Minister says tax measures may be needed to keep landlords from exiting the rental market,

[T McGibney]

For a bit of balance in here:

Why do we "need" Mom and Pop landlords?

Because their diminishing presence in the market is worsening an already dire housing shortage, rents spiral and homelessness crisis.

 

[dereko1969]

Because their diminishing presence in the market is worsening an already dire housing shortage, rents spiral and homelessness crisis.

The house is still there either rented by a Professional Landlord/Council/Housing Agency or bought by an owner occupier.

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

Because their diminishing presence in the market is worsening an already dire housing shortage, rents spiral and homelessness crisis.

And this is the nub, if post tax there was a yield that was acceptable more wouldn't bail.
But it's not just tax , many and theres a few threads on this forum, show that tenants have the power in terms of tenure etc, and is fully backed up and aided by the Government.......of course none of these measures are alleviating the shortage of property to rent, but in a rush to be seen to be doing something they made a bags of the whole thing.

 

[T McGibney]

The house is still there either rented by a Professional Landlord/Council/Housing Agency or bought by an owner occupier.

And what does that latter eventuality do to rental supply, and by extension rents charged?

 

[jpd]

A landlord exiting the market does not reduce the housing stock, unless the property is left vacant

Fighting over whether tax relief is given to landlords or not, does not increase the housing stock one brick

A vacant property tax would encourage property owners to bring their property back to the market either by letting it or selling it to an owner--occupier or a willing landliord

 

[jpd]

And what does that latter eventuality do to rental supply?

Adding an owner-occupier reduces the number of people looking to rent and so the net effect is zero on the overall housing market.

If all the owner-occupiers decided to sell and rent, the number of houses would still be the same as would the number of people looking for somewhere to live.

Looking at the rental market indpendently of the owner-occupier market is a waste of time - they both work together

 

[T McGibney]

Adding an owner-occupier reduces the number of people looking to rent and so the net effect is zero on the overall housing market.

Quite a number of assumptions there e.g. that everyone who buys an ex-rental property as an owner occupier has previously been renting, and that the incidence of house-sharing in owner-occupied properties matches that in rental properties.

Brave assumptions those.

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

The house is still there either rented by a Professional Landlord/Council/Housing Agency or bought by an owner occupier.

But there are also limitations on this the market now is akin to 2006/2007 for prices and if people struggled to buy then they are probably less able now given the restrictions on lending imposed post the last mess.

 

[T McGibney]

A landlord exiting the market does not reduce the housing stock, unless the property is left vacant

It reduces the rental stock. And unless it also and equally reduces rental demand, it will increase rents.

 

[Sconeandjam]

What is also frightening off landlords is the threat that the house they may have lived in may have to be sold with tenant in situ in the future. There would be so few landlords that would buy the properties. Banks do not lend at the moment with sitting tenants.

The mentioning of rent freezes is on the radio every few days. More and more restrictions makes it impossible to plan ahead.

Hearing about the minister is looking at new rules on short term lets. What about those getting pyrite work done? Someone selling their house and moving to another but need a place to stay in the mean time. What about MICA or Fire precaution works needed to be carried out on celtic tiger properties. The fire precaution works will be the new pyrite. Where will those families go?

The more the Government interferes the worse it is going to get.

Think landlords have had enough of tenants not paying rent or damaging properties.
I still do not get why a landlord is responsible for a tenants behaviour. The tenants are adults after all. Landlords are brought to RTB and they are fined not the tenant. The system is so one sided.
They maybe able to sell now when they could not before.

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

What is also frightening off landlords is the threat that the house they may have lived in may have to be sold with tenant in situ in the future. There would be so few landlords that would buy the properties. Banks do not lend at the moment with sitting tenants.

The mentioning of rent freezes is on the radio every few days. More and more restrictions makes it impossible to plan ahead.

Hearing about the minister is looking at new rules on short term lets. What about those getting pyrite work done? Someone selling their house and moving to another but need a place to stay in the mean time. What about MICA or Fire precaution works needed to be carried out on celtic tiger properties. The fire precaution works will be the new pyrite. Where will those families go?

The more the Government interferes the worse it is going to get.

Think landlords have had enough of tenants not paying rent or damaging properties.
I still do not get why a landlord is responsible for a tenants behaviour. The tenants are adults after all. Landlords are brought to RTB and they are fined not the tenant. The system is so one sided.
They maybe able to sell now when they could not before.

Great post

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

I thought there was some representative body for Landlords........perhaps I'm wrong.

 

[T McGibney]

I thought there was some representative body for Landlords........perhaps I'm wrong.

There is or was a lobby group, the IPOA. But they have scant influence if any, especially when compared to the tenant lobbyists such as Threshold and NGOs like the Peter McVerry Trust who have more regard for REITs than they have for small landlords.

 

[The Horseman]

It's a business. It's not a landlords concern how the rent I paid.

Flip your point, if the tenants gets a pay rise should the landlord be given more rent because the tenants situation improved?

It's a business relationship nothing more nothing less. Why do people find this concept so difficult to understand.

 

[Cameo]

Reading this thread reminded me of SF threat, was considering selling my under rented house, arguments are only getting stronger to sell, I'd fear for the tenant though as there is very little to rent

Clearly I'd be much happier to keep if the numbers added up; unfortunately they dont under current taxation regime

As an aside I know s few people who rent out properties around crumlin in dublin, as of this morning there was not a single property available to rent

 

[argolis]

Similarly, if a owner-occupier house is rented out following a death for example, then the number of bed spaces will probably increase.

I am finished with this thread - I still maintain that the only solution is to build more homes, a lot more homes, in places where people want to work and live. Whether they are owner-occupied or rented doesn't really matter

You're clutching at straws there. I would strongly suspect the vast majority of houses following a death are sold by the executor in order to distribute the funds of the estate because it's the simplest path forward, or they're inherited by a single family member. The only way they'd be rented is if someone inherited one, decided they don't want to live there themselves and can afford to take a hit on inheritance tax and want to rent it out rather than keep it for family purposes. I would be surprised if it was more than 10% of sales ended in rentals following the death of an owner.

No one is disputing that more houses are needed in the areas where there's demand. You're only being argued with for saying that it makes no difference whether a house is owner-occupied or rented. You don't seem able to back it up but you won't concede anything either, so you're just taking your ball and running home.

I thought the same thing for a long time until I read a post on AAM pointing out that rented houses house more people on average. I don't know if there's official stats on it but it certainly tallies with all my experiences. The Horseman just gave you an example of how switching a house from rented to owner occupied pushes overall demand higher. So, it would be better to encourage more rentals when the system as a whole is under so much pressure. Less houses would be needed overall and I'm certain that maintaining a healthy percentage of the housing stock as rentals would be good for society because certain cohorts of people can stay mobile for jobs and other social reasons.

I don't know what that percentage is now but it's trending steadily down and I think the majority of AAM recognise that as unhealthy. According to your argument, if we had only owner occupied properties and no rentals, we'd be just fine. First of all, we'd need way more houses and secondly, there's less social mobility neither of which are good.

 

[Baby boomer]

Is it not blindingly obvious that there is a shortage of both property for rent and property for purchase right now?

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

It's a business. It's not a landlords concern how the rent I paid.

Flip your point, if the tenants gets a pay rise should the landlord be given more rent because the tenants situation improved?

It's a business relationship nothing more nothing less. Why do people find this concept so difficult to understand.

If it was a true business relationship why is there governmental interference?

If it was a true business landlords would be able to charge what the market dictates and be in full control over his/her assets and let the landlord decide who they want to let to lease to.

Its certainly isn't a true business.

 

[The Horseman]

If it was a true business relationship why is there governmental interference?

If it was a true business landlords would be able to charge what the market dictates and be in full control over his/her assets and let the landlord decide who they want to let to lease to.

Its certainly isn't a true business.

You are completely correct it is not a business due to govt interference.

Which is one of the main reasons the sector is hemorrhaging small landlords.

I would be happy if the govt left the market and fulfilled their own obligations themselves.

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

You are completely correct it is not a business due to govt interference.

Which is one of the main reasons the sector is hemorrhaging small landlords.

I would be happy if the govt left the market and fulfilled their own obligations themselves.

Agreed, our rental income has been used for nothing else than education primarily 3rd level and August to May coming will be the last payout allegedly, for 2 ....the net income after tax is about 13/14k should be more but in zones.

Its not a bad few bob but it's the hassle with everything that is the killer, and both properties are "valued" at 500k plus so if we got that each I'd be delighted even after paying CGT .......we'll probably wipe our face.

Tax probably the secondary reason for many having the government involved is primary, and if theres a change of Government, most probably, itll get even worse.

Some country.....