property for rental, it is lost to the rental sector, reducing supply even more.
In relation to your earlier assertion that renters are setting the rental market price, I’m afraid that your opinion goes against logic and every economist/tenant interviewed over the last 5 years. Supply and demand are co-dependent. I would be interested to hear from any tenant who reads this thread, and was able to dictate the rent they pay by offering a lower rate in an area like Dublin where need is greatest and supply lowest.0 -
Seems that there are a lot on amateur landlords on here proving exactly the point as to why they shouldn't be in the market in the first place0
-
Donald Trump wrote: »That's mad that you wrote all that in response to my post. It has no relevance to anything I said. It is also very very badly written.
I will bow to your obvious extensive business expierence and life expierence. Please share you wisdom with me as to how you see the housing situation improved which will lead to massive increases in supply where everybody is happy.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »That's mad that you wrote all that ……. It is also very very badly written.
That's a lot of "that" in one sentence :-)0 -
@OP
For every 12 new jobs created in Dublin over the last 5 years, only one new home has been built.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »Seems that there are a lot on amateur landlords on here proving exactly the point as to why they shouldn't be in the market in the first place
Nope, there's three or four people telling you how and why you are factually wrong.
Why do you think no one is backing you up here?0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »
1)I still don't understand you point.
2)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???
3)amateur landlords who think that they should be entitled to have a renter or renters pay their mortgage for them?
4)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.
1)How, the other poster is very clear.
2)Not sure where you even get this from his posts
3)That is the point of investing... You invest in a business be it a car rental,houses etc to generate a profit. Your profit is derived from people paying for the service you provide. Having a mortgage or not on the property is irrelevant. You want to earn x from your business. You would expect that before you go into a business and yes i would view managing a rental as a business, you want to ensure you can earn a profit from this. You cant complain about lack of rentals when people explain to you why ll are leaving due to lack of profit an excess risk yet at the same time expect more ll to enter the market to improve YOUR situation. You need better profit combined with less risk. This will hopefully attract more ll to the market which should improve the renters situation. Im interested to see what your solution to this mess is.
4) i suspect ll have a lower LTV to PPR bidders as LL need to stump up a min of 30pc to get a mortgage while PPR need a min of 10pc so not sure why you even mention this. Renters have it much worse than house owners. People that own property pay less in mortgage payments to renting. Renters are struggling to save up enough money to buy a house of their own. Right now we need to walk before we can run. They should focus on resolving the rental crisis first before see what they can do to make houses cheaper. The more money a renter can save provides them with better disposable income to afford their own home. Renting is a far more efficient method of housing people as a standard 3 bed will normally have between 3-6 adults while a PPR 3 bed may only have 2. The more ll we have to supply this excess demand, it for sure add value to society.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »I think that the issue with the comprehension is on your part dude.
I don't know what any of that has to do with what I said. Seems like you just wanted an opportunity to interject with some predefined regular incoherent phrases
Let me break it down for you......Here's what you wrote:Donald Trump wrote: »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?
The use of "greedy", "entitled" and "mistakes of eejits" belies the fact that you think those who bought during the boom were foolish. You compound that by saying "wisely chose not to buy". So you obviously think that those who purchased in the mid noughties made an error in doing so, and those who abstained from buying were savvy.
I asked you a question, which you dodged, so I'll ask it again here now. What percentage of those 'wise' renters who chose not to buy at that time now regret their decision, with the benefit of hindsight? (I reckon it is greater than 95%, but that's just me. In fact, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find a single individual who would admit they turned down the opportunity to buy a gaff in 2007, has rented from then until now, and is happy they did so).
I also think it is hypocritical of you/Boards/Irish people in general to slate people for buying property as being idiots, while also lambasting them for subsequently maximising the profits to be made from that property.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Let me break it down for you......Here's what you wrote:
The use of "greedy", "entitled" and "mistakes of eejits" belies the fact that you think those who bought during the boom were foolish. You compound that by saying "wisely chose not to buy". So you obviously think that those who purchased in the mid noughties made an error in doing so, and those who abstained from buying were savvy.
I asked you a question, which you dodged, so I'll ask it again here now. What percentage of those 'wise' renters who chose not to buy at that time now regret their decision, with the benefit of hindsight? (I reckon it is greater than 95%, but that's just me. In fact, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find a single individual who would admit they turned down the opportunity to buy a gaff in 2007, has rented from then until now, and is happy they did so).
I also think it is hypocritical of you/Boards/Irish people in general to slate people for buying property as being idiots, while also lambasting them for subsequently maximising the profits to be made from that property.
Let me break it down for you dude. You are the only person who are focused on a boom or anything like it. I merely responded to another poster who was trying to imply that because some eejits overpaid for a house in Clongriffin in 2007 and found out that "safe as houses" was not as safe as they thought it was to be, that they should be somehow guaranteed a positive return on it. My main concern is that they still seem to be surprised that a house/apartment could still decrease in value
The other stuff about me lambasting anyone for maximizing profits is entirely a figment of your own imagination
These kind of things remind me of the eejits who chose equity SSIAs back in the day and when the equity markets went down in the middle of the term, started whining and demanding that they government refund them. lol
You want to be an amateur landlord then fine. But don't be whinging if your decision doesn't work out. Don't play the game and then in the middle of it start moaning about the rules. You can do what you want with your own money. From a societal perspective, amateur landlords should however not be encouraged. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to do it if you want to.0 -
ReReg Numpty wrote: »The property & land markets have been monetised as an asset class, which means they are a strategic component of the nation's wealth.
In order to build that wealth, which is by and large good for everyone, supply is deliberately restricted to increase value, and to leverage further economic growth.Donald Trump wrote: »Why should there be an incentive for speculative amateur landlords.
Do you think that you should be somehow given a risk-free guaranteed return to own an asset in 30 years which will be paid back by some tenant? There are too many people out there thinking that they should be entitled to go into the bank, spend a few hours filling out a few forms, buy a house, forget about it for 30 years and then come back to sell it and keep the proceeds after some gobshite paid off their mortgage for them.
Become a landlord by all means if you have the skills, time, effort and risk management ability to make it work.
This & this - same old story. The Irish love affair for property & land.0 -
Hugh Attractive Signboard wrote: »Because there is no incentive to be a landlord.
Rental income - €1800
Tax - up to €850
Mortgage payment - More than €850
Where's the incentive. Capital appreciation over 20 years isn't guaranteed.
Your tenant can choose to not pay rent for 2 years while you go through the PRTB process.
Stone mad to be a landlord in Ireland (Dublin at least)
This idea that to be a profitable landlord, the landlord shouldn't have to top up the mortgage is a nonsense.
You do know they are left with a very valuable asset at the end of the term0 -
MrMusician18 wrote: »This idea that to be a profitable landlord, the landlord shouldn't have to top up the mortgage is a nonsense.
You do know they are left with a very valuable asset at the end of the term
And now you ask why rents are increase yet ll are leaving the market. It is nonsense.... that you think it should be anything but cash flow positive if you think any sane person would want to supplement a business for 35 years to make tiny profits at the end of it. And yes. It is small profit to way you talk for 30years of hard graft as you pay tax at 50pc of any profits and 33pc on cgt at the end of it.0 -
MrMusician18 wrote: »This idea that to be a profitable landlord, the landlord shouldn't have to top up the mortgage is a nonsense.
You do know they are left with a very valuable asset at the end of the term
You do realise that being a landlord is a business and all business's try to make as much profit as possible.
You may have a valuable asset at the end or you may not depending on how the market is, what taxs are in operation etc.
What exactly is wrong with trying to max profit? is that not the sole aim of business?
People want professional landlords but dont want them to maximise profit?0 -
The Student wrote: »You do realise that being a landlord is a business and all business's try to make as much profit as possible.
You may have a valuable asset at the end or you may not depending on how the market is, what taxs are in operation etc.
What exactly is wrong with trying to max profit? is that not the sole aim of business?
People want professional landlords but dont want them to maximise profit?
Dude, you are obsessed with something and I can't quite tell what it is. I think it is obscuring your ability to understand the logic of what is being said to you.
Nobody is saying that they shouldn't "maximize profits". They are saying that there is no reason why that should entail a sense of entitlement that a tenant should be entirely paying off the mortgage for them so that the landlord gets a free house at the end of it. It might work out that way, but there is no reason that it *should* by right do that0 -
The Student wrote: »You do realise that being a landlord is a business and all business's try to make as much profit as possible.
You may have a valuable asset at the end or you may not depending on how the market is, what taxs are in operation etc.
What exactly is wrong with trying to max profit? is that not the sole aim of business?
People want professional landlords but dont want them to maximise profit?
Also he's ignoring the costs of being a landlord, which can run to several thousand a year.
If I bought a house with a view to rent it, it could take a year or maybe two before I've paid off the furniture, appliances and other ancillaries to make the house habitable.
Then I'm liable for ANYTHING that goes wrong in the house, I could get calls at any time day or night, then I have to organise and pay for electricians, plumbers, carpenters etc.
You have all the costs (sans utility bills) of living in a house without actually living in it.
The lack of knowledge here is astounding.0 -
Donald Trump wrote: »Dude, you are obsessed with something and I can't quite tell what it is. I think it is obscuring your ability to understand the logic of what is being said to you.
Nobody is saying that they shouldn't "maximize profits". They are saying that there is no reason why that should entail a sense of entitlement that a tenant should be entirely paying off the mortgage for them so that the landlord gets a free house at the end of it. It might work out that way, but there is no reason that it *should* by right do that
What’s the “dude” about? Commenting on someone else’s syntax while starting a sentence with “dude” is ironic.
I don’t think anyone is obsessed with your opinions, more likely bemused, personally I’m wondering if you are just trying to wind posters up, but there is always a chance you are serious.
Unless there is a good probability that an investor does end up with paid for asset at the end of the term, or make a profit on rent/sale, why would any investor buy a property for rental? This isn’t philanthropy.0 -
lainey_d_123 wrote: »Have you been recently? Renting in Berlin is very expensive now, not that far off Dublin prices.
It's also not Germany's biggest industrial city where all the jobs are concentrated. There are loads of other big cities with jobs .- Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, Cologne. Not the case in Ireland.
Munich not included?0 -
Advertisement
-
Donald Trump wrote: »Dude, you are obsessed with something and I can't quite tell what it is. I think it is obscuring your ability to understand the logic of what is being said to you.
Nobody is saying that they shouldn't "maximize profits". They are saying that there is no reason why that should entail a sense of entitlement that a tenant should be entirely paying off the mortgage for them so that the landlord gets a free house at the end of it. It might work out that way, but there is no reason that it *should* by right do that
The market is dictating prices and the rental market goes in peaks and troughs (look at the years 2010 to 2015 as a case in point).
What people are missing here is that for a good couple of years rents were not paying the mortgage and landlords were paying towards the mortgage. At the moment rents may be covering mortgage repayments now but this is only in the last couple of years.
If we actually had a functioning property market where supply either met or exceeded demand then rent would not pay mortgage repayments and your arguement of having a valuable asset at the end would hold through were the landlord was subsidizing the mortgage payments with his own money.
But here is the crux of the arguement, we have an over zealous Govt who want the private sector to house people, the State gets all the upside in taxes etc without the hassle. They introduce the RTB which allows tenants overhold due to the time delay in evictions etc.
We have those on the left who think everybody should have a house but can't explain how its going to be paid for, we have increasing requirements to be energy efficient in new and existing properties but we don't want prices to go up as people can't afford them.
To add insult to injury we have a system of subsidizing social housing were in Dublin city alone 60% of tenants are in rent arrears. We also have a legal system that encourages non payment of mortgages as it takes years to get an eviction while the person lives rent free for the whole time.
And people wonder why the cost of property and renting in Dublin is so high!0 -
MrMusician18 wrote: »This idea that to be a profitable landlord, the landlord shouldn't have to top up the mortgage is a nonsense.
You do know they are left with a very valuable asset at the end of the term
You can't dine out on future valuations and besides, property is inferior to stocks when it comes to long term appreciation, property is better for yield - income, that's not much good if a tenant withholds for two years0 -
The price for property in Dublin is very normal for that size and economy level, while the renting is absolutely to high.
The main factor for the very high rents is due to the very low supplies of residential property over the past 10 years (due to residential construction crisis), especially for such a young city with growing population and booming economy.
To make things worse, private landlords are highly taxed, typically 50-52% on the profit, I don’t know any other country with that high taxation for private landlords. And more than that property should be supplied furnished, whereas in many European countries it’s common to rent unfurnished (at least Denmark and Germany from my own experience).
The standard of furnished/unfurnished doesn't make a difference. Whatever's the norm in a market is what people get on with. All tenants know that they either bring nothing or everything with them when moving house. How would it make a difference?
And landlords are taxed at the same rate as everyone else on their income/profits, as it should be. Saying they need special tax treatment is ridiculous. And I say that as a landlord.
However, to run their "business" all fair costs should be deductible, like mortgage interest, as it is for property funds or any limited company. The biggest factor is the erosion of protections for landlords from bad tenants and rent control. There should be protections in both directions. Tenants get increased security of tenure/rent increases but in return, if they stop paying rent or are certified problem tenants it should take no more than 3 - 4 months to evict them. And landlords should be able to set rent to the market rate between tenancies.
As regards the bigger picture, I'd echo what other posters said - there's too much concentration of infrastructure and industrial estates around the M50 which has resulted in Dublin having 30% of the country's population. Government policy has been crap at building infrastructure to support shifting these zones, and more population, away from Dublin. That goes for attracting IT companies to other cities as well. Really just token efforts so far.
Those policies, or lack of one, that draws more and more to Dublin combined with sticking to low density housing has really screwed the city and especially its tenants. The government's chickens are just coming home to roost really.0 -
The protection for rogue tenants is purely ideologically driven, it serves no purpose other than to frustrate landlords and when burned by the experience of a two year eviction process, same landlord is likely to leave the market and advise others not to enter either
This creates a toxic environment which again hurts those renting, Marxists like eoin o Broin and Fr Peter McVerry are dictating policy right now0 -
I never said that business like landlords had no right to make a profit. What I was pointing out was landlords can be making a healthy profit, even when they have to top up a mortgage.Donald Trump wrote: »Dude, you are obsessed with something and I can't quite tell what it is. I think it is obscuring your ability to understand the logic of what is being said to you.
Nobody is saying that they shouldn't "maximize profits". They are saying that there is no reason why that should entail a sense of entitlement that a tenant should be entirely paying off the mortgage for them so that the landlord gets a free house at the end of it. It might work out that way, but there is no reason that it *should* by right do that
If someone was letting out a house but over the course of the term, rent was less than the mortgage payments by €100k say, meaning the landlord had to top it up - but the house was valued at €400k at the end of the term, has the landlord made a profit? Of course he has, he's got a 3x return and the initial investment back.
A lot of smaller landlords never seemed to understand this and expected the tenant to cover the mortgage in it's entirety and in 30 years, said small landlord would collect the free house.0 -
MrMusician18 wrote: »I never said that business like landlords had no right to make a profit. What I was pointing out was landlords can be making a healthy profit, even when they have to top up a mortgage.
If someone was letting out a house but over the course of the term, rent was less than the mortgage payments by €100k say, meaning the landlord had to top it up - but the house was valued at €400k at the end of the term, has the landlord made a profit? Of course he has, he's got a 3x return and the initial investment back.
A lot of smaller landlords never seemed to understand this and expected the tenant to cover the mortgage in it's entirety and in 30 years, said small landlord would collect the free house.
All irrelevant to the central problem today when it comes to being in the landlord business, the lack of power if tenants go rogue0 -
Advertisement
-
You can't dine out on future valuations and besides, property is inferior to stocks when it comes to long term appreciation, property is better for yield - income, that's not much good if a tenant withholds for two years
You're missing a key aspect of real estate investing - leverage. No brokerage on the planet will allow you to borrow 70% on margin to invest in securities, yet a real estate investor only needs 30% down in a BTL mortgage. Therefore the return is amplified by ~2.5x.
For this reason, the bizarre presumption that tenancy market needs rent > mortgage to function is laughable and at odds with every other stable city's rental market.0 -
MrMusician18 wrote: »I never said that business like landlords had no right to make a profit. What I was pointing out was landlords can be making a healthy profit, even when they have to top up a mortgage.
If someone was letting out a house but over the course of the term, rent was less than the mortgage payments by €100k say, meaning the landlord had to top it up - but the house was valued at €400k at the end of the term, has the landlord made a profit? Of course he has, he's got a 3x return and the initial investment back.
A lot of smaller landlords never seemed to understand this and expected the tenant to cover the mortgage in it's entirety and in 30 years, said small landlord would collect the free house.
You're right. But it's another reason for small landlords to get out. I'm in my 40s. Using the process above I'd have to supplement the business for 30 years and hopefully survive to profit from it. (Which is quite rightly not a concern of the tenant).
I looked at buying to let a few years ago. When you do the sums it's not worth it. There are better places to put your money to work for you without the hassle / risk.0 -
You're missing a key aspect of real estate investing - leverage. No brokerage on the planet will allow you to borrow 70% on margin to invest in securities, yet a real estate investor only needs 30% down in a BTL mortgage. Therefore the return is amplified by ~2.5x.
For this reason, the bizarre presumption that tenancy market needs rent > mortgage to function is laughable and at odds with every other stable city's rental market.
A very sizeable percentage of buy to let investors in the past six years are cash buyers, the same issues still sour their experiences of the market
You're hung up on the mortgage thing, buy to let on paper is a good deal right now as the yields are excellent, the extraordinarily protection of tenants is a damocles sword0 -
You're right. But it's another reason for small landlords to get out. I'm in my 40s. Using the process above I'd have to supplement the business for 30 years and hopefully survive to profit from it.
I looked at buying to let a few years ago. When you do the sums it's not worth it. There are better places to put your money to work for you without the hassle / risk.
For me the threat of bad tenants and the ghastly RTB process is a far bigger problem than the tax, I'm not in the top tax bracket so perhaps it's an altogether different proposition for those who are?
I've a house in Limerick leased to the council for ten years since 2018, don't even know who lives in the joint, council are fully in charge of everything
Way i see it the state meddles so much in the business of landlords, might as well have the state as you're tenant0 -
And now you ask why rents are increase yet ll are leaving the market. It is nonsense.... that you think it should be anything but cash flow positive if you think any sane person would want to supplement a business for 35 years to make tiny profits at the end of it. And yes. It is small profit to way you talk for 30years of hard graft as you pay tax at 50pc of any profits all income received and 33pc on cgt at the end of it.
Small but vital correction above.Donald Trump wrote: »Dude, you are obsessed with something and I can't quite tell what it is. I think it is obscuring your ability to understand the logic of what is being said to you.
Nobody is saying that they shouldn't "maximize profits". They are saying that there is no reason why that should entail a sense of entitlement that a tenant should be entirely paying off the mortgage for them so that the landlord gets a free house at the end of it. It might work out that way, but there is no reason that it *should* by right do that
In response to the above bolded part.
A €1,600 p/m rental income leaves an annual tax bill of about €8,600 without any expenses. If the expenses came to about €160 per month (generous) that still leaves an annual tax bill of €7,600 roughly, or close to €230,000 in tax over 30 years. Hardly free. This figure will go up, obviously, over the life of the mortgage as the interest deductible goes down and the rent increases along with inflation.
This obviously doesn't include the mortgage payments. So, if we imagine the rent doesn't change over the term of the mortgage for simplicity sake:
Mortage payments (300k @ 4.5% over 30 years: 547,000
Tax paid: 230,000
Total: 777,000
Less rent received: 576,000
Net: €201,000 paid over 30 years (€560 p/m)
Simplistic figures, open to correction, but you get the gist. That's before you factor in time and effort and stress etc. It ain't free, by a long shot.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement