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
Why a rental crisis now?
Options
Comments
-
What viable, practical and actionable recommendations are being put forward to solve this thing?
Does anyone have the answers and can they give Alan Kelly a call? What can be done today, what needs to be done tomorrow, and what do we need to focus on getting done within 12 months?0 -
I certainly would not allow block social housing. Too late now but the best plan would have been to finish unused estates. Have between 10 and 20 percent as social housing but that the social housing would be intermingled eg every 5th house would be social housing rather than the inevitable ghetto style estates that eventually grow out of block social housing.
Just my opinion now, successive governments though have the typical poor management style of put all my issues in one area and we won't think about the issues it eventually brings.0 -
I strongly, strongly believe that where suitable, an absolute and determined preference should be had for housing these persons in the most affluent areas in Dublin as is possible. Redress the balance of social inequality somewhat.
It is utterly abhorrent that political influence has won out in the choosing of the current modular sites. I will personally making enquiries as to what can be done. Seriously and genuinely believe as much as possible the sites should be south of the liffey and bang right into the heart of more affluent areas.0 -
I dont know but I assume that these guys have a fair handle on it
https://www.esri.ie/pubs/RN20140203.pdf
Yes. They've never been wrong before.0 -
JustTheOne wrote: »In fairness there was nothing built between 2007 and 2012.
The planning logistics financing red tape it takes to build houses is only getting sorted now.
Id agree there is too much red tape which
hampered housing development.
But look what happend when we built loads of houses during the boom?
Do we want to go back down that road?
Apparently we didn't build enough houses during the boom. As opposed to having too much credit which is a different thing. It wasn't the number of houses built that accelerated prices.
That said 2-3 years ago we were all ghost estates and assumed we were in a generational housing collapse. Even housing in Dublin was been torn down. Let's see just how accurate the esri is this time.0 -
Advertisement
-
The_Conductor wrote: »However- if government policy is to crucify the selfsame private sector to whom it has outsourced its obligation to house the people of Ireland- something is going to give- and that give- is no new houses are entering the rental market- year on year the gross number of units registered with the PRTB as under lease in Ireland- has fallen for each of the preceding 3 years- as landlords exit the market.
Government policy and regulation- has been scattergun at best- without a coherent tying together of the various strategies.
Well I think there should be very little help for the one or two property landlord...
In his budget speech, Michael Noonan mentioned the need for a professionalisation of the rental sector. If we encourage large rental companies in to the country we will increase the quality and standard of rental housing.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
Well I think there should be very little help for the one or two property landlord...
In his budget speech, Michael Noonan mentioned the need for a professionalisation of the rental sector. If we encourage large rental companies in to the country we will increase the quality and standard of rental housing.
A massive assistance for most of those letting a single unit (or even two)- would be to allow rental income be offset against rental outgoings. A significant number of those with 1-2 properties- are letting because their circumstances have changed- however, because of the debt associated with house no.1 are unable to borrow to buy elsewhere- and so- are renting elsewhere.
Simply allowing rental income be offset against rental outgoings- before determination of taxable rental income (if any)- would be a massive help for most of those letting a single unit.
Once upon a time this was allowed.0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »A massive assistance for most of those letting a single unit (or even two)- would be to allow rental income be offset against rental outgoings. A significant number of those with 1-2 properties- are letting because their circumstances have changed- however, because of the debt associated with house no.1 are unable to borrow to buy elsewhere- and so- are renting elsewhere.
Simply allowing rental income be offset against rental outgoings- before determination of taxable rental income (if any)- would be a massive help for most of those letting a single unit.
Once upon a time this was allowed.
Why should we help those letting a single property though? It's not the type of landlord we want to encourage.
A lot of expenses are allowed. I actually think that the 75% of mortgage interest should not be allowed too as it is a specific relief that a large rental company would not be able to avail of.0 -
I certainly would not allow block social housing. Too late now but the best plan would have been to finish unused estates. Have between 10 and 20 percent as social housing but that the social housing would be intermingled eg every 5th house would be social housing rather than the inevitable ghetto style estates that eventually grow out of block social housing.
Just my opinion now, successive governments though have the typical poor management style of put all my issues in one area and we won't think about the issues it eventually brings.
Please tell me how that fair on people working hard in that estate to pay a mortgage when they see someone handed the exact same house for free?
If ever there was an incentive to say youre homeless and not bother working.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
Why should we help those letting a single property though? It's not the type of landlord we want to encourage.
A lot of expenses are allowed. I actually think that the 75% of mortgage interest should not be allowed too as it is a specific relief that a large rental company would not be able to avail of.
Large rental companies- incorporated as companies- get 100% of their costs allowed against rental income- private landlords do not. There is not a level playing field.
The point I was making- specifically relating to those who have found themselves letting their sole property through economic necessity (i.e. they've had to move for work)- and find themselves having to rent elsewhere- is that they are effectively being taxed on the double- and the fairer approach would be to allow rental outgoings be offset against rental income........
As for whether or not we should be encouraging small landlords- providing they are compliant with the legislation (the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act) and regulation (the PRTB etc)- there should be no reason why a private landlord should be viewed any differently than any other landlord. Where they are not compliant- or indeed, the flipside of the coin- where a tenant is not compliant- they should be pursued to the full extent of the law by the PRTB- with simplified and fast-track procedures available to both landlords and tenants, to resolve issues that arise. Also- the database of adjudications- should be publicised and any future prospective landlords or tenants- use it as a yardstick to judge whether or not to do business with one another.0 -
Advertisement
-
newacc2015 wrote: »We havent built anything in Dublin in the last few years. Yet have no one of the most rapidly increasing population in Europe. Plus the Government is handing out english language student visas like no tomorrow(there is roughly 10-15k students who werent here 3/4 years) with recession in Brazil this will only get worse.
Actually your are incorrect about the student visas. There were there 5-6 years ago. But nobody noticed. In fact they were propping up the rental market in Dublin which would have practically collapsed without them around 2010/2011.0 -
Why should we help those letting a single property though? It's not the type of landlord we want to encourage.
A lot of expenses are allowed. I actually think that the 75% of mortgage interest should not be allowed too as it is a specific relief that a large rental company would not be able to avail of.
I'll tell you why. The rents in Berlin have skyrocket in recent years. Why? American funds went in and purchased apartment blocks in the dozens 5-10 years ago when they were cheap as chips. They purchased with a strategy. Now comes the rent hikes. If you have 80-90% of the rental stock controlled by a few fund managers, they control the rents of an entire city. This is a simple explanation of course, but you get the idea. That is why small investors are important in the market. Also, do not forget, small investors are purchasing buildings out of income that was already taxed. Then their investment is taxed. You can only tax people so much.0 -
JustTheOne wrote: »Please tell me how that fair on people working hard in that estate to pay a mortgage when they see someone handed the exact same house for free?
If ever there was an incentive to say youre homeless and not bother working.
First of all, they won't see it, it will be random and intermingled, with legal requirements for the developer or auctioneer to never disclose the number, name or location. You won't know its unfair and the developer will ahve accounted this into his development costs.
So your answer for those who cannot afford to rent is to leave them homeless?
Forming what will essentially become ghettos, has always lead to increase in crime rates, lowering of incomes and lowering of educational standards. They are microcosms that show off the perfect poverty trap.
Doing what they have done in some parts of Australia, where housing development requires some social housing, it cannot be in a block, ie it has to be intermingled, has shown to improve the life quality of those housed, to the point there families do better in schools and in the long run are more productive to the economy.
The block social housing will also have people who were not originally from an impoverished background but their kids will fall into that trap by force of social pressures and it will in fact make things worse for the area, the people and their children.
My idea would hopefully over time bring people out of that trap. It may not be fair to me who worked hard for my rent or mortgage but I am not so naive as to want to encourage ghetto style communities and increase crime rates, lower educational levels and generally cost the economy more over time.0 -
First of all, they won't see it, it will be random and intermingled, with legal requirements for the developer or auctioneer to never disclose the number, name or location. You won't know its unfair and the developer will ahve accounted this into his development costs.
So your answer for those who cannot afford to rent is to leave them homeless?
Forming what will essentially become ghettos, has always lead to increase in crime rates, lowering of incomes and lowering of educational standards. They are microcosms that show off the perfect poverty trap.
Doing what they have done in some parts of Australia, where housing development requires some social housing, it cannot be in a block, ie it has to be intermingled, has shown to improve the life quality of those housed, to the point there families do better in schools and in the long run are more productive to the economy.
The block social housing will also have people who were not originally from an impoverished background but their kids will fall into that trap by force of social pressures and it will in fact make things worse for the area, the people and their children.
My idea would hopefully over time bring people out of that trap. It may not be fair to me who worked hard for my rent or mortgage but I am not so naive as to want to encourage ghetto style communities and increase crime rates, lower educational levels and generally cost the economy more over time.
Show me 10 houses and without telling me I would pick out the one that was given for free to unemployed. In my opinion, there should be nobody homeless. There are plenty of vacant flats and houses for rent around the country, only a bus ride away. It is all down to choice. People choose to be homeless. Let them at it.0 -
I live down the Midlands in laois and houses are becoming very hard to rent.
When I moved up 6 years ago I remember seeing something like -1200+ houses for sale and about 1000+ for rent.
There is now something like 500 for sale, but prices have seemingly gone up by about 30% and rentals have gone up by nearly 40% in many places, with rental space available at 38 houses.
It is shocking but there seems to be a big increase in Non-nationals living in the area, Maybe some have moved out of the capital if they were not able to afford rent there?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
Why should we help those letting a single property though? It's not the type of landlord we want to encourage.
A lot of expenses are allowed. I actually think that the 75% of mortgage interest should not be allowed too as it is a specific relief that a large rental company would not be able to avail of.
Large rental companies are allowed offset all of the financial costs- not just 75% of mortgage costs- against tax- its not a level playing field.
The reason for helping the person with one home who has to let it out and live elsewhere for work or family reasons- is they are not allowed sell it if it has negative equity associated with it- unless they can somehow clear the negative equity- and they are also not allowed to borrow towards a different residence to live in. The alternate to helping them- is to allow another large cohort of property default. The central bank indicates this is in the region of 110-115k properties. However, pushing the banks to repossess them- wouldn't achieve anything- other than crystalising the negative equity- and as they are tenanted already- it also wouldn't do anything whatsoever for supply.0 -
Why should we help those letting a single property though? It's not the type of landlord we want to encourage.
Who is the "we"? Why should we not encourage people to invest in a property or two as an investment if they want to? Once they comply with the rules of letting I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be encouraged.A lot of expenses are allowed. I actually think that the 75% of mortgage interest should not be allowed too as it is a specific relief that a large rental company would not be able to avail of.
100% of the mortgage should be tax deductible not this nonsense about 75% of the interest. If LL's even those with one or two properties were able to operate it like a proper business then it would only benefit the tenants.0 -
I'll tell you why. The rents in Berlin have skyrocket in recent years. Why? American funds went in and purchased apartment blocks in the dozens 5-10 years ago when they were cheap as chips. They purchased with a strategy. Now comes the rent hikes. If you have 80-90% of the rental stock controlled by a few fund managers, they control the rents of an entire city. This is a simple explanation of course, but you get the idea. That is why small investors are important in the market. Also, do not forget, small investors are purchasing buildings out of income that was already taxed. Then their investment is taxed. You can only tax people so much.
Do they not have rent controls in Germany?0 -
-
The_Conductor wrote: »Large rental companies- incorporated as companies- get 100% of their costs allowed against rental income- private landlords do not. There is not a level playing field.
The point I was making- specifically relating to those who have found themselves letting their sole property through economic necessity (i.e. they've had to move for work)- and find themselves having to rent elsewhere- is that they are effectively being taxed on the double- and the fairer approach would be to allow rental outgoings be offset against rental income........
As for whether or not we should be encouraging small landlords- providing they are compliant with the legislation (the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act) and regulation (the PRTB etc)- there should be no reason why a private landlord should be viewed any differently than any other landlord. Where they are not compliant- or indeed, the flipside of the coin- where a tenant is not compliant- they should be pursued to the full extent of the law by the PRTB- with simplified and fast-track procedures available to both landlords and tenants, to resolve issues that arise. Also- the database of adjudications- should be publicised and any future prospective landlords or tenants- use it as a yardstick to judge whether or not to do business with one another.
It is possible for single landlords to put their property in a company and avail of these reliefs too. However most won't, as they know the extra tax bill involved in trying to sell a property owned by a company. However the rental companies so have to deal with these issues.
I also don't see why the tax payer should subsidise those who bought a second house and now have to rent it out to meet the mortgage payments. Generally this requirement for them to rent the property means they are under pressure to have no vacant periods. It is why we have so many cow boy landlords.0 -
Advertisement
-
Theres only a housing problem in Dublin, there are plenty of properties available in Mayo. Why new companies that could easily locate to a rural area arent encouraged to do so is beyond me.
Instead of having 30 more people fighting for limited expensive housing you have 30 vacant houses now being rented, and 30 wages coming into a rural area and the employees have 30 good houses at a fair price.
As regards the Homeless problem, there are definitely instances where people are being allowed to be too choosy. I can understand people wanting to stay close to family and keep their children in the same school , but if I was faced with having my wife and children sleeping rough or moving 100km to a safe warm house I know what I would choose.
For me a suitable house is warm,safe and enough room for all involved, that may not mean a room each either. If someone turns down that well then they should be taken off the housing list. I think thats happening in the UK now.0 -
Land lording is a business not a hobby. The revenue think so as well. if activity is to happen in a sector the gov need to provide incentive either tax relief or deferment of tax. The snag is that homeless for a he most part are not generating income but are a society cost. How this is dealt with is like we always do.mthere is limited resource allocation as in the modular housing and costs for the travelers have come at the expense of another programme.0
-
Joe Late Notch wrote: »Who is the "we"? Why should we not encourage people to invest in a property or two as an investment if they want to? Once they comply with the rules of letting I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be encouraged.
100% of the mortgage should be tax deductible not this nonsense about 75% of the interest. If LL's even those with one or two properties were able to operate it like a proper business then it would only benefit the tenants.
Small scale landlords aren't adding to the sum of housing.
What you are suggesting is just a recipe for families looking for a home being outbid by speculators looking for an investment (and helped by the government to do that)
I would take the opposite approach. I'd introduce capital gains tax of somewhere close to 100% on all property not a primary residence.
I suspect if any government had the balls to introduce such a policy, we would see a pretty rapid reduction in DEMAND for rental property as families found owning a home more affordable.
If there is no profit in building, then the government can step in. I imagine poor unemployed developers and builders will come cheap enough.
I'd introduce a land tax at the same time.
We desperately need to stop seeing property as an investment. It is no surprise that when already wealthy individuals can play in a market to maximise their gains, the result is properties and development land lying empty while families sleep on the streets.
But it isn't right.0 -
They probably are, but people themselves are less mobile than companies.Theres only a housing problem in Dublin, there are plenty of properties available in Mayo. Why new companies that could easily locate to a rural area arent encouraged to do so is beyond me.
While you might encourage a few small companies to place their business in an office park somewhere in rural county Mayo, larger companies rely on the local facilities to draw candidates to them.
That is, you're not going to get 1,000 people to relocate themselves to a town with a population of 5,000. The facilities won't be there. Youngr people want to be able to shop and socialise. Older people want school and facilities for their children. These just won't be available in rural Ireland unless the company themselves decides to build a large university-like campus.0 -
They probably are, but people themselves are less mobile than companies.
While you might encourage a few small companies to place their business in an office park somewhere in rural county Mayo, larger companies rely on the local facilities to draw candidates to them.
That is, you're not going to get 1,000 people to relocate themselves to a town with a population of 5,000. The facilities won't be there. Youngr people want to be able to shop and socialise. Older people want school and facilities for their children. These just won't be available in rural Ireland unless the company themselves decides to build a large university-like campus.
I agree with you Seamus, but in my example I mentioned 30 jobs, small IT firms that could easily locate to rural areas. - Baby steps and all that. 30 people coming to our small town would be a huge boost.
Even small firms 5- 10 people would be great.0 -
Nearly fifty percent of the housing stock consists of social rented housing in Amsterdam where everyone can rent at a fixed rate, why can't our government introduce this as a scheme.0
-
Deleted User wrote: »Small scale landlords aren't adding to the sum of housing.
What you are suggesting is just a recipe for families looking for a home being outbid by speculators looking for an investment (and helped by the government to do that)
I would take the opposite approach. I'd introduce capital gains tax of somewhere close to 100% on all property not a primary residence.
I suspect if any government had the balls to introduce such a policy, we would see a pretty rapid reduction in DEMAND for rental property as families found owning a home more affordable.
If there is no profit in building, then the government can step in. I imagine poor unemployed developers and builders will come cheap enough.
I'd introduce a land tax at the same time.
We desperately need to stop seeing property as an investment. It is no surprise that when already wealthy individuals can play in a market to maximise their gains, the result is properties and development land lying empty while families sleep on the streets.
But it isn't right.
Would this not result in less supply as well as less demand, and in effect cancel the benefit. People not in a position to buy a property , would be competing against a smaller pool of available properties.
I agree ( as a landlord) that more incentives and security need to be given to landlords to ensure housing needs are met. Especially when the onus is on the private sector to supply social housing.0 -
Would this not result in less supply as well as less demand, and in effect cancel the benefit. People not in a position to buy a property , would be competing against a smaller pool of available properties.
I agree ( as a landlord) that more incentives and security need to be given to landlords to ensure housing needs are met. Especially when the onus is on the private sector to supply social housing.
I don't believe so, but it's a fair question.
Firstly we have to understand that 'small' private landlords (and I have nothing against them, I know several) as a rule are not building houses in order to lease them. They are buying them, usually in competition with potential owner-occupiers (and other landlords).
So when people claim that encouraging people to be landlords would help the market, they are making a HUGE assumption that this would translate into more builds.
There is an argument that reduced demand = reduced price (a good thing so far) = reduced supply.
As I say, if that happens, I would be firmly in favour of the government stepping in and managing the construction and sale of housing - not just social housing. As in my original comments, a side effect of low supply is unemployment and thus low wages in the sector. Take advantage of it.
The truth that is not usually acknowledged in these conversations is that a large proportion of rental demand is people who don't want to be renting.
Unless something radical is done around our laws governing the rental market, that will remain the case in the medium term. So the idea that we can solve the problem by providing more rental properties as opposed to making more properties more affordable for all is not true.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I don't believe so, but it's a fair question.
Firstly we have to understand that 'small' private landlords (and I have nothing against them, I know several) as a rule are not building houses in order to lease them. They are buying them, usually in competition with potential owner-occupiers (and other landlords).
So when people claim that encouraging people to be landlords would help the market, they are making a HUGE assumption that this would translate into more builds.
There is an argument that reduced demand = reduced price (a good thing so far) = reduced supply.
As I say, if that happens, I would be firmly in favour of the government stepping in and managing the construction and sale of housing - not just social housing. As in my original comments, a side effect of low supply is unemployment and thus low wages in the sector. Take advantage of it.
The truth that is not usually acknowledged in these conversations is that a large proportion of rental demand is people who don't want to be renting.
Unless something radical is done around our laws governing the rental market, that will remain the case in the medium term. So the idea that we can solve the problem by providing more rental properties as opposed to making more properties more affordable for all is not true.
But encouraging more people to be landlords would help the rental market which is where the problems seem to be at present. The mortgage caps and more stringent rules appear to be keeping house prices for owner occupiers relatively stable.
I don't see gains to be made in involving the government more in the construction and sale of houses either. I could see it costing the tax payers more as inefficiencies tend to follow government involvement or increasing house prices even more.
Unfortunately some of the people who don't want to be renting, want to be given their own house at the cost of the state and some of that will be in high cost areas.0 -
Advertisement
-
But encouraging more people to be landlords would help the rental market which is where the problems seem to be at present
How?
Let's say I decide to become a buy-to-let landlord (not a particularly remote possibility as it happens).
I see a nice looking three bed house that should do the job. I buy it. In the process, a young family hoping to own their first home don't get that house. So they remain renting.
In facy, maybe they can rent from me!
Not sure how that helps anyone though (other than me). If I had been discouraged from stepping into the market, it would have been more likely they would have owned that home and we'd have one less family looking to rent.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement