RA wasn't keeping rents high

Ray Palmer

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'll accept your contention if you can prove that most landlords will not accept rent allowance. Are there statistics somewhere that you are basing this claim on?

Go to daft and search for places accepting RA and then search for all. You'll see the majority don't accept RA.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Wrong. If they sell to another landlord, supply of rental property remains the same. If they sell to someone who is renting, they reduce rental demand. If they sell to an owner occupier, the owner occupier sells or rents their property to someone else. The supply remains the same.

So you contend once a place is rented it will always be rented? Failing that people who buy and live there are a reduction on people renting? You complain about people saying there are two rental markets but want to join home buyers into the rental market. Not like any of these might not be in the rental market. People only rent their old properties? You are pulling out incredibly weak arguments

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The only circumstance where supply will be reduced is if people leave houses empty. Your contention is that if rents fall, then landlords would rather receive no rent at all rather than slightly less rent. I doubt it.

Look about at threads and in this one. People are always mentioning high rents on vacant property. This is simple economics and you obviously know a lot less about it than you think. To suggest there is no way for rental supply to be reduced is absolutely ridiculous. No basis in logic and patently ignoring economic theory or reality.
So you know not all LL have mortgages. There are masses of empty buildings empty as LL refuse to lower rents. More noticeable in the commercial rental market.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm saying that the facts show that rent has fallen broadly across the country, which rather flies in the face of your claim that RA played no role in maintaining high levels of rent.

No it doesn't. Can you point to any connection? RA reduced nearly a year. Did rent decreases increase on this change? The decreases need to have happened in the last year and be higher than the rate before. It is possible they maintained the slide but given they have resisted sliding further would deny that.

Monty Burnz

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Go to daft and search for places accepting RA and then search for all. You'll see the majority don't accept RA.

So you have no data? Ok then.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So you contend once a place is rented it will always be rented? Failing that people who buy and live there are a reduction on people renting? You complain about people saying there are two rental markets but want to join home buyers into the rental market. Not like any of these might not be in the rental market. People only rent their old properties? You are pulling out incredibly weak arguments

I am contending that the only way housing supply falls is if houses are knocked down or left empty. You haven't managed to refute this 'weak' argument, preferring to introduce a few straw men.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Look about at threads and in this one. People are always mentioning high rents on vacant property. This is simple economics and you obviously know a lot less about it than you think. To suggest there is no way for rental supply to be reduced is absolutely ridiculous. No basis in logic and patently ignoring economic theory or reality.
So you know not all LL have mortgages. There are masses of empty buildings empty as LL refuse to lower rents. More noticeable in the commercial rental market.

Masses of empty buildings out there? That doesn't really argue in favour if increasing rents now, does it? Masses of pent-up supply?

As I've said, the amount of rental properties can shrink due to landlords selling to renters (who aren't part of rental demand any more) or if they burn down or leave their properties empty. Not many will go for the latter course for a variety of reasons.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No it doesn't. Can you point to any connection? RA reduced nearly a year. Did rent decreases increase on this change? The decreases need to have happened in the last year and be higher than the rate before. It is possible they maintained the slide but given they have resisted sliding further would deny that.

So where is your evidence that cutting RA has not affected rents? The only data out there indicates rents falling broadly across the country.

Ray Palmer

Monty you just ignore everything including your own reliance on theory. I'm done your arguments are just silly at this point.

Monty Burnz

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Monty you just ignore everything including your own reliance on theory. I'm done your arguments are just silly at this point.

You've been argued into a cocked hat. Your claims just don't stack up and your logic has been exposed as rather faulty. If this is the most gracious acknowledgement of that you can manage, then I accept it.

murphaph

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So you have no data? Ok then.

To be fair, his data source that suggests that the majority of landlords are refusing RS tenants is the same as your one that suggests rents are falling: daft.

We don't have any other data source, so daft it is for all of us.

Monty Burnz

murphaph wrote: »

To be fair, his data source that suggests that the majority of landlords are refusing RS tenants is the same as your one that suggests rents are falling: daft.

We don't have any other data source, so daft it is for all of us.

But do Daft publish that info in aggregated form? Or did he just look at a dozen individual ads and make a conclusion based on that? What if I look at dozen others?

murphaph

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But do Daft publish that info in aggregated form? Or did he just look at a dozen individual ads and make a conclusion based on that? What if I look at dozen others?

I think he just selected "all properties" and looked at the total count and then did it with the "accepts RS checkbox" ticked.

16,262 total, 1,742 accepting RS.

Obviously some landlords that accept RS may not advertise the fact, but some who don't may have ticked the box in error too, we can't know, but his assertion that the majority (indeed the vast majority) of landlords don't accept RS would seem to be fairly close to the mark.

Monty Burnz

murphaph wrote: »

I think he just selected "all properties" and looked at the total count and then did it with the "accepts RS checkbox" ticked.

16,262 total, 1,742 accepting RS.

Obviously some landlords that accept RS may not advertise the fact, but some who don't may have ticked the box in error too, we can't know, but his assertion that the majority (indeed the vast majority) of landlords don't accept RS would seem to be fairly close to the mark.

Fair point - pity he didn't make it himself.

riclad

IF a flat is above ra limit, whether the landlord accepts ra, is almost irrelevant.
IF you are a single person on ra ,you can only look at small flats, bedsits ,certain area,s in dublin ,The choice is limited.

apache

What i am annoyed about is people whinging getting their RA cut. I didn't realise how much they got! The social welfare system is a joke!
So i pay tax all my life and live in an area and pay a mortgage and these people live beside me and get the very same apartment/house for nothing. Not only that they move in fully furnished and i move into a husk which i have to build up from scratch.
If you don't pay for something you will never respect it. I don't want as a private buyer to live in a place where now RA outnumber private owners. I have a huge problem with that.
And then RA have the cheek to complain that they want a 2 or 3 bed house and what area suits them. Get the boat! A fantastic way for a single mother to spawn more kids to get that 4 bed house she wants and a fortune in childrens allowance and weekly trips to the community welfare officer.
I'm out of work 6 months now due to illness and get no help. The social more or less told me because i was still on the books in work i'm entitled to nothing. They said leave my job and then see what they can do.
That is a ridiculous situation. If you pay tax all your life and fall on hard times tough luck.
And these people complaining about a reduction in something they get for free! So workers can be taxed to the hilt and end up coming out with the dole after various payments are made. I hate this attitude that those on welfare have of being exempt of any cuts and feel they can pick and choose where they live. If you're single - rent a room. End of and quit your moaning.
I hope this coming budget gives you something to really moan about. You might feel how the ordinary tax payer struggles every day. But then again the money if reduced from you is not yours in the first place so you will never understand.

Icepick

still is

apache

riclad wrote: »

IF a flat is above ra limit, whether the landlord accepts ra, is almost irrelevant.
IF you are a single person on ra ,you can only look at small flats, bedsits ,certain area,s in dublin ,The choice is limited.

You should be happy enough with renting a room in a house. You should be grateful to have a roof over your head and some home comforts. You should be happy with any area in dublin and that the government gives you money for free to live there.