Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rent Supplement limits unchanged

Options
  • 27-03-2015 5:48pm
    #1
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭


    Between RS and RAS, the State accounts for 33% of the private rented market.
    Increasing the RS rent limits would have negative effects, including:
    - Providing an impetus for current RS landlords to renegotiate their lease agreements to the new limits, impacting on all existing recipients
    - Creating new rental floors for all properties in the sector, meaning rent increases for those not in receipt of RS.
    http://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/Pages/pa270315.aspx

    Landlord's dole remains the same. Seems like a common sense approach all other things being equal.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    wandatowell
    Registered Users Posts: 8,435 ✭✭✭wandatowell


    snubbleste wrote: »
    Landlord's dole remains the same.

    Landlords dole, I've never heard that before :confused:

    As in money for nothing?


  • Options
    #3
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    snubbleste wrote: »
    Landlord's dole remains the same. Seems like a common sense approach all other things being equal.
    How do they come up with the 33% figure? 33% of what and how is it measured?


  • Options
    #4
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    It's 33% (~70,000) of all private rentals I assume.
    I dunno where it comes from as the overall private rentals figure is closer to 500,000


  • Options
    #5
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    I suggest that they have no actual way of deriving such a figure, so it is propaganda and nothing else really. The situation on the ground begs to differ that landlords are somehow beholden to the state....at least in the larger urban areas. Daft's "no rent allowance" doesn't didn't lie.


  • Options
    #6
    hfallada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭hfallada


    All the socialist TDs will tell you that rent allowance is a false floor on the rental market and creates higher rents for LLs. I know LLs who collectively have hundreds of apartments, houses etc. Not a single one of them has a rent allowance tenant. They are far too much risk and work than a professional tenant.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    MouseTail
    Registered Users Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭MouseTail


    Another negative effect of increasing the limit would be exasperating the welfare trap, making work, especially entry level jobs less attractive than welfare.


  • Options
    #8
    David900
    Registered Users Posts: 431 ✭✭David900


    murphaph wrote: »
    I suggest that they have no actual way of deriving such a figure, so it is propaganda and nothing else really. The situation on the ground begs to differ that landlords are somehow beholden to the state....at least in the larger urban areas. Daft's "no rent allowance" doesn't didn't lie.

    Why do you believe they have no way to calculate the total number of rental properties supported by social welfare?
    They pay the money and the CSO knows how many total rental properties are in the state.
    I'd be astounded if they couldn't calculate this figure...


  • Options
    #9
    Slydice
    Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    They are working it out as 71,533 (RS) + 30,162 (RAS) = 101,695 out of PRTB registered tenancies of 300,453.

    So divide 101,695 by 300,453 = 0.33847

    Multiply that by 100 = 33.847

    Round down to 33% and then make it easier to understand by using the words "a third".

    I got this by starting at the link the op gave and then...

    The OP has made an interpretation and not quoted directly from some of the article (to make the discussion in easier to read language?). It does talk about a third of the sector so I'm guessing that's where that comes from.

    Anyway, the article links to this publication webpage:
    http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Maximum-Rent-Limit-Analysis-and-Findings-Report-February-2015.aspx

    which links to a pdf report here:
    http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Maximum%20Rent%20Limit%20Analysis%20and%20Findings%20Report%20February%202015.pdf

    Page 7 says: "Rent Supplement, together with the Rental Accommodation Scheme (RAS), currently funds 34% (footnote 13) of the private sector rented market."

    checking footnote 13 says: "13 Number of tenancies on Rent Supplement (71,533 as at December 2014), plus RAS tenancies residing in private residential tenancies (30,162 as at October 2014) expressed as a percentage of the total number of PRTB registered tenancies (300,453 as at end Quarter 3 2014)."


Advertisement