Is there new legislation coming next week from Murphy?

Browney7

tvjunki wrote: »

Debate in the dail and legislation today stopping landlords giving tenants notice that they need vacant possession to selling houses. If tenants have a risk of homelessness landlords will have to sell with tenant in place.

So this is sitting tenant will devalue your home by a min 50k of the value of your house! Landlords will not be able to get a mortgage with a sitting tenant.

Last straw. I am giving notice to tenants today.
Note...
If you do give notice make sure you take the forms from rtb as they have added a few additional paragraphs on the notice to quit forms.

The motion won't pass so you may aswell hold your horses unless you want to sell anyway and lock in a lofty price for your property

GGTrek

I agree this is the usual stunt from the communists of PBP with the support of the usual culprits. Not a chance it will pass.

Samuel T. Cogley

GGTrek wrote: »

I agree this is the usual stunt from the communists of PBP with the support of the usual culprits. Not a chance it will pass.

I wouldn't be so sure given the current climate.

The Student

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure given the current climate.

I don't think the Govt would be so naïve. This would be the final nail in the coffin for landlords who would never fix their properties if they are in rent pressure zones and the then inability to sell with vacant possession.

Effectively there would be no incentive for a landlord to invest anything in the property.

brightspark

The price of anything is limited upwards by the amount someone is willing to pay, (the lowest price is the original cost in labour/materials etc otherwise it is a loss to the seller)

The rental price is what people are able to pay, not the cost of the property etc.

1, Giving the renters a tax rebate would result in the tenants having more money available and will increase the rents paid (excluding the areas where rent increases are limited), more profit again for the landlords and a partial recovery of the rebate cost to the government. This would gave the effect of making renting even less affordable to those who don't pay income tax as they would have no tax on which to claim relief.

2, Lowering the income tax would mean more profit for the landlords, as the tenants still have the same amount of money available. Whether or not increasing the landlords profits would cause an increase in supply is difficult to say, but an increase in rental supply can only come at a cost to those who purchase their own homes.

3, Increasing the tax would mean the government getting a share of the money which they could use to create more social housing (they probably wouldn't but that's another argument).
Increasing the income tax would make the difference between the cost to landlord and the amount the renter is able to pay smaller resulting in less profit or even a loss to the landlords, resulting in less rental properties being available, but may lower the cost of houses so that owner occupiers can afford them.


Options 1 & 2 are largely only good for the landlords, at a direct cost to the governments income. It is unlikely though that improving the situation for landlords proportionately improves the situation for renters, so it's probably not a good solution to the "housing crisis"

If anything option 3 is better for the government as it gets a larger "share" of money available from property and makes the net cost of using the private rental sector for social housing cheaper.

Fol20

There’s only one simple way to bring down rental costs - increase supply.

This can be done in two ways. 1. Build more rental properties(reits are the only likely people to buy these) or make it more profitable to ll in some manor or mitigate risks ll currently have to bear.

Bluefoam

Fol20 wrote: »

There’s only one simple way to bring down rental costs - increase supply.

This can be done in two ways. 1. Build more rental properties(reits are the only likely people to buy these) or make it more profitable to ll in some manor or mitigate risks ll currently have to bear.

...or create barriers to short term letting (airBNB/Hotel) of residential houses and bring them bacvk to the residential letting market...

The Student

brightspark wrote: »

The price of anything is limited upwards by the amount someone is willing to pay, (the lowest price is the original cost in labour/materials etc otherwise it is a loss to the seller)

The rental price is what people are able to pay, not the cost of the property etc.

1, Giving the renters a tax rebate would result in the tenants having more money available and will increase the rents paid (excluding the areas where rent increases are limited), more profit again for the landlords and a partial recovery of the rebate cost to the government. This would gave the effect of making renting even less affordable to those who don't pay income tax as they would have no tax on which to claim relief.

2, Lowering the income tax would mean more profit for the landlords, as the tenants still have the same amount of money available. Whether or not increasing the landlords profits would cause an increase in supply is difficult to say, but an increase in rental supply can only come at a cost to those who purchase their own homes.

3, Increasing the tax would mean the government getting a share of the money which they could use to create more social housing (they probably wouldn't but that's another argument).
Increasing the income tax would make the difference between the cost to landlord and the amount the renter is able to pay smaller resulting in less profit or even a loss to the landlords, resulting in less rental properties being available, but may lower the cost of houses so that owner occupiers can afford them.


Options 1 & 2 are largely only good for the landlords, at a direct cost to the governments income. It is unlikely though that improving the situation for landlords proportionately improves the situation for renters, so it's probably not a good solution to the "housing crisis"

If anything option 3 is better for the government as it gets a larger "share" of money available from property and makes the net cost of using the private rental sector for social housing cheaper.

Option 1 allows existing renters in RPZ save for a deposit and eventually own their own homes. It will also will flush out Rogue landlords as those who are not tax compliant will not be approved for the tax credit for the tenants.

Option 2 Lowering the tax on landlords will reduce the exodus of small landlords as the existing tax regime for the risk involved is ridiculous, if you don't change the tax rate then speed up the eviction process.

Option 3 will in my opinion not work as the Govt does not want to provide social housing as we refuse to deal with anti social behavior and non payment of council rents. This is a societal issue.

Assetbacked

Deja vous to another current topic in this forum but taxing the rent received by REITs should be low-hanging fruit for the government. The whole point of structuring as a REIT to become a landlord is to ensure no tax is paid on rental income. Not taxing these institutions comes at a cost to the individuals in Ireland who rent and pay tax to the government.

brightspark

The Student wrote: »

Option 1 allows existing renters in RPZ save for a deposit and eventually own their own homes. It will also will flush out Rogue landlords as those who are not tax compliant will not be approved for the tax credit for the tenants.

Option 2 Lowering the tax on landlords will reduce the exodus of small landlords as the existing tax regime for the risk involved is ridiculous, if you don't change the tax rate then speed up the eviction process.

Option 3 will in my opinion not work as the Govt does not want to provide social housing as we refuse to deal with anti social behavior and non payment of council rents. This is a societal issue.

Option 1 perhaps but only those in RPZ, everyone else will see their rents go up to match.

Option 2 will only improve their profit margins, and the more property controlled by landlords the less available for to be purchased privately.

Option 3, I didn't say they would provide more social housing, just that they should, regardless they will have more money to pay the landlords (give it to them via the tenant and take it back in tax)

handlemaster

Browney7 wrote: »

Ah yes, the taxation chestnut springs up yet again on the forum.

Income taxes are high in Ireland for most middle to higher earning people, not just Landlords. Why should landlords get preferential rates of tax on rental income?

Making property tax an allowable expense and a modest flat rate allowance for travel costs to carry out inspections are the two (small) taxation areas that may have merit.

Air BnB (and other short term booking sites), no problem with LLs making hay here once they get planning permission for change of use.

Why lower taxes. Government DOESN'T want to house welfare tenants. If they want more landlords which is what their policy is. . Then high risk lower taxes

handlemaster

Browney7 wrote: »

Ah yes, the taxation chestnut springs up yet again on the forum.

Income taxes are high in Ireland for most middle to higher earning people, not just Landlords. Why should landlords get preferential rates of tax on rental income?

Making property tax an allowable expense and a modest flat rate allowance for travel costs to carry out inspections are the two (small) taxation areas that may have merit.

Air BnB (and other short term booking sites), no problem with LLs making hay here once they get planning permission for change of use.

Why lower taxes. Government DOESN'T want to house welfare tenants. If they want more landlords which is what their policy is. . Then high risk lower taxes

The Student

brightspark wrote: »

Option 1 perhaps but only those in RPZ, everyone else will see their rents go up to match.

Option 2 will only improve their profit margins, and the more property controlled by landlords the less available for to be purchased privately.

Option 3, I didn't say they would provide more social housing, just that they should, regardless they will have more money to pay the landlords (give it to them via the tenant and take it back in tax)

Option 1 what's to stop landlords raising the rent outside RPZ anyway. At least by doing this you give something to the tenants.

Option 2 will allow purchasers compete with landlords on future purchases. As it stands current renters will never be able to save a deposit and will be stuck renting forever. If landlords leave where will the existing tenants live when the property is sold due to the anti landlord stance.

Fol20

Bluefoam wrote: »

...or create barriers to short term letting (airBNB/Hotel) of residential houses and bring them bacvk to the residential letting market...

People think this will work but most people that went the air bnb did it as they are sick of the rules against ll. I see a lot of them just selling the property now which will more than likely go to owner occupier instead of rentals

Samuel T. Cogley

Fol20 wrote: »

People think this will work but most people that went the air bnb did it as they are sick of the rules against ll. I see a lot of them just selling the property now which will more than likely go to owner occupier instead of rentals

Mines going to the coucil as soon I see exactly what the legislation holds.

garhjw

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure given the current climate.

It’s only a motion. I can’t see how it could be legislated for given the financial impact it would have on the property owner. It makes the property unsellable as banks will not provide a mortgage on a property without vacant possession. Does the government then need to legislate for banks to provide mortgages without vacant possession? Also eliminates CGT for the government if the value of the investment property is decreased so significantly.

Samuel T. Cogley

garhjw wrote: »

It’s only a motion. I can’t see how it could be legislated for given the financial impact it would have on the property owner. It makes the property unsellable as banks will not provide a mortgage on a property without vacant possession. Does the government then need to legislate for banks to provide mortgages without vacant possession? Also eliminates CGT for the government if the value of the investment property is decreased so significantly.

Didn't we get to within one vote of this the last time or was that for own use?

garhjw

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Didn't we get to within one vote of this the last time or was that for own use?

I don’t know the answer to that but just can’t see how it is workable give. The impact it has on the property owner. In my current situation I have to evict tenants from properties as executor of my fathers estate. I have to sell the properties to discharge the liabilities of the estate and pay inheritance taxes. If I can’t evict to sell then I’m stuck with the property or have to flog it for very little and then not have funds to discharge liabilities of the estate...

Bringing is such a law would also push many investment properties back into negative equity.

tvjunki

Bluefoam wrote: »

...or create barriers to short term letting (airBNB/Hotel) of residential houses and bring them bacvk to the residential letting market...

The airbnb/ rent my home/home away lettings are only a drop in the ocean to the amount of properties needed.

With the lack of control landlords have on their properties many are leaving them empty. I know of a few that have been stung with tenants not paying for years and trashing/clearing the houses out when they do leave. They are now sitting on the empty properties until the market reaches it peak and will sell them off in a year or so.

Not a good time to be a landlord if you are small time.

Browney7

tvjunki wrote: »

The airbnb/ rent my home/home away lettings are only a drop in the ocean to the amount of properties needed.

With the lack of control landlords have on their properties many are leaving them empty. I know of a few that have been stung with tenants not paying for years and trashing/clearing the houses out when they do leave. They are now sitting on the empty properties until the market reaches it peak and will sell them off in a year or so.

Not a good time to be a landlord if you are small time.

If that's how they are choosing to deploy their capital then that's their choice after being a victim of crime, they are free to do so.

I'd say I know close to fifty people who've been renting in Dublin for years and if they've as much as broken a plate I'd be amazed so I'm unsure how so many landlords get so unlucky on boards?

GGTrek

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

I agree this is the usual stunt from the communists of PBP with the support of the usual culprits. Not a chance it will pass.

I wouldn't be so sure given the current climate.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/1004/1000866-housing-crisis/
You were right it did pass with FF support (otherwise it had no chance) who switched sides yesterday in the debate and today in the vote, I am not exactly sure if they will support the whole motion or just part of it and what practical consequences the approval of this motion will have. I believe it is now time to sell.
This is the link to the debate and the motion:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-10-03/31/
"calls on the Government to:
— declare the housing and homeless crisis an emergency;
— dramatically increase the supply of social and affordable (including cost rental) housing by increasing capital spending on housing to €2.3 billion in Budget 2019, increase Part V requirements to 20 per cent in standard developments and 30 per cent in strategic development zones, prioritise the delivery of public housing on public land, and aggressively target the return of vacant houses to active use;
— reduce the flow of adults and children into homelessness with emergency legislation to make it illegal for landlords, banks and investment funds to evict tenants and homeowners in mortgage distress into homelessness, provide real security of tenure and real rent certainty by linking rent reviews to an index such as the Consumer Price Index and introducing measures to reduce the cost of rent, and introduce a target for ending long-term homelessness and the need to sleep rough; and
— hold a referendum to enshrine the right to housing in the Constitution."
The part in black is pure socialism in action, since a blanket ban on eviction will result in a massive contraction of the private rental housing market (massive devaluation of rented property) and a massive abuse from renters (who would pay rent if eviction is banned). The proposal is a massive expropriation: politicians have always used emergency powers to pass all sorts of abuse of constitutional rights, like private property rights and emergency legislantion (which is very convenient for some parasitic parts of society) usually stays for decades.

GGTrek

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

garhjw wrote: »

It’s only a motion. I can’t see how it could be legislated for given the financial impact it would have on the property owner. It makes the property unsellable as banks will not provide a mortgage on a property without vacant possession. Does the government then need to legislate for banks to provide mortgages without vacant possession? Also eliminates CGT for the government if the value of the investment property is decreased so significantly.

Didn't we get to within one vote of this the last time or was that for own use?

Yes, 17th of January 2017, anti-eviction bill defeated with just one vote from the An Ceann Comhairle:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2017-01-19/5/
It was defeated because FF abstained, if FF approves the only legal option will be a constitutional challenge (I believe it will happen for such a ludicrous proposal). Housing as a constitutional right will take a long time since it will have to be put to referendum.

GGTrek

Sorry to answer my own questions, finally an informative article in the Journal: http://www.thejournal.ie/government-housing-motion-4268576-Oct2018/

"Although the motion was carried unanimously, it is not binding on the government to take these actions contained within it. " It was not carried unanimously, but the part in bold answers my questions. I am started to believe that FF used the motion as a tool against FG to get what it wants in next week budget.

Also a commentator there probably hit the nail about the uncostitutionality of such motion: "There IS no such in the Irish constitution as a government-declared national emergency. The motion is therefore invalid and will simply be binned"

titan18

That motion is a crock of sh1t. Country has finally gone down the toilet if that went into law.

I disagree with nearly all of it, but in particular

- Increase Part V requirements to 20 per cent in standard developments and 30 per cent in strategic development zones - Fcuk that - why would you want to be one of the 70 or 80% who buy there

- reduce the flow of adults and children into homelessness with emergency legislation to make it illegal for landlords, banks and investment funds to evict tenants and homeowners in mortgage distress into homelessness Watch every landlord drop out of the market if that came in and interest rates to rise

garhjw

titan18 wrote: »

That motion is a crock of sh1t. Country has finally gone down the toilet if that went into law.

I disagree with nearly all of it, but in particular

- Increase Part V requirements to 20 per cent in standard developments and 30 per cent in strategic development zones - Fcuk that - why would you want to be one of the 70 or 80% who buy there

- reduce the flow of adults and children into homelessness with emergency legislation to make it illegal for landlords, banks and investment funds to evict tenants and homeowners in mortgage distress into homelessness Watch every landlord drop out of the market if that came in and interest rates to rise

Totally agree, it’s just more populist nonsense...... completely unworkable

Samuel T. Cogley

GGTrek wrote: »

Housing as a constitutional right will take a long time since it will have to be put to referendum.

I can't see that happening personally. Art 45 is already there and quite sensibly is only a guide to policy. That said who fecking knows things have gone potty recently.

GGTrek

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

Housing as a constitutional right will take a long time since it will have to be put to referendum.

I can't see that happening personally. Art 45 is already there and quite sensibly is only a guide to policy. That said who fecking knows things have gone potty recently.

I have had enough of this nonsense, it is my family money invested, I shall start quoting with solicitors to see what deal they can offer me for a bulk sale and then I shall contact a few medium sized investment funds to see what sale conditions they can offer. They are the ones who bought off my neighbours.

cordy1969

hmm

GGTrek

garhjw wrote: »

titan18 wrote: »

That motion is a crock of sh1t. Country has finally gone down the toilet if that went into law.

I disagree with nearly all of it, but in particular

- Increase Part V requirements to 20 per cent in standard developments and 30 per cent in strategic development zones - Fcuk that - why would you want to be one of the 70 or 80% who buy there

- reduce the flow of adults and children into homelessness with emergency legislation to make it illegal for landlords, banks and investment funds to evict tenants and homeowners in mortgage distress into homelessness Watch every landlord drop out of the market if that came in and interest rates to rise

Totally agree, it’s just more populist nonsense...... completely unworkable

I was born in a country where in the 80s this nonsense was accepted as normal since a third of the people voted for candidates like Murphy. I am seeing a very bad trend in Ireland and I am not going to wait for the next Irish election.

marieholmfan

Very sensible ideas, should be a clear split made between three categories

inheritors - should be treated as C class property owners and have no right to choose their tenants or to set rent levels. Of course many people would see such a class as inherently untrustworthy and therefore strict penalties should apply to any slippage in standards. (the state would not guarantee rent)


mortgage free - B class owners can choose tenants and must comply with standards but penalties should be minimal and they should be allowed to set their own rent (in this case the state would guarantee the rent)#

still mortgaged class A and the above would not apply.