Do we need effective rent controls in Dublin?

Ush1

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't that the load of delusional nonsense, though? Landlords don't pay near enough to pay for the billions it costs to put all the electric, water, sewage, telecommunications, roads, footpaths, waste incineration and everything else in place - infrastructure which landlords could not make money without. The state would survive without the taxes landlords pay; landlords wouldn't survive without the services which the state provides.

Next time rightwing landlords (or, indeed, rightwing anything) delusionally go on as if they're an island of self-made independence, start noticing all the things paid for by other taxpayers helping you via the state. The state which funds the basic services for your business is fully entitled to insist upon both a minimum health and safety standard in accommodation - "interference" - just as it insists upon various standards from every single private business in the state. And like most other developed economies people abusing a dominant position via undermining the greater good of society are regularly restricted and undermined by state policy - we have a whole section of law called Competition Law - so rent controls are simply another variant of this "interference" by the state in businesses which could never function without the state's "interference" in the first place. State interference = good, when they're giving us something; bad, when they're expecting something from us.

Landlords pay tax so they pay their share as they generate an income. The state generates no income so is totally reliant on the likes of landlords and other tax paying businesses and individuals.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Snotty wrote: »

Yes, it's a business, you pay or if you can't, you get evicted, why can Irish people not grasp that?

The Market will dectate the price, nothing else, if there is low stock and demand, then yes its going to be very expensive, this is the same in most cities, why is Ireland any different? If the prices continue to increase, then developers will see value and in building, or land owners will see value in selling, thus bring more stock to cater to demand.

Governement intervention in the housing market and rental market is always a disaster, it's usually a knee Jerk reaction to appease some group.

That would be a perfectly valid comment, perhaps, in a world where the government didn't bail out both banks and developers.

And it just isn't true anyway, for a lot of the 20C government involvement was perfectly benign.

beauf

Its not a simple situation anyway.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Amirani wrote: »

Few of the big issues here...

1. Who funds it? The State building or buying lots of new places is going to cost a hell of a lot of money. The rent money becoming a "nice revenue stream" is far less than the amount they're going to have to pay to increase the stock. So you have a big fiscal shortfall. Where do you make it up - reduce spending in other areas such as health or start raising taxes? Are you happy with either?

By and large government or local housing has been financed via bonds, repaid with the revenue generated. This revenue replaces a cost ( the cost to pay the private landlord) and therefore no tax increases are needed.

2. The State being a landlord makes it very difficult to deal with problem tenants. Similar to how you have issues with sacking people working in the civil service, if a tenant stops paying, the State just aren't going to be able to remove them; it's difficult enough for private landlords to do it.

We definitely need some legislation on this. Problem tenants need to be evicted, and perhaps put up in some kind of shelter or something.

3. If the State succeeds in your suggestion to significantly reduce rents and property prices; it benefits prospective renters/purchasers. However, at the same time it automatically makes homeowners/landlords/banks worse off, as rising rents and property prices are beneficial to these. Which of these 2 groups of people do you think are a bigger voting bloc?

Bankers aren't a big voting block ( maybe you mean an influence block). As for house owners - this block is continuing to reduce. So we are either going to have government intervention now or in the future when renters are in the majority. I'd prefer that FG or FF did this now to stop SF doing it later.

And also most property owners will have children or relatives stuck in the rental system. It's not a uniform block.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Ush1 wrote: »

Landlords pay tax so they pay their share as they generate an income. The state generates no income so is totally reliant on the likes of landlords and other tax paying businesses and individuals.

The State could generate significant income by charging for roads etc. Instead we pay in taxes, those taxes generate investment in public works, and the private sector generates wealth, and pays taxes. Works great.

There is no extra income generated by landlordism though, no extra wealth created that wasn't already there.

Ray Palmer

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The State could generate significant income by charging for roads etc. Instead we pay in taxes, those taxes generate investment in public works, and the private sector generates wealth, and pays taxes. Works great.

There is no extra income generated by landlordism though, no extra wealth created that wasn't already there.

That isn't true. Landlords put considerable money into providing a service. They redevelop buildings that were lying idle generating income that wasn't there before and increase the value of property.

Ush1

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The State could generate significant income by charging for roads etc. Instead we pay in taxes, those taxes generate investment in public works, and the private sector generates wealth, and pays taxes. Works great.

There is no extra income generated by landlordism though, no extra wealth created that wasn't already there.

I've no idea what you mean. The revenue is generated by the tax they pay running their business.