Forcing old people to be landlords

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet, ye are shouting for the Government to house people! When they come up with a possible solution ye are up in arms! Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Listen, Sharon and her 3 kids are not Paddys problem unless Paddy fathered the children. Paddy bought and paid for his home and is entitled to quiet enjoyment. Sharon didn't buy and pay for her home. Paddy has no doubt paid all taxes and charges associated with his home, and therefore has contributed/done his duty towards taking care of the "most vulnerable" in society. Sharon is the governments problem, if they don't have a home for her, they need to remedy that instead of taking an asset worth 100s of thousands off an old person.

wexandproud

1874 wrote: »

So what next on the books? start dipping into personal savings to pay for the failures of poor govt?

that's been happening for years , work hard build a few quid and try to own you house , that in reality is what most ''working ''people strive for , but now if you end up in long term care you have to sign over the most valuable asset most of us will own

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet, ye are shouting for the Government to house people! When they come up with a possible solution ye are up in arms! Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Its not a solution.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

And there are thousands of houses lying empty while their owners are seeing out their days in nursing homes. Why NOT rent them out or sell them to families who desperately need them?

For the reasons no one rents them out now.

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Listen, Sharon and her 3 kids are not Paddys problem unless Paddy fathered the children. Paddy bought and paid for his home and is entitled to quiet enjoyment. Sharon didn't buy and pay for her home. Paddy has no doubt paid all taxes and charges associated with his home, and therefore has contributed/done his duty towards taking care of the "most vulnerable" in society. Sharon is the governments problem, if they don't have a home for her, they need to remedy that instead of taking an asset worth 100s of thousands off an old person.

NO ONES taking anyone's assets. What's wrong with Sharon renting Paddy's empty house, paying rent to Paddy that would help pay for his nursing home?
The hysterical overreaction is laughable. No ones going to be forced into doing what they don't want to do.

Mrs Shuttleworth

[Deleted User] wrote: »

NO ONES taking anyone's assets. What's wrong with Sharon renting Paddy's empty house, paying rent to Paddy that would help pay for his nursing home?
The hysterical overreaction is laughable. No ones going to be forced into doing what they don't want to do.

Did you not hear the Minister? Penalties on vacant properties, expansion of compulsory purchase orders?

the_syco

Deleted User wrote: »

That's got nothing to do with what's being proposed.

Actually, it is. The government wants the old people to rent out the house, and I'm guessing they'll want the old people to be the landlord. If the old people do not have kids, who'll look after the crap that needs to be fixed when the old people are in a fcuking nursing home????

Deleted User wrote: »

This thread is about empty homes of nursing home residents being made available for rent.

Who the fcuk looks after the homes? The invalid who needs someone else to wipe their arse? Seriously?

steddyeddy

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Listen, Sharon and her 3 kids are not Paddys problem unless Paddy fathered the children. Paddy bought and paid for his home and is entitled to quiet enjoyment. Sharon didn't buy and pay for her home. Paddy has no doubt paid all taxes and charges associated with his home, and therefore has contributed/done his duty towards taking care of the "most vulnerable" in society. Sharon is the governments problem, if they don't have a home for her, they need to remedy that instead of taking an asset worth 100s of thousands off an old person.

You talked about inheriting a house. No different from Sharon Lexie. You may be projecting some of your own feelings onto Sharon and kids.

Kivaro

the_syco wrote: »

....
Who the fcuk looks after the homes? The invalid who needs someone else to wipe their arse? Seriously?

These posters don't care.
There is a tunnel vision that Eoghan Murphy's initiative will work no matter what and to hell with the consequences because the "have nots" will get their houses.

I mean it isn't like a government would push through a initiative that was badly thought out and overly bureaucratic (with built-in bonuses) only for them to reverse it months later costing hundreds of millions of euros.

jca

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And there are thousands of houses lying empty while their owners are seeing out their days in nursing homes. Why NOT rent them out or sell them to families who desperately need them?

Because it's someone's house, unfortunately the owner ended up in a nursing home but it's still their house, not yours not mine and certainly not this minority governments property to do what they want with.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Deleted User wrote: »

NO ONES taking anyone's assets. What's wrong with Sharon renting Paddy's empty house, paying rent to Paddy that would help pay for his nursing home?
The hysterical overreaction is laughable. No ones going to be forced into doing what they don't want to do.

If Paddy chooses to rent his house, and wants to, then I'm sure he will, without the government strong arming him into it

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

steddyeddy wrote: »

You talked about inheriting a house. No different from Sharon Lexie. You may be projecting some of your own feelings onto Sharon and kids.

I inherited a house that I don't live in. I will leave my property to my children upon my demise. I am not in social housing, or state dependent. What's your point?

the_syco

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet, ye are shouting for the Government to house people! When they come up with a possible solution ye are up in arms! Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

We're shouting at the government to house people, but it's still the same crap of "let the private landlords house those on social welfare". And will it be the same as now, whereby if those on social stop paying the council, the council stops paying the landlord, and wipes their hands of the issue, and the landlord has to evict people who don't care about the house, don't have the money to move elsewhere, and if brought to court won't be able to pay the thousands they owe, and thus, AS PER EFFING USUAL, the private landlord is left to pick up the pieces.

But this time it's the old persons "nest egg" that is now destroyed, and they have no money to fix it up, as they're in the nursing home.

I'll wait for the usual response of "well, if they can't take the hit, they shouldn't have become landlords". Well, why would anyone WANT to be a landlord of anyone on HAP when they take all the risk?

Kivaro wrote: »

These posters don't care.
There is a tunnel vision that Eoghan Murphy's initiative will work no matter what and to hell with the consequences because the "have nots" will get their houses.

Yup.

wexandproud

steddyeddy wrote: »

You talked about inheriting a house. No different from Sharon Lexie. You may be projecting some of your own feelings onto Sharon and kids.

totally different all together , whoever left the house , would presumably have worked hard to pay for it
the type of sharons being talked about are the one's who have f.ck all regard for anyone's property and would be on to the landlord for every little thing and if they decide to stop paying rent there is nothing the poor divil in the home can do about it
any way lexie you enjoy your inheritance , begrudgery is a terrible thing

1874

If my parent was unable to live in their own house due to requiring care that the family couldnt provide, (and having seen how care homes are run from the inside, I would be very reluctant to go that route) then I dont see why the parent wouldnt make the entire place or even a room available a family member like a son or daughter.

1874

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet, ye are shouting for the Government to house people! When they come up with a possible solution ye are up in arms! Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The solution isnt to take peoples private property, look how about this way, sharon has worked up a load of debts, paddy hasnt, now what logic could have paddy having a haircut by the govt on his personal savings to pay for this, NONE!
How about the Govt un lock the vacant properties in NAMA, or tax the hell out of land banks or make it easier/cheaper to build on land to produce low cost housing? how is the govt saying it cant be done?
A cant do, wont do attitude alright.
https://www.dublininquirer.com/2017/06/06/how-did-a-co-op-build-affordable-homes-in-ballymun-and-can-it-be-done-elsewhere/

wexandproud wrote: »

totally different all together , whoever left the house , would presumably have worked hard to pay for it
the type of sharons being talked about are the one's who have f.ck all regard for anyone's property and would be on to the landlord for every little thing and if they decide to stop paying rent there is nothing the poor divil in the home can do about it
any way lexie you enjoy your inheritance , begrudgery is a terrible thing

Yes but isnt it enough that an inheritor pays CAT on that, now the Govt want to tell them what to do with it under pain of taxation, without an even handed approach, no one will want to get into letting property, simply put a tenant can overhold, be supported in that fact by officialdom and there is flat out nothing a landlord can do.
Look you start the ball rolling with a good example, do you have a nice car?? I need transport, Im sure you dont get full use out of the 24X7 availability, I'll just pop around and take it for a spin when I need it, Its not that Im a bad driver, but you will probably have a bit of damage to sort out, Im just careless/couldnt care less about other peoples stuff, dont worry about the rights or wrongs about it, theres a transport problem and it needs fixing/I need it fixing and the end justifies the means.

Mrs Shuttleworth

the_syco wrote: »

We're shouting at the government to house people, but it's still the same crap of "let the private landlords house those on social welfare". And will it be the same as now, whereby if those on social stop paying the council, the council stops paying the landlord, and wipes their hands of the issue, and the landlord has to evict people who don't care about the house, don't have the money to move elsewhere, and if brought to court won't be able to pay the thousands they owe, and thus, AS PER EFFING USUAL, the private landlord is left to pick up the pieces.

But this time it's the old persons "nest egg" that is now destroyed, and they have no money to fix it up, as they're in the nursing home.

I'll wait for the usual response of "well, if they can't take the hit, they shouldn't have become landlords". Well, why would anyone WANT to be a landlord of anyone on HAP when they take all the risk?


Yup.

That's the primary reason you used see "rent allowance not accepted". It's not because the landlord wants to evade tax. It's simply not worth the risk of not getting paid, dealing with social workers and having your gaff trashed.

Not to mention the thorny issue of house insurers only offering landlord and tenant insurance if at least one primary tenant is in full time employment.

We need to build lots of cheap houses. We have building regulations in place which negate against that.

Many elderly people own houses and many will never get sold because either they are not in a position to sign a contract (dementia) or they would take a huge capital gains tax hit if they were sold.

wexandproud

1874 wrote: »

The solution isnt to take peoples private property, look how about this way, sharon has worked up a load of debts, paddy hasnt, now what logic could have paddy having a haircut by the govt on his personal savings to pay for this, NONE!
How about the Govt un lock the vacant properties in NAMA, or tax the hell out of land banks or make it easier/cheaper to build on land to produce low cost housing? how is the govt saying it cant be done?
A cant do, wont do attitude alright.
https://www.dublininquirer.com/2017/06/06/how-did-a-co-op-build-affordable-homes-in-ballymun-and-can-it-be-done-elsewhere/



Yes but isnt it enough that an inheritor pays CAT on that, now the Govt want to tell them what to do with it under pain of taxation, without an even handed approach, no one will want to get into letting property, simply put a tenant can overhold, be supported in that fact by officialdom and there is flat out nothing a landlord can do.
Look you start the ball rolling with a good example, do you have a nice car?? I need transport, Im sure you dont get full use out of the 24X7 availability, I'll just pop around and take it for a spin when I need it, Its not that Im a bad driver, but you will probably have a bit of damage to sort out, Im just careless/couldnt care less about other peoples stuff, dont worry about the rights or wrongs about it, theres a transport problem and it needs fixing/I need it fixing and the end justifies the means.

like i said earlier , in theory i think its a good idea , in practice it would be a disaster , because , and to use your example . You bring the car back and explain that you hit a dog and the car is a bit damaged so would i mind getting it sorted as you need the car again and while im at it the fuel is getting low so i better get some

Mrs Shuttleworth

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Did you not hear the Minister? Penalties on vacant properties, expansion of compulsory purchase orders?

On properties of Nursing Home residents?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

We need to build lots of cheap houses. We have building regulations in place which negate against that.

Many elderly people own houses and many will never get sold because either they are not in a position to sign a contract (dementia) or they would take a huge capital gains tax hit if they were sold.

I don't think there is CAT on ones principle residence.

Thousands of families need homes. Thousands of homes are lying idle. Give the idea some thought. It just might work.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We need to build lots of cheap houses. We have building regulations in place which negate against that.

We need to build lots of houses, above a certain minimum standard

The building regulations in place are a safeguard against that.

Staggering that anyone could have such a short memory, only a few years after priory hall let alone the general standard of the rubbish thrown up in the boom

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think there is CAT on ones principle residence.

No CGT on the disposal of your PPR, correct.

But if your PPR is disposed as a gift or on death, the recipient may face CAT.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

No CGT on the disposal of your PPR, correct.

But if your PPR is disposed as a gift or on death, the recipient may face CAT.

They may face CAT just by inheriting. They don't even have to sell.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Deleted User wrote: »

They may face CAT just by inheriting. They don't even have to sell.

I know in my experience both my sibling and I paid 33% CAT when the inheritance went over a certain amount. Nothing was sold, but the money was still due.

1874

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think there is CAT on ones principle residence.

Thousands of families need homes. Thousands of homes are lying idle. Give the idea some thought. It just might work.

There was a suggestion of it on personal residences, if a person rented their home, then they would be liable for CGT on any increase for the time they rented it, if someone doesnt even want to go that route, least of all for the hassle of that, never mind the hassle and cost of dealing with councils, tenants etc, then I suggest people are allowed do with their personal residence what they like.
I dont think its a good idea to horde other properties such as NAMA or others, but I certainly can see where individuals dont want the hassle of dealing with letting a second property due to the unbalanced system of dealing with problems from tenants generally and that in the case of certain tenants councils just wash their hands of the problem.
So the State needs to introduce a more balanced system where non paying or anti social tenants can be moved on quickly so that good tenants can fill spaces, that is not the case now.

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

They may face CAT just by inheriting. They don't even have to sell.

Yes, the recipient may face CAT, depending on their relationship to the donor.

bananabread12

It's an utter disgrace....

If I buy a home, it's MY property. That is the entire point of it - mine, not yours. Why should I have a say in what you choose to do with your own home? What ever happened to respect for private property rights in this bloody country?

Joke of a country...

Uriel.

bananabread12 wrote: »

It's an utter disgrace....

If I buy a home, it's MY property. That is the entire point of it - mine, not yours. Why should I have a say in what you choose to do with your own home? What ever happened to respect for private property rights in this bloody country?

Joke of a country...

Now, in fairness, It's never been quite so simple as that. For example you cant just build an extra story onto your house. There isn't unfettered property rights

That said jumping towards forcing someone to be a landlord (hasn't been proposed yet) would be new territory

the_syco

Deleted User wrote: »

Thousands of families need homes. Thousands of homes are lying idle. Give the idea some thought. It just might work.

Find ghost estates down the country that are idle.
Do them up so people can live in them.
Force the homeless into homes down the country.
They are no longer homeless.
Win?

Hitman3000

the_syco wrote:

Find ghost estates down the country that are idle. Do them up so people can live in them. Force the homeless into homes down the country. They are no longer homeless. Win?

Sarcasm right?

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

Find ghost estates down the country that are idle.
Do them up so people can live in them.
Force the homeless into homes down the country.
They are no longer homeless.
Win?

Therein lies the problem. They are ghost estates because no one wants to live there. People have to compromise. If Maggy is unemployed single mother, does it matter if she lives in Ballyfermot or Ballydehob?

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Therein lies the problem. They are ghost estates because no one wants to live there. People have to compromise. If Maggy is unemployed single mother, does it matter if she lives in Ballyfermot or Ballydehob?

The services Maggy requires how does she access them if she lives in the middle of nowhere. Your thoughts please.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The services Maggy requires how does she access them if she lives in the middle of nowhere. Your thoughts please.

Same as anyone else living there. Think positive and a way will be found.

Are Am Eye

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The services Maggy requires how does she access them if she lives in the middle of nowhere. Your thoughts please.

The state can start seizing cars off old people and maggy gets a new jammer. Drives to services.

Hitman3000

Ah the reference was to ghost estates, no one living there.

Deleted User wrote:

Same as anyone else living there. Think positive and a way will be found.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Ah the reference was to ghost estates, no one living there.

Sorry, though you meant Ballydehob.

How would home owners/tenants have accessed services had the estates been finished? Most seem to be on the outskirts of towns, so one would assume that infrastructure was part of the planning procedure.

Time to start saying "Yes, we can" rather than looking at obstacles.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Time to start saying "Yes, we can" rather than looking at obstacles.

Time to join the real world and stop with sound bites.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

How would home owners/tenants have accessed services had the estates been finished? Most seem to be on the outskirts of towns, so one would assume that infrastructure was part of the planning procedure.

That they weren't bought what does that tell you.

KERSPLAT!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Same as anyone else living there. Think positive and a way will be found.

Think positive. A comedian are we? Jaysus.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

...so one would assume that infrastructure was part of the planning procedure.....

Good luck with that assumption.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

That they weren't bought what does that tell you.

That the developers ran out of money, leaving unfinished buildings?
That the Celtic Tiger became terminally ill and people stopped buying property?

KERSPLAT!

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Think positive. A comedian are we? Jaysus.

No. Just a realist who sees solutions and alternatives rather than roadblocks and negatives.

KERSPLAT!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. Just a realist who sees solutions and alternatives rather than roadblocks and negatives.

A realist? Not with that kind of thinking. I'm all for positive thinking, unfortunately the reality is it takes much more than that.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

No. Just a realist who sees solutions and alternatives rather than roadblocks and negatives.

Best laugh I had all day cheers.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Best laugh I had all day cheers.

You're welcome. Always look on the bright side!

KERSPLAT!

"Build houses with happy thoughts"

There's a slogan.

Would you consider running in the next elections?

Are Am Eye

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

"Build houses with happy thoughts"

There's a slogan.

Would you consider running in the next elections?

Your negativity is attracting homelessness into your life. Enjoy.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

We need to build lots of houses, above a certain minimum standard

The building regulations in place are a safeguard against that.

Staggering that anyone could have such a short memory, only a few years after priory hall let alone the general standard of the rubbish thrown up in the boom

Certain minimum, not gold plated. Priory Hall wasnt cheap housing. It was badly built housing, theres a difference.

Apartments in Dublin cost 50% more per m2 that other EU cities. " It costs €2,100 to build a square metre of apartment space in Dublin, he said, while in other European cities, the average cost is €1,400 per sqm."
https://www.dublininquirer.com/2017/06/06/how-did-a-co-op-build-affordable-homes-in-ballymun-and-can-it-be-done-elsewhere/

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

No CGT on the disposal of your PPR, correct.

But if your PPR is disposed as a gift or on death, the recipient may face CAT.

I know a case of somebody in their late 70s with houses purchased back in the 70s or 80s which were rented out, but are now empty because they dont want the hassle of renting them, yet if they sold them would pay almost 30% CGT on their current value... which would be a tax hit of several hundred thousand Euro...

And if they do sell them and pay the CGT, when they die their heirs will also have CAT on the remainder.

So the houses stay empty.

Just an example.