# Implications of SF in government for landlords



## Brendan Burgess (10 Feb 2020)




----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Feb 2020)

I am not sure what "reduce" means in "reduce and freeze rents"


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Feb 2020)

The main Section 34 grounds which will go are : 

1) The tenant faile dot coply with his obligations i.e. pay his rent
3) The landlord intends to sell the property 
4) The landlord requires the property for his own use or for his family 

So SF will create tenancies of indefinite duration where the rent is frozen and the landlord can't terminate the lease if the tenant is not paying. 

Brendan


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (10 Feb 2020)

It will take quite a few years for them to build the social houses. You can't wave a magic wand.

I don't see how they are going to reduce reliance on RAS on HAP in the meantime.


----------



## The Horseman (10 Feb 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> The main Section 34 grounds which will go are :
> 
> 1) The tenant faile dot coply with his obligations i.e. pay his rent
> 3) The landlord intends to sell the property
> ...



I personally can't see any of the above being removed. What do you think coporate landlords would do if there was widespread refusal to pay rent with no consequences. This is where the big money would take on the state via the courts. 

You can't stop somebody from selling their own property, I suspect you would have to sell it with the tenant is situ. 

Again if the landlord needs a property for their own use or family then how can the stop this. If they want to enshire housing in the constitution then what about the landlords/family members right to housing under the constitution? How would the tenants supersede the landlords right to housing?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (10 Feb 2020)

It's worth quoting Article 43 of the constitution in full:



> ARTICLE 43
> 
> 1 1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Feb 2020)

The Horseman said:


> You can't stop somebody from selling their own property, I suspect you would have to sell it with the tenant is situ.



Agree fully, but imagine trying to sell a house with a tenant in situ who has chosen to stop paying their rent?


----------



## The Horseman (10 Feb 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Agree fully, but imagine trying to sell a house with a tenant in situ who has chosen to stop paying their rent?



I personally think Sinn Fein's plans are populist. If tenants stopped paying rent enmasse the sector would just fall apart and so would the tax take. If you obtain a court judgement for non payment and the tenant disobeys the court and refuses to leave. 

I don't actually think Sinn Feins costings are actually correct and I think in the cold light of day they may realise they can't actually deliver what they said they could. 

If they try go after the rental sector expect landlords to leave and the sector to get worse. The only benefit for the tenants will be a tax credit? so what happens to the non tax compliant landlord? Expect them to sell up before any of this happens.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Feb 2020)

The quoted Irish property stocks have all fallen this morning 

IRES :8%
Glenveagh:7% 
Cairn Homes: 3% 

Brendan


----------



## galway_blow_in (10 Feb 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> The quoted Irish property stocks have all fallen this morning
> 
> IRES :8%
> Glenveagh:7%
> ...



Banks down a fair bit too


----------



## Nicklesilver (10 Feb 2020)

Don’t forget the wealth tax on all assets over 1m including your salary and pension fund.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Feb 2020)

This is what their manifesto says


Not sure if there is any further information. 

Salary is not wealth.  But pension funds certainly are.   I doubt that they plan to include pension funds. 

Brendan


----------



## odyssey06 (10 Feb 2020)

Nicklesilver said:


> Don’t forget the wealth tax on all assets over 1m including your salary and pension fund.



It says here that pensions are excluded - or maybe this is an OLD document?


			https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2013/WealthTaxProposalsWeb.pdf
		


The first 20% of the family home and the ordinary contents of the home

All business assets including land, buildings machinery that are used for generating and sustaining employment 
Shares in private trading companies 
Working farm land, livestock and bloodstock 
Pension funds
Funds from personal injury claims 
Certain pictures, prints, books, manuscripts works of art, jewels, scientific collections, gardens, trees or other land that have a national, scientific , historic or artistic value, that are kept permanently in the state and that are available for public viewing 
Property held by charities 
Social welfare payments
Deductions can be made for:

20% of the value of the family home 
Mortgage liabilities
Non-professional debts 
Credit card balances 
Bank overdrafts 
Outstanding non-professional invoices 
Outstanding tax liabilities 
The capital value of outstanding divorce settlements


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (10 Feb 2020)

FG&Lab tried to introduce a wealth tax in the 1970s. By the time the lobbying was done there were exceptions all over the place. It didn't raise very much and was pretty heavy administratively.

FF abolished it when they got into government after 1977.




It's much simpler to tax wealth when there is actually a transaction or event (CGT on sale of asset, CAT on inheritance).

Most people can't estimate their wealth with much accuracy, and being obliged to do so once a year is a big imposition.


----------



## BourbonWithIce (10 Feb 2020)

A house I have rented out to a family at well under the market rent, I have given notice on. I'm not waiting around for SF to force reduced rents on me and then block me from selling my own property. Let the government house the privately rented families going forward. I wasn't happy paying 50% tax on earnings from rental income but I paid it. But being vilified for making sacrifies to keep this investment property for my children and their futures just isn't worth it.

The first of many such moves by landlords all over the country no doubt.


----------



## galway_blow_in (10 Feb 2020)

BourbonWithIce said:


> A house I have rented out to a family at well under the market rent, I have given notice on. I'm not waiting around for SF to force reduced rents on me and then block me from selling my own property. Let the government house the privately rented families going forward. I wasn't happy paying 50% tax on earnings from rental income but I paid it. But being vilified for making sacrifies to keep this investment property for my children and their futures just isn't worth it.
> 
> The first of many such moves by landlords all over the country no doubt.



Things were restrictive enough but SF landing the housing portfolio would sink it altogether


----------



## Thirsty (11 Feb 2020)

Can one issue protective notice to tenants I wonder?


----------



## Sanparom (11 Feb 2020)

I am neither a tenant nor a landlord, so excuse my ignorance, but how can landlords justify that the cost of rent is acceptable? Where I live, the rent for 3 bed semis is around €2,500 a month. It is simply not feasible that this can continue. People can't afford these high rents and on top of that, the uncertainty as to whether the rents will increase. The ordinary person should not be penalised because they are simply trying to survive in a world where landlords have been wealthy enough to be able to buy investment properties and charge extortionate rent.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (11 Feb 2020)

Sanparom said:


> I am neither a tenant nor a landlord, so excuse my ignorance, but how can landlords justify that the cost of rent is acceptable? Where I live, the rent for 3 bed semis is around €2,500 a month. It is simply not feasible that this can continue. People can't afford these high rents and on top of that, the uncertainty as to whether the rents will increase. The ordinary person should not be penalised because they are simply trying to survive in a world where landlords have been wealthy enough to be able to buy investment properties and charge extortionate rent.



Markets exist to balance supply and demand.

High rents are a signal to people to start building new dwellings.

How else is a landlord supposed to select tenants other than the highest rent? If a landlord in your area advertised a house for €1500 she would get 200 applications. Sure, she could pick a tenant based on need or whatever but that doesn't do anything for the 199 others who want to be housed. 

Low rents won't build any houses.


----------



## BourbonWithIce (11 Feb 2020)

The issue is a supply side problem. Messing in the market will result in less landlords, less properties available for people and less supply. This will mean greater demand and drive rent prices higher again.

A rent freeze will protect renters in houses now, but what about new renters, people moving to dublin to start working, where will they go? There simply won't be any properties for them to rent or move into. This will hit employment and slow investment. When that happens, it doesn't matter about anything else. It's the economy stupid. If the economy isn't going well, there's no money to do anything. Period.

Landlords charging €2,500 a month for a three bed-semi is a disgrace and I say that as a landlord. Accidential one at that in negative equity. Who decides what is a fair rent to charge? If the government decides, do you not think that private owners and investors will up sticks immediately and leave for fear of interference, state control etc? Of course they will.

Due to a tax change on rental income some years ago (all liable for PRSI and USC) rent per month had to increase by 22% just for landlords to be left with the same money as before this tax change. Rather than the government penalising and hitting landlords consistently with red tape, legislation, rent freezes and making them out to the villian, why doesn't the government reverse the decision to make rental income liable to PRSI and USC and in return get landlords to reduce rents by 20%. Landlords are left with the same money, renters get a 20% reduction instead of the 1500 euro or (maximum of 8.5% reduction as per Sinn Fein manifesto) and that's real action there. But they won't. They will hit landlords and drive more out of the market.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Feb 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> High rents are a signal to people to start building new dwellings.



High rents also encourage more efficient use of the inadequate amount of dwellings that we have in the high demand areas.
There's just not enough dwellings and if we didn't have the high rents encouraging more sharing \ rent a rooms \ people taking smaller properties then people are maybe going to be paying less rent but commuting from much further out.


----------



## Metatron (11 Feb 2020)

I would surmise that Sinn Fein will target REIT’s ICAV’s and vulture funds that have engineered structures where they pay little or no tax on rental income, no capital gain tax, no capital acquisition tax, basically NO TAX. The other unfortunate and sometimes accidental landlords are stuck paying 40% tax on their rental income, with ever increasing regulation.

I am quite surprised that one of these type of landlords have not sued the State for illegal state aid of these funds.


----------



## Thirsty (11 Feb 2020)

"..how can landlords justify that the cost of rent is acceptable"

But why do we need to justify it?

If sell my house, no one will say a word when  its sold to the highest bidder.


----------



## The Horseman (11 Feb 2020)

Sanparom said:


> I am neither a tenant nor a landlord, so excuse my ignorance, but how can landlords justify that the cost of rent is acceptable? Where I live, the rent for 3 bed semis is around €2,500 a month. It is simply not feasible that this can continue. People can't afford these high rents and on top of that, the uncertainty as to whether the rents will increase. The ordinary person should not be penalised because they are simply trying to survive in a world where landlords have been wealthy enough to be able to buy investment properties and charge extortionate rent.



Remember in the majority of cases the landlord is also the "ordinary person" you know the plumber, electrician, taxi driver those self employed people who invested in property as a pension.


----------



## RedOnion (11 Feb 2020)

BourbonWithIce said:


> Landlords charging €2,500 a month for a three bed-semi is a disgrace


Everything in context.

Is 2,500 a month a disgrace on a house with a market value of 600k+? Or 500k+? At what point does it become 'a disgrace'? 

For the record, I'm not a landlord, not would I become one in the current environment.


----------



## Sarenco (11 Feb 2020)

The Sinn Fein Rent Freeze Bill (which passed to the second stage in the Dail before Christmas) provides that new tenancies will be set according to the Residential Tenancies Board rent index for equivalent properties within that local electoral area.

If existing tenancies could be "reset" to market levels on a similar basis, I suspect a lot of landlords would be happy enough to stay in the rental game - even if restricted from increasing rents over the following three years.

However, freezing rents on existing tenancies at below market levels is definitely going to prompt another exodus of landlords from the market.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (11 Feb 2020)

Sarenco said:


> The Sinn Fein Rent Freeze Bill (which passed to the second stage in the Dail before Christmas) provides that new tenancies will be set according to the Residential Tenancies Board rent index *for equivalent properties within that local electoral area.*



It's a side issue, but this is pretty unworkable. It is very difficult to define an equivalent property.

Location within an LEA or state of repair (for the same sqm) can see prices vary +-20% from average.


----------



## Sarenco (11 Feb 2020)

Unrealistic SF policy shocker!

Perish the thought.


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Agree fully, but imagine trying to sell a house with a tenant in situ who has chosen to stop paying their rent?


Great way of buying a house; move in as a tenant and then stop paying the rent. The landlord can't evict you so has to sell it to you at a massive discount.


----------



## fidelcastro (11 Feb 2020)

RedOnion said:


> Everything in context.
> 
> Is 2,500 a month a disgrace on a house with a market value of 600k+? Or 500k+? At what point does it become 'a disgrace'?
> 
> For the record, I'm not a landlord, not would I become one in the current environment.



I think the situation of extremely high rents, high selling prices for houses, high wages and taxes is unsustainable and will end in tears. Remember, Dublin is not London or Munich, Amsterdam, or Milan.  One day, when the large MMC companies have left,  the top 10 who pay 5Billion in corporation taxes,  we'll remember how great it was to have decent paid jobs and housing, and how we killed the golden goose.

Brexit + next recession + 200billion Govt dept + extremely unstable housing + wages = Disaster in waiting.


----------



## Sanparom (11 Feb 2020)

BourbonWithIce said:


> The issue is a supply side problem. Messing in the market will result in less landlords, less properties available for people and less supply. This will mean greater demand and drive rent prices higher again.
> 
> A rent freeze will protect renters in houses now, but what about new renters, people moving to dublin to start working, where will they go? There simply won't be any properties for them to rent or move into. This will hit employment and slow investment. When that happens, it doesn't matter about anything else. It's the economy stupid. If the economy isn't going well, there's no money to do anything. Period.
> 
> ...



Firstly, I don't appreciate being called stupid.

Secondly, there is a massive amount of people out there who are being forced to rent (for various reasons) but cannot afford the high rents and even if they're paying them, are probably living off beans on toast otherwise. Landlords themselves usually have their own homes and are not familiar with being in this situation and living through this hell. Granted, I am not a tenant myself, but I know people who are and it is extremely difficult. Where is the solution that suits everyone? There doesn't seem to be one, so what will it come down to - prioritising tenants over landlords or vice versa? Something has to give.


----------



## Sanparom (11 Feb 2020)

Thirsty said:


> "..how can landlords justify that the cost of rent is acceptable"
> 
> But why do we need to justify it?
> 
> If sell my house, no one will say a word when  its sold to the highest bidder.



Completely different scenario.


----------



## Sanparom (11 Feb 2020)

The Horseman said:


> Remember in the majority of cases the landlord is also the "ordinary person" you know the plumber, electrician, taxi driver those self employed people who invested in property as a pension.



Remember that a lot of tenants don't have any investments or security towards their pension. 

I suppose I should be shocked that so many people on this thread seem oblivious to the plight of the tenant, but then I need to remind myself that I am in a place where a lot of people have a lot of money invested in property, stocks, shares and whatever else takes your fancy. It's very hard to understand something of which you have no personal experience.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Feb 2020)

Sanparom said:


> Remember that a lot of tenants don't have any investments or security towards their pension.
> I suppose I should be shocked that so many people on this thread seem oblivious to the plight of the tenant, but then I need to remind myself that I am in a place where a lot of people have a lot of money invested in property, stocks, shares and whatever else takes your fancy. It's very hard to understand something of which you have no personal experience.



We're not oblivious to the plight of the tenant. But the real problem is the lack of housing. The high rents are a symptom of that not a cause. 
Lower rents would just exacerbate that as has been proven in city after city.
You are also prioritising existing tenants over future tenants. Freezing rents now will mean less rental properties in future, and people will use the existing properties less efficiently - why take in another housemate, why not stay somewhere bigger than you need if the rent's been frozen and locked into a below market rate.


----------



## Sanparom (11 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> We're not oblivious to the plight of the tenant. But the real problem is the lack of housing. The high rents are a symptom of that not a cause.
> Lower rents would just exacerbate that as has been proven in city after city.
> You are also prioritising existing tenants over future tenants. Freezing rents now will mean less rental properties in future, and people will use the existing properties less efficiently - why take in another housemate, why not stay somewhere bigger than you need if the rent's been frozen and locked into a below market rate.



I understand. What is the solution? Build more houses and keep rent prices as they are in the interim? And how long would that take? 

The whole bloody thing is a mess.


----------



## elcato (11 Feb 2020)

Sanparom said:


> Build more houses and keep rent prices as they are in the interim? And how long would that take?


It only took 12 to 18 months in 2008 ....


----------



## The Horseman (11 Feb 2020)

Sanparom said:


> I understand. What is the solution? Build more houses and keep rent prices as they are in the interim? And how long would that take?
> 
> The whole bloody thing is a mess.



Common sense would suggest you don't drive landlords out of the market without other alternatives to house those currently renting from the landlords.


----------



## Leo (11 Feb 2020)

Sanparom said:


> I suppose I should be shocked that so many people on this thread seem oblivious to the plight of the tenant...



Perhaps they've just read many of the other threads on this topic over the years and understand that rent controls have never worked in favour of tenants.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Feb 2020)

Sanparom said:


> I understand. What is the solution? Build more houses and keep rent prices as they are in the interim? And how long would that take?
> The whole bloody thing is a mess.



Yes it's a mess. There's a sick patient and there is only really one medicine that will cure it. 
Everything else like rent freezes is just treating the symptoms and displacing the side effects.


----------



## BourbonWithIce (11 Feb 2020)

Sanparom said:


> Firstly, I don't appreciate being called stupid.



I wasn't calling you stupid. It's a phrase, "It's the economy stupid". Its meant to emphasise the importance of a performing economy as a pre-requisite to do anything with regard to improving housing/health/education etc.


----------



## Philip S (11 Feb 2020)

I am not a renting or a landlord. Still living at home hoping to buy a house soon. No one will argue that there is not an issue with housing in Ireland. Renting should never cost more then a mortgage. If there is a house for rent the landlord will look for the rent people are willing to pay, if someone offers 2k per month for a house they wont turn it down. I also know it is simplistic to simply say if people want rent to drop stop paying the draft prices and landlords will be forced to drop prices. 
More housing is the issue but has to be build correctly and in the right mix between social, rental, affordable and open market. One idea i think was in soc dem manafesto was to ensure certain housing was affordable purchase or rental similar to current social housing rules.


----------



## cremeegg (11 Feb 2020)

Philip Slattery said:


> Renting should never cost more then a mortgage.



Is this meant as a philosophical point or a moral point ?

Leaving out the word 'should', and stepping into the world of economics, rents nearly always and every where cost more than a mortgage.



Philip Slattery said:


> I also know it is simplistic to simply say if people want rent to drop stop paying the draft prices and landlords will be forced to drop prices.



Why is this simplistic, it appears to be what you have done yourself.

In the 2000s many international retailers decided not to open new outlets in Ireland as they believed that rents were too high. MacDonalds included i think.


----------



## josh8267 (11 Feb 2020)

Nicklesilver said:


> Don’t forget the wealth tax on all assets over 1m including your salary and pension fund.



prsi and usc on landlords  is a wealth tax of sorts  through the back door by FF/FG, ,


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (12 Feb 2020)

josh8267 said:


> *prsi and usc on landlords*  is a wealth tax of sorts  through the back door by FF/FG, ,


It's an income tax!

Motor tax and LPT are wealth taxes. So is CGT of sorts as there is no allowance made for inflation.


----------



## fidelcastro (12 Feb 2020)

josh8267 said:


> prsi and usc on landlords  is a wealth tax of sorts  through the back door by FF/FG, ,


Income Tax on Rental income has been in place for FF,FG,Labour, Greens, PD's ,  durations in power etc etc.  
In other words, its accepted as a society good that taxes are paid on rental income, just like they are for ALL incomes, employments, dividends.

The rental income received today is beyond the wildest dreams of most landlords, so please quit the moaning, grow up, and lets not spend an eternity moaning about providing housing for less fortunates than ourselves.   Be happy that you CAN pay the 52% tax on your income,  and have a roof over your head.  Most of you have benefited in some-way from a leg up by the State be it from education, health, roads, libraries, and subsidies to IDA for MMC that you may work in.   You didnt get to where you are on your own.  

Unless you are fabously wealthy, and well done to you, there is a strong possibility that either your brothers,sisters, cousins, friends will find themselves at the sharp edge of the housing "situation".   The health system is beyond a joke ,  infrastructure is lacking, and the balance between State expenditure and income is JUST in balance this year, with 200Billion debt.

In Finland, a country with same population and income, they have addressed this matter. Unlike Irish people, they believe in everyone contributing according to their means into the pot.  Everybody, including your dole money, summer jobs for students, OAPS, landlords pay income tax (there is no refund at year end).   As well as this, they have the best education system in the world.









						'It’s a miracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness
					

Finland is the only EU country where homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving people homes as soon as they need them – unconditionally




					www.theguardian.com
				




Fidel.


----------



## Nicklesilver (12 Feb 2020)

For the record the self employed are paying 55% marginal tax rate on rental income. 55% makes it very difficult to pay down debt. My FG former TD did not know this on the doorstep. The only people making money out of rental income are the funds.


----------



## RedOnion (12 Feb 2020)

Nicklesilver said:


> For the record the self employed are paying 55% marginal tax rate on rental income. 55% makes it very difficult to pay down debt. My FG former TD did not know this on the doorstep. The only people making money out of rental income are the funds.


For the record, people on a higher tax rate are paying 55% marginal tax rate on rental *profits*.
If you're not making profit, you're not paying 55% tax.
Anyone paying 55% tax is making money (just they don't realise it).


----------



## Philip S (12 Feb 2020)

cremeegg said:


> Is this meant as a philosophical point or a moral point ?
> 
> Leaving out the word 'should', and stepping into the world of economics, rents nearly always and every where cost more than a mortgage.
> 
> ...



Rent should never be more then a mortgage to be a philosophical point. I pay a mortgage I have a house at the end of it if i am paying rent i have nothing to show for it at the end. So a mortgage should carry a premium for that point. In both cases you have a roof over your head but you have more control when buying over renting.


----------



## BourbonWithIce (12 Feb 2020)

Nicklesilver said:


> For the record the self employed are paying 55% marginal tax rate on rental income. 55% makes it very difficult to pay down debt. My FG former TD did not know this on the doorstep. The only people making money out of rental income are the funds.



And the government as well. Handsomely.


----------



## cremeegg (12 Feb 2020)

Philip Slattery said:


> Rent should never be more then a mortgage to be a philosophical point.


I have no idea what you mean by this.


----------



## elcato (12 Feb 2020)

Philip Slattery said:


> Renting should never cost more then a mortgage.


You are not comparing like with like. just because someone pays more in rent than the mortgage payments does not mean renting is dearer that buying. House maintenance, property tax, insurance are not factors to people who are renting.


----------



## cremeegg (12 Feb 2020)

Philip Slattery said:


> I pay a mortgage I have a house at the end of it if i am paying rent i have nothing to show for it at the end. So a mortgage should carry a premium for that point.



I absolutely agree with the first sentence.

The fact remains however that rent is almost always more expensive than a mortgage.


----------



## Dermot (12 Feb 2020)

Anyone paying 55% tax is making money (just they don't realise it)

That can be true in a lot of cases but is it worth it in certain areas of the country given all the hassle involved.

A friend of mine bought a lot of houses in the midlands in the boom for an average price of €215,000 plus legal fees,stamp duty and furnishing etc.  He would have borrowed on average €165,000 each on them.  He is not on Tracker rates.  The average rent is about €700 per month.   He has had the normal number of non payers over the years as you have in the midlands.  He has other commercial property outside dublin.  This is and was used to subsidise the the rental property.  
Overall he makes a paper profit and is paying tax at the 55% rate because he is making a paper profit when he reduces his loans.  He has very little cash flow when he pays tax and loans.  If he were to sell the houses he would now get a max average of €120,000 less selling costs and he still owes bank in the region of €90,000 each.  There are many (smaller) who are in similar situations who purchased in the boom to provide a pension and have ended up in poverty instead.

If he were to sell all including commercial property he would incur a substantial loss.  On the income side when you include bank repayments and tax and other payments its and overall negative there too.  
The reality is that outside of the big population centres its a battle to make rental pay especially for property purchase in the boom.  Many have lost the battle


----------



## Thirsty (12 Feb 2020)

Philip Slattery said:


> ...paying rent i have nothing to show for it..



This is what we need to get away from; you do have 'something' if you rent your home - a roof over your head!


----------



## BourbonWithIce (12 Feb 2020)

Most landlords are subsidising the rental property every year. They pay expenses, the tax man, repayments (interest and capital) and they are still have to paid a couple of grand on top from their own pockets to keep the house.

That's why, myself included, are selling up and leaving the rental game. Its not worth it long term to have to keep subsidising the rental property. Yes you have a  house that you can sell at the end of it all but there's a cost to that (i.e. immediate spending, cutbacks, rainy day/pension planning).


----------



## BourbonWithIce (12 Feb 2020)

If landlords aren't willing to continue to subsidise every year and sell up, where will the renters go? Who has an answer for that???


----------



## RedOnion (12 Feb 2020)

BourbonWithIce said:


> If landlords aren't willing to continue to subsidise every year and sell up


Subsidise? 
What are you subsidising? Your own investment by repaying your debt? Or am I missing something?
People seem to confuse cashflow with profit. If you can't see the difference, you shouldn't be making leveraged property investments.



BourbonWithIce said:


> where will the renters go? Who has an answer for that???


Are you planning to burn the house down, or will the same number of houses exist after all these landlords sell up?


----------



## BourbonWithIce (12 Feb 2020)

RedOnion said:


> Subsidise?
> What are you subsidising?



As I explained, if you have rental income of say 10,000, mortgage interest of say 4,000 and expenses of 2,000 and a tax bill of 2,000, this gives you a paper profit of 2,000. Yes it does. If you are interest only, you are taking a lot of risk on with a rental property for approximately 167 euro a month. 

If you are capital plus interest repayments on a mortgage, you might need to take this 2,000 paper profit each year and add 8,000 of your own money to pay the mortgage. Yes, you are repaying debt, but you are subsidising the rental property. This is what's driving landlords out of the market. 



RedOnion said:


> Are you planning to burn the house down, or will the same number of houses exist after all these landlords sell up?



No but the family I rent to cannot buy the house so the house will in all likelihood be sold to an owner occupier. That means one less house in the rental stock. If this is mirrored 5,000 times a year across the country (which would be a very conservative estimated) that means least stock, more demand and rental prices are driven higher. 

Yes of course build more social/affordable houses etc, but building estates takes time. A long time. To build an estate with 300 houses would take 5 years at a minimum. There's an estate in Carriagline with 800 houses I believe (Janeville) and it's taking the developer 9 years to complete everything. You must keep landlords in the market who are in the market right now until these houses a ready.

Giving all stick (no carrott!) to landlords is only going to exaccerbate the problem. If you don't agree with that, they please provide your logic for doing so.


----------



## RedOnion (12 Feb 2020)

BourbonWithIce said:


> If you are capital plus interest repayments on a mortgage, you might need to take this 2,000 paper profit each year and add 8,000 of your own money to pay the mortgage. Yes, you are repaying debt, but you are subsidising the rental property. This is what's driving landlords out of the market.


Yes, I'd definitely be getting out of the market with something like this! What have you got? 6% yield with 100% mortgage over 20 years? And you want that to be cashflow neutral to stay in the business of being a landlord?


----------



## BourbonWithIce (12 Feb 2020)

I tried to private message you the details for your opinion but I cannot do so.

I'd be interested in your opinion as I've followed a number of threads where you have been very knowledgable and helpful with your advice.


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2020)

Sanparom said:


> Completely different scenario.


 How? The social responsibility of providing housing at some notional "fair" rent should not fall on the individual. If you were selling your car and a rich young man offered you €10,000 and an older, poorer, father of 4 kids who really needed a car to keep his job offered you €6,000 would you sell it to the father of four or the €10k man? Would you think that the social burden of providing for the children of that poorer father should fall on you or the State?


Sanparom said:


> What is the solution?


 How about keeping property taxes and maybe increasing them and using the money to build more houses? It will also act to reduce house prices so it's a win-win for those trying to buy their own place. Broaden the tax base, tax wealth rather than income, shift away from taxing work and generally stop screwing over young people. The Shinners populist proposals will only hurt young people.


----------



## fidelcastro (12 Feb 2020)

BourbonWithIce said:


> If landlords aren't willing to continue to subsidise every year and sell up, where will the renters go? Who has an answer for that???


Might be best to follow Red Onions advice and exit .


----------



## Nicklesilver (12 Feb 2020)

With the tax rates, increased bureaucracy,  hassle, risk of not getting paid, risk of getting flat wrecked, lack of liquidity, in my opinion being a small scale residential landlord does not pay. Everything is stacked against you and it is going to get worse with a rent freeze. My advice is to get out.


----------



## Vanessa (16 Feb 2020)

Nicklesilver said:


> With the tax rates, increased bureaucracy,  hassle, risk of not getting paid, risk of getting flat wrecked, lack of liquidity, in my opinion being a small scale residential landlord does not pay. Everything is stacked against you and it is going to get worse with a rent freeze. My advice is to get out.



I agree. I have sold one proerty and the other is on the market. Just not worth the aggro


----------



## Longford (16 Feb 2020)

BourbonWithIce said:


> A house I have rented out to a family at well under the market rent, I have given notice on. I'm not waiting around for SF to force reduced rents on me and then block me from selling my own property. Let the government house the privately rented families going forward. I wasn't happy paying 50% tax on earnings from rental income but I paid it. But being vilified for making sacrifies to keep this investment property for my children and their futures just isn't worth it.
> 
> The first of many such moves by landlords all over the country no doubt.




As someone that did own 6 BTL properties,  I'm now down to one. When I saw what was what was  coming down the track 2 or 3 years ago, each time a property became ideal I sold. Looking what is now going to happen I'm completely convinced I made the right decision.


----------



## BourbonWithIce (17 Feb 2020)

Longford said:


> As someone that did own 6 BTL properties,  I'm now down to one. When I saw what was what was  coming down the track 2 or 3 years ago, each time a property became ideal I sold. Looking what is now going to happen I'm completely convinced I made the right decision.



I would be interested in hearing yr thoughts in a bit more detail please if you could share yr thought process with us. 

Did u buy at bottom, sell at top. What yields or mortgages were on each property. Where were the BTL, Dublin or other. What was the fundamentals the f yr decision making process. Was it case by case or once u sold one were the rest all being sold regardless


----------



## Longford (17 Feb 2020)

I sold at mid to top. The prime reason I sold is because with all new new rules I felt, what I could do with my property was not in my control anymore.  Also a property is worth 10 to 15% more when it's not occupied by tenant. As someone getting close to retirement I don't want to be guided by these rules. If you go through the SF housing Policy it will be almost impossible to evict a non paying tenant.


----------

