Short term lets now half of Dublin rental market, anti landlord measures bite back

handlemaster

Andy Magic wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

An alternative viewpoint is this generation thinks its entitled to stay in Ireland regardless of affordability. Previous generations emigrated.

Typical selfish response.. Maybe if some of these landlords sold their properties there might be some available for this generation to buy

Lol the hand me out tenants would have no where to live if that happened. The government arent going to house them. Why dont people shake the money trees that are growing all around the country after all that is what landlords do. Just dont save up and invest in your families future .. get down and shake those trees

Varik

"Right Sizing"

Great idea, the Government ****ed over landlord, ****ed over the mortgage holders who actually pay their mortgage (double the EU average rate), and now people want to tax homeowners out of their proprieties that they actually paid for.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

Targeting the elderly because you want their property when it will have minimal impact on the scale of the shortage is ridiculous. Especially when it leaves them worse off.

Varik wrote: »

"Right Sizing"

Great idea, the Government ****ed over landlord, ****ed over the mortgage holders who actually pay their mortgage (double the EU average rate), and now people want to tax homeowners out of their proprieties that they actually paid for.

Nobody suggested taxing people out of their property or targeting the elderly.

Structure property taxes such that there's an economic incentive to reward people who choose a property that's an appropriate size for their needs.

Structure property taxes such that they can allow for some of the burden of local authority contributions to be removed from new builds (e.g. first-time-buyers) while simultaneously generating a sustainable source of revenue for the LAs.

the_syco

beauf wrote: »

The other side is govt has done very little to increase supply in real terms.

It has little to do with supply, and more to do with the height cap of Dublin. Everyone wants to live within the M50, but due to the height cap, there's no highrise apartment blocks.

We need a few highrise apartments built that will be governed by REITs, for renters only; no owners. And to be built near an existing dart station in a good area.

Assetbacked wrote: »

Perhaps closing this ridiculous loophole and using the money to try to improve the market in some way could be beneficial.

The money would just go into the state, and won't improve the market in any way.

DubCount wrote: »

Affordable housing for all. Nobody disagrees with the intention, but I dont think many people understand the implications. What is the minimum standard we expect people to live in? What is "affordable"? Who pays when "affordable" is out of reach?

Affordable just means more profit when supply is less than demand.

DubCount wrote: »

Who pays when "affordable" is out of reach?

Those that work for those that don't.

DubCount wrote: »

You have to wonder why developers wont build property which is already above "affordable" levels.

Land prices. The less land there is within the M50, the more the land outside the M50 becomes.

DubCount wrote: »

You also have to wonder why Landlords are not flooding into the market to benefit from "unaffordable" levels of rent. Should we reduce tenant protections? Should the tax payer subsidise landlords?

Increase landlord rights, and the creation of a working system that will evict non-payers or rent.

M.Cribben wrote: »

I know it's only anecdotal evidence but from my own experience (my parents), elderly people don't want to leave the homes they have lived in for the last 30-40 years.

Agreed; my parents may downsize to a hospice when they hit 90, and can no longer wipe their own arse, but until then, I can't see it happening.

Graham wrote: »

Instead we're treading water with this daft 'forever home' notion.

If you're on any sort of state support (HAP, etc), and you don't own the house, you should get moved into a smaller home at 65. I see no use in the government paying for an elderly couple to stay in a large house if they don't own it.

beauf

Its like the real world doesn't exist for some people.

the_syco

beauf wrote: »

Its like the real world doesn't exist for some people.

Yup. They want more homes in areas that don't exist. Build up, or people will have to move further out.

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

Nobody suggested taxing people out of their property or targeting the elderly.

Structure property taxes such that there's an economic incentive to reward people who choose a property that's an appropriate size for their needs.

Structure property taxes such that they can allow for some of the burden of local authority contributions to be removed from new builds (e.g. first-time-buyers) while simultaneously generating a sustainable source of revenue for the LAs.

A pre-requisite to doing that should be conveyancing changes and support for people who want to move. Attempting a downsize is a daunting task for an older person due to the legal and financial difficulties they will have to overcome. They often don't have the deposit funds to buy a house before selling their own. If anything goes wrong they can be left much worse off.

dr.fuzzenstein

Graham wrote: »

Nobody suggested taxing people out of their property or targeting the elderly.

Structure property taxes such that there's an economic incentive to reward people who choose a property that's an appropriate size for their needs.

Structure property taxes such that they can allow for some of the burden of local authority contributions to be removed from new builds (e.g. first-time-buyers) while simultaneously generating a sustainable source of revenue for the LAs.

Well, you're just calling a spade a manually operated excavation implement.
You're not taxing the elderly out of their homes, you're adjusting taxation levels to implement a policy of incentivising state described home ownership.
It's pissing on people and telling them it's raining. Do you work in government PR?
And it's a typical Irish approach. Instead of providing appropriate infrastructure and support for people it's just "jaysis, we'll just tax the fcukers to fcuk until they fcuking well move"

Graces7

The Conductor wrote... "Allied to this- we have no real solutions for our elderly or retired members of society- there are no retirement solutions that you have elsewhere- so they sit in big cold empty houses- and have to get subsidised heating etc- while families less than a mile down the road are crammed into 2-3 bed apartments sharing 2-3 to a room- because they have no other option........... There has to be a mechanism to get the family- into the family home- and the retired person/couple- into a properly serviced apartment with access to the services, facilities and amenities that they now need at this stage in their lives.........."

Many old folk prefer their own homes.

In the village near me, they built a row of lovely bungalows for the old folk to live in,for much the reasons you mention,

The old folk greatly preferred to stay in their own homes so there are young families in those houses, and a lunch club over the road in the community centre and meals on wheels for the old ones .

Many of us older ones would hate "a properly serviced apartment" and we have built up what services etc we need ourselves . Home is heart.

Graces7

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'm racing towards 50 now and I am planning one more move and the next house I will only leave in a box. Hate moving.
Also, imagine you had a home that belonged to you and no debt. Would you trust the government to move you somewhere else and look after you? After 10 years they might say "whoops, terribly sorry there old chap, no more money for you, but there's some lovely bridges in the area".
If they tried to move me, there'd be a trail of bodies.

Perfect! Thank you! lol

Carlos Orange

Graham wrote: »

Nobody suggested taxing people out of their property or targeting the elderly.

Structure property taxes such that there's an economic incentive to reward people who choose a property that's an appropriate size for their needs.

So this is going to happen by lowering property taxes is it?

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Nobody suggested taxing people out of their property or targeting the elderly.

Structure property taxes such that there's an economic incentive to reward people who choose a property that's an appropriate size for their needs.

Structure property taxes such that they can allow for some of the burden of local authority contributions to be removed from new builds (e.g. first-time-buyers) while simultaneously generating a sustainable source of revenue for the LAs.

In other words force people out on their homes which they have lived in for decades, have all their memories etc and where they want to live out their lives.

Honestly this should never even be spoken off never mind actually discussed with seriousness. It's absolutely disgusting.

I would say the amount of older or retired people who would want to live would be tiny which means taxing people out of their homes is very much forcing them out.

Also a lot of older people still need the space they have with children and grandchildren regularly coming to stay etc on top of just wanting to live in their homes they built up over the years.

Graces7

Arjun Spicy Suicide wrote: »

In other words force people out on their homes which they have lived in for decades, have all their memories etc and where they want to live out their lives.

Honestly this should never even be spoken off never mind actually discussed with seriousness. It's absolutely disgusting.

I would say the amount of older or retired people who would want to live would be tiny which means taxing people out of their homes is very much forcing them out.

Also a lot of older people still need the space they have with children and grandchildren regularly coming to stay etc on top of just wanting to live in their homes they built up over the years.

Agree totally BUT there is no such thing as"old folk" but individuals who are old. Some would love eg sheltered accommodation and to let go of their old homes. Others not, and you cannot take that choice, either way, away from them. As I posted re the village here? They went along with the old folk;s wishes and adapted to them. And as they are doing with me; knowing I wish to stay here independent. ( heading for 80 years)

Bob24

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Irish journalists display innumeracy yet again.

Short term lets need to be advertised every week. Long term lets are advertised when there's a chance of tenant - typically every six months or more.

So comparing numbers of ads is totally meaningless.

Probably the only relevant post on this thread: the thread is based in a completely misleading assertion which no valid argument can come out of.

Having said that Airbnb and the likes are a real issue which deserves to be debated, but the basis for the discussion shouldn’t be a phoney one.

beauf

Papers and media are all doing this click bait stuff now. Pretty much gibberish most of it.

Ray Palmer

Graham wrote: »

Nobody suggested taxing people out of their property or targeting the elderly.

Structure property taxes such that there's an economic incentive to reward people who choose a property that's an appropriate size for their needs.

Structure property taxes such that they can allow for some of the burden of local authority contributions to be removed from new builds (e.g. first-time-buyers) while simultaneously generating a sustainable source of revenue for the LAs.

You are getting hard time for that but the idea is sort of sound. Yes we need to use our housing stock better but a tax to make somebody do something is not an incentive. An incentive would be a tax break on the money if invested in a pension. There are lots of actual incentives for people.

What I think they should consider is converting a number of houses specially in a neighbourhood for elderly people to downsize to. They get to stay in the area if not their actual original home. They could be built with the elderly in mind. The longer they can live on their own the better for them and nursing home places and costs. There could even be an incentive for their children to move into the original home so they have added support.
This is win win for everyone and increased density in well serviced areas, Stronger community bonds.

Graces7

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You are getting hard time for that but the idea is sort of sound. Yes we need to use our housing stock better but a tax to make somebody do something is not an incentive. An incentive would be a tax break on the money if invested in a pension. There are lots of actual incentives for people.

What I think they should consider is converting a number of houses specially in a neighbourhood for elderly people to downsize to. They get to stay in the area if not their actual original home. They could be built with the elderly in mind. The longer they can live on their own the better for them and nursing home places and costs. There could even be an incentive for their children to move into the original home so they have added support.
This is win win for everyone and increased density in well serviced areas, Stronger community bonds.

Housing associations do this.

Ray Palmer

Graces7 wrote: »

Housing associations do this.

For social housing I am talking private owners and estates. Dublin is surrounded by estates of large family homes with occupants of 1 and 2 while their children live miles away and commute large distance to Dublin. We don't really have a lack of housing we have a bad distribution of people in homes.
We don't need to use force but people would freak out anyway and complain elderly people are being forced out of homes.

Graces7

Ray Palmer wrote: »

For social housing I am talking private owners and estates. Dublin is surrounded by estates of large family homes with occupants of 1 and 2 while their children live miles away and commute large distance to Dublin. We don't really have a lack of housing we have a bad distribution of people in homes.
We don't need to use force but people would freak out anyway and complain elderly people are being forced out of homes.

Well, yes they would. Home for old folk is very important. It holds memories of those already gone, and a move at advanced age can have serious health consequences. Trust me on this. We get easily disoriented.

Wrong area to try to alter

In council houses in the UK, people do get moved to a smaller property when their family shrinks. No choice.

Ray Palmer

Graces7 wrote: »

Well, yes they would. Home for old folk is very important. It holds memories of those already gone, and a move at advanced age can have serious health consequences. Trust me on this. We get easily disoriented.

Wrong area to try to alter

In council houses in the UK, people do get moved to a smaller property when their family shrinks. No choice.

Hence I am suggesting tax breaks on pensions and keep it all as incentives. It would suddenly become a claim of some sort of bedroom tax in a heart beat.

There are some people who would love this. They are asset rich on a small pension but don't have anywhere to downsize to in their community and their children are living miles away. All it would take is one outrage old person about feeling threatened and people would go mental. Wouldn't matter if there was nothing to it. You really would want nerves of steel to do it.

beauf

Considering the money involved with fair deal, nursing homes, gift tax, inheritance tax, CGT, and legal fees.

So many invested interests none of which are going to give that up. They'd lose too much money.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

If you go to sell your house should you charge the market value or let someone have it on the cheap?

It's a moot point anyway - small time LL's are leaving the market - good luck in getting REITs to agree to rent controls.

I don’t see why not.

dr.fuzzenstein

Who wants to be the politician spearheading an initiative to tax old people out of their homes?
Well, that's put that to bed.

4ensic15

There can be incentives for people to downsize rather than financial pressure.
A simplified conveyancing system to start with.
A bridging finance arrangement to ensure there is only one move.
Priority for downsizers in getting into nursing homes/fair deal scheme etc when they need it.
A rebate on stamp duty for downsizers.

Graces7

4ensic15 wrote: »

There can be incentives for people to downsize rather than financial pressure.
A simplified conveyancing system to start with.
A bridging finance arrangement to ensure there is only one move.
Priority for downsizers in getting into nursing homes/fair deal scheme etc when they need it.
A rebate on stamp duty for downsizers.

Sounds like pressure and stress..

The_Conductor

Graces7 wrote: »

Sounds like pressure and stress..

If someone had a significant amount of capital tied up in a large residential property that they no longer needed- surely it makes perfect sense to try and bend over backwards to encourage them to move to a property more suitable for the stage in life they find themselves in?

It is a hell of a lot of pressure and stress- trying to heat an old property, with single glazed windows, several rooms that may not be entered from one end of the year to another, a creaking old oil boiler, electrics from the 1970s, a large garden that they just don't have the energy to keep in good condition etc etc. This is the type of situation- that very many people are in- and expecting them to maintain this property for the rare visits their children and grandchildren make- quite simply isn't fair. I'd also argue that the notion that those children and grandchildren- should be the ones trying to convince their elderly relative- to enjoy whatever time they have left on this mortal plain- and if they have capital- use it- the quaint notion of hoarding cash for children and grandchildren- really should be consigned to the past. As the saying goes- there are no pockets in a shroud.

If someone were renting- rather than sitting in a large property that they owned- well, it would be an entirely different situation.

There are thousands of elderly out there in big old rambling properties- who could have a far better standard of living- and their needs better met- elsewhere- however, they have an attachment to a 'forever home' and some quaint notion that Maria is going to come home and look after them- and little Mark will inherit the house and move his family there when they eventually pass on.

A lot of this is a complete and utter lack of communication- Maria isn't going to come home from the big smoke to look after her elderly parents, put her relationships on hold, give up her job- and merrily dance back to the big smoke down the line- leaving the house to Mark and his family........... If anything- its going to precipitate a family feud.............

Life is short- and if an elderly person has the means- it makes sense to try and help them enjoy their twilight years- but part of this is showing them what their options are- and the pros and cons of the various choices that they might make are.

Its not about the big bad government playing big brother- and telling anyone that they *have* to do anything. Its enabling them to do things- if they so choose to do so- but ensuring that they have an informed choice to make- and that they don't fall through the cracks- because of course what suits now- may be an appalling situation in no time flat.

Graces7

The_Conductor wrote: »

If someone had a significant amount of capital tied up in a large residential property that they no longer needed- surely it makes perfect sense to try and bend over backwards to encourage them to move to a property more suitable for the stage in life they find themselves in?

It is a hell of a lot of pressure and stress- trying to heat an old property, with single glazed windows, several rooms that may not be entered from one end of the year to another, a creaking old oil boiler, electrics from the 1970s, a large garden that they just don't have the energy to keep in good condition etc etc. This is the type of situation- that very many people are in- and expecting them to maintain this property for the rare visits their children and grandchildren make- quite simply isn't fair. I'd also argue that the notion that those children and grandchildren- should be the ones trying to convince their elderly relative- to enjoy whatever time they have left on this mortal plain- and if they have capital- use it- the quaint notion of hoarding cash for children and grandchildren- really should be consigned to the past. As the saying goes- there are no pockets in a shroud.

If someone were renting- rather than sitting in a large property that they owned- well, it would be an entirely different situation.

There are thousands of elderly out there in big old rambling properties- who could have a far better standard of living- and their needs better met- elsewhere- however, they have an attachment to a 'forever home' and some quaint notion that Maria is going to come home and look after them- and little Mark will inherit the house and move his family there when they eventually pass on.

A lot of this is a complete and utter lack of communication- Maria isn't going to come home from the big smoke to look after her elderly parents, put her relationships on hold, give up her job- and merrily dance back to the big smoke down the line- leaving the house to Mark and his family........... If anything- its going to precipitate a family feud.............

Life is short- and if an elderly person has the means- it makes sense to try and help them enjoy their twilight years- but part of this is showing them what their options are- and the pros and cons of the various choices that they might make are.

Its not about the big bad government playing big brother- and telling anyone that they *have* to do anything. Its enabling them to do things- if they so choose to do so- but ensuring that they have an informed choice to make- and that they don't fall through the cracks- because of course what suits now- may be an appalling situation in no time flat.

So how would you do all this please?

The_Conductor

Graces7 wrote: »

So how would you do all this please?

Favourable tax treatment for people who are downsizing
Favourable tax treatment for developers to develop and run specific retirement villages (perhaps base them on the tenancy for life model that you buy at the outset in a single lumpsum)
Actually implement a proper local authority tax system- based on the size and number of bedrooms in a property- alongside its value- and change it to the 'user pays' principle- that is- whoever is resident in the property pays- owner, renter, whatever.
I'd suggest lowering the inheritance tax threshold again- so there is no tax benefit for parents to sit on houses- in the expectation that its Mark and Maria's inheritance......... etc etc etc

We need to help people help themselves. The current system perpetuates the system.

4ensic15

Graces7 wrote: »

Sounds like pressure and stress..

That is why people don't downsize. There is little or no assistance available. Many elderly people haven't been involved in a conveyance in decades. they might never have bid on a property. It is difficult enough for young people in possession of their faculties to move house, for the elderly, it is a nightmare. It would be a win/win if people who wanted to downsize were helped to do so.

quadrifoglio verde

Last September I visited my aunt and uncle in Chicago. They're in their 70s, but reasonably fit and healthy and still up for the good life. Anyway the reason why I'm posting about it is that they live in a retirement village.
They originally lived in a large 3 storey house close to the city but decided to sell up and move a few years ago.
Everything they need is on site.
Theres golf courses, fitness centres, a mini hospital, restaurants, shops, supermarkets within easy access of their home within the village. Not to mention numerous activities and trips that they can take part in. Only those aged 55 and over could live in the village (more like a big town), so a good chance of living with your peers.
The part that got me though was the size of their retirement home. It was huge and it was open plan. Everything around it was designed with the 55 and up age bracket in mind. No stairs to try and climb, no trip hazards. Two bedroom as well, so you could have guests stay should you wish. Not some tiny studio, but a very usable house, well suited to their needs

It made me wonder why there wasn't something similar here. These houses were ideal for older people. And they don't miss their old house. While they'd still be able to use it, a it would be too big and b) on a few years all they'd be able to use is the ground floor. What's the point in that.
A state sponsored retirement village won't work. People will object if they feel they're been forced out of their home, their home they've worked hard all their life to have and now to be told you have to go to a retirement villave.
However I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of a reit started to develop one. What old person wouldn't want to live in somewhere suitable with everything they need on their doorstep and the services to match.