# Tax Treatment of Landlords has to be Revisited



## Always Learning (22 Dec 2022)

“I do think we need to do something for individual landlords who have stayed in the market because we can’t have a situation where for the last six years we’ve had the individual landlords leave the market. That is a concern for me to have to deal with,” said O’Brien.

Maybe some tax relief is on the way. I know this was floated before the last budget and never came to fruition, but perhaps they were just testing the water. Maybe I'm being naïve, but I do think some tax breaks are coming for smaller landlords and this seems the government are putting out the feelers to see what the public sentiment is like before pulling the trigger on something toward the end of the year.


----------



## Páid (22 Dec 2022)

He seems to be pushing this again - https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...dlords-from-exiting-the-rental-market.227264/


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Dec 2022)

Is there something  wrong with the tax treatment of landlords? 

They get full tax relief on interest paid - unlike investors in shares who get no such tax relief. 

There are some minor issues about treating LPT as a deduction and pre-letting expenses. But fixing these would not affect the decision to invest in or divest from residential property. 

So it's not fixing the tax treatment.  It would be providing some tax incentives to keep people in the market. 

But it would be far better to fix the crazy regulation of the sector and rebalance the rules to make the treatment of landlords and tenants fairer. 

Brendan


----------



## T McGibney (22 Dec 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Is there something  wrong with the tax treatment of landlords?


Yes Brendan there is. The tax treatment of rental income as "passive" or "unearned" income, for example its exclusion from eligibility for pension contribution tax relief, is highly damaging, and an illogical relic of the 1970s socialism that sought to punish investors.


Brendan Burgess said:


> They get full tax relief on interest paid - unlike investors in shares who get no such tax relief.


Red herring. It would be madness to tweak the tax system to encourage individuals to borrow to invest in shares. 


Brendan Burgess said:


> There are some minor issues about treating LPT as a deduction and pre-letting expenses. But fixing these would not affect the decision to invest in or divest from residential property.


The laws of economics suggest otherwise. Every incentive and disincentive to supply respectively affects supply.


Brendan Burgess said:


> So it's not fixing the tax treatment.  It would be providing some tax incentives to keep people in the market.


That's needed too.


Brendan Burgess said:


> But it would be far better to fix the crazy regulation of the sector and rebalance the rules to make the treatment of landlords and tenants fairer.


There's no reason why the tax system shouldn't be included in any such rebalancing. After all, it's the same ideology and prejudice that has given rise to both the crazy regulations and the punitive tax rules.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Dec 2022)

T McGibney said:


> The tax treatment of rental income as "passive" or "unearned" income, for example its exclusion from eligibility for pension contribution tax relief, is highly damaging,



It's hardly "highly damaging". 

Most people do not use up the full contribution limits on their earned income, so I doubt it would make that much difference. 

Again, if the Minister announced in the morning that he was going to allow landlords to add their rental income to their reckonable income for pension purposes, I doubt if it would affect the decisions of many landlords.

Brendan


----------



## Páid (22 Dec 2022)

I think he recognises that there is an issue with individual landlords leaving the market and he wants to address it.



Brendan Burgess said:


> But it would be far better to fix the crazy regulation of the sector and rebalance the rules to make the treatment of landlords and tenants fairer.



Maybe the Minister would like to do both (fix regulation and provide tax incentives for individual landlords).


----------



## T McGibney (22 Dec 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It's hardly "highly damaging".
> 
> Most people do not use up the full contribution limits on their earned income, so I doubt it would make that much difference.
> 
> ...


It is highly damaging Brendan.  My landlord clients have tended almost uniformly tended to recoil in horror when it's explained to them that it's impossible to shelter rental income against what for most of them is 50%+ tax. It's a perverse state of affairs when we don't have enough investment in residential property.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (22 Dec 2022)

Take the recent case in the IT where tenants are 70k in arrears (rising to 75k) plus legal fees to get them out at all (another 20k).
Then you have property market risk of an additional drop of 20-50% of the property value.
That's massive risk for any asset, is that a low risk/low yield investment?
Its starting to make Bitcoin look appealing!

Agreed addressing the risk side would make more sense but it's political poison for them so they seem to be looking at increasing the yield side to compensate some of the massive risks for small landlords.

Either way I wouldn't trust him, any tax changes can quickly be revoked when they are less desperate, it woudn't make sense to do long term investment planning around them.


----------



## The Horseman (22 Dec 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Is there something  wrong with the tax treatment of landlords?
> 
> They get full tax relief on interest paid - unlike investors in shares who get no such tax relief.
> 
> ...


We have a housing crisis which is getting worse by the day. We were able to introduce the PIP during the pandemic, we have special treatment for farmers in respect of various forms of farm relief. There appears to be an ideological resentment to landlords and to be seeing to do anything to benefit landlords. People fail to realise its those looking for a rental property who are suffering the most. 

In my opinion the way the govt has dealt with the small landlords has backfired on them spectacularly and now they are scrambling around to try do something to improve the situation. 

Ironically what people fail to realise is that the small landlord in the main is just your ordinary Joe, the local tradesman, somebody who maybe sacrificed to get a deposit together to buy an investment property, accidental landlords etc.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (22 Dec 2022)

I don't think they are scrambling around at all, it was entirely predictable, just following the trend over the last 6 years, that the approach with small landlords is leading to more and more getting out and eviction bans etc. would scare more out. This isn't new information, they knew.

What this is about in my opinion is being seen to do something, so the minister can deflect the obvious questions around driving small landlords out and cover himself.

'Well we offered them tax incentives/did our best etc.' - a last minute sticking plaster thrown too late,  still in its packet.

What has changed since the budget why didn't they implement this then?
He says himself it's a trend that has been ongoing for 6 years.


----------



## triggs (22 Dec 2022)

Crazy regulation Yes I agree.You buy a share ,get a dividend and hopefully sell with a gain.It is passive.It does not put roofs over people's heads.More importantly if you are a landlord who takes an active interest in maintaining a property your time and work is not an allowable expense.It is certainly not passive or unearned income


----------



## Always Learning (22 Dec 2022)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> What has changed since the budget why didn't they implement this then?
> He says himself it's a trend that has been ongoing for 6 years.



I think / hope that that the intention here is to introduce this idea slowly to the public, in order to avoid backlash and outrage. Landlords have been demonized over the years (rather unfairly IMO) so the government have to be careful with giving us any kind of breaks. However, as the housing crisis gets worse I do get the feeling that the court of public opinion is easing up on landlords and looking more toward the government. I think most people would be happy to support incentives for landlords if it were tied to improving circumstances for the tenant also (say capping the rent but reducing the tax to be paid so that the landlord still ends up with a bit more in his pocket and the tenant pays a little less. Just an example). I don't think it was ever intended bring these measures in at the last budget, but I think it will be introduced slowly to the public through little sound bites like that from O'Brien and it will be introduced at a later stage once people have let it settle in.



Brendan Burgess said:


> Is there something wrong with the tax treatment of landlords?



I didn't actually say there was, I'm relatively happy with my lot, although some valid arguments could be made. I'm just circulating the comments that are being made for discussion purposes. Personally, I'm a landlord so I'm biased and I would love if we were to get some incentives or tax breaks. It's only natural to want the best for your situation. I do also genuinely believe that if you want to encourage people to stay or enter it market, then incentivising people to do so is one of the best ways. If the government want private landlords to help out in allieviating the housing crisis, then they will need to encourage people to do so. Over the last few years it seems they have been trying to run people out of the scene.


----------



## KOW (22 Dec 2022)

Roughly. 
Own Apt. outright worth 270k.
Rented out to council long term lease up in 2yrs.
Rent 1520x12=18240 yearly.      Expenses approx, 3240 per annum.
Tax on 15000 roughly 7500. Profit 7500 per annum.
Bye bye as soon as lease up. Rather buy a few shares that should perform a lot better long term and are far more liquid.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (22 Dec 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Is there something wrong with the tax treatment of landlords?
> 
> They get full tax relief on interest paid - unlike investors in shares who get no such tax relief.


This is true.

But, compared to investment income an investment property is over say a two-decade horizon:
1 a lower expected return
2 a lot more work
3 a lot less liquid
4) higher risk


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Dec 2022)

Hi Coyote

Why should any of those factors affect the allowability of interest? 

If I borrow €100,00 to invest in shares and pay €6,000 a year interest on my loan, why should I pay tax on the dividends of €4,000? 

If I borrow €100,000 to invest in property and pay €6,000 interest, I can set that against the €4,000 rent. 

I can't see any reason for treating them differently.  But maybe I am missing something.

Brendan


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (22 Dec 2022)

Hi Brendan,

The reason (to be consistent with what has been going on recently) would be that the government is tasked with looking after the common good. They are currently using this part of the constitution to railroad property rights and prevent investors from selling their assets.

If investment properties in Ireland have become bad investments in the eyes of small investors and the reward does not match the risk taken, small landlords are going to exercise their property rights to sell and invest in something with a better risk/return profile. They are selling up en masse at a time of a dearth of supply.  The minister is claiming that he doesn't want this, for common good reasons.

Tax breaks then would just be another case of bending normal rules for the common good, everything is on the table at this point via this constitutional clause, once you have ripped up property rights and played that one time only card you need to consider other extraordinary options.

The obvious enticement to stay in, is what we are hearing over and over from small landlords, and that is to speed up the eviction process for non-paying tenants. That is probably the single biggest risk faced by small landlords, followed closely by the risk of changes in regulations to enforce sales with tenants in situe. But they won't do that, because the opposition will have a field day on the government 'speeding up evictions' headlines.

The risk of massive rent arrears on top of the already large property price risk in Ireland is unappealing to an undiversified small landlord with a single property, I can say that because I am one and I'm getting out, and not to 'cash in', I would ideally like to stay in long term, but the risks are just ridiculous at this point for a relatively low yielding investment, and it's mostly politics.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Dec 2022)

OK, from a fairness point of view, there should be no difference in the treatment of investors in property or investors in shares.

But if we needed more investors in shares, we can improve the tax treatment e.g. various B.E.S. schemes. 

And we need to retain landlords, so give them a tax incentive to stay.  I get that. 

Not being a landlord, I am not sure what the motivations are. But I would have thought that if they addressed the difficulty in getting non-paying tenants out and the difficulties in selling your investment, it would have far more impact than, say, allowing them contribute a percentage of their rental profits to a pension fund.

Brendan


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (22 Dec 2022)

I think a large number of small landlords that are planning to get out would agree. But they won't address those things because they all seem to go against the tide of popular opinion. Really, we need someone independent to address housing policy, for the same reasons central banks are independent, the political pressures are too great to make the best policy decisions.


----------



## Páid (22 Dec 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I can't see any reason for treating them differently. But maybe I am missing something


It's not about treating investors or landlords fairly. It's about keeping properties owned by individual landlords in the rental market. An existing vacant house can be put up for rent much faster than a house that has yet to be built. 

If (long term) rental income was not taxed at all there would be a lot more accommodation up for rent.

I don't think there would be a backlash either if more properties became available and rents decreased because of supply and demand.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Dec 2022)

Páid said:


> If (long term) rental income was not taxed at all there would be a lot more accommodation up for rent.



I agree and very little for new houses for First Time Buyers to buy either.

I would probably invest in residential property if the income were tax-free.

Brendan


----------



## Mocame (22 Dec 2022)

In my view a good proportion of landlords leaving the market is the result of a natural cycle.  Buy to let mortgages first became available in the early 1990s and the private rented sector expanded dramatically as a result.  Many landlords have paid off their mortgages and are reaching retirement.  Others kept homes which were in negative equity after the crash in 2007 and rented them out to enable them move to larger houses and now those mortgages are out of negative equity and the owners want to sell up.  

I also think the main issue which is prompting them to sell now, as opposed to an a couple of years time, or just something they plan to do at some stage in the future, is the current eviction ban and the prospect of lifetime tenancies being introduced by a future Sinn Féin government.  So landlords are thinking 'I'd better sell up asap, I can't afford to wait'.

So in that context I think a tax break will have limited impact on keeping landlords in the market, unless it is super generous which in the current political climate would be impossible.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Dec 2022)

Mocame said:


> So in that context I think a tax break will have limited impact on keeping landlords in the market, unless it is super generous which in the current political climate would be impossible.



That is the point I was trying to make.

Brendan


----------



## T McGibney (23 Dec 2022)

Well if the "current political climate"  is causing untold misery and hardship to large numbers of people, isn't it time to  change it? For starters, the State should defund the vast cast of NGO and media bodies that perpetuate it.


----------



## KOW (23 Dec 2022)

So summary.
Leave all as is and over the next three years another 49000 small landlords will be gone.
This is not a problem anyone who cant buy a house will be allocated a free house by then, Nooooooooo.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Dec 2022)

Not sure whose summary that is. 

My view is "Don't fiddle around with minor tax changes.  Fix the bigger issues first - dealing with non-payers and give a commitment that property investors will not be prevented from selling their investment when they want to after giving appropriate notice to the tenant." 

Brendan


----------



## HollyBud (23 Dec 2022)

Mocame said:


> the current eviction ban and the prospect of lifetime tenancies being introduced by a future Sinn Féin government.



there are many reason but this is by far the main one - its a step too far


----------



## The Horseman (23 Dec 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Not sure whose summary that is.
> 
> My view is "Don't fiddle around with minor tax changes.  Fix the bigger issues first - dealing with non-payers and give a commitment that property investors will not be prevented from selling their investment when they want to after giving appropriate notice to the tenant."
> 
> Brendan


This is never going to happen.


----------



## Firefly (23 Dec 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> My view is "Don't fiddle around with minor tax changes.  Fix the bigger issues first - dealing with non-payers and give a commitment that property investors will not be prevented from selling their investment when they want to after giving appropriate notice to the tenant."


Unless the above is addressed, IMO, the current situation will get worse. Also, any potential new entrants to the rental market will invest elsewhere


----------



## triggs (23 Dec 2022)

I read that the private rented sector makes up 20% of all households in Ireland(50% in Europe).Small landlords(1-2 properties) make up 53% of private rented sector and that 79% of tenants and 88% of landlords have had a positive experience(RTB).These numbers are not insignificant in the overall context of Irish housing stock.My point is this-we could debate the fairness of the Tax system ad infinitum and probably not agree in the end but we elect a Government to engineer our way around issues and stop looking over their shoulders at some Populist menace who doubtfully will  have the support to form a Government .The Government should avoid meddling with Property Rights and incentivise small landlords to help us all resolve this housing issue


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (23 Dec 2022)

triggs said:


> I read that the private rented sector makes up 20% of all households in Ireland*(50% in Europe).*


This is true perhaps in Berlin which is an outlier for Germany.

Otherwise in Europe ownership rates are roughly the same as Ireland.

Where Ireland is unusual is having a very low share of apartments.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (23 Dec 2022)

there are loads of isses here and unfortunately, the government is doing nothing on any of the issues.

You have the RTB that isn't fit for purpose. It can even handle registrations. Its too slow dealing with complaints and is very poor at enforcement.
You have accidential landlords who want out.
You have tenants with nowhere to go.
You have house prices at a level that allows most accidential landlord to now get out.
You have landlords waiting years to get a non-paying tenant out.
You have non-paying tenants leaving tens of thousands of debt behind with no recourse to the landlord and no enforcement to repay same.
You have landlords who didn't increase rent for years and are now stuck with below rent rates indefintely.
You have ECB interest rates raising rapidly and no corresponding increases in rent, thus driving more landlords out of the market.
You have taxation system @ 52% that isn't fair on all landlord types in the market. Some pay that, others pay a lot less and closer to zero for some.
You have the threat of tenancies of indefinite duration thus severly reducing the value of such assets. Again driving my landlords out.
You have government meddling with temporary RPZ for the last 6 years and here forever more.
You have government introducing eviction bans cause it's winter, yet no change in anything for springtime when evictions can recommence (hopefully!)


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (23 Dec 2022)

Was it intended to do 12 of these in a 12 days of Christmas theme?

Noted that there is no Partridge - he came back from Dubai and couldn't get his pear tree back


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (23 Dec 2022)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Was it intended to do 12 of these in a 12 days of Christmas theme?
> 
> Noted that there is no Partridge - he came back from Dubai and couldn't get his pear tree back


You picked up on that, well done


----------



## moneymakeover (24 Dec 2022)

What about USC?

The Universal Social Charge (USC) is a tax payable on gross income
So if I have 100k of income (including say 30k rental income) I pay USC on entire 100k despite the fact I might have zero net income!

The purpose of government and tax policy is to tweak tax policy to address issues such as social issues eg homelessness
That's why landlords should get additional relief.
Just like big funds get relief to build apartments.


----------



## T McGibney (24 Dec 2022)

moneymakeover said:


> What about USC?
> 
> The Universal Social Charge (USC) is a tax payable on gross income
> So if I have 100k of income (including say 30k rental income) I pay USC on entire 100k despite the fact I might have zero net income!
> ...


You make great points but sorry, your last sentence is nonsense.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (24 Dec 2022)

T McGibney said:


> You make great points but sorry, your last sentence is nonsense.


Tax policy always and everywhere has the dual purpose of raising money while also favouring some forms of economic/social activity over others.


----------



## Knuttell (3 Jan 2023)

Tax relief for landlords on fridges in bid to halt exodus from rental market









						Tax relief for landlords on fridges in bid to halt exodus from rental market in Ireland
					

Landlords will be able to write off the cost of purchasing cookers, fridges and washing machines against tax under plans considered by government.




					www.independent.ie
				





I wasn't aware I couldn't claim on replacing such items as washing machines etc, what am I missing?


----------



## T McGibney (3 Jan 2023)

Knuttell said:


> I wasn't aware I couldn't claim on replacing such items as washing machines etc, what am I missing?


Nothing, He's talking through his behind.

Especially this bit.


> “It could be white goods and those type of things like your fridges, your cookers, all those type of things that previously you were allowed to write that off against tax *but you’re not now*.”



My guess is that someone misbriefed him for the craic.


----------



## imalwayshappy (3 Jan 2023)

Knuttell said:


> Tax relief for landlords on fridges in bid to halt exodus from rental market
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It appears you would be able to claim the full amount of the cost as opposed to a capital allowance over 8 years etc. that would be my view, its the same pie but you are slicing it differently...


----------



## T McGibney (3 Jan 2023)

imalwayshappy said:


> It appears you would be able to claim the full amount of the cost as opposed to a capital allowance over 8 years etc. that would be my view, its the same pie but you are slicing it differently...


That's not what he said though.


----------



## Knuttell (3 Jan 2023)

Really bizarre that he doesn't know this. He is the Housing minister looking at tweaking tax on rental income and not only does he get it sideways its a pretty useless enticement.


----------



## Greenbook (3 Jan 2023)

I think that is what he means - it is 12.5% of the cost over 8 years currently, he'll move it to 100% in the year you incur the expenditure. T.Gibney is correct, though, that is not what he said. This doesn't exactly inspire confidence - the housing minister doesn't understand a key part of the rental tax system


----------



## Towger (3 Jan 2023)

Knuttell said:


> I wasn't aware I couldn't claim on replacing such items as washing machines etc, what am I missing?


Nothing.  It appears the minister does not know what he is talking about.


----------



## Knuttell (3 Jan 2023)

Bizarre, talking convincingly like he knows what he's on about but displays the most fundamental lack of knowledge on a matter he claims to be looking to tweak the tax on.

No wonder its all gone to pot.


----------



## Greenbook (3 Jan 2023)

Knuttell said:


> Bizarre, talking convincingly like he knows what he's on about but displays the most fundamental lack of knowledge on a matter he claims to be looking to tweak the tax on.
> 
> No wonder its all gone to pot.


Yes, this is the equivalent  of Simon Harris' 19 other coronaviruses!

It is no wonder things are so bad if this is the level of understanding the Minister is displaying. It is also no wonder that he keeps applying Threshold's and Sinn Fein's 'solutions' to the rental market. He may not have the intellectual capacity to come up with feasible solutions himself


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (3 Jan 2023)

if he wanted to deal with the rental crisis, two things. speed up evicting bad and non-paying tenants, and reduce the tax take on landlords or at least seek to level up the playing field. There's one think he doesn't need to do, and that is meddling with changes and threats to landlords. It's counter productive and saps all confidence and investment in the sector.


They cannot attract new investment into the sector despite record rents (why, he should ask?!) and they cannot retain existing investment in the sector (again, he should ask why?!)


----------



## Greenbook (3 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> if he wanted to deal with the rental crisis, two things. speed up evicting bad and non-paying tenants, and reduce the tax take on landlords or at least seek to level up the playing field. There's one think he doesn't need to do, and that is meddling with changes and threats to landlords. It's counter productive and saps all confidence and investment in the sector.
> 
> 
> They cannot attract new investment into the sector despite record rents (why, he should ask?!) and they cannot retain existing investment in the sector (again, he should ask why?!)


Yes, a landlord who is planning on leaving due to over regulation, threats of future adverse changes etc. is not going to change his or her mind because of the ability to write off a €400 washing machine in one year as opposed to eight years. Likewise, no one is going to be lured into investing in residential property because of this tax 'break'. It is more tinkering around the edges.


----------



## nest egg (3 Jan 2023)

Knuttell said:


> Really bizarre that he doesn't know this. He is the Housing minister looking at tweaking tax on rental income and not only does he get it sideways its a pretty useless enticement.


He should ask his fellow TDs.








						Almost 80 TDs and Senators are landlords, landowners or both
					

Register of Members’ interests for Dáil and Seanad indicates substantial portfolios




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## The Horseman (3 Jan 2023)

Why are they so reluctant to actually bite the bullet and listen to landlords?

The three main issues for me is tax, inability to evict non paying tenants and the rpz while simultaneously expecting me to invest without a corresponding return.


----------



## Leo (3 Jan 2023)

The Horseman said:


> Why are they so reluctant to actually bite the bullet and listen to landlords?


Politicians chase votes, landlords don't speak up in big enough numbers or through effective lobby groups.


----------



## Knuttell (3 Jan 2023)

On the basis of advice from my accountant (CIMA) I have been writing such costs off in year one, accountant said its too messy tracking a washing machine over 8 years and I agreed with him.


----------



## The Horseman (3 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> Politicians chase votes, landlords don't speak up in big enough numbers or through effective lobby groups.


Fair enough but surely they are not that stupid to realise if they improved the rental supply (or a min kept it stable) it would win them some votes?


----------



## Leo (3 Jan 2023)

The Horseman said:


> Fair enough but surely they are not that stupid to realise if they improved the rental supply (or a min kept it stable) it would win them some votes?


The challenge is how to increase supply at a scale that would be noticed. They have no easy answers to that right now.


----------



## T McGibney (3 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> The challenge is how to increase supply at a scale that would be noticed. They have no easy answers to that right now.


They have. 

Build, build, build.

But they're scared of doing that as they'd be criticised for it.


----------



## Leo (3 Jan 2023)

T McGibney said:


> They have.
> 
> Build, build, build.
> 
> But they're scared of doing that as they'd be criticised for it.


That indeed is the solution, I just doubt the incumbent government (or any near term viable alternative) have the capacity to deliver in meaningful numbers even if they had the will.


----------



## T McGibney (3 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> That indeed is the solution, I just doubt the incumbent government (or any near term viable alternative) have the capacity to deliver in meaningful numbers even if they had the will.


Governments can never deliver housing in meaningful numbers. All they can do is get out of the way of the private sector.
But I'm told I perhaps best avoid commenting on same


----------



## Laughahalla (3 Jan 2023)

So he thinks the problem could be fixed with tax relief on white goods. With this sort of talent we're all doomed I tells ya , doomed..


----------



## The Horseman (3 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> The challenge is how to increase supply at a scale that would be noticed. They have no easy answers to that right now.


There are two challenges one is as you correctly reference is to increase supply the other which is easier to achieve is stop the loss of existing supply.


----------



## The Horseman (3 Jan 2023)

T McGibney said:


> Governments can never deliver housing in meaningful numbers. All they can do is get out of the way of the private sector.
> But I'm told I perhaps best avoid commenting on same


People don't want to hear common sense. Sense however is not as common as we think.


----------



## Greenbook (3 Jan 2023)

Darragh O'Brien now saying that being a small landlord is a very expensive business. That is a bit of a turn round. Previously, it was the most lucrative business ever - money for jam.


----------



## Mocame (3 Jan 2023)

I heard from a friend who has shall we say 'links to the government' that the eviction ban will definitely be extended in March.  They have no other ideas for stopping the exodus of small landlords and therefore no way to stop the increase in homelessness which will come inevitably come when more landlords sell up.  No tax breaks for landlords without reductions in rents apparently.  There you have it folks.


----------



## Knuttell (3 Jan 2023)

Mocame said:


> I heard from a friend who has shall we say 'links to the government' that the eviction ban will definitely be extended in March.  They have no other ideas for stopping the exodus of small landlords and therefore no way to stop the increase in homelessness which will come inevitably come when more landlords sell up.  No tax breaks for landlords without reductions in rents apparently.  There you have it folks.


Surprised there has not been a High Court challenge to what is essentially interference in landlords property rights.


----------



## Mocame (3 Jan 2023)

I am now a lawyer but I feel a challenge would probably win.  The issue is who would take it? The Irish Property Owners Association are absolutely useless and no one is representing small landlords.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (3 Jan 2023)

Mocame said:


> I am now a lawyer but I feel a challenge would probably win.  The issue is who would take it? The Irish Property Owners Association are absolutely useless and no one is representing small landlords.


Some of the people who have come back from short term trips abroad and can't take repossesion of their property and are homeless would have the strongest case you'd imagine, but would they have the funding or be organised enough to do some kind of class action?


----------



## Knuttell (3 Jan 2023)

Could be something as simple as a gofund me page to raise funds. Don't know much about IPOA as don't hear much from them but surely they should be leading the charge on this, this constant interference needs to stop. Govt under successive incompetent housing minister's have been riding roughshod on us for too long


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (3 Jan 2023)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> enough to do some kind of class action?


AFAIK not possible under Irish law.

A landlord (private or institutional) would have to lose at the RTB and challenge it in court.

I presume this would be a pretty costly exercise.


----------



## ClubMan (3 Jan 2023)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Some of the people who have come back from short term trips abroad and can't take repossesion of their property and are homeless would have the strongest case you'd imagine, but would they have the funding or be organised enough to do some kind of class action?


One woman in the Irish Times?
Or is there a tsunami that we're not aware of?


----------



## ClubMan (3 Jan 2023)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> AFAIK not possible under Irish law.


Correct. Still not yet possible.








						Enterprise Committee to resume pre-legislative scrutiny of the Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers Bill, 2022
					

The Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment will meet on Wednesday September 14th, to resume pre-legislative scrutiny of the Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers Bill, 2022.



					www.oireachtas.ie


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (3 Jan 2023)

ClubMan said:


> One woman in the Irish Times?
> Or is there a tsunami that we're not aware of?


I thought I read a couple of similar stories but it's a moot point if class actions are not possible.
But it would only take one challenge, maybe she could do a gofundme and get supported by small landlords nationwide.


----------



## Feemar5 (3 Jan 2023)

A lot of landlords are leaving the market because they fear that regulations will be introduced whereby they cannot dispose of their property when they want to.   Of course proper notice would have to be given to tenants but it is the landlord's property and they should be able to get it back if they want it.   RTB are not fit for purpose - if rent is not paid there doesn't appear to be any definite way to get troublesome tenants out - also there is a problem where landlords try to keep tenants deposit when it should be returned - RTB should be dealing with deposits.   It is not a landlords responsibility to supply housing, that is the governments/councils job and if this was done there would be less demand for private rented accommodation.


----------



## ClubMan (3 Jan 2023)

Feemar5 said:


> It is not a landlords responsibility to supply housing


It's not their responsibility, but it's the business that they chose to engage in.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (3 Jan 2023)

ClubMan said:


> It's not their responsibility, but it's the business that they chose to engage in.


Under specific terms and conditions, covered by a rental lease. Admittedly subject to political risk which one foolishly might not have suspected was a major concern in Ireland as opposed to say some Banana Republic, we are all living and learning. 

Anyway I'm off to buy a Porsche washing machine, tenants will be delighted!


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (3 Jan 2023)

The Horseman said:


> Why are they so reluctant to actually bite the bullet and listen to landlords?
> 
> The three main issues for me is tax, inability to evict non paying tenants and the rpz while simultaneously expecting me to invest without a corresponding return.


Because SF will batter them saying they are pro landlord and anti renter/tenant/young person. 

The more landlords that the SF rhetoric drives out of the marketplace, the more popular they become. That's how messed up the whole situation is. And once these landlords are gone, they are not coming back. But SF if they get into government will have to try and find some fix. Perhaps they are hoping for a huge house price crash or recession and this state construction company who'll build 100,000 houses will actually have the trades people unemployed to actually do this. Who will pay for it.....well, crucify the workers, let them pay for it all.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (3 Jan 2023)

The Horseman said:


> Fair enough but surely they are not that stupid to realise if they improved the rental supply (or a min kept it stable) it would win them some votes?


There needs to be a tax cut in return for a freezing of rents by landlords or cutting rents. It goes completely unnoticed that the Exchequer takes over 50% of tenants monthly rent and it's the landlords that are vilified.


----------



## LS400 (3 Jan 2023)

I kinda like Darragh O Brien, in the sense that, I think he wants to do the right thing, but I have to say, I actually had a laugh when I heard about the the tax relief that would sway a property owner from leaving the dysfunctional rental market, and then, I got a little embarrassed for him in thinking this is his great plan, and then, I realised I’m one of the property owners sitting on the fence, and then I got flipping annoyed at the insult to ones intelligence,

I propose this, 
The first €1250 rental income is reduced tax to a new band of 12:5% anything over, and the full amount is subject to 48% max.
RTB is disbanded as let’s call it what it is, an absolute disgrace
Tenants to be held accountable for non payments and the trashing of the property
Eviction to be seen as a realistic option for above issue
Rogue landlords have their property taken over by the state..no ifs or butts, do it right, or get out of the market
Rent a room should be taxed at the 12.5%, again anything over the €1250 and full tax should apply.. 

I let a 700sqft 1 bed in Dublin for €1250, they have lovely kitchen, large bedroom, updated bathroom and living room, and cost me €130k some years ago, I pay top rate of tax on it and have limited control, earn half the yearly rent, and fix any problems that arise, yet someone can let out their 10\6 pokey box room, €1400 tax free and can turf them out anytime if they act the maggot, enjoying  a windfall of rent. It’s totally messed up

Fixing the points above would see me getting off that fence, and continue with the providing of a good clean property, at a fair rent for everyone concerned.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (3 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> The challenge is how to increase supply at a scale that would be noticed. They have no easy answers to that right now.


It's not increasing supply is the urgent issue. The urgent issue is stopping the exodus of landlords from the market. At a time when demand for rental accomodation and markets rents are highest ever.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (3 Jan 2023)

T McGibney said:


> They have.
> 
> Build, build, build.
> 
> But they're scared of doing that as they'd be criticised for it.


Can you tell me where the people who actually will do the building are at this moment in time? Are they on the dole? Or living in Canada or Australia? Will they leave the private sector and come take a public sector job?

This is always the solution, but I've yet to hear anyone actually provide the detail on it. That fella Rory Hearne peddles this rhetoric constantly and never explains any detail.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (3 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> It's not increasing supply is the urgent issue.


Of course it is.

Suppose a very clever alien race built half a million homes overnight dotted all over Ireland.
Rents would collapse and homelessness would all but disappear. There would be zero need for rent controls as housing would be affordable for everyone.

Once you have enough supply the distribution takes care of itself.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (3 Jan 2023)

Greenbook said:


> Darragh O'Brien now saying that being a small landlord is a very expensive business. That is a bit of a turn round. Previously, it was the most lucrative business ever - money for jam.


Pity the fool didn't realise than prior to the budget last year. He wants to do some kite flying now to "encourage" landlords to stay in the sector come April when the eviction bans ends. Promising to look at taxation of landlords in October 2023 for the tax year 2024. Another eviction bans next November again. A total bluffer of a minister.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (3 Jan 2023)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Of course it is.
> 
> Suppose a very clever alien race built half a million homes overnight dotted all over Ireland.
> Rents would collapse and homelessness would all but disappear. There would be zero need for rent controls as housing would be affordable for everyone.
> ...


It's not about increasing supply in the immediate term. Building a house will take 12-18 months.

The pressing issue is 1st April 2023 when the eviction bans ends. They'll have thousands of rentals being evicted and houses up for sale. No houses started to be built tomorrow will replace these houses. That's the pressing issue right now. 

Could medium term it's about increasing supply but it's not short term.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (3 Jan 2023)

He doesn't want to actually do anything to keep small landlords in, other than failed token gestures that he can point to later in his defense when accused of doing nothing. Anything meaningful that helps small landlords will be seized upon by the opposition. This is as clear as day at this point. 

At this stage they will revoke property rights altogether rather than do anything that yields more support to Sinn Fein.

There was a good article in the examiner that summarised issues for small landlords:








						Rents are at a record high, so why are private landlords quitting the market in droves?
					

Penalties outweigh any incentives for small landlords




					www.irishexaminer.com
				




The minister is well aware, he is just playing politics in his own and his party cronies interests.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (3 Jan 2023)

ClubMan said:


> It's not their responsibility, but it's the business that they chose to engage in.


Correct. But then the government changed all the rules. Rental income subject to prsi and USC. Tenancies of indefinite duration introduced. Eviction  ban introduced. Threats of not getting vacant possession of their property until the tenant decided. Introduced temporary RPZ that are never going to be removed. 

They chose work hard and invest their money, maybe provide a pension for themselves and are vilified for it. Good point well made Clubman


----------



## ClubMan (3 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Good point well made Clubman


Thanks.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Can you tell me where the people who actually will do the building are at this moment in time? Are they on the dole? Or living in Canada or Australia? Will they leave the private sector and come take a public sector job?
> 
> This is always the solution, but I've yet to hear anyone actually provide the detail on it. That fella Rory Hearne peddles this rhetoric constantly and never explains any detail.


Where has Rory Hearne, the former People Before Profit election candidate, advocated a loosening of planning and building standards regulations, and the sharp cutting of taxes on capital gains and development land profits, to incentivise those builders who are now messing around with mickey mouse house renovation, farm and commerical projects to return to doing what they do best?


----------



## Leo (4 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> It's not increasing supply is the urgent issue. The urgent issue is stopping the exodus of landlords from the market. At a time when demand for rental accomodation and markets rents are highest ever.


No the fundamental issue remains the lack of supply, everything else is just distraction. For years we have delivered significantly less housing than needed. Estimates in recent years suggest we need 50k+ houses per annum, for the last number of years we have delivered less than half that, in that context, less than 6000 landlords leaving the market isn't great news, but some of those will be the accidental landlords caught in the boom taking advantage of high property prices in advance of a predicted recession and not all of those properties will leave the rental market. The bigger landlords continue to get bigger with the institutional players continuing to expand their portfolios


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Jan 2023)

T McGibney said:


> Where has Rory Hearne, the former People Before Profit election candidate, advocated a loosening of planning and building standards regulations, and the sharp cutting of taxes on capital gains and development land profits, to incentivise those builders who are now messing around with mickey mouse house renovation, farm and commerical projects to return to doing what they do best?


Where has he??? On the tonight show on Virgin Media pretty much once a week, on his instagram page, in his articles on the Journal, in his artilces in the Examiner newspaper, and whenever he is on the radio. He says the solution is to create a state construction company, but never explains where the builders, blocklayers, electricians, plumbers, scaffolders, plasterers, painter, engineers, architects, draughtsmen, roofers, carpenters etc are currently who will be employed by this company. Also, what pay rates they will get and if coming from the private sector, how will he attract them to the public sector? And also, what happens to private sector building supply if all these people leave for the public sector? Or does he just want to abandon private sector building and do all public sector building.............if so, whose going to pay for all these houses?

Its very irratating to see so called experts putting forward this as the solution when it's naive to say the least. The problem and challenge is a lot more complex and interdependent that he puts forward. I'd like to see him break it down and explain the process of doing what he suggests, but that'll never happen.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Where has he??? On the tonight show on Virgin Media pretty much once a week, on his instagram page, in his articles on the Journal, in his artilces in the Examiner newspaper, and whenever he is on the radio. He says the solution is to create a state construction company, but never explains where the builders, blocklayers, electricians, plumbers, scaffolders, plasterers, painter, engineers, architects, draughtsmen, roofers, carpenters etc are currently who will be employed by this company. Also, what pay rates they will get and if coming from the private sector, how will he attract them to the public sector? And also, what happens to private sector building supply if all these people leave for the public sector? Or does he just want to abandon private sector building and do all public sector building.............if so, whose going to pay for all these houses?
> 
> Its very irratating to see so called experts putting forward this as the solution when it's naive to say the least. The problem and challenge is a lot more complex and interdependent that he puts forward. I'd like to see him break it down and explain the process of doing what he suggests, but that'll never happen.


I share your scepticism of Hearne but unless I'm sorely mistaken he has never advocated

- loosening  planning and building standards regulations,
- cutting capital gains and development land profits taxes
- otherwise incentivising current and would-be private builders

so I'm still puzzled why you claimed that Hearne peddles my rhetoric on housebuilding?


----------



## T McGibney (4 Jan 2023)

LS400 said:


> Rogue landlords have their property taken over by the state..no ifs or butts, do it right, or get out of the market


This idea is one of the worst that I have ever read, here or elsewhere. If implemented, it would overnight, not only undermine but totally obliterate the housing market.

If you direct terrorism or sell drugs from your property, you won't have your property confiscated by the State. Yet you're suggesting that such a penalty should attach to breaching tenancy legislation?

No sane property owner, individual or corporate, nor any of their lenders, would expose themselves to such a catastrophic risk.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> No the fundamental issue remains the lack of supply, everything else is just distraction. For years we have delivered significantly less housing than needed. Estimates in recent years suggest we need 50k+ houses per annum, for the last number of years we have delivered less than half that, in that context, less than 6000 landlords leaving the market isn't great news, but some of those will be the accidental landlords caught in the boom taking advantage of high property prices in advance of a predicted recession and not all of those properties will leave the rental market. The bigger landlords continue to get bigger with the institutional players continuing to expand their portfolios


You are very naive to think that 6000 landlords leaving the sector annually isn't an issue. It's a major issue for currently renters and future renters. It's a major issue for people are working currently but not in a position or unwilling to purchase a property suitable to their needs. It's a problem when the 6000 landlords leaving are being replaced by a couple of hundred (at best!) entering the rental sector. It's a problem when the ones leaving are non-institutional or 'mom and pop' landlords who are highly likely to charge towards the lower end of the rental price range. Institutional landlords are a more recent phenomenon and are concentrated in urban areas like Dublin, Cork and to a lesser extent Galway and Limerick only. They also charge 'market rent' which are much much higher than those 'mom and pop' landlords. To argue otherwise is very naive.

Yes, some landlords will leave the sector regardless of any tax changes etc. That's a normal market. You have landlords leaving and entering the market. If you have a situation like now, with huge swathes of landlords leaving, few entering, that's a systemic problem that is not be rectified. Putting a ban on evictions isn't solving the problem. It's like a dam that is building up more pressure and will result in an avalanche of homelessness in the near future. There's minimal investment into the rental sector from non-institutional investors at a time when rent are astronomical. Why is that? Another systemic problem that isn't being resolved. They aren't entering because of the risk to their investment. Excessive regulation and constant changing of the rules. And so the problem gets worse and worse and all the while, nothing is actually being done about the problem, apart from talking about the problem.


1)  Stop landlords in the game from leaving, by engaging with them and give them something for something. Another poster suggested setting rents at €1250 a month and it's tax free. A landlord would be in the same position in such a scenario as someone currently charging €2500 a month (non-mortgaged property). The tenant would benefit hugely and I would suggest there's a small percentage of non-institutional investors actually charging in the region of €2500 per month, so landlords would also benefit to varying degrees.
2) Start charging REITS a tax on profits or rental income. Nothing huge, but have them ACTUALLY pay something.
3) Invest in the RTB or a fit for purpose body to speedily enable landlords to evict non-paying tenants. Also, establish a database for rogue tenants and landlords to benefit the sector as a whole.

I'm not a genius, but the above three steps, hell even the first step, would make tenants lives a lot easier and benefits a huge proportion of landlords without any immediate increase in supply. But at least the build up would ease a little.

Then you can start looking at increasing supply and attracting investment into the sector. At the moment, it's like trying to catch a speeding car, you might catch it eventually, but you are going to spend a lot of energy and time trying to catch it than if it was stationary or much slower moving.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Jan 2023)

T McGibney said:


> so I'm still puzzled why you claimed that Hearne peddles my rhetoric on housebuilding?


i never said he peddles "your rhetoric".


----------



## T McGibney (4 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> i never said he peddles "your rhetoric".





PebbleBeach2020 said:


> That fella Rory Hearne peddles this rhetoric constantly and never explains any detail.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Jan 2023)

LS400 said:


> Rogue landlords have their property taken over by the state..no ifs or butts, do it right, or get out of the market



This is a bonkers far left proposal to beat all others alright. In tandem to do, would you suggest that non-paying, troublesome tenants should be immediately evicted and no assistance from the state be given to their housing needs again. No ifs or butts, tenants do it right, or get out on the street? What's good for the goose, is it good for the gander LS400?


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> i never said he peddles "your rhetoric".





PebbleBeach2020 said:


> That fella Rory Hearne peddles this rhetoric constantly and never explains any detail.



Yes, he peddles the rhetoric of what I said in the preceeding paragraph of post number 77. Not your post or what you said, you are confused.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Yes, he peddles the rhetoric of what I said in the preceeding paragraph of post number 77. Not your post or what you said, you are confused.


If I am confused, it's with good reason as you literally quoted a post on mine in that post.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Jan 2023)

T McGibney said:


> If I am confused, it's with good reason as you literally quoted a post on mine in that post.


you are going down a rabbit hole here and taking the discussion off topic. I was refering to your suggest "build build build". 

I agree with you, this is the ultimate solution but it's not something that's going to deliver in the next 3-6 months. It will deliver at best in 12 or 18 months time at the earliest. I'm suggesting ideas that can have an immediate impact right now, today and tomorrow. The three points in post number 89, point 1 especially, is something that can be brought in very quickly, and is something that alleviates the pressure both on landlords and tenants. It gets rents down quickly and can a very significant amount. And also rewards/encourages/entices/benefits (whatever word you prefer) landlords to stay in the game until your "build build build" solution starts bearing fruit.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> you are going down a rabbit hole here and taking the discussion off topic. I was refering to your suggest "build build build".


That's fair enough, but you shouldn't have linked me with Hearne. My version of "build build build" is clearly different from his.

To answer your original question, the boom that suddenly took flight in 1997 & 1998 will recur whenever the government gets its act together and allows private housebuilding to resume on a large scale. The country is full of under- and mis-employed builders and tradesmen working in occupations as diverse as domestic retrofitting, hotel/nursing home maintenance, farming, factory work, supermarkets & shops, security industry etc, all of whom would jump at an opportunity to return to more lucrative work in construction.



PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I agree with you, this is the ultimate solution but it's not something that's going to deliver in the next 3-6 months. It will deliver at best in 12 or 18 months time at the earliest.


It will take a lot longer than that for any solution to work properly. You don't unwind 15 years of bad policy in a few years. But we must have patience.


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> The three points in post number 89, point 1 especially, is something that can be brought in very quickly, and is something that alleviates the pressure both on landlords and tenants. It gets rents down quickly and can a very significant amount. And also rewards/encourages/entices/benefits (whatever word you prefer) landlords to stay in the game until your "build build build" solution starts bearing fruit.


Point 1 definitely would help. But imposing higher taxes on REITs and putting "rogue landlords" on a register like sex offenders would do the opposite.


----------



## jpd (4 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> 2) Start charging REITS a tax on profits or rental income. Nothing huge, but have them ACTUALLY pay something.


You seem to have forgotten that the purpose of a REIT is to supply housing by gathering funds from private individuals and corporations and planning, building and managing housing units (usually, but not exclusively appartments) 

85% or more of the profits have to be returned as dividends to the investors who pay income tax and USC on this income

So it is not true that profits from REITs are untaxed - they are taxed in the hands of the eventual beneficiaries


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Jan 2023)

jpd said:


> You seem to have forgotten that the purpose of a REIT is to supply housing by gathering funds from private individuals and corporations and planning, building and managing housing units (usually, but not exclusively appartments)
> 
> 85% or more of the profits have to be returned as dividends to the investors who pay income tax and USC on this income
> 
> So it is not true that profits from REITs are untaxed - they are taxed in the hands of the eventual beneficiaries


taxed if shareholders are resident in ireland. In a lot, likely the vast majority of REITS, this is not the case. So there's no tax collected in Ireland.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Jan 2023)

T McGibney said:


> To answer your original question, the boom that suddenly took flight in 1997 & 1998 will recur whenever the government gets its act together and allows private housebuilding to resume on a large scale. The country is full of under- and mis-employed builders and tradesmen working in occupations as diverse as domestic retrofitting, hotel/nursing home maintenance, farming, factory work, supermarkets & shops, security industry etc, all of whom would jump at an opportunity to return to more lucrative work in construction.


I find it hard to believe there's thousands of such workers who would be willing to return to construction sector who haven't already done so at this stage. The money to be earned is construction is multiples of what can be eared in farming, supermarkets and shops, security etc. Likely there are other reasons for staying away, if that's the case.


----------



## Leo (4 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> You are very naive to think that 6000 landlords leaving the sector annually isn't an issue.


Perhaps have a read of what I said again. AT no point did I suggest it wasn't an issue, just that it's not the fundamental or primary issue. 

It's estimated that approaching 6,000 left last year, but that's double the number of the year before and is likely an anomaly based on pending recession and very high property prices. Sure, some are scared of what legislation might come, but many others, including posters on here continue to invest in BTLs. 



PebbleBeach2020 said:


> They also charge 'market rent' which are much much higher than those 'mom and pop' landlords. To argue otherwise is very naive.


Are you suggesting that a smaller private landlord putting a new house on the market is not seeking market rent? Anything to suggest that is widespread?



PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Yes, some landlords will leave the sector regardless of any tax changes etc. That's a normal market. You have landlords leaving and entering the market. If you have a situation like now, with huge swathes of landlords leaving, few entering, that's a systemic problem that is not be rectified.


Do you have numbers on the total number of tenancies registered in 2022 versus previous years? I searched but the latest data I could find was from 2020.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I find it hard to believe there's thousands of such workers who would be willing to return to construction sector who haven't already done so at this stage. The money to be earned is construction is multiples of what can be eared in farming, supermarkets and shops, security etc. Likely there are other reasons for staying away, if that's the case.


Well very few of them are willing to commute to Dublin for starters.  The new Benefit in Kind hikes from 1 January will depress that number even further. And there is practically no new housebuilding in a lot of the provinces.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (4 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> Perhaps have a read of what I said again. AT no point did I suggest it wasn't an issue, just that it's not the fundamental or primary issue.


It's 6,000 a year, which equates to a quarter of the current supply of 24,000 units. Seems like a fairly fundamental issue. 86% of tenancies registered according to the RTB are mom & pop investors, 14% are REITS. 

I'd fully expect that 6,000 rate per annum to increase based on recent interventions in the market.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (4 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> likely an anomaly based on pending recession and very high property prices. Sure, some are scared of what legislation might come, but many others, including posters on here continue to invest in BTLs.


It's more likely based on what people getting out like myself are feeding back over and over - the high risk of non-paying tenants and government intervention blocking sale of your property. 

'Fear of recession' and 'high prices' have little to do with the surge in numbers getting out in my opinion, many people buy an investment property long term and have no issue riding out a recession. Some may be stretched by increasing interest rates and cost of living to cut back on the added investment required post tax and maintenance fees etc. to keep a buy to let, but that's surely an argument to make it more attractive to stay in.

We can keep track of the figures to see whether it's an 'anomaly', but you would need to define anomaly, what percentage of private landlords do you think this 'anomaly' will account for? (it's been happening for 6 years and is accelerating)

It's going to be very interesting once the eviction ban is lifted.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (4 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> Do you have numbers on the total number of tenancies registered in 2022 versus previous years?


You can find it deep in the RTB Annual Report but only for 2021.

See this thread: https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/private-tenancies-fell-by-22k-7-in-2021-probably.229439/


----------



## Leo (4 Jan 2023)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> It's 6,000 a year, which equates to a quarter of the current supply of 24,000 units.


You misunderstand the metric. It is not a measure of units available to the rental market. It is just the number of private landlords who exit the market. Not all of the units they sell are sold to owner-occupiers. What was the change in total tenancies?

Again, it's not 6,000 a year, it ~6,000 last year which was double that of the previous year. 


RonnieShinbal88 said:


> 86% of tenancies registered according to the RTB are mom & pop investors, 14% are REITS.


Back in 2021 the RTB reported that 85% of landlords owned 1 or 2 properties. With the likes of IRES owning close to 4,000 properties, either there has been a massive increase in small landlords or you again misunderstood the metric.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (4 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> What was the change in total tenancies?


Is that not the data that NoRegretsCoyote linked to, decrease of 22,000 tenancies from 2020 to 2021, a drop of 7%, while demand has risen with immigration.

Figures are not available for 2022, but we know double the amount of landlords exited the market in that year.


----------



## Leo (4 Jan 2023)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Figures are not available for 2022, but we know double the amount of landlords exited the market in that year.


That's why the 2022 numbers are of most interest, to what extent did the institutional landlords or new landlords replace those leaving...


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (4 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> That's why the 2022 numbers are of most interest, to what extent did the institutional landlords or new landlords replace those leaving...


Replacement hasn't been a feature of any of the previous 5 years of data, it would seem to be clutching at straws to hope it would suddenly kick in this year in an adverse environment for investing in property.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> Perhaps have a read of what I said again. AT no point did I suggest it wasn't an issue, just that it's not the fundamental or primary issue.


You are confusing primary with priority. The priority is (or imo should be) keeping landlords in the sector for 2023. Doing nothing isn't going to do that. After telling landlords they could not evict a tenant, despite having followed all the rules in doing so, and bringing in legislation overnight prevent landlords from getting their own property back, it is incredibly naive to think there isn't going to be an avalanche of evictions and landlords leaving the market in springtime. It will also push landlords who were previously on the fence to possibly consider selling now. What's going to be different in November 2023 compared to November 2022, if nothing is the answer, then another winter eviction ban will be introduced then. So April to October is the windown for landlords to get tenants out and their properties back.



Leo said:


> It's estimated that approaching 6,000 left last year, but that's double the number of the year before and is likely an anomaly based on pending recession and very high property prices. Sure, some are scared of what legislation might come, but many others, including posters on here continue to invest in BTLs.


As pointed out by another poster, the trend the last 5 years plus is landlords leaving the market. Yes, some are leaving cause house prices are high, they were accidential landlords, they left negative equity etc, but not all of them are in this boat. Others are taxed excessive, fear the ability to gain control of their properties, and have seen their rights as landlords continually and repeatedly diluted to the benefit of tenants. They have also been vilified by the media and are left on the defensive and unable to evict a non-paying tenant for 2 years and to the expense of tens of thousands of euros. Far from being an anomaly, landlords leaving I expect to increase year on year until the next general election. If you are basing last year as being an anomaly, perhaps your gut instinct is correct, but I'd like to hear what else you have bar your gut instinct for this belief.



Leo said:


> Are you suggesting that a smaller private landlord putting a new house on the market is not seeking market rent? Anything to suggest that is widespread?


What I'm suggesting is that a large proportion (A) of landlords leaving are 'mom and pop' landlords who are most likely or highly probable to be renting at a far lower level that the REITS are charging. These are being replaced by a very small number of landlords (mom and pop) entering the market who certainly are charging market rent or far in excess of market rent. In aggregate terms, there is a much disproportionate number of rentals towards the lower scale of rent changes leaving in my opinion.



Leo said:


> Do you have numbers on the total number of tenancies registered in 2022 versus previous years? I searched but the latest data I could find was from 2020.


There was a report on the Examiner or the Journal last weekend about either Sherry Fitz or Mark Rose about 67% of their sales in 2022 were landlords leaving the market and 16% of purchases were buy-to let. The figures kinda stack up to what I'd expect. The 16% I believe included parents purchasing properties for use by children, but were classified as buy-to-lets regardless.


----------



## Mocame (4 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> That's why the 2022 numbers are of most interest, to what extent did the institutional landlords or new landlords replace those leaving...





RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Replacement hasn't been a feature of any of the previous 5 years of data, it would seem to be clutching at straws to hope it would suddenly kick in this year in an adverse environment for investing in property.


Any replacement is not like for like is two respects:
- almost all of the build to rent developments are in Dublin, whereas small landlords are leaving the market countrywide
- the built to rent developments are almost entirely targeted at the top of the rental market and of the student letting market.  Small landlords who let to the bottom-mid market are not being replaced.

In any case all of the property correspondents in the newspapers are reporting that the build to rent sector is cancelling contracts for developments which were planned for 2023 and not commissioning more.  1,000s of built to rent developments are also held up in the planning system.  

So as well as the death of the small landlord market, 2023 is likely to see the death of the large landlord market as well.


----------



## Firefly (4 Jan 2023)

Would commercial leases work? Say a landlord gets a change of use for their house and leases it via a commercial lease. During the lease period, the tenant remains unaffected / in the property should the landlord sell. If the tenant doesn't pay the rent they lose possession. Normal commercial leases run for 1 - 4.9 years I think, so if both parties are in agreement would it not be better?


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Jan 2023)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> I'd fully expect that 6,000 rate per annum to increase based on recent interventions in the market.


I'd say your estimate for 2023 is far too low. The government in mid October 2022 predicted that 2,273 evictions would occur over the winter of 2023 if the eviction ban was not introduced. These evictions will be delayed until the springtime of 2023 and I suspect will speed up other landlords decision making ahead of a similar eviction ban in the winter of 2023/2024. Coupled with higher house prices in 2023 and increasing interest rates increasing landlord costs (who are limited to increasing rents by 2% per annum), I would expect to see around the 10,000 mark for landlords leaving the sector over 2023.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> Again, it's not 6,000 a year, it ~6,000 last year which was double that of the previous year.


Exactly, the last two years have shown an increase of 100%. In assessing the whole picture, I think it's more likely that the 6,000 figure will increase again in 2023 than it will decrease in 2023. For what it's worth, to put a figure on it, I would expect to see around 10,000 tenancies ended in 2023.



Leo said:


> Back in 2021 the RTB reported that 85% of landlords owned 1 or 2 properties. With the likes of IRES owning close to 4,000 properties, either there has been a massive increase in small landlords or you again misunderstood the metric.


I believe 2022 wasn't a major year for REITS in terms of adding to their stock portfolio. I recall small sales by some REITS of some developments also. Bear in mind, if a landlord had 3 properties and sold one and another landlord with one property sold and left the sector, your percentage figure of landlords with 1 or 2 properties would increase. So statistics don't exactly tell you everything.

The crux of the issue is landlords of what type are leaving, the numbers leaving are increasing each year and it's not difficult to draw a correlation between this decision making process and increased government interference, legislation, reduction in landlord rights etc. Until this changes, or something happens that's of meaningful benefit to landlords, I fall to see how this trend will be reversed.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (4 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> That's why the 2022 numbers are of most interest, to what extent did the institutional landlords or new landlords replace those leaving...


Remember when Daft publish annual rents increasing by 10% etc or whatever they are, those figures are based on advertised rents. So these are new rentals to the market who naturally enough are charging the absolute maximum they can as well as rentals that have become vacant and I presume the rent is increasing by 2% per annum. So, again, it's fairly reasonable to believe that the new rentals are charging rents well in excessive of the properties that are leaving the market. Bad news for current renters and future renters.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> You are confusing primary with priority. The priority is (or imo should be) keeping landlords in the sector for 2023.


That's you opinion on priority, it just happens that I don't agree. Unless and until supply constraints are dealt with everything else is just little fingers in a big dam. That won't happen quickly, but the longer they spend debating legislative tweaks while ignoring the lack of supply issue, the greater the problem will become.



PebbleBeach2020 said:


> As pointed out by another poster, the trend the last 5 years plus is landlords leaving the market.


Yes, landlords have been leaving, others have been joining albeit at a slower rate, but the bigger story may be the shift aware from accidental and single or double property landlords to larger scale operators. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. 

Judging by the figures quoted by some posting on here in the investment forum, there aren't too many options available that beat the yield of rental property today, so it is unlikely that small tweaks to taxation will resolve your main issue.



PebbleBeach2020 said:


> There was a report on the Examiner or the Journal last weekend about either Sherry Fitz or Mark Rose about 67% of their sales in 2022 were landlords leaving the market and 16% of purchases were buy-to let.


Have another read, it was 36%, not 67%, and being the most expensive operator here, they may not be fully representative of the overall market.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Exactly, the last two years have shown an increase of 100%. In assessing the whole picture, I think it's more likely that the 6,000 figure will increase again in 2023 than it will decrease in 2023. For what it's worth, to put a figure on it, I would expect to see around 10,000 tenancies ended in 2023.


Are you using the 6,000 estimate of landlords as a basis of estimating tenancies being ended?


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2023)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Remember when Daft publish annual rents increasing by 10% etc or whatever they are, those figures are based on advertised rents. So these are new rentals to the market who naturally enough are charging the absolute maximum they can as well as rentals that have become vacant and I presume the rent is increasing by 2% per annum. So, again, it's fairly reasonable to believe that the new rentals are charging rents well in excessive of the properties that are leaving the market. Bad news for current renters and future renters.


I fully agree, it's a disastrous situation for new renters seeking properties and I'm very glad I'm not one of them.

On the other hand, it's a superb situation for landlords who can cream it, and likely continue to do so for some time to come until such a time as supply eases demand. Any landlord who is in the business as a business, and has been attentive to the needs of that business over the years is doing relatively well. Some, particularly those who failed to maintain rental rates in line with the market were really caught out by the imposition of the RPZs. Many of those are now leaving the market, and that may be for the best. 

Any of those landlords who have been caught on significantly below market rents who still want to be in the landlord business would be well advised to sell that property at the first opportunity and buy one unincumbered by a low rent. It is an investment after all and an important part of successful investing is never to get bound to an asset and always seek out the best yield.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2023)

Mocame said:


> So as well as the death of the small landlord market, 2023 is likely to see the death of the large landlord market as well.


A number of the large investors have bought, and continue to seek out existing properties. Some of them are actively pursuing owners in some of the developments that have hit the headlines in recent times due to fire certification issues offering to buy them out.


----------



## HollyBud (5 Jan 2023)

> Any of those landlords who have been caught on significantly below market rents who still want to be in the landlord business would be well advised to sell that property at the first opportunity and buy one unincumbered by a low rent.



Just like that 

and give up a 3% interest rate for a new 7% and all the fees that go with it to get around a system that is deeply flawed 

why didn't I think of that


----------



## Sarenco (5 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> Some, particularly those who failed to maintain rental rates in line with the market were really caught out by the imposition of the RPZs. Many of those are now leaving the market, and that may be for the best.


I think that’s a weird attitude TBH.

It was perfectly logical for a landlord to continue renting a property to a good, long-term tenant at a discount to market rent.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (5 Jan 2023)

I've noticed that there are a lot of people who are not invested in property who strangely seem to be invested in not seeing it do well as an investment (even though we clearlyneed investment for the common good at this point). I guess it relates to a desire to have one's own invetment decisions vindicated or a desire not to experience regret. There is really no point in arguing with someone coming from that perspective and I am not saying that to be nasty it's just an observation over a large number of discussions.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2023)

Sarenco said:


> I think that’s a weird attitude TBH.
> 
> It was perfectly logical for a landlord to continue renting a property to a good, long-term tenant at a discount to market rent.


Oh I agree there is a value to retaining a good long-term tenant, but there is a limit in terms of what remains good business and what could be considered poor business practice in failing to increase rents for years as the market continued to move at pace. Rent controls wren't implemented overnight. There were growing calls for, and government reference to rent controls in the years preceding their introduction.


----------



## T McGibney (5 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> Oh I agree there is a value to retaining a good long-term tenant, but there is a limit in terms of what remains good business and what could be considered poor business practice in failing to increase rents for years as the market continued to move at pace. Rent controls weren't implemented overnight. There were growing calls for, and government reference to rent controls in the years preceding their introduction.


OK, if a landlord in 2016 had a good long-term tenant paying a lower-than-market-rate rent, didn't particularly need to receive anything higher than that, and knew from their tenant's circumstances that this was the most they could afford without it causing them undue hardship or even shortening the odds of a default, are you really saying that they should have jacked up the rent regardless?

You seem to be retrospectively blaming people for acting decently towards others.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2023)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> I've noticed that there are a lot of people who are not invested in property who strangely seem to be invested in not seeing it do well as an investment (even though we clearlyneed investment for the common good at this point). I guess it relates to a desire to have one's own invetment decisions vindicated or a desire not to experience regret. There is really no point in arguing with someone coming from that perspective and I am not saying that to be nasty it's just an observation over a large number of discussions.


If you're referring to me, my wife owns a rental property. What's hers is mine and all that, so I'm very much not against the prospect of landlords making a return on their investment. They absolutely need to get a return or we will have no rental market here and that would be a national disaster. 

I'm simply making the point that at a time when yields on property letting far exceed other options, then there are greater factors dissuading further investment than a lack of a return.


----------



## Sarenco (5 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> Rent controls wren't implemented overnight.


They were actually.

The legislation was rushed through the Dail and became effective on Christmas Eve, 2016 - there was no implementation period.

Also, bear in mind that at the time rents could only be reviewed once every two years (this remains the position outside RPZs).  So most landlords had no opportunity to increase rents in advance of the introduction of the RPZ regime.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2023)

T McGibney said:


> and knew from their tenant's circumstances that this was the most they could afford without it causing them undue hardship or even shortening the odds of a default, are you really saying that they should have jacked up the rent regardless?


It's very much the landlord's call on whether they want to prioritise providing a social service over seeking the best return for their investment. It's a poor financial strategy but is commendable for other reasons.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (5 Jan 2023)

T McGibney said:


> OK, if a landlord in 2016 had a good long-term tenant paying a lower-than-market-rate rent, didn't particularly need to receive anything higher than that, and knew from their tenant's circumstances that this was the most they could afford without it causing them undue hardship or even shortening the odds of a default, are you really saying that they should have jacked up the rent regardless?
> 
> You seem to be retrospectively blaming people for acting decently towards others.


I think the point was specifically that 'it's better that we don't have landlords like that in the Irish rental market', it's better that a REIT would buy them out and do a refurb or leave the place off the market for 2 years then rent it out at over twice the rent. 

It certainly pushes up market rents, it's better for the REITS. It's not better for the tenants obviously.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2023)

Sarenco said:


> The legislation was rushed through the Dail and became effective on Christmas Eve, 2016 - there was no implementation period.


True the legislation was, but they had been debated for some time prior to that, you even had the Minister for Housing proposing linking limits to inflation at the start of 2014. Most commentators ridiculed controls as ineffective at best, but again we were reminded that doesn't deter our politicians.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2023)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> I think the point was specifically that 'it's better that we don't have landlords like that in the Irish rental market', it's better that a REIT would buy them out and do a refurb or leave the place off the market for 2 years then rent it out at over twice the rent.


That's clearly not what I said, and clearly not good for the market or renters.


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2023)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> I've noticed that there are a lot of people who are not invested in property who strangely seem to be invested in not seeing it do well as an investment (even though we clearlyneed investment for the common good at this point). I guess it relates to a desire to have one's own invetment decisions vindicated or a desire not to experience regret. There is really no point in arguing with someone coming from that perspective and I am not saying that to be nasty it's just an observation over a large number of discussions.


It would be good for the entire country if the value of property dropped. That doesn't mean people want to see investors losing money.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (5 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> If you're referring to me, my wife owns a rental property. What's hers is mine and all that, so I'm very much not against the prospect of landlords making a return on their investment. They absolutely need to get a return or we will have no rental market here and that would be a national disaster.
> 
> I'm simply making the point that at a time when yields on property letting far exceed other options, then there are greater factors dissuading further investment than a lack of a return.


Income generating investments referred to in terms of 'yield' are normally quite low risk.
A property rented out with gross rent at 6 or 7% of the property value that's 21% of the property value or 42% of the investment on a 50% LTV at risk if it takes 3 years to evict non paying teants as in several recent cases.
Separate to that you have Irish house price risk, a crash risk of what 50% historically.
You now have political risk, with a referendum on the right to property, eviction bans and left wing parties in line to take over in a year or two.

The risks are huge it isn't just about yield when you compare investments.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (5 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> That's clearly not what I said, and clearly not good for the market or renters.


'Many of those are now leaving the market, and that may be for the best.'


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2023)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> 'Many of those are now leaving the market, and that may be for the best.'


I don't see you quoting where I said:



RonnieShinbal88 said:


> it's better that a REIT would buy them out and do a refurb or leave the place off the market for 2 years then rent it out at over twice the rent.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (5 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> I don't see you quoting where I said:


OK, so maybe you'd like to explain why it's a good thing that landlords charging lower than market rent are leaving the market.
I think the REIT comment logically follows from that but you can clear it up easily by explaining what you meant.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2023)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> The risks are huge it isn't just about yield when you compare investments.


All forms of investment must consider projected yield versus risk, property investment should be no different in that regard.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (5 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> Judging by the figures quoted by some posting on here in the investment forum, *there aren't too many options available that beat the yield of rental property today,*


I know it's apples and oranges to a certain extent, but I'd want a 2x differential in expected return to make me indifferent between Irish residential property and a basket of global equities.

Your share portfolio isn't going to call you at midnight with a broken toilet or refuse to pay you rent for months on end, etc.

As I've said before I think changes to how residential property is *taxed* would make a big difference in retention of landlords, particularly if you had a CGT exemption for long-term lettings (at least ten years).


From Irish policy there is also a social imperative to encourage investment in residential property that there just isn't for a basket of global equities.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (5 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> All forms of investment must consider projected yield versus risk, property investment should be no different in that regard.


And people demand higher return for higher risk, or they sell up.

People selling up is definitely not what is needed right now, if you have evidence that REITs are just replacing those then you should provide it here, there is no evidence of that historically, there is a significant net reduction of registered tenancies, it's easy to track all of this on the rental sites and it's the reason we currently have an eviction ban.

REITs are also putting properties on the market at a much higher rent, so the tenants served notice because small landlords are getting out possibly can't afford the replacement offered by a REIT.

There has been a recent backlash with issues in Germany with institutional investors owning all the rentals, it doesn't seem to be the Nirvana of a rental market many seem to wish for.


----------



## Sarenco (5 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> True the legislation was, but they had been debated for some time prior to that, you even had the Minister for Housing proposing linking limits to inflation at the start of 2014.


Not really - the Irish Times first reported the RPZ proposals on 13 December 2016 - it became effective 11 days later and landlords had no ability to react.

If Fine Gael had agreed to Alan Kelly’s proposal to limit rent increases to increases in general inflation, we wouldn’t be in the current mess.  The RPZ regime has been a disaster.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (5 Jan 2023)

Sarenco said:


> If Fine Gael had agreed to Alan Kelly’s proposal to limit rent increases to increases in general inflation, we wouldn’t be in the current mess. The RPZ regime has been a disaster.


How so?

RPZ increases were limited to 4% at a time from 2016 to 2021 in RPZs, and at no point was inflation ever higher than that.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2023)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> And people demand higher return for higher risk, or they sell up.


Very true, but at this time, what do do you consider a lower risk opportunity with similar or greater yield?


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2023)

Sarenco said:


> Not really - the Irish Times first reported the RPZ proposals on 13 December 2016 - it became effective 11 days later and landlords had no ability to react.


RPZs is just the name given to the areas where rent controls were to be implemented. That they restricted controls to certain areas or gave them a particular name does not mean rent controls had not been discussed in the previous years.


----------



## Sarenco (5 Jan 2023)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> RPZ increases were limited to 4% at a time from 2016 to 2021 in RPZs, and at no point was inflation ever higher than that.


Yes, but 4% of what?

Bear in mind that we were in the middle of a two-year “rent freeze” at the time.  That wouldn’t have been put in place if Kelly’s proposal had succeeded.

And the current 2% annual increase limit is obviously way below general inflation.


----------



## Sarenco (5 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> RPZs is just the name given to the areas where rent controls were to be implemented. That they restricted controls to certain areas or gave them a particular name does not mean rent controls had not been discussed in the previous years.


Yes but all indications prior to December 2016 were that Fine Gael was not planning to introduce rent controls.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (5 Jan 2023)

Sarenco said:


> Yes but all indications prior to December 2016 were that Fine Gael was not planning to introduce rent controls.


This is true. Legislation was rushed through on purpose to prevent strategic increased by landlords in advance.




Sarenco said:


> Yes, but 4% of what?


I don't follow. 

As a general point I think we both agree that capping rents well below market levels has bad results in the long run. The details of how it's done don't undermine the general principle!


----------



## T McGibney (5 Jan 2023)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> This is true. Legislation was rushed through on purpose to prevent strategic increased by landlords in advance.


If in any walk of life you find yourself having to do something in a rush, you're more likely than not to make a mess of it. Especially something complicated with unpredictable downstream consequences.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (5 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> Very true, but at this time, what do do you consider a lower risk opportunity with similar or greater yield?


Well specific to me, in terms of sales proceeds I might buy a beach front property in another country I have family ties in, mixed personal and short term rental use.

A better yield would be to max out our pension AVC's and drip feed sale proceeds into those while investing the rest in a mixed portfolio heavily weighted in fixed income, some equities and possibly a long term green energy project or two (solar farm in Africa etc.).

Irish property capital returns are still negative following the last crash in real terms, it isn't a great inflation beating investment and rent increases are capped way below inflation at the moment, who knows how long we will have inflation above 2%. At some point the lag behind inflation will be crystallised in a lower property value if and when selling with tenants in situe comes in. That's, what another 20% risk, on top of 42% non-paying tenant risk, on top of 50% irish house price risk........

It's a junk grade investment at this point, I'd want a serious yield to stay in.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (5 Jan 2023)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Irish property capital returns are still negative following the last crash in real terms,



Apartments in Waterford give double-digit gross yields and have doubled in price over the last decade.

Global equities are down 20% year on year.

Of course these kinds of comparisons are completely sensitive to the choice of starting point.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (5 Jan 2023)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Apartments in Waterford give double-digit gross yields and have doubled in price over the last decade.
> 
> Global equities are down 20% year on year.
> 
> Of course these kinds of comparisons are completely sensitive to the choice of starting point.


Agreed, you need to look long term, if you set the chart to 'MAX' below, it give you 18 years or so but ideally you'd want to go further back:






						Ireland Residential Property Prices - December 2022 Data - 2005-2021 Historical
					

Housing Index in Ireland increased to 168.40 points in October from 167.80 points in September of 2022. Housing Index in Ireland averaged 121.42 points from 2005 until 2022, reaching an all time high of 168.40 points in October of 2022 and a record low of 73.40 points in March of 2013. This page...




					tradingeconomics.com
				




That isn't inflation adjusted either, I think inflation adjusted prices would reflect a small negative return since 2005, that's after 18 years.

Maybe 2008 was once in a lifetime, and the price risk is much lower now, but you still have all the other risks.

Buying 10 years ago was a great opportunity, I bought my rental in 2003 the price is up maybe 35% since then so probably hasn't beaten inflation over 20 years, I think anyone buying now is more likely to be near a peak rather than 2013 value, they won't be getting 100% return over the next 10 years.

From where I am it isn't looking at all appealing, but I can see there is plenty of scope there for more optimistic views.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (5 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> Very true, but at this time, what do do you consider a lower risk opportunity with similar or greater yield?


So here are the figures on my rental.

LTV: 30% approx
Rent: ~6.7% of property value/ 10% of the equity invested

Capital appreciation over 20 years: 35%/20, round up to 2%

Rental yield net of income tax, service charge, mortgage interest, maintenance and management fee:
Under 2% of property value/ ~2.5% of my equity invested (in a year with no major repairs or redecoration)

This together with some money that I need to add to the rent to cover expenses is paying down the mortgage and is subject to CGT on selling.

Total estimated annual investment return on investment/equity before CGT and selling/legal fees etc. is 4.5% (2+2.5%)
Government guaranteed deposit account return on raisin.ie: 3%

So I'm getting a 1.5% risk premium on potentially losing 3 years of rent on unpaying tenants, conservatively 30% of my equity on a house price crash, similar amount on regulatory risk impact on value etc. and on the general hassle around dealing with an illiquid asset.

It also looks likely with new regulations I would lose the option to let my kids use the place which was always one justification for putting up with the low yield.


----------



## Leo (6 Jan 2023)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> It's a junk grade investment at this point, I'd want a serious yield to stay in.


And in that case we can agree no minor tweaking of taxation will solve the problem. So the focus should be on increasing supply leading to more competition and lower rents. 



RonnieShinbal88 said:


> So I'm getting a 1.5% risk premium on potentially losing 3 years of rent on unpaying tenants, conservatively 30% of my equity on a house price crash,


That is a very real risk alright, but occurrences are low. When planning risk strategies, you model the projected cost of an issues against the likelihood of occurrence. If an issue will cost you €50k, but the chances of that occurring are 1 in 1,000, then your annual loss exposure is €50. A 1.5% risk premium for an event as rare as 3 years of arrears building up sounds pretty good on a large scale, but of course is pretty devastating on an individual basis. Then, you could have invested in Tesla, Anglo, Enron, etc....


----------



## T McGibney (6 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> That is a very real risk alright, but occurrences are low. When planning risk strategies, you model the projected cost of an issues against the likelihood of occurrence. If an issue will cost you €50k, but the chances of that occurring are 1 in 1,000, then your annual loss exposure is €50. A 1.5% risk premium for an event as rare as 3 years of arrears building up sounds pretty good on a large scale, but of course is pretty devastating on an individual basis. Then, you could have invested in Tesla, Anglo, Enron, etc....


A 1 in 1,000 chance of a house price crash?

Outside the tycoon class, no rational person invests the price of a house in a single share like Tesla, Anglo, Enron, or any other of that ilk.


----------



## Leo (6 Jan 2023)

T McGibney said:


> A 1 in 1,000 chance of a house price crash?


Not what I said.



T McGibney said:


> Outside the tycoon class, no rational person invests the price of a house in a single share like Tesla, Anglo, Enron, or any other of that ilk.


Some of the posts on here would seem to suggest no rational person would invest in residential property.


----------



## T McGibney (6 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> Not what I said.


Ok I must have misread it, but you did say "but occurrences are low." Which tends not to be the case whenever the Irish housing market crashes.


Leo said:


> Some of the posts on here would seem to suggest no rational person would invest in residential property.


That's certainly true in the current environment. And it's borne out by the absolute collapse in new individual buy-to-let activity.


----------



## Leo (6 Jan 2023)

T McGibney said:


> Ok I must have misread it, but you did say "but occurrences are low." Which tends not to be the case whenever the Irish housing market crashes.


Yeah, I was talking specifically about the scenario that Ronnie referenced of 3+ years of rent arrears. I don't know how often that happens, but would think it's closer to 1 in 1,000 than 1 in 100.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (6 Jan 2023)

Leo said:


> Yeah, I was talking specifically about the scenario that Ronnie referenced of 3+ years of rent arrears. I don't know how often that happens, but would think it's closer to 1 in 1,000 than 1 in 100.


Well it depends on how you measure risk, taking the approach you outline makes sense for a diversified investor, if you have 1,000 rentals and it's 1 in a thousand then you can multiply the 1/1000 probability by the loss. With a single property it isn't rational to take that approach, you are never going to have a 50 euro loss it's either a huge loss or no loss, it never gets averaged.

Whatever approach you take I think most would agree that 1.5% risk premium is too small given the risks in Irish property, so there is something wrong (mostly on the risk side which they won't change so that leaves the yield).

Your view is that there is no point in trying to incentivise small landlords, supply will come to the rescue so we don't need them.

w.r.t focus the government, they can and should focus on multiple approaches, not just one.

You are saying that taxation won't make a difference but if income tax were reduced to 25% instead of 50% my yield would go from 4.5% to around 5.6% and I would probably give that serious consideration in terms of staying in, depending on how the wind blew on property rights referendum etc. and combined with the tax deduction on the fridge of course...

I don't think a 5.6% yield is crazy for Irish property given the risks.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (6 Jan 2023)

Replying to Leo again here (I haven't mastered the quoting on here):

In terms of the comment  'Some of the posts on here would seem to suggest no rational person would invest in residential property.'

I've outlined my yield honestly, I don't think it would be rational for a small investor to invest given the risks I also outlined, I mentioned alternatives that are more attractive, if it was a click of a button on a broker app I'd have gone before Christmas but property is not that liquid.

People outside Dublin seem to get much higher yield on lower cost properties so that might be a different kettle of fish, but you need local knowledge, the risks are huge if only buying a property or two.

You were referring to people 'creaming it' I can only assume your view is based around people who bought around 2013 - you can't bias your entire market view on the return that people who bought at a low after a possibly one in a lifetime crash are getting.


----------



## Always Learning (Saturday at 11:32 AM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> People outside Dublin seem to get much higher yield on lower cost properties so that might be a different kettle of fish, but you need local knowledge, the risks are huge if only buying a property or two.


This is true, it appears to be a very different story outside Dublin and the risks are not huge at all. I get a 10% ROI on my properties. All outside Dublin. All were bought in the past 6 years, so I'm not benefitting from 2013 prices.

Don't buy in a RPZ zone, only buy houses which were previously owner occupied so you can set the new rent, screen the tenants yourself and if fortunate enough, don't borrow (much). Follow the above and a 10% ROI (8% after expenses) is achievable in a lot of the country with very little hassle to go through for the return. There aren't many other investments around offering that kind of return.

Of course, I might be fortunate in my circumstances and where I'm based etc. but my point is it's all relative. It can still be quite lucrative to be a landlord in Ireland in 2023 if you invest in the right area and follow some simple guidelines.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Saturday at 12:25 PM)

Always Learning said:


> This is true, it appears to be a very different story outside Dublin and the risks are not huge at all. I get a 10% ROI on my properties. All outside Dublin. All were bought in the past 6 years, so I'm not benefitting from 2013 prices.
> 
> Don't buy in a RPZ zone, only buy houses which were previously owner occupied so you can set the new rent, screen the tenants yourself and if fortunate enough, don't borrow (much). Follow the above and a 10% ROI (8% after expenses) is achievable in a lot of the country with very little hassle to go through for the return. There aren't many other investments around offering that kind of return.
> 
> Of course, I might be fortunate in my circumstances and where I'm based etc. but my point is it's all relative. It can still be quite lucrative to be a landlord in Ireland in 2023 if you invest in the right area and follow some simple guidelines.



I'm assuming you are referring to 10% as your rent as a percentage of the property value. Then the rent excluding expenses, with little or no mortgage, you are treating as income, so quoting the yield as 8% net of expenses makes sense for comparison with other income generating investments.

 If you are paying higher rate of tax on the 8% it becomes 4%, but any income generating asset would be treated the same so from that perspective it makes sense to say the yield is 8%.

But for someone looking to invest for capital growth, who maybe has a mortgage, rather than to get income, like in my case, I think the effective yield is more like 4%.

That's because in my case I don't have net income, I add income to the investment to pay a mortgage.
So treating the full yield before income tax as the return doesn't make any sense because I get no income, the profits go in to pay down the mortgage. I think it's effectively a different type of investment when you have a mortgage.

I treat the increase in equity contributed by the rent less expenses, combined with the price growth, as the investment yield and use the income tax as a cost of investing (one that e.g. a REIT doesn't have). The reason for that is that I treat the whole thing as an investment to compare with alternatives that are capital growth rather than income generating investments (because for me it isn't income generating).

So I think property may be good yield-wise for investors where it is used as an income generating asset to pay income/pension, where you might even be on lower tax bands or over 65 tax bands etc. and where you have little or no mortgage but it is not appealing where you are looking at growing your investment and are on the 52% tax rate.  The yield by location and outside RPZ does seem significant too but I think it's the income tax aspect that's the main drag, especially if you get no income from it because the rent goes in to the mortgage.

Maybe  they could look at a tax break on that portion of rent that is invested in the rental property via the mortgage as well as the mortgage interest relief, it would level the treatment a bit versus REITS. It also avoids the argument that income is income and should be taxed like any other investment, because in this case it isn't income it's actually capital investment in the asset that generates the rent. And we want to encourage investment in rental units!


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Saturday at 3:04 PM)

Always Learning said:


> This is true, it appears to be a very different story outside Dublin and the risks are not huge at all. I get a 10% ROI on my properties. All outside Dublin. All were bought in the past 6 years, so I'm not benefitting from 2013 prices.
> 
> Don't buy in a RPZ zone, only buy houses which were previously owner occupied so you can set the new rent, screen the tenants yourself and if fortunate enough, don't borrow (much). Follow the above and a 10% ROI (8% after expenses) is achievable in a lot of the country with very little hassle to go through for the return. There aren't many other investments around offering that kind of return.
> 
> Of course, I might be fortunate in my circumstances and where I'm based etc. but my point is it's all relative. It can still be quite lucrative to be a landlord in Ireland in 2023 if you invest in the right area and follow some simple guidelines.


Are you Limerick or Waterford?


----------



## Always Learning (Saturday at 3:25 PM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> I'm assuming you are referring to 10% as your rent as a percentage of the property value. Then the rent excluding expenses, with little or no mortgage, you are treating as income, so quoting the yield as 8% net of expenses makes sense for comparison with other income generating investments.
> 
> If you are paying higher rate of tax on the 8% it becomes 4%, but any income generating asset would be treated the same so from that perspective it makes sense to say the yield is 8%.
> 
> ...


Yeah you summed that up exactly right. For me, in my circumstances it's quite an attractive investment in order to create income. I use it in order to create a "relatively" passive income (I know passive is a debated topic here, but for me it's relatively passive). This year I'll be getting into the stock market for the first time and I will be using that in order to try and achieve capital growth over time. So for me my investments are pretty much split into property for an income and the market for capital growth. 



PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Are you Limerick or Waterford?


 They aren't the only options though, I have friends who advise me there is also good value to be had around Galway and Cork too.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Saturday at 4:55 PM)

I'm thinking about a place abroad that has a 6% rental yield if you rent it out for the peak vacation month of August alone (rents double in August), in laws own one in the same location already.  Wouldn't be great investment return on the money tied up due to income tax but you would have it for personal use the rest of the year, so the overall package might be quite appealing.


----------



## Always Learning (Saturday at 5:54 PM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> I'm thinking about a place abroad that has a 6% rental yield if you rent it out for the peak vacation month of August alone (rents double in August), in laws own one in the same location already.  Wouldn't be great investment return on the money tied up due to income tax but you would have it for personal use the rest of the year, so the overall package might be quite appealing.


Wow, 6% for one month. Is that before or after costs / fees for letting etc. Would you just have an agent over there let it out for you and look after that end? Is there demand over there to fill it for a few more months of the year? Is it a villa or an apartment or room in a hotel or what?


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Saturday at 9:51 PM)

Always Learning said:


> Wow, 6% for one month. Is that before or after costs / fees for letting etc. Would you just have an agent over there let it out for you and look after that end? Is there demand over there to fill it for a few more months of the year? Is it a villa or an apartment or room in a hotel or what?


That's before all costs, I'd have some in laws on the ground locally to help in organising a cleaner etc., I would use a site to advertise, think they charge quite high fees. I think the local agencies if you were trying to manage everything from abroad are practically thieves so that's the catch, it's a non runner from here as an investment I'd say, it's mostly about people getting extra money from somewhere they use themselves.

Anyway just to answer the other questions out of interest, you'd get good occupancy July at lower rent than August. You'd also get some bookings in May, June and September at much lower rent. I'd probably be planning on using it myself for the whole summer except August, the high rent in August is handy if you are using it yourself but want to get some return for limited hassle.

That's based on a place in a holiday village by the sea, terraced 2 story with a small front garden, 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, cellar, main living/kitchen where you'd have a couch bed too. The advertised price of them varies quite a bit 155-200k, depending on the sea views etc., you might get a small detached place with a gated garden in the area for around 260k. There are always a few on the market, maybe trending up a bit in price recently. Around 2,200 a week rent in August for a 3 bed.


----------



## Leo (Monday at 9:52 AM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Whatever approach you take I think most would agree that 1.5% risk premium is too small given the risks in Irish property, so there is something wrong (mostly on the risk side which they won't change so that leaves the yield).
> 
> Your view is that there is no point in trying to incentivise small landlords, supply will come to the rescue so we don't need them.


All investment is driven by your appetite to the risks involved. There are no sure things. In your case, it appears you are very adverse to the risk of 3+ years of arrears occurring. My point is it's a waste of time to offer small incentives to investors who are so inclined, they'll benefit some already in the market but will be unlikely to attract more investment. 

If there were thousands of properties available that would become new private rentals overnight with a taxation tweak, then it would indeed make perfect sense to introduce an incentive. But that's not the case, and any such measure that the government could reasonably introduce would just be another band aid that fails to address the root of the issue. 

In a market where demand greatly outstrips supply, the only options that bring equilibrium are increased supply or decreased demand. All projections have our population continuing to rise, so increased supply is where the solution lies.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (Monday at 10:34 AM)

Leo said:


> In a market where demand greatly outstrips supply, the only options that bring equilibrium are increased supply or decreased demand. All projections have our population continuing to rise, *so increased supply is where the solution lies.*


I fully agree.

However in most markets a material % of new build is financed by private landlords using leverage. That seems close to non-existent in Ireland right now. BPFI numbers show a mere 1,000 BTL mortgages being issued annually now and presumably the vast majority are for existing properties.

A lot of this is due to lenders' low risk appetite which is something the government can't fix. But there is something wrong with the tax treatment if a 10% expected gross yield can't get private landlords buying into new build at any material rate.


----------



## Leo (Monday at 11:37 AM)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> But there is something wrong with the tax treatment if a 10% expected gross yield can't get private landlords buying into new build at any material rate.


Institutional money is acquiring some of the most suitable rental properties before they ever get to the market, buy my suspicion is the bigger problem isn't the yield, but prospective small time investors being put off over uncertainty over increasing tenant rights.


----------



## Mocame (Monday at 12:53 PM)

To my mind it is glaringly obvious that the exodus of small landlords is to the introduction of rent pressure zones in 2016.  These were preceded by a one year rent freeze introduced by Alan Kelly, then rent increases were limited to 4% pa, then frozen during Covid and now limited to 2% pa.  Any landlord who owned a property in 2016 is now facing a massive growth in maintenance costs, a chunky growth in interest payments but a tiny growth in rent since 2016 and going forward.  It will get worse in Sinn Féin gets into government and imposes the rent freeze it has promised.   I am not sure a tax break will be enough to fix this.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Monday at 12:57 PM)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> But there is something wrong with the tax treatment if a 10% expected gross yield can't get private landlords buying into new build at any material rate.





Leo said:


> buy my suspicion is the bigger problem isn't the yield, but prospective small time investors being put off over uncertainty over increasing tenant rights.


there is the issue. If 10% yields can't attract new landlords or retain landlords, why? Taxation? Evicting tenants? Ever changing regulation and threats by SF re tenancy of indefinite duration? That's the issue here. 

Yes supply must be increased, but in 81 days time the eviction bans ends. They need to do something in advance of that to try and reduce/slow the number of evictions that will happen over the next 12-18 months.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Monday at 12:58 PM)

Mocame said:


> To my mind it is glaringly obvious that the exodus of small landlords is to the introduction of rent pressure zones in 2016.  These were preceded by a one year rent freeze introduced by Alan Kelly, then rent increases were limited to 4% pa, then frozen during Covid and now limited to 2% pa.  Any landlord who owned a property in 2016 is now facing a massive growth in maintenance costs, a chunky growth in interest payments but a tiny growth in rent since 2016 and going forward.  It will get worse in Sinn Féin gets into government and imposes the rent freeze it has promised.   I am not sure a tax break will be enough to fix this.


it needs to get to a stage where the rental market is absolutely destroyed before the government (whoever they are!) decide that they made a mistake and cue the tax breaks to attract investment back into the sector again. As sure as light follows day!


----------



## Leo (Monday at 2:32 PM)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Yes supply must be increased, but in 81 days time the eviction bans ends. They need to do something in advance of that to try and reduce/slow the number of evictions that will happen over the next 12-18 months.


In reality, is there anything the current government could realistically do to assuage the fears of what SF might do if they got into power?


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Monday at 3:07 PM)

Leo said:


> In reality, is there anything the current government could realistically do to assuage the fears of what SF might do if they got into power?



I'm robbing another suggstion here. Extend the rent-a-room relief to rental properties. If annual rent is under €15,000 a year, its tax free. Anything over that and the whole lot is taxed accordingly. Landlords benefit from no income tax and renters benefit to the tune of monthly rents capped at €1250 a month. I for one would remain in the market instead of selling in the summer.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Monday at 3:16 PM)

I think it would work better as a cap based on some multiple of LPT so it's linked to the property value (and they already have the database).
If the rent exceeds that cap you don't qualify for any exemption.
If the rent is less than that you get the first 1250 of the rent a month tax free.

That would keep me in too, however it's unlikely to happen because the cost would exceed the political gains (which might even be negative for them).


----------



## Leo (Monday at 3:20 PM)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I'm robbing another suggstion here. Extend the rent-a-room relief to rental properties. If annual rent is under €15,000 a year, its tax free. Anything over that and the whole lot is taxed accordingly. Landlords benefit from no income tax and renters benefit to the tune of monthly rents capped at €1250 a month. I for one would remain in the market instead of selling in the summer.


A huge boon for landlords in low demand areas while doing little for areas with most demand, trapping some landlords in RPZs on low rents.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Monday at 3:21 PM)

Leo said:


> A huge boon for landlords in low demand areas while doing little for areas with most demand, trapping some landlords in RPZs on low rents.


see my suggestion^


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Monday at 3:23 PM)

Also they would no longer need RPZ's, it's a free market solution


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Monday at 3:56 PM)

Leo said:


> A huge boon for landlords in low demand areas while doing little for areas with most demand, trapping some landlords in RPZs on low rents.


i would say it would appeal greatly for new investment in the rental sector throughout Ireland.

Have you any suggestions yourself Leo?


----------



## Leo (Monday at 4:32 PM)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> i would say it would appeal greatly for new investment in the rental sector throughout Ireland.



Any funding should be prioritised to where the problem is at it's most acute, and that is in the RPZ areas where that proposal would have little appeal.



PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Have you any suggestions yourself Leo?


I've said it already, it's all about supply and anything else is just the application of band aids that are unlikely to have any real effect.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Monday at 5:21 PM)

Leo said:


> I've said it already, it's all about supply and anything else is just the application of band aids that are unlikely to have any real effect.


So in 81 days time when the eviction ban ends, to stop landlords evicting thousands of tenants over the course of 2023 and selling up, you action plan is build more houses. Unless they are to be housed in concentration style log cabins or steeltech sheds, I don't see that being very practical.

It's a bit like a house being on fire and instead of putting the fire out, talking about how to stop houses going on fire in the future. 

Your answer is correct, don't get me wrong, it is supply, but supply takes years and years and years. We need immediate action right now. Today, tomorrow and yesterday! As well as in 3, 5, 10 and 20 years times.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Monday at 6:17 PM)

Leo said:


> Any funding should be prioritised to where the problem is at it's most acute, and that is in the RPZ areas where that proposal would have little appeal.
> 
> 
> I've said it already, it's all about supply and anything else is just the application of band aids that are unlikely to have any real effect.


I'm in an RPZ area and the proposal would make me stay in.

My suggestion was that the rent cap would be based off of value from the LPT register and would apply to all rentals.

I don't know what the cap should be but the idea is that it would result in cheaper rents, e.g. at 6% cap, if the property value were 250,000 that limits you to 1250 per month.

If the annual rent is less than 6% of the property value (as recorded in the LPT DB) then you get a tax exemption on the first 1250 of rent.

If 6% of the property value is 2500 per month, you don't pay tax on the first 1250 (as long as the rent you charge is not too high/over 2500).

As the rent is being set/capped in the scheme by the government you would make the property exempt from RPZ.


----------



## LS400 (Monday at 6:22 PM)

Leo said:


> A huge boon for landlords in low demand areas while doing little for areas with most demand, trapping some landlords in RPZs on low rents.


I think it goes without saying, adopting the possibility of the tax reduction, there should be no need for RPZs. Tax incentive would be all that's needed to rid that rotten apple.

That would be a start in solving the basket case we have at the moment.

So what if a one bed owner in longford benefits from it,  its for the greater good..  



Leo said:


> I've said it already, it's all about supply and anything else is just the application of band aids that are unlikely to have any real effect.



We don't have supply, and we wont have the supply for some time, we, tenants/Property owners cant afford for the can to be continually be kicked down the road, only for some other bright spark to mess it up even more than it already is.

If action was implemented now, it would be a start in repairing the damage done these last few years, or, we could just carry on and find ways for it not to work.

Reducing the tax would work, but is anyone brave enough to implement it.. That, would be addressing major issues with the young people of this Country, for as a LL, (and I hate that term) I could reduce my rent accordingly.

Its sad to say, but I've flip all faith in the right thing being done.


----------



## T McGibney (Monday at 7:42 PM)

Leo said:


> A huge boon for landlords in *low demand areas* while doing little for areas with most demand, trapping some landlords in RPZs on low rents.


Low demand areas seem to be a thing of the past.


----------



## Leo (Tuesday at 9:31 AM)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Unless they are to be housed in concentration style log cabins or steeltech sheds, I don't see that being very practical.


What tax incentive do you think would make tens of thousands of new units available in that timeframe?


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Tuesday at 10:30 PM)

Leo said:


> What tax incentive do you think would make tens of thousands of new units available in that timeframe?


I thought I asked you that same question!!!!

I think for April 2023 when estimated 5,000 landlords will have served notice on tenants and they will be evicted by June 2023, something has to be done or effort has to be made to reduce this as much as possible.

I think a tax break for landlords who sign up for a 2-5 years lease agreement. Or a tax break for a meaningful reduction in rent. An ability for landlords in RPZ with properties way out of kilter with rents to be permitted to be Ng them some way to market rent.

I think some portion of the mortgage repayment (capital) will have to be allowable against tax. This would encourage new investment I believe.

I think certainty needs to be provided to landlords. I think SF threats of a three year rental freeze and inability to sell property with vacant possession needs to stop. It scares landlords and motivates them to leave and we need them to remain until your solution of mass supply arrives. I think SF are being found out in the polls.

Landlords are experiencing interest rates increases and an inability to increase rents by more than 2% is eroding profits and turning small profitable properties into loss makers. Why on earth would landlords stay in the rental sector when they are loosing money.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Tuesday at 11:03 PM)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I thought I asked you that sane question!!!!
> 
> I think for April 2023 when estimated 5,000 landlords will have served notice on tenants and they will be evicted by June 2023, sometime has to be done or effort has to be made to reduce this as much as possible.
> 
> ...


I think you are wasting your time unfortunately. 
The powers that be in this country only listen to the build side mafia, getting small landlords out increases demand for their product.
Follow the money!


----------



## Leo (Wednesday at 11:08 AM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> The powers that be in this country only listen to the build side mafia, getting small landlords out increases demand for their product.
> Follow the money!


Yes, because limiting the market for you product to a few small players with much greater bargaining power always means you get a better price


----------



## Leo (Wednesday at 11:13 AM)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I thought I asked you that same question!!!!


I thought I made my opinion on that clear. 




PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I think a tax break for landlords who sign up for a 2-5 years lease agreement.


There's no incentive for that with Part 4 restrictions in place.



PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I think certainty needs to be provided to landlords. I think SF threats of a three year rental freeze and inability to sell property with vacant possession needs to stop. It scares landlords and motivates them to leave and we need them to remain until your solution of mass supply arrives. I think SF are being found out in the polls.


That to me, and from the rumblings I hear are much greater factors in motivating current landlords to leave the market. No small tweaking of taxation will address that and any significant moves would be political suicide.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Wednesday at 11:26 AM)

Leo said:


> Yes, because limiting the market for you product to a few small players with much greater bargaining power always means you get a better price


Well if you get a fraction of the non competitive price that those small players get, via 'political donations', then that is absolutely correct.
I think you were implicitly linking the common good with what the political class want.
Not a huge amount of evidence for that historically in this country!

Edit - I misread your response, I'm not sure I follow it.
How does getting small landlords with existing properties out limit the market for builders, if that is what it refers to?


----------



## T McGibney (Wednesday at 11:34 AM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Well if you get a fraction of the non competitive price that those small players get, via 'political donations', then that is absolutely correct.


Corporate political donations are a thing of the past in this country. They were basically regulated out of existence years ago. Today the taxpayer lavishly funds political parties.


----------



## Leo (Wednesday at 11:45 AM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Well if you get a fraction of the non competitive price that those small players get, via 'political donations', then that is absolutely correct.


No, it just isn't. No supplier of goods or services ever aims to reduce their market. It would be madness to do so.



RonnieShinbal88 said:


> I think you were implicitly linking the common good with what the political class want.
> Not a huge amount of evidence for that historically in this country!


Really, where?

I think you've made it clear you don't know what you're talking about. 

How many of our politicians are landlords, yet they keep introducing more tenant-favouring legislation and fail to give themselves tax breaks on rental income?


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Wednesday at 11:53 AM)

Leo said:


> No, it just isn't. No supplier of goods or services ever aims to reduce their market. It would be madness to do so.


Getting rid of existing small landlords doesn't reduce their market, it increases it.

Once supply is up they would be free to change their approach, but short term this creates demand.

It would worsen the short term situation, justifying the various incentives for builders that they have floated only yesterday for example.

Supply catches up and the market restrictions go back to normal welcoming small landlords back with open arms.

Hard luck on all the tenants evicted over the next year or two.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Wednesday at 12:13 PM)

Whatever the reason is for doing absolutely nothing to help incentivise small landlords to stay in until supply can catch up (if ever), be it incompetence, malice or political careerism, I just can't see any explanation that is in the common good.

Unless you take the view that it is a lost cause and nothing can be done to convince them to stay in, without even having a discussion on it with small landlords, which again seems questionable.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Wednesday at 1:00 PM)

Sorry, I missed it. Can you tell me what you would do in the next 6 months to make things better for tenants and encourage landlords to remain in the sector without yet again severely reducing supply? 


Leo said:


> I thought I made my opinion on that clear.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Wednesday at 1:09 PM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Whatever the reason is for doing absolutely nothing to help incentivise small landlords to stay in until supply can catch up (if ever), be it incompetence, malice or political careerism, I just can't see any explanation that is in the common good.
> 
> Unless you take the view that it is a lost cause and nothing can be done to convince them to stay in, without even having a discussion on it with small landlords, which again seems questionable.


That is it in a nutshell. The idea of floating last summer about tax breaks for landlords and giving them nothing - equates to a kick in the teeth for existing landlords. In the budget last september, giving tenants tax breaks if they invest thousands in retrofitting and improving the energy efficiency of their properties - equates to nothing. The governemnt think landlords will invest thousands and cannot increase rent by more than 2% and cannot get vacant possession of their property, are forced into an eviction ban, are threatened with rent freezes for 3 years by SF and more - a kick in the teeth. Then this month, the minister for housing announces landlords can write off white goods against tax - hello minister, we can do that already, it isn't new - just shows he doesn't even know his brief and is a bluffer - a kick in the teeth. And the government are back kite flying again now saying something must be done about the taxation on small landlords - hang on again and we might do something. 

They had their chance last September to do something meaningful and didn't did it. Landlords who subsequently served eviction notices after the budget, I think I read there are upwards of 5,000 landlords who served notices to quit to RTB which will come into effect April - June 2023, they I think will not be for turning now. More will follow. 

How with their special advisors they cannot explain why they need to keep small landlords in the game is beyond me. They have given a tax break to tenants, nothing to landlords. They can be giving tenants a lot more in terms of emergency accommodation and hotel rooms in the second half of this year, because thousands upon thousands of landlords are exiting and the new entrants are a mere fraction to replace them. The next few years are going to be absolutely god awful for tenants and young people in ireland trying to find a place to live as they start out on their working career. A great motivator to emigrate from Ireland.


----------



## The Horseman (Wednesday at 1:30 PM)

Leo said:


> No, it just isn't. No supplier of goods or services ever aims to reduce their market. It would be madness to do so.
> 
> 
> Really, where?
> ...


The State is reducing the supply of rentals by their actions. It makes no sense to continue losing suppliers from the market at a time when there is such chronic under-supply. As you say it would be madness to do it but that is exactly what they are doing by their actions. 

Common sense would suggest the question is how do we encourage (not force) existing supply and encourage new supply. Why would a small landlord enter the market if the treatment existing landlords is anything to go by? We have heard multiple times we need professional/corporate  landlords. Well that's exactly what we are getting and it has not exactly worked out well for us to date. Do we see them charge low rents?

In fairness I would not see politicians as your common landlord. if they get troublesome tenants you can be reasonably sure they will be able to remove them quicker than the ordinary landlord by legal means of course but by availing of systems quicker than the ordinary landlord can do.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Wednesday at 1:43 PM)

The Horseman said:


> The State is reducing the supply of rentals by their actions. It makes no sense to continue losing suppliers from the market at a time when there is such chronic under-supply. As you say it would be madness to do it but that is exactly what they are doing by their actions.
> 
> Common sense would suggest the question is how do we encourage (not force) existing supply and encourage new supply. Why would a small landlord enter the market if the treatment existing landlords is anything to go by? We have heard multiple times we need professional/corporate  landlords. Well that's exactly what we are getting and it has not exactly worked out well for us to date. Do we see them charge low rents?
> 
> In fairness I would not see politicians as your common landlord. if they get troublesome tenants you can be reasonably sure they will be able to remove them quicker than the ordinary landlord by legal means of course but by availing of systems quicker than the ordinary landlord can do.


The 'a lot of politicians are landlords so the government would never screw over landlords' argument is obviously some very dubious logic.


----------



## ashambles (Wednesday at 3:01 PM)

Being morally correct in taxing rental income at 52% would be fine, but if it leads to less houses available for rent and more expensive rent - then it's wrong.

My own quick research
France: you pay tax on 50% of the gross rent (if total rent is less than 70k) - don't need to calculate expenses. 
Belgium: more complicated but it's something like tax on 60% of the rent. 
Germany: you can use 2% of the house value as a depreciation figure. 
Netherlands: you pay the property tax (obviously higher than our LPT) on the property you're renting out not on the rent. That property tax is based on the rental value of the property - so this seems to make sense.
Sweden: you pay a flat 30% tax on rental profits.

In Ireland if there's no mortgage on a property, then for higher rate tax payers an attractive option is leaving it idle, which in Ireland despite LPT and various service charges is relatively cheap.  If you were in Netherlands with higher property taxes and no rental taxes - then you'd be renting that out.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Wednesday at 3:14 PM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> The 'a lot of politicians are landlords so the government would never screw over landlords' argument is obviously some very dubious logic.


basing the treatement of 170,000 landlords on the 80 or so TDs who are also landlords.....only in Ireland.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Wednesday at 3:18 PM)

ashambles said:


> Being morally correct in taxing rental income at 52% would be fine, but if it leads to less houses available for rent and more expensive rent - then it's wrong.
> 
> My own quick research
> France: you pay tax on 50% of the gross rent (if total rent is less than 70k) - don't need to calculate expenses.
> ...


what kickstarted the dramatic rise in headline/advertised rents in Ireland was making rental income subject to USC and PRSI. For a lot of landlords this meant the effective tax rate increased from 40% to 52% overnight. As a result, rents needed to increase by a gross 24% each month just for the landlord to not be in a worse position. The State benefitted handsomely. Landlords neither gained nor lost anything. The tenants got absolutely hammered!

What followed was RPZ, threats and the vilification of landlords. First 4% rent increases every year, then 2% rent increases every year without fail. And the introduction of REITs and institutional investors that charge (imo) far in excess of what a rental should be charging.

That is what has brought us to the current situation.


----------



## T McGibney (Wednesday at 3:18 PM)

ashambles said:


> My own quick research
> France: you pay tax on 50% of the gross rent (if total rent is less than 70k) - don't need to calculate expenses.


Savage, if true.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Wednesday at 3:22 PM)

ashambles said:


> Being morally correct in taxing rental income at 52% would be fine, but if it leads to less houses available for rent and more expensive rent - then it's wrong.
> 
> My own quick research
> France: you pay tax on 50% of the gross rent (if total rent is less than 70k) - don't need to calculate expenses.
> ...


You also need to factor in the eviction process, in France it seems to be done in around 6 to 8 months and includes the court organising a repayment schedule for all of the arrears within 36 month, and forcible removal from the property:








						Eviction Law - Overseas Property Investments French Real Estate
					

Learn about eviction of a tenant for French Leaseback property, under the French law. Ask your question for free to an English speaking lawyer !




					frenchrealestatelaw-traesch.fr
				




The French don't mess around, they are not afraid to seize bank accounts.


----------



## Leo (Wednesday at 3:37 PM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Getting rid of existing small landlords doesn't reduce their market, it increases it.
> 
> Once supply is up they would be free to change their approach, but short term this creates demand.


How could that possibly be the case? Fewer customers does not increase a market.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (Wednesday at 3:46 PM)

ashambles said:


> Netherlands: you pay the property tax (obviously higher than our LPT) on the property you're renting out not on the rent. That property tax is based on the rental value of the property - so this seems to make sense.
> Sweden: you pay a flat 30% tax on rental profits.


I would advocate either of these systems. Very simple to calculate and monitor and would be neutral across taxpayers. 

Add to that a CGT exemption or reduction if you let a dwelling for >10 years and I think it becomes a much more attractive investment.


----------



## Boyddbookman (Wednesday at 3:58 PM)

ashambles said:


> Being morally correct in taxing rental income at 52% would be fine, but if it leads to less houses available for rent and more expensive rent - then it's wrong.
> 
> My own quick research
> France: you pay tax on 50% of the gross rent (if total rent is less than 70k) - don't need to calculate expenses.
> ...


We had a French rental for 10+ years and engaged a dedicated accounting company to undertake all the fomalities with registering with the French treasury for the purposes of submitting an annual tax return to the French authorities.

As I understand it, there are two approaches available, the 50% approach you cite is for a French domiciled (tax domiciled) lazyman approach.
Alternatively, one can elect to submit a detailed return which effectively, depending on personal circumstance, can be reasonably expected to reduce the marginal rate to <40% or so, and possibly further depending on your depreciation allowances.

If you are a French non-dom, then the tax rate reduces further to ~37% to the best of my recollection.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Wednesday at 4:08 PM)

Leo said:


> How could that possibly be the case? Fewer customers does not increase a market.


Because units rented out have higher occupancy than when they are sold to homeowners.
Let's say there is a rental and two couples share the property.
If the small landlord sells up to one of them, it displaces a couple.
You could also have people living at home with their parents and saving who might buy the rental, evicting both couples.

Converting rentals to owner occupied homes creates net demand for units.
At a time where we have a crisis in supply, it's insane.

Existing small landlords are not customers of builders they have already bought their units.

I'm talking specifically about what is being discussed here on why over the next 6 months/year/2 years would you not do soemthing to stop small landlords leave the market.

The only possible economic gain I can see from that is that it creates short term demand for new builds at a time when they are looking for subsidies.

I'm not saying this is without a doubt the motivation and there may be more than one reason why the government are not acting to stem the exit of small landlords. I am just struggling to see any motivation that is good for the country rather than the government and builders.

You are one of the few people on here who don't seem to think it's a good idea to incentivise small landlords to stay in until supply helps resolve the crisis but I can't make any sense of your position - you just seem to argue against anything put forward by landlords without attempting to address the issue of thousands of tenancies ending and people being evicted because small landlords are flooding out of the market.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (Wednesday at 4:19 PM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Converting rentals to owner occupied homes creates net demand for units.


Not necessarily true. As per Census 2016 average rented household is 2.6 persons, average private household with mortgage is 3.4.

Of course the age, type of dwelling, number of kids, etc, is different.  But I'm not sure that the typical transition from rental to owner occupancy changes the average number of occupants, at least for adults. Anecdotally I know of 2-3 person rental houseshares being sold to couples with one child or one on the way.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Wednesday at 4:20 PM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Because units rented out have higher occupancy than when they are sold to homeowners.
> Let's say there is a rental and two couples share the property.
> If the small landlord sells up to one of them, it displaces a couple.
> You could also have people living at home with their parents and saving who might buy the rental, evicting both couples.
> ...


Another possible gain is that it increases short term demand for REIT properties and propping up that market might be desirable to house building Inc. because it would stop REITS dumping large amounts of properties and having house price drops around REIT redemptions.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Wednesday at 4:45 PM)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Not necessarily true. As per Census 2016 average rented household is 2.6 persons, average private household with mortgage is 3.4.
> 
> Of course the age, type of dwelling, number of kids, etc, is different.  But I'm not sure that the typical transition from rental to owner occupancy changes the average number of occupants, at least for adults. Anecdotally I know of 2-3 person rental houseshares being sold to couples with one child or one on the way.


It's the number of units left at the time of the sale versus the number displaced that matter. Your example might still create demand if a couple with one child were renting a 2 bed apartment before and displace 3 people from a 3 bed, then the 3 tenants wont fit in the free 2 bed rental and need another unit. Obviously it depends on buyers upsizing versus the rental they had previously (upsizing as planning to have kids etc./not wanting to waste money in rent in a large rental on their own while house saving, or people who were living with parents etc.).

I'm not surprised long term averages in owner occupier are high because people have kids, it's the displacement on purchase of the house that matters though here.

I had come across figures for this somewhere before but can't track it down.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Wednesday at 5:04 PM)

Perhaps the current government know/expect/fear SF will lead the next government and so, landlords fleeing with the market will be to their ultimate benefit in the future. Say 2025, SF take power and the crisis is even worse. Landlords who wanted to leave the market should have done so by then and the attractiveness of the rental sector won't be there for new investment. SF will find it impossible to attract investment unless they give huge tax breaks to entice it back.......this gives FF/FG a stick to beat them with.

When we talk about stopping the exodus of landlords over the next 6/12/18/24 months, I think this Minister and the government are so inactive and incompetent that they are a lot more likely to impose an eviction ban (a lazy route of doing so) than do anything meanignful for landlords


----------



## Sarenco (Wednesday at 5:16 PM)

SF have no interest in encouraging mom & pop landlords to stay in the game.

Up to few weeks ago, Eoin O Broin was criticising the Government for doing nothing to encourage small landlords to stay in the market (without saying what they should do).

However, in recent weeks the SF line on this issue has changed.  

They are now saying that it is inevitable that these small landlords are going to exit the market and the State should be buying up these properties (where the money is to come from is unclear),

It is a subtle - but important - change in messaging that seems to have been missed by most commentators.


----------



## ashambles (Wednesday at 6:20 PM)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> basing the treatement of 170,000 landlords on the 80 or so TDs who are also landlords.....only in Ireland.


I'm guessing that 80 figure went around on social media.  That was TDs and senators and it included anyone with any declared property and land on top of a PPR.  The figure for TD landlords which included "accidental" landlords and people renting out holiday homes seemingly was around 28.  Above average probably - but not 80 TDs.


----------



## Mocame (Wednesday at 9:39 PM)

Sarenco said:


> SF have no interest in encouraging mom & pop landlords to stay in the game.
> 
> Up to few weeks ago, Eoin O Broin was criticising the Government for doing nothing to encourage small landlords to stay in the market (without saying what they should do).
> 
> ...


I noticed that too.  This is a mad, mad policy.  Local authorities can't even maintain the span-new estates they are building or buying currently.  These are at least located in groups and are new so they should be easy to maintain but instead are left to run down for a decade or two and then a 'regeneration' is announced which actually involves concentrating all of the maintenance they should have done over the course of many years into a single year or two.  

But Eoin O'Broin is proposing that local buy up older dwellings, presumably many run down or at least requiring upgrading, spread hither and tither.  How are they going to maintain them?


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Wednesday at 10:02 PM)

It's a case of clowns to the left, jokers to the right and here I am, stuck in the middle of an eviction ban......


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Wednesday at 10:05 PM)

SF policies are headline grabbing but there is absolutely no substance, logic, method behind them. If people genuinely believe that SF will solve the issues in health, housing, inflation etc they are incorrect. 

Health needs a complete rethink and start afresh. Nothing else. And it needs cross party twenty year plan. 

Housing needs to retain landlords. Get revenue (taxation) from reits. 

And need to get rents down through a deal for tax reduction with landlords. 

Populist building 100,000 social and affordable houses in 5 years is bonkers. In terms of materials, labour etc it's not achievable unless private sector building is basically robbed and ransacked. Which given the history of SF, is well within their capabilities.


----------



## Royal Blue (Yesterday at 10:56 AM)

As T. McGibney has stated the main      problem is that rental income is treated as ‘passive’ / ‘unearned’ income which is treated differently by Revenue to for example, self-employment income.  As I see it, in practice it is self-employment for smaller landlords and income not being eligible for pension relief is a massive issue. A smaller significant issue is the PRSI treatment of ‘unearned income’ where many will pay 4% at Class K for no benefits whatsoever. Whereas paying the same rate as Class S (self-employed) would provide benefits.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (Yesterday at 11:01 AM)

Royal Blue said:


> A smaller significant issue is the PRSI treatment of ‘unearned income’ where many will pay 4% at Class K for no benefits whatsoever.


I agree this is a travesty. It's *Pay*-Related Social *Insurance *that is levied on non-pay income and provides no insurance whatsoever.


----------



## ashambles (Yesterday at 11:43 AM)

Looking a bit more into rental tax rates around the world, I think I can say we've one of the highest rates in the world if the property does not have a mortgage, and you're on the top rate of tax already.

52% tax on income would push us close to the top, however it seems that countries with high income tax do try to incentivize rental by giving some reasonably generous reliefs to rental or else give lower rates than income tax.

If we have the highest rate of tax - that would be useful to know as it becomes very hard at that point to argue it does not have some relationship to our difficult rental market. Mortgage interest relief would be a valid counter argument - but a lot of properties are mortgage free.


----------



## Leo (Yesterday at 2:25 PM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Because units rented out have higher occupancy than when they are sold to homeowners.


Occupancy is of zero concern to developers, it has no impact whatsoever to their bottom line. 



RonnieShinbal88 said:


> I'm talking specifically about what is being discussed here on why over the next 6 months/year/2 years would you not do soemthing to stop small landlords leave the market.


And as I've said a number of times already, the primary focus needs to be on improving supply. I'm not sure there is any measure that would be politically acceptable that would have a real and meaningful impact on the number of units available for rental. The government and opposition are committed to rent controls and security of tenure for tenants at the expense of a landlord's rights over their property, there's no prospect of that changing in the short term. 

With a shortfall of 10's of thousands of units per annum, rental stock will continue to shrink as more and more people looking to buy homes and are willing to pay over the odds to do so.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Yesterday at 2:41 PM)

Leo said:


> Occupancy is of zero concern to developers, it has no impact whatsoever to their bottom line. They only care about getting units sold.


To simplify an example lets take a landlord selling a 1 bed and someone living with parents buys the rental unit.
The tenants are evicted and the property is off the rental market, the rental market demand increases one unit.
There is nowhere for them to go - government looks to builders to create new supply.

If a couple are in a one bed and they are planning a family and buy a 3 bed rental, 3 tenants are on the market but only one room is freed up in the one bed. There is a net demand for new rental units.  

Not every transaction will result in an extra rental unit demand, but the net effect over 5000 units selling will be an increased demand for rental units. The alternative is that all of the upsizing transactions are offset by downsizing transactions, someone paying more in rent for a bigger place moving to a much lower mortgage relative to rent, buys an even smaller place - doesn't seem likely or tally with any of my experience.

It's much more likely that people renting are likely to be saving for house and will upsize later, people saving for a house might be living with parents and relatives etc.

I thought it was fairly uncontroversial that rentals going off the market reduced net rental unit availability and I thought I had seen the government refer to the same previously but I don't have any official figures.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Yesterday at 2:44 PM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> To simplify an example lets take a landlord selling a 1 bed and someone living with parents buys the rental unit.
> The tenants are evicted and the property is off the rental market, the rental market demand increases one unit.
> There is nowhere for them to go - government looks to builders to create new supply.
> 
> ...


In a nutshell Renters house share but owners are less likely to do so.


----------



## Leo (Yesterday at 2:50 PM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> To simplify an example lets take a landlord selling a 1 bed and someone living with parents buys the rental unit.


Again, what has that to do with the point I questioned? 



RonnieShinbal88 said:


> The powers that be in this country only listen to the build side mafia, getting small landlords out increases demand for their product.
> Follow the money!


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Yesterday at 2:59 PM)

Leo said:


> Again, what has that to do with the point I questioned?


You suggested that having small landlords sell up reduced the market for builders/units.
It increases demand, builders will be asked to build to meet that new demand and gov are talking about various subsidies etc. for them to meet that demand.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Yesterday at 3:01 PM)

Leo said:


> Again, what has that to do with the point I questioned?


here:



Leo said:


> How could that possibly be the case? Fewer customers does not increase a market.


----------



## Allpartied (Yesterday at 4:26 PM)

We need to move away from the permanent housing crisis which means a radical approach. 
How about we abolish private landlords and force them to sell their properties.   The state replaces them as the landlord for those who cannot, or do not want to buy.    
I mean they're whinging like billy-o anyway.  Constantly complaining about the terrible deal they get and the lack of respect, so we'd, probably, be doing them a favour.   
The great thing about houses is that the landlords can't export them overseas, or stick them in a security box.   They have to hand them over to someone else, someone who actually needs the house to live in.   As the private landlords flood the market with their houses, the price would fall and many more people could get to live in their own house, at an affordable price.


----------



## Sarenco (Yesterday at 4:51 PM)

Allpartied said:


> How about we abolish private landlords and force them to sell their properties.   The state replaces them as the landlord for those who cannot, or do not want to buy.


Thankfully our Constitution would preclude that approach.


----------



## Allpartied (Yesterday at 4:55 PM)

Sarenco said:


> Thankfully our Constitution would preclude that approach.


The constitution can be changed, by the people, because the people are sovereign.  
The landlords could plead their case to the people and see how they get on. 
Or, alternatively, the elected government could just implement a tax on landlords which would make it uneconomical to operate.  Added to an empty homes tax of, say, 50% of the property value.  Should do the trick.


----------



## Sarenco (Yesterday at 5:05 PM)

Allpartied said:


> The constitution can be changed, by the people, because the people are sovereign.


Of course.  

But I don’t think there is a snowball’s chance in hell that a referendum to restrict private ownership of property of the type suggested would pass.  Frankly, it’s pure fantasy.


----------



## Leo (Yesterday at 5:05 PM)

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> You suggested that having small landlords sell up reduced the market for builders/units.


Read it again, I didn't. 



RonnieShinbal88 said:


> It increases demand, builders will be asked to build to meet that new demand and gov are talking about various subsidies etc. for them to meet that demand.


They're 50k units behind the level needed in the last two years alone. You think they're waiting around for a few more landlords to exit before they start delivering at a pace that meets exceeds the the current rate of growth in demand?


----------



## Leo (Yesterday at 5:07 PM)

Allpartied said:


> How about we abolish private landlords and force them to sell their properties. The state replaces them as the landlord for those who cannot, or do not want to buy.


Unfortunately the state has spectacularly failed in their responsibilities to provide social housing. I'd have little faith in them sorting that mess out and servicing the private rental market along with it.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (Yesterday at 5:34 PM)

Leo said:


> Read it again, I didn't.
> 
> 
> They're 50k units behind the level needed in the last two years alone. You think they're waiting around for a few more landlords to exit before they start delivering at a pace that meets exceeds the the current rate of growth in demand?


Where did I say they have to wait for landlords to exit before building new units?


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (Yesterday at 10:02 PM)

Allpartied said:


> We need to move away from the permanent housing crisis which means a radical approach.
> How about we abolish private landlords and force them to sell their properties.   The state replaces them as the landlord for those who cannot, or do not want to buy.
> I mean they're whinging like billy-o anyway.  Constantly complaining about the terrible deal they get and the lack of respect, so we'd, probably, be doing them a favour.
> The great thing about houses is that the landlords can't export them overseas, or stick them in a security box.   They have to hand them over to someone else, someone who actually needs the house to live in.   As the private landlords flood the market with their houses, the price would fall and many more people could get to live in their own house, at an affordable price.


Quite possibly the most stupid comment on AAM. You wouldn't get this in China. Possibly in North Korea. Absolutely bonkers.

It's alarming that I actually think you are being serious and not taking the proverbial.


----------



## Allpartied (Yesterday at 10:31 PM)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Quite possibly the most stupid comment on AAM. You wouldn't get this in China. Possibly in North Korea. Absolutely bonkers.
> 
> It's alarming that I actually think you are being serious and not taking the proverbial.


BTL has been a disaster for housing.
I’ve seen the ex rentals and they are, almost universally,dumps. Flimsy kitchens, poorly insulated, decrepit fixtures, not painted or decorated for ages, maintenance neglected. The landlords are driven by profit and spend the bare minimum on their houses. The housing policy has been designed to help rich people get even richer , by sucking up the wages of productive workers. Treating housing as, primarily, an investment arm of the wealthy. As if that was its main purpose. 
Stop playing the victim. Our pathetic government has been letting you away with murder and it’s about time we changed policy.


----------

