Is there new legislation coming next week from Murphy?

GGTrek · 04-10-2018 3:49pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

I agree this is the usual stunt from the communists of PBP with the support of the usual culprits. Not a chance it will pass.

I wouldn't be so sure given the current climate.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/1004/1000866-housing-crisis/
You were right it did pass with FF support (otherwise it had no chance) who switched sides yesterday in the debate and today in the vote, I am not exactly sure if they will support the whole motion or just part of it and what practical consequences the approval of this motion will have. I believe it is now time to sell.
This is the link to the debate and the motion:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-10-03/31/
"calls on the Government to:
— declare the housing and homeless crisis an emergency;
— dramatically increase the supply of social and affordable (including cost rental) housing by increasing capital spending on housing to €2.3 billion in Budget 2019, increase Part V requirements to 20 per cent in standard developments and 30 per cent in strategic development zones, prioritise the delivery of public housing on public land, and aggressively target the return of vacant houses to active use;
— reduce the flow of adults and children into homelessness with emergency legislation to make it illegal for landlords, banks and investment funds to evict tenants and homeowners in mortgage distress into homelessness, provide real security of tenure and real rent certainty by linking rent reviews to an index such as the Consumer Price Index and introducing measures to reduce the cost of rent, and introduce a target for ending long-term homelessness and the need to sleep rough; and
— hold a referendum to enshrine the right to housing in the Constitution."
The part in black is pure socialism in action, since a blanket ban on eviction will result in a massive contraction of the private rental housing market (massive devaluation of rented property) and a massive abuse from renters (who would pay rent if eviction is banned). The proposal is a massive expropriation: politicians have always used emergency powers to pass all sorts of abuse of constitutional rights, like private property rights and emergency legislantion (which is very convenient for some parasitic parts of society) usually stays for decades.

GGTrek · 04-10-2018 3:55pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

garhjw wrote: »

It’s only a motion. I can’t see how it could be legislated for given the financial impact it would have on the property owner. It makes the property unsellable as banks will not provide a mortgage on a property without vacant possession. Does the government then need to legislate for banks to provide mortgages without vacant possession? Also eliminates CGT for the government if the value of the investment property is decreased so significantly.

Didn't we get to within one vote of this the last time or was that for own use?

Yes, 17th of January 2017, anti-eviction bill defeated with just one vote from the An Ceann Comhairle:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2017-01-19/5/
It was defeated because FF abstained, if FF approves the only legal option will be a constitutional challenge (I believe it will happen for such a ludicrous proposal). Housing as a constitutional right will take a long time since it will have to be put to referendum.

GGTrek · 04-10-2018 6:30pm

Sorry to answer my own questions, finally an informative article in the Journal: http://www.thejournal.ie/government-housing-motion-4268576-Oct2018/

"Although the motion was carried unanimously, it is not binding on the government to take these actions contained within it. " It was not carried unanimously, but the part in bold answers my questions. I am started to believe that FF used the motion as a tool against FG to get what it wants in next week budget.

Also a commentator there probably hit the nail about the uncostitutionality of such motion: "There IS no such in the Irish constitution as a government-declared national emergency. The motion is therefore invalid and will simply be binned"

titan18 · 04-10-2018 7:32pm

That motion is a crock of sh1t. Country has finally gone down the toilet if that went into law.

I disagree with nearly all of it, but in particular

- Increase Part V requirements to 20 per cent in standard developments and 30 per cent in strategic development zones - Fcuk that - why would you want to be one of the 70 or 80% who buy there

- reduce the flow of adults and children into homelessness with emergency legislation to make it illegal for landlords, banks and investment funds to evict tenants and homeowners in mortgage distress into homelessness Watch every landlord drop out of the market if that came in and interest rates to rise

garhjw · 04-10-2018 8:36pm

titan18 wrote: »

That motion is a crock of sh1t. Country has finally gone down the toilet if that went into law.

I disagree with nearly all of it, but in particular

- Increase Part V requirements to 20 per cent in standard developments and 30 per cent in strategic development zones - Fcuk that - why would you want to be one of the 70 or 80% who buy there

- reduce the flow of adults and children into homelessness with emergency legislation to make it illegal for landlords, banks and investment funds to evict tenants and homeowners in mortgage distress into homelessness Watch every landlord drop out of the market if that came in and interest rates to rise

Totally agree, it’s just more populist nonsense...... completely unworkable

Samuel T. Cogley · 04-10-2018 10:50pm

GGTrek wrote: »

Housing as a constitutional right will take a long time since it will have to be put to referendum.

I can't see that happening personally. Art 45 is already there and quite sensibly is only a guide to policy. That said who fecking knows things have gone potty recently.

GGTrek · 04-10-2018 11:00pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

Housing as a constitutional right will take a long time since it will have to be put to referendum.

I can't see that happening personally. Art 45 is already there and quite sensibly is only a guide to policy. That said who fecking knows things have gone potty recently.

I have had enough of this nonsense, it is my family money invested, I shall start quoting with solicitors to see what deal they can offer me for a bulk sale and then I shall contact a few medium sized investment funds to see what sale conditions they can offer. They are the ones who bought off my neighbours.

cordy1969 · 04-10-2018 11:01pm

hmm

GGTrek · 04-10-2018 11:02pm

garhjw wrote: »

titan18 wrote: »

That motion is a crock of sh1t. Country has finally gone down the toilet if that went into law.

I disagree with nearly all of it, but in particular

- Increase Part V requirements to 20 per cent in standard developments and 30 per cent in strategic development zones - Fcuk that - why would you want to be one of the 70 or 80% who buy there

- reduce the flow of adults and children into homelessness with emergency legislation to make it illegal for landlords, banks and investment funds to evict tenants and homeowners in mortgage distress into homelessness Watch every landlord drop out of the market if that came in and interest rates to rise

Totally agree, it’s just more populist nonsense...... completely unworkable

I was born in a country where in the 80s this nonsense was accepted as normal since a third of the people voted for candidates like Murphy. I am seeing a very bad trend in Ireland and I am not going to wait for the next Irish election.

marieholmfan · 05-10-2018 8:08am

Very sensible ideas, should be a clear split made between three categories

inheritors - should be treated as C class property owners and have no right to choose their tenants or to set rent levels. Of course many people would see such a class as inherently untrustworthy and therefore strict penalties should apply to any slippage in standards. (the state would not guarantee rent)

mortgage free - B class owners can choose tenants and must comply with standards but penalties should be minimal and they should be allowed to set their own rent (in this case the state would guarantee the rent)#

still mortgaged class A and the above would not apply.

Fol20 · 05-10-2018 9:04am

marieholmfan wrote: »

Very sensible ideas, should be a clear split made between three categories

inheritors - should be treated as C class property owners and have no right to choose their tenants or to set rent levels. Of course many people would see such a class as inherently untrustworthy and therefore strict penalties should apply to any slippage in standards. (the state would not guarantee rent)

mortgage free - B class owners can choose tenants and must comply with standards but penalties should be minimal and they should be allowed to set their own rent (in this case the state would guarantee the rent)#

still mortgaged class A and the above would not apply.

I don’t get why you want to segregate owners into different categories. It is making it overly complicated. Once someone inherits a property, they pay tax at 33pc and they are now the new owner so property rights should be applied for everyone that owns a property

garhjw · 05-10-2018 11:38am

marieholmfan wrote: »

Very sensible ideas, should be a clear split made between three categories

inheritors - should be treated as C class property owners and have no right to choose their tenants or to set rent levels. Of course many people would see such a class as inherently untrustworthy and therefore strict penalties should apply to any slippage in standards. (the state would not guarantee rent)

mortgage free - B class owners can choose tenants and must comply with standards but penalties should be minimal and they should be allowed to set their own rent (in this case the state would guarantee the rent)#

still mortgaged class A and the above would not apply.

What if someone inherits a property and has to get a mortgage to pay the inheritance tax on the property? What if they can't get a mortgage so need to sell to pay the tax bill? They can't sell it if it's no vacant or if they do manage to sell it is at a significantly lower value but still have the same tax bill to pay.
Why does it matter how someone acquires ownership of a property?

garhjw · 05-10-2018 11:38am

marieholmfan wrote: »

Very sensible ideas, should be a clear split made between three categories

inheritors - should be treated as C class property owners and have no right to choose their tenants or to set rent levels. Of course many people would see such a class as inherently untrustworthy and therefore strict penalties should apply to any slippage in standards. (the state would not guarantee rent)

mortgage free - B class owners can choose tenants and must comply with standards but penalties should be minimal and they should be allowed to set their own rent (in this case the state would guarantee the rent)#

still mortgaged class A and the above would not apply.

What if someone inherits a property and has to get a mortgage to pay the inheritance tax on the property? What if they can't get a mortgage so need to sell to pay the tax bill? They can't sell it if it's no vacant or if they do manage to sell it is at a significantly lower value but still have the same tax bill to pay.
Why does it matter how someone acquires ownership of a property?

marieholmfan · 05-10-2018 12:19pm

Fol20 wrote: »

I don’t get why you want to segregate owners into different categories. It is making it overly complicated. Once someone inherits a property, they pay tax at 33pc and they are now the new owner so property rights should be applied for everyone that owns a property

Please see below:

garhjw wrote: »

What if someone inherits a property and has to get a mortgage to pay the inheritance tax on the property? What if they can't get a mortgage so need to sell to pay the tax bill? They can't sell it if it's no vacant or if they do manage to sell it is at a significantly lower value but still have the same tax bill to pay.
Why does it matter how someone acquires ownership of a property?

Please see below:

The core difficulty with over regulating the small landlord sector is that one might inadvertently target hard working taxpayers who have chosen to use a couple of flats as the equivalent of a private pension.

The state would have to step in and take the property in the situation above and ensure that a fair price was paid that did not leave an unreasonable tax liability.

Anyway the impact of the measures described would have an impact on the amount at first valuation.

Fol20 · 05-10-2018 1:02pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Please see below:

Please see below:

The core difficulty with over regulating the small landlord sector is that one might inadvertently target hard working taxpayers who have chosen to use a couple of flats as the equivalent of a private pension.

The state would have to step in and take the property in the situation above and ensure that a fair price was paid that did not leave an unreasonable tax liability.

Anyway the impact of the measures described would have an impact on the amount at first valuation.

Speaking from a ll point of view, I think it should be taxed like all other forms of income tax. I just don’t like the fact that the government are eliminating our basic rights along with the fact we are unable to expense several items potentially costing us thousands in missed expenses. Lastly it’s non paying tenants but that’s a different story.

GGTrek · 05-10-2018 1:39pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Speaking from a ll point of view, I think it should be taxed like all other forms of income tax. I just don’t like the fact that the government are eliminating our basic rights along with the fact we are unable to expense several items potentially costing us thousands in missed expenses. Lastly it’s non paying tenants but that’s a different story.

Could not agree more. Govvie gets its tax and stays the f... out of how I manage my business even though the tax code for small landlords in Ireland must be the worst in the whole of the EU. I know the tax code of quite a few EU countries for non corporate landlords and even latin countries which are notoriously bad are better than Ireland in terms of expenses especially the infamous USC that must be one of the most regressive taxes in the EU for non corporates. With my tax take the govvie does what it wishes to do according to their political goals. In Ireland they are just trying to allocate social responsibilities to landlords and fix the market in order to hide the sheer incompetence of the politicians which is just plain wrong from a liberal point of view, but the underlying ideas come from a socialist/catholic sense of morality where making a profit is seen as exploitation/sin. In my opinion this is due to Irish history where catholic and socialist elements had the upper hand in politics and that is why the Irish people stayed poor for a long time even after the Brits left. almost 100 years ago.

Is there new legislation coming next week from Murphy?

Comments