Forcing old people to be landlords

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

And either way the tax will have to be paid.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

And either way the tax will have to be paid.

Yes but if he dies the CGT doesnt get paid, only CAT.
If he sells CGT is paid and then CAT when he dies.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes but if he dies the CGT doesnt get paid, only CAT.
If he sells CGT is paid and then CAT when he dies.

And a family will have a home. Happy days.

the_syco

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Sarcasm right?

Kind of. Some posters seem to think that thinking positive thoughts will somehow get the homeless off their drugs and drink addictions, and into nice cosy homes where they'll be bored out of their tree.

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.

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

Ghost estates tend to be miles from the nearest shop, without even a footpath on the road outside the estate.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

They all have cars. Do you really think the homeless will have a car, and the money to tax and insure it?

Deleted User wrote: »

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

The estate has over 50 houses. The nearest shop is 2km away. The nearest supermarket is at least double that in the opposite direction. There is no facilities nearby. Outside of the estate, there are no footpaths.

They are ghost estates, because no-one wants to live there. Many ghost estates should never have been built. Then there are the estates built on flood plains that flood every few years.

Deleted User wrote: »

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/

I wonder if the cap on how many floors up the apartment blocks go, will that cost reduce?

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

Kind of. Some posters seem to think that thinking positive thoughts will somehow get the homeless off their drugs and drink addictions, and into nice cosy homes where they'll be bored out of their tree.


Ghost estates tend to be miles from the nearest shop, without even a footpath on the road outside the estate.


They all have cars. Do you really think the homeless will have a car, and the money to tax and insure it?


The estate has over 50 houses. The nearest shop is 2km away. The nearest supermarket is at least double that in the opposite direction. There is no facilities nearby. Outside of the estate, there are no footpaths.

They are ghost estates, because no-one wants to live there. Many ghost estates should never have been built. Then there are the estates built on flood plains that flood every few years.


I wonder if the cap on how many floors up the apartment blocks go, will that cost reduce?

As well as thinking positive, some could try not stereotyping others.
For instance, not all homeless people are drink and drug addicts.
Most ghost estates were left unfinished due to lack of funds. Most are on the outskirts of towns, which already have schools, shops etc.
Not all homeless are unemployed. Some actually have cars!
Not that any of this has anything to do with the homes of long term elderly people lying idle while families live in hotels, etc

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

As well as thinking positive, some could try not stereotyping others. For instance, not all homeless people are drink and drug addicts. Most ghost estates were left unfinished due to lack of funds. Most are on the outskirts of towns, which already have schools, shops etc. Not all homeless are unemployed. Some actually have cars! Not that any of this has anything to do with the homes of long term elderly people lying idle while families live in hotels, etc

The homes of elderly people are just that their homes. Of which they should be allowed do as they see fit. There should be no coercion or penalties to force them to rent said homes if they don't want to . Is property rights now another thing that FG wish to run roughshod over?

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The homes of elderly people are just that their homes. Of which they should be allowed do as they see fit. There should be no coercion or penalties to force them to rent said homes if they don't want to . Is property rights now another thing that FG wish to run roughshod over?

You might think differently if you were a young family struggling to find a suitable, affordable home when just the perfect one is lying empty down the road.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

You might think differently if you were a young family struggling to find a suitable, affordable home when just the perfect one is lying empty down the road.

Irrelevant it's someone's property that they worked for. What gives anyone the notion that the owner should be coerced into renting it. Also from what I have heard being a landlord is a nightmare. Something an elderly person could do without.

Uriel.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You might think differently if you were a young family struggling to find a suitable, affordable home when just the perfect one is lying empty down the road.

Where do you stop?

Family with one kid in a 3 bed semi - Sure what do they need 3 bedrooms for? Force them to take in a homeless person... Tis their social duty after all

Spanish Eyes

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Great to see some common sense on this topic on this thread rather than on the legal discussion one.

The Government is being duplicitous here. Elderly in long term care can already let their property out under the rent a room scheme and avail of cash income of €14,000 a year income tax free.

I hadn't heard of this, could you quote me something about it?

I always thought that RAR Scheme was letting rooms in a person's PPR. Now I realise they don't have to be superglued to it 24/7 but if a person is full time in a NH how can their home be their PPR? You know, the place where they would normally reside and be found. Or whatever the Revenue rules say.

Anyway you may be right, but I had never heard of an incentive like that for NH residents up to now.

gctest50

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...

If you end up in a nursing home ( on a one-way ticket ) why should anyone else have to pay for your care while you have an asset you can't ever use again ?

It's not like you go to bed one night 38 and wake up 93

Uriel.

Uriel. wrote: »

Where do you stop?

Family with one kid in a 3 bed semi - Sure what do they need 3 bedrooms for? Force them to take in a homeless person... Tis their social duty after all

Now, there's an idea............. Shur, they could shove Granny and/or Grandpa into the spare room, sell her/his gaff and clear their mortgage. See, the possibilities are endless.

Hitman3000

I can smell a constitutional challenge if the government tries to force this.

Spanish Eyes

As a matter of interest, let's say a person is a council tenant and goes into a nursing home. Tenancy is in the name of the NH resident only.

What happens to the Council home in that case does anyone know?

Spanish Eyes

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

As a matter of interest, let's say a person is a council tenant and goes into a nursing home. Tenancy is in the name of the NH resident only.

What happens to the Council home in that case does anyone know?

I don't know what the legal position is, but I know one lady who unfortunately has dementia and is in long term nursing home care. Her house was returned to the council, redecorated and has been re let. I'm not sure if the family surrendered it.

paleoperson

gctest50 wrote: »

If you end up in a nursing home ( on a one-way ticket ) why should anyone else have to pay for your care while you have an asset you can't ever use again ?

It's not like you go to bed one night 38 and wake up 93

uh... because the asset might belong to your family, and been in it for generations.

Also, what's the point in going to a nursing home permanently, I think I'd rather suicide.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Elderly who are compis mentis but contemplating going into the Fair Deal would be better off gifting the house to beneficiaries before they make the application.

The beneficiaries pay reduced CAT, the HSE charge on the property is avoided, the house is maintained and no State compulsion (if such happens) to let your property to spongers and gimmegrants.

Spanish Eyes

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Elderly who are compis mentis but contemplating going into the Fair Deal would be better off gifting the house to beneficiaries before they make the application.

The beneficiaries pay reduced CAT, the HSE charge on the property is avoided, the house is maintained and no State compulsion (if such happens) to let your property to spongers and gimmegrants.

They have to do the transfer at least five years before Fair Deal application, otherwise it is "deprivation of assets" and the value is included in the application.

But if someone wants to do it while they are well, and lives for five years before going into NH it's obviously sensible. But if you are well and not in need of care why would you let your parasitic beneficiaries take over your house. You could be fine for years. It is very hard to figure out if and when you will need full time NH care.

Qui bono?

Anyway, any word on the Rent a Room Scheme that you mentioned earlier for full time NH residents?

Mrs Shuttleworth

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Elderly who are compis mentis but contemplating going into the Fair Deal would be better off gifting the house to beneficiaries before they make the application.

The beneficiaries pay reduced CAT, the HSE charge on the property is avoided, the house is maintained and no State compulsion (if such happens) to let your property to spongers and gimmegrants.

Not so.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

They have to do the transfer at least five years before Fair Deal application, otherwise it is "deprivation of assets" and the value is included in the application.

But if someone wants to do it while they are well, and lives for five years before going into NH it's obviously sensible. But if you are well and not in need of care why would you let your parasitic beneficiaries take over your house. You could be fine for years. It is very hard to figure out if and when you will need full time NH care.

Qui bono?

Anyway, any word on the Rent a Room Scheme that you mentioned earlier for full time NH residents?

I didn't know that about the five years. That's far too long - two years would be fairer.

Re Rent a Room I don't know if officially your PPR ceases to be so if you enter an NH. I wouldn't think it does but I'll check. Nobody of course is going to know anyway. I know you get an LPT exemption on your home if you enter an NH. I'll check it out and post back.

The house next door to me went "vacant" when the woman went into a nursing home but there were many students living there during the academic year. I wonder how many of these Fair Deal properties are actually vacant.

jca

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I didn't know that about the five years. That's far too long - two years would be fairer.

Re Rent a Room I don't know if officially your PPR ceases to be so if you enter an NH. I wouldn't think it does but I'll check. Nobody of course is going to know anyway. I know you get an LPT exemption on your home if you enter an NH. I'll check it out and post back.

The house next door to me went "vacant" when the woman went into a nursing home but there were many students living there during the academic year. I wonder how many of these Fair Deal properties are actually vacant.

Is there a LPT exemption for someone in a NH? My relative has been in a NH since 2015 and I've paid that for him to keep everything right. It doesn't say it anywhere on the letter.

Spanish Eyes

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I didn't know that about the five years. That's far too long - two years would be fairer.

Re Rent a Room I don't know if officially your PPR ceases to be so if you enter an NH. I wouldn't think it does but I'll check. Nobody of course is going to know anyway. I know you get an LPT exemption on your home if you enter an NH. I'll check it out and post back.

The house next door to me went "vacant" when the woman went into a nursing home but there were many students living there during the academic year. I wonder how many of these Fair Deal properties are actually vacant.

Thanks.

There is no exemption for LPT if you are in a NH and retain your house whether rented or not. But there is/was an exemption from the old Household Charge alright for those in full time care.

Uriel.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I didn't know that about the five years. That's far too long - two years would be fairer.

Re Rent a Room I don't know if officially your PPR ceases to be so if you enter an NH. I wouldn't think it does but I'll check. Nobody of course is going to know anyway. I know you get an LPT exemption on your home if you enter an NH. I'll check it out and post back.

The house next door to me went "vacant" when the woman went into a nursing home but there were many students living there during the academic year. I wonder how many of these Fair Deal properties are actually vacant.

Why is two years fair and 5 years not?

Mrs Shuttleworth

Uriel. wrote: »

Why is two years fair and 5 years not?

Poster Spanish Eyes explained why a post or two above.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Thanks.

There is no exemption for LPT if you are in a NH and retain your house whether rented or not. But there is/was an exemption from the old Household Charge alright for those in full time care.

I'm not too sure you're right there - on a probate file I know we got a Revenue exemption from LPT for 2016 as the woman had gone into LTC from the previous November.

Maybe they've cut that off as well.

Re PPR - I couldn't find anything that indicates you can't avail of rent a room if you go into an NH. Who is to know anyway? Particularly as the Govt now doesn't want houses left vacant. If anyone asks you're a family friend maintaining an old lady's property. Give her the cash into her hand or whoever is her representative to compensate for the pilferage of 80% of her cash income under Raw Deal. Job done.

Spanish Eyes

There is and never was an exemption from LPT for NH residents who own a house.

There is however, an exemption from the Household Charge if someone is in full time care. That charge has now been abolished but they can still look for evidence of payment if the house is being sold, hefty penalties I understand if it hasn't. Anyway it doesn't apply if a person was in FT care for the duration of the existence of the Household Charge.

Repeat post kind of! You're welcome.....

nice_guy80

€13 BILLION sitting in an account somewhere courtesy of Apple Inc, the EU and our incompetent tax system that screws the ordinary citizen for every cent but doesn't look for big corporations to pay what they should be paying

think of all the housing we could build off the INTEREST alone.

nice_guy80

nice_guy80 wrote: »

€13 BILLION sitting in an account somewhere courtesy of Apple Inc, the EU and our incompetent tax system that screws the ordinary citizen for every cent but doesn't look for big corporations to pay what they should be paying

think of all the housing we could build off the INTEREST alone.

WHERE could all this housing be built? Objections from local residents delays developments.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

There is and never was an exemption from LPT for NH residents who own a house.

There is however, an exemption from the Household Charge if someone is in full time care. That charge has now been abolished but they can still look for evidence of payment if the house is being sold, hefty penalties I understand if it hasn't. Anyway it doesn't apply if a person was in FT care for the duration of the existence of the Household Charge.

Repeat post kind of! You're welcome.....

No I think I'm right here! Here's the list of LPT exemptions.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/housing_taxes_and_reliefs/local_property_tax_exemptions.html

nice_guy80

Deleted User wrote: »

WHERE could all this housing be built? Objections from local residents delays developments.

errr, NAMA.
biggest land owner in the state

doesn't all have to be houses.
apartments in urban work just as well once there is a proper design, outdoor play areas

nice_guy80

nice_guy80 wrote: »

errr, NAMA.
biggest land owner in the state

doesn't all have to be houses.
apartments in urban work just as well once there is a proper design, outdoor play areas

Sooooo are all NAMA properties empty and fit for dwellings?

Spanish Eyes

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

No I think I'm right here! Here's the list of LPT exemptions.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/housing_taxes_and_reliefs/local_property_tax_exemptions.html

I accept the information with good grace and mea culpa:P But it doesn't apply if the property is rented, or anyone else lives there though. Another reason to leave them empty!

the_syco

Deleted User wrote: »

Most ghost estates were left unfinished due to lack of funds. Most are on the outskirts of towns, which already have schools, shops etc.

Every ghost estate that I've seen are ghost estates due to lack of facilities. But you think the homeless should be put into them????

Deleted User wrote: »

You might think differently if you were a young family struggling to find a suitable, affordable home when just the perfect one is lying empty down the road.

And if the family needs something fixed, what then? How will the old person in the nursing home with alzheimer's be able to fix it, as under the new scheme, they'd be the landlord.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know what the legal position is, but I know one lady who unfortunately has dementia and is in long term nursing home care. Her house was returned to the council, redecorated and has been re let. I'm not sure if the family surrendered it.

Council house gets returned to the council when the person leaves it. Her family do not have any rights to the council house, as the council owns the house.

nice_guy80

Deleted User wrote: »

Sooooo are all NAMA properties empty and fit for dwellings?

I'd rather be positive and see what could be done than be negative

the state was able to build housing for people when there was barely a penny in the country

um7y1h83ge06nx

the_syco wrote: »

Every ghost estate that I've seen are ghost estates due to lack of facilities. But you think the homeless should be put into them???

In fairness if they would rather be homeless than take a house in a ghost estate then I don't think the homeless issue is as big a priority as it is made out to be.

Spanish Eyes

Jaylee Tight Pedestrian wrote: »

In fairness if they would rather be homeless than take a house in a ghost estate then I don't think the homeless issue is as big a priority as it is made out to be.

That's a terrible to thing to say.

You mean they won't be living near mam and dad, the school, the shop, the friends, OK call it the entitlement to have everything you want. Sorry.

My view is, if you have not been working for two years you go where the vacant properties are. (unless you are disabled or otherwise cannot work).

If you are disabled and not working you are looked after as far as possible.

If you are working and qualify under income grounds you are looked after as far as possible.

TBH if someone is demanding property in prime areas and hasn't contributed to the pot they can take what is on offer. If they are not working sure they don't need to go anywhere except the school and the shop.

Just saying that there should be a hierarchy of need here. If you contribute, we will look after you, if you don't well, here's your options. Better to keep working people close to their work surely.

Await the bombs now!

Spanish Eyes

Jaylee Tight Pedestrian wrote: »

In fairness if they would rather be homeless than take a house in a ghost estate then I don't think the homeless issue is as big a priority as it is made out to be.

Surely they will need a private minibus to take them to the nearest school, shop and so on. Wait for it.

There is such a thing as supermarket delivery. There are school buses.

There are so many options. But no. I will leave it at that before I go on a rant.

Uriel.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Poster Spanish Eyes explained why a post or two above.

Spanish eyes didn't explain why you YOU think 2 years is fairer than 5

um7y1h83ge06nx

Well, look nobody will force anyone to take a house. I just think it should be a stepping stone to greater things not a long term arrangement. We all can't have a great house in the area we want, people need to be realistic. Take a house to get off the streets, sort themselves out, get a job and become independent.

Some people are so entitled they would nearly want their arse wiped for them.

brightspark

Deleted User wrote: »

You might think differently if you were a young family struggling to find a suitable, affordable home when just the perfect one is lying empty down the road.

Perhaps they should delay starting a family until they can afford a suitable home?

nice_guy80

brightspark wrote: »

Perhaps they should delay starting a family until they can afford a suitable home?

I suppose some people don't have that ability to plan things like child birth

wexandproud

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I suppose some people don't have that ability to plan things like child birth

and there lies another part of the problem with the best will in the world a girl can be caught out for whatever reason , but when you see girls [usually] or couples with a whole clatter of kids , because they see it as their right to have them even though they have no means to support them it makes you realize that some people , as i said before , feel the government owes them a living and personal responsability goes out the window.
how often do we see it on the telly , family living in a hotel room for ages but still having kids

pwurple

the_syco wrote: »

And if the family needs something fixed, what then? How will the old person in the nursing home with alzheimer's be able to fix it, as under the new scheme, they'd be the landlord.

Are you serious?


The same as any other landlord who is busy / working / sick / unwilling. They use a management company.

mdebets

Jaylee Tight Pedestrian wrote: »

Take a house to get off the streets, sort themselves out, get a job and become independent.

And that will be a problem, if you put them into ghost estates.
Ghost estates are empty for a reason, it's because they are away from everything, shops, jobs, etc. So at least you need to provide them with public transport or get everyone moving there a car, so that they can actually leave the place to go to job interviews or to a job later on.

Mrs Shuttleworth

pwurple wrote: »

Are you serious?


The same as any other landlord who is busy / working / sick / unwilling. They use a management company.

I think you're taking the p1$$.

In the event you're not:

1. Someone has to police the managing agent.
2. The managing agent reverts to the landlord on any issues that arise.
3. Managing agent fees would represent a large chunk of the annual rent.

My own suspicion is the HSE will start "offering" to act as a managing agent of the house for an old person going into Raw Deal. First step by stealth to taking possession of the houses indefinitely.

wexandproud

pwurple wrote: »

Are you serious?


The same as any other landlord who is busy / working / sick / unwilling. They use a management company.

and why can't the people who are living in the house , in the case of small things , fix it

wexandproud

wexandproud wrote: »

and why can't the people who are living in the house , in the case of small things , fix it

Because they don't. Thats where the hassle of being a landlord comes from. The landlord isn't just renting a house, theyre renting toasters, washing machines, furnishings, lawn mowers and a host of other things.
My experience is that items in rented houses last less time and break down far more often than the equivalent items in my own house.

We should encourage the system that applies in other EU countries where the landlord simply rents out the house (four walls and roof) on a long term lease eg 7 years renewable... and the tenant brings their own bits of furninture etc. This can suit everybody as the landlord gets no hassle, the rents are cheaper for the tenant and they can furnish it themselves as cheaply as they like with no worries of being liable for dameges...

Mrs Shuttleworth

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I think you're taking the p1$$.

In the event you're not:

1. Someone has to police the managing agent.
2. The managing agent reverts to the landlord on any issues that arise.
3. Managing agent fees would represent a large chunk of the annual rent.

My own suspicion is the HSE will start "offering" to act as a managing agent of the house for an old person going into Raw Deal. First step by stealth to taking possession of the houses indefinitely.

What about the heirs to the estate? You know. The ones who handed over care of their dearly loved one to a Nursing Home? The ones who are only interested in hanging on to an asset, while it lies idle, depriving a family of a home?

What is this "Raw Deal" you keep on about? Is that what the dementia sufferers are getting from their nearest and dearest?

um7y1h83ge06nx

wexandproud wrote: »

and why can't the people who are living in the house , in the case of small things , fix it

True.

My brother is renting a house in Dublin from an old woman. Rent is decent for the market and if things break, he takes care of it and give the receipts to the landlord who gives him credit on the rent. For instance the washing machine broke and after consulting with her he went off, bought a new one of similar spec, arranged delivery and gave her the receipt.

Major difference is my brother is independent and not one of the many entitled people. You hear stories of some tenants wanting the council to get someone to call to replace bulbs.

JupiterKid

The sentiments expressed on this thread are very telling.

At first glance it appears that many have concerns about the welfare of the elderly and their right to hold onto their hard earned homes but beneath that layer you can see an "I'm alright Jack" mentality among property owners who see their asset as one to be valued above the common good - whether that be building much needed social housing nearby or the horrible commie notion that housing is a basic human need and not just an asset to be sold on at a big profit as part of the ruinous "housing ladder."

This mentality towards housing and property is a major factor in the housing crisis in the first place. The irony is thick here.

As for the proposal, I think it's a ploy by the govt to deflect attention from their hideous lack of progress in properly addressing the crisis.