Why there is so little house building in Ireland

Sarenco said:
So the taxpayer will fully underwrite the landlord's investment!
Click to expand...

Nope. The State, incapable as it is to provide adequate housing, has outsourced its responsibility to the wonders of the all efficient private sector.
In turn it is now, apparently, charging too much tax on rental income.
Landlords are, apparently, on a hiding to nothing. They pay so much tax, but take "all the risk". Isnt that why they are, apparently leaving in their droves?
So to alleviate some of that risk, a tenant who through no fault of their own loses their job. As a prsi contributor, the state will cushion the blow somewhat of the loss of income through unemployment benefits.
As a landlord, who pays prsi, what protections are afforded if I end up in financial difficulties as a consequence of my tenant losing their job?
I would suggest that where a landlord is in genuine financial difficulties as a consequence of the above, and in consideration of the landlord paying so much tax on their income, including prsi, that the State is liable (in such circumstances) to cushion the blow through state supports.
This will provide some security for tenants and landlords, provide for a more stable rental market, and provide time and space until the finances of both party are restored.
Its called social insurance, its called giving a dig out to those who need it, when its needed, if ever.
Its nowhere close to underwriting the full investment.
 
Folsom said:
Sorry my bad, housing insurance will cover that.
Click to expand...

The landlord's insurance yeah? What do you think will happen his/her premium the next year (if they could even get a quote)?

One way this might work would be that tenants require insurance and any damage be claimed by the landlord against the tenant. A landlord could then request a copy of the tenant's insurance before letting let them in. Maybe you are onto something with this insurance thingie
 
Bronte said:
Maybe tenant's don't care about their children's welfare.
Click to expand...

You see, its this type of mindset that makes you wonder how, or why some people get into the business of providing accommodation.
Nobody can do anything if both the landlord and the tenants have no regard for the property and/or the welfare of the tenants.
I work on the assumption that landlords do have a regard for their property and that tenants do have a regard for their welfare and the environment that surrounds them.
So as an example of how the interaction between landlord and tenant is intractable I simply suggested that written tenancy agreements become legal requirements. To my mind such agreements will provide the basis of eliminating alot of unnecessary, time consuming disputes for either party.

Here is a link from lawdepot.uk that provide free sample agreements. I suggest you try the tenancy agreement as an example. Pick the standard version.


If you can be even bothered to do this you might note that in this standard tenancy agreement, provisions are made for guess what??....chimney sweep and window cleaning.
 
Firefly said:
One way this might work would be that tenants require insurance and any damage be claimed by the landlord against the tenant
Click to expand...

Thats an option alright, but paying for the damage is one thing, how is a landlord compensated where the tenant loses a job for a period - throwing both parties into financial difficulty?
 
Folsom said:
Thats an option alright, but paying for the damage is one thing, how is a landlord compensated where the tenant loses a job for a period - throwing both parties into financial difficulty?
Click to expand...

Well not by my taxes please!

If the tenant had insurance then this policy could pay the landlord for unpaid rent / damages.
 
Firefly said:
Well not by my taxes please!

If the tenant had insurance then this policy could pay the landlord for unpaid rent / damages.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it would be 'your' taxes anymore than it would be the taxes of the landlord?
You dont appear to understand the concept of taxes.
And good luck with trying to get a private insurance company to take up on such a scheme. There are income protection schemes out there but to expect a tenant who has lost his job to pay for the income protection of their landlord?!?!
You seem to be wedded to a notion that tenants are bad people - you keep associating loss of income with criminal behavior.
As I have said, any criminal behavior should be reported to the Gardai and they can pursue matters using our taxes (maybe you can ask for your taxes not to be used in this way?)
 
Folsom said:
You seem to be wedded to a notion that tenants are bad people - you keep associating loss of income with criminal behavior.
Click to expand...

Folsom, you've been posting here for long enough to know that's bang out of order.

I have absolutely nothing against tenants.

I am trying (and it's difficult with you) to show how the actions of some tenants coupled with lack of protection for landlords are driving landlords away from the market. For what it's worth I don't have skin in the game. I came very close to pulling the trigger on a purchase myself earlier in the year but because of the reasons highlighted throughout this site I didn't bother. I may well buy in the future but will either let on AirBnB (if that's not shut down) or leave it idle.
 
Firefly said:
with lack of protection for landlords
Click to expand...

And with respect Firefly, if you were following my posts in this topic you would see that what I am suggesting is increased protections for landlords via legally enforceable tenancy agreements and social welfare protection where there is a genuine financial difficulties resulting from a tenants inability to pay.
Apparently these suggestions are not simply not acceptable.
 
In your proposal the State will pay the rent of tenants who can't afford to pay their own and pay for damage the tenant does to the property if the tenant can't afford to pay for that either. Am I reading that right?
What responsibility should be on tenants to pay their way and be accountable for their actions?

I rent. If it was up to me there would not be one more house provided by the State until the tenancy agreement between the State (and the bodies it funds who provide homes) and public/social housing tenants was changed to something much closer to what is now in place in the private sector. In other words no more lifetime tenancies, no more inherited tenancies and a needs assessment every 3 to 5 years so that one of two people aren't living in a 3 or 4 bedroom house.
Then start building again.
The waiting lists would be shorter as well as the State would not be giving away free houses, instead they would be providing housing to those who actually need it (rather than the minority who are gaming the system) and utilising their multi-billion Euro housing stock to maximise their public good it provides.
 
I'm off to get popcorn!
 
Purple said:
Am I reading that right?
Click to expand...

No. But my bad if I worded it badly or incorrectly.

Tenants who dont pay

Either its because they cant pay (say unemployment) or can pay but wont. If the latter, tenancy agreements should have legal ly enforceable powers to evict.
If the former, then eviction serves little purpose other than to cause disruption. If you evict someone on account of being unemployed, then where do they go? Will employment prospects be better or worse? Will children need to move schools? Etc..etc..
Better that, if the landlord (who pays taxes and prsi) can show that they are in financial difficulty as a consequence of his/her income stream being disrupted that the landlord receives social supports to cushion that drop income until such time as employment and earnings of the tenant are restored.
If it is a long-term unemployment, then other arrangements need to be made. But in the main, most people want to work so as long as employment opportunities arise matters will restore.

Damage to property
it is either deliberate and criminal or it is accidental and par course of normal wear and tear of any occupancy.
If it is deliberate, report to Gardai, if they are satisfied that criminal damage has occurred, the landlords house insurance policy will pay for repairs and restoration - in the meantime, the taxpaying landlord should receive some financial support to cushion the loss of income while damage is being repaired.

If damage is accidental then landlord goes about their business as normal.
 
You are still demonstrating you haven't one clue.

- If a tenant can not pay due to lack of income the state will pay the rent.
- It's nearly full employment in Ireland, some tenant's do not want to work. I know because I have some of them. The state is paying me for them.
- Reporting tenant's to the Gardai is a pointless exercise, something you'd know if you actually knew anything about being a landlord.
- House insurance does not cover repairs and restoration. Again you're lack of knowledge is alarming. Good thing your not a landlord.
- Normal wear and tear is a cost of tenancy, in Ireland it is particularly high as the landlord does not expect to get the property back in the condition it was let in.
- I've no clue what you mean there by the state paying the landlord for loss of income. It's such a crazy suggestion it's not even worth trying to figure out what you mean. I think you are trolling. The entire thread.
 
So a landlord should have to keep a tenant in their property who is not paying rent if that landlord is well off? The landlord would only get some sort of hardship payment from the State if they were in financial distress? You are effectively changing it from a business relationship to some sort of social support, funded by landlords until such time as the landlord runs out of money.

That's just crazy.
 
jpd said:
This thread has become pointless, imho, in more ways than one
Click to expand...
Yea, you're right.

Why is there so little building in Ireland?
  • Dysfunctional banking sector during and after the crash which stopped the flow of credit to the construction sector.
  • Dysfunctional construction sector which was fat and grossly inefficient during the boom and wiped out during the crash and still thinks political lobbying is better than getting their house in order (pun intended).
  • Time lag between site becoming available, acquisition of site, design, planning, planning approval and build.
  • Lack of skilled labour.
  • legacy of 40 years of incompetent and corrupt planning.
 
Well well well, I had to laugh when I read this:



So let me get this straight. The government got rid of bedsits, which I and many landlords said was a very stupid idea, yes up standards, but don't get rid of them. And now the Minister in charge thinks bedsits with 40 people/units sharing one kitchen is a good idea. How utterly daft is that.

'Younger workers should be excited about paying less rent for less space' - Eoghan Murphy on co-living

That's the funniest thing I've read in ages. And get this, it's going to cost those 'lucky' renters an eye watering €1300 per month.
 
Last edited:
This actually gets better, we have Mary Lou wading in with this:

Proposed co-living scheme is just a 'glamourised form of tenement living' - McDonald

A proposed “co-living scheme,” comprising a room the size of a parking space and kitchen area shared by 42 people, has been condemned during a Dáil debate.
www.independent.ie

Proposed co-living schemes is just 'a glamourised form of tenement living. '

That also gave me the giggles. And I do wonder what she said at the time they got rid of the bedsits.

- a room the size of a parking space
- kitchen area shared by 42 people,
- a proposed monthly rent of €1,300 was utterly unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
As if all that wasn't bad enough, I see the Reit's/Mega investors are trying to make mega bucks out of social housing. How. Selling property to Dublin City Council at extraordinary prices. (as pointed out be me on here, Reit's aren't in it for the rents... it's about property prices, and they will be gone as quick as they arrived when they've made their bucks)

Here's the OECD warning about the overconentration of the Mega Investors:

OECD calls for property tax hike as Murphy comes under fire over 'co-living' gaffe

Property taxes should be hiked and valuations need to happen regularly to keep up with the reality of rising house prices, the Government has been warned.
www.independent.ie

Amid the latest economic risks identified by the OECD is the potential fall-out if the surge in foreign funds gobbling up billions of euro of Irish properties comes undone.

Those investors do not borrow here and are not a risk to the Irish banks - which property investors were in the last crash - but they leave the property market here vulnerable to what the OECD calls "new channels for the transmission of external shocks".

It means that if big funds come under stress in their home markets, they would become forced sellers of Irish assets - potentially flooding the market.

Foreign investors account for more than half of commercial property investment in Ireland, so the risk is concentrated in offices, industrial and retail properties - but the rise of the so-called "cuckoo funds" means billions are now pouring into housing.

That's very sobering reading.
 
Last edited:
Could we not just introduce 95% capital gains tax on residential properties. Would that not end property speculation. You can deduct for renovations and index for inflation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register