Why are landlords rushing for the exits while rents are so high?

I bought,

I’ve been in this game awhile. For this property, I didn’t borrow and I know the tenants who will be moving in. Money was in the bank, I know nothing about shares and investing in the stock market and so for me, this was the right move.

I’m not naive about the likelihood of ending up with rouge tenants at some stage, and if that’s the case, sickening as it will be, I can handle the loss.

The recommendation to sell was more regarding the accidental LLs who fell into this game through different circumstances.
 
How are you going about translating the savings into the stock market. If you want to start new thread it would be interesting discussion. i.e. what to do with savings after selling rented property
 
tomdublin said:
What would be wrong with that?
Click to expand...
Its penalising them. By all means the landlord can do it and fair play if they do, but they should be given the freedom and autonomy to do so and decide what they do themselves.

I think people leaving properties vacant in years to come is highly likely to increase significantly, given what is proposed by SF in relation to owners not getting their properties back with vacant position provided they give the required notice etc. And that an owner is proposed to be restricted in who they can sell their property too if its rented out.

The risk in terms of sale prices are too great for owners to risk or bear. Hence, why selling up now or leaving properties vacant is going to become a more common theme than it otherwise would. Proposals and policies being suggested or threatened now, are actually resuling in hurting current renters and future renters.
 
Last edited:
tomdublin said:
Leaving properties vacant during a housing crisis is the kind of selfishness that gives capitalism a bad name (and I'm a capitalist). There should be crippling tax penalties to discourage that kind of behaviour.
Click to expand...
Capitalism doesn't come into it. They are leaving them empty in response to government market interference which is creating distorted incentives, which you seem to want to double down on.
 
odyssey06 said:
Capitalism doesn't come into it. They are leaving them empty in response to government market interference which is creating distorted incentives, which you seem to want to double down on.
Click to expand...
IDK, limiting rent increases to CPI isn't a market interference or distorting incentive but appropriate in my opinion. Heck, even the 4% rule for RPZ is extremely generous already!

Reviewing the tenancy laws however is overdue. For example, encouraging unfurnished lettings (e.g. that stupid "must have a microwave" rule) would be a good thing. Looking at the rules in Austria or Germany would be a good start.
 
tomdublin said:
Leaving properties vacant during a housing crisis is the kind of selfishness that gives capitalism a bad name (and I'm a capitalist). There should be crippling tax penalties to discourage that kind of behaviour.
Click to expand...
Investments need to be treated as such, and not looked upon like some kind of public service. Just because the local authorities are doing their best to get out of the social housing business, does not mean that private landlords take on any responsibility to act as if they were a charity.
 
tomdublin said:
Leaving properties vacant during a housing crisis is the kind of selfishness that gives capitalism a bad name (and I'm a capitalist). There should be crippling tax penalties to discourage that kind of behaviour.
Click to expand...
Should the same penalties be applied to people living in nursing homes for years and years and their houses left empty??? People who emigrate for 12 months or 2 years say, should they be penalised?

My point is, the threat to a landlords ability to get vacant possession back of their property is terrifying to people and causing them to err now on the side of caution; sell up and not take any chances. It's actually putting any solution that's found on the back foot immediately.

People in nursing homes or emigrating for work for a year or 2 are not going to rent out their property for fear of not be able to get it back (potentially forever or until the tenant decides to move out - if SF had they way). They simply won't take the risk and the property will be left vacant.

They have a property and there's a very real threat from SF that if that rent it out and subsequently decide or need to (due to financial difficulties) sell, they would be forced to sell to another investor or landlord. That's restricting their potential purchasers to maybe 5% (probably less!) of the market. That is frightening, terrifying, brutal and absolutely unfair on people.
 
Last edited:
Setting the baseline without regard to below market rate discounts which may have been applied to long situated reliable tenants is the issue here though, not the %. It'd be like saying insurance companies couldn't offer no claims discounts.
 
odyssey06 said:
They are leaving them empty in response to government market interference which is creating distorted incentives, which you seem to want to double down on.
Click to expand...
No, the main objective should be to lift artificial constraints on supply by loosening height restrictions, cracking down on nimby objections, tackling anti-competitive practices in the building industry, abandoning useless vanity projects that consume scarce construction resources( e.g. Dublin metro, new motorways and train lines to nowhere in Donegal) slapping compulsory purchase orders on golf courses in Dublin city, etc, etc. Most other countries manage to build enough housing for their population, is Ireland really that uniquely incompetent?
 
Last edited:
tomdublin said:
Leaving properties vacant during a housing crisis is the kind of selfishness that gives capitalism a bad name (and I'm a capitalist). There should be crippling tax penalties to discourage that kind of behaviour.
Click to expand...
Capitalism is not just based on short term income but on the overall situation. Introducing "crippling tax" will result in the capitalist finding other ways to avoid/minimise the impact of tax (thats what capitalists do we either find ways to increase income and asset value or decrease loss in value of asset or costs associated with holding the asset).
 
Yes Ireland is unique as politicians want to pander to the electorate in the short term just for re-election. We the Irish don't do accountability well through every facet of life be it professionally or personally.

It is an Irish obsession to "beat the system" and in some circles is seen as a "badge of honour". How many people are in arrears in mortgage payments, how many people are in rent arrears in both public and private housing? How many people are evicted for being in arrears? How long does it take to get an eviction?

We are a small country with a limited skill pool of construction workers and have competing demands (correctly or not) on these resources. Local politicians get capital projects in their locality to ensure re-election. Michael Lowry springs to mind as an example.

I often look at the UK and look at their social housing policy. They will offer you accommodation (not necessarily where you want) this may seem unfair but is that not exactly what the majority of people who have to purchase their own properties have to do?
 
tomdublin said:
Most other countries manage to build enough housing for their population, is Ireland really that uniquely incompetent?
Click to expand...
On what are you basing your opinion that most other countries don't have similar housing issues?
 
Right folks, we know the problems as well articulated on this thread. Has anybody just solutions?
 

Rent increases in RPZ are limited to CPI or 2% whichever is lower.
Look at the rules in other European countries but also look at the tax treatment of rental income. France for instance treats rental income much more favourably than Ireland.
 
Leo said:
On what are you basing your opinion that most other countries don't have similar housing issues?
Click to expand...
Because in Dublin-sized cities all over the Continent someone on minimum wage is able to rent a clean, hygienic and well-heated apartment for a couple of hundred Euro a month. In Dublin, people on minimum wage typically pay over 50% of their income to share mouldy, squalid dwellings (and sometimes even a bedroom) with multiple strangers.
 
tomdublin said:
Because in Dublin-sized cities all over the Continent someone on minimum wage is able to rent a clean, hygienic and well-heated apartment for a couple of hundred Euro a month.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is true. And if we add one extra condition, cities where work is freely available, and well paid work freely available to the suitably qualified I doubt there are any cities where this is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register