"Let's demolish the four great myths of housing"- Conor Skehan

David McWilliams article in the Irish Times suggesting that a site value tax is the main thing needed to get property prices down is hardly a revelation but it seems to me to be a bit of a no brainer.
 
Ceist Beag said:
With all due respect that's a pretty ridiculous argument. By his own numbers first time buyers are 25% of the relevant target group here. Not 0.33% - he's just trying to rearrange numbers to suit his own view. As WolfeTone said, the target group of the policy are those in need of housing.


I'm not sure what point he is trying to make here. Ultimately, if renters had the same certainty as those with mortgages, in that the rent only increases in line with the ECB rates for example, this would remove some of the uncertainty. The government RPZ were supposed to achieve that but judging by the DAFT annual reports they are a long way from doing so. Who is at fault there - are landlords simply ignoring the guidelines or are they not being enforced? Either way, renters are indeed the victims of this.

I would agree that the whole Rent is Dead Money argument is a false one but his analogy is silly.
Click to expand...
WolfeTone said:
True. But if to acquire the same use by other means (ie a mortgage) and the cost of repaying that mortgage is cheaper over the long term then the rent is dead money.
It depends how you define 'dead money'. I define it simply as the excess paid over what it would cost if availing of the alternative option (mortgage) to acquire the same utility.
Click to expand...
It depends. If your rent was below the cost of purchasing the same property, it would be good value.
The problem is, that for most people it simply is not.

The RPZ model has failed, mostly due to lack of enforcement and difficulty in getting people to actually report breaches. Its literally the norm round here to significantly raise rents after a tenant leaves, after all, the only personal who can give evidence against the landlord in this regard is the previous tenant. And usually they have moved on and don't wish to get involved.
 
lff12 said:
The RPZ model has failed, mostly due to lack of enforcement and difficulty in getting people to actually report breaches. Its literally the norm round here to significantly raise rents after a tenant leaves, after all, the only personal who can give evidence against the landlord in this regard is the previous tenant. And usually they have moved on and don't wish to get involved.
Click to expand...
The objective of the RPZ regime was to protect sitting tenants against large rent increases. In that regard it has been very successful.


The prohibition of big rent hikes between tenancies was a secondary objective, mainly to prevent landlords from strategically ending tenancies with below-market rents with the hope of re-letting them at market rents.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
The objective of the RPZ regime was to protect sitting tenants against large rent increases. In that regard it has been very successful.


The prohibition of big rent hikes between tenancies was a secondary objective, mainly to prevent landlords from strategically ending tenancies with below-market rents with the hope of re-letting them at market rents.
Click to expand...
But the primary objective ONLY lasted as long as the tenancy did. I'm sure there is a dwindling body of tenants from pre-2013 with very low rates. Many of those would have moved by necessity or used the savings to fund a purchase. And in practice landlords CAN hike the rent up between tenants - most of them don't get caught as not all tenancies are registered (of the 13 tenancies left here, only 5 are currently registered) and unless a previous tenant or someone else knows, PRTB are not aware by default of the actual rents paid if they are not. The extension of Part 4 from 4 to 6 years and restrictions on evictions are what has made the biggest difference to a lot of tenants - the gap being the event of a sale, where at a time like there where there is a financial incentive to sell for many, is making a difference.
 
Purple said:
David McWilliams article in the Irish Times suggesting that a site value tax is the main thing needed to get property prices down is hardly a revelation but it seems to me to be a bit of a no brainer.
Click to expand...
He's right - but it WILL ruffle feathers by pushing landowners to either do something or sell up. There's a bit of pushing needed to bring all parties on board with this position as it might devalue a lot of derelict land nobody has any intention of doing anything with, but gets a value on account of where it is located.
 
lff12 said:
I'm sure there is a dwindling body of tenants from pre-2013 with very low rates.
Click to expand...
I've lost track of the changes to the RPZ regime, but I know you don't have to have a pre-2014 tenancy to benefit from protections.


I am sure there are landlord who increase rents illegally between tenancies. But there are also lots of people (including landlords) who will refuse to break the law despite a negligible chance of being caught.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top