Implications of SF in government for landlords

Sanparom said:
Completely different scenario.
Click to expand...
How? The social responsibility of providing housing at some notional "fair" rent should not fall on the individual. If you were selling your car and a rich young man offered you €10,000 and an older, poorer, father of 4 kids who really needed a car to keep his job offered you €6,000 would you sell it to the father of four or the €10k man? Would you think that the social burden of providing for the children of that poorer father should fall on you or the State?
Sanparom said:
What is the solution?
Click to expand...
How about keeping property taxes and maybe increasing them and using the money to build more houses? It will also act to reduce house prices so it's a win-win for those trying to buy their own place. Broaden the tax base, tax wealth rather than income, shift away from taxing work and generally stop screwing over young people. The Shinners populist proposals will only hurt young people.
 
With the tax rates, increased bureaucracy, hassle, risk of not getting paid, risk of getting flat wrecked, lack of liquidity, in my opinion being a small scale residential landlord does not pay. Everything is stacked against you and it is going to get worse with a rent freeze. My advice is to get out.
 
Nicklesilver said:
With the tax rates, increased bureaucracy, hassle, risk of not getting paid, risk of getting flat wrecked, lack of liquidity, in my opinion being a small scale residential landlord does not pay. Everything is stacked against you and it is going to get worse with a rent freeze. My advice is to get out.
Click to expand...

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

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


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

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

Did u buy at bottom, sell at top. What yields or mortgages were on each property. Where were the BTL, Dublin or other. What was the fundamentals the f yr decision making process. Was it case by case or once u sold one were the rest all being sold regardless
 
I sold at mid to top. The prime reason I sold is because with all new new rules I felt, what I could do with my property was not in my control anymore. Also a property is worth 10 to 15% more when it's not occupied by tenant. As someone getting close to retirement I don't want to be guided by these rules. If you go through the SF housing Policy it will be almost impossible to evict a non paying tenant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top