# How many landlords have quit because of  rent controls?



## PaxmanK

For the last decade or so I have been a member of what we call.a property club.
Basically it is a group of people who own investment property and we meet up once a month and share our experiences, tips, woes etc trying to help each other out.

I have even taken some topics that have come up and asked about them on AAM because there is a wealth of knowledge here to clear up any differing views we might have.  So thankyou AAM.

Yesterday evening g we had out usual meetup and one of the guys mentioned that out of about 30 people who have e come and gone over the years that they reckon about 50% have got out of renting in the last 2 years or so, basically since Simon Coveny introduced rent controls and then Murphy twisted the knife even more.

So a quick poll even showed out of the 13 of us there last night, there were even 5 who do only short term or airbnb now.  And out of the rest , ALL of them don't intend on doing long term rental anymore once their current tenants move out.  Some have even given notice to current tenants because they want out.

Now this is only a small same, but it would be interesting to know how many landlords on AAM here got out of long term rental or are planning on getting out soon?

The conversation last night was a real eye opener though.  I knew it was bad , but it's worse than I thought.  Is it just our small sample or is it widespread?


----------



## vandriver

It would seem perverse,to a non landlord,that with rents at the highest level ever achieved since the foundation of the state,that you are leaving this business.
If it was profitable when you started the investment(and surely it was) then it must be super profitable now.


----------



## PaxmanK

It's the not being able to charge market rent that is the biggest factor.
Most were making a loss with rents forced down the during the recession and then when times got better they were slow to put up rent  if they wanted to be nice to sitting tenants and then they got trapped below market rent by rent controls.

That one factor if it were changed would probably see a lot of landlords stay.

But also the whole rogue tenant risk has to be removed.  A landlord basically has no rights.  And any left get eroded by new legislation every year.  What's next?


----------



## odyssey06

It was Coveney who introduced the rent cap with the backing of cabinet and FF.
Murphy is completely out of his depth and should never have been given that portfolio by Varadkar.
This is a collective failure of FG & FF.

FF wanted 2%, not 4% cap on increases:
http://www.thejournal.ie/homeless-crisis-4-rents-3138632-Dec2016/

Just in case anyone thinks the main alternative would be any better!


----------



## TheBigShort

PaxmanK said:


> Most were making a loss with rents force down the during the recession and when rent and then when times got better they were slow to put up rent and then got trapped below market rent by rent controls.



As I understand it, what this effectively means is that the cost of the mortgage repayments was not being met by the rent? 

In other words, in the midst of a housing crisis, some landlords are expecting others to repay the mortgage on their property plus provide a profit.

The more of these landlords that leave the market the better. Put the properties up for sale for FTB's. The more that do this, the more it will assist in price stability or price drops in the market.


----------



## Bronte

vandriver said:


> It would seem perverse,to a non landlord,that with rents at the highest level ever achieved since the foundation of the state,that you are leaving this business.
> If it was profitable when you started the investment(and surely it was) then it must be super profitable now.


Hassle. Red tape.  Tired of the business.  More and more horror stories about tenants overholding.  Reading PRTB horror cases.  (there's one on here currently where the tenant is smirking at the landlord, another thrashed the places causing untold damage in the thousands - front door, furniture, garden).

Just easier to sell and be done with it.

And for all that hassle reams of newspaper print on how landlords are the most evil people ever.  We are the lowest of the low.  And it's all our fault that there is a housing crisis no less.  It's unbelievable.  Even the presidential candidates are on about homelessness. And does anyone actually bother listing to us landlords.

Just this week FF have a crazy long lease (no object to long leases here by the way) tax incentive nonsense.


----------



## PaxmanK

Bronte, that was one of the questions that came up form a member of our group and I hadn't got an answer yet, so I posted on here before the meeting and got great help again.

I have loads of questions about our experiences that I'll probably post on AAM if the answers we get elsewhere are not clear.  I find AAM  is a hive of knowledge.

Also, I meant to add also that we discussed the new threat to airbnb too.

The consensus was ....

None of us is going going to stay in long term letting.

Anyone gone to airbnb will just find another way if that is banned.

If they can't find a way they will let for the maximum short term and then leave it empty for the rest of the year rather than have to operate under the long term let regime.

Some will just sell up anyway.


----------



## The Horseman

vandriver said:


> It would seem perverse,to a non landlord,that with rents at the highest level ever achieved since the foundation of the state,that you are leaving this business.
> If it was profitable when you started the investment(and surely it was) then it must be super profitable now.




Because of the anti landlord stance the govt has adopted the risk is too great. What other business continues to provide a service where they stop receiving payment for the provision of the service knowing full well they will never get payment even if they go to court and win!


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> As I understand it, what this effectively means is that the cost of the mortgage repayments was not being met by the rent?
> 
> In other words, in the midst of a housing crisis, some landlords are expecting others to repay the mortgage on their property plus provide a profit.
> 
> The more of these landlords that leave the market the better. Put the properties up for sale for FTB's. The more that do this, the more it will assist in price stability or price drops in the market.




Landlords are expecting their investment to yield a return that's why people invest, its to make money!

The more landlords that leave the sector then the bed spaces available for rental decreases and unless additional supply comes on board then rents increase as supply has fallen.


----------



## Bronte

TheBigShort said:


> As I understand it, what this effectively means is that the cost of the mortgage repayments was not being met by the rent?
> 
> In other words, in the midst of a housing crisis, some landlords are expecting others to repay the mortgage on their property plus provide a profit.
> 
> The more of these landlords that leave the market the better. Put the properties up for sale for FTB's. The more that do this, the more it will assist in price stability or price drops in the market.



In case you've missed it, government policy for housing is that us private landlords provide it. While government does everything to drive us out.  You're delusional if you think driving us out of business will solve the housing crisis. Most of my tenants can not purchase a property and never will, so where do you think they should go?


----------



## Steven Barrett

I think I will print this off this thread and give it to all the people who tell me that they want to buy property.


----------



## PaxmanK

SBarrett said:


> I think I will print this off this thread and give it to all the people who tell me that they want to buy property.



Maybe send a link to it to the minister 

Or shos it to tenants who want to know the real reason they can't get a place or are asked to leave.  Especially good tenants.

Or the numerous newspapers who don't seem to understand why rents are so high for the few places available.


----------



## thos

I am a 'reluctant landlord', being that I had a previous property in negative equity that was no longer fit for purpose, so held and rented when I moved to a new place.
It has now returned to positive equity, so would provide some payback after clearing mortgage.
I don't want the hassle, or the risk (should interest rates rise), so for me, I'm planning on getting out.


----------



## vandriver

Just musing....
Is airbnb really the panacea for all ills?
What's the average stay?A couple of days?
Then cleaning laundry greeting new guests etc.Then maybe a few days empty till the next weekend.
While for most landlords,a tenant on a long lease is almost a passive investment.
Just my 2c this find Friday morning!


----------



## PaxmanK

Airbnb can be as passive as you want it to be.  And you should see the difference in the state of the place after 6 months b&b Vs 6 months renting.  It's an eye opener.

Also no red tape and no one sided rights for the tenant.

I don't think airbnb is the only game in town if you want to avoid long term lets though, but is is handy.

Anyway it's the extreme level of risk that's the problem with letting your property these days.  If you are not permitted to get a return based on the level of risk it isnt going to work.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> The more landlords that leave the sector then the bed spaces available for rental decreases and unless additional supply comes on board then rents increase as supply has fallen.



Im not suggesting reducing the amount of landlords, just the ones that saw buy-to-let properties as a cash cow for others to pay the mortgage+profit and sell at retirement. 
When the going gets tough these 'landlords' are bailing out. 
Landlords should be providing a competitive alternative option to house ownership. Providing quality accommodation at competitive prices that provide a real option for people. They dont. 



Bronte said:


> In case you've missed it, government policy for housing is that us private landlords provide it.



And a dismal failure it has been.



Bronte said:


> You're delusional if you think driving us out of business will solve the housing crisis.



I never said it would solve the housing crisis, but it would be a step in the right direction. 
Landlords who provide housing on the expectation that the tenant will pay the mortgage plus provide profit, but then bailout when times are tough should not have become landlords in the first place. 
The sooner the fly-by-night landlord is gone, the better.



Bronte said:


> Most of my tenants can not purchase a property and never will, so where do you think they should go?



And yet part of the issue that landlords apparently have is not being able to charge market rates. 
If they were able to, no doubt homelessness would increase, so spare me the fake concern of where tenants will go. 

Put the property up for sale, I will buy it and let it out. I will slash the rent by 50% offering decent accommodation at affordable prices that provide tenants a real alternative to home ownership (whether they can afford it or not, they now have a choice). 
I bet you I can find tenants that will appreciate the property and look after it.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Im not suggesting reducing the amount of landlords, just the ones that saw buy-to-let properties as a cash cow for others to pay the mortgage+profit and sell at retirement.
> When the going gets tough these 'landlords' are bailing out.
> Landlords should be providing a competitive alternative option to house ownership. Providing quality accommodation at competitive prices that provide a real option for people. They dont.
> .



That's business you stay when profit is available and leave when its gone.

If you want to see the provision of this type of accommodation at prices that you deem competitive prices then make it attractive to new landlords remember being competitive comes from "competition".

Landlords are leaving rather than entering the market. Ever wonder why?


----------



## PGF2016

TheBigShort said:


> Im not suggesting reducing the amount of landlords, just the ones that saw buy-to-let properties as a cash cow for others to pay the mortgage+profit and sell at retirement.


As I see it there are two types of landlords. Those who are looking to profit and set themselves up for retirement and those who are reluctant landlords due to negative equity / property crash. 

What landlords do you want exactly? Charity landlords that provide housing for no profit but take all the risk and hassle?


----------



## Alistair

I have posted on this matter previously, so apologies if folks think I am harping on, however I would like to share my view on the BTL market having been a long term landlord since 1997.  I currently have 5 BTLs in Ireland having sold 2 earlier this year.   Additionally, 2 x notices of termination accompanied with the relevant statement of intent to sell witnessed by a commissioner for oaths have been issued to long term tenants (> 5 years) in two of the remaining properties.  Once these are sold, I will sell the remaining BTLs in Ireland.

For me, there are two main reasons why I am exiting this business; firstly there is far too much volatility in terms of tax treatment, legislative controls (emergency measures being threatened by the current housing minister) and wider economic factors (European tax harmonization).  I cannot effectively plan the future return this business will provide in Ireland due to the changes and punitive tax treatment of BTLs.  No other business would continue to invest or operate in a jurisdiction where they cannot effectively plan or estimate future returns due to the level of uncertainty introduced by tax and legislative changes (rent controls, tenant rights, unreasonable PRTB delays and the reduced recourse to the property when a tenant decides not to pay or meet their contractual obligations).

Secondly, the tax treatment and level of tax applied to turnover and profit has reduced the attractiveness of this business.  USC is partially applied to rental cashflow for non institutional landlords.  I am not aware of any other non VAT registered business that pays a percentage of tax on turnover and such a punitive level of tax on profit.  Additionally, businesses that require their employees to essentially work for free would not have any employees.  There is no effective mechanism that allows for a landlord's time and travel in servicing a BTL.  For example, a tenant calls reporting a problem with a washing machine.  The landlord has to travel to the property to establish if its really a problem with the equipment or tenant finger trouble.  Possibly call a repair or service agent, again meet the agent at the property and pay for that person's time and assessment.  Possibly go shopping for a replacement machine, arrange delivery/collection.  Travel back to the property, take out the old equipment, wait around for the delivery service and connect the new machine.... non of the landlords time and travel expenses are allowable under revenue rules.  What other business would expect their employees to travel and work for free ?

Having sought legal advice and receive additional feedback from my accountant, anecdotally, there is a significant exodus from the BTL market.  There is net immigration into the country and a continued strong demand from those with cash or the means to purchase the ex-BTL stock coming onto the market for sale.  My view is that the stock of BTL for rent will continue to reduce which will force rents upwards until they find their level... but it will be more expensive for tenants going forward.

I have tried to objectively state my experience... it is what it is.  Businesses adapt and change continuously and follow the money where the risk/reward makes sense.   I plan to be fully out of the Irish BTL market by mid 2019 and will continue to invest abroad instead.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Put the property up for sale, I will buy it and let it out. I will slash the rent by 50% offering decent accommodation at affordable prices that provide tenants a real alternative to home ownership (whether they can afford it or not, they now have a choice).
> I bet you I can find tenants that will appreciate the property and look after it.



There are plenty of ex rental properties for sale on MyHome.ie so you can purchase them and rent them out at a rate you feel is appropriate.


----------



## Steven Barrett

vandriver said:


> Just musing....
> Is airbnb really the panacea for all ills?
> What's the average stay?A couple of days?
> Then cleaning laundry greeting new guests etc.Then maybe a few days empty till the next weekend.
> While for most landlords,a tenant on a long lease is almost a passive investment.
> Just my 2c this find Friday morning!




People and landlords get rated on airbnb. It's human nature that people don't want others to think badly of them, especially if you want to use it again. There is the additional cost of having the place cleaned more regularly and laundry etc but if your income is much higher too, it's just a cost of business.


----------



## T McGibney

Alistair said:


> Secondly, the tax treatment and level of tax applied to turnover and profit has reduced the attractiveness of this business.  *USC is partially applied to rental cashflow* for non institutional landlords.  I am not aware of any other non VAT registered business that pays a percentage of tax on turnover and such a punitive level of tax on profit.  Additionally, businesses that require their employees to essentially work for free would not have any employees.  There is no effective mechanism that allows for a landlord's time and travel in servicing a BTL.  For example, a tenant calls reporting a problem with a washing machine.  The landlord has to travel to the property to establish if its really a problem with the equipment or tenant finger trouble.  Possible call a repair or service agent, again meet the agent at the property and pay for that person's time and assessment.  Possibly go shopping for a replacement machine, arrange delivery/collection.  Travel back to the property, take out the old equipment, wait around for the delivery service and connect the new machine.... *none of the landlords time *and travel expenses *are allowable under revenue rules*.  What other business would expect their employees to travel and work for free ?



While I share your general sentiments, I'm puzzled by the 2 points highlighted. 

USC is applied on net rental income before capital allowances, not on turnover.

And no business sector enjoys a tax deduction for owner's time and labour committed to a business.


----------



## Alistair

Not correct, a portion of USC is applied to gross rent. 

All business owners (and employees) have a revenue approved mechanism for deducting reasonable expenses incurred during the course of executing their employment obligations.


----------



## PaxmanK

Hi Alistair,
You have summed it up very well there.
We were trying to decide should be do airbnb , sell up and stay out, or sell up and buy I another country where the treatment might be better.

If you don't mind answering, which other countries have you relocated your property investments to?  And in which ways are they friendlier to the investor than Ireland ?


----------



## odyssey06

If you are thinking about Air BnB, you should read Minister Murphy's latest proposals:
http://www.thejournal.ie/airbnb-regulations-ireland-4223316-Sep2018/

_He told TheJournal.ie at the Fine Gael think-in yesterday that proposed regulations, which he plans to bring to Cabinet shortly, will be very similar to ones introduced in Toronto. In September, [broken link removed] introduced new laws which ensure a person can only rent their home as a short-term let if it is their principal residence. This means that people who own a second property (what some call an investment property) will not be able to rent it for a period of less than 28 days at a time.
The rules in Toronto also stipulate that short-term rental companies and home owners must obtain a licence and register with the city council. Those that place their properties on platforms must also pay a Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT) of 4%. Vancouver, which introduced similar rules, said since the regulations kicked in the number of listings on Airbnb fell from 6,600 in April to 3,742. _


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> Put the property up for sale, I will buy it and let it out. I will slash the rent by 50% offering decent accommodation at affordable prices that provide tenants a real alternative to home ownership (whether they can afford it or not, they now have a choice).



If you buy the property at a price that covers the building cost including site servicing costs, plus a reasonable site cost, plus the local authority costs, plus professional fees, plus financial costs. You will not get sufficient income to repay a mortgage over 25 Years.




TheBigShort said:


> I bet you I can find tenants that will appreciate the property and look after it.



That's easy, even at full market price. Most tenants are great.

However there is a small chance, that you will get a bad tenant. If you are unfortunate enough to get a tenant who will not pay the rent, there is very little you can do about it. That is the problem, landlords have.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> Landlords are leaving rather than entering the market. Ever wonder why?



Landlords dont build houses. They compete with FTB's pricing them out of market, turning them into tenants. They then extract a rent that covers the cost of the mortgage plus profit. 
This is a market failure. It is a policy failure.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> There are plenty of ex rental properties for sale on MyHome.ie so you can purchase them and rent them out at a rate you feel is appropriate.



Thanks, I know. Increasing the supply these 'ex rental' properties will help with the affordability for FTB's.


----------



## T McGibney

Alistair said:


> Not correct, a portion of USC is applied to gross rent.


Source please.



Alistair said:


> All business owners (and employees) have a revenue approved mechanism for deducting reasonable expenses incurred during the course of executing their employment obligations.



It was your mention of landlords time being allowable that I actually queried.



> none of the landlords time ....are allowable under revenue rules.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> If you buy the property at a price that covers the building cost including site servicing costs, plus a reasonable site cost, plus the local authority costs, plus professional fees, plus financial costs. You will not get sufficient income to repay a mortgage over 25 Years.



I know, I will have to cover the difference myself. 
Your cost list above is the whole point. The current private buy-to-let is effectively a ponzi scheme. Landlords competing with FTBs, pushing up prices turning them into tenants only then to extract the cost of the house (plus obtain a profit) from the same people they have squeezed out of the market.
Not being allowed to charge market rates is their complaint.



cremeegg said:


> That's easy, even at full market price. Most tenants are great.
> 
> However there is a small chance, that you will get a bad tenant.



So its not a big issue then?



cremeegg said:


> If you are unfortunate enough to get a tenant who will not pay the rent, there is very little you can do about it. That is the problem, landlords have.



True, I can sympathize with a landlord who is in that position, but as you said there is only a small chance it will happen. So it hardly explains why so many are apparently leaving the sector.


----------



## odyssey06

cremeegg said:


> However there is a small chance, that you will get a bad tenant. If you are unfortunate enough to get a tenant who will not pay the rent, there is very little you can do about it. That is the problem, landlords have.



This is probably a bigger issue than rent controls in terms of impact on people not bringing properties onto the rental market, especially where a home is idle due to someone working abroad for X period or receiving long term nursing home care.


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> True, I can sympathize with a landlord who is in that position, [with a tenant who does not pay the rent] but as you said there is only a small chance it will happen. So it hardly explains why so many are apparently leaving the sector.



Only a small chance it will happen, but the consequences will be disastrous, and there is nothing you can but endure.

All business have problems, but a serious problem you can do nothing about, that puts people off.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> True, I can sympathize with a landlord who is in that position, but as you said there is only a small chance it will happen. So it hardly explains why so many are apparently leaving the sector.



If you are a landlord with a single property, the chance of it occurring may be low but in terms of impact it is a 'black swan event' which not just leads to landlords selling up but people opting not to let out properties. You can't insure against it or absorb the costs in a way a letting company with 20+ properties can.


----------



## T McGibney

cremeegg said:


> All business have problems, but a serious problem you can do nothing about, that puts people off.


+1
And most property owners are not business people and they tend to have a generally higher aversion to risk than a business person would have.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> Only a small chance it will happen, but the consequences will be disastrous, and there is nothing you can but endure.



Yes, I agree. But as you said it is only a small chance of it happening. 
It doesn't account for the apparent exodus.


----------



## qwerty5

Well the exodus isn't just down to one reason.
All these small reasons add up together to make it unattractive 
There are other places to invest without the hassle or risk.

(I'm not an ex landlord, I was a potential one though. When I did the sums properly I just didn't get into it)


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, I agree. But as you said it is only a small chance of it happening. It doesn't account for the apparent exodus.



You seem to have difficulty with the concept that it doesn't have to actually happen to them for it to cause people to think twice about being a landlord?

If you couldn't insure a car, wouldn't it make you think twice about buying one?


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> The sooner the fly-by-night landlord is gone, the better.


And how are those large institutional landlords working out? 
You know the ones that evict whole blocks for 'enhancements' and then put the accomm back on the market at much higher rates. The same ones that pay practically no tax and funnel their profits out of the country.


----------



## T McGibney

Delboy said:


> And how are those large institutional landlords working out?
> You know the ones that evict whole blocks for 'enhancements' and then put the accomm back on the market at much higher rates. The same ones that pay practically no tax and funnel their profits out of the country.


And who lobby surreptitiously for rent controls.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Landlords dont build houses. They compete with FTB's pricing them out of market, turning them into tenants. They then extract a rent that covers the cost of the mortgage plus profit.
> This is a market failure. It is a policy failure.



how is this relevant to landlords leaving the market?

Competition results in a market!


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Thanks, I know. Increasing the supply these 'ex rental' properties will help with the affordability for FTB's.



And what happens to the tenants of those ex rental properties?


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> You seem to have difficulty with the concept that it doesn't have to actually happen to them for it to cause people to think twice about being a landlord?
> 
> If you couldn't insure a car, wouldn't it make you think twice about buying one?



Of course, but you seem to be implying that non-paying tenants is a relatively new phenomenon?
Anyone entering into the rental market needs to this possibility consideration from outset.
If they haven't, then they are incompetent and should not enter the sector as a landlord.
Landlord/tenant disputes are prominent in Irish history. Anyone entering into the rental sector as a landlord and not taking into account the risks of non-payment shouldn't be there in first place.
As was said, non-payment only accounts for a small portion of tenancies. It is a factor in people leaving the sector, but that was always the case.
Why is there an apparent upturn in people leaving the sector today?



Delboy said:


> And how are those large institutional landlords working out?
> You know the ones that evict whole blocks for 'enhancements' and then put the accomm back on the market at much higher rates. The same ones that pay practically no tax and funnel their profits out of the country.



Yep, need to go after them for sure also. Unfortunately, the mindset of the general populous appear to fixated with 'free-market' ideology and non-interference in the market.
Perhaps, with a housing market/policy that operates on boom/bust cycles, people will begin to see through the nonsense of "the market"



The Horseman said:


> Competition results in a market!



Say no more!

Yes, competition results in a market. But not every product or service benefits from free markets.
Sometimes, essential goods and services like food, medicine, education, are better served with some intervention, typically by the State.
Housing is an obvious example.



The Horseman said:


> And what happens to the tenants of those ex rental properties?



??? If they are ex-rental, they have no tenants???


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> Of course, but you seem to be implying that non-paying tenants is a relatively new phenomenon?
> Anyone entering into the rental market needs to this possibility consideration from outset.
> If they haven't, then they are incompetent and should not enter the sector as a landlord.
> Landlord/tenant disputes are prominent in Irish history. Anyone entering into the rental sector as a landlord and not taking into account the risks of non-payment shouldn't be there in first place.
> As was said, non-payment only accounts for a small portion of tenancies. It is a factor in people leaving the sector, but that was always the case.
> Why is there an apparent upturn in people leaving the sector today?



You make it sound as if nothing has changed in tenant legislation since the foundation of the state, or even before. 

I don't think people being put off the land in 1850 had recourse to something like this. This legislation "hasn't always been the case".
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/42/enacted/en/html
[broken link removed]

Isn't that exactly what we're talking about? Why landlords are leaving the market and not being replaced?

Sure, hasn't it "always been the case" Irish people couldn't find anywhere to live. Let's resort to the old remedy of emigration then? Instead of aiming for a proper functioning rental and housing market?.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Sometimes, essential goods and services like food, medicine, education, are better served with some intervention, typically by the State.
> Housing is an obvious example.



The irony is that 9 years ago we had a housing surplus. Then the State intervened and turned this into a shortage, now of crisis proprortions.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, competition results in a market. But not every product or service benefits from free markets.
> Sometimes, essential goods and services like food, medicine, education, are better served with some intervention, typically by the State.
> Housing is an obvious example.



NAMA's doing a great job isn't it?
And all the land banks the Dublin councils are sitting on?


----------



## Bronte

TheBigShort said:


> Put the property up for sale, I will buy it and let it out. I will slash the rent by 50% offering decent accommodation at affordable prices that provide tenants a real alternative to home ownership (whether they can afford it or not, they now have a choice).
> I bet you I can find tenants that will appreciate the property and look after it.



- With what money will you buy it?
- Why don't you just go to existing tenants and offer to pay part of their rent?
- How did you arrive at a figure of 50% of my current rent?
- My tenants appreciate the properties and look after it, some better than others
- Would you be happy to have to paint a property more often than one does one's own home
- Would you be happy for tenants to phone you at 2 am drunk because they have lost their key, or who damaged a washing machine by putting shoes into it, or who didn't bother to get a chimney sweep, and resulted in damage to your chimney flue as the chimney went on fire, or who don't pick up air born rubbish from the garden because they can't be bothered.
- What would you do in those scenarios?
- What would you do if a tenant phoned you up because the light bulb needed changing?


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> You make it sound as if nothing has changed in tenant legislation since the foundation of the state, or even before.



The issue of non-paying tenants hasnt changed. There are still non-paying tenants today as there were, every year, for the last 150yrs and more. 
Im asking why the apparent upturn in landlords leaving the sector today?




T McGibney said:


> The irony is that 9 years ago we had a housing surplus. Then the State intervened and turned this into a shortage, now of crisis proprortions.



Yep, State intervention is no panacea. Its the type of intervention that needs scrutiny.
If the private sector could build enough houses then perhaps no need. 
But it cant, it built too many houses in wrong places, went bust and cannot meet demand today. 
The State is the only plausible agent to deliver the housing stock required.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> The issue of non-paying tenants hasnt changed. There are still non-paying tenants today as there were, every year, for the last 150yrs and more.
> Im asking why the apparent upturn in landlords leaving the sector today?



Because tenant protections keep ramping up with no corresponding increase in powers for landlords to deal with difficult tenants who hide behind the protections; or just ignore the law. Our state in general is now pathetic at dealing with these kind of people. They are one of the reasons the councils walked away from direct provision of social housing in rental sector and switched to HAP. The councils found them to be more trouble than they are worth so pity the private landlord who is "landed" with one. Look at the rent arrears of the county and city councils, tens of millions with no prospect of getting it back.



> Yep, State intervention is no panacea. Its the type of intervention that needs scrutiny.
> If the private sector could build enough houses then perhaps no need.
> But it cant, it built too many houses in wrong places, went bust and cannot meet demand today.
> The State is the only plausible agent to deliver the housing stock required.



Tell them to start building on their landbanks and stop buying up houses that FTBs are chasing; and driving landlords out of the market.


----------



## odyssey06

This is why the state as a landlord fled the market
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/council-tenants-owe-65m-in-unpaid-rent-437052.html


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, competition results in a market. But not every product or service benefits from free markets.
> Sometimes, essential goods and services like food, *medicine*, education, are better served with some intervention, typically by the State.
> Housing is an obvious example.


How's the public health service been going the past 40 odd years? Biggest employer in the State isn't it, with the biggest budget?


----------



## AlbacoreA

We have have large institutional landlords now in the market, rent controls and huge improvements in tenants rights.

Job done really. They have got everything they asked for.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> Because tenant protections keep ramping up with no corresponding increase in powers for landlords to deal with difficult tenants who hide behind the protections; or just ignore the law.



But according to @cremeegg most tenants are great. So again, it appears we are dealing with a small cohort of tenants.
Example, if I pay my rent on time, all the time, then no amount of tenant 'protections' will have any bearing on my landlord.
I suspect it is the increase of non-payment that is stoking discontent. But if it is, it points to a wider malaise in society - insufficient incomes.



odyssey06 said:


> Tell them to start building on their landbanks and stop buying up houses that FTBs are chasing;



I agree. 



Delboy said:


> How's the public health service been going the past 40 odd years? Biggest employer in the State isn't it, with the biggest budget?



??? What has this got to do with anything???


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> But according to @cremeegg most tenants are great. So again, it appears we are dealing with a small cohort of tenants.
> Example, if I pay my rent on time, all the time, then no amount of tenant 'protections' will have any bearing on my landlord.
> I suspect it is the increase of non-payment that is stoking discontent. But if it is, it points to a wider malaise in society - insufficient incomes.



Non-payment isn't the issue. It's that if you find yourself with a non paying tenant it's costly in time and money to get rid of them in favour of a paying tenant. If there weren't paying tenants out there rents wouldn't be increasing, and landlords would have 'fled' 5 years ago instead of now when rents are on the up.

There's €60 million in unpaid rent to councils who are already charging far below market rates. It's that there are no consequences to dodging the rent, and all the costs are displaced onto the landlord. Even the councils are getting out of being landlords.


----------



## qwerty5

TheBigShort said:


> But according to @cremeegg most tenants are great. So again, it appears we are dealing with a small cohort of tenants.



Most tenants are great. Agreed.
How many bad tenants would it take to wipe out the profits of a landlord. If you've got one property then it's one tenant.



TheBigShort said:


> Of course, but you seem to be implying that non-paying tenants is a relatively new phenomenon?
> Anyone entering into the rental market needs to this possibility consideration from outset.
> If they haven't, then they are incompetent and should not enter the sector as a landlord.
> Landlord/tenant disputes are prominent in Irish history. Anyone entering into the rental sector as a landlord and not taking into account the risks of non-payment shouldn't be there in first place.



So what controls do you suggest to protect a small landlord? References are not worth anything. If you ask for large deposits you're demonised and not protection. You can't insure out of it. And you're saying they should cut the rent by 50% so you'd be happy with a few hundred quid profit a year on your couple of hundred grand asset.


----------



## qwerty5

odyssey06 said:


> Non-payment isn't the issue. It's that if you find yourself with a non paying tenant it's costly in time and money to get rid of them in favour of a paying tenant. If there weren't paying tenants out there rents wouldn't be increasing, and landlords would have 'fled' 5 years ago instead of now when rents are on the up.



Would it be that now that the assets are probably out of negative equity and the sales are up that maybe landlords are throwing in the towel? 5 years ago the properties were worth a lot less.


----------



## odyssey06

qwerty5 said:


> Would it be that now that the assets are probably out of negative equity and the sales are up that maybe landlords are throwing in the towel? 5 years ago the properties were worth a lot less.



That's probably a factor in the push and pull but we're hearing here from landlords who didn't want to sell but feel they are being pushed into it...


----------



## The Horseman

odyssey06 said:


> Non-payment isn't the issue. It's that if you find yourself with a non paying tenant it's costly in time and money to get rid of them in favour of a paying tenant. If there weren't paying tenants out there rents wouldn't be increasing, and landlords would have 'fled' 5 years ago instead of now when rents are on the up.
> 
> There's €60 million in unpaid rent to councils who are already charging far below market rates. It's that there are no consequences to dodging the rent, and all the costs are displaced onto the landlord. Even the councils are getting out of being landlords.




Exactly its not the non payment of rent that's the issue, its the issue of no recourse for non payment of rent hence the councils getting out of providing accommodation.


----------



## cremeegg

odyssey06 said:


> Because tenant protections keep ramping up with no corresponding increase in powers for landlords to deal with difficult tenants who hide behind the protections; They are one of the reasons the councils walked away from direct provision of social housing in rental sector and switched to HAP.  Look at the rent arrears of the county and city councils, tens of millions with no prospect of getting it back.



I just thought this point was so important it needed to be repeated.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Yep, State intervention is no panacea. Its the type of intervention that needs scrutiny.
> If the private sector could build enough houses then perhaps no need.
> But it cant, it built too many houses in wrong places, went bust *and cannot meet demand today. *
> The State is the only plausible agent to deliver the housing stock required.



Why? Because the State deliberately messed up its own previously functioning building regulations and planning criteria, inflating both the basic and median cost of new builds beyond the level of affordability that normal owner-occupiers and investors can bear.


----------



## AlbacoreA

A lot of people bought these as investment or as pension income. Another problem kicked down the road.


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> ??? What has this got to do with anything???


I don't know - you tell me! You mentioned the areas the State should intervene in, health being 1 of them. How's that working out?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> ??? If they are ex-rental, they have no tenants???



So where have the original tenants gone


----------



## TheBigShort

qwerty5 said:


> How many bad tenants would it take to wipe out the profits of a landlord. If you've got one property then it's one tenant.



One. But whats the point? This is nothing new. Everyone landlord and prospective landlord should be aware that their tenant may stop paying at some point, or for a period.
Nothing new.



qwerty5 said:


> So what controls do you suggest to protect a small landlord? References are not worth anything. If you ask for large deposits you're demonised and not protection. You can't insure out of it. And you're saying they should cut the rent by 50% so you'd be happy with a few hundred quid profit a year on your couple of hundred grand asset.



Id reform the whole rental sector. With the State building houses and infrastructure. 
Property management would tender for leasehold of property. Offering quality accommodation but at competitive prices. 
A real alternative rental market, with competitive affordable rents, for people who cannot afford their own home or choose not to own their own home. 
Property management to be given powers to evict where a tenant is capable of paying but refuses. 
Where a tenant runs into genuine difficulty, the State will operate an insurance scheme to subsidise in part rent arrears. Alternatively, unpaid rent can be written off any other tax liability the landlord may have.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> So where have the original tenants gone



I dont know. Maybe they moved.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> One. But whats the point? This is nothing new. Everyone landlord and prospective landlord should be aware that their tenant may stop paying at some point, or for a period.
> Nothing new....



Rents go and down, people move between places. Nothing new there either. 

So this is all fake news is what you are saying.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Id reform the whole rental sector. With the State building houses and infrastructure.



Do the math. 100,000 homes at €250k each is €25 billion. This would bankrupt the State.


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> I don't know - you tell me! You mentioned the areas the State should intervene in, health being 1 of them. How's that working out?



World Health Organization ranks us 19 out of 191 countries for overall health system performance. 
Ahead of Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Australia, United States.

Healthcare is of a very high standard in this country. 
Would be better if we didn't have this stupid two tier system where the public administration of the system is convuluted, resource inefficient in order to push the population into  private for profit health insurance.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Do the math. 100,000 homes at €250k each is €25 billion. This would bankrupt the State.



Where did you get 100,000 from? And why do you think they all have to be built in one year?


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Where did you get 100,000 from? And why do you think they all have to be built in one year?


From the top of my head. How many do you think we need?  We probably need a lot more than 100,000 given the population rise and building deficit we've had in the past decade. And the cost doesn't decrease if we build them over a number of years.


----------



## odyssey06

T McGibney said:


> Why? Because the State deliberately messed up its own previously functioning building regulations and planning criteria, inflating both the basic and median cost of new builds beyond the level of affordability that normal owner-occupiers and investors can bear.



Dun Laoghaire Rathdown are one of the best funded councils in the country, they deliberately set building standards so high to keep property prices high in the area. It was so laughable the government had to pass legislation to allow them to overrule DLR. Their record on social housing building is practically non existent.

But even they can't bury their heads in sand forever:
http://www.thejournal.ie/cherrywood-town-centre-development-4046200-May2018/


----------



## cremeegg

odyssey06 said:


> Dun Laoghaire Rathdown are one of the best funded councils in the country, they deliberately set building standards so high to keep property prices high in the area. It was so laughable the government had to pass legislation to allow them to overrule DLR. Their record on social housing building is practically non existent.
> 
> But even they can't bury their heads in sand forever:
> http://www.thejournal.ie/cherrywood-town-centre-development-4046200-May2018/



_Don't Panic_ it's only Cherrywood


----------



## odyssey06

The state doesn't have to build all the houses. But it either needs to start using its land banks, and brown field sites; or else it needs to get out of the way. The private sector can't solve the problem if the state is sitting on the land and setting unrealistic building standards. Nobody wants pokey firetraps but there has to be a middle ground.

The same applies to being a landlord if the state (and councils) aren't going to do it, they need to enable legislation to let private landlords do it. Rent controls is not that legislation.


----------



## pcocp

So, does anyone have any expectation that the government will address the issue of single property landlords in receipt of below market rents?
Even where the increased rent would still be below the market rent, but more than the 4% allowable under RPZ rules. 
I am aware of 4 such landlords, myself included, who are willing to see this year out, if the issue of below market rents is not addressed, all are giving notice and selling up in the new year. 
All are fully tax compliant and HAP standards have been met and inspections completed. 
4 families will be affected, all HAP cases, good long term tenants, no problems over the years. 
Can anything be expected in the upcoming budget or pending legislation?


----------



## fidelcastro

Tried the US market lately have we?.Or priced free market health insurance lately. Pray we're at edge of our seats to hear your insight into how successful it is.


----------



## TheBigShort

pcocp said:


> So, does anyone have any expectation that the government will address the issue of single property landlords in receipt of below market rents?



I don't.



pcocp said:


> I am aware of 4 such landlords, myself included, who are willing to see this year out, if the issue of below market rents is not addressed, all are giving notice and selling up in the new year.



Good, that is at least 4 properties available to either another prospective landlord who is happy to take on the property with current arrangements or 4 properties competing for prospective owner occupiers who have been squeezed out of the housing market, in part due to private landlords competing for same house.



pcocp said:


> All are fully tax compliant and HAP standards have been met and inspections completed.



You mean tax payers pay most of your rent colletable because your tenants income is insufficient to pay high rents already in place, but you are threatening to exit market if you cant squeeze more out of the taxpayer.




pcocp said:


> 4 families will be affected, all HAP cases, good long term tenants, no problems over the years.



And your solution is to allow market rents to increase. This will add to the demand of those seeking HAP.
You made a long-term business decision probably based on the Celtic Tiger dream of buying a property and getting others to pay for it all so that you can cash in on the value of property when you retire.
Fair enough.
But because it is going pear-shaped you expect others, who already pay your rent through HAP, to pay even more. 

Best you get out of the sector as soon as. You are part of problem, not the solution. 

Btw, its nothing personal, I do sympathize somewhat with people who have found themselves in your situation. I believe you were duped into believing you could be a landlord, like the many thousands that were duped into believing they could borrow excessively. 

But the rental sector needs fundamental reform. If we carry on with this nonsense we will still be talking about housing crisis in 10,20yrs.


----------



## pcocp

TheBigShort said:


> I don't.
> Good, that is at least 4 properties available to either another prospective landlord who is happy to take on the property with current arrangements or 4 properties competing for prospective owner occupiers who have been squeezed out of the housing market, in part due to private landlords competing for same house.



True re prospective owner occupiers looking for a home.



TheBigShort said:


> You mean tax payers pay most of your rent colletable because your tenants income is insufficient to pay high rents already in place, but you are threatening to exit market if you cant squeeze more out of the taxpayer.



Rents already in place not 'high' and will remain that way, and I have never 'squeezed' anyone.



TheBigShort said:


> And your solution is to allow market rents to increase. This will add to the demand of those seeking HAP.
> You made a long-term business decision probably based on the Celtic Tiger dream of buying a property and getting others to pay for it all so that you can cash in on the value of property when you retire.
> Fair enough.
> But because it is going pear-shaped you expect others, who already pay your rent through HAP, to pay even more.



It wasn't a dream, and its not going pear shaped. And I can 'cash in' now if I want to. But I was always happy to take the long term view.



TheBigShort said:


> Best you get out of the sector as soon as. You are part of problem, not the solution.



Not how I see it. You really shouldn't place all private landlords in the same category.



TheBigShort said:


> Btw, its nothing personal, I do sympathize somewhat with people who have found themselves in your situation. I believe you were duped into believing you could be a landlord, like the many thousands that were duped into believing they could borrow excessively.



Not my situation, but at least I have the option of getting out, if I choose to.



TheBigShort said:


> But the rental sector needs fundamental reform. If we carry on with this nonsense we will still be talking about housing crisis in 10,20yrs.



Agreed.


----------



## TheBigShort

@pcocp you said earlier you were giving notice and selling up? 
Now you are suggesting that you are happy to take long-term view? Which is it? 

I dont categorize all private landlords the same. 
If you are in it for the long-term then you should expect some bumps along the road. If you are prepared, have contingency funds for bad periods, other income etc...then I have no real issue. 

I do take issue with what I call the Celtic Tiger dream landlords. The ones who jumped on the bandwagon, because they saw their colleagues doing the same. The ones who put very little thought into being a landlord other than to think someone else will pay their mortgage for 25-30yrs, provide a profit on top and then sell property for retirement realising all the capital gain. 
Its these amateur landlords that need to be squeezed out of the sector. 

The rental market for private accommodation is too wedded to the cost of mortgage repayments. 
The rental should be an alternative market to house ownership market. Typically for those who cannot afford, or for those who choose not to own a property. 

If a tenant cannot afford their own home, then by that definition they should not be able to afford to pay rents that are equal to or exceeding the cost of the mortgage.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

BigShort, you’re at it again...

An investment property is an asset; it requires capital to fund it and that capital needs to make a return. By way of example, I have a rental property and it makes 6% gross which I’m happy enough with. Your “cost of the mortgage” stuff is a red herring. If the return was 3 or 4%, I’d sell because that’s not acceptable and there are other things that one can do with capital.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> I dont know. Maybe they moved.


To where?


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> To where?



I don't know, another house perhaps?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> I don't know, another house perhaps?



But there are no properties to rent, did you not hear!


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> I have a rental property and it makes 6% gross which I’m happy enough with.



Yeh, so what? I have no issue with that?

The issue im pointing to is, firstly - the nature of the service - housing. It is essential to the functioning of civil society.
Secondly, that people (working people in particular) are priced out of ever owning their own homes and/or being priced out of renting suitable accommodation. 

It is a market failure and policy failure. Some would just like to allow the market work its way and all will be ok eventually. 
The housing market hasn't worked in this country for 15yrs and there is no sign it will do anytime soon. 
Policy has to change, a fundamental reform of the housing market - what is it for, who is it for, how much should it cost, etc needs to be factored. 
Treating housing as a commodity to be bought and sold for profit suits some people, but it is destined to cause misery, and with it, social upheaval if it is allowed to persist.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> But there are no properties to rent, did you not hear!



No, ive never heard such a thing. 
Ive heard it is very expensive to rent, beyond the financial reach of thousands of working people.


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> The issue of non-paying tenants hasnt changed. There are still non-paying tenants today as there were, every year, for the last 150yrs and more.
> Im asking why the apparent upturn in landlords leaving the sector today?



It’s a good question, what has changed in regard to non paying tenants that is prompting landlords to sell up.

I think the short answer is the arrival of the RTB and the political hostility towards landlords.

I was a landlord before the RTB came into existence. I never considered what would happen if a tenant stopped paying their rent. If I had been asked I would probably have said that I would evict them. I have no idea what the legal position was at the time.

Then the RTB and associated legislation came along. It became clear that for all practical purposes a tenant could not be evicted for non payment of rent.

Political hostility towards landlords became a thing. To give two examples John Halligan referred to landlords as bastards. Richard Boyd Barrett advised tenants non paying rent not to leave their accommodation.

This is a great change in the environment for landlords. It is hardly surprising that many are getting out. Personally that is not an option for me. I will have to take care to protect myself in this newly hostile environment.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> No, ive never heard such a thing.
> Ive heard it is very expensive to rent, beyond the financial reach of thousands of working people.


So are you saying there are houses but people can't afford the rent.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> So are you saying there are houses but people can't afford the rent.



Yeh, ive heard that there is a shortage of housing to rent and to buy and that this is driving prices higher and higher, beyond the reach of many, many working people. 
Have you heard different?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

It may be pushing property in Ranelagh out of reach, but what about living in (say) Mullingar?

The current “crisis” reeks of millenial angst and horse manure. If I see another clown with a made up job on tv giving out about the property market, I think I’ll throw the tv out the window.

“I’m a reptile psychologist and I can’t get a mortgage”. Last week I read about the accommodation troubles of a freelance PR consultant, a chap working with an LBGT social network start-up, and “comedy” writer Stephanie Pressner.

That’s not to say that we don’t have a homeless crisis which absolutely needs resourcing and deserves it. But as for the moaning about how difficult things are from millenials who want frivolous careers but the security of home ownership...give me a break. Get a real job, emigrate, or move to the extended commuter belt.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> It may be pushing property in Ranelagh out of reach, but what about living in (say)



Well, lets take some real jobs in Ranelagh. Like the school teacher, the bus driver, the shop assistants, the waiter, the chef, the barperson, the office receptionist, the office cleaner, etc...etc...

Do you think it makes sense to have them travel from Mullingar to Ranelagh? I dont.
A lot of these jobs range from minimum wage to €12 per hour.
These jobs are essential for the operating of the services they are expected to provide. The people in these posts, on incomes that they earn, need somewhere to live. And when I say 'live' I don't mean holed up in a house that has been subdivided into 11 apartments, with substandard accommodation, being charged extortionate rents.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news...ge-and-the-rent-is-1400-a-month-37286950.html


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Nonsense. By way of example, the 18 bus travels from areas with much cheaper accommodation (e.g. Crumlin, Palmerstown, Drimnagh) right through Ranelagh and on into Sandymount.

As for the myth of the teacher/Garda, two people on circa €40k each for quite easily afford to rent or buy in Dublin.

The problem is that the most vocal people are the millenials who think that they should be able to work at an online social network for dogs, enjoy their college years studying Ukranian impressionist art, eat Tribeca chicken wings when they like, and live on Dartmouth Square.


----------



## TheBigShort

Great, so I take it by your response that you consider your initial location of Mullingar to be illogical for low/middle income earners to work in positions in Ranelagh?

You have provided much 'cheaper' locations that I agree are plausibly within travel distance by public transport to Ranelagh. 
A cursory glance at 2-3 bed properties in Crumlin and we are talking about circa €2,000pm. 
Not much change left for low/middle income earners, even if two people are working.
God forbid they try start a family and then have to pay childcare. 

The housing crisis is not only of those who have no place of their own, its also the working people who are barely keeping their heads above water seeing their rent take a wholly disproportionate slice of their income.
People will cancel their discretionary spending before facing eviction. They will cancel things like health insurance and not go to the dentist.
They will sell car and use public transport or cycle (not necessarily a bad thing, but being forced to sell or cancel the things you want to keep, that you earned through work, breeds resentment).
Increasing rents extracts money from other areas of the economy affecting businesses.

In the end, depending on how many people are affected, depending for how long these living conditions persist, depending on whether the situation improves or worsens, will depend on whether there is social upheaval or not.
The trajectory suggests the issues surrounding housing and homelessness are getting worse. This is bad for everyone.


----------



## Bronte

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...ing-loans-realistically-say-brokers-1.3621650


----------



## Gordon Gekko

BigShort, I note that you moved the goalposts, as you frequently do. You referred to “working people”. When I suggest Mullingar, you leap to “people on the minimum wage”. I never mentioned people on minimum wage, nor had you until it suited you.


----------



## pcocp

TheBigShort said:


> @pcocp[/USER] you said earlier you were giving notice and selling up?
> Now you are suggesting that you are happy to take long-term view? Which is it?



Ok I wasn’t clear. 

I am willing to remain as a landlord in the current market as things stand. 
I play by the rules, always have. 
My problem is the cap on rent increases, when coming from a below market rent situation. 
Even when the proposed new rent would still be below market rates. 
Other landlords I know are selling up if it’s not addressed in the coming months. 
I remain undecided as in the long term I have plans for the property. 

Regardless I was just seeking some opinions on the likelihood of the below market rent issue being addressed in the coming months.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> BigShort, I note that you moved the goalposts, as you frequently do. You referred to “working people”. When I suggest Mullingar, you leap to “people on the minimum wage”. I never mentioned people on minimum wage, nor had you until it suited you.



You are a chancer Gekko, you waffle on about "reptile psychologists" and ask that they get a real job, live in Mullingar or emigrate!
So I listed some real jobs for you. Some of which command low wages like shop assistants in Spar or office cleaners. Even jobs with decent salaries like school teachers will struggle to met rents in Ranelagh. 
So you moved goalposts and offered alternative locations of Crumlin, Palmerstown instead of Mullingar.
You did this because you know how illogical it is to expect the people who do these jobs in Ranelagh to live somewhere like Mullingar or equivalent.

So back to that point. How do you expect people with low or middle incomes to pay for rents that are beyond their reach or swallowing disproportionate levels of their incomes, to continue to live in circumstances that offers no hope of finding a place of their own or face having to move further and further away at best, or face the prospect of long-term shared accommodation or homelessness at worst?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Again, you’re oscillating wildly between different points.

First it was “working people”; then it was people on the minimum wage; now you’re back to people on “low or middle incomes”.

Which is it?

With regard to your last point, I expect them to upskill or move. And why should a schoolteacher have any expectation around living in Ranelagh?


----------



## cremeegg

Gordon Gekko said:


> And why should a schoolteacher have any expectation around living in Ranelagh?



Because kids in Ranelagh need an education too.

Are you deliberately teeing it up for him ?


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> And why should a schoolteacher have any expectation around living in Ranelagh?



They shouldn't, no-one should have any expectation about living in Ranelagh. 
But equally, the people who do live in Ranelagh should not have any expectation that teachers will come work in schools, or that the local supermarket is sufficiently staffed to provide a service, or that accounting firm, solicitors, insurance brokers etc expect that someone will clean their offices for a low wage, should they?

But they do expect all those things. They want people to mind and teach their children, they want convenience, retail shopping and they want healthservices and public transport. 
But if their mindset is like yours, they dont expect the people who work to provide all these services should be able to afford reasonable accommodation, at a reasonable distance from where they are expected to work, for a reasonable portion of their income.

You are wholly avoiding the issue and looking at it through the narrow prism of market price.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> Are you deliberately teeing it up for him ?



You beat me to it!


----------



## Gordon Gekko

cremeegg said:


> Because kids in Ranelagh need an education too.
> 
> Are you deliberately teeing it up for him ?



And do people have some sort of entitlement to live and work in the same suburb?


----------



## cremeegg

Gordon Gekko said:


> And do people have some sort of entitlement to live and work in the same suburb?



In my view of the world people don't have many entitlements.

Nevertheless a society needs people at all levels to function. And those people need somewhere to live and educational opportunities for their children.

Until recently this was not an issue in Ireland, (for the most part it still isn't outside Dublin). When I was a kid, cleaners and industrialists and everybody in between lived in close enough proximity to function as a whole. A teacher perhaps could not afford to live in the most desirable street, but they could live in the next street over.

This has changed because now there are enough people with more money than teachers to displace them, (and cleaners and shop workers) from entire districts. I agree with Gordon that if an individual wants to live in a certain area then they can make the choices that will result in earning enough to be able to afford that. Of course if they do they won't be teaching.

From societies point of view that leaves no teachers in Ranelagh, (as an example, I couldn't find Ranelagh on a map).

There are two reasons behind this, the rise of well paid jobs in sectors that did not exist a generation ago, pushing teachers etc. down the food chain. And what is charmingly called "assortive mating", people with high earning capacity marry people with high earning capacity, and of course vice versa. That leaves some families with two above average incomes and some with two, or one, below average.

I see no reason why society should intervene to fix this for the individual. If you cannot afford to live in Ranelagh, society should not displace someone else to give you that opportunity. And no matter how many new houses are built they will not all be in the most desirable areas.

However TBS has a point that no teachers in Ranelagh is a problem for society, not just for the people who want to work 22 hours a week 9 months a year and live in the most desirable part of town. (I know I should avoid a swipe at teachers, but it's hard).

I dont have any ready solution. I know that London was at this point 25 years ago, and has not really resolved it. I worked there is the 1990s and our company wanted to employ a specialist engineer. We finally found a guy in Manchester, he was delighted to work in the cutting edge area we specialised in, came to us for a month, then said sorry, but with a wife and 4 kids he had a 4 bed house and a large garden in Manchester, in London he could have afforded a 2 bed flat. We could have paid him 3 times the salary of the other engineers, but that is not the way the world works.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> Again, you’re oscillating wildly between different points.
> 
> First it was “working people”; then it was people on the minimum wage; now you’re back to people on “low or middle incomes”.
> 
> Which is it?



Working people, people on minimum wage, people on low and middle incomes....are all working people!



Gordon Gekko said:


> And do people have some sort of entitlement to live and work in the same suburb?



You are deliberately dodging the issue. 

There is no entitlement to live and work in the same suburb. But there is a reasonable expectation that if you work, it will afford you the opportunity to find suitable accommodation at an affordable price. 
Currently that is not the case, as you will be aware from reading about the house subdivided into 11 apartments for extortionate rents. 

This is a both a market and policy failure.


----------



## RETIRED2017

cremeegg said:


> In my view of the world people don't have many entitlements.
> 
> Nevertheless a society needs people at all levels to function. And those people need somewhere to live and educational opportunities for their children.
> 
> Until recently this was not an issue in Ireland, (for the most part it still isn't outside Dublin). When I was a kid, cleaners and industrialists and everybody in between lived in close enough proximity to function as a whole. A teacher perhaps could not afford to live in the most desirable street, but they could live in the next street over.
> 
> This has changed because now there are enough people with more money than teachers to displace them, (and cleaners and shop workers) from entire districts. I agree with Gordon that if an individual wants to live in a certain area then they can make the choices that will result in earning enough to be able to afford that. Of course if they do they won't be teaching.
> 
> From societies point of view that leaves no teachers in Ranelagh, (as an example, I couldn't find Ranelagh on a map).
> 
> There are two reasons behind this, the rise of well paid jobs in sectors that did not exist a generation ago, pushing teachers etc. down the food chain. And what is charmingly called "assortive mating", people with high earning capacity marry people with high earning capacity, and of course vice versa. That leaves some families with two above average incomes and some with two, or one, below average.
> 
> I see no reason why society should intervene to fix this for the individual. If you cannot afford to live in Ranelagh, society should not displace someone else to give you that opportunity. And no matter how many new houses are built they will not all be in the most desirable areas.
> 
> However TBS has a point that no teachers in Ranelagh is a problem for society, not just for the people who want to work 22 hours a week 9 months a year and live in the most desirable part of town. (I know I should avoid a swipe at teachers, but it's hard).
> 
> I dont have any ready solution. I know that London was at this point 25 years ago, and has not really resolved it. I worked there is the 1990s and our company wanted to employ a specialist engineer. We finally found a guy in Manchester, he was delighted to work in the cutting edge area we specialised in, came to us for a month, then said sorry, but with a wife and 4 kids he had a 4 bed house and a large garden in Manchester, in London he could have afforded a 2 bed flat. We could have paid him 3 times the salary of the other engineers, but that is not the way the world works.


Very well said
The one thing about askaboutmoney is the elitest out of touch debate with the not so out of touch which is a good thing , the other good thing is there are more teachers than eletist out of touch which means the teachers vote count more ,
The elitest out of touch want the lower paid to pay more taxes and and spend the rest commuting to look after them if they had there way  which they wont ,

The real looney left are people who look down on people on lower wages they  think the are more important because they earn more . the out come and we are seeing it already  beginning to happening  people will begin to vote for the far
Right and far left  to drain the elite infected swamp,

The message I am getting is one of resentment and spite anger/hostility/antagonism/animosity towards hard working people who aim to find a home close to where they work,
Maybe we should bulldoze down the schools and build houses on the site and let the kids travel out to where the teachers live,



The dog in the manger comes to mind,


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> I dont have any ready solution. I know that London was at this point 25 years ago, and has not really resolved it. I worked there is the 1990s and our company wanted to employ a specialist engineer. We finally found a guy in Manchester, he was delighted to work in the cutting edge area we specialised in, came to us for a month, then said sorry, but with a wife and 4 kids he had a 4 bed house and a large garden in Manchester, in London he could have afforded a 2 bed flat. We could have paid him 3 times the salary of the other engineers, but that is not the way the world works.



I think there is something quite succinct in your comment above. 

Firstly, you dont have the solution  - which recognises that there is a problem. 
Secondly, you recognise that London arrived at this point 25yrs ago ( I suggested 15yrs ago here). 

I don't proclaim to have the solution either. 

But in my opinion, I recognize some factors that I believe go to the heart of the issue. 

1) The housing sector has by and large been left to the private investment market.

2) The State, and successive governments, have through their policy decisions, diluted or neglected their understanding/responsibility of what housing actually is and what it is for.

The result being, over the long-term, allowing housing to be treated as a commodity to buy and sell for profit. 
Housing is not a commodity and should not be treated as such. It is a fundamental necessity for the functioning of a _civil society._
So if the population has an increasing number of homeless, or if increasing numbers are in rent and mortgage arrears, then the prospect of social upheaval is increasing all the time - which is no good for anybody. 
Irish history is littered with such examples of social upheaval from Land Wars, 1916, Dublin 1950's, Belfast, Derry which in no small part stemmed from the issue of housing.
But Ireland is not unique, England, Scotland, South Africa, Gaza and even the good 'ol USA. 
(In fact, as a betting man, I would consider significant pockets of the US to be nothing short of a tinderbox.)

The State has shown itself in the past as being able to deliver housing for the population on a large scale. 
It has shown itself to be inadequate in the management of that housing. 

The private sector has shown itself as being able to deliver housing quickly and efficiently. 
It has also shown itself to be inefficient and to a point, reckless - basically building anywhere it was permitted, for the ultimate purpose of profiteering and nothing else. 

So the solution, if found, will emerge from policy, not free-markets alone or authoritarian State control alone. 

A mixed economy I think they call it. 
Both the State _and _free enterprise working together ie. society, or more commonly referred, democratic socialism.


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> 1) The housing sector has by and large been left to the private investment market.



If you mean that the state has not built many houses in recent decades that is true. If you mean that the state has left the private sector to get on with it and not fiddled about with constantly changing regulations that is not true. (For a number of years recently it was impossible to build a house in accordance with building regulations, ventilation regs and insulation regs were in conflict.)



TheBigShort said:


> 2) The State, and successive governments, have through their policy decisions, diluted or neglected their understanding/responsibility of what housing actually is and what it is for.
> 
> The result being, over the long-term, allowing housing to be treated as a commodity to buy and sell for profit.



Things that are bought and sold for profit are usually in greater supply than things that are supplied at state dictate.

Air travel to and from Ireland mushroomed when the state gave up its monopoly. Radio thrived when the state gave up its monopoly.




TheBigShort said:


> Housing is not a commodity and should not be treated as such. It is a fundamental necessity for the functioning of a _civil society._


_
_
This is just pap, and not up to your usual standard. Food is a fundamental necessity, no-one suggests that it shouldn't retreated as a commodity.
_
_


TheBigShort said:


> So if the population has an increasing number of homeless, or if increasing numbers are in rent and mortgage arrears, then the prospect of social upheaval is increasing all the time - which is no good for anybody.



It hasn't happened in London.




TheBigShort said:


> The State has shown itself in the past as being able to deliver housing for the population on a large scale.
> It has shown itself to be inadequate in the management of that housing.



In the past. Now many councils have rent arrears in excess of 30%. They cannot manage the housing stock they have much less build and manage new housing on a scale.

The state cannot roll out rural broadband, which is childs play. Just string a few wires along pre-existing poles. How could it build a major housing program.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> . If you mean that the state has left the private sector to get on with it and not fiddled about with constantly changing regulations that is not true



I agree, there is a mismatch between State interference and free trade enterprise.




cremeegg said:


> Things that are bought and sold for profit are usually in greater supply than things that are supplied at state dictate.
> 
> Air travel to and from Ireland mushroomed when the state gave up its monopoly. Radio thrived when the state gave up its monopoly.



With respect, this is typical of the mindset that devalues housing as a commodity or a convenience. 
To put it simply, without the existence of housing there never would have been either aeroplane or radio. 
Homeless, dysfunctional, primitive societies dont have a great track record in progressive inventions.

Settled, housed societies do.



cremeegg said:


> It hasn't happened in London.



I never said it has. I said the _prospect _of social upheaval increases. 



cremeegg said:


> In the past. Now many councils have rent arrears in excess of 30%. They cannot manage the housing stock they have much less build and manage new housing on a scale.



I agree, that is what I said. The State has shown itself as being inadequate to manage housing.



cremeegg said:


> The state cannot roll out rural broadband, which is childs play. Just string a few wires along pre-existing poles. How could it build a major housing program.



Ok, that is moving to other areas which are debatable. As I understand private sector companies are withdrawing from tender because they cannot deliver the service.

But in any case, broadband et al, is insignificant relative to housing.
To compare, how long has housing been in existence, and were there protests back then about broadband? 

The point being, to reinforce - housing is critical to society. Second only to oxygen and food?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> I agree, there is a mismatch between State interference and free trade enterprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With respect, this is typical of the mindset that devalues housing as a commodity or a convenience.
> To put it simply, without the existence of housing there never would have been either aeroplane or radio.
> Homeless, dysfunctional, primitive societies dont have a great track record in progressive inventions.
> 
> Settled, housed societies do.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it has. I said the _prospect _of social upheaval increases.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, that is what I said. The State has shown itself as being inadequate to manage housing.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, that is moving to other areas which are debatable. As I understand private sector companies are withdrawing from tender because they cannot deliver the service.
> 
> But in any case, broadband et al, is insignificant relative to housing.
> To compare, how long has housing been in existence, and were there protests back then about broadband?
> 
> The point being, to reinforce - housing is critical to society. Second only to oxygen and food?




So what do you suggest. The State is unable to manage its stock of housing and to collect rent payable on same. You don't want the private market to supply housing as its unaffordable, so exactly what do you suggest?


----------



## RETIRED2017

The Horseman said:


> So what do you suggest. The State is unable to manage its stock of housing and to collect rent payable on same. You don't want the private market to supply housing as its unaffordable, so exactly what do you suggest?


There are lots of states in the EU who have no problem managing its housing stock and collecting rents on same,

The Minister is now asking the same people to help solve the housing problem in there area who are not able to collect rents on the houses they already own  ,


----------



## The Horseman

RETIRED2017 said:


> There are lots of states in the EU who have no problem managing its housing stock and collecting rents on same,
> 
> The Minister is now asking the same people to help solve the housing problem in there area who are not able to collect rents on the houses they already own ,




You still did not answer the question.


----------



## RETIRED2017

The Horseman said:


> You still did not answer the question.


Sorry the old system and the people ran them need to be got rid of

 Replaced by a system like the old land commission there was no problem collecting the annuity  land/house increases in value it could be sold on with the annuity still payable until paid off in full to the state,

Have you looked at how the land commission worked there seamed to be no problem collecting rent ,

 It is just a suggestion of a system that work ran by the state in lots of cases houses were built along with the land ,

 banks did not have a problem giving out loans when the were sold on later with the annuity still outstanding on the property

if you had two holdings side by side selling at the same time the one with the annuity would sell for less than the one with no annuity,

I think a system like it could  work for hard working people on lower wages who would and should be able to live near where they work and are priced out because of there wage bracket  who always pay there way,


----------



## T McGibney

RETIRED2017 said:


> Sorry the old system and the people ran them need to be got rid of
> 
> Replaced by a system like the old land commission there was no problem collecting the annuity  land/house increases in value it could be sold on with the annuity still payable until paid off in full to the state,
> 
> Have you looked at how the land commission worked there seamed to be no problem collecting rent ,



The Land Commission. Bless. One of the biggest rackets in the history of the State where private property was forcibly confiscated from its lawful owners and reappropriated to lackeys of the ruling political parties.

Thankfully no modern Supreme Court would for an instant tolerate its abuse of process and contempt for private property rights.


----------



## RETIRED2017

T McGibney said:


> The Land Commission. Bless. One of the biggest rackets in the history of the State where private property was forcibly confiscated from its lawful owners and reappropriated to lackeys of the ruling political parties.
> 
> Thankfully no modern Supreme Court would for an instant tolerate its abuse of process and contempt for private property rights.



If you check the land commission system  is older than the state check and correct yourself,
The point I am making is the annuity type system would work and did work where the Government bought up land on the free market in the 1960/1970/1980 and used the annuity to give it to people who would and could make the repayments on houses and land the otherwise could not afford,


----------



## T McGibney

RETIRED2017 said:


> If you check the land commission is older than the state check and correct yourself,


I'll gladly correct myself if and when you prove me wrong. You haven't done that.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> So what do you suggest. The State is unable to manage its stock of housing and to collect rent payable on same. You don't want the private market to supply housing as its unaffordable, so exactly what do you suggest?



I never said I don't want the private market to supply housing.
However, the private sector in itself is insufficient to deliver housing stock - overbuilding when there is profit, underbuilding when margins are tight.

I have already suggested to you an alternative to current system in another thread.
One where the State delivers the housing stock of affordable priced homes and where property management tender to provide quality accommodation at competitive prices - providing tenants and prospective owners a real option between rental v ownership.

@RETIRED2017 has also provided a suggestion offering an alternative way to provide and operate the housing stock.

And that is fundamentally the point - alternative systems and policies that deliver housing stock for the population that doesn't fall into disrepair, ghettos, slums, or becomes too expensive and out of reach for working people.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> However, the private sector in itself is insufficient to deliver housing stock - overbuilding when there is profit, underbuilding when margins are tight.
> .



That's precisely why we have building and zoning regulations and a system of planning permission. Which the State can tighten to restrict overbuilding and loosen to correct underbuilding.  Unfortunately our betters have forgotten the latter.


----------



## RETIRED2017

T McGibney said:


> I'll gladly correct myself if and when you prove me wrong. You haven't done that.





T McGibney said:


> The Land Commission. Bless. One of the biggest rackets in the history of the State where private property was forcibly confiscated from its lawful owners and reappropriated to lackeys of the ruling political parties.
> 
> Thankfully no modern Supreme Court would for an instant tolerate its abuse of process and contempt for private property rights.


I suggested looking at the system used by the land commission as a system that worked ,

I am looking for a system where people who have skill sets and do work which are required in every community can afford to live where they work ,

You will find some posters on hear who will say why don't they  all up skill I know by your posting on hear you live in the real world and you know if all the teachers up skilled can we do without teachers,
If all the nurses up skill can we do without nurses,

 IN the real world things are a bit different ,

We see it already with nursing if we don't start putting a system in place where they can live within working distance of there work place they will leave,

The only reason I used the land commission is the annunity system they used worked where the land commission built houses ,


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> That's precisely why we have building and zoning regulations and a system of planning permission. Which the State can tighten to restrict overbuilding and loosen to correct underbuilding.  Unfortunately our betters have forgotten the latter.



I would suggest that the last time regulations were loosened to correct underbuilding that it didn't end up too well. 
That said, you raise an important point. Housing by its nature is immobile and long-term. Demand for housing however is fluid and mobile, making planning a complex business.


----------



## RETIRED2017

T McGibney said:


> That's precisely why we have building and zoning regulations and a system of planning permission. Which the State can tighten to restrict overbuilding and loosen to correct underbuilding.  Unfortunately our betters have forgotten the latter.


 A system like the old land commission for housing would get over the under building problem and take the problem away from the local vested interests for good,

Planning for new housing should reflect the wages paid for work and the people who do this work in each local area first,


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> I would suggest that the last time regulations were loosened to correct underbuilding that it didn't end up too well.



When was that? Worked grand in 1997/98. It took almost a full decade of political and official dereliction after that for the wheels to fall off the wagon, during which time the architect of the 1997/98 miracle Charlie McCreevy was banished to Brussels for refusing to adhere to socialism.


----------



## T McGibney

RETIRED2017 said:


> I suggested looking at the system used by the land commission as a system that worked



Except the Land Commission didn't work. It robbed land off widows  whose husbands had died on the grounds that they wouldn't be able to "farm properly" Their children ended up destitute as the derisory compensation they received was gobbled up by inflation. The Land Commission handed this land to political lackeys and hangers-on. Political corruption at its worst.


----------



## T McGibney

RETIRED2017 said:


> A system like the old land commission for housing would get over the under building problem and take the problem away from the local vested interests for good,
> 
> Planning for new housing should reflect the wages paid for work and the people who do this work in each local area first,


How does that work, price controls? 

The socialism is strong today.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> I have already suggested to you an alternative to current system in another thread.
> One where the State delivers the housing stock of affordable priced homes and where property management tender to provide quality accommodation at competitive prices - providing tenants and prospective owners a real option between rental v ownership.



How much would this cost? Again, 100,000 homes built at €250k each would cost €25 billion - which the State doesn't have - and only knock a dent in the housing shortage.


----------



## T McGibney

RETIRED2017 said:


> The only reason I used the land commission is the annunity system they used worked where the land commission built houses ,


How many houses did the Land Commission ever build? When did they last build one? How do the economics of Victorian housebuilding compare to those of today? You might as well be calling for the return to Brian Boru or the Tuatha Dé Danann to build houses.


----------



## The Horseman

RETIRED2017 said:


> A system like the old land commission for housing would get over the under building problem and take the problem away from the local vested interests for good,
> 
> Planning for new housing should reflect the wages paid for work and the people who do this work in each local area first,



So if the cost of housing is set to reflect the wages in the area then who pays for the amenities around these areas. Currently areas command a premium for access to good public infrastructure, access to good schools, hospitals etc.

How do you decide what the wage rate in the area is, if a Google or Facebook organization set up in the area do you review wage levels in comparison to affordability?

Who is going to pay to provide these services if property is set at wages people can afford, assuming these people will be on the average industrial wage how will they fund these services, and if they can't fund them then who will?

We as a society are all well and good saying we should do this and we should do that but once it actually impacts on the individual then people object. NIMBYISM is alive and well.

The Irish approach is if you don't pay your rent/Mortgage you face no consequences, perhaps look at other countries and see how they deal with these issues. In Ireland we just think "ah sure it'll be grand".


----------



## RETIRED2017

T McGibney said:


> Except the Land Commission didn't work. It robbed land off widows  whose husbands had died on the grounds that they wouldn't be able to "farm properly" Their children ended up destitute as the derisory compensation they received was gobbled up by inflation. The Land Commission handed this land to political lackeys and hangers-on. Political corruption at its worst.


Leaving the poilitical  lackys and hanger on to one side for now, My views on the political system operated by FF?FG and Labour seeing close up is rotten to the core this is the reason I use the FF?FG, and FG?FF all the time,

In the neck of the woods I come from if you wanted to change  FF? and  you voted FG you actually got FG?FF and if you then wanted to put FG out and Voted FF You got FF?FG  the same lackeys and hangers on were looked after no matter which party you voter for same circle I scratch your back and you scratch mine ,

 Labour through local union reps In the public service and local government and Health Boards did exactly the same thing all looked after the same circle while getting voted in by dye in the wool supporters who could not see they were getting shafted all the time so the inner circle of hangers could be looked after,

Can we leave the inner circle and the lackies to one side which by the way was horrible  FF/FG/ labour need to offer a regretful acknoledgment to the people of Ireland and there former dye in the wool supporters for the harm  they did,

 take a look at the annuty system used before the foundation of this state set up by the British the people who brought it in were far from socialist in there out look and see did a system work already in Ireland which was set up to solve problems close to the housing problem of today,

We could also look and see if the same system had being used for housing in the past set up and ran away from the kind of people I posted about above along the same lines as the land commission
only looking at the positive parts like the people from day one knew if the made the repayments the could add value they would retain this value and protect the state interest along with increasing there own interest the state did not require to spend any more money on the property ever again ,


----------



## T McGibney

RETIRED2017 said:


> Take a look at the annuty system used before the foundation of this state set up by the British the people who brought it in were far from socialist in there out look and see did a system work already in Ireland which was set up to solve problems close to the housing problem of today,



Ok, tells us how it worked and how it differed from the public housing schemes of the 1940s, 50s and 60s.

The problem as I see it with all those schemes relative to today is that the economics of the old days no longer apply. Back in the day, a council or public authority could build a house for half nothing because of the availability of labour at rates so cheap that they approximated to slave labour.

Even in the 1950s and 1960s, the first task in building a house was to have the labourers make the blocks. This meant that, as the other inputs didn't cost a whole pile, the overall build cost was tiny.

Today, new build houses and apartments are extremely expensive and the only way to finance this is to charge rents that by the standards of the old days are eye-watering.

The solutions of the 1900s or 1940s are not the solutions we need now.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> How much would this cost? Again, 100,000 homes built at €250k each would cost €25 billion - which the State doesn't have - and only knock a dent in the housing shortage.



The ESRI predicts that we will need to build 30,-35,000 houses a year over next decade.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...e-prices-does-not-signal-new-bubble-1.3128452

It doesn't say that they all have to be built by the State. 
Nevertheless, even if the State buit 30,000 houses, by your figures that reduces to €7.5bn pa. 
Furthermore, your €250,000 figure is debatable given the ownership of land by the State in the first place. 
Nevertheless, an injection of a €7.5bn building programme, or even half that could overheat the economy. 
Its not so much that the State 'cannot afford' it - most of it will return to the State in income tax on wages, VAT, CT etc. It is more of a case of the State not having the capacity to deliver such a large amount of housing without overheating the construction sector once again.

So the State should measure its capacity to deliver housing, and then the type of housing it wants to deliver - typically 2/3 bed townhouses and apartments.

Once it begins delivery of housing it should tender to property management for the maintenance of quality accommodation based on most competitive rental prices - competition (who can offer the cheapest rents). 
The State will receive a steady income stream, off-setting over a long period of time, the build cost. 
Laws to be strengthened for property managers whose tenants are engaged in anti-social, criminal, property destruction and refusal to pay rent.
Laws to be strengthened against property management who fail to provide the minimum standard of accommodation and associated services as outlined in their tender submission.
The State will insure for structural defects that occur over lifetime of property.
The State will insure the property management for non-payment of rent where the tenant is shown to be in financial difficulties and unable to pay (as distinct from refusing to pay).


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> The ESRI predicts that we will need to build 30,-35,000 houses a year over next decade.
> https://www.irishtimes.com/business...e-prices-does-not-signal-new-bubble-1.3128452



A build rate of 35,000 houses per annum would mean the current shortage will drag on for another 10 years at least.




TheBigShort said:


> Furthermore, your €250,000 figure is debatable given the ownership of land by the State in the first place.


Yes it's indeed debatable. The real figure would probably be higher, because as you say....



> Nevertheless, an injection of a €7.5bn building programme, or even half that could overheat the economy.





TheBigShort said:


> So the State should measure its capacity to deliver housing, and then the type of housing it wants to deliver - typically 2/3 bed townhouses and apartments.
> ....
> *The State will receive a steady income stream, off-setting over a long period of time, the build cost.*
> ....
> *The State will insure the property management for non-payment of rent *where the tenant is shown to be in financial difficulties and unable to pay.


Quite the contradiction there.

You've mentioned before about how State housing would pay for itself over 100 years but you've so far failed to address my key point that the cost of financing a €250k house or apartment (or even a €150k house or apartment) over such a long timeframe is economically ruinous owning to the long term cumulative cost of capital and the necessity for heavy expenditure on maintenance costs, especially after the first decade or two.


----------



## RETIRED2017

T McGibney said:


> Ok, tells us how it worked and how it differed from the public housing schemes of the 1940s, 50s and 60s.
> 
> The problem as I see it with all those schemes relative to today is that the economics of the old days no longer apply. Back in the day, a council or public authority could build a house for half nothing because of the availability of labour at rates so cheap that they approximated to slave labour.
> 
> Even in the 1950s and 1960s, the first task in building a house was to have the labourers build the blocks. This meant that, as the other inputs didn't cost a whole pile, the overall build cost was tiny.
> 
> Today, new build houses and apartments are extremely expensive and the only way to finance this is to charge rents that by the standards of the old days are eye-watering.
> 
> The solutions of the 1900s or 1940s are not the solutions we need now.



To give you an example i know a house which the council bought to be honest I know the people who sold it to them the council spent over 200000 euro before turning it over to the tenant 18 months after the buying it, I would say if we had  dare I say the word a land commission type annuity system I suspect the tenants would be a lot happier to take the house as it was and upgrade it them self over time provided the retained the value added I would say if the spent 20% over time of what the council spent the would be happier with the results and would regard it as there real home,


----------



## T McGibney

RETIRED2017 said:


> To give you an example i know a house which the council bought to be honest I know the people who sold it to them the council spent over 200000 euro before turning it over to the tenant I would say if we had an dare I say the word a land commission type annuity system *I suspect the tenants would be a lot happier to take the house as it was and upgrade it them self over time* provided the retained the value added I would say if the spent 20% over time of what the council spent the would be happier with the results and would regard as there real home,



Ah come on, I know you mean well but you must realise that in these days of litigation and health and safety, the era of councils putting people into unfinished or inadequately fitted out homes is long gone. 

As for the idea of tenants committing money into upgrading homes to which they have no lawful title.


----------



## PaxmanK

This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, What happened to this thread.


----------



## RETIRED2017

[  (Tom Said )come on, I know you mean well but you must realise that in these days of litigation and health and safety, the era of councils putting people into unfinished or inadequately fitted out homes is long gone.
Under  dare I say The land commission system they would own the home once they agreed to buy the annutey ,same as someone buying it privately and buying a mortgage from a bank,

 (Tom Said )As for the idea of tenants committing money into upgrading homes to which they have no lawful title.
That is the point under dare I say the land commission system they do have title same as buying a mortgage and they can upgrade if an when the like,[/QUOTE]


----------



## T McGibney

That fails to address my point. Councils and public bodies can no longer afford to put people into unfinished or inadequately fitted out homes for fear of compo claims.

What you're proposing is a massive subsidy to tenants and eventual owners that would, if replicated on a mass scale, bankrupt the public purse.  

See my point above about the availability of virtual slave labour up to the 1960s, against the high costs applicable now.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Quite the contradiction there.



How so? 
The houses will be occupied primarily by working people at affordable rental prices. If a tenant has the ability to pay but refuses there will consequences for them (typically fines that are a multiple of the rent due plus legal costs). 



T McGibney said:


> You've mentioned before about how State housing would pay for itself over 100 years but you've so far failed to address my key point that the cost of financing a €250k house or apartment (or even a €150k house or apartment) over such a long timeframe is economically ruinous owning to the long term cumulative cost of capital and the necessity for heavy expenditure on maintenance costs, especially after the first decade or two.



I don't see how. Houses built by the State in 1950-1960's cost about equivalent €5-€10000. 
A local authority tenant, average annual rent paid is circa €3,000 pa today. 

As for maintenance, the maintenance will be managed by the property management company, fixtures and fittings, furnishings, service lifts, etc. 
Structural defects to be insured by the State. 
If the properties are build to standard I fail to see what structural defects will occur after 10 or 20yrs that will bankrupt the country.


----------



## RETIRED2017

PaxmanK said:


> This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, What happened to this thread.


Back to post no 24
I suspect it is not going to get any better tax wise ,

Nothing is going to change while public housing is ran the way it is at present where a tenant can get away with not paying or not looking after there rentals unless and until this changes there can be no change in the private  rental sector You will need to have a rainy day fund built up ether from the rentals or from another source if you want to stay in the housing rental market ,

From where I stand we need to come up with a system where all money spent on public funded housing will result in all agreed repayments being made in full this will then feed into the private sector ,


Someone Who has a interest in the rent comtrol zone should be asking the question when is the rent controls up ,Under private property law I think they have a time limit on them,


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> How so?
> The houses will be occupied primarily by working people at affordable rental prices. If a tenant has the ability to pay but refuses there will consequences for them (typically fines that are a multiple of the rent due plus legal costs).



And??? Any landlord knows that having to resort to legals to collect rent is an out-and-out disaster. @RETIRED2017 also mentioned accommodating a cohort that can't afford to pay, but didn't explain how this stacks up with the claimed "steady income stream." Hence my comment.



TheBigShort said:


> I don't see how. Houses built by the State in 1950-1960's cost about equivalent €5-€10000.
> A local authority tenant, average annual rent paid is circa €3,000 pa today.


If this were true, and/or as significant as you suggest, public housing should be a goldmine for the State. But it's not, instead it's a money pit. Doesn't that suggest something?


And for the same economics to apply to homes built now, tenants in 50-60 years time will have to pay €150,000 pa. How likely is that. 



TheBigShort said:


> As for maintenance, the maintenance will be managed by the property management company, fixtures and fittings, furnishings, service lifts, etc.


Who will pay the property management company's bills?



TheBigShort said:


> Structural defects to be insured by the State.


There is a lot more to property maintenance than remedying structural defects


----------



## Firefly

vandriver said:


> It would seem perverse,to a non landlord,that with rents at the highest level ever achieved since the foundation of the state,that you are leaving this business.
> If it was profitable when you started the investment(and surely it was) then it must be super profitable now.



This is what I am thinking too.

Rents have never been higher..
Demand has never been greater..
Interest rates have never been lower..

It seems to be teed up for landlords. So why are so many leaving the market & turning to Airbnb?

Given the horror stories I keep hearing regarding tenants not paying rent and the rigmarole involved in removing them, I suspect that the pendulum has swung too far in the tenant's favour.

By all means, tenants should be protected, however as with renting any other type of asset, anyone not paying rent should lose their entitlement to use the asset (be evicted) and anyone wrecking a place should be easily prosecuted.


----------



## RETIRED2017

Firefly said:


> This is what I am thinking too.
> 
> Rents have never been higher..
> Demand has never been greater..
> Interest rates have never been lower..
> 
> It seems to be teed up for landlords. So why are so many leaving the market & turning to Airbnb?
> 
> Given the horror stories I keep hearing regarding tenants not paying rent and the rigmarole involved in removing them, I suspect that the pendulum has swung too far in the tenant's favour.
> 
> By all means, tenants should be protected, however as with renting any other type of asset, anyone not paying rent should lose their entitlement to use the asset (be evicted) and anyone wrecking a place should be easily prosecuted.


  I think the underlying problem is Landlords are paying USC and PRSI which they have not being paying in the past I think the level of tax is also a big factor,
When rents go higher tenants expect a better service ,
The rent controls means Landlords   upped the rent in case it came to there area next
tenants who looked after there rentals as if it was there own and were under paying got hit with the full market value because property price become linked to the amount of rent you were getting,
There was a change in the Law landlord needed to give more notice ,

Some working people who were using being a landlord as a pension fund  would have got the same returns  in a pension fund without all the problemsl of being a landlord


----------



## RETIRED2017

odyssey06 said:


> It was Coveney who introduced the rent cap with the backing of cabinet and FF.
> Murphy is completely out of his depth and should never have been given that portfolio by Varadkar.
> This is a collective failure of FG & FF.
> 
> FF wanted 2%, not 4% cap on increases:
> http://www.thejournal.ie/homeless-crisis-4-rents-3138632-Dec2016/
> 
> Just in case anyone thinks the main alternative would be any better!



FF?FG for all of my life  Were the same party ,the only people who think they are not are there Dye in the wool supporters to refer to FF? as an alternative to FG is an insult hopefully by the next election FF dye in the wool supporters will have copped on and will vote for the FG faction who have provided us with a Government over the last few years while FF party became like the DUP SF up north who have the numbers to govern but chose not to do so for party reasons,


----------



## Gordon Gekko

It would help things massively if a landlord could charge market rent in respect of a new tenancy and of a new owner could charge market rent.

The present system is mad in that regard.


----------



## cremeegg

T McGibney said:


> The Land Commission. Bless. One of the biggest rackets in the history of the State where private property was forcibly confiscated from its lawful owners and reappropriated to lackeys of the ruling political parties.
> 
> Thankfully no modern Supreme Court would for an instant tolerate its abuse of process and contempt for private property rights.



Always thought that was a major lacuna in my knowledge of Irish history, do you know of any book on the Land Commission


----------



## cremeegg

RETIRED2017 said:


> If you check the land commission system  is older than the state check and correct yourself,



Though I do know this is not correct.

Conor Brady has written a excellent novel, on the land Acts of the 1880s, which is I think what Jim is referring to above. The Eloquence of the Dead


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> And???



And....people who work tend to pay their bills. So legal action is restricted to the few idiots who cannot understand that refusal to pay rent will cost them more.
I have already stated that laws are strengthened for property managers where the tenant, who is capable of paying, refuses to pay. 



T McGibney said:


> But it's not, instead it's a money pit. Doesn't that suggest something?



Yes, that the State has been historically bad at managing its housing stock. That is why I am proposing that property managers manage the housing stock. 



T McGibney said:


> And for the same economics to apply to homes built now, tenants in 50-60 years time will have to pay €150,000 pa. How likely is that.



I dont know, it all depends on future inflation rates and the value of currency.
If rents are €150,000pa im guessing wages are a multiple of that.




T McGibney said:


> Who will pay the property management company's bills?



The tenant. You are not paying attention. 

The State builds a two bed house in Dublin 6 for €250k on land that it owns. This €250k is capital expenditure and goes onto national debt. 
The State requests property managers to submit tenders to take control of the property for the purposes of letting out. There are some conditions (lets keep it as simple as possible, this is merely a concept)

1. As the State is in no hurry to redeem the €250k outlay, it spreads repayments on the national debt for 100yrs. It looks for a fee of €2,500pa from the property manager.
2. The property management must produce an initial outlay to furnish the property to a specific standard providing all mod cons - typical outlay, say, €10,000 with €1,000 extra a year.
3. The property manager must hold a contingency fund equivalent to 20% of the rent charged. This is to be used for necessary re-decoration, repairs, replacements. These costs can be written off against tax bill.
4. The property management sets a fixed rental fee, reviewable every two years with limited increases no more than prevailing inflation rate.

Five property managers submit tenders to the State to take control of the property for the purposes of letting out. All five meet the terms of the tender. The only difference between them is the final rent to be charged. 

The property manager who offers the most competitive price of the rent wins the tender.

So how much?

€2,500 State fee
€10,000 initial outlay over 20yrs equates to €500 a year.
€1,000 additional 

Im working it out at about €4,000pa or €333 a month. 
To make it worthwhile, the property managers set their rental prices. One sets rent at €1,000pm, another €900pm, another €700pm, another €650pm another at €600pm. 
The property manager who sets rent at €600pm wins the right to let the property. 

Mr & Mrs low & middle income earners can now afford to rent a place of their own. Not only that, there is scope to save money for a house deposit should they wish to do so. Alternatively, they can stay where they are. They can start a family, go on holiday, buy health insurance. 
A portion of any money not used by the property contingency fund to repair or replace fixtures and fittings goes toward reducing rent further. An incentive to look after the condition of the property is built in. 

This is just a simple example, I expect there will be a thousand scenarios of what if's and but's.
The primary aim is to develop a concept that moves away from the system that exists today that drowns tenants with high rents and has landlords chasing maximum market prices.


----------



## RETIRED2017

cremeegg said:


> Always thought that was a major lacuna in my knowledge of Irish history, do you know of any book on the Land Commission


 The only reason I used the land commission is to take a look at how it would work out if you went away from renting to an annuity system ,

If you look at the present set up most people who rent public sector housing finish up buying them at a knock down price after renting then for a number of years some buy then having paid very little in rent for about 30% of the costed price then you have to add all of the cost collecting rent and  the upkeep of the  houses ,

What I am saying is you might as well sell it to them from day one so they are responsible for it upkeep from day one

I am just pointing out if we used a system like the land commission and transfer ownership from day one we would avoid most of the pitfalls in the present system ,

I bet no one who has shot this suggestion  down took the time to understand how the annuity system worked lets say we looked at the annuity system in  1970 you would see the full cost would be recovered,
 Now look at a public sector house which was rented in the same  year 1970 you will see it had an ongoing cost and was sold to the tenant at a huge write down,

So leave the land commission out of it and take a look at how an annuity system
operates ,
if you want to find an example have a look at the land commission as an example as a way of recovering full cost from people on low incomes with little or no default,


----------



## RETIRED2017

cremeegg said:


> Always thought that was a major lacuna in my knowledge of Irish history, do you know of any book on the Land Commission


I think tom has forgotten the 2,4% taken from the pension pot by FF?FG?LAB, and given for the most part to the usual suspects,


----------



## Bronte

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, that the State has been historically bad at managing its housing stock. That is why I am proposing that property managers manage the housing stock.
> 
> I The State builds a two bed house in Dublin 6 for €250k on land that it owns. This €250k is capital expenditure and goes onto national debt.
> The State requests property managers to submit tenders to take control of the property for the purposes of letting out. There are some conditions (lets keep it as simple as possible, this is merely a concept)
> 
> 1. As the State is in no hurry to redeem the €250k outlay, it spreads repayments on the national debt for 100yrs. It looks for a fee of €2,500pa from the property manager.
> 2. The property management must produce an initial outlay to furnish the property to a specific standard providing all mod cons - typical outlay, say, €10,000 with €1,000 extra a year.
> 3. The property manager must hold a contingency fund equivalent to 20% of the rent charged. This is to be used for necessary re-decoration, repairs, replacements. These costs can be written off against tax bill.
> 4. The property management sets a fixed rental fee, reviewable every two years with limited increases no more than prevailing inflation rate.
> 
> Five property managers submit tenders to the State to take control of the property for the purposes of letting out. All five meet the terms of the tender. The only difference between them is the final rent to be charged.
> 
> The property manager who offers the most competitive price of the rent wins the tender.
> 
> So how much?
> 
> €2,500 State fee
> €10,000 initial outlay over 20yrs equates to €500 a year.
> €1,000 additional
> 
> Im working it out at about €4,000pa or €333 a month.
> To make it worthwhile, the property managers set their rental prices. One sets rent at €1,000pm, another €900pm, another €700pm, another €650pm another at €600pm.
> The property manager who sets rent at €600pm wins the right to let the property.
> 
> Mr & Mrs low & middle income earners can now afford to rent a place of their own. Not only that, there is scope to save money for a house deposit should they wish to do so. Alternatively, they can stay where they are. They can start a family, go on holiday, buy health insurance.
> A portion of any money not used by the property contingency fund to repair or replace fixtures and fittings goes toward reducing rent further. An incentive to look after the condition of the property is built in.
> 
> This is just a simple example, I expect there will be a thousand scenarios of what if's and but's.
> The primary aim is to develop a concept that moves away from the system that exists today that drowns tenants with high rents and has landlords chasing maximum market prices.



You've totally lost me.  Wouldn't it just be easier for me the landlord to buy a property let it out and have no state involvement.  How is the property management company making money? Do they get the rent?

How much is the land costs for each property?

How does the state get it's money back?

And how is the property management company going to get 10K per property in the first place?

Do you not think that landlords like me are already excellent property managers?


----------



## Firefly

RETIRED2017 said:


> I think the underlying problem is Landlords are paying USC and PRSI which they have not being paying in the past I think the level of tax is also a big factor



Are they not also paying this on Airbnb income?


----------



## TheBigShort

Bronte said:


> Wouldn't it just be easier for me the landlord to buy a property let it out and have no state involvement.



You mean just carry on as we are? Tenants drowning in rent payments and landlords getting out of the sector because they cant profit from maximum market prices?



Bronte said:


> How is the property management company making money? Do they get the rent?



Did you not read the post? The property management that takes control of the property charges €600pm rent on the tenant.
A cursory glance at 2 bed house or apartment in D6 today is €2,000+. 




Bronte said:


> How much is the land costs for each property?



Zero, the state has either bought the land or already owned the land. The property management has no cost to bear other than a €2,500pa fee back to the State.



Bronte said:


> How does the state get it's money back?



€2,500pa.



Bronte said:


> And how is the property management company going to get 10K per property in the first place?



Its called capital requirement. If you don't have the money then you cant invest. 



Bronte said:


> Do you not think that landlords like me are already excellent property managers?



Im sure you are an excellent property manager, but not all are like you. And you miss the whole point. The proposed system offers a real alternative to property ownership for those who cannot afford to buy their own, or for others who it doesn't suit to buy a property. 
Instead of paying a rent that is the equivalent, or greater than a mortgage, prospective tenants will have a real alternative to the private ownership market in a system where property managers are competing on offering the lowest rents.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> You mean just carry on as we are? Tenants drowning in rent payments and landlords getting out of the sector because they cant profit from maximum market prices?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not read the post? The property management that takes control of the property charges €600pm rent on the tenant.
> A cursory glance at 2 bed house or apartment in D6 today is €2,000+.


So not actually a property management company at all, but a price fixing authority. 

Swimming in delusion.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> So not actually a property management company at all, but a price fixing authority.
> 
> Swimming in delusion.



What authority is fixing the price? 
It is the property managers competing with one another to provide rental accommodation that is setting the price.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> *What authority is fixing the price? *
> It is the property managers competing with one another to provide rental accommodation that is setting the price.



Isn't this what you say here? Correct me if I'm wrong.


TheBigShort said:


> Did you not read the post? The property management that takes control of the property charges €600pm rent on the tenant.
> A cursory glance at 2 bed house or apartment in D6 today is €2,000+.


----------



## paddyd

not sure if anyone answered the OP question - I'm a full time LL and discussed the RTB report on another forum when it was released 2 months ago (the 2017 one, available on the RTB website):

The fall in landlords was masked in the 2016 RTB report by the addition of the Approved Housing Bodies to the RTB register (without saying it explicitly in the 2016 report how many AHB's there were - it turns out it was about 25-30k), but they appear to have addressed it this year, albeit a bit of a fudge:

There are 174k RTB registered landlords, a drop of 1k from 2016 - (page 2), and that represents a drop of 6k in tenancies/houses rented (319k to 313k) (page 2)

However, on page 4 they say "In 2017 we contacted 20,400 landlords who had not registered their tenancies after which the majority registered."

in other words, of the 175k LL's in 2016 - *the numbers support that about 20-25k of them aren't there any more*, replaced by cash LL's forced (correctly) into registering.

Roll that fwd into 2017, and we'll have to wait until next July to truly answer your question - but without a doubt it is still falling, and there won't be any notable AHB's to add into 2017 numbers, so it'll be more apparent.

I paid 62% of my rental income in tax in 2017 (just finished compiling the numbers).
52% was income tax - (40%), PRSI (4%), USC (up to 8%)
10% was insurance, mortgage interest, local property tax, maintenance fees, general maintenance costs, etc.

BIG NOTE to that 62%: thankfully I only have one small mortgage remaining and I only had 2 call-outs across 4 houses in the whole of 2017 (a faulty oven, and also some roof tiles dislodged by Storm Doris) - the lowest ever.

People who thing LL's are coining it aren't using a calculator, or haven't spoken to an accountant  

Personally, I'm staying in for now - awaiting any potential changes in the tax code, or allowing the market to professionalise/set up companies etc.
Other investment asset classes seem expensive currently too - the money taken from selling up needs to go _somewhere _after all.

120k of the 174k LL's have just one property - there is zero (ZERO!) profit in having one rented property. Your rent is in the higher tax rate almost certainly, yet all your tenant-side risks lie in one basket.


----------



## T McGibney

paddyd said:


> I paid 62% of my rental income in tax in 2017 (just finished compiling the numbers).
> 52% was income tax - (40%), PRSI (4%), USC (up to 8%)


Not sure of your 52% v 62%, but if you do the numbers based on your actual rental profit (including full mortgage interest and tax-disallowed travel, capital-element repairs and local property tax), the % will be higher still.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Isn't this what you say here? Correct me if I'm wrong.



You have misinterpreted.

The State delivers the housing stock. It has poor track record of _managing _its housing stock thereafter.
It requests private property managers to submit tenders to take control of the property, to manage. It does so on competitive tender.
Whoever meets the requirements of the tender with the most competitive price wins the right to manage the property.

The State gets its return over the very long-term. Properties are managed by people who are committed to providing a good service, in return for a profit that they deem worth their while.
Bad 'landlords' who divide up houses into 11 apartments and charge extortionate rents are driven out of market. Prospective tenants now have a real alternative to the private ownership market which they cannot afford, or deem not suitable or desirable for their needs.


----------



## Bronte

TheBigShort said:


> Did you not read the post? The property management that takes control of the property charges €600pm rent on the tenant.
> A cursory glance at 2 bed house or apartment in D6 today is €2,000+.
> 
> Zero, the state has either bought the land or already owned the land. The property management has no cost to bear other than a €2,500pa fee back to the State.
> 
> Its called capital requirement. If you don't have the money then you cant invest.
> 
> .



So I rent a property for 600 a month = 7200. I pay the government 2500 annually. Let's say in my lifetime 30 years. 75K.

The land the property is on is apparently 'free'.  The government borrows millions or billions to get a house built for 250K.

I have to put in 10K of fixtures and fittings.  I have to maintain the property.

Who in this scenario is the landlord? The property management company?

And do I pay full tax on the 7200 or on the 7200 less that 2500 annually? How would you tax this?

I guess I'd be taxed on the 4700 left after paying the government and after deducting repairs.  And tenants in Dublin are now getting a property worth 2K in rent for 600 Euro. 

You know what, heck I'll become a tenant in Dublin for that 600 Euro myself and do something else to make money.


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> So not actually a property management company at all, but a price fixing authority.
> 
> Swimming in delusion.



Can you just imagine the nightmare of the state managing all of this.  I nearly gave up on HAB myself and a lady in the payment office in Limerick had to beg me to stay in there as I was nearly at the end of the procedure.  Now I've the rent coming in by standing order the tenant's are happy and I'm happy.  Which reminds me I should put up the rents to keep the property value up to market value.  And the tenant's won't care as the state will pay.  I'm convinced that HAP has driven up rents.  Because I have never got so much rent.


----------



## paddyd

T McGibney said:


> Not sure of your 52% v 62%, but if you do the numbers based on your actual rental profit (including full mortgage interest and tax-disallowed travel, capital-element repairs and local property tax), the % will be higher still.




Correct, that 62% is one of my lowest from over 13 years of returns. I own 3 of the 4 places outright now, which makes a difference to profitability - and also I had very low maintenance costs in 2017 (€620 in total to be exact, for 2 callouts).


----------



## T McGibney

Bronte said:


> Can you just imagine the nightmare of the state managing all of this.


It makes no sense neither in terms of common sense nor economics, and also reeks of the Soviet Union's idealistic year-zero mass housing schemes. 

The very concept of 100-year borrowing is madness.


----------



## RETIRED2017

Firefly said:


> Are they not also paying this on Airbnb income?


If you are a landlord and have being following the news and reading the papers you would know well Airbnb is being tightened up ,
It is not  of any use to landlords unless there property was located close to where airbnb is required ,Landlords know there is a  limited market For Airbnb even in the right location,
I remember a big clamp down on unpaid tax a few years back,
Tax and the need to register how much income you are getting along with having to pay 2% of the 4% increase in tax the government is getting half of any increase in USC/prsi/Tax ,

I suspect it is not the rent controls which is driving then out it is seeing 50% of the upturn in the market going in tax usc prsi, + tighter controls on landlords and higher rents causing people renting to expect more for the landlord than in the past,

The real loony left government will need more as time goes by from the very people who keep them in power,


----------



## TheBigShort

Bronte said:


> The government borrows millions or billions to get a house built for 250K.



???? Are you sure you are a landlord? Or even ought to be? 
The State borrows billions to build _thousands _of housing units, not one! 
I just used one unit as an example of how such a scheme could work.



Bronte said:


> I have to put in 10K of fixtures and fittings. I have to maintain the property.



You have to maintain the property to a particular standard. No different to what any good landlord is doing today - all mod cons etc. 
Id thought you being an 'excellent' landlord would have a grasp of this?



Bronte said:


> Who in this scenario is the landlord? The property management company?



The State is the property owner and has effectively sub-letted the property to the property manager. The property manager is the effective landlord.



Bronte said:


> And tenants in Dublin are now getting a property worth 2K in rent for 600 Euro.



Now you are getting it, except its not worth 2k, its worth €600pm. 
2K is the extortionate figure being saddled on working peoples backs who are delaying starting families, cant afford their own home, as a consequence of landlords trying to make their investment pay by getting someone else to pay off their mortgage for them, provide them with profit and capitalise and any asset value appreciation. 
All in return for a roof over their head, so that they can go to work and contribute far more in productivity than a landlord ever could.
But people are funny about things like that, like food,  and shelter - they will often go to extreme measures like paying extortionate rents, begging, stealing in order to get one or both. 

However, under this scheme, effectively taking out the mortgage as a factor, if someone is perpared to provide quality accommodation for €600pm (making a profit too!), then that is all it is worth.



Bronte said:


> You know what, heck I'll become a tenant in Dublin for that 600 Euro myself and do something else to make money.



Now you are getting it, choice, value for money. If its not worth your while, go do something else to make money.



Bronte said:


> Can you just imagine the nightmare of the state managing all of this.



There is nothing for the State to manage. All it has to do is build houses, which it already knows only too well how to do. The managing will be left to whoever wins the tender to control the property by meeting certain criteria and offering the most competitive rental price. 
This stuff goes on all the time in various other sectors.

https://www.etenders.gov.ie/about_us_main_en-GB

Compared to the HAP nonsense you have highlighted



Bronte said:


> I nearly gave up on HAB myself and a lady in the payment office in Limerick had to beg me to stay in there as I was nearly at the end of the procedure.





Bronte said:


> Which reminds me I should put up the rents to keep the property value up to market value. And the tenant's won't care as the state will pay.



 Seriously, this is simply leeching of the State. Parasitic I think is the word. 



Bronte said:


> I'm convinced that HAP has driven up rents. Because I have never got so much rent.



Thats the whole point, you are getting so much rent - good for you. But it nothing to do with what you are providing been worth it. You are simply leeching on State funds that could be used to help others elsewhere.
There is nothing 'free-market' or competitive with what you are doing. 
The sooner this type of landlord is squeezed out of the sector the better.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Now you are getting it, except its not worth 2k, its worth €600pm.


Where did you get your figure of €600pm? What's wrong with €500pm? Or €400pm?

(Incidentally €600pm or €7,200pa would represent a 2.88% gross return on investment on a €250k property. Utterly insufficient to meet capital repayments, interest, management, maintenance etc, and as such, pie in the sky.)


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> It makes no sense neither in terms of common sense nor economics, and also reeks of the Soviet Union's idealistic year-zero mass housing schemes.
> 
> The very concept of 100-year borrowing is madness.



You are really understanding of how economies and societies develop are you. 
The State can  borrow over 10,20,30yrs if it wants. It simply applies a policy of getting a return over 100yrs or even more.
The State has not set a retirement date!

Here is an example of how large-scale capital expenditure can develop an ecomony.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESB_Group

The State borrowed a sum 1/5th of its current expenditure to roll out electricity throughout the country. By todays measure that would be about €10bn. 
There was no way the backward fledgling State could afford to borrow that amount unless the it was for something that would improve living standards and productivity standards. Which it obviously did.
The cost of bringing electricity to Ireland was never paid back, it was simply rolled over. The cost of the scheme, relative to the value of the Irish economy today (nearly 100yrs later!) is miniscule.

Today we have a housing crisis. Watching Claire Byrne live last night, one contributor stated that some people were leaving the country, not because they cannot get work but because they cannot afford to live here.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Where did you get your figure of €600pm? What's wrong with €500pm? Or €400pm?



Ball park figures, it could be €700 or €800. I gave an example that is all. 
If the cost of maintaining a property cost you €333 a month, how much profit would you need to make pm before it was worth your while? I suggested €600 could be plausibly be a decent return on a €333 outlay each month.



T McGibney said:


> (Incidentally €600pm or €7,200pa would represent a 2.88% gross return on investment on a €250k property. Utterly insufficient to meet capital repayments, interest, management, maintenance etc, and as such, pie in the sky.)



The property manager doesn't invest the 250k!!!
The State does. All the property manager has to pay back is €2,500pa - think of it as a licence fee to let the property. 
The property management will let it out for 2k if they could, but as they have bidded in a competitive tendering process for the property, it is the property managers who offer the most competitive (cheapest price) that will let it out.

Its really not that hard to understand.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> You are really understanding of how economies and societies develop are you.
> The State can  borrow over 10,20,30yrs if it wants.* It simply applies a policy of getting a return over 100yrs or even more.*
> The State has not set a retirement date!



That makes no sense. Go off and study the basics of financial management, specifically the long term cost of capital, and come back to me.

Put simply, the current value of future cashflows receivable in 50-100 years time approximates to nil. And there is a considerable repair and replacement cost attaching to any property within a 100 year timeframe.

There's a very good reason why individuals and families aren't allowed have mortgages of 100 years duration.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Ball park figures, it could be €700 or €800.


Or it could be €2,000?



TheBigShort said:


> If the cost of maintaining a property cost you €333 a month, how much profit would you need to make pm before it was worth your while? I suggested €600 could be plausibly be a decent return on a €333 outlay each month.


Whatever is needed to meet the long term cost of capital, plus a sufficient provision for contingencies. Whatever is achieved beyond that is profit.

If your return is €600 on a maintenance outlay of €333, the rent you're charging is then €600+€333=€933?



TheBigShort said:


> The property management will let it out for 2k if they could, but as they have bidded in a competitive tendering process for the property, it is the property managers who offer the most competitive (cheapest price) that will let it out.
> 
> Its really not that hard to understand.


I find this frankly impossible to understand. Why would any property manager not only rent a property at a massive loss, but compete against others to see who can achieve the biggest loss?

It's equivalent to trying to drive down wages by awarding jobs to a panel of prospective workers who will bid against each other for the job and the lowest tendering worker gets the job, at one-third of the going rate.


----------



## Bronte

TheBigShort said:


> ???? Are you sure you are a landlord? Or even ought to be?
> The State borrows billions to build _thousands _of housing units, not one!
> I just used one unit as an example of how such a scheme could work.
> 
> You have to maintain the property to a particular standard. No different to what any good landlord is doing today - all mod cons etc.
> Id thought you being an 'excellent' landlord would have a grasp of this?
> 
> The State is the property owner and has effectively sub-letted the property to the property manager. The property manager is the effective landlord.
> 
> Now you are getting it, except its not worth 2k, its worth €600pm.
> 2K is the extortionate figure being saddled on working peoples backs who are delaying starting families, cant afford their own home, as a consequence of landlords trying to make their investment pay by getting someone else to pay off their mortgage for them, provide them with profit and capitalise and any asset value appreciation.
> All in return for a roof over their head, so that they can go to work and contribute far more in productivity than a landlord ever could.
> But people are funny about things like that, like food,  and shelter - they will often go to extreme measures like paying extortionate rents, begging, stealing in order to get one or both.
> 
> However, under this scheme, effectively taking out the mortgage as a factor, if someone is perpared to provide quality accommodation for €600pm (making a profit too!), then that is all it is worth.
> 
> Now you are getting it, choice, value for money. If its not worth your while, go do something else to make money.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing for the State to manage. All it has to do is build houses, which it already knows only too well how to do. The managing will be left to whoever wins the tender to control the property by meeting certain criteria and offering the most competitive rental price.
> This stuff goes on all the time in various other sectors.
> 
> https://www.etenders.gov.ie/about_us_main_en-GB
> 
> Compared to the HAP nonsense you have highlighted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, this is simply leeching of the State. Parasitic I think is the word.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the whole point, you are getting so much rent - good for you. But it nothing to do with what you are providing been worth it. You are simply leeching on State funds that could be used to help others elsewhere.
> There is nothing 'free-market' or competitive with what you are doing.
> The sooner this type of landlord is squeezed out of the sector the better.



Parasitic and leeching. There we have it, your view of landlords.  You do realize I’m not allowed refuse HAP and I didn’t request it. The state put some of my tenants in HAP. What exactoy are you suggesting I should do? 

And now you’re telling me I should not get market rent and should let my properties be worth less than the market price. 

And if you were in my situation you’d do what precisely?


----------



## Bronte

T McGibney said:


> Or it could be €2,000?
> 
> 
> Whatever is needed to meet the long term cost of capital.
> 
> If your return is €600 on a maintenance outlay of €333, the rent you're charging is then €600+€333=€933?
> 
> 
> I find this frankly impossible to understand. Why would any property manager not only rent a property at a massive loss, but compete against others to see who can achieve the biggest loss?
> 
> It's equivalent to trying to drive down wages by awarding jobs to a panel of prospective workers who will bid against each other for the job and the lowest tendering worker gets the job, at one-third of the going rate.



Shure why should supermarkets make profits on bread and milk.


----------



## Firefly

Bronte said:


> Shure why should supermarkets make profits on bread and milk.



They shouldn't. Food is a fundamental right. Everyone should have access to decent food at affordable prices. No need for greedy merchants to make profits. Just look how well it's working out in North Korea!


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> ???? Are you sure you are a landlord? Or even ought to be?
> The State borrows billions to build _thousands _of housing units, not one!
> I just used one unit as an example of how such a scheme could work.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to maintain the property to a particular standard. No different to what any good landlord is doing today - all mod cons etc.
> Id thought you being an 'excellent' landlord would have a grasp of this?
> 
> 
> 
> The State is the property owner and has effectively sub-letted the property to the property manager. The property manager is the effective landlord.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it, except its not worth 2k, its worth €600pm.
> 2K is the extortionate figure being saddled on working peoples backs who are delaying starting families, cant afford their own home, as a consequence of landlords trying to make their investment pay by getting someone else to pay off their mortgage for them, provide them with profit and capitalise and any asset value appreciation.
> All in return for a roof over their head, so that they can go to work and contribute far more in productivity than a landlord ever could.
> But people are funny about things like that, like food,  and shelter - they will often go to extreme measures like paying extortionate rents, begging, stealing in order to get one or both.
> 
> However, under this scheme, effectively taking out the mortgage as a factor, if someone is perpared to provide quality accommodation for €600pm (making a profit too!), then that is all it is worth.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it, choice, value for money. If its not worth your while, go do something else to make money.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing for the State to manage. All it has to do is build houses, which it already knows only too well how to do. The managing will be left to whoever wins the tender to control the property by meeting certain criteria and offering the most competitive rental price.
> This stuff goes on all the time in various other sectors.
> 
> https://www.etenders.gov.ie/about_us_main_en-GB
> 
> Compared to the HAP nonsense you have highlighted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, this is simply leeching of the State. Parasitic I think is the word.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the whole point, you are getting so much rent - good for you. But it nothing to do with what you are providing been worth it. You are simply leeching on State funds that could be used to help others elsewhere.
> There is nothing 'free-market' or competitive with what you are doing.
> The sooner this type of landlord is squeezed out of the sector the better.




Why not just extend the rent a room scheme to landlords so the tenant pays the net income the landlord makes after tax. The tenant can save for a deposit to purchase there own property should they wish.

Why complicate the situation by the state borrowing money to invest in property that will pay for itself over 100 yrs with some odd set up to manage the property, against which property managers will compete to undercut each other almost to the point of loss making.

It would appear there is a ongoing hatred for landlords simply because they are landlords.


----------



## RETIRED2017

The Horseman said:


> Why not just extend the rent a room scheme to landlords so the tenant pays the net income the landlord makes after tax. The tenant can save for a deposit to purchase there own property should they wish.
> 
> Why complicate the situation by the state borrowing money to invest in property that will pay for itself over 100 yrs with some odd set up to manage the property, against which property managers will compete to undercut each other almost to the point of loss making.
> 
> It would appear there is a ongoing hatred for landlords simply because they are landlords.


 I don't think there is a hatred for landlords
The biggest problem is the amount of tax the get hit for they are not alone and will be joined by more as time goes on ,Most if not all is self inflected because if you get talking to them most support the people who are taxing them ,
The other big thing working against private Landlords is the none collecting of rent or low rents  or paying no rent in the public sector housing feeding down into the private landlord section ,
I do not see any hatred of landlords they provide a very good service just the people in power and people who are not affected  don't really want to know ,


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> That makes no sense. Go off and study the basics of financial management, specifically the long term cost of capital, and come back to me.



You need to go beyond the basics of financial management for this. I am talking about the State borrowing funds, not a corporation, not a family, not an individual. 

The State can, and has, the capability to borrow funds on a long-term basis way beyond what a family or individual could ever do.
Some corporations are so big that they themselves can borrow beyond limits of nation States. 
The State has borrowed previously up to 1/5th of its current expenditure to embark on bringing electricity to every corner of Ireland.
The benefits of this are obvious. The productivity gains and improvements to standard of living, attributable in no small part to the availability of electricity in every corner of Ireland, over the last near *100yrs *are obvious!

So back to housing. Like electricity, the availability of affordable, quality housing, increases the standard of living of the population, in turn increases productivity (people spending their incomes in other areas of economy) instead of disproportionate amounts of their income on rent, becoming less productive as rents increase.



T McGibney said:


> Put simply, the current value of future cashflows receivable in 50-100 years time approximates to nil. And there is a considerable repair and replacement cost attaching to any property within a 100 year timeframe.



Again, if the property is managed well, if there is unused contingency fund reducing rents further, if the property is affordable, well furnished etc...there is every incentive to keep the property in good condition.
If structural defects emerge, the State will insure against these costs.
There is no reason why any property built to standard today should require any significant structural repairs for 50yrs. Of course, damage does occur to varying degrees, but as I said the State can insure against the cost of those repairs.



T McGibney said:


> There's a very good reason why individuals and families aren't allowed have mortgages of 100 years duration.



Of course not! That would be ridiculous!! 
Why are you even suggesting this???



T McGibney said:


> Or it could be €2,000?



Yes, or €3,000, or €4,000 but I don't think you grasp the concept of a competitive tendering process? 
It means that there is a contract available to provide a service for profit in which the prospective service providers compete to provide the service for the most competitive price. 
In other words, the rent payable by the tenant will be set at the _lowest_ price that a prospective property manager is willing to do the job for profit.



T McGibney said:


> If your return is €600 on a maintenance outlay of €333, the rent you're charging is then €600+€333=€933?



Return is €600 less cost of service €333 = €267 profit per month.



T McGibney said:


> I find this frankly impossible to understand. Why would any property manager not only rent a property at a massive loss, but compete against others to see who can achieve the biggest loss?



Where is the massive loss? 
The property management has competed for the right to let the property, it has stated what it is willing to let the property for, for profit.
Its not hard to understand, its simple price competition. 



T McGibney said:


> It's equivalent to trying to drive down wages by awarding jobs to a panel of prospective workers who will bid against each other for the job and the lowest tendering worker gets the job, at one-third of the going rate.



You mean like the time I got my house painted and was quoted €1,000 , €900 and €750? Guess which one I picked? 

Or the time I received four quotes for a house extension varying 50% from highest to lowest?

Oh, and as is typical with a tendering process, submissions would be confidential.


----------



## TheBigShort

Bronte said:


> Parasitic and leeching. There we have it, your view of landlords.



Dont put words into my mouth. There are good and bad landlords. 

If you are going to increase rents at least have the decency to offer something in return for the increase. 

You suggested increasing rent purely on the basis that the State would simply pay for it. I call that parasitic.


----------



## TheBigShort

Bronte said:


> Shure why should supermarkets make profits on bread and milk.



Why shouldn't they?

Actually, supermarkets are a good example of constantly offer discounts , lower prices in an effort to compete to provide a quality service.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> They shouldn't. Food is a fundamental right. Everyone should have access to decent food at affordable prices. No need for greedy merchants to make profits. Just look how well it's working out in North Korea!
> 
> View attachment 3070



Jaysus Firefly, your infatuation with NK knows no bounds!


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> You need to go beyond the basics of financial management for this. I am talking about the State borrowing funds, not a corporation, not a family, not an individual.


The economics of State borrowing are no different than that of a corporation nor an individual, apart from economies of scale.



> The benefits of this are obvious. The productivity gains and improvements to standard of living, attributable in no small part to the availability of electricity in every corner of Ireland, over the last near *100yrs *are obvious!


No, the initial electricity infrastructure installed in Ireland up to the early 1960s is now largely if not totally obsolete and has been supplanted by waves and waves of newer investment. If were depending on 1950s electricity infrastructure, we'd resemble North Korea. It's like saying we all have cars because our grandads bought Morris Minors.



> So back to housing. Like electricity, the availability of affordable, quality housing, increases the standard of living of the population, in turn increases productivity (people spending their incomes in other areas of economy) instead of disproportionate amounts of their income on rent, becoming less productive as rents increase.



The Soviet apparatchiks of old used say things like this, all the time.  Didn't exactly hold true.


> Again, if the property is managed well, if there is unused contingency fund reducing rents further, if the property is affordable, well furnished etc...there is every incentive to keep the property in good condition.



Where exactly is the incentive?



> If structural defects emerge, the State will insure against these costs.


You cannot insure against normal wear and tear as it's an inevitability.



> There is no reason why any property built to standard today should require any significant structural repairs for 50yrs.



Ah come on, anyone who has owned a 1970s house since it was built has by now spent a considerable sum on its upkeep, or at this stage has a derelict property.



> It means that there is a contract available to provide a service for profit in which the prospective service providers compete to provide the service for the most competitive price.
> In other words, the rent payable by the tenant will be set at the _lowest_ price that a prospective property manager is willing to do the job for profit.



Where is the service? There's no skill involved in sending a bill out to someone.
Where is the profit?



> Return is €600 less cost of service €333 = €267 profit per month.



That isn't profit, it's contribution towards fixed costs, including cost of capital, and contingencies. What's left at the end is profit.



> Where is the massive loss?
> The property management has competed for the right to let the property, it has stated what it is willing to let the property for, for profit.
> Its not hard to understand, its simple price competition.


Based on what, though?


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> Why not just extend the rent a room scheme to landlords so the tenant pays the net income the landlord makes after tax. The tenant can save for a deposit to purchase there own property should they wish.



That can be an option too. But might not suit a working couple who would like to settle down and start a family.
My proposal is not universal. It is simply a proposal that the State could adopt.
Considering its poor track record of managing properties, but its capacity to deliver building units, it provides an option for working people who cannot afford a place of their own, or who choose not to own, to be able to rent at much more affordable rents.
This is good for the tenant, good for the economy, good for society, good for business.



The Horseman said:


> which property managers will compete to undercut each other almost to the point of loss making.



But _not _to the point of loss making. Only those who can see a profit, that is worth their while, will bid for this.




The Horseman said:


> It would appear there is a ongoing hatred for landlords simply because they are landlords.



Only for landlords who increase rents for no other reason than to exploit others.


----------



## T McGibney

> It's equivalent to trying to drive down wages by awarding jobs to a panel of prospective workers who will bid against each other for the job and the lowest tendering worker gets the job, at one-third of the going rate.





TheBigShort said:


> You mean like the time I got my house painted and was quoted €1,000 , €900 and €750? Guess which one I picked?


No, this is akin to you enjoying a State service, let's say TV and radio shows, and instead of just charging you €160 for the TV licence, the State lets third parties sell you licences for €30, €40 or €50, and somehow make a profit for themselves doing so.

The whole idea is nuts, sorry.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Considering its poor track record of managing properties, but its capacity to deliver building units...



The State's record in building infrastructure is every bit as bad as its track record of managing properties.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> No, this is akin to you enjoying a State service, let's say TV and radio shows, and instead of just charging you €160 for the TV licence, the State lets third parties sell you licences for €30, €40 or €50, and somehow make a profit for themselves doing so.
> 
> The whole idea is nuts, sorry.



You mean the private entrepreneurial spirit is dead? You mean if the State sold RTE that no-one could submit a tender that guarantees the same level of programming, radio and TV, with all its advertising revenues, for a cheaper license fee? 
I know TV3 finds it hard to compete with RTE, if only they had a slice of the licence fee however?


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> The State's record in building infrastructure is every bit as bad as its track record of managing properties.



How so? Any examples? Specifically around housing pls.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> How so? Any examples? Specifically around housing pls.



The children's hospital.
The Luas.
On housing, the entire social housing programme during the bubble years.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> You mean the private entrepreneurial spirit is dead? You mean if the State sold RTE that no-one could submit a tender that guarantees the same level of programming, radio and TV, with all its advertising revenues, for a cheaper license fee?
> I know TV3 finds it hard to compete with RTE, if only they had a slice of the licence fee however?


You're not talking though about the State selling anything. You're talking about the State producing a social good (housing) and renting it though permitted profit-making intermediaries at significant undervalue, thus generating a ruinously negligible rate of return on the original investment.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> No, the initial electricity infrastructure installed in Ireland up to the early 1960s is now largely if not totally obsolete and has been supplanted by waves and waves of newer investment.



You mean, as well as forking out the equivalent of 20% current expenditure in 1927, the State has continuously invested time and time again in the electricity infrastructure 
You mean the actual spend by the State is actually a multiple of the initial outlay???

When will this madness stop???

Surely we cant keep spending and spending on vital infrastructure? 



T McGibney said:


> Where exactly is the incentive?



Profit for property management, affordable rent for tenant.



T McGibney said:


> You cannot insure against normal wear and tear as it's an inevitability.



Yes, thats why I suggested (albeit ball park figure) €1000 contingency fund pa for necessary repairs and replacements of fixtures and fittings. 
Id imagine (good) landlords have a few quid tucked away for when the washing machine breaks down and cant be repaired? Wouldn't they?



T McGibney said:


> Ah come on, anyone who has owned a 1970s house since it was built has by now spent a considerable sum on its upkeep, or at this stage has a derelict property.



I said houses built to standard today! 

My parents live in a house built in 1960's. Aside from a new roof on the kitchen extension I cant recall any repairs of significance that the plumber or electrician wasnt able to fix.



T McGibney said:


> Where is the service? There's no skill involved in sending a bill out to someone.
> Where is the profit?



I put in €333pm = €4,000pa. This covers €2,500 back to government + €500pa over (20yrs) accounts for initial €10,000 furnishing cost + €1,000pa for normal wear and tear. 

Tenant pays me €7,200pa. Profit of €3,200 or €267 per month.



T McGibney said:


> That isn't profit, it's contribution towards fixed costs, including cost of capital, and contingencies. What's left at the end is profit.



What is the cost of capital if my initial outlay for yr1 is €10,000 + €1,000 + €2,500 = €13,500 and I have that in my bank account earning 2% interest (if lucky)?



T McGibney said:


> Based on what, though?



A competitive tender process.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> The children's hospital.



Its not even built yet, is it? How can you judge.



T McGibney said:


> The Luas.



What is wrong with LUAS?



T McGibney said:


> On housing, the entire social housing programme during the bubble years.



What is wrong with the houses built during those years? 



T McGibney said:


> You're not talking though about the State selling anything. You're talking about the State producing a social good (housing) and renting it though permitted profit-making intermediaries at significant undervalue, thus generating a ruinously negligible rate of return on the original investment.



Ok, outsourcing so. The State can, and does, RTE outsources some of its funding for private independent film and tv. Why? Because they can do it better, quicker, cheaper.


----------



## T McGibney

This is getting boring so I'll restrict myself



> I said houses built to standard today!


Your faith in builders and their standards is touching.



> My parents live in a house built in 1960's. Aside from a new roof on the kitchen extension I cant recall any repairs of significance that the plumber or electrician wasnt able to fix.


So it still has the 60s wallpaper, kitchen, bathroom etc?



TheBigShort said:


> Profit for property management, affordable rent for tenant.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I put in €333pm = €4,000pa. This covers €2,500 back to government + €500pa over (20yrs) accounts for initial €10,000 furnishing cost + €1,000pa for normal wear and tear.
> 
> Tenant pays me €7,200pa. Profit of €3,200 or €267 per month.


That's not a real profit. It's actually a ripoff. It depends on the State contenting itself with an artificially low 1% gross return (€2,500 per annum on €250k invested in building a house).



> What is the cost of capital if my initial outlay for yr1 is €10,000 + €1,000 + €2,500 = €13,500 and I have that in my bank account earning 2% interest (if lucky)?


The State doesn't enjoy the luxury of having net funds on deposit, so your question is moot.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Its not even built yet, is it? How can you judge.



QED



TheBigShort said:


> Ok, outsourcing so.


I'm confused. You've been arguing til now that the State should build houses, not outsource them to others.


----------



## losttheplot

TheBigShort said:


> Why shouldn't they?
> 
> Actually, supermarkets are a good example of constantly offer discounts , lower prices in an effort to compete to provide a quality service.


Generally, the super market doesn't pay for these discounts, the suppliers do.

If the property management company can't increase rents to increase profits, they'll find other ways to, like providing substandard service. Or they'll go bust, leaving unattended properties behind.

What incentive would there be for an efficient business if they can't pocket the savings. These could end up like inefficient state companies.


----------



## losttheplot

Maybe it would work better if the houses were rented unfurnished. Tenants can purchase their own furniture and appliances. They could also look after the painting and general maintenance. Then maybe low rents would be achievable.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> So it still has the 60s wallpaper, kitchen, bathroom etc?



You missed the bit where  I said a €1,000pa contingency fund for necessary repairs and replacements?



T McGibney said:


> That's not a real profit. It's actually a ripoff. It depends on the State contenting itself with an artificially low 1% gross return (€2,500 per annum on €250k invested in building a house)



I think I see where you are getting muddled up on this.
You are calculating through a purely accounting exercise. The cost to the State outweighing any profit that is achieved by the property management or returned to the State? 

You do not appear to consider the social and economic cost to the State of a situation where property prices and rents are heading beyond, or have gone beyond the reach of low and middle income earners. 
In case you haven't noticed, the waiting list for housing is increasing all the time. 
There is only so many people you can squeeze into 'digs' sharing with strangers. Only so long before people who had aspirations of starting families one day turn their angst on the political system.
Only so long employers struggling to fill vacancies will base themselves in a city before moving on. 
There are dozens of other factors ranging from the welfare of children living in emergency accommodation to the mental health of adults disenchanted with the black-hole of rental poverty or dependency on welfare to simply get by. 
There is only so long that taxpayers can continuously find landlords charging extortionate rents on HAP tenants because its the 'market rate'.



T McGibney said:


> The State doesn't enjoy the luxury of having net funds on deposit, so your question is moot.



So should all capital investment projects be cancelled? Should the social housing fund of €400m be withdrawn? 

You fail to grasp the concept of social and public policy. It is not to make a profit, certainly not to make a profit from its citizens. It is to improve the standards of living of the population. 
Currently, tens of thousands of people are waiting lists for a home, tens of thousands more are drowning in extortionate rents. 
My proposal is merely to give relief to those working people who cannot afford to buy and are choking on rent. The 'cost' to the State will be returned per unit via €2,500pa in property management fees, plus PLUS, income taxes, VAT, CT generated from increased economic activity not only from house building, but all through the economy as average working people can now start to afford to spend on other items other than rent. They might buy health insurance, go to the dentist regularly, perhaps even start a pension of their own? 

House building could be targeted initially in RPZ's offering tenants a real alternative to the current system. 
All that is happening is a transfer of income from landlords to tenants via landlords competing to offer lower rents. 
All for the benefit of the economy as a whole.


----------



## TheBigShort

TheBigShort said:


> The property management sets a fixed rental fee, reviewable every two years with limited increases no more than prevailing inflation rate





losttheplot said:


> If the property management company can't increase rents to increase profits,



Property management can increase rents in line with inflation. Its not set in stone. Similar to energy and communications regulator, other factors could be considered for rental increases if need be. 



losttheplot said:


> like providing substandard service. Or they'll go bust, leaving unattended properties behind.



If they provide substandard service they will be penalised. 
I dont see how someone making a profit can go bust.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> If they provide substandard service they will be penalised.



I asked this question days ago and never got an answer: what service exactly is involved in sending out bills for a monopoly?


> I dont see how someone making a profit can go bust.


The corporate graveyard is full of profitable businesses that went bust because they ran out of cash.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> I asked this question days ago and never got an answer: what service exactly is involved in sending out bills for a monopoly?



What monopoly are you talking about?? 

Here is an idea. If a tenant is not satisfied that the terms of the rental agreement are not being met they complain about their grievances to an independent adjudication body for a hearing. 
If a tenant is not paying their rent, or carrying out criminal behaviour like destruction of property etc then the property manager does the same. If the complaint is upheld then sanctions are imposed on tenant.

So where or what is the monopoly?



T McGibney said:


> The corporate graveyard is full of profitable businesses that went bust because they



Yeh, so they went out of business because of poor management of their cashflow, not because they were profitable. Isnt that right?


----------



## TheBigShort

In the meantime, house prices rise by 10.4% y-on-yr

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0911/993034-residential-property-prices/

And six people arrested for public order offences protesting the lack of accommodation

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0911/993167-north-frederick-street/

But hey, its 'the market'


----------



## Gordon Gekko

BigShort, those people were defying a court order; there has to be respect for the rule of law. And no doubt this legitimate issue is being hijacked by sinister troublemakers and the likes of Sinn Fein IRA.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> BigShort, those people were defying a court order; there has to be respect for the rule of law.



I agree, but that misses the point that I have outlined frequently.
Housing is not a commodity. It is a social necessity, of which there will be an increasing economic loss to the State the longer the housing shortage persists. This will manifest itself in employers not being able to attend workers, businesses setting up elsewhere, mental health issues for adults disenchanted with living life of dependency on rent supplements to pay "market rates" (I wonder what the market rate would be if the State wasnt subsidizing rent demands for landlords?), children deprived of settled family environment, protests, social unrest, political upheaval.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Which is why, due to the failure of the market to deal with the social problems that you have highlighted, the State should use the tax system plus its own landbanks to secure land and engage the services of a provider with scale like Cairn Homes to build the homes that are needed right now. Where does the money come from? Borrow it at what are probably never to be repeated low rates.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> In the meantime, house prices rise by 10.4% y-on-yr
> 
> https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0911/993034-residential-property-prices/
> 
> And six people arrested for public order offences protesting the lack of accommodation
> 
> https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2018/0911/993167-north-frederick-street/
> 
> But hey, its 'the market'



If people wish to protest they have a right to protest at Leinster House or other locations which belong to the State. When people do not follow the law then this is wrong. If you don't like the law lobby your political representatives to have it changed.

It is wrong for people to decide which laws they follow and which they don't. At the end of the day this is private property and the protestors should have left when the court order was granted. The Homeless issue is being overshadowed by a sinister element which is having a negative effect on its cause.

If people have an issue with homelessness then lobby the politicians, scenes like yesterday will not encourage landlords to remain in the market and unless you increase supply of properties the available bed spaces will reduce each time a landlord leaves the sector.

This brings us back to the topic of why landlords are leaving the market because even with court orders people refuse to obey them.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

I note that there are a posse of yahoos on social media attacking the Gardai and the bailiffs for wearing balaclavas; the same people would be threatening and “naming and shaming” the guys if they could see their faces.

The incident is also being linked with the appointment of a former RUC officer as commissioner.

The problem with these issues is that they get hijacked by lunatics like the New Land League or more sinister elements.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> What monopoly are you talking about??
> 
> So where or what is the monopoly?



Your "property management company" that, under your harebrained scheme, would "win" a "tender" from the government to let out government-owned properties at a third of their market rental value.

Now again, and please don't deflect with semantics this time:


T McGibney said:


> I asked this question days ago and never got an answer: what service exactly is involved in sending out bills for a monopoly?


----------



## losttheplot

TheBigShort said:


> Here is an idea. If a tenant is not satisfied that the terms of the rental agreement are not being met they complain about their grievances to an independent adjudication body for a hearing.
> If a tenant is not paying their rent, or carrying out criminal behaviour like destruction of property etc then the property manager does the same. If the complaint is upheld then sanctions are imposed on tenant.
> QUOTE]
> 
> This sounds like the PRTB.
> 
> There would be the usual uproar if a private commercial company was to evict someone.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> The State will insure for structural defects that occur over lifetime of property.
> The State will insure the property management for non-payment of rent where the tenant is shown to be in financial difficulties and unable to pay (as distinct from refusing to pay).





TheBigShort said:


> If a tenant is not satisfied that the terms of the rental agreement are not being met they complain about their grievances to an independent adjudication body for a hearing.



Firstly, well done on putting forward a proposal. Your solution was posted on another thread before and I thought it was a very good idea. However, the details are emerging and I think it could be a disaster. Your solution has grown legs leading to:


A massive increase in our national debt.
The state building housing which it will no doubt pay way above market rates for as is usually the case (LUAS, Children's hospital, M50, Port Tunnel etc etc etc)
The state ensuring property management companies for tenants who won't pay - (incentive for others to not pay as the state will cover them)
The state ensuring property management companies for damaged houses
An independent body should tenants complain
When the whole thing falls apart, the property management will probably come under a semi-state, following the government's tried & tested formula of:
_"If it moves - tax it, if it keeps moving - regulate it, if it stops moving - subsidise it"_

Then we can really put the ribbons on it by setting up a few quangos and obviously an Ombudsman to regulate the semi-state property management company.

There will no doubt be a serious issue down the road. But fear not. We can set up a commission and if it's really serious, a tribunal.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Firstly, well done on putting forward a proposal. Your solution was posted on another thread before and I thought it was a very good idea.



Yes, and I never claimed it was a panacea to the housing crisis. All it does is provide an alternative rental option targeting those who work but cannot afford rent or to buy or are currently drowning in rents and mortgages. 

I also said that if there was a fundamental reason it couldn't be done then in the bin it goes. 
You have listed a number of reasonable points as to why it wouldn't work, however, that does not mean solutions to the issues you raise cannot be found. 
So at least you have gone someway considerably further than "harebrained" as a reason not to think it would be a useful idea.

So I will respond accordingly to each of your points later.


----------



## owenmcg

"*How many landlords have quit because of rent controls? "*
*
Can we call it a day on this?*


----------



## TheBigShort

owenmcg said:


> "*How many landlords have quit because of rent controls? "*
> *
> Can we call it a day on this?*



There is anecdotal evidence of landlords leaving, plenty of "thinking of", "threatening to" leave, but little or nothing in hard facts.
Certainly, if no-one has produced some figures by now my guess is the answer is somewhere between zero and a lot less than some are making it out to be.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> You can end this nonsense now by answering a simple question.
> How much return, at a minimum, on an average annual outlay of €4,000 would it take to make it worthwhile for you to provide a level of accommodation for a tenant that you currently provide in your capacity as a landlord?



A question isn't simple, just because you say its simple. The only way to answer that question is to ask a whole bunch of questions about the stuff you've left out. 

The Cheapest option is to rent a place then sublet it. See if you can do that for 4k legally. Start from there.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> Which is why, due to the failure of the market to deal with the social problems that you have highlighted, the State should use the tax system plus its own landbanks to secure land and engage the services of a provider with scale like Cairn Homes to build the homes that are needed right now. Where does the money come from? Borrow it at what are probably never to be repeated low rates.



Couldn't agree more Gekko.
However I would have thought that politically providing social housing on such a scale would be a no-go?
Images of large scale ghettos emerging with the great and good complainig about why somebody on low income gets a house on the cheap while others have to pay private market rates?
Thats why I went down the road of property management. It is to target hard-working people whose incomes are too high for social assistance but too low to pay rent and/or save a deposit for a house.
So instead of borrowing solely to support those on the lowest of incomes, the squeezed middle gets some relief from extortionate rents and house prices that saddle massive mortgages around their necks.
The property management scheme could be targeted at housing to be built in RPZ's and not every town and village in the country.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> There is anecdotal evidence of landlords leaving, plenty of "thinking of", "threatening to" leave, but little or nothing in hard facts.
> Certainly, if no-one has produced some figures by now my guess is the answer is somewhere between zero and a lot less than some are making it out to be.






> ...There were 212,306 landlords [broken link removed] in 2012, which did [broken link removed] 179,026 in 2013, and [broken link removed] 160,160 in 2014. But since then, the number has been climbing again.
> There were 170,282 landlords [broken link removed] the RTB in 2015, which rose to 175,250 in 2016, and again to 176,251 by the end of September 2017....



Sounds like down by 52,000 but increased by 16,000. 

Consider population.  (2010) 4,626,928 ~  (2018) 4,803,748


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> Sounds like down by 52,000 but increased by 16,000.
> 
> Consider population.  (2010) 4,626,928 ~  (2018) 4,803,748



So it basically fluctuates and the trajectory is that more landlords are entering the sector than leaving.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> A question isn't simple, just because you say its simple. The only way to answer that question is to ask a whole bunch of questions about the stuff you've left out.



Questions about the stuff that ive left out, but questions that you have left out too? 

I don't proclaim to dot every i or cross every t on the pages of AAM. This is merely a concept. If there is a fundamental reason why it cant be done I would be happy to hear it. 



AlbacoreA said:


> The Cheapest option is to rent a place then sublet it. See if you can do that for 4k legally. Start from there.



I wouldn't be able to do that but the State could. 
Here is a similar concept applied in Singapore which purportedly has one of the lowest homeless rates in the world. Some 80% + of the population are housed in this way. 
Im not advocating we adopt entirely the Singapore model with its large tower blocks, but elements of their policy we could. 
It offers 99yr old leaseholds on properties built and developed by the State.
( I suggested 100yrs earlier, silly me to push the boat out!)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore


----------



## cremeegg

TBS, why don't you start a new thread around your proposal for a new model of social housing. You are derailing this thread about Landlords quitting and rent controls.


----------



## TheBigShort

cremeegg said:


> TBS, why don't you start a new thread around your proposal for a new model of social housing. You are derailing this thread about Landlords quitting and rent controls.



Thanks cremeegg, I disagree that I have derailed the thread but point accepted, my proposal should be in another thread.


----------



## PaxmanK

TheBigShort said:


> Thanks cremeegg, I disagree that I have derailed the thread but point accepted, my proposal should be in another thread.



This could have been a really useful thread but the last 10 or so pages have been torture.  Nobody will bother reading it now. 
Detailed and killed stone dead I would say.


----------



## TheBigShort

PaxmanK said:


> This could have been a really useful thread but the last 10 or so pages have been torture.  Nobody will bother reading it now.
> Detailed and killed stone dead I would say.



I agree. I thought my concept was relatively straightforward and simple to understand, certainly the last time I raised it in another thread that was case (no more than 1 page).
My fault for entertaining posters who couldn't grasp basic detail.

Nevertheless, @AlbacoreA has produced figures indicating more landlords have actually entered the sector since rent controls were introduced rather than leave.
Kind of kills the thread anyway.


----------



## PaxmanK

And still he continues.
Any chance the relevant posts can be set off into a thread that is about the topic and only the topic in the op?
Would be very useful for future reference and nothing the effect of continuing property market interference.
It's of no use to anybody the  mess it's in now that.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> My fault for entertaining posters who couldn't grasp basic detail.


Any chance you could lay off the personal jibes at those of us who waded through the detail of your crazy plan to expose it?


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Swimming in delusion.





T McGibney said:


> It makes no sense neither in terms of common sense





T McGibney said:


> Go off and study the basics





T McGibney said:


> The whole idea is nuts





T McGibney said:


> Can't you read?





T McGibney said:


> your crazy plan







T McGibney said:


> Any chance you could lay off the personal jibes


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


>


Exactly. 

At all stages of this discussion,  I have criticised your idea, in line with the posting guidelines. 

I have not sought at any stage to impugn or criticise you.


> Attack an opinion by all means, but please don't attack the person expressing the opinion.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> At all stages of this discussion, I have criticised your idea, in line with the posting guidelines.
> 
> I have not sought at any stage to impugn or criticise you.



Asking me if I can read. That is not personal jibe? Implying that my views are absent of conmon sense. That is not personal? Ordering me to 'go off and study basics....' is not an attempt to try and demean my intelligence?

Im quite happy to accept fundamental reasons as to why my ideas or suggestions wont or cannot work, but simply labelling them as 'harebrained' is not a sound reason, and yes it acts as a personal jibe.

From the outset I stated my idea was a concept. From the outset I stated that there would be thousands of ifs and buts and I suggested that it would be impossible to detail all within the pages of AAM.

There are, as I see it, 4 layers of accommodation in the State.
1) LA housing for people, for one reason or another, are unable or incapable of ever supporting themselves.
2) Social and affordable housing for people who work but whose incomes are too low to afford private rents or ownership.
3) Private rental sector, for people whose incomes are too high for social supports and for people who choose not to buy.
4) Private sector ownership.

Its 3) im interested in finding solutions. Not for those who are comfortable with their arrangements, but those who go to work, pay the rent, pay the bills and have little left over. They cant save, they are continuously being pushed further out from where they work, they are delaying families, they receive no social supports etc
Figures of €10bn, 100,000 houses have been bandied about. So to advance the idea further, it would be a scheme only operable in certain designated areas. Lucky for me the DofHousing has already identified RPZ's.

Along with the State building program of LA and Social and affordable housing for people with incomes that fall below certain thresholds, the State could embark on house building in RPZ's for people whose incomes _exceed _certain thresholds.
The State takes on the cost of capital, as it already does for LA and Social housing.
However it then outsources the management of these properties to the private sector.

This is where you, Bronte, Gekko et all come in. Given your experience of managing properties as landlords, the State will offer you (or anybody else who is interested and who can meet the terms of the tender) the opportunity to manage a property, for profit, but without the cost of taking on a mortgage. The property manager (PM) will be the one who offers to let the property for the _lowest _rent. 

Some conditions for prospective tenants.
1) The must have a verifiable track record of paying rent in private sector for 12 months or more. 
2) The are not, or have not been receiving State supports for that accommodation eg HAP

The prospective tenants with the highest income/rent ratio will be prioritized as prospective tenants.
PM's can refuse a tenancy but must have bona fide reasons for doing so - in general, we are talking about working people who pay rent, who now have an opportunity to significantly reduce that rent - all good indicators for a good relationship?

The cost to the State.

This will be minimal long-term. As demonstrated in Singapore, the State offers 99yr lease holds to prospective tenants. 

If we take simply one €250,000 as an example. 
The State borrows €250,000 over 10,20 or 30yrs to pay for the build of the unit. The State receives €2,500 a year back each year. The State then simply rolls over the remaining portion of debt when repayment is due, spreading the debt over 100yrs. Something a private landlord with a 30ur mortgage cannot do.

On the flipside. Each year economic activity to the value of €7,200 (State fee to PM, profit, fixtures fittings, furnishings etc) is generated. 
In 34yrs, all things remaining equal, the €250,000 capital cost to the State will have generated €250,000 of economic activity.

All that has occurred is that the State has taken the capital cost of a mortgage out of the equation. In return, it retains ownership of the property. 
The landlord, or rather PM, competes for profits in the private rental sector but on the basis of offering competitive rents. All in market that is high demand. 
Tenants, who work, who contribute to the economy, avail of a real alternative to the current private rental sector and private ownership sector.

Tell me where I am going wrong.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Asking me if I can read. That is not personal jibe? Implying that my views are absent of conmon sense. That is not personal? Ordering me to 'go off and study basics....' is not an attempt to try and demean my intelligence?
> 
> Im quite happy to accept fundamental reasons as to why my ideas or suggestions wont or cannot work, but simply labelling them as 'harebrained' is not a sound reason, and yes it* acts as a personal jibe.*



It might appear to you as such but it, crucially, isn't one. And if you want to quote me in this context, please do so in full sentences not random  parts of phrases selected to mislead. (For example I asked "Can't you read?" as I had twice answered a question you claimed I was evading, and provided a link to my most recent answer. That's not, by any stretch, a personal attack on you.)

Again


> Attack an opinion by all means, but please don't attack the person expressing the opinion.



Your plan is still crazy. That's no reflection on you.

End of.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Your plan is still crazy



Crazy, but brilliant!


----------



## Leo

TheBigShort said:


> Furthermore, your €250,000 figure is debatable given the ownership of land by the State in the first place.



The 250k figure is indeed incorrect, Dublin City Council spend an average of €330k per unit excluding land costs.


----------



## TheBigShort

Leo said:


> The 250k figure is indeed incorrect, Dublin City Council spend an average of €330k per unit excluding land costs.



That's cool Leo, im happy to go with that. Others have speculated different amounts elsewhere. 
In the end the State is funding housing for people with low incomes or even no incomes. People who earn, on the face of it, decent incomes are being squeezed. 
Im simply proposing a scheme that facilitates hard-pressed working people an alternative to extortionate rents, massive mortgages, or having to do three/four round trips to and from work. 
Anyone would think that im the bad guy around here!


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> So it basically fluctuates and the trajectory is that more landlords are entering the sector than leaving.



Nope overall down by 36,000 with a population increase of almost 200k. 

Even if what you said was true, (which it isn't, unless you take a small sample out of context) it still hasn't a hope of keeping up with the increase in population/demand.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> Questions about the stuff that ive left out, but questions that you have left out too?
> 
> I don't proclaim to dot every i or cross every t on the pages of AAM. This is merely a concept. If there is a fundamental reason why it cant be done I would be happy to hear it.



Your concepts are missing fundamentals. That's whats wrong with them. You just ignore that.



TheBigShort said:


> I wouldn't be able to do that but the State could....



Its not an issue of the state not being able to do something, the issue its its not willing to do anything.
Outsourcing social housing is basically a cost saving policy, as it runs at a loss. Outsourcing was a means for the state to minimise the cost of it.
It also moved a lot of the financial risk from the State to the LL. Which is again is cost saving.

You're not willing to do it, the state isn't and neither are LL's. Your ideas ignore that basic reality.

The state could structure it to make it less risky to make a modest profit. 
However they are doing the opposite, so consistently it has to be policy, perhaps unofficial. Its either that or they are inept. Which is unlikely. 
I assume it was to encourage investment into the country after the crash, and no one wants to bee seen to put brakes on the runaway train its become.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> Nope overall down by 36,000 with a population increase of almost 200k.



What are you talking about? You are referencing a period of time when rent control didn't even exist! Read the topic title again....how many landlords have quit because of rent controls!

Rent controls were introduced in *2016*....by the figures your have referenced, 1000 additional landlords have _entered_ the sector since then!


----------



## losttheplot

We'd need to know the figures for landlords in RPZs. Otherwise it's an argument about numbers that aren't relevant anyway.


----------



## TheBigShort

Fair point @losttheplot . 
We are 12 pages into this thread and nobody has produced anything of substance to support the OP views.
I was accused of derailing what could have been an interesting topic. Instead I was just killing time!


----------



## HollyBud

Guilty as accused!


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> What are you talking about? You are referencing a period of time when rent control didn't even exist! Read the topic title again....how many landlords have quit because of rent controls!
> 
> Rent controls were introduced in *2016*....by the figures your have referenced, 1000 additional landlords have _entered_ the sector since then!



I was referring to your "trajectory" comment. 

Theres 36k down, at 1K per year its going to take a long time to get those numbers back. 
Thats before you factor 200k extra population. 
Also the new LL are coming and setting high rents. Those leaving are taking the cheaper rents with them. 
1k new landlords is woeful. 

The only figures you should really be interested is availability of rentals and if rent is increasing. 

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/rent-house-dublin-15040643

Its amazing though in the worst housng crisis in the history of the state, perhaps in europe and there are no metrics to see whats happening. Its like they don't care.


----------



## losttheplot

Shouldn't the RTB have this information, or at least a reasonable amount of data to estimate it.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> 1k new landlords is woeful.



You are suggesting we need more LL's? 
We don't, we need more houses. 
Someone mentioned 100,000 more houses. 
If 170,000 LL's exited the market, property prices would fall and become alot more affordable for those looking to buy.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I'm suggesting its doesn't come any where close to providing the rental properties needed.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> You are suggesting we need more LL's?
> We don't, we need more houses.
> Someone mentioned 100,000 more houses.
> If 170,000 LL's exited the market, property prices would fall and become alot more affordable for those looking to buy.



Where do the tenants who leave these properties go. By selling these properties the number of bed spaces available will decrease. I have posed this question to you on a number of occasions in the past and yet you still want landlords out.

Everybody accepts that supply of property needs to increase but making blunt anti landlord statements does not actually improve the situation. You appear unwilling to accept that the sector needs landlords whether you like it or not and that these same landlords are treating this as a business.

Unless you get everybody in the world to adopt a socialist position you are not going to get prices down no matter how much you want to. We have to import the raw materials to build properties and like it or not there are a lot of capitalists who want to make the biggest profit they can. So there are external factors which you can't control no matter how much you want to!


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> ....
> If 170,000 LL's exited the market, property prices would fall and become alot more affordable for those looking to buy.



Lots did leave, and its till 36k short of what is was. Doesn't seem to have the effect you're hoping for. 

Why are builders not filling the shortfall, and are they and the Reit building what is needed?



> ...potential delivery of about 21,000 new homes in 2018.
> It is generally accepted that this figure amounts to less than half of what is actually required to meet demand and population growth expectations.
> The drip feed of new homes to the market will improve slightly this year but the flow that’s needed to service a normal, functioning property market is still not there. While last year saw new homes sales across 100 sites, the volume of units being released to the market remains low. ...





> With apartments accounting for just 12 per cent of all our housing stock, progress to increase housing density in line with our EU neighbours (the EU average is 50 per cent) is slow. Availability of land for development is an inhibiting factor, and it was envisaged the vacant site levy might address this. However the failure by two Dublin local authorities to list any properties on the register of vacant sites set up a year ago is indicative of a lack of will to enforce the levy on property owners who fail to develop prime housing land.
> 
> Meanwhile some of the most ambitious developments in prime locations around the city are by real estate funds operating managed rental blocks. Kennedy Wilson, Hines and IRES Reit are just three of the major investment funds mopping up much of the exciting large-scale development in the city currently. Much of the development is for offices rather than apartments, and the residential units will be primarily only available to rent.



https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and...w-home-in-2018-here-s-what-s-coming-1.3365974


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> Where do the tenants who leave these properties go.



If they can afford to pay the rent they will have no problem paying for a mortgage on properties with lower prices. 

I wasn't advocating that it would solve the housing crisis, but I do think having LL's competing with FTB's is part of the problem. 
If LL could actually offer a rental market that competes with the cost of mortgages that would be great. But they dont, the rents are often more costly than the mortgages. Forcing grown adults to share with others for far longer than they would ordinarily desire, impacting on families etc.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> Lots did leave, and its till 36k short of what is was. Doesn't seem to have the effect you're hoping for.



It did actually. House prices fell in tandem with LL exiting the market an exposing the surplus build. As LL re-enter, house prices and rents have started to rise again.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> If they can afford to pay the rent they will have no problem paying for a mortgage on properties with lower prices.
> 
> I wasn't advocating that it would solve the housing crisis, but I do think having LL's competing with FTB's is part of the problem.
> If LL could actually offer a rental market that competes with the cost of mortgages that would be great. But they dont, the rents are often more costly than the mortgages. Forcing grown adults to share with others for far longer than they would ordinarily desire, impacting on families etc.



Why should an investor not be allowed compete with FTB's. You are veering towards a communist agenda where the State wants to control sectors of society. At that point then should single people be allowed own two or three bed properties, should single people be allowed buy family cars?

If people have the means to buy property/cars etc then they should be allowed irrespective if they are investors or FTB's etc.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> It did actually. House prices fell in tandem with LL exiting the market an exposing the surplus build. As LL re-enter, house prices and rents have started to rise again.



It wasn't LL leaving that caused that, it was the banking crisis. LL are a symptom not a cause.


----------



## Firefly

The Horseman said:


> You are veering towards a communist agenda where the State wants to control sectors of society. At that point then should single people be allowed own two or three bed properties, should single people be allowed buy family cars?



You would think that, but in fact, the man is a blue blooded capitalist!!!


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> Why should an investor not be allowed compete with FTB's



Im not saying they shouldn't, as long the net result is that a LL can offer an alternative market to the tenant offering competitive prices. They dont.
Instead it is quite often more expensive to rent than it is to own a property.

A €250,000 mortgage over 30yrs costs circa €1,000 to repay.
A property valued at €250,000 in D6 will cost nearly twice that to rent.
All over the country, in general, the rental prices exceed the cost of a mortgage on the property. This is because of the way the sector is structured - basically LL's take out 25-30yr mortgage and charge rental that covers that mortgage plus profit plus realising ALL capital appreciation.
The tenant(s) basically pay for the house for the LL to capitalize on.
There is nothing free-market, entrepreneurial about exploiting the need of people to have a roof over their heads in order to capitalize 100% on the sale of the property.
It is an unsustainable ponzi type scheme.
I have already outlined one proposal to help resolve the issue. Another proposal would be to award the tenant an incremental % ownership of the property for each payment.
If the property has 360 monthly repayments and the tenant pays all, and the rent is equal to the mortgage repayments, then when mortgage is paid in full, tenant is 50% co-owner of property.
So any re-sale, the tenant gets something back.
If LL wants to keep majority stakehold, then reduce the rents.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I remember when rents were cheaper than mortgages and all the forums were full of talk of rent being dead money. Also remember when interest rates were 8~12% and some will remember them higher than that. 

All during that time there where LL. There was not a shortage of housing though.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Interesting to look back at old reports

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/de...s/HousingStatistics/FileDownLoad,14648,en.pdf



> Tenant Purchase Scheme 1,855 dwellings were purchased under the Tenant Purchase Scheme in 2006; 4,081 applications to purchase were made and 3,030 sales were approved


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Im not saying they shouldn't, as long the net result is that a LL can offer an alternative market to the tenant offering competitive prices. They dont.
> Instead it is quite often more expensive to rent than it is to own a property.
> 
> A €250,000 mortgage over 30yrs costs circa €1,000 to repay.
> A property valued at €250,000 in D6 will cost nearly twice that to rent.
> All over the country, in general, the rental prices exceed the cost of a mortgage on the property. This is because of the way the sector is structured - basically LL's take out 25-30yr mortgage and charge rental that covers that mortgage plus profit plus realising ALL capital appreciation.
> The tenant(s) basically pay for the house for the LL to capitalize on.
> There is nothing free-market, entrepreneurial about exploiting the need of people to have a roof over their heads in order to capitalize 100% on the sale of the property.
> It is an unsustainable ponzi type scheme.
> I have already outlined one proposal to help resolve the issue. Another proposal would be to award the tenant an incremental % ownership of the property for each payment.
> If the property has 360 monthly repayments and the tenant pays all, and the rent is equal to the mortgage repayments, then when mortgage is paid in full, tenant is 50% co-owner of property.
> So any re-sale, the tenant gets something back.
> If LL wants to keep majority stakehold, then reduce the rents.



Every part of a free market exploits the customer, the customer needs/wants a car the supplier exploits that need/want. That is the whole basis of any business. What you are suggesting is what the State should be providing ie social housing. But until we as a society change our mindset regarding the whole entitlement culture we will continue to have these differences of opinion.

If people don't pay there dues they should be evicted be they private owners, private renters or council tenants. The fundamentals remain that everybody should pay their way. But what we have is the State passing the buck to the private landlords because again I will say we have the bizarre notion that people should not be evicted.

This mindset is not just for housing it is also for society in general. How many times do we hear of defendants up in court only to be told that they have multiple convictions and they don't get a custodial sentence. At what point do we say sorry enough it enough.

What you are proposing regarding social housing is all very well in theory but landlords are left with all the risk to carry the can, the govt bring in laws to suit themselves and you have people like yourself who may be well intentioned but you don't see the risks facing landlords on a daily basis.

Yes if you want to solve the housing crisis get supply on board, lobby your local political representatives, protest outside govt buildings but please don't lecture landlords on the morality of their investments. We have invested to try provide for ourselves so we don't have to rely on the State in our old age. My properties are my pension pot.


----------



## TheBigShort

Just to clear something's up.

I am not anti- LL. They do serve a purpose in providing accommodation to those who cannot afford their own home and to those who is does not suit to buy.

I also bear no animosity to the thousands of LL's who simply go about their business in the system that they find themselves in.

I hope that much is clear.

I do however detest landlords who prey on the poor and vulnerable and exploit their need for shelter by extracting extortionate rents in return for squalid accommodation.
The example of the 3 storey house sub-divided into 11apts is a case in point.
I do resent LL's whose attitude seems to be to raise rents for the sake of it, in the knowledge that the State will simply pay up.

This resentment or detestment of some LL's is no different to my resentment etc of employers who wont afford basic entitlements to employees like holiday pay, or mechanics who re-clock a car for resale, or any other trade or profession that exploits others for profit through fraudulent and/or sub-standard means.
Albeit it is more profound when dealing with social necessities such as housing, food, healthcare etc

As for LL's profiting from their investments I have no issue. Clearly anyone who has being paying attention will have noticed that I have proposed a scheme (whether it would actually work or not is another thing) where LL's, or effectively property managers as I called them, could make a profit from providing accommodation.

So I dont take issue with LL's simply going about their business in this system. It is the _system _itself as it is engineered or developed that I take issue with. A system which does not offer any real competitive alternative, in accommodation between rent and ownership. For far too many people, particularly working people, it is a system that offers unattainable mortgages or unsustainable rent.
Something radical has to happen. Hopefully it will be peaceful and through policy.


----------



## AlbacoreA

You have to look at what's changed to make it such a problem on recent years.

The clear difference is the change in govt policy. They outsourced social and affordable housing. They stopped building it.


----------



## TheBigShort

Couldn't agree more, it been a shambles.

I dont watch Late Late Show often but it was recommended to me today to catch Philly McMahon, Stefanie Pressiner and John Connors.

They talk about housing, some of the points made in the program reflecting views in this topic.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

It was the usual guff...a freelance “comedy” writer giving out about how difficult it is to find accommodation...maybe get a real job and see how that goes?


----------



## cremeegg

Gordon Gekko said:


> It was the usual guff...a freelance “comedy” writer giving out about how difficult it is to find accommodation...maybe get a real job and see how that goes?



Do I detect a lingering regret that you prioritised gainful employment over other uses of your talents.

I recognise the signs, I could have been great myself.


----------



## TheBigShort

Because people with 'real' jobs don't have issues with finding accommodation?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> Because people with 'real' jobs don't have issues with finding accommodation?



They do, which is why it is infuriating to see millenial whingers wheeled out to discuss issues that are more relevant to serious people.


----------



## TheBigShort

With respect Gekko, housing in not 'more relevant' to one over another. 
_Everyone _needs housing, regardless of what they do. 

Even if it is effectively an artificial trade - like pensions industry.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> With respect Gekko, housing in not 'more relevant' to one over another.
> _Everyone _needs housing, regardless of what they do.
> 
> Even if it is effectively an artificial trade - like pensions industry.



With respect, BigShort, I’d prefer not to hear the grievances of whinging millenials who think that a career as a fish psychologist entitles them to a mews in Ranelagh and Tribeca chicken wings every second day. The serious issues are at risk of being drowned out by the faux angst of millenial layabouts.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Just to clear something's up.
> 
> I am not anti- LL. They do serve a purpose in providing accommodation to those who cannot afford their own home and to those who is does not suit to buy.
> 
> I also bear no animosity to the thousands of LL's who simply go about their business in the system that they find themselves in.
> 
> I hope that much is clear.
> 
> I do however detest landlords who prey on the poor and vulnerable and exploit their need for shelter by extracting extortionate rents in return for squalid accommodation.
> The example of the 3 storey house sub-divided into 11apts is a case in point.
> I do resent LL's whose attitude seems to be to raise rents for the sake of it, in the knowledge that the State will simply pay up.
> 
> This resentment or detestment of some LL's is no different to my resentment etc of employers who wont afford basic entitlements to employees like holiday pay, or mechanics who re-clock a car for resale, or any other trade or profession that exploits others for profit through fraudulent and/or sub-standard means.
> Albeit it is more profound when dealing with social necessities such as housing, food, healthcare etc
> 
> As for LL's profiting from their investments I have no issue. Clearly anyone who has being paying attention will have noticed that I have proposed a scheme (whether it would actually work or not is another thing) where LL's, or effectively property managers as I called them, could make a profit from providing accommodation.
> 
> So I dont take issue with LL's simply going about their business in this system. It is the _system _itself as it is engineered or developed that I take issue with. A system which does not offer any real competitive alternative, in accommodation between rent and ownership. For far too many people, particularly working people, it is a system that offers unattainable mortgages or unsustainable rent.
> Something radical has to happen. Hopefully it will be peaceful and through policy.



With respect you are anti landlord. You want landlords/property managers to generate a profit you deem acceptable. That is not how business works. The market determines what an acceptable profit is, what you are proposing is that which the State should provide ie non profit making just covering costs.

You seem to forget being a landlord is a business pure and simple. You only have to look at the Irish Independent over the weekend to see how dysfunctional our property sector is. It took a landlord 18 months to get a non paying tenant out of their property while losing rental income and incurring costs of €25k in total (which I understand excludes legal costs although I can be corrected on the legal costs).

The title of this thread is why are landlords leaving the market because of rent controls then these are part of the reason. Landlords need to be able to "buffer themselves" from this type of situation and we are not allowed increase rent to provide this buffer. For the majority of landlords who hold a single property an experience like this would spell financial ruin.

The State is never going to do this no matter how much you want it. Unless a political party in power actually agrees to evict people for non payment of rent/mortgage (be they private or council tenants).


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Couldn't agree more, it been a shambles.
> 
> I dont watch Late Late Show often but it was recommended to me today to catch Philly McMahon, Stefanie Pressiner and John Connors.
> 
> They talk about housing, some of the points made in the program reflecting views in this topic.




I happened to see that particular segment of the show. I was particularly disappointed by the above regarding their views on housing and the housing situation. They like a lot (not all) of their counterparts want not realizing you don't get everything you want in life. It actually reminded me of a spoiled child.

We all wanted things growing up that we could not have, it was disappointing but that is part and parcel of life. We have to learn to be content with what we have. If you want something you work for it plain and simple, you may not get it even if you do work for it, that's life.

I did have a particular issue with the "scum" reference to the Gardaí. This is completely unacceptable on national TV. Yes if people have an issue with the property sector and the States failure to provide accommodation they protest at Govt buildings, local authority offices actually anywhere that is owned by the State.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> With respect you are anti landlord



I have spelled out that LL's do provide a necessary function. I have distinguished between good and bad landlords. 



The Horseman said:


> You want landlords/property managers to generate a profit you deem acceptable.



No I do not, either you are incapable of understanding what I posted or you are deliberately trolling. 
I want LL's/PM to generate profits that _they themselves deem acceptable. _In a competitive market.



The Horseman said:


> That is not how business works.



That is how business works.



The Horseman said:


> The market determines what an acceptable profit is, what you are proposing is that which the State should provide ie non profit making just covering costs.



No I am not. I clearly proposed that the State outsource the management of public housing in RPZ's to the private sector. 
If there is a profit to be made, the market will determine the most competitive price.



The Horseman said:


> You seem to forget being a landlord is a business pure and simple.



It is a business yes. The business of providing housing. A essential element of any functioning society.



The Horseman said:


> You only have to look at the Irish Independent over the weekend to see how dysfunctional our property sector is. It took a landlord 18 months to get a non paying tenant out of their property while losing rental income and incurring costs of €25k in total (which I understand excludes legal costs although I can be corrected on the legal costs).



Im not disputing that housing sector is dysfunctional. It has been for 15yrs+. The State has abdicated its role in providing housing for the population and effectively allowed a free reign to the private sector. 
The consequences of such are now apparent - rents at all time highs and still increasing (despite the caps)
- house prices increasing
-homelessness increasing
- waiting lists for housing increasing

and I dont doubt that even greater portions of society are looking over their shoulders feeling the pressure of increasing debt.



The Horseman said:


> The title of this thread is why are landlords leaving the market because of rent controls then these are part of the reason.



And to date, the only concrete figures produced suggest that landlords are entering the sector, not leaving.



The Horseman said:


> Landlords need to be able to "buffer themselves" from this type of situation and we are not allowed increase rent to provide this buffer.



A tenant also needs to be able to "buffer themselves" from the prospect of increasing rents, notices of eviction.



The Horseman said:


> For the majority of landlords who hold a single property an experience like this would spell financial ruin.



For a lot of tenants, who are one or two pay cheques away from more debt and borrowings, increasing rents to meet "market value" is financial ruin, if not, homelessness.



The Horseman said:


> The State is never going to do this no matter how much you want it. Unless a political party in power actually agrees to evict people for non payment of rent/mortgage (be they private or council tenants).



Your 'solutions' to the issues surrounding non-payment of rent are old hat 19th century. 
Eviction, and you pine for the days where custodial sentences would be more frequent.
Evict and lock them up - recipe for violent revolt.


----------



## AlbacoreA

LL leave and enter all the time. The stats suggest loads left and since then you have a net trickle increase entering the market each year. 
You would assume most leaving would smaller LL. While there will be more REIT entering than previously. 
It seems from lots stories we've seen in the media REITs will drive the rent far more aggressively and upmarket than smaller LL. 
The "competitive price" for REIT means a whole different thing.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> They like a lot (not all) of their counterparts want not realizing you don't get everything you want in life. It actually reminded me of a spoiled child.



Desiring security of tenure is acting like a spoiled child? You cannot be serious. Wanting a place to call home and not having to worry unduly about being able to pay rent or mortgage is a perfectly legitimate aspiration for everyone. 
Equating that with a spoiled child is delusional.



The Horseman said:


> We all wanted things growing up that we could not have, it was disappointing but that is part and parcel of life.





The Horseman said:


> We have to learn to be content with what we have.



So homeless people should just be content with their lot? 
Working families should just accept that they will never have a place of their own?
Educated and skilled workers should just accept that their education and skills was never really to benefit them, but to enable them to pay high rents?
This is bizarre thinking, devoid of any realism.



The Horseman said:


> If you want something you work for it plain and simple, you may not get it even if you do work for it, that's life.



So are rent price caps. Part of life. Maximum market values, you may not get them but keep working at it - thats life.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> LL leave and enter all the time. The stats suggest loads left and since then you have a net trickle increase entering the market each year.
> You would assume most leaving would smaller LL. While there will be more REIT entering than previously.
> It seems from lots stories we've seen in the media REITs will drive the rent far more aggressively and upmarket than smaller LL.
> The "competitive price" for REIT means a whole different thing.



And what is your point? You seem to think LLs should be able to charge  "market rates" without interference?
On the other hand you are forewarning us of REITs doing exactly that. 

The question is about how many LLs have quit because of rent controls. 
Nobody knows.
You are the only one to have produced some form of figures which suggest, that since rents controls have been introduced, more LLs have entered the sector. 

I know it doesn't support the narrative, but thats life!


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> You seem to think LLs should be able to charge  "market rates" without interference?



The horror.

Meanwhile, government interference is working out so well.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Desiring security of tenure is acting like a spoiled child? You cannot be serious. Wanting a place to call home and not having to worry unduly about being able to pay rent or mortgage is a perfectly legitimate aspiration for everyone.
> Equating that with a spoiled child is delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So homeless people should just be content with their lot?
> Working families should just accept that they will never have a place of their own?
> Educated and skilled workers should just accept that their education and skills was never really to benefit them, but to enable them to pay high rents?
> This is bizarre thinking, devoid of any realism.
> 
> 
> 
> So are rent price caps. Part of life. Maximum market values, you may not get them but keep working at it - thats life.




We all worry about mortgages, rent, bills in general that's a fact of life. Some people will never have a home they purchase themselves that has always been and will always be in every normal society.

Education and skilled workers may not afford to own a property or may not afford to own a property where they want.

Rent caps don't work and they have been proven not to work as it removes the benefit of investing but sure hey you seem to have all the answers and are unwilling to accept any other viewpoint as yours is the only one that is right.

The reference to spoiled children is complaining about not getting what they want. None of us get what we want be it employment, property or personal life but we get on with life.

But sure hey all of these people are "entitled" to what they want not what they need!


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> I have spelled out that LL's do provide a necessary function. I have distinguished between good and bad landlords.
> 
> 
> 
> No I do not, either you are incapable of understanding what I posted or you are deliberately trolling.
> I want LL's/PM to generate profits that _they themselves deem acceptable. _In a competitive market.
> 
> 
> 
> That is how business works.
> 
> 
> 
> No I am not. I clearly proposed that the State outsource the management of public housing in RPZ's to the private sector.
> If there is a profit to be made, the market will determine the most competitive price.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a business yes. The business of providing housing. A essential element of any functioning society.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not disputing that housing sector is dysfunctional. It has been for 15yrs+. The State has abdicated its role in providing housing for the population and effectively allowed a free reign to the private sector.
> The consequences of such are now apparent - rents at all time highs and still increasing (despite the caps)
> - house prices increasing
> -homelessness increasing
> - waiting lists for housing increasing
> 
> and I dont doubt that even greater portions of society are looking over their shoulders feeling the pressure of increasing debt.
> 
> 
> 
> And to date, the only concrete figures produced suggest that landlords are entering the sector, not leaving.
> 
> 
> 
> A tenant also needs to be able to "buffer themselves" from the prospect of increasing rents, notices of eviction.
> 
> 
> 
> For a lot of tenants, who are one or two pay cheques away from more debt and borrowings, increasing rents to meet "market value" is financial ruin, if not, homelessness.
> 
> 
> 
> Your 'solutions' to the issues surrounding non-payment of rent are old hat 19th century.
> Eviction, and you pine for the days where custodial sentences would be more frequent.
> Evict and lock them up - recipe for violent revolt.




So to sum up outsource the management of the housing sector (but only charge a rent that we deem as acceptable which is the most the market will offer), the number of landlords are reducing despite what you think, the number of tenancies may be up but the actual number of landlords are down (due to institutional landlords registering individual tenancies)

A tenant does indeed need to buffer themselves but not at the expense of the landlord. Its a business trans plain and simple.

All mortgage holders are only one or two pay cheques away from homeless as well but sure don't worry about them so.

So your solution is homes for everybody, pay the rent/mortgage if you feel like it and if you don't you wont get evicted.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> And what is your point? You seem to think LLs should be able to charge  "market rates" without interference?
> On the other hand you are forewarning us of REITs doing exactly that.
> 
> The question is about how many LLs have quit because of rent controls.
> Nobody knows.
> You are the only one to have produced some form of figures which suggest, that since rents controls have been introduced, more LLs have entered the sector.
> 
> I know it doesn't support the narrative, but thats life!



My point is you're missing the bigger picture.


----------



## AlbacoreA

In Summary,

We have more LL entering than leaving, 
More Bigger LL, REIT
We have Rent Controls
We have lots of improvements to tenants rights and tenure, 
We have improvements to standard of accommodation,
We have the Govt initiatives on social and affordable housing,

Basically everything that was asked for is being done. No.. Why is no one happy...


----------



## The Horseman

AlbacoreA said:


> In Summary,
> 
> We have more LL entering than leaving,
> More Bigger LL, REIT
> We have Rent Controls
> We have lots of improvements to tenants rights and tenure,
> We have improvements to standard of accommodation,
> We have the Govt initiatives on social and affordable housing,
> 
> Basically everything that was asked for is being done. No.. Why is no one happy...



There are not equal protections for small landlords. All of the above are either tenant or large landlords benefits leaving the small landlord in a precarious position.


----------



## AlbacoreA

The Horseman said:


> There are not equal protections for small landlords. All of the above are either tenant or large landlords benefits leaving the small landlord in a precarious position.



Small LL are something like 85% of this market. Does it really matter if they leave....


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> The horror.



You are happy to allow large REIT LLs come into the market squeezing out small and then driving up rents more aggressively as was suggested by another poster? Yes or no? If no, then;



T McGibney said:


> if you want to quote me in this context, please do so in full sentences not random parts of phrases selected to mislead


----------



## The Horseman

AlbacoreA said:


> Small LL are something like 85% of this market. Does it really matter if they leave....



Only if you are a tenant. I am a small landlord and have spoken to work colleagues who are tenants of institutional landlords and were tenants of small landlords and all have said they preferred the small landlords than the institutional ones.

If we are driven out of the market which to date appears to be the intention then I pity any tenant of institutional landlords going forward. Be careful what you wish for as you might get it and realize that you don't want it but can't change it once you get it.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> You are happy to allow large REIT LLs come into the market ...



No one else could afford to absorb the risks being designed into the business model.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> No one else could afford to absorb the risks being designed into the business model.



Yeh, so what? If they can scale their costs squeezing out the small LL and extract a bigger return on their tenants, isn't this just the wonders of the 'free-market' working its magic?


----------



## AlbacoreA

Good luck with that.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> You are happy to allow large REIT LLs come into the market squeezing out small and then driving up rents more aggressively as was suggested by another poster? Yes or no? If no, then;



That's the consequence of the government interference that you praise and crave. I thought you supported these "property manager" REITS to whom you want to hand lock-stock-and-barrel control of private rental property administration?


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> hey you seem to have all the answers and are unwilling to accept any other viewpoint as yours is the only one that is right.



Here is a selection of my comments that show that I neither have "all the answers" and that I do share common ground on certain points.



TheBigShort said:


> I can sympathize with a landlord who is in that position,





TheBigShort said:


> Yes, I agree.





TheBigShort said:


> Yep, need to go after them for sure also.





TheBigShort said:


> State intervention is no panacea.





TheBigShort said:


> agree





TheBigShort said:


> I dont categorize all private landlords the same.





TheBigShort said:


> I have no issue with that?





TheBigShort said:


> I think there is something quite succinct in your comment above.





TheBigShort said:


> I agree, there is a mismatch between State interference and free trade enterprise





TheBigShort said:


> I agree, that is what I said.





TheBigShort said:


> I agree, that is what I said. The State has shown itself as being inadequate to manage housing.



So if you want to discuss the central issue and/or related issues, stop trolling.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> Good luck with that.



??? Im not advocating it. You forewarned that this could happen. I got the impression you thought that would be a bad thing?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Here is a selection of my comments that show that I neither have "all the answers" and that I do share common ground on certain points.
> 
> 
> So if you want to discuss the central issue and/or related issues, stop trolling.





T McGibney said:


> That's the consequence of the government interference that you praise and crave. I thought you supported these "property manager" REITS to whom you want to hand lock-stock-and-barrel control of private rental property administration?



It would appear you are the one trolling changing your stance!


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> That's the consequence of the government interference that you praise and crave. I thought you supported these "property manager" REITS to whom you want to hand lock-stock-and-barrel control of private rental property administration?



No. 

And its quite unfathomable that at this point you still dont understand what I proposed. 

One last time, brief example.

LA have a property which is suitable for rental. LA dont want to get involved in the day to day affairs. LA want somebody to manage it for them.
The property can fetch €24,000 a year rental in private market.

 All the LA want is 

- €2,500 of that and
- a guarantee that the manager will set aside €1,500pa for fixtures fittings etc. 
- altogether €4,000pa

Anyone interested?

If LA get more than one interested party, it will award the management of the house to the person who guarantees the _lowest _rent for their tenants.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> It would appear you are the one trolling changing your stance!



If that was my stance yes I would be trolling, but it is not my stance.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> How much would this cost? Again, 100,000 homes built at €250k each would cost €25 billion



Labour Party is proposing to build 80,000 houses over 5yrs at a cost of €16bn


----------



## Firefly

T McGibney said:


> I thought you supported these "property manager" REITS to whom you want to hand lock-stock-and-barrel control of private rental property administration?


Exactly!


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Labour Party is proposing to build 80,000 houses over 5yrs at a cost of €16bn



The Labour Party

The "Frankfurt's Way" Labour Party. 

You crack me up sometimes.



TheBigShort said:


> No.
> 
> And its quite unfathomable that at this point you still dont understand what I proposed.
> ...
> If LA get more than one interested party, it will award the management of the house to the person who guarantees the _lowest _rent for their tenants.



I understand it alright. Still makes no sense.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Labour Party is proposing to build 80,000 houses over 5yrs at a cost of €16bn




And exactly how are they going to finance this? The Govt tried to hide the cost of housing by setting up Approved Housing Bodies to keep the costs off the States balance sheet and was told by the IMF that the Approved Housing Bodies costs were State costs and as such resulted in Irelands debt ratio surpassing what was agreed as part of the bailout.

I don't see where the funds are going to come from to build all of these houses unless either (a) the IMF relax their rules (which I doubt as other nations most notably Greece will want similar treatment of (b) the funds come from the private sector.

I would put this down to electioneering and nothing more.

Even on a basic level assuming the figs are accurate it will cost 200k per property (this I assume will be built on State land so does not include land costs).


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> The Labour Party
> 
> The "Frankfurt's Way" Labour Party.
> 
> You crack me up sometimes.



I wasn't advocating it. Merely informing you of their proposal.

I take it you are opposed?
You are also opposed to my proposal.

Perhaps its time you proposed something to resolve the issues surrounding the housing crisis? Anything at all that you think might help?


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> And exactly how are they going to finance this?


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> ??? Im not advocating it. You forewarned that this could happen. I got the impression you thought that would be a bad thing?



Its just illogical to drive out the people most likely to want modest income. 
For those wanting to maximise their return. 
Then ask the 2nd group to accept a modest return, as per the first group that been driven out. 

I don't get it.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps its time you proposed something to resolve the issues surrounding the housing crisis? Anything at all that you think might help?



1. Scrap the post-2008 anti-investor tax & planning curbs.
2. Roll back the post-2008 building standards to year 2000 levels.
3. Cut Capital Gains Tax to 20%
4. Cut VAT on house building and renovation of derelict homes to 9%.
5. Scrap rent controls.
6. Legislate a 3-year sunset clause for actions 1-4 to incentivise quick takeup.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> Its just illogical to drive out the people



Funny how this notion should apply to LL's but if tenants can't afford the rent then thats just tough.


----------



## The Horseman

The strategic investment fund's mandate is "We are seeking to invest in transactions where we can make a difference, where the Fund’s characteristics can enable commercial investment transactions with positive economic impact and can make it an attractive “investor of choice” for company and project sponsors and advisors.

The overarching purpose of the Fund is to invest “on a commercial basis in a manner designed to support economic activity and employment in the State”.

I don't get how investing in building property using this fund as per Labours plan is going to help employment other than the builders building the properties. The purpose of the fund is a commercial one which appears at odds with building and selling property at the lowest possible cost?


----------



## Leo

> A conservative building cost estimate of €200,000 per housing unit (excluding land) is assumed, which is slightly higher than the Nevin Economic Research Institute’s estimate of €180,000 as an average for a mix of two- and three-bedroom housing.



Of course the Nevin Institute are proposing 180k would be achievable using a state owned building company!!


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Scrap the post-2008 anti-investor tax & planning curbs.
> 2. Roll back the post-2008 building standards to year 2000 levels.



Because it worked out so well the last time? 



T McGibney said:


> Cut Capital Gains Tax to 20%



This will make rent more affordable how?



T McGibney said:


> Cut VAT on house building and renovation of derelict homes to 9%.



Good idea on the renovations of derelict homes.



T McGibney said:


> Scrap rent controls.



This will make rent more affordable how?

6. - BOOM! - the bust!!


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Because it worked out so well the last time?


I miss your point here. We never previously reversed higher building standards, at least in modern times. The 2009 tax and planning measures were specifically designed to stop people and businesses investing in residential property. In that objective, they worked handsomely but the collateral damage was enormous. Time now to roll all that back.



> Good idea on the renovations of derelict homes.


Thanks.



> This will make rent more affordable how?


That's easy. Greater churn of unused properties. Actual incentive to owners to sell (or in the case of derelicts, renovate) within 3 years. Can only add to supply which should cause rents to fall, or at least stabilise.



> 6. - BOOM! - the bust!!


First we concentrate on solving the current problem. Then we can solve the next problem. Inertia based on fearing the downstream consequences of success isn't exactly an ideal starting point.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> Funny how this notion should apply to LL's but if tenants can't afford the rent then thats just tough.



My comment was you were kicking out the people best suited to the aspirations of the proposed business model. 
Its entirely different to a non viable business model. 

You are using a stick as if its a carrot and then wondering why no one is interested.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> My comment was you were kicking out the people best suited to the aspirations of the proposed business model.



Thats quite a self-centred declaration. To be clear, when you are talking about "the proposed business model" what are you talking about? The small LL business model? 
If so how have you deduced that they are the "best people"? Who determines that? 

In any event, it would appear that you are not entirely comfortable with the concept of the free-market? That you only embrace it to the point where you are happy with your slice of the pie.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> The 2009 tax and planning measures were specifically designed to stop people and businesses investing in residential property.



Admittedly I am not too au fait with the specific measures. 
I attach a Revenue report specifically about the tax treatment of landlords. I do not recognize any specific measure that is proving to be a hindrance (in general terms) to the sector.
There are of course issues raised by LL's such as apparent high taxes etc. 
But LL's wouldn't be unique in this. 

I was told earlier on by another poster who is a LL - You cant always get what you want. Complaining of such things reminds me of the spoiled child. Thats life.



T McGibney said:


> Greater churn of unused properties. Actual incentive to owners to sell (or in the case of derelicts, renovate) within 3 years. Can only add to supply which should cause rents to fall, or at least stabilise.



In theory yes, but to what extent?  Simply cutting taxes does not guarantee a fall in rental prices.
Notably in the document I attach, there is already a reduction in VAT for renovations at 13%. This has yielded an estimated 1,450 properties into the rental sector - the majority, 60,000+ being registered as privately owned. 
While another cut in VAT would bring more on stream it would hardly be anywhere near the numbers needed, albeit it is at least something.


----------



## Sophrosyne

@PaxmanK

This is a link to The Tax And Fiscal Treatment Of Rental Accommodation Providers published by the Tax Strategy Group in July 2017.

It contains some research into the rental market.

It may answer some of your questions as to why landlords are exiting the market – see page 15. I assume the reasons would equally apply to landlords in RPZs.

The report states:-

“The stock of properties available for rent (as measured by Daft.ie) has followed a consistent downward trajectory since the middle of 2010. In Dublin, there were just over 1,074 properties available to rent as of 1 May 2017, which is the lowest figure recorded since the series began in 2006.”


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> Thats quite a self-centred declaration. To be clear, when you are talking about "the proposed business model" what are you talking about? The small LL business model?
> If so how have you deduced that they are the "best people"? Who determines that?
> 
> In any event, it would appear that you are not entirely comfortable with the concept of the free-market? That you only embrace it to the point where you are happy with your slice of the pie.



Your proposed plan ....

... best people as those mostly likely to be interested in your plan.....

... Who decides? The market. Thus far it's not interested in social housing or affordable housing. Unless forced into it. Often not even then...

Nothing to do with me other than all these changes are like watching father trying to fix a dent.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> best people as those mostly likely to be interested in your plan.....



There is an easy way to solve this.
If you were offered the opportunity of managing a property, costing you €4,000pa but with potential return of up to €24,000pa, would you be interested?


----------



## AlbacoreA

I'd assume it's a scam.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> I'd assume it's a scam.



After assuming it was a scam, but then discovering it was a legitimate proposition, driven by government policy, offered by LA's not wanting to manage the upkeep of all its properties, targeting working people paying already paying high proportions of their incomes in rent, in RPZ's....would you be interested in getting involved in a scheme that will cost you €4,000pa but could yield you a potential €24,000pa.


----------



## Sarenco

Sophrosyne said:


> @PaxmanK
> It may answer some of your questions as to why landlords are exiting the market – see page 15. I assume the reasons would equally apply to landlords in RPZs.


I sincerely hope this brings this thread back on topic...

I remember being genuinely surprised that none of the recommendations/options presented by the Tax Strategy Group were reflected in last year's budget.  Seemed a wasted opportunity to me.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> I sincerely hope this brings this thread back on topic...
> 
> I remember being genuinely surprised that none of the recommendations/options presented by the Tax Strategy Group were reflected in last year's budget.  Seemed a wasted opportunity to me.



Probably something to do with most of them being nothing more than a wish list of favourable tax demands.
Ask any other sector of the economy and they could put together a similar wish list.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Sarenco referred to recommendations put forward by the Tax Strategy Group; not a wish list of landlords.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> After assuming it was a scam, but then discovering it was a legitimate proposition, driven by government policy, offered by LA's not wanting to manage the upkeep of all its properties, targeting working people paying already paying high proportions of their incomes in rent, in RPZ's....would you be interested in getting involved in a scheme that will cost you €4,000pa but could yield you a potential €24,000pa.



I guess you have to look at the local authority or govt past track record and your experiences with them and consider how likely to work out as promised or are you likely to get shafted. 

For me their track record suggests I'll regret anything they touch.


----------



## TheBigShort

I do beg your pardon. My misinterpretation. I took it to mean the answers that landlords and vested interests gave to the TSG in response to questions posed by the TSG which were predominantly answered in the format of improving the LL's lot.

I did think this was interesting

_"The provision of social housing has evolved over time from local authority housing, to 
provision via the private rented sector, to not-for-profit Approved Housing Bodies. In the long 
term, should State support for social housing take the form of subsidising a market rent 
payable by the tenant or by subsidising the construction of property to be let at a social and/or 
affordable rent to qualifying tenants?"  
_
I think the construction of property to be let at a social and/or affordable rent to qualifying tenants is interesting.
If only a way could be engineered to create a market where landlords, or even property managers, actually competed against each other to provide accommodation at affordable rents to qualifying tenants.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> I guess you have to look at the local authority or govt past track record and your experiences with them and consider how likely to work out as promised or are you likely to get shafted.
> 
> For me their track record suggests I'll regret anything they touch.



What a cop out. You think the government arent good for their money.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> What a cop out. You think the government arent good for their money.



They are certainly good for imaginary money.

Paying rent in arrears means they aren't paying the first month's rent, or providing a deposit.  

They have form....


----------



## Sophrosyne

This section of the report is relevant:

"When considering whether or not to introduce a new tax expenditure or in reviewing any existing measure, the Department of Finance’s Tax Expenditure Guidelines must be used by policy-makers for evaluating the appropriateness of introducing new measures or retaining existing measures.

Any proposals which are progressed by this Working Group will be assessed according to these guidelines.

The evaluation of tax expenditures before the introduction of a tax expenditure is called ex ante evaluation and the review of a tax expenditure that is already in existence is called ex post evaluation.

The objective of the guideline requirements is to promote high standards in tax expenditure evaluation and provide guidance and clarity to interested parties as to how the Department of Finance will approach the evaluation of new or existing tax expenditures.

As with all tax expenditures, EU State Aid regulations will also need to be considered in developing any proposed tax measures."


*In other words, irrespective of what the Government might want to do, or what others might call on it to do, it has to stay within the guidelines and be mindful of EU State Aid rules.*


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> They are certainly good for imaginary money.
> 
> Paying rent in arrears means they aren't paying the first month's rent, or providing a deposit.
> 
> They have form....



Well the good news is you wont be relying on the government to pay you, they will be relying on you to pay them...€2,500pa. 
Add in your other requirements of €1,500 and you have outgoings of €4,000pa. 
So all you have to do is check the housing surveyor structural report of the property and decide if you would be interested in a scheme that could return you anything up to €24,000pa. 
Your only concern is that other interested parties will offer to charge tenants a lower rent. 
Do you think you could compete?


----------



## Sarenco

BS

Is there any chance you could let the adults have a conversation about the subject of this thread?

Surely at this stage your apparent need to indulge in teenage rhetoric has been well and truly sated?

Pretty please?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> BS
> 
> Is there any chance you could let the adults have a conversation about the subject of this thread?
> 
> Surely at this stage your apparent need to indulge in teenage rhetoric has been well and truly sated?
> 
> Pretty please?



Sarenco

If you make a meaningful contribution to the topic, instead of trying to mud-sling (its just a waste of everyones time, its trolling and has no bearing on the topic) I will consider your request.


----------



## Sarenco

The title thread is clear. Your contributions are not. 

But they clearly have nothing to do with the title thread.

I have no interest in getting dragged down one of your many rabbit holes.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> Well the good news is you wont be relying on the government to pay you, they will be relying on you to pay them...€2,500pa.
> Add in your other requirements of €1,500 and you have outgoings of €4,000pa.
> So all you have to do is check the housing surveyor structural report of the property and decide if you would be interested in a scheme that could return you anything up to €24,000pa.
> Your only concern is that other interested parties will offer to charge tenants a lower rent.
> Do you think you could compete?



You think you'd have people competing with each other to charge lower rents in the middle of biggest shortage in the history of the state...and pay the govt to do so. 

...good luck with that. I'm out.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> You think you'd have people competing with each other to charge lower rents in the middle of biggest shortage in the history of the state...and pay the govt to do so.



In order to make a clear profit, absolutely. 

Its very common, typically known as Public-Private Partnership

"A _Public Private Partnership (PPP) is an arrangement between the public and private sectors (consistent with a broad range of possible partnership structures) with clear agreement on shared objectives for the delivery of public infrastructure and/or public services by the private sector that would otherwise have been provided through traditional public sector procurement._

_One key aspect of the PPP approach is that risk is transferred to the party that can manage it best." _

 If cant see opportunity in the figures I gave you, that would obviously rule you out of "the party that can manage it best"


----------



## AlbacoreA

The lessons you've taken from this crisis are people and REIT will choose slow steady growth over a fast buck.
The Govt want to get back into building and owning social housing and affortable housing.

Despite all evidence of the exact opposite.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> Sarenco
> 
> If you make a meaningful contribution to the topic, instead of trying to mud-sling (its just a waste of everyones time, its trolling and has no bearing on the topic) I will consider your request.


OK I'm making the same request. 

Your "proposal" has received more than enough airtime here. 

The rest of us don't bang on for pages upon pages continually seeking to justify our own ideas. 

Get off the pot.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Enough said.


----------



## robert 200

In 2014 there were 210,000 landlords in the country - now there are 170,000. If the 
government do not create an incentive for landlords to remain in the sector in the budget the homeless situation will worsen.


----------

