RonnieShinbal88
Registered User
- Messages
- 275
You suggested that having small landlords sell up reduced the market for builders/units.Again, what has that to do with the point I questioned?
here:Again, what has that to do with the point I questioned?
How could that possibly be the case? Fewer customers does not increase a market.
Thankfully our Constitution would preclude that 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.
The constitution can be changed, by the people, because the people are sovereign.Thankfully our Constitution would preclude that approach.
Of course.The constitution can be changed, by the people, because the people are sovereign.
Read it again, I didn't.You suggested that having small landlords sell up reduced the market for builders/units.
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?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.
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.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.
Where did I say they have to wait for landlords to exit before building new units?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?
Quite possibly the most stupid comment on AAM. You wouldn't get this in China. Possibly in North Korea. Absolutely bonkers.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.
BTL has been a disaster for housing.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.
Serious question - how would abolishing landlords work in practice?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.
I never claimed you did!Where did I say they have to wait for landlords to exit before building new units?
Was this prior to the introduction of the minimum standards legislation? With that, the standards required for rental property now exceeds that of owner-occupied.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.
Actually it sounds like the USSR. Soviet style tower blocks built to house all. We know from experience how well that works in Ireland. But it would probably work better if there is no other choice of housing!Serious question - how would abolishing landlords work in practice?
No other country in the work has the input you suggest into its citizens' housing needs, so I am interested in hearing from you how you think we'd organise this.
Quite possibly the most stupid comment on AAM. You wouldn't get this in China. Possibly in North Korea. Absolutely bonkers.
From talking to public reps, part of the reason why this hasn't happened is because there are no guarantees it would actually keep those currently considering selling from going ahead with it. That's why you have more "stick" in form of the eviction ban (a crude instrument, but it effectively shuts the door). The other difficulty is that they don't want a scenario where "politically" landlords are seen to be getting something without giving something back in return.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.
Red herring. It would be madness to tweak the tax system to encourage individuals to borrow to invest in shares.
The laws of economics suggest otherwise. Every incentive and disincentive to supply respectively affects supply.
That's needed too.
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.
Very much so - a good chunk of the current rental stock was bought at historically high prices from 2004-2007 so such owners may feel "now is the time to sell", especially if an even worse regime under a different government is looming a couple of years out.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?