The Journal- house buying propaganda

Chorcai wrote: »

The problem is every Mick n Mary are a ****ing landlord, who provide ZERO services and rely on "redecorating" to get the current tenants out to get new one in only to up the rent for the same sad **** hole of a place. Irish landlords are the worst.

Have you any experience of landlords elsewhere? Im sure there are bad/slum landlords (literally) everywhere.
The regulations/legistlation thats exists here is not conducive to good landlords in the main, it actually favours bad landlords.

If a private person invests their money in a property and a private person rents that property, then state has to have no involvement in funding it BUT they get a return of practically 50% of the rent, essentially funded by the renter in the main.
If the state is paying for the tenant, then the State is funding it piecemeal and they get a 50% deduction in the cost as the landlord returns this through taxation (while this costs them less in the shorterm they will ultimately pay more for the rent in the longterm than if they built the house and outright rented it even at an exceptionally low cost), the State/Councils have not been very good at this, either renting/managing/even collecting small amounts of rent, and they sold off a lot of what they had, so they not only dont have to fund maintenance, they arent even funding the building of property.


As it appears to cost less to use these means to provide housing, and this seems to be the means which exists today, I think Im correct in this.

If they were to fund such projects, where would they get the money from? and how would that affect people and their taxes overall? I dont think they could source the finances on the scale required, in the past it was possible, but Im not convinced now, certainly the willingness to entertain it doesnt seem to exist.
I think there should be private and public housing, the State should never have sold off their stock via the councils, instead they could have raised funds by selling some at or nearer market value and had clawbacks for profits where they exceed a certain value or percent, enough to ensure they dont lose out, but small enough to encourage people that can afford to move up the ladder on their own OR they could have had preferential clauses to buy back property when it was sold. Even if they had taken on private companies to manage the rents/maintenance for them they might have had a more efficient cost effective service, with them setting the rents relative to the means of the tenants.