The thing is that there are exactly the same number of homes in the housing stock after a landlord sells their property. Our homelessness figures are as much about people gaming the system as they are about actual homelessness. That's not to say homelessness isn't a problem but if I was able to get a house at way below the market rate then I'd join the queue.Give landlords 18 months to get out or stay in. Then do whatever they want in terms of tenancies. The homeless will hit 15000 maybe 20000 and they can start from their then.
Ah they did. Maybe not enough but they did do something. Fear of the next government is the problem, not the actions of this one.Minister McGrath with his rubbish about hoping to retain landlords and attract more on when the government did nothing for landlords in the budget. Nothing.
Effectively another chunk of the cost of funding the social burden of keeping a roof over the head the poorest and least adequate members of society is being shifted onto landlords.So, effectively, owners of buy to lets would not be able to sell them.
Brendan
But not in the rental market. And there are many hundreds of thousands of people not in a position to buy and who are thus totally dependent on that market, and very vulnerable if its ongoing shrinkage directly impacts on their current home.The thing is that there are exactly the same number of homes in the housing stock after a landlord sells their property.
Pre letting expenses are absolutely nothing. Dont apply to 99% of landlords if not more. I know no landlords who have ever claimed pre letting expenses. They gave renters €1000,why didn't they do likewise for landlords thru reduced taxation. Allow property tax as an expense. Anything.Ah they did. Maybe not enough but they did do something. Fear of the next government is the problem, not the actions of this one.
True but if the house is sold it's likely that there'll be one less family in rental accommodation/on a homeless list etc. I do agree that's it's not desirable but it's not as if the house gets demolished.But not in the rental market. And there are many hundreds of thousands of people not in a position to buy and who are thus totally dependent on that market, and very vulnerable if its ongoing shrinkage directly impacts on their current home.
Increases in tax bands help every income tax payer so that's not nothing. The pre-letting costs are not nothing, though they certainly aren't much. Why should landlords get tax breaks on their personal income that other people don't get? Until recently I was a landlord so I know what's involved but I never understood why there was an expectation that they should get some sort of special treatment.Pre letting expenses are absolutely nothing. Dont apply to 99% of landlords if not more. I know no landlords who have ever claimed pre letting expenses. They gave renters €1000,why didn't they do likewise for landlords thru reduced taxation. Allow property tax as an expense. Anything.
No, they gave a token item that will cost the taxman virtually nothing.
No, that assumes that every new buyer was previously renting an entire property in their own right. That ignores for example FTBs living with parents or in rent-a-rooms or housesharing arrangements.True but if the house is sold it's likely that there'll be one less family in rental accommodation/on a homeless list etc.
The changes regarding pre-letting costs approximate to nothing. Nobody asked for them and very few will benefit from them. They merely serve as a "Yes Minister" change that will cost the exchequer practically nothing, while giving the Minister cover against accusations of having done nothing.Increases in tax bands help every income tax payer so that's not nothing. The pre-letting costs are not nothing, though they certainly aren't much. Why should landlords get tax breaks on their personal income that other people don't get? Until recently I was a landlord so I know what's involved but I never understood why there was an expectation that they should get some sort of special treatment.
That's why I said likely.No, that assumes that every new buyer was previously renting an entire property in their own right. That ignores for example FTBs living with parents or in rent-a-rooms or housesharing arrangements.
That was primarily due to an increased money supply, increases in HAPS and population increase, though the reduction in average household size is a major factor in increased demand, though it's the extra money supply that's been the main driver in price increases.If your theory held, the rental market wouldn't have experienced the inflationary pressures it saw between 1998 and 2001 and again throughout the past decade.
Which one? Note that rents stagnated from 2002, after McCreevy loosened rental supply by reintroducing interest deductions for new landlords, even though increased money supply, increases in HAPS-type schemes and population increases persisted right up to the 2008 crash.That was primarily due to an increased money supply, increases in HAPS and population increase, though the reduction in average household size is a major factor in increased demand, though it's the extra money supply that's been the main driver in price increases.
That's why I said likely.
I'm not getting into a discussion about what constitutes an "approximation of nothing" and "nothing" so I'll leave that one there.The changes regarding pre-letting costs approximate to nothing. Nobody asked for them and very few will benefit from them. They merely serve as a "Yes Minister" change that will cost the exchequer practically nothing, while giving the Minister cover against accusations of having done nothing.
I do a lot of rental tax returns and I can't remember anyone claiming anything significant under the previous regime. where up to €5,000 in pre-letting costs could be claimed.
I never claimed it did.(By the way, that doesn't constitute a "tax break on personal income").
Mine didn't. Mine went up significantly during that period.Which one? Note that rents stagnated from 2002, after McCreevy loosened rental supply by reintroducing interest deductions for new landlords, even though increased money supply, increases in HAPS-type schemes and population increases persisted right up to the 2008 crash.
Again, I'm not getting into a discussion on semantics.Unlikely would be more accurate.
And...?Mine didn't. Mine went up significantly during that period.
Nor am I. But you did say "That's why I said likely." when I rebutted one of your earlier points.Again, I'm not getting into a discussion on semantics.
I agree 100%.I've read numerous posts looking for preferential treatment of income from rentals for private landlords. I don't see why that's desirable of warranted. I do think that there is an unreasonable amount of risk faced by those landlords which they are, not unreasonably, looking to be priced into their yield. I think it is more desirable to reduce the risk than increase the yield.
See edit but rents did increase during that period. Not to the extent that they have in the last number of years but they did increase.And...?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like aa duck...Nor am I. But you did say "That's why I said likely." when I rebutted one of your earlier points.
Which edit? They certainly did stagnate for at least a time and despite runaway economic growth generally the rates of increase in rents never again matched those seen in the 98/01 period until around a decade ago.See edit but rents did increase during that period. Not to the extent that they have in the last number of years but they did increase.
Yes, supply increased in line with demand after the Accession States joined the EU in 2004, bringing an unprecedented inflow of labour to the construction sector. Before that (but post 1998), and after 2008, we have been constrained by labour supply.Which edit? They certainly did stagnate for at least a time and despite runaway economic growth generally the rates of increase in rents never again matched those seen in the 98/01 period until around a decade ago.
No, supply was already increasing from early 2002 as the abolition of the interest restrictions from 1/1/02 meant that it again made sense for investors to buy new properties to let. Hence the relative stagnation in rents from that point compared to previously.Yes, supply increased in line with demand after the Accession States joined the EU in 2004, bringing an unprecedented inflow of labour to the construction sector. Before that (but post 1998), and after 2008, we have been constrained by labour supply.
Supply was increasing but it was the influx of labour post 2004 that allowed the supply to expand as it did up until 2008.No, supply was already increasing from early 2002 as the abolition of the interest restrictions from 1/1/02 meant that it again made sense for investors to buy new properties to let. Hence the relative stagnation in rents from that point compared to previously.