# Sinn Féin wants to stop exodus of semi-professional and accidental landlords



## Brendan Burgess (4 Nov 2021)

Here is Eoin O'Broin on Morning Ireland









						Opposition won't oppose plans to cap rent increases at 2%
					

Eoin Ó Broin, Sinn Féin housing spokesperson, discusses the Government's latest rental sector plan which is due before Cabinet later.




					www.rte.ie
				




Starts to ask tenants what they think of the proposed rent cap of 2%
A landlord agrees with the 2%

Eoin O'Broin on the Bill to cap rent increases at 2%
_It won't work as it does not apply to new rentals and places outside RPZs
Rents have risen outside RPZs in anticipation of them being included in RPZs
The whole state should be an RPZ
A 3 year ban on rent increases

We have to reduce rent - by giving one month's tax credit to every renter for three years.
It's not a rent freeze - rents just can't go up. They can go down.

We have to dramatically increase the supply of housing_

the really mad stuff begins at 5.24
Interviewer: _Would you agree to encourage more landlords to come into the market or to come back into the market ?_
O'Broin: 
_The first thing I want to see is a dramatic increase in state investment
What we have also seen since 2017 is the loss of about 22,000 to 24,000 rental properties in the market as semi-professionals and accidentals have been leaving in a very disorderly fashion. I have been calling for 4 years on two government ministers to put in place a plan to halt that disorderly exit and again, no action from government.
Yes, we need to see increased investment but crucially that cannot be at the expense of renters being asked to pay ever increasing rents . We need to protect renters and increase the supply of not for profit rental and ensure that the landlords who are in the market stay and provide good quality service but at an affordable price with security of tenure for renters

We will table an amendment to ban rent increases which is what is needed_


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Nov 2021)

The terrible thing is that he sounds so reasonable. 

The contradiction between hounding good landlords out of the market and saying he wants to see increased investment just doesn't trouble him at all.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Nov 2021)

I am surprised at the numbers. 22,000 rental properties have been lost.  I am not surprised that they have been lost, just surprised at the extent.

Brendan


----------



## Shirazman (4 Nov 2021)

I've moved my recent post to this thread, as it's a better fit!

Amusing article in today's Irish Times:
Newton Emerson: Rent control unlikely to defy laws of economics​(it's behind the paywall).

Some bullets:-

_Rent control is famously said to be the only thing that economists agree on, with all agreeing it does not work.

Swedish economist Assar Linbeck is often quoted: “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city, except for bombing.”_

Darragh O’Brien _reportedly wants to introduce lifetime tenancies, another policy known to strongly deter all types of landlords, from the small-scale individual to the corporate investor. In Britain, even Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party only proposed secure tenancies of five years._


----------



## Protocol (4 Nov 2021)

Given that rents are already really, really high, is it reasonable to say that landlords wouldn't really mind a rent freeze that much, but that they don't like other restrictions/rules, like lifetime tenancies, etc.?


----------



## ArthurMcB (4 Nov 2021)

As a landlord myself i agree that rent in this country is cripplingly high. Something needs to be done about it. Im not sure what though.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Nov 2021)

Rent is very high for newly let premises because landlords want to maximise their rent.  If they don't charge the maximum rent, they won't be able to put it up in future.

But there are many tenants whose landlords did not push up rents in line with the market and now those landlords are stuck with low rents and devalued properties. 

So they exit the  market.

So the policy kicks out the decent landlords.

Brendan


----------



## The Horseman (4 Nov 2021)

ArthurMcB said:


> As a landlord myself i agree that rent in this country is cripplingly high. Something needs to be done about it. Im not sure what though.


There is a simple fix to this. Extend the rent a room scheme to the property sector. No tax due on a rent fig of say €10k any rent over that figure you pay tax on it all. The rent the tenant pays is reduced to a max of €10k. The tenant is better off and the landlord is no worse off. Both win, the issue is that the State want the landlord to house people and also want to control the service which is why so many landlords are leaving at a time when they should be encouraged to stay until alternative supply is available for those who need to rent.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Rent is very high for newly let premises because landlords want to maximise their rent.  If they don't charge the maximum rent, they won't be able to put it up in future.
> 
> But there are many tenants whose landlords did not push up rents in line with the market and now those landlords are stuck with low rents and devalued properties.
> 
> ...


I've been renting the same house for 5 years. My landlord reduced the rent after 8 months without being asked and hasn't put it up since. That said I'm a fantastic tenant. If there were medals being given out I'd win one.


----------



## noproblem (4 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> I've been renting the same house for 5 years. My landlord reduced the rent after 8 months without being asked and hasn't put it up since. That said I'm a fantastic tenant. If there were medals being given out I'd win one.


Don't know if you're serious or not Purple, but bad tenants are getting to be more and more common in the market. If there was some mechanism whereby this wasn't the case, you would certainly get more people treating the letting of property as a business, therefore more getting into it. There's a grouping of people in society today who don't want to pay for anything, do anything to get the house/apt and after a month the unfortunate property owner is left in the lurch. No rent paid, property treated in a terrible way and plenty of organisations to back them. Fair play to you if you're one of the good tenants out there, and there's plenty. However, something really needs to be done about the non payers who respect nothing and shout very loud indeed. Listening to radio and tv, plus the press, every single day, one would think the so called landlord is the problem. They're not you know, and no one's listening. If St Vincent De Paul or the Peter McVerry trust, to name only 2, became a political party tomorrow, they would have people elected all over the place. What does that say about everything? Abba were right to make a comeback, there's always a place for Gimme Gimme, Gimme, and they'll make a fortune (Abba that is)


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2021)

noproblem said:


> Don't know if you're serious or not Purple


I am.


noproblem said:


> There's a grouping of people in society today who don't want to pay for anything, do anything


They've always been around. 


noproblem said:


> Fair play to you if you're one of the good tenants out there


Thanks.


noproblem said:


> If St Vincent De Paul or the Peter McVerry trust, to name only 2, became a political party tomorrow, they would have people elected all over the place. What does that say about everything?


It says people are idiots for giving them money and the same idiots would give them votes. I'd burn money before I gave it to the VDP. McVerry Trust does some good work but it's misdirected ideology driven practices also do a lot of harm. It's kind of a good microcosm for the whole housing/homelessness industry.


----------



## Peanuts20 (4 Nov 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> The terrible thing is that he sounds so reasonable.
> 
> The contradiction between hounding good landlords out of the market and saying he wants to see increased investment just doesn't trouble him at all.
> 
> Brendan


Now, I'm no fan of the Shinners, I'm still awaiting an apology for their military wing blowing up my desk in Bishopsgate many years ago and it'll be a cold day in hell before I'd vote for them. But...in fairness to him, he is speaking about increased *state* investment, in effect a move away from private landlords seeking to make a profit and perhaps a return to old style "council housing".


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (4 Nov 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> But...in fairness to him, he is speaking about increased *state* investment, in effect a move away from private landlords seeking to make a profit and perhaps a return to old style "council housing".


But.....wouldn't you say more of both would be a good thing?

There is plenty of demand for both social housing and private rented housing, and they're usually not the same people looking.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Nov 2021)

Hi Peanuts 

No, that is not what he is saying. He wants the taxpayer to pay for more council housing, but also 

_What we have also seen since 2017 is the loss of about 22,000 to 24,000 rental properties in the market as semi-professionals and accidentals have been leaving in a very disorderly fashion. I have been calling for 4 years on two government ministers to put in place a plan to halt that disorderly exit and again, no action from government._


----------



## Peanuts20 (4 Nov 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Peanuts
> 
> No, that is not what he is saying. He wants the taxpayer to pay for more council housing, but also
> 
> _What we have also seen since 2017 is the loss of about 22,000 to 24,000 rental properties in the market as semi-professionals and accidentals have been leaving in a very disorderly fashion. I have been calling for 4 years on two government ministers to put in place a plan to halt that disorderly exit and again, no action from government._


I don't see a 2 pronged approach as a contradiction. He is correct in what he saying in that there is no plan to halt that exit. Having said that, most accidental landlords want out anyway as they don't need the hassle and SF's comments on rent freezes and caps do nothing to encourage the professionals to stay in. Maybe the question should have been asked of him, what's the SF plan to retain them?. As NoregretsCoyote rightly said, there is a need for both.

Harsh and cold reality for landlords, tennants and taxpayers is that the current mess is not working


----------



## ryaner (4 Nov 2021)

Aren't the gov actually doing a lot of action for this exodus issue? Just that instead of slowing it down like the like of SD are asking for, the gov policy seems to be to encourage any small time landlords to sell up and get out of the market. 
Then again the recent tax on buying >10 properties could also be seen as a way to stop further large landlords too, so maybe they don't actually want landlords at all?


----------



## Rasputin (4 Nov 2021)

ryaner said:


> Aren't the gov actually doing a lot of action for this exodus issue? Just that instead of slowing it down like the like of SD are asking for, the gov policy seems to be to encourage any small time landlords to sell up and get out of the market.
> Then again the recent tax on buying >10 properties could also be seen as a way to stop further large landlords too, so maybe they don't actually want landlords at all?


What they actually do want is votes. In terms of a long term housing strategy, I have no idea what they want at this stage other than to act when social media shouts.


----------



## Shirazman (4 Nov 2021)

Rasputin said:


> What they actually do want is votes. In terms of a long term housing strategy, I have no idea what they want at this stage other than to act when social media shouts.



Exactly.    Hanging grimly on until their term of offfice is up; at which point they'll be reasonably happy to sit on the opposition benches enjoying the sight of Sinn Fein in government struggling to deliver on its countless housing (and health service) promises.


----------



## bipped (4 Nov 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Peanuts
> 
> No, that is not what he is saying. He wants the taxpayer to pay for more council housing, but also
> 
> _What we have also seen since 2017 is the loss of about 22,000 to 24,000 rental properties in the market as semi-professionals and accidentals have been leaving in a very disorderly fashion. I have been calling for 4 years on two government ministers to put in place a plan to halt that disorderly exit and again, no action from government._



That sounds like he wants to prevent any existing landlords from leaving.


----------



## Marco 1972 (4 Nov 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I am surprised at the numbers. 22,000 rental properties have been lost.  I am not surprised that they have been lost, just surprised at the extent.
> 
> Brendan


In that Housing for All document  there is an objective to examine measures to encourage landlords back into the sector, l wonder what that might entail.... maybe time limited tax breaks for smaller landlords till the worst of the supply crisis is over....


----------



## Sellingup (4 Nov 2021)

One of the problems  associated with limited supply is that even if you give  notice now before the new rules come into force, the tenant has nowhere to go,  so won't  leave.
So really the government should be trying to entice new landlords into the market, rather than doing everything to drive them out.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Nov 2021)

bipped said:


> That sounds like he wants to prevent any existing landlords from leaving.



Yes.  Simple to achieve. 

Preventing any house which is let from being occupied by the owner. 

So you could sell your house with a tenant, but the new owner could not evict the tenant on the grounds that they want to live in it themselves.

And if the tenant leaves, then the property must be let again.

Brendan


----------



## Thirsty (4 Nov 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Preventing any house which is let from being occupied by the owner.


Which is why my tenant is getting six months notice this weekend.  Not what I want, not what the tenant wants.  Bad deal all round


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Nov 2021)

Thirsty said:


> Which is why my tenant is getting six months notice this weekend.  Not what I want, not what the tenant wants.  Bad deal all round


Is that allowed considering in six months time the tenancies of indefinite duration will most likely be law.


----------



## Thirsty (5 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Is that allowed considering in six months time the tenancies of indefinite duration will most likely be law.


That is why notice is being given now.


----------



## Sellingup (5 Nov 2021)

I don't think giving notice now will make much difference. The tenant won't leave, citing nowhere to go, and all law will be in his favour.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (5 Nov 2021)

Thirsty said:


> That is why notice is being given now.


I understand that squire. But giving nothing now and the tenant having say 6 months to vacant, in a month or two's time, tenancies of indefinite duration are to be introduced. Are you certain that your notice to evict is legal and legitimate with such a fundamental change?


----------



## Bilbo1 (5 Nov 2021)

Would that not depend on whether the legislation says 
a) all valid notices given prior to the passing of the legislation are still valid and previous rules apply
or
b) previously valid served notices are now invalid and they have to be re-served according to the scenarios provided in the new legislation


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (5 Nov 2021)

Bilbo1 said:


> b) previously valid served notices are now invalid and they have to be re-served according to the scenarios provided in the new legislation


Law - in general - cannot be retroactive.

If you issue notice today the process proceeds under the law in force today.


----------



## Thirsty (5 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Are you certain that your notice to evict is legal and legitimate with such a fundamental change?


Notice under current legislation is entirely legitimate.


----------



## Bilbo1 (5 Nov 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Law - in general - cannot be retroactive.
> 
> If you issue notice today the process proceeds under the law in force today.


One would assume so. Could they bypass that by declaring some sort of emergency, like the moratorium on evictions during the covid lockdown. But then, that was a temporary measure.


----------



## Thirsty (5 Nov 2021)

Sellingup said:


> I don't think giving notice now will make much difference. The tenant won't leave, citing nowhere to go, and all law will be in his favour.


Granted that could happen; it doesn't stop me giving notice.


----------



## Thirsty (5 Nov 2021)

Bilbo1 said:


> One would assume so. Could they bypass that by declaring some sort of emergency...


Again, can't anticipate that. 

Still have to give notice under current requirements.


----------



## DublinHead54 (5 Nov 2021)

It is going to be interesting to see what SF actually do if/when they get into power. 

In my opinion it doesn't seem too complicated to resolve some of these issues. My view is that politicians talk about the rental market as a whole whereas it needs to be split into categories. A country / city is always going to need a supply of rental stock, which can be estimated using data from the RTB and daft etc. This can be broken down into regional requirements and types of rental stock, for example Dublin probably requires the most high density apartment schemes. Lets say then that the government expects that rental stock requirement to reduce in certain categories as houses are built. They then need to look at how to maintain the required level of stock. 

They then need to categorize the type of landlord, i.e. Institutional, large (100+), medium (10+), small (1 property), then tax, and set rules accordingly. Evidently currently the medium and small landlords (accidental) landlords are leaving the market. So why not look at specific incentives to keep those in the market. 

It looks like currently government are cutting off both their feet and their hands. Changes are forcing small and accidental landlords out of the market and there is a push to stop institutional investors buying entire developments and build to rent schemes. 

A smaller rental stock isn't going to help the housing crisis.


----------



## Sellingup (5 Nov 2021)

When you think about it, what are the advantages of giving notice? Yes, you are able to sell on the open market, pay back the mortgage. But the funds you may have left, are of  no real benefit to you, with no interest rate and increasing inflation. 
Maybe best to put up with the new rules and have some kind of income from the property.


----------



## Maggs065 (5 Nov 2021)

Sellingup said:


> When you think about it, what are the advantages of giving notice? Yes, you are able to sell on the open market, pay back the mortgage. But the funds you may have left, are of  no real benefit to you, with no interest rate and increasing inflation.
> Maybe best to put up with the new rules and have some kind of income from the property.


There are a lot of reasons for private/accidental landlords to sell at the moment:

Lifetime tenancies
Rent cap - if you're already charging a low rent, then you are stuck with it and this will have a big impact if you can only sell to other investors
Constantly changing regulation for landlords
No changes coming down the line if tenants decide not to pay their rent
House prices are high, so good time to sell
Uncertainty on what is going to happen if/when SF get into power
Stress/anxiety levels reduced


----------



## aristotle (5 Nov 2021)

Sellingup said:


> When you think about it, what are the advantages of giving notice? Yes, you are able to sell on the open market, pay back the mortgage. But the funds you may have left, are of  no real benefit to you, with no interest rate and increasing inflation.
> Maybe best to put up with the new rules and have some kind of income from the property.


Agree, it is a difficult decision unless you can put the money into a pension and avail of tax relief. Or you have another mortgage on something higher 2% rate you can pay down.

I honestly dont know what to do.


----------



## Rasputin (5 Nov 2021)

aristotle said:


> Agree, it is a difficult decision unless you can put the money into a pension and avail of tax relief. Or you have another mortgage on something higher 2% rate you can pay down.
> 
> I honestly dont know what to do.


I'm definitely falling down on the 'get out now' side of this, for all the reasons Maggs065 outlined above.  It is a good time to sell, before all the extra supply comes on board and starts to impact the market, which it must do in the medium term. You might have to give six months notice now to sell up, but it could prove to be a relatively easy exit route compared to what the future might hold. I can also see landlords having to bring their houses up to a certain BER level at some point in the future at great expense, despite any grants etc. There is massive uncertainty around regulation and government, which may not turn out to be all that bad, however I do think we are going to have to suffer a Sinn Fein government at some point in the near future, and I couldn't even begin to second guess what that might mean.

I'm going to sell, hopefully be able to clear all mortgages, including my PPR, or close to, which would give me monthly disposable income to increase my pension contributions every month. Maybe if I held firm, I could have earned more money, who knows, but I know I will be sleeping better the next few years.


----------



## Thirsty (5 Nov 2021)

Sellingup said:


> When you think about it, what are the advantages of giving notice?


No. 1 advantage: I have control over my own property


Sellingup said:


> Yes, you are able to sell on the open market, pay back the mortgage. But the funds you may have left, are of  no real benefit to you, with no interest rate and increasing inflation.


Whilst everyone's circumstances may be different; I would disagree that capital funds 'are of no real benefit'!


Sellingup said:


> Maybe best to put up with the new rules and have some kind of income from the property.


Nope.


----------



## Firefly (5 Nov 2021)

Maggs065 said:


> There are a lot of reasons for private/accidental landlords to sell at the moment:
> 
> Lifetime tenancies
> Rent cap - if you're already charging a low rent, then you are stuck with it and this will have a big impact if you can only sell to other investors
> ...


I think the prospect of a bad tenant (who doesn't pay the rent & is protected from having to leave) would be in that list too. I honestly think this is what is behind the massive building of student accommodation at the moment...worst case for a landlord, the apartment will be vacated in June anyway and available for rent again in October...


----------



## Firefly (5 Nov 2021)

Dublinbay12 said:


> Evidently currently the medium and small landlords (accidental) landlords are leaving the market. So why not look at specific incentives to keep those in the market.


Because landlords, especially those with one/a few properties (who pay far more in tax) are evil. They are a scourge and must be rooted out. Then and only then, will there be cheap housing for all.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Nov 2021)

Im probably alone here in this thinking but the idea that we need more landlords is ludicrous. 

The reasons landlords are leaving is apparently because they cannot maximise their rents and end up with 'devalued' properties.

Landlords do not build houses, anymore than owner-occupiers build houses.
Landlords enter the market if they can maximise the rental income, in turn they compete with prospective owner-occupiers for available housing stock. This puts up the price of housing and as more prospective owner-occupiers cannot afford to buy they are forced to rent, driving up rental income. 

Im not anti-landlord, there is a place and need for them, but there is no need for more of them when there is limited affordable housing. We need more houses.


----------



## jpd (5 Nov 2021)

Instead of discussing/arguing over how to split up the pie (owner occupied v rented) we should be discussing how to make the pie bigger


----------



## bipped (5 Nov 2021)

Firefly said:


> Because landlords, especially those with one/a few properties (who pay far more in tax) are evil. They are a scourge and must be rooted out. Then and only then, will there be cheap housing for all.



It's hard to understand why landlords are viewed as the worst evil people in the country when, according to the RTB's data, they provide one fifth of the accomodation in the country.  Without landlords there might be a bigger housing problem as the government and state agencies are not filling the gap for citizens who can't afford a mortgage.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

Firefly said:


> Because landlords, especially those with one/a few properties (who pay far more in tax) are evil. They are a scourge and must be rooted out. Then and only then, will there be cheap housing for all.


Don't be silly, 'The Rich' are the real problem. The Rich might be even worse than 'Employers' who think they are providing employment, creating wealth, paying tax and giving people the dignity of work but are in fact evil and exploiting 'De Wurkers'.
The Shinners will sort it all out though. We might find many of their policies populist, hypocritical, contradictory, self serving and generally daft but that's because it is us who are actually stupid.


----------



## Nicklesilver (8 Nov 2021)

SF will increase taxes on private landlords, many of whom are self employed and paying a marginal tax rate of 55%. The 55% FG rate makes it very difficult to pay down capital debt. The SF 1% wealth tax on ALL assets over 1m including private house, pension, etc. will wipe out most private landlords. This is never discussed. Many are getting ready to move out.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

Nicklesilver said:


> The SF 1% wealth tax on ALL assets over 1m including private house, pension, etc. will wipe out most private landlords. This is never discussed. Many are getting ready to move out.


That's the ultimate populist tax. Pensions and PPR's are excluded but that constitutes 85% of all the wealth in the country. It's tokenism and shows that they are populist, not socialist. I think there should be a wealth tax and it should include pensions and PPR's. Defined Benefit pensions should be taxed at their open market value.


----------



## Nicklesilver (8 Nov 2021)

The property tax is a wealth tax. CAT is a wealth tax. CGT is a wealth tax.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Pensions and PPR's are excluded but that constitutes 85% of all the wealth in the country.



And they would have to include farmland as well. 

Brendan


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

Nicklesilver said:


> The property tax is a wealth tax. CAT is a wealth tax. CGT is a wealth tax.


Property tax is a wealth tax. CAT and CGT are transactional taxes.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> And they would have to include farmland as well.
> 
> Brendan


Give it the same discount it currently gets for inheritance.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Nov 2021)

97% ? 

The wealth tax would yield nothing in that case.


----------



## Leo (8 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The reasons landlords are leaving is apparently because they cannot maximise their rents and end up with 'devalued' properties.


I'd imagine much of that is fear rather than reality. 

Institutional landlords will have no fears of squeezing their investment for all it's worth, so we can't pretend that encouraging fewer landlords is anything but bad news for tenants.  



WolfeTone said:


> Im not anti-landlord, there is a place and need for them, but there is no need for more of them when there is limited affordable housing. We need more houses.


Absolutely, but there are many who can't afford to buy, reducing availability of rental properties will only cause them further suffering while easing the plight for some who are better off than they are.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (8 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> I'd imagine much of that is fear rather than reality.



The fact is that there are today effectively no small-time landlords buying new-build properties, so there really is a suppression of demand in this area. 2005 levels of landlord-driven development were not healthy either, but there has to be a happy medium.

For me the bigger issue is tax over regulation. Gross yields for rental property in Ireland pretty good when you adjust for risk. When tax cuts your yield in half much less so.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> 97% ?
> 
> The wealth tax would yield nothing in that case.


Nothing from farms. Most farm income comes from handouts anyway. They are a good net source of revenue for the State as those handouts are from EU funds.


----------



## Leo (8 Nov 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> For me the bigger issue is tax over regulation. Gross yields for rental property in Ireland pretty good when you adjust for risk. When tax cuts your yield in half much less so.


That's a good point, it would be very much in the government's interest to encourage more private landlords. It would result in significantly more revenue.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The fact is that there are today effectively no small-time landlords buying new-build properties, so there really is a suppression of demand in this area. 2005 levels of landlord-driven development were not healthy either, but there has to be a happy medium.
> 
> For me the bigger issue is tax over regulation. Gross yields for rental property in Ireland pretty good when you adjust for risk. When tax cuts your yield in half much less so.


We don't need more landlords, we need more houses and apartments. It really doesn't matter who owns them, they will still be lived in. The market is supply constrained. That's all that matters.


----------



## Peanuts (8 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> We don't need more landlords, we need more houses and apartments. It really doesn't matter who owns them, they will still be lived in. The market is supply constrained. That's all that matters.


If the small landlords are exiting the rental market and selling their property then that's probably not a big issue as the house is being bought by someone as their PPR or maybe another landlord.  the potential issue is if the property is being left vacant for any length of time or turned into an Air BnB which results in one less property for people to buy or rent.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (8 Nov 2021)

Peanuts said:


> If the small landlords are exiting the rental market and selling their property then that's probably not a big issue as the house is being bought by someone as their PPR or maybe another landlord.


another landlord isn't buying the property or any other property, that's the problem. The number of landlords has been declining for the last five years. Check the figures, 22,500 less landlords. These are "mom and pop" landlords who, by tradition tend to charge significantly lower rent than institutional landlords.

Yes they might sell to a person who makes it their PPR, but what happens to the renters of this and similar properties. If 100 of these rented houses are sold by 100 landlords and all sold to people who make them their PPR, where do the 100 renters go then? These are people who cannot attain a mortgage. Perhaps they only want a rental for 1-2 years as they will be moving countries, jobs etc. The rental market is made up of short term and long term rentals.

The problem in Ireland is the landlords are fleeing the marketplace year on year for five years. RPZ establishment and continual renewal of "temporary" measures, changing rental increases to inflation from 4% and then changing it again 4 months later to inflation or 2% whichever is lower. Making rental income subject to PRSI and USC meant rents needed to increase bt 22% just to leave landlords with the same income as before. The lack of any protection measures for landlords against tenants refusing to pay, yet loads of extra protections for tenants. The threat of Sinn Fein and their will they or wont they hammer landlords conundrum as well as the threat of tenancies of indefinite duration severely reducing the ability of a landlord in selling his/her property as well as the value of same. 

You don't need to be a special advisor to government to figure out why rental crisis is going to get a lot worse before getting any better.


----------



## Nicklesilver (8 Nov 2021)

Agree, and the institutional landlords means the money is leaving the country. Private small landlords pay tax and spend in Ireland. Their policy is short term gain but in the long run domestic landlords getting a fair return is far better.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

Nicklesilver said:


> Agree, and the institutional landlords means the money is leaving the country. Private small landlords pay tax and spend in Ireland. Their policy is short term gain but in the long run domestic landlords getting a fair return is far better.


The amount of money leaving the country is small as a proportion of the size of the sector and isn't really a factor in the pro's and con's of the argument. A 'Fair return' is a very subjective term. Very little wealth is created in the rental sector, it is just transferred from one group to another. Wealth in created through work, primarily though the creation of internationally traded goods and services. There's no way income from wealth generating activities such as that should be taxed at a higher rate than income from non wealth generating activities. That's just bad economics. Therefore landlords should be paying at least as much tax on their income as PAYE employees.


----------



## Nicklesilver (8 Nov 2021)

Most of the large PRS is foreign owned and pay Max 25% tax. Irish private self employed pay 55%. (income over 100k)


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (8 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Therefore landlords should be paying at least as much tax on their income as PAYE employees.


Do you accept the correlation between rental income being liable to PRSI and USC and the sudden rapid increase of rents i the region of 15-20% the following year? I would disagree with your statement above.

I believe it beneficial to all that more "mom and pop" landlords are involved in the sector. There are high entry and exit costs to the buy-to-let market. If entry, then you have 1% stamp duty, engineer fee and solictors fees. On a house purchase of €350,000, you are looking at entry costs of approximately €6-7,000. If exiting, then you have estate agent fees at approximately 1.5% and solicitor fees. On a house sale of €350,000, you are looking at exit costs of approximately €6.5-7,000.

So entry and exiting the market is substantial. How are non-institutional investors going to be enticed back into the market, if and when the institutional investors can make better returns elsewhere. They will see up and what will become of the rental market (supply) in Ireland then?

The solution is that landlords and tenants must both be faciliated and listen to. For tenants, I think a reduction in rents makes sense, this can be done via a tax credit as proposed by Sinn Fein and that was available pre 2014 (I think). Alternatively, it landlords agree to reduction the rent by sad 20%, then make that landlords rental income not liable to PRSI and USC. The landlord is effectively unchanged in terms of income and the tenant gets a 20% reduction in rent.

For landlords, I don't think they are against a rent freeze for 2 or 3 years, provided it is a temporary arrangement. The government need to keep their word on this. I think landlords would give up a lot for an easier and quicker eviction process for tenants that don't pay the rent. At the moment, it takes 1-2 years before you can get your property back from a non-paying landlord. And any damages to the property and you do not have any redress. That's ridiculous. 

Give and take on both sides is the solution. But the above won't win any votes, so won't happen.


----------



## aam514 (8 Nov 2021)

The Horseman said:


> There is a simple fix to this. Extend the rent a room scheme to the property sector. No tax due on a rent fig of say €10k any rent over that figure you pay tax on it all. The rent the tenant pays is reduced to a max of €10k. The tenant is better off and the landlord is no worse off. Both win, the issue is that the State want the landlord to house people and also want to control the service which is why so many landlords are leaving at a time when they should be encouraged to stay until alternative supply is available for those who need to rent.


This seems like a great idea to me.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (8 Nov 2021)

aam514 said:


> This seems like a great idea to me.


I actually read that posting a few weeks back and thought it was a fantastic proposal.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (8 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> For tenants, I think a reduction in rents makes sense, this can be done via a tax credit as proposed by Sinn Fein and that was available pre 2014 (I think).



What if you don't pay enough income tax? Lots of tenants don't!



PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Alternatively, it landlords agree to reduction the rent by sad 20%, then make that landlords rental income not liable to PRSI and USC.



What if you are over 66 and not liable to PRSI? Or over 70 and not liable to USC? Lots of landlords are old!

All of these ideas are just re-arranging the furniture. What you need is policy to support the construction of new dwellings.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (8 Nov 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> What if you don't pay enough income tax? Lots of tenants don't!
> 
> What if you are over 66 and not liable to PRSI? Or over 70 and not liable to USC? Lots of landlords are old!


You aren't going to have a solution that fits every single rental/landlord sitution. I'm not SF biggest fan, but this is their proposal and would offer some respite to renters. Something else can be done for the above if desired.

As for lots of landlords are old, do you have any data to back that up? From speaking to landlords and estate agents here in cork, landlords are exiting the market as they near retirement and who would blame them!!! I would imagine, having not seen data on the topic, that the number of elderly residential landlords is fairly small.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> All of these ideas are just re-arranging the furniture. What you need is policy to support the construction of new dwellings.


I agree, but contruction of new dwellings takes years and years. The proposals above are for immediate relief and help. To build an estate of 100 house would take 3-4 years at a minimum.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (8 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> would offer some respite to renters.


But the vast majority of renters are not squeezed by current rent levels, so it becomes a free gift.



PebbleBeach2020 said:


> As for lots of landlords are old, do you have any data to back that up?


Yes. Over-65 households have the second-highest median level of "real assets" which are not PPR.


Median values of real assets (Thousand)2018Under 35 yearsOther Real Estate Property%142.0Median values of real assets (Thousand)201835 - 44 yearsOther Real Estate Property%183.4Median values of real assets (Thousand)201845 - 54 yearsOther Real Estate Property%237.0Median values of real assets (Thousand)201855 - 64 yearsOther Real Estate Property%393.0Median values of real assets (Thousand)201865 years and overOther Real Estate Property%*254.4*


What people need to be thinking about is long-term, structural solutions to support housebuilding.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Do you accept the correlation between rental income being liable to PRSI and USC and the sudden rapid increase of rents i the region of 15-20% the following year?


Yes, of course there is.
The main problem with the housing market is the price of property. That's also the main reason rents are so high. 
I'm a tenant, a home owner and a landlord, all at the same time.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> The solution is that landlords and tenants must both be faciliated and listen to. For tenants, I think a reduction in rents makes sense, this can be done via a tax credit as proposed by Sinn Fein and that was available pre 2014 (I think). Alternatively, it landlords agree to reduction the rent by sad 20%, then make that landlords rental income not liable to PRSI and USC. The landlord is effectively unchanged in terms of income and the tenant gets a 20% reduction in rent.


If you make more money available or you make money cheaper then headline rents and property prices will increase in a supply constrained market. What's difficult to understand about basic supply and demand?
In the above scenario we'll just end up with more black economy payments.


----------



## Nicklesilver (8 Nov 2021)

I wonder is there any credible data on the income and rent in the rental sector. There’s a lot of heresay that becomes fact. The bottom line is rents are high because of the costs, the risks and the tax rates. The balance has gone against small private landlords and that is why they are leaving. It’s just not worth it and that along with being demonised for providing accommodation is just the last straw.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (8 Nov 2021)

Purple, I'm struggling to make any sense of what it is you are actually advocating or anything resembles a solution. Yes, the dogs on the street know that increasing supply is the long term solution. But have you anything that offers immediate or short time solutions???


NoRegretsCoyote said:


> But the vast majority of renters are not squeezed by current rent levels, so it becomes a free gift.



Aren't they? According to SF, the left and the media, I was under the impression that that's exactly what they are?!!!


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I agree, but contruction of new dwellings takes years and years.


And nothing will really change until then. What's happening now is politicians pretending they can change things without addressing the fundamental disfunction of the entire planning and construction sector.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> But have you anything that offers immediate or short time solutions???


There are no immediate or short time solutions.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

Nicklesilver said:


> The bottom line is rents are high because of the costs, the risks and the tax rates.


No, rents are high because that is what the market will stand. 
If we increased income tax for everyone rents would drop. 
If we reduced HAPS rents would drop.
Rents are high because demand exceeds supply and those chasing what the State hasn't snapped up in the private rental sector are able to pay what they are paying.

That's it. There's nothing else to it. 
Increasing the available funds by introducing tax relief for renters will drive up rents. Decreasing the amount of tax landlords pay will increase net margins but won't decrease rents.

The only thing that will reduce rents is less money chasing the available stock (reduce HAPS or a recession) or a larger available stock being chased by the same amount of money.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (8 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Aren't they? According to SF, the left and the media, I was under the impression that that's exactly what they are?!!!


No. The share of Irish private renters paying >40% of disposable income on housing costs is about 20% and has been more or less the same for a long time. This is medium-low by EU-15 standards.







There is more by Seamus Coffey on this very comprehensive post.

Journalism doesn't pay very well, nor does being a SF TD when you have to give half your salary back to the party


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (8 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> There are no immediate or short time solutions.



So are you proposing the government does nothing for a number of years in terms of current renters plight?


----------



## Nicklesilver (8 Nov 2021)

I don't think its that simple, rent also reflect location, transport links, services, climate, cost of building, etc. 
There is no simple solution, you can't increase the supply in a fully developed area, rooms with a sea view cost more to stay in. There are many cases of homeless people refusing housing in an area they don't like. Populist simple solutions don't work. Ireland is not unique, look at China


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> So are you proposing the government does nothing for a number of years in terms of current renters plight?


There's nothing they can do, other than rent freezes and stopping landlords from ending tenancies. That will help existing tenants but will make things far worse for those entering the market.
If we want houses to be cheaper then we need to make the cost of ownership higher. That means property taxes, and very high rates for expensive houses. If you can't afford to pay then it comes off your estate after you die. 
How about doubling the rates for all homes up to €250K, X3 up to €500k, X4 up to €750k and X8 over that. All of a sudden there's a ceiling on property values and if you can afford to live in a house worth €3 million you can afford to pay a couple of grand a month in property tax.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

Nicklesilver said:


> Populist simple solutions don't work. Ireland is not unique, look at China


Look at most of the developed world. There's been a massive increase in money supply since the last recession, and an even bigger one since Covid, and there's no return on bonds so a good chunk of that capital has flooded into property. 
The increase in money supply has far exceeded the increase in the supply of property. Institutional investors are just looking for returns that are higher than the bond market (so literally anything better than nothing). Net result; massive appreciation of capital assets. Art, classic cars, gold, Bitcoin, all sorts of assets where there is a finite supply have inflated in line with the increased amount of money central banks have printed. We are a twig floating in the vast river that is international capital. There's bugger all our government can do to fight the current.


----------



## Nicklesilver (8 Nov 2021)

One sided argument, if property tax goes up to 8 times the people who can afford a 3 million house will just leave with their money, they will also leave with their skills and they won’t pay any taxes to the idiots who chased them out and we will turn into Venezuela.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

Nicklesilver said:


> One sided argument, if property tax goes up to 8 times the people who can afford a 3 million house will just leave with their money, they will also leave with their skills and they won’t pay any taxes to the idiots who chased them out and we will turn into Venezuela.


That's nonsense. People won't uproot their family, their children, lose their social network and move to a different country because they are paying an extra €20-30k a year in taxes. If they can spend €3 million on a house they are already paying hundreds of thousands in income taxes. 
If I moved to England I'd pay about €25-30k a year less in income taxes. Not for a moment would I consider it. 

The up side is that with those levels of property tax their house will probably only cost €2.5 million.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> Institutional landlords will have no fears of squeezing their investment for all it's worth, so we can't pretend that encouraging fewer landlords is anything but bad news for tenants.



That seems like a fair point, but if institutional investors are leaving premises unoccupied rather than reducing rents to more affordable levels there is an easy resolution to that to tax unoccupied properties that are registered as rental properties.



Leo said:


> Absolutely, but there are many who can't afford to buy, reducing availability of rental properties will only cause them further suffering while easing the plight for some who are better off than they are



I don't agree with this. Reducing the availability of rental properties would typically increase the availability properties for sale for owner-occupiers.


----------



## Nicklesilver (8 Nov 2021)

It’s poor debating when you revert to calling an argument nonsense. you have described your situation but all people are different. I for one would definitely leave and not for the UK. Hundreds of people leave for tax reasons, ask JP McManus, Denis O’Brien etc. Its same all over the world. Why to so many Americans move to Florida, lower taxes.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

Nicklesilver said:


> It’s poor debating when you revert to calling an argument nonsense. you have described your situation but all people are different. I for one would definitely leave and not for the UK. Hundreds of people leave for tax reasons, ask JP McManus, Denis O’Brien etc. Its same all over the world. Why to so many Americans move to Florida, lower taxes.


Are you suggesting that people who are paying million in income tax will leave the country if asked to pay thousands in property tax?
Are you suggesting that people worth hundreds of million or billions will leave because they are being asked to pay thousands in property tax?
I respectfully disagree...

On Florida, that soulless kip also known as gods waiting room;
People move to Florida because of sunshine, lower taxes, everyone else there is fat and old so they fit in, and generally because they are waiting to die and given the prospect of living in Florida death doesn't seem so bad. I've been to over 30 countries on 5 continents and I'm hard pressed to think of anywhere I dislike more than Florida.


----------



## Nicklesilver (8 Nov 2021)

Good luck


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

Nicklesilver said:


> Good luck


Thank you. We can all do with a bit of luck.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (8 Nov 2021)

Purple your point is a bit non sensical. You are saying upping taxes will have no impact on people's behaviours. That flies in the face of basic economic principles.

As for increasing property taxes by three, four, five times over every year. Are you serious? You have SF arguing to get rid of property taxes on PPR and you wanted to increase them by 200%, 300%, 400%, 800%. Really. 

Can you tell me what doing this will do for your solution of increasing supply?! Builders won't build houses that people aren't interested in buying or cannot afford buying. In which case, building stops and supply dries up. That doesn't solve the crisis. You are proposing contradictory solutions and actions.


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Purple your point is a bit non sensical. You are saying upping taxes will have no impact on people's behaviours. That flies in the face of basic economic principles.


The same people end up in the same houses either way. Increase money supply or reduce interest rates and they just pay more for the same house. Property tax is a wealth tax. We currently tax the be-jasus out of wealth creation but don’t tax wealth retention or appreciation at all. Property tax broadens the tax base, encourages trading down and depresses property prices. Ideally it’s a site value tax. 


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> As for increasing property taxes by three, four, five times over every year. Are you serious?


Yep. The current rates are a joke. I’m paying €100 a month on a house worth €1.25 million.


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> You have SF arguing to get rid of property taxes on PPR and you wanted to increase them by 200%, 300%, 400%, 800%. Really.


Yes, the Shinners are a populist party, they are not socialists. If they were they’d be in favour of property tax.


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Can you tell me what doing this will do for your solution of increasing supply?! Builders won't build houses that people aren't interested in buying or cannot afford buying.


Site costs and government levies are a major part of the overall cost. A site value based property tax will depress land  prices and provide revenues that can offset some of what’s currently raised in building levies.


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> In which case, building stops and supply dries up. That doesn't solve the crisis. You are proposing contradictory solutions and actions.


Nope. The building cost is only about half the total cost. Sites and labour are what’s constraining supply.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (8 Nov 2021)

So in your case with your house worth 1.35 million, you think property tax of 800 euro a month is part of the solution. If you had your way, you would stop building and construction immediately. For a person advocating increased supply as the only solution, your ideas are absolutely counter productive.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (9 Nov 2021)

I think Purple’s argument is pretty clear and pretty reasonable. High earners wouldn’t really be impacted by a material increase in property tax. They’d crib and they’d moan, but for many people the difference between two grand and twenty grand isn’t going to have them fleeing to either Belize or Belfast.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> So in your case with your house worth 1.35 million, you think property tax of 800 euro a month is part of the solution.


The property tax itself would cause a devaluation in the property. That's a good thing. Property doesn't create wealth, in fact it just sucks capital away from the wealth creating parts of the economy.


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> If you had your way, you would stop building and construction immediately.


Why? It's hardly going to add anything to the amount paid on the houses we actually need.


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> For a person advocating increased supply as the only solution, your ideas are absolutely counter productive.


Why? One of the main problems we have is that land prices are way too high. A site value based property tax will depress the value of land. It will also provide more money to fund State home building programmes.


----------



## Leo (9 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> That seems like a fair point, but if institutional investors are leaving premises unoccupied rather than reducing rents to more affordable levels there is an easy resolution to that to tax unoccupied properties that are registered as rental properties.


That would go some way to addressing it alright, but expect lots of lobbying to push that down the road. 


WolfeTone said:


> I don't agree with this. Reducing the availability of rental properties would typically increase the availability properties for sale for owner-occupiers.


Yeah, but all that does is ease the plight of those who are better off than the hundreds of thousands of households who are renting.


----------



## Leo (9 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that people who are paying million in income tax will leave the country if asked to pay thousands in property tax?


Exactly, any of the mobile rich who haven't already left aren't going to do so for what would be a modest increase. 

We don't have that many James Dysons here who could up sticks and move their business abroad to avail of lower taxation.


----------



## Leo (9 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> It will also provide more money to fund State home building programmes.


And maybe they might use that to start building some social housing rather than competing with first time buyers and pushing the prices up for everyone.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> And maybe they might use that to start building some social housing rather than competing with first time buyers and pushing the prices up for everyone.


Exactly.
While they are at it they could impose the site value tax on all zoned land, built on or not. That would help reduce hoarding.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> That would go some way to addressing it alright, but expect lots of lobbying to push that down the road.



Of course, but that is why we need a government that isn't afraid to grow a pair and stand up against the lobbyists. 



Leo said:


> Yeah, but all that does is ease the plight of those who are better off than the hundreds of thousands of households who are renting.



For sure, it's no silver bullet. The primary focus should be to to build more houses.


----------



## Leo (9 Nov 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Of course, but that is why we need a government that isn't afraid to grow a pair and stand up against the lobbyists.


I see little prospect of that. The most likely alternative in the Shinners won't stand up to their terrorist masters and their history of objecting to social housing developments here and their actions while in power in NI don't suggest they will bring anything new.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (9 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> Why? It's hardly going to add anything to the amount paid on the houses we actually need.


increased property taxes will mean increased costs in owning a house. This will have an impact on peoples ability to pay as per the banks. Thus, less people will qualify for a mortgage. Thus less demand for property. Thus builders will stop building.

If it costs a builder €300,000 in materials to build a house and the demand for the house is there at €250,000 but not €300,000, do you think:

a) the house won't get built
or 
b) the house builder will pay out €300,000 in materials and labour etc to build the house and then sell it for €250,000?


Increasing property taxes means increased costs in owning a house and reducing peoples ability to pay.


----------



## WolfeTone (9 Nov 2021)

Leo said:


> I see little prospect of that



Possibly, it's hardly a new phenomenon. Opposition parties have a tendency to talk big but revert to real politik once in power.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> increased property taxes will mean increased costs in owning a house.


Yes, exactly. The cost of owning a house is spread out over the lifetime of the owner rather than just front end loaded.


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> This will have an impact on peoples ability to pay as per the banks. Thus, less people will qualify for a mortgage.


Thus house prices drop. Thus mortgages become smaller. The amount of money the average buyer can afford to finance determines the price of houses.


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Thus less demand for property. Thus builders will stop building.


The demand will be the same. 
Why would builders stop building? Don't tell me you believe the spin from Tom Parlon about how builders aren't making money.


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> If it costs a builder €300,000 in materials to build a house and the demand for the house is there at €250,000 but not €300,000, do you think:
> 
> a) the house won't get built
> or
> b) the house builder will pay out €300,000 in materials and labour etc to build the house and then sell it for €250,000?


Where did you get €300 for material and labour from? The cost of materials is around €45-€55 per square foot so well under €100k even for a large 4 bed home.

Labour is a little less. For a 1300sq/ft house labour and materials are still well under €150k, and that's using our current grossly inefficient construction methods which are extremely labour intensive and where 30% of all the materials that arrive on site end up in a landfill. 


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Increasing property taxes means increased costs in owning a house and reducing peoples ability to pay.


No, they mean lower property prices, more trading down, lower mortgages and a broader tax base.


----------



## The Horseman (9 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> The property tax itself would cause a devaluation in the property. That's a good thing. Property doesn't create wealth, in fact it just sucks capital away from the wealth creating parts of the economy.
> 
> Why? It's hardly going to add anything to the amount paid on the houses we actually need.
> 
> Why? One of the main problems we have is that land prices are way too high. A site value based property tax will depress the value of land. It will also provide more money to fund State home building programmes.


A decrease in property value is a bad idea. Have you forgotten the whole negative equity of the last bust. Property can create wealth if there was some joined up thinking. Property has a value and can be used as collateral against loans. I am aware of some landlords who use the rent received go into a pension via AVC's. They can't fund AVC's from their wages but use the rental income to fund pensions (in the long term less of a burden on the State when they come to retire as the income they receive in retirement will be subject to tax).

We need additional supply but also to better utilise the supply we have. How many people in State owned houses are paying a differential rent based on their income which takes no consideration of the size of the property. I don't have an issue with letting a widow or widower living in a three bed council house but basing rent on some arbituary calculation of just income is not fair. It takes no account whatsoever of the unused bedrooms. its akin to saying rent for a one bed should be the same as rent for a three bed just because a person's circumstances have changed (eg kids grow up and move out etc).


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

The Horseman said:


> A decrease in property value is a bad idea.


You're an outlier on that one.


The Horseman said:


> Have you forgotten the whole negative equity of the last bust.


No. High prices result in high loans and bubbles and negative equity when the wheels come off.


The Horseman said:


> Property can create wealth if there was some joined up thinking.


Wealth is created through the voluntary exchange of goods and services between people. In the case of a country net wealth is created through the international trade (exchange)  of goods and services. High property prices and high returns on property sucks money away from the wealth creating sectors of the economy and so is bad for net wealth creation. It also concentrates wealth in capital and away from labour which is bad for a meritorious society.



The Horseman said:


> Property has a value and can be used as collateral against loans. I am aware of some landlords who use the rent received go into a pension via AVC's. They can't fund AVC's from their wages but use the rental income to fund pensions (in the long term less of a burden on the State when they come to retire as the income they receive in retirement will be subject to tax).


Yes, more concentration of wealth in Capital.


The Horseman said:


> We need additional supply but also to better utilise the supply we have. How many people in State owned houses are paying a differential rent based on their income which takes no consideration of the size of the property. I don't have an issue with letting a widow or widower living in a three bed council house but basing rent on some arbituary calculation of just income is not fair. It takes no account whatsoever of the unused bedrooms. its akin to saying rent for a one bed should be the same as rent for a three bed just because a person's circumstances have changed (eg kids grow up and move out etc).


I agree with you but I do have a problem with letting a widow or widower live in a three bed council house. I think that the States assets should be used for the greatest social good. That means needs assessments every few years.
Of course the Shinners would like to see social housing for everyone, in some utopian socialist populist paradise.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (9 Nov 2021)

Purple said:


> The cost of materials is around €45-€55 per square foot so well under €100k even for a large 4 bed home.
> 
> Labour is a little less. For a 1300sq/ft house labour and materials are still well under €150k,



When last did you purchase materials? A 1300 sq ft hours well under 150k. You are so out of touch, it's funny.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> When last did you purchase materials? A 1300 sq ft hours well under 150k. You are so out of touch, it's funny.


Here (A builder), and here (The Society of Chartered Surveyors, well known for their japing and tomfoolery).


----------



## Leo (9 Nov 2021)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> When last did you purchase materials? A 1300 sq ft hours well under 150k. You are so out of touch, it's funny.



This article updated earlier this year suggests a 100sqm build is possible with materials costs below €60.


----------



## Sarenco (8 Aug 2022)

The landlord exodus appears to be accelerating.








						Rise in number of termination notices received by RTB
					

The number of termination notices received by the Residential Tenancies Board in the first half of the year rose by 58%, compared with the latter half of 2021.




					www.rte.ie
				



Sinn Fein's answer is to ban evictions.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (8 Aug 2022)

SF's solution to everything seems to be that it should come from one side and one side only. There's two sides to everything and it requires action on all stateholders to solve issues/problems. Banning evictions won't solve anything. It will encourage or motivate new investment to stay away from the sector and do nothing to solve issues for the sector as a whole.


----------



## jpd (8 Aug 2022)

Banning evictions would just encourage renters to stop paying the rent - I mean why pay the rent, if there is no downside to not paying


----------



## Dermot (8 Aug 2022)

Successive Governments have made changes every 3 and 4 months to rules and regulations for landlords surrounding rental accommodation without addressing the small % of tenants who create issues.
There is competition among the "lefties" to make it more difficult and restrictive for landlords to remain in the market.
It is no wonder that small and medium size landlords are leaving the market.
It is next to impossible for a landlord to keep up with all the pro-tenant regulations mainly designed to protect poor-quality tenants.  These types of regulations often have a negative impact on good tenants.


----------



## Purple (8 Aug 2022)

Sarenco said:


> The landlord exodus appears to be accelerating.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In fairness to Eoin O'Broin he used to work for Focus Ireland and his view on the topic is a reflection of the extremist ideology common with those who go from college straight into the homelessness industry. They don't even have to take the Che Guevara posters off their bedroom walls. 

Fear of a Shinner government is one of the main factors driving landlords out of the market.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (8 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> Fear of a Shinner government is one of the main factors driving landlords out of the market.


You can chalk that one down auld stock


----------



## Sarenco (8 Aug 2022)

Evidencing an intention to sell is not a ground for legally terminating an assured tenancy (broadly the equivalent of our Part IV tenancies) in the UK.

I'm surprised that Sinn Fein aren't pushing for the removal of this ground for terminating a tenancy to bring us in line with the position in the  North.

Re-introducing a moratorium on evictions would obviously be completely bonkers - why would any tenant continue to pay their rent?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (8 Aug 2022)

Sarenco said:


> I'm surprised that Sinn Fein aren't pushing for the removal of this ground for terminating a tenancy to bring us in line with the position in the North.


It's a reasonable assumption that AG's advice is that this is not constitutional. I've lost count of the amendments to the RTA since 2015 (four or five) and my feeling is that it would have been introduced it could have.

The Supreme Court struck down two pieces of rent control legislation in the early 1980s as it felt the Oireachtas was interfering with property rights without adequate justification.


----------



## Sarenco (8 Aug 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It's a reasonable assumption that AG's advice is that this is not constitutional.


I'm familiar with the caselaw and I don't agree that removing this ground for terminating a tenancy would offend against any constitutional principle or precedent.

The Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill 1981 was found to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it -

_"... applied only to some houses and dwellings and not to others; that the basis for the selection is not related to the needs of the tenants, to the financial or economic resources of the landlords, or to any established social necessity; and that, since the legislation is now not limited in duration, it is not associated with any particular temporary or emergency situation."_

None of those arguments would be relevant to a legislative amendment removing an intention to sell as a ground for terminating a tenancy.


----------



## lff12 (9 Aug 2022)

Sarenco said:


> The landlord exodus appears to be accelerating.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There was 22,000 fewer rentals from, I think 2016 (there was about 497k rentals) and its been running around 5k reduction per annum since. That's around 1-2% of overall tenancies. Probably not as dramatic as it seems, but the bigger issue that almost no new landlords are entering the market. While there is evidence of vibrant cash buyer activity in the residential market, BTL mortgages make up fewer than 2% of total mortgage draw downs.
Just because we have data in previous years doesn't mean that there was a perpetual train exiting the rental market as long as renting houses was a thing. What we haven't measured is new landlords entering the market and who they are. The problem isn't only the exist of existing landlords, but the lack of incoming new landlords provisioning new rentals.


Dermot said:


> Successive Governments have made changes every 3 and 4 months to rules and regulations for landlords surrounding rental accommodation without addressing the small % of tenants who create issues.
> There is competition among the "lefties" to make it more difficult and restrictive for landlords to remain in the market.
> It is no wonder that small and medium size landlords are leaving the market.
> It is next to impossible for a landlord to keep up with all the pro-tenant regulations mainly designed to protect poor-quality tenants.  These types of regulations often have a negative impact on good tenants.


This is correct. Rules change often several times a year with breathtaking pace. And are not updated in line with better thoughts and experience. For example, the insistence of having a "means of drying clothes" has encouraged provisioning of tumble dryers and washer dryers outdoor drying would be climate friendly. 


Purple said:


> In fairness to Eoin O'Broin he used to work for Focus Ireland and his view on the topic is a reflection of the extremist ideology common with those who go from college straight into the homelessness industry. They don't even have to take the Che Guevara posters off their bedroom walls.
> 
> Fear of a Shinner government is one of the main factors driving landlords out of the market.


I suspect the fear isn't so much OF a Shinner government as the unpredictability as to how they might behave in power.
That said - take a look up north - its hardly a shining example of a more fair rental market, they have net emigration, lower population growth and less immigration/returning emigrants so it hasn't got the demographic issues the Republic also has stoking the problem.
Housing is a "system" - making changes in one part of the system can have unintended consequences for others in different parts of the system.


----------



## Mocame (10 Aug 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It's a reasonable assumption that AG's advice is that this is not constitutional. I've lost count of the amendments to the RTA since 2015 (four or five) and my feeling is that it would have been introduced it could have.
> 
> The Supreme Court struck down two pieces of rent control legislation in the early 1980s as it felt the Oireachtas was interfering with property rights without adequate justification.


Will this remain the case after the constitutional amendment on the right to housing is passed?


----------



## Leo (10 Aug 2022)

Mocame said:


> Will this remain the case after the constitutional amendment on the right to housing is passed?


There was no proposal to amend the constitution to weaken the rights of private property owners.


----------



## Groucho (10 Aug 2022)

Leo said:


> There was no proposal to amend the constitution to weaken the rights of private property owners.



Nonetheless, if such a referendum was successful it seems likely to result in a situation where the law of unintended consequences will almost certainly apply.    And the likely losers will be property owners.


----------



## The Horseman (10 Aug 2022)

Leo said:


> There was no proposal to amend the constitution to weaken the rights of private property owners.


This will open a huge can of worms. I am a landlord who is an individual not a company (seperate legal entity in Irish law). Are my property rights (on my rental property) as a individual not the same as on my home?


----------



## Leo (10 Aug 2022)

Groucho said:


> Nonetheless, if such a referendum was successful it seems likely to result in a situation where the law of unintended consequences will almost certainly apply.    And the likely losers will be property owners.


There will likely be continued meddling in the market through legislation, but adding a right to housing can't override existing protections.


----------



## Leo (10 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> This will open a huge can of worms. I am a landlord who is an individual not a company (seperate legal entity in Irish law). Are my property rights (on my rental property) as a individual not the same as on my home?


I can't see adding a right to housing as having any major consequence other than adding a stick to beat the incumbent government with when they fail to do so. A right to housing will not put an onus on private individuals or companies to provide a solution.


----------



## The Horseman (10 Aug 2022)

Leo said:


> I can't see adding a right to housing as having any major consequence other than adding a stick to beat the incumbent government with when they fail to do so. A right to housing will not put an onus on private individuals or companies to provide a solution.


If it a fruitless exercise then why do it? I wish I shared your optimism regarding "not put the onus on private individuals" look at how small Landords are being treated.

I actually hope you are right but I don't trust anything that is said.


----------



## Leo (10 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> If it a fruitless exercise then why do it?


Because it's populist!


----------



## Mocame (10 Aug 2022)

Of course inserting a right to housing in the Constitution will limit landlord's rights over their property.  Restricting the property rights set out in the constitution is an explicit goal of those campaigning for the amendment.  Check out the website of the main campaign group behind the proposal which states:  

'Inserting a right to housing in our Constitution will eliminate any doubt that property rights can be appropriately restricted to allow access to decent, affordable, and secure housing for all'.







						Why a Referendum | Home for Good
					

Our proposal The Constitution of Ireland exists to protect the rights of all our people and yet it does not mention a right to housing. Instead it contains substantial and powerful protections for …



					www.homeforgood.ie
				



​


----------



## Leo (11 Aug 2022)

Mocame said:


> Of course inserting a right to housing in the Constitution will limit landlord's rights over their property. Restricting the property rights set out in the constitution is an explicit goal of those campaigning for the amendment.


It might be their aim, but that doesn't make it so. There is a right to free education, but that doesn't mean private individuals, companies, or even schools are obliged in any way to provide that service.


----------



## lff12 (18 Aug 2022)

Mocame said:


> Will this remain the case after the constitutional amendment on the right to housing is passed?


Yes - the important thing to understand about constitutional strikedowns around rent control was that the law was set at a time there was a demonstrable crisis, and the government could claim greater good of the public, which was constitutionally acceptable, but once the problem went away there was no longer a justifiable reason to retain those rent controls. If there was still a similar crisis in 1981, then the law would not have been stuck down.
Constitutional right to housing would place responsibility on the organs of the state to house someone not housed, and presumably give them a case to take legal action against the state. But we already largely delegate that to local councils, and individuals who are homeless do not have the money to bring court cases against the state or councils. So not likely it would be enforceable, it would be a moral victory for those who feel it should be enshrined in law.


----------



## lff12 (18 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> This will open a huge can of worms. I am a landlord who is an individual not a company (seperate legal entity in Irish law). Are my property rights (on my rental property) as a individual not the same as on my home?


Up until the claims for "your" or "your family" use - since a company is not a living entity, it doesn't live in a house so therefore cannot make a legal claim that it is "needed for family use." Similarly, a "company" has no "family" to house.
The workaround for this is to purchase it back from the company as an individual if you need it for family use.


----------

