More landlords to sell up over taxes and cost of letting property

testaccount123 · 18-11-2015 3:29pm

Magnolia Enough Typographer wrote: »

Personally I think smaller private LLs are much better than faceless corporations renting out lots of places.

If for nothing else its nicer to be dealing with the owner directly than some dogsbody that works for the property company. Its a more relaxed and personal experience. You can build up a relationship with your LL also and this can have advantages.

Except when they have zero idea of their responsibilities, which has happened with practically every Irish landlords Ive had.

If Im paying out 15k a year for a service, I want it from a professionally run, industry regulated business with some responsibility to the market, not some yahoo 'investor' who will screw you around, and then go on to screw the next guy around after you.

My current landlord has decided to sell the house to his daughter, putting me out on my ear. This wouldnt happen if I could rent from a reputable business which generates its revenue from rental property it owns.

draiochtanois · 18-11-2015 3:32pm

This post has been deleted.

handlemaster · 18-11-2015 3:34pm

testaccount123 wrote: »

Except when they have zero idea of their responsibilities, which has happened with practically every Irish landlords Ive had.

If Im paying out 15k a year for a service, I want it from a professionally run, industry regulated business with some responsibility to the market, not some yahoo 'investor' who will screw you around and then go on to screw the next guy around after you.

you could change your desires into the desires of many a landlord also. . there are many tenants who get a get property and leave it recked costing thousands. For that the LL has very little recourse

18-11-2015 3:46pm

gaius c wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, small private landlords are hardly going to say anything different.

I'm not a LL.

testaccount123 wrote: »

Except when they have zero idea of their responsibilities, which has happened with practically every Irish landlords Ive had.

If Im paying out 15k a year for a service, I want it from a professionally run, industry regulated business with some responsibility to the market, not some yahoo 'investor' who will screw you around, and then go on to screw the next guy around after you.

My current landlord has decided to sell the house to his daughter, putting me out on my ear. This wouldnt happen if I could rent from a reputable business which generates its revenue from rental property it owns.

On the other hand it suits me very much. I've never had to sign a lease, never been tied to a property and always have had a one months notice to move out setup regardless of how long I've been in a place. It's not something I could see a big property agency allowing as they will be by the book.

RainyDay · 18-11-2015 5:43pm

Obviously there are two sides to the debate as to whether we want 'big' landlords or 'little' landlords. It does seem that the countries that have a better renting culture, offering a real long-term alternative to buying, have more professional landlords and fewer amateurs.

Any dangers of professional landlords taking control of a particular area could be addressed under competition legislation.

draiochtanois · 18-11-2015 6:38pm

This post has been deleted.

beauf · 18-11-2015 6:38pm

testaccount123 wrote: »

... This wouldn't happen if I could rent from a reputable business which generates its revenue from rental property it owns.

I think you mean a larger business won't go out of business as often as smaller business. They can obviously also go out of business. They can obviously control/dictate supply and prices much better than a lot of smaller business's. Yes the govt legislate for this. How is the Govt record on this thus far.

RainyDay wrote: »

...It does seem that the countries that have a better renting culture, offering a real long-term alternative to buying, have more professional landlords and fewer amateurs. ...

Perhaps they also have legislation which makes renting out a more sustainable business. Like giving the LL some protection. Also housing and economic policies which don't create a massive housing shortage.

Policies like larger deposits and unfurnished properties, and a requirement to re-paint at the end of a tenancy before handing it back to the LL, exactly as it was.

borderlinemeath · 18-11-2015 7:28pm

gaius c wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, small private landlords are hardly going to say anything different.

When did this become a big v small landlord debate? There's room for both, I pointed out the very real possibilities that having a REIT dominated market would bring. Without fail every tenant gives out about their landlord at some point, they are described as amateur or greedy or rogue or whatever. But having a management company take over your rental will give some tenants a very nasty wake up call.

My husband is one of those nice landlords, who gives tenants far too much leeway when it comes to rent on time. And it comes back to bite him sometimes. He had a tenant go away for a 3 week holiday without paying her rent beforehand so it was over 2 weeks late, so the next month was 2 weeks late again, then she wanted to switch to rent allowance which he didn't want so he was the worst landlord in the world and she was screaming down the phone at him at 9pm on a Friday night. If she tried that kind of shiite with a management company her 14 day notice and possibly her termination notice would be waiting in the post when she got back from her holiday.

gaius c · 18-11-2015 7:52pm

borderlinemeath wrote: »

When did this become a big v small landlord debate?

Because you're pushing a "small landlord" agenda.

Arbiter of Good Taste · 18-11-2015 7:56pm

gaius c wrote: »

Because you're pushing a "small landlord" agenda.

Providing an opinion different to yours is not pushing an agenda.

gaius c · 20-11-2015 11:05am

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Providing an opinion different to yours is not pushing an agenda.

When you have a vested interest in the discussion, you have an agenda and all the folks here pushing for 100% tax relief on interest (and in one case on capital repayments too) are pushing that agenda for their own benefit. That's what an agenda is.

beauf · 20-11-2015 11:24am

gaius c wrote: »

When you have a vested interest in the discussion, you have an agenda and all the folks here pushing for 100% tax relief on interest (and in one case on capital repayments too) are pushing that agenda for their own benefit. That's what an agenda is.

While its in their interest to stay in business. Is it in LL interest to increase supply, and have more competitors?

Fol20 · 20-11-2015 11:37am

gaius c wrote: »

When you have a vested interest in the discussion, you have an agenda and all the folks here pushing for 100% tax relief on interest (and in one case on capital repayments too) are pushing that agenda for their own benefit. That's what an agenda is.

Everyone has an agenda when they comment. If your renting or have previous experience renting, you also have an agenda.

Fol20 · 20-11-2015 12:04pm

Can you name one good thing that landlords have received over the past 5 years..

I can name things that have gone to tenants or negatives put on landlords:

Increase in rent supplement.
rent control
NPPR
Property tax cant be claimed as expense.
Mortgage interest dropped to 75pc.
Bedsits stopped(although i do agree some of these were terrible, other countries like france have 7m squared apartments, why cant we try that as well?)

PRTB slow as ever to remove problematic tenants(although its the same for tenants, landlords loose a lot more money in terms of lost rent or damaged property.)

Somthing about deposit retention being given to PRTB, i cant wait to see the legislation for this, i wonder if costs will be involved for this system and i wonder who will be charged, i can only guess who will get the bill.

Its all take but no give.. And then tenants are begrudging landlords about expecting profit and when landlords are leaving in mass when they can, tenants are now crying foul when rents are going up. People should learn the economics of supply and demand and realise that if more houses were available = more competitive = less costs for tenants. Instead, they try and push out landlords = less houses available = less competitive = more costs for tenants.

borderlinemeath · 20-11-2015 12:15pm

gaius c wrote: »

When you have a vested interest in the discussion, you have an agenda and all the folks here pushing for 100% tax relief on interest (and in one case on capital repayments too) are pushing that agenda for their own benefit. That's what an agenda is.

If you read back through my posts you'll see that I haven't once suggested 100% MIR. Am I happy I pay so much tax to revenue? Of course not, sure who is? But perhaps I'm in a better position than others. I'm more than halfway through my mortgage on a tracker rate so am paying mostly capital rather than interest so an increase in MIR isn't going to make much of a difference to me. In just over a decade I will have an asset that I can either sell or hold onto should my child need to live in Dublin if she goes to college or gets a job there.

For me, my house wasn't a money making venture, it was my home before I bought my family home with my husband that I could afford to hold onto. You consistently refer to landlords on this forum who complain about tenants or taxation as people who made "stupid investments" yet you stated you used to be a landlord yourself. If I have an agenda, then your posts have a fair whiff of schadenfraude.

My main issue is how the government has ignored pleas from landlords to sort out a timely eviction process for problem tenants. They have effectively tied landlords hands in relation to the RTA regarding evictions of problem tenants. The fact that landlords have to pay the PRTB when it is unfairly on the side of the tenant. (why doesn't the tenant pay them anything?) The fact that successive governments rely on landlords for social housing because they don't want to do it themselves. Landlords are an easy target for government, nobody likes landlords, right?;)

Gumbo · 20-11-2015 1:29pm

I must be the only person that made a choice to buy an investment property and become a LL in 2015

gaius c · 20-11-2015 1:32pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Can you name one good thing that landlords have received over the past 5 years..

I can name things that have gone to tenants or negatives put on landlords:

Increase in rent supplement.
rent control
NPPR
Property tax cant be claimed as expense.
Mortgage interest dropped to 75pc.
Bedsits stopped(although i do agree some of these were terrible, other countries like france have 7m squared apartments, why cant we try that as well?)

PRTB slow as ever to remove problematic tenants(although its the same for tenants, landlords loose a lot more money in terms of lost rent or damaged property.)

Somthing about deposit retention being given to PRTB, i cant wait to see the legislation for this, i wonder if costs will be involved for this system and i wonder who will be charged, i can only guess who will get the bill.

Its all take but no give.. And then tenants are begrudging landlords about expecting profit and when landlords are leaving in mass when they can, tenants are now crying foul when rents are going up. People should learn the economics of supply and demand and realise that if more houses were available = more competitive = less costs for tenants. Instead, they try and push out landlords = less houses available = less competitive = more costs for tenants.

For urban areas: A massive boom in rents far beyond the general rate of inflation and very low vacancy rates.

Fol20 · 20-11-2015 1:40pm

gaius c wrote: »

For urban areas: A massive boom in rents far beyond the general rate of inflation and very low vacancy rates.

This is due to low supply and high demand and in any business this will increase rental prices.
Why do you think there is less supply now compared to 2 years ago. We have more or less the same amount of houses yet there are very few available. As soon as many landlords can get rid of their property, they are now doing it now in swarms. If there isnt an incentive for landlords to buy investment properties, they wont. So yea maybe investment properties are being sold and being bought by home owners, But contrary to what someone else said in the thread that landlords add no value, we are a necessary "evil" as people will always need to rent when they cannot afford to buy their own house.

This is not something that was given to us. It happened due to environmental events more than anything.

Do you have any other ideas as to what we were given.

handlemaster · 20-11-2015 1:43pm

kceire wrote: »

I must be the only person that made a choice to buy an investment property and become a LL in 2015

LOL. How it going so far ?

gaius c · 20-11-2015 1:43pm

borderlinemeath wrote: »

If you read back through my posts you'll see that I haven't once suggested 100% MIR. Am I happy I pay so much tax to revenue? Of course not, sure who is? But perhaps I'm in a better position than others. I'm more than halfway through my mortgage on a tracker rate so am paying mostly capital rather than interest so an increase in MIR isn't going to make much of a difference to me. In just over a decade I will have an asset that I can either sell or hold onto should my child need to live in Dublin if she goes to college or gets a job there.

For me, my house wasn't a money making venture, it was my home before I bought my family home with my husband that I could afford to hold onto. You consistently refer to landlords on this forum who complain about tenants or taxation as people who made "stupid investments" yet you stated you used to be a landlord yourself. If I have an agenda, then your posts have a fair whiff of schadenfraude.

My main issue is how the government has ignored pleas from landlords to sort out a timely eviction process for problem tenants. They have effectively tied landlords hands in relation to the RTA regarding evictions of problem tenants. The fact that landlords have to pay the PRTB when it is unfairly on the side of the tenant. (why doesn't the tenant pay them anything?) The fact that successive governments rely on landlords for social housing because they don't want to do it themselves. Landlords are an easy target for government, nobody likes landlords, right?;)

So you made a decision to hold onto it and are now pushing an agenda that will minimise the cost of the valuable asset you will one day own.
I made the decision to leave the landlording game because it no longer made business sense. I didn't come here to proclaim that this would have a negative effect on society as much of your fellow landlords have done on these threads in the last week. I've about as much time for scaremongering re accommodation as I do taxi drivers or the VFI pushing their own agendas.

Also, re the first bolded point, the thread (and it's sister thread) has been swarmed with landlords looking for changes to tax law that would benefit them. One of them stated that he/she wanted tax relief on capital repayments too. Nox001 I think it was.

gaius c · 20-11-2015 1:45pm

Fol20 wrote: »

This is due to low supply and high demand and in any business this will increase rental prices.
Why do you think there is less supply now compared to 2 years ago. We have more or less the same amount of houses yet there are very few available. As soon as many landlords can get rid of their property, they are now doing it now in swarms. If there isnt an incentive for landlords to buy investment properties, they wont. So yea maybe investment properties are being sold and being bought by home owners, But contrary to what someone else said in the thread that landlords add no value, we are a necessary "evil" as people will always need to rent when they cannot afford to buy their own house.

This is not something that was given to us. It happened due to environmental events more than anything.

Do you have any other ideas as to what we were given.

An endless supply of customers with no choice but to bid against each other for your wares and you're still looking for taxpayer goodies?

Claw Hammer · 20-11-2015 1:53pm

Her is why supply is diminishing. Might have been 15 tenants in that house. Even at a time of rising rents the LL closed up.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/from-flatland-to-family-home-in-ranelagh-for-2-95m-1.2433491

Michael D Not Higgins · 20-11-2015 2:14pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Her is why supply is diminishing. Might have been 15 tenants in that house. Even at a time of rising rents the LL closed up.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/from-flatland-to-family-home-in-ranelagh-for-2-95m-1.2433491

Bought in 92, it's 23 years later. He's probably paid off the mortgage and is going to cash out. He's not getting any tax deductions for interest and it would take him decades to realise 3 million from the rent income.

To be honest it doesn't sound like he's getting out because of the way things are now but merely that his investment has matured.

borderlinemeath · 20-11-2015 2:19pm

gaius c wrote: »

So you made a decision to hold onto it and are now pushing an agenda that will minimise the cost of the valuable asset you will one day own.
I made the decision to leave the landlording game because it no longer made business sense. I didn't come here to proclaim that this would have a negative effect on society as much of your fellow landlords have done on these threads in the last week. I've about as much time for scaremongering re accommodation as I do taxi drivers or the VFI pushing their own agendas.

Also, re the first bolded point, the thread (and it's sister thread) has been swarmed with landlords looking for changes to tax law that would benefit them. One of them stated that he/she wanted tax relief on capital repayments too. Nox001 I think it was.

Maybe get your facts right. Reagan Clever Pecan isn't a landlord, he's said so on this thread.

I still haven't quite decided whether to hold onto my house or not, the fact that I could now be penalised for trying to sell it is putting me off trying.

I don't see how stating statistics is scaremongering. Particularly when we are in the middle of a housing crisis. Facts are facts, no building of new housing, only 18% of investment properties being sold to investors = less homes for tenants. Yet every measure the government brings in sends landlords running to the estate agents to offload their property portfolio.

sunnysoutheast · 20-11-2015 2:28pm

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Bought in 92, it's 23 years later. He's probably paid off the mortgage and is going to cash out. He's not getting any tax deductions for interest and it would take him decades to realise 3 million from the rent income.

To be honest it doesn't sound like he's getting out because of the way things are now but merely that his investment has matured.

Wonder what the CGT bill will be?

Michael D Not Higgins · 20-11-2015 2:49pm

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Wonder what the CGT bill will be?

Let's say it was 500k in the 90s (not sure what would be reasonable), the tax would be 33% of 2.5m which is 825k, netting 2.175m from the sale or let's say 2m after costs of renovation.

Let's say he was getting an average of €1000 per flat per month means he's netting only about 70k per year. 28.5 years to get the same back from the property. The article doesn't say how old he is but he's probably around retirement age which means it's his pension. Better to have a 2m lump sum making interest in the bank than having to deal with tenants in your retirement.

Fol20 · 20-11-2015 2:53pm

gaius c wrote: »

An endless supply of customers with no choice but to bid against each other for your wares and you're still looking for taxpayer goodies?

Its not an endless supply, the population of a city is x amount of people looking to rent. There are more tenants looking for houses now as many landlords want out of the market due to everything the government is doing/not doing. When btl houses are being sold, as another person pointed out only 1/5 of the houses are being rebought as btl.. Therefore the supply is being constricted even more so.

gaius c · 20-11-2015 3:59pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Its not an endless supply, the population of a city is x amount of people looking to rent. There are more tenants looking for houses now as many landlords want out of the market due to everything the government is doing/not doing. When btl houses are being sold, as another person pointed out only 1/5 of the houses are being rebought as btl.. Therefore the supply is being constricted even more so.

Obviously I don't expect you to read every post on this thread but I posted examples of ex-rentals being sold to PPR's and the occupancy actually increased as a result of the transaction.

This completely unproven and very emotive notion that occupancy ALWAYS decreases when going from BTL to PPR is exactly the sort of landlord-friendly spin that I am objecting to. It's a very obvious attempt to frighten people into making decisions that will end up benefiting landlords financially.

Gumbo · 20-11-2015 5:41pm

handlemaster wrote: »

LOL. How it going so far ?

No complaints so far touch wood.
I went into it with my eyes open and knew I wouldn't see cash flow from it. But as per my previous posts, if it pays for itself, including taxes then that's the best case scenario. I will most likely have to put a few bob to it every year to pay the tax due on it even though it's earning €400 above the mortgage cost but it's a long term investment.

Gumbo · 20-11-2015 5:44pm

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Bought in 92, it's 23 years later. He's probably paid off the mortgage and is going to cash out. He's not getting any tax deductions for interest and it would take him decades to realise 3 million from the rent income.

To be honest it doesn't sound like he's getting out because of the way things are now but merely that his investment has matured.

Mainly converted back due to the new newer housing standards and the regulations with bedsits etc been tightened up, and rightly so. It would have cost a lot more to keep the building as separate flats. We are seeing a lot of these conversions in the DCC area at the moment.

borderlinemeath · 20-11-2015 11:26pm

gaius c wrote: »

Obviously I don't expect you to read every post on this thread but I posted examples of ex-rentals being sold to PPR's and the occupancy actually increased as a result of the transaction.

This completely unproven and very emotive notion that occupancy ALWAYS decreases when going from BTL to PPR is exactly the sort of landlord-friendly spin that I am objecting to. It's a very obvious attempt to frighten people into making decisions that will end up benefiting landlords financially.

Spin? You do realise that you're trying to say occupancy could be increasing, when it's clear for all to see that there's nowhere for people to live? Even if occupancy increases in some pprs the fact of the matter is that more units need to be built to house people, be they RA recipients, homeless, immigrants, growing families, OAPs or whatever.

Only last month the head of paypal has to ask that staff let rooms out to new recruits. If that isn't telling that the housing crisis is reality rather than spin than what is?

"Ms Phelan said the situation has reached a crisis point and could impact foreign direct investment."
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/paypal-asks-staff-to-rent-room-to-new-colleagues-1.2375899

And finally, I fail to understand how a discussion such as this is an "obvious attempt to frighten people into making decisions that will benefit landlords financially" What decisions would that be? If somebody is looking for accommodation they already know how bloody difficult it is, and if they are stupid enough to make ANY financial decision based on an internet forum discussion then they deserve it.

21-11-2015 12:09am

kceire wrote: »

the regulations with bedsits etc been tightened up, and rightly so.

I never got the problem with bedsits (once they are kept well and maintained). It's no different to a house share really, particularly houseshares in big houses with 7 or 8 rooms. People in houseshares have a private room and often tend to stay in it bar cooking and using the bathroom. Not too much different to a bedsit bar you often had your own cooking facilities in a bedsit but shared a bathroom.

Gumbo · 21-11-2015 2:08am

Magnolia Enough Typographer wrote: »

I never got the problem with bedsits (once they are kept well and maintained). It's no different to a house share really, particularly houseshares in big houses with 7 or 8 rooms. People in houseshares have a private room and often tend to stay in it bar cooking and using the bathroom. Not too much different to a bedsit bar you often had your own cooking facilities in a bedsit but shared a bathroom.

The good ones, I agree. But I'm involved in the inspection and prosecution of some of the bad ones, from an environmental health point of view, Building Regulation point of view and from a Fire Safety point of view. The ones we have been in, I wouldn't let a dog sleep in them tbh.

gaius c · 22-11-2015 1:57pm

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Spin? You do realise that you're trying to say occupancy could be increasing, when it's clear for all to see that there's nowhere for people to live? Even if occupancy increases in some pprs the fact of the matter is that more units need to be built to house people, be they RA recipients, homeless, immigrants, growing families, OAPs or whatever.

Only last month the head of paypal has to ask that staff let rooms out to new recruits. If that isn't telling that the housing crisis is reality rather than spin than what is?

"Ms Phelan said the situation has reached a crisis point and could impact foreign direct investment."
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/paypal-asks-staff-to-rent-room-to-new-colleagues-1.2375899

And finally, I fail to understand how a discussion such as this is an "obvious attempt to frighten people into making decisions that will benefit landlords financially" What decisions would that be? If somebody is looking for accommodation they already know how bloody difficult it is, and if they are stupid enough to make ANY financial decision based on an internet forum discussion then they deserve it.

For example, some of the numerous "give me full tax relief on mortgage interest or I'm selling my property and making the market worse" posts on this thread and the sister thread.

khamilto · 22-11-2015 11:12pm

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Spin? You do realise that you're trying to say occupancy could be increasing, when it's clear for all to see that there's nowhere for people to live? Even if occupancy increases in some pprs the fact of the matter is that more units need to be built to house people, be they RA recipients, homeless, immigrants, growing families, OAPs or whatever.

Only last month the head of paypal has to ask that staff let rooms out to new recruits. If that isn't telling that the housing crisis is reality rather than spin than what is?

"Ms Phelan said the situation has reached a crisis point and could impact foreign direct investment."
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/paypal-asks-staff-to-rent-room-to-new-colleagues-1.2375899

And finally, I fail to understand how a discussion such as this is an "obvious attempt to frighten people into making decisions that will benefit landlords financially" What decisions would that be? If somebody is looking for accommodation they already know how bloody difficult it is, and if they are stupid enough to make ANY financial decision based on an internet forum discussion then they deserve it.

You seem confused, so I'll try to help.

Numerous times on thread people have stated that landlords getting out of the market must be stopped at all costs. Other said that one less rental unit = one more PPR mortgage unit. The rebuttal was that more people would be in a BTL than a PPR. Gaius was referring to that.

Further, occupancy rate is tangental to the housing crisis, as is (lack of or otherwise) landlords.

The question then is, why are you posting in this thread and not a thread about... I don't know, the lack of strategic plans for new village hubs outside the m50 connected to the city centre via high speed transport?

athtrasna · 22-11-2015 11:18pm

Play nicely please folks!

borderlinemeath · 22-11-2015 11:46pm

khamilto wrote: »

You seem confused, so I'll try to help.

No, you're not helping. Merely being patronising again.

Numerous times on thread people have stated that landlords getting out of the market must be stopped at all costs. Other said that one less rental unit = one more PPR mortgage unit. The rebuttal was that more people would be in a BTL than a PPR. Gaius was referring to that.

At all costs? No. Some posters have suggested that some of the charges levied at landlords should be reversed, only one poster has suggested that the entire mortgage should be deductible.

Further, occupancy rate is tangental to the housing crisis, as is (lack of or otherwise) landlords.

If occupancy rates were increasing with sales then why is there a crisis? Why is Alan Kelly pressing ahead with these measures? Why are people finding it so hard to find somewhere to rent? Because there's a lack of units, either existing units or new building supply coming on stream.

The question then is, why are you posting in this thread and not a thread about... I don't know, the lack of strategic plans for new village hubs outside the m50 connected to the city centre via high speed transport?

I can post in whatever thread I want unless a moderator tells me not to.

khamilto · 23-11-2015 12:21am

borderlinemeath wrote: »

No, you're not helping. Merely being patronising again.

Again, I can't help if you feel patronised due to the quality of your posts.

At all costs? No. Some posters have suggested that some of the charges levied at landlords should be reversed, only one poster has suggested that the entire mortgage should be deductible.

I have a feeling I can't explain what an idiom is and that it doesn't literally mean at all costs without being patronising, so I will refrain from doing so.

If occupancy rates were increasing with sales then why is there a crisis? Why is Alan Kelly pressing ahead with these measures? Why are people finding it so hard to find somewhere to rent?

UCD did a study several years ago that found Dublin needed ~12,000 new housing units per year just to allow for natural population growth.

Ireland had 3% employment growth this year, and Dublin is accepted as being the main driver of this. Further, during the recession, it is also accepted that there was a transfer of employment from regional areas to Dublin. Dublin continues to attract the large scale investment that delivers employment growth and attracts even more people to live here..

Occupancy rates for greater Dublin are around 2.35 (~1.2m people, 525k households). If 10,000 3 bed/3 person BTLs are sold as PPRs to couples, and the 10,000 extra people on the rental market leave Dublin - the occupancy rate goes from 2.354 to 2.328.

Within a few years, that couple has a child and the occupancy rate goes back to being unchanged. If they have another, the occupancy rate is now higher than it ever was as a BTL.

The main difference between Dublin and comparable housing/rental markets in the UK, is that as occupancy drops due to children moving out, Irish people don't downsize. There is a massive stock of 3-5 bed family homes around Dublin occupied by 1-2 elderly people, something that just doesn't happen elsewhere in Europe.

Because there's a lack of units, either existing units or new building supply coming on stream.

Which has exactly nothing to do with a thread about Landlords, and whether they should be offered incentives to stay in the market.

I can post in whatever thread I want unless a moderator tells me not to.

I didn't say you couldn't, I asked why you were posting in this thread when the topic you are doing a pretty poor job at understanding or talking about, is completely unrelated to this one.

As an aside, rather than calling someone patronising, I might suggest you actually refute or rebut what they say. Otherwise you're just calling someone names because you can't think of anything else to do.

athtrasna · 23-11-2015 12:28am

Mod note Seeing as you didn't take my earlier non bolded hint borderlinemeath and khamilto I will ask you to take your personal to and fro to PM in order to avoid moderator intervention. Any further sniping will not be tolerated.

gaius c · 23-11-2015 11:50am

borderlinemeath wrote: »

If occupancy rates were increasing with sales then why is there a crisis? Why is Alan Kelly pressing ahead with these measures? Why are people finding it so hard to find somewhere to rent? Because there's a lack of units, either existing units or new building supply coming on stream.

It's not that simple. Dublin has double the vacancy rate of other comparable cities.
http://www.businesspost.ie/home-truths-ireland-faces-a-planning-timebomb/

Fkall · 23-11-2015 9:04pm

gaius c wrote: »

It's not that simple. Dublin has double the vacancy rate of other comparable cities.
http://www.businesspost.ie/home-truths-ireland-faces-a-planning-timebomb/

If only the business post would provide a source for their claim that Dublin has double the vacancy rate of other comparable cities. Lucky for us we can take the output of the business post without question.

The only minor issues I have is London is the only city in Europe I can find with a sub 4% rate

gaius c · 23-11-2015 9:21pm

I asked your cleaners LL.

More landlords to sell up over taxes and cost of letting property

Comments