Do landlords in Ireland have it as tough as they think?

Ray Palmer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

are we meant to run hiding because you said 'socialist'?

appealing to history isn't a great way to argue the case for private ownership of a basic human necessity.

for as long as we claim or aspire to housing as the right of each individual then it's entirely consistent to have state involvement to a high degree in the system

ray palmers attitude of "oh god there isnt a bean in it for 30 years oh god im subsidising tenants when you think of it really" is.....well, its an *interesting* take certainly but dear god ....

You think normal financial planning is an interesting take. It is reality of renting. The people who think renting only pays out after 30 years is the crazy concept.

It really doesn't matter what you think as you will never invest in property. The people who do are telling you they won't invest in such a plan and you are telling them they are wrong and what risks they should take and accept.

We don't have to do what you want and won't. You are going to let REITs take over and they pay less tax instead. Cutting off your nose despite your face.

Zulu

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Go to Nordic countries - loads of state owned but tenant run accommodation blocks

The state was providing council housing in the 50s, 60s, 70s and there was very little homelessness.

That, and the fact that it's near impossible to survive a night, nevermind the winter on the street in the Nordic countries

runawaybishop

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You think normal financial planning is an interesting take. It is reality of renting. The people who think renting only pays out after 30 years is the crazy concept.

It really doesn't matter what you think as you will never invest in property. The people who do are telling you they won't invest in such a plan and you are telling them they are wrong and what risks they should take and accept.

We don't have to do what you want and won't. You are going to let REITs take over and they pay less tax instead. Cutting off your nose despite your face.

This keeps being said though. Loads of people claiming that landlords have it fine and waiting years to realise a profit is grand but in reality landlords are exiting the market.

steddyeddy

As rents increase so does the number of p1ss take landlords.


https://www.dailyedge.ie/most-misreable-rentals-in-dublin-july-2018-4103888-Jul2018/

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

As rents increase so does the number of p1ss take landlords.


https://www.dailyedge.ie/most-misreable-rentals-in-dublin-july-2018-4103888-Jul2018/

The vast majority of places to rent aren't like that. Most rentals are normal apartments or houses, not people trying to squeeze in accommodation where it won't fit.

cordy1969

steddyeddy wrote: »

As rents increase so does the number of p1ss take landlords.


https://www.dailyedge.ie/most-misreable-rentals-in-dublin-july-2018-4103888-Jul2018/

https://www.daft.ie/meath/houses-for-rent/athboy/ballinadrimna-athboy-meath-1884521/
https://www.daft.ie/kildare/houses-for-rent/athy/ballylynan-athy-kildare-1884285/
https://www.daft.ie/louth/houses-for-rent/carlingford/oyster-bay-carlingford-louth-1860329/

There is just 3 of there many many houses/apartments for rent within a commutable distance of Dublin for 1000 or less???

So whats your point Eddy? Showing people bad listings out of the thousands to make a point.

And yes Eddy we are still waiting on this wisdom of how you experienced loss for 8 years? Did they not have any smashed avocado at your local and you had to ship it in at your own expense?

You have a housing crisis because of lack of fiscal understanding and giving to much consideration to minority groups and snowflakes.

Want to know what's hard about buying houses, ask the people throughout the 80's and 90's who worked and purchased houses when interest rates were in excess of 10%. They didn't whinge and complain they got down to business lived where they could afford and worked where they could.

S.M.B.

Smashed avocado and snowflakes? Ugh.

steddyeddy

cordy1969 wrote: »

https://www.daft.ie/meath/houses-for-rent/athboy/ballinadrimna-athboy-meath-1884521/
https://www.daft.ie/kildare/houses-for-rent/athy/ballylynan-athy-kildare-1884285/
https://www.daft.ie/louth/houses-for-rent/carlingford/oyster-bay-carlingford-louth-1860329/

There is just 3 of there many many houses/apartments for rent within a commutable distance of Dublin for 1000 or less???

So whats your point Eddy? Showing people bad listings out of the thousands to make a point.

And yes Eddy we are still waiting on this wisdom of how you experienced loss for 8 years? Did they not have any smashed avocado at your local and you had to ship it in at your own expense?

You have a housing crisis because of lack of fiscal understanding and giving to much consideration to minority groups and snowflakes.

Want to know what's hard about buying houses, ask the people throughout the 80's and 90's who worked and purchased houses when interest rates were in excess of 10%. They didn't whinge and complain they got down to business lived where they could afford and worked where they could.

Listen I'm perfectly happy to detail the sacrifices I made but I think you should lose the chip on your shoulder.

Zulu

steddyeddy wrote: »

...but I think you should lose the chip on your shoulder.

Really?

Pot, have you met kettle?

steddyeddy

Zulu wrote: »

Really?

Pot, have you met kettle?

Yes really. It's not an adult line of discussion.

cordy1969

steddyeddy wrote: »

Listen I'm perfectly happy to detail the sacrifices I made but I think you should lose the chip on your shoulder.

Your initial quote

"Even if you operate at a loss (I did for eight years) you should eventually break even."

I have asked you on 2 or 3 previous posts to please describe the sacrifice as you put it, that you experienced the same as LL's have experienced and how you broke even at the end of it. You have politely danced around in every post since. Then you place some rubbish link up about few over priced rentals in Dublin that we all agreed are just plain silly and overpriced. I have on numerous occasions explained to you and others, that there is ample property for rent in a commutable distant from Dublin for under 1000 but again you choose to ignore these FACTS. The simple FACT is people like yourself are more interested in handouts and what they are missing out on instead of making sacrifices in regards to your lifestyle choices on where to live.
As for yourself you have on many occasions told us about your views which would put you into the socialist category and the "sacrifices you have made" yada yada yada and how LL's and corporations are ruining society. Yet in your choice of career you are quite happy to take the wages of that capitalist corporation you so rightly hate?

Anyways back to the original post. The current laws are too biased towards tenants ( and the snowflakes) and why this is still the case your housing crisis will continue to worsen because the one thing you all seem to miss is: Without capital investment and tax concessions your houses/apartments won't be built. The LL's and small investors will continue to leave in droves.The state as you put it can not keep affording to prop up the snowflake generation. The state won't build the houses they need because they can't afford to.

And the chip on my shoulder is no bigger than the smashed avocado on your toast.

steddyeddy

cordy1969 wrote: »

Are you seriously that deluded, you can buy a house anytime you like. Do what others have had to do for generations. And I will try and say it slowly for you......BUY IN AN AREA YOU CAN AFFORD NOT AN AREA YOU ASPIRE TO LIVE IN...Why are the tax payers expected to provide housing for you and others who can't be arsed to better themselves in life?

And as I mentioned before and we are still waiting...... What was your loss making experience for 8 years eddy?

Hey Cordy. My loss making experience for eight years was a degree, masters and a PHD. I worked through all of the aformentioned programs to support myself. I got a grant for fees but as I had to leave the house at an early age due to family breakdown it was made near impossible to get a grant to cover food, rent ect as it was very hard to prove seperation from family. I worked two jobs throughout those years while renting in Dublin with no money from the bank of mammy and daddy. The masters had no grant attached so I took out a loan to pay for fees and worked two jobs to fund myself and repay the loan. For the PhD my bench fees were paid and that was it. I had to work two jobs to put through four years of work while balancing a four year degree with teaching students ect. During the PhD I also put my own money into developing a molecule that I eventually got to patent. I won't describe what this did to my bank account and the losses incurred trying to make this all work. I also won't go into detail about some of the landlords I've met since moving out of home at 16.

Eventually I paid off the loans and started work. If you where trying to insinuate I had anything handed to me you'd be wrong.

cordy1969

Excellent so you worked hard to put yourself through university just like thousands of other students around the world. Whilst I am sorry for your family breakup it is the same for many many others around the world. Myself being one of those just like yourself. Yes and like you I worked hard and made my own way in life, just like generations have done for years and years before me. And yes I get annoyed when I watch systems that are continually broken and youth/ socialists telling us how hard they have it and how mistreated they are yada yada yada.

And whilst I congratulate you on your masters and PHD and subsequent patent. Your career will now start to reap the benefits of those choices. So how much of your wage now are you going to give back to the poor student/ socialist now to make sure they don't have the same struggles you did. Not much I'm tipping.

So now I ask you why should a LL be expected to offer housing at a loss to them or stand by and watch a tenant not pay rent for 2 years and destroy their investment. Then and even after judgement is passed in court to know that they will never see the money/loss ever anyways. So why should they be expected to do all that?

And as I said previously imagine the people paying mortgages off during 70's through to early 90's that were paying in excess of 10% up to 17% interest rates on their mortgages. I don't recall seeing media and the general public jumping up and down like they do nowadays do you.

So sorry for your sacrifices but they aren't anything truly unusual. And yes you are a credit to yourself to come through it the way you did and succeed. And whether you invest your money in the future into real estate, stocks, bonds or anything similar you will be looking for protection of your investment just like every other LL on here posting.

And lastly there is nothing more enjoyable than smashed avocado on your toast in the morning with a blueberry muffin and a coffee. But seriously how the hell do they justify 9 euro's for a toasted sandwich and 5 euros for a coffee. Now if you want to talk about an inflated market taking advantage of its customers/clients thats what we should be getting mad at.

steddyeddy

cordy1969 wrote: »

Your initial quote

"Even if you operate at a loss (I did for eight years) you should eventually break even."

I have asked you on 2 or 3 previous posts to please describe the sacrifice as you put it, that you experienced the same as LL's have experienced and how you broke even at the end of it. You have politely danced around in every post since. Then you place some rubbish link up about few over priced rentals in Dublin that we all agreed are just plain silly and overpriced. I have on numerous occasions explained to you and others, that there is ample property for rent in a commutable distant from Dublin for under 1000 but again you choose to ignore these FACTS. The simple FACT is people like yourself are more interested in handouts and what they are missing out on instead of making sacrifices in regards to your lifestyle choices on where to live.
As for yourself you have on many occasions told us about your views which would put you into the socialist category and the "sacrifices you have made" yada yada yada and how LL's and corporations are ruining society. Yet in your choice of career you are quite happy to take the wages of that capitalist corporation you so rightly hate?

Anyways back to the original post. The current laws are too biased towards tenants ( and the snowflakes) and why this is still the case your housing crisis will continue to worsen because the one thing you all seem to miss is: Without capital investment and tax concessions your houses/apartments won't be built. The LL's and small investors will continue to leave in droves.The state as you put it can not keep affording to prop up the snowflake generation. The state won't build the houses they need because they can't afford to.

And the chip on my shoulder is no bigger than the smashed avocado on your toast.

My point is relating to the attidues of yourself and one or two people on this thread. The idea that no matter how bad the investment, be it buy to let or mortgage to let the tenant or market should protect the landlord from their bad inestment.

You have someone who buys a second house outright due to years of hard work at their primary job and obtain a healthy profit in the absence of the mortgage (taxes and other expenses taken into account). They wait until houses are cheap to buy and then make the investment.

Then you have someone who intends to live soley as a landlord, doesn't understand the business or the profit margin, buys an expensive house with a high interest buy to let mortgage before a collapse in the housing market (e.g Brexit), gives up their day job and intends to live exclusively as a landlord.

So two types of landlord, both own and rent a second house. The pirmary determinant as to whether they make a proft is what type of investment they make. In other words make a good investment and you'll do well. Don't and it won't. Even if it's a bad inevestment it can still eventually pay off.

Now for some reason all of the landlords on here seem to be demanding that tenants pay a level of rent to completely cover any costs the landlord has with enough left over to generate a profit. At exactly what point should a landlord suffer from a bad investment?

Speaking of socialist, why exactly should a sector such as the housing sector be priced and regulated to cover bad investments when some landlords with a second house can make a profit?

cordy1969

steddyeddy wrote: »

My point is relating to the attidues of yourself and one or two people on this thread. The idea that no matter how bad the investment, be it buy to let or mortgage to let the tenant or market should protect the landlord from their bad investment.

No one has been asking for protection from a bad investment. The investment turns bad when if you have brought at the wrong time when you sell you will make a loss, thats the gamble with being a LL. You are investing based on future market growth if the growth doesn't come then so be it thats on you the investor.
What the LL are asking for is protection from loses made from non payment of rent and damage etc. The length of time it takes to evict someone and how their losses are treated.
LL's would like some general protection from the tenant and possible losses incurred from them.

In regards to rents, rents will come down with investment into the property market by increasing supply. This will not come without non government money i.e. the investor/ developers. The large REIT's are being offered tax incentives why aren't the normal LL?

steddyeddy

cordy1969 wrote: »

No one has been asking for protection from a bad investment. The investment turns bad when if you have brought at the wrong time when you sell you will make a loss, thats the gamble with being a LL. You are investing based on future market growth if the growth doesn't come then so be it thats on you the investor.
What the LL are asking for is protection from loses made from non payment of rent and damage etc. The length of time it takes to evict someone and how their losses are treated.
LL's would like some general protection from the tenant and possible losses incurred from them.

In regards to rents, rents will come down with investment into the property market by increasing supply. This will not come without non government money i.e. the investor/ developers. The large REIT's are being offered tax incentives why aren't the normal LL?

But people are! The landlords here are talking about not being able to make a profit while covering a buy to let mortgage either won't see their investment pay off for a while or they will own the house sans mortgage and be able to make a living off it.

The landlords here are complaining the tenant's rent doesn't cover bad investments like some buy to let mortgages. It would make a profit if it wasn't a buy to let or the investment was better. Why complain about rents not being enough if the investment was bad? Not everything is the fault or responsibility of the government.

cordy1969

I haven't read into like that, currently the laws are very bias towards the tenant. Thats what most LL are concerned about (maybe a few exceptions but I could be wrong).

yuridwyer

Accidental landlord here.... have seen both sides of it...first tenant stayed for two years and then fcuked off during the second coldest winter in a row (2011 I think) without paying the last month's rent, would have been happy enough if the gas hadn't been cut off the previous winter and pipes froze, burst and destroyed the bathroom. He hadn't used the wheelie bins either, I took out 75 bags of rubbish from the shed, the back and the house. Found dead snakes in the shed and the freezer......spent nine months and thousands trying to bring to the place up to scratch again, serious pressure on finances and more importantly relationship. Still paying it off. On the other hand now have great tenants (even if the rent is much lower than market rate) for past 6/7 years.

House still miles in negative equity. So while I ultimately hope to get a pension out of the house, if I could go back in time and somehow have avoided it all, I would have.

Not all landlords are money-hungry b@stards!

Taylor365

yuridwyer wrote: »

Not all landlords are money-hungry b@stards!

Very few I'd say.


You only hear the rotten stories, from both sides.

KyussB

cordy1969 wrote: »

No one has been asking for protection from a bad investment. The investment turns bad when if you have brought at the wrong time when you sell you will make a loss, thats the gamble with being a LL. You are investing based on future market growth if the growth doesn't come then so be it thats on you the investor.
What the LL are asking for is protection from loses made from non payment of rent and damage etc. The length of time it takes to evict someone and how their losses are treated.
LL's would like some general protection from the tenant and possible losses incurred from them.

In regards to rents, rents will come down with investment into the property market by increasing supply. This will not come without non government money i.e. the investor/ developers. The large REIT's are being offered tax incentives why aren't the normal LL?

Ffs that's not what landlord investment is about! That's property speculation, buying low so you can sell high - that's an idiotic way to invest - and that's precisely what we don't want people doing in society, as it's completely destructive and completely the wrong incentive, for property.

When you reward people for that, you incentivize the creation of a system that maximally worsens the downturns and upturns of each cycle, in the property market - for maximum profit, at the right stages of each cycle.

Morons engaging in property speculation - debt fuelled property speculation, no less! - need to be driven from the market, and heavily disincentivized, before they build up enough Private Debt to cause fallout in other areas of the economy.

The only landlords we want, are those in it for the long-game - not just looking to fucking flip property.

beauf

KyussB wrote: »

Ffs that's not what landlord investment is about! That's property speculation, buying low so you can sell high - that's an idiotic way to invest - and that's precisely what we don't want people doing in society, as it's completely destructive and completely the wrong incentive, for property.

When you reward people for that, you incentivize the creation of a system that maximally worsens the downturns and upturns of each cycle, in the property market - for maximum profit, at the right stages of each cycle.

Morons engaging in property speculation - debt fuelled property speculation, no less! - need to be driven from the market, and heavily disincentivized, before they build up enough Private Debt to cause fallout in other areas of the economy.

The only landlords we want, are those in it for the long-game - not just looking to fucking flip property.

You seem to have misread his entire post.

Geuze

yuridwyer wrote: »

House still miles in negative equity. !

Yuridwyer,

How can a house bought in 2009 or before that still be in negative equity?

You're not confusing negative equity with capital losses?

Maybe in rural Ireland this might be possible?

4ensic15

Geuze wrote: »

House still miles in negative equity. ![/quote]

Yuridwyer,

How can a house bought in 2009 or before that still be in negative equity?

You're not confusing negative equity with capital losses?

Maybe in rural Ireland this might be possible?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. Properties bought from 2004 to 2008 are still worth less than the price paid in many cases. A huge number of home loans were made and remortgages occurred in 2007 when the downturn had started.

cruizer101

It would still be very hard for a house to miles in negative equity.

I think even the worst of properties would have regained up to 70-80% of their peak value. Even bought on a 100% mortgage, that means repayments must have been interest only for a significant portion of the past 10 years.

I accept it is possible but there shouldn't be too many in negative equity still and of those they can't be far off not being.

I do think some people think negative equity is just house is worth less than was paid as opposed to house is worth less than what is still outstanding on the mortgage.

BattleCorp

cruizer101 wrote: »

It would still be very hard for a house to miles in negative equity.

I think even the worst of properties would have regained up to 70-80% of their peak value. Even bought on a 100% mortgage, that means repayments must have been interest only for a significant portion of the past 10 years.

I accept it is possible but there shouldn't be too many in negative equity still and of those they can't be far off not being.

I do think some people think negative equity is just house is worth less than was paid as opposed to house is worth less than what is still outstanding on the mortgage.

I bought a house in 2009. €195k. Had to spend about €70k to get it in good nick. So that's a total of €265k. I would struggle to get €200k for it today if I put it up for sale (town in rural Ireland). That's a fair bit of negative equity right there. Doesn't matter a jot to me though as I'm not planning on selling.

4ensic15

cruizer101 wrote: »

It would still be very hard for a house to miles in negative equity.

I think even the worst of properties would have regained up to 70-80% of their peak value. Even bought on a 100% mortgage, that means repayments must have been interest only for a significant portion of the past 10 years.

I accept it is possible but there shouldn't be too many in negative equity still and of those they can't be far off not being.

I do think some people think negative equity is just house is worth less than was paid as opposed to house is worth less than what is still outstanding on the mortgage.

&0 to 80% is an average. Some are still below 50%. After 10 years on a 30 year mortgage, very little capital would have been paid down.

4ensic15

BattleCorp wrote: »

I bought a house in 2009. €195k. Had to spend about €70k to get it in good nick. So that's a total of €265k. I would struggle to get €200k for it today if I put it up for sale (town in rural Ireland). That's a fair bit of negative equity right there. Doesn't matter a jot to me though as I'm not planning on selling.

There is no negative equity shown there. You don't say how much the mortgage was in 2009 or how much it is now.

BattleCorp

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is no negative equity shown there. You don't say how much the mortgage was in 2009 or how much it is now.

I'd rather not tell all of my business online if you don't mind.

4ensic15

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd rather not tell all of my business online if you don't mind.

Well then you can't claim to be in negative equity.
You have a house of a particular value and a loan secured on it of a particular amount. Loan higher than house value = negavive equity.
You have said "negative equity right there" but all you have shown is that the house is worth less than you have spent buying it and working on it.

cruizer101

cruizer101 wrote: »

It would still be very hard for a house to miles in negative equity.

I think even the worst of properties would have regained up to 70-80% of their peak value. Even bought on a 100% mortgage, that means repayments must have been interest only for a significant portion of the past 10 years.

I accept it is possible but there shouldn't be too many in negative equity still and of those they can't be far off not being.

I do think some people think negative equity is just house is worth less than was paid as opposed to house is worth less than what is still outstanding on the mortgage.

You would be surprised. There were some truly insane prices paid for property during the boom that were no where near what the property was really worth. Lots of houses especially have recovered as the prices while high were not totally insane but there were lots of apartments which went for money far far in excess of what they will ever be worth.

I know of one complex in Cork city where apartments went for around the 300k mark or slightly above. They dropped to as low as 100k in the depth of the recession and the last one that sold went for around the 170-180k mark a little while back. They will never sell for anywhere near there original price again.

cruizer101

4ensic15 wrote: »

&0 to 80% is an average. Some are still below 50%. After 10 years on a 30 year mortgage, very little capital would have been paid down.

Would there really still be some as low 50% of peak?

I'm basing it of https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-rppi/residentialpropertypriceindexaugust2018/ which yeah to be fair is averages and doesn't have much location detail but rest of Ireland is at 75%. I wouldn't have thought there would be any still at 50%.

Out of curiosity do you have any source with more data, or is just kind of individual houses you know of.

Ray Palmer

steddyeddy wrote: »

My point is relating to the attidues of yourself and one or two people on this thread. The idea that no matter how bad the investment, be it buy to let or mortgage to let the tenant or market should protect the landlord from their bad inestment.

I hope you aren't including me in these people who you think are asking protection from bad investments?

I have never suggested that bad investments should be protected. I do have an issue with the fact the government made them bad investments by increasing taxes and charges after people invested. The lack of protection from non payment that makes it a bad investments.

Then capping rents to lock in losses was another insult and reckless act.

cordy1969

KyussB wrote: »

Ffs that's not what landlord investment is about! That's property speculation, buying low so you can sell high - that's an idiotic way to invest - and that's precisely what we don't want people doing in society, as it's completely destructive and completely the wrong incentive, for property.

When you reward people for that, you incentivize the creation of a system that maximally worsens the downturns and upturns of each cycle, in the property market - for maximum profit, at the right stages of each cycle.

Morons engaging in property speculation - debt fuelled property speculation, no less! - need to be driven from the market, and heavily disincentivized, before they build up enough Private Debt to cause fallout in other areas of the economy.

The only landlords we want, are those in it for the long-game - not just looking to fucking flip property.

I know what property speculation is and also what a flip is. Neither of what I was talking about.
I was talking about the losses LL incur from tenants not paying and damage they do to properties and the fact LL's have absolutely no protection from them which means for me as a LL LOSS.

Geuze

4ensic15 wrote: »

House still miles in negative equity. !

I bought in 2005 and still face a capital loss, yes.

But I am long out of negative equity.

It seems like just interest-only mortgages would still be in negative equity.

Geuze

BattleCorp wrote: »

I bought a house in 2009. €195k. Had to spend about €70k to get it in good nick. So that's a total of €265k. I would struggle to get €200k for it today if I put it up for sale (town in rural Ireland). That's a fair bit of negative equity right there. Doesn't matter a jot to me though as I'm not planning on selling.

Please note that's a capital loss.

Don't confuse capital losses with negative equity.

It's shocking, but I met an AIB mortgage official who made this mistake.

cordy1969

cordy1969 wrote: »

Are you seriously that deluded, you can buy a house anytime you like. Do what others have had to do for generations. And I will try and say it slowly for you......BUY IN AN AREA YOU CAN AFFORD NOT AN AREA YOU ASPIRE TO LIVE IN...Why are the tax payers expected to provide housing for you and others who can't be arsed to better themselves in life?

And as I mentioned before and we are still waiting...... What was your loss making experience for 8 years eddy?

who are you shouting at? im a private renter.

yuridwyer

Geuze wrote: »

Yuridwyer,

How can a house bought in 2009 or before that still be in negative equity?

You're not confusing negative equity with capital losses?

Maybe in rural Ireland this might be possible?

Old 2 bed townhouse in Waterford City bought for 175k in 2005-ish, had agreement to sell for 187,500 which fell through because the other couple's mortgage fell through, then couldn't sell, house now worth 90k and 105 left on mortgage. House prices in Waterford are still quite low, look at Daft, Kilkenny up the road is far more expensive

Geuze

Fair enough.

Still 50% down on 2005 prices, unusual.

I paid 278k in 2005, now worth maybe 220-240k.

steddyeddy

Just curious. LLs say they have to charge high rents due to high tax. I presume then if taxes were lowered LLs would decrease rent.

steddyeddy

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I hope you aren't including me in these people who you think are asking protection from bad investments?

I have never suggested that bad investments should be protected. I do have an issue with the fact the government made them bad investments by increasing taxes and charges after people invested. The lack of protection from non payment that makes it a bad investments.

Then capping rents to lock in losses was another insult and reckless act.

Say two people buy the same value house, one with cash and one with a high interest mortgage then one investment will be more profitable than the other, tax or not.

Why shouldn't someone who made a worse investment operate at a loss?

markodaly

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just curious. LLs say they have to charge high rents due to high tax. I presume then if taxes were lowered LLs would decrease rent.

Yes.

beauf

steddyeddy wrote: »

...Why should someone ... operate at a loss?

This is the question you should have asked...

beauf

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just curious. LLs say they have to charge high rents due to high tax. I presume then if taxes were lowered LLs would decrease rent.

Renting, also known as hiring or letting, is an agreement where a payment is made for the temporary use of a good, service or property owned by another.

Only if tax is the only factor that influences the cost of that good, service or property.

Ask another question. If have a choice to rent to places A or B. Do you always rent the cheapest one? If not, why not.

Geuze

BattleCorp wrote: »

I bought a house in 2009. €195k. Had to spend about €70k to get it in good nick. So that's a total of €265k. I would struggle to get €200k for it today if I put it up for sale (town in rural Ireland). That's a fair bit of negative equity right there. Doesn't matter a jot to me though as I'm not planning on selling.

That is not negative equity.

That is a capital loss.

Negative equity involves the house price being less than the outstanding mortgage.

Geuze

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just curious. LLs say they have to charge high rents due to high tax. I presume then if taxes were lowered LLs would decrease rent.

No, don't presume that.

If corporation tax falls, do Tesco cut their selling prices? No.

As income tax and USC rates fall, do GPs reduce their charges? No.

steddyeddy

beauf wrote: »

This is the question you should have asked...

They shouldn't. Who is responsible for their loss is another question.

runawaybishop

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just curious. LLs say they have to charge high rents due to high tax. I presume then if taxes were lowered LLs would decrease rent.

Highly unlikely, they will try to recoup losses due to rent caps. Rent caps also tell landlords to never give a good tenant a break.

steddyeddy

So two people, similar properties but different investment should both make a profit. It's up to the taxpayer and government to lower taxes so the bad investment can make a profit?

runawaybishop

steddyeddy wrote: »

So two people, similar properties but different investment should both make a profit. It's up to the taxpayer and government to lower taxes so the bad investment can make a profit?

No? Who said anything about that

beauf

steddyeddy wrote: »

They shouldn't. Who is responsible for their loss is another question.

It really isn't.

I think your angle is really that you want to detach the investment part of the business (capital gains, losses) from the rental part of the business. So that rent is reduced and or capped.

You should look at Vienna,

http://files.nesc.ie/nesc_secretariat_papers/No_11_Financing_of_Social_Housing_in_Selected_European_Countries.pdf

https://medium.com/@15kwhm2a/housing-policy-lessons-from-vienna-part-1-516bc45e9090

https://www.wien.gv.at/english/housing/promotion/pdf/socialhous.pdf

You have to look at the whole economic/development model, not just cherry pick one part of it, rent (or tax) and isolate it.