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

10pennymixup

KyussB wrote: »

It's quite simple: If you cover the mortgage + interest on a rental property, with the rental payments (and only manage to cover that), on a consistent basis over the term of the mortgage, then excluding exceptional circumstances, you gain from that: You own a property worth several hundred thousand at the end of it.

Virtually all of the landlords here, are very carefully trying to frame that situation, as one where a landlord does not benefit whatsoever - despite ending up with an asset worth hundreds of thousands, at the end.

Again, seriously now, you're spewing the same ****e you've being spewing the last c.20 posts.

We got it, everyone here gets it. We can tell from all your posts............... you believe all landlords (licencors included) can't do simple accounts.

Now please come up with something else, an answer to everything else put to you, not the same auld ***te, and try harder this time, really push yourself....perhaps something original, not some regurgitated speech you heard whilst stoned/pissed/ over medicated/ psychotic break (delete which is non applicable) at some free the city/ down with wall street/ Apollo house (delete which is non applicable) event.

KyussB

This simple point really triggers the fuck out of the landlords in this thread...

Oh I know the landlords here can do accounts - my contention, is that the landlords circling the wagon here, try to muddy the fact that they are constantly building equity on the property through the rent payments - are trying to use selective focus on accounts to state their is no gain, when there is a consistent gain over time.

This sleight of hand, is (thus far) best distilled - and it will keep being put forward consistently - through the example of a mortgaged rental, where the rent covers just the mortgage + interest, over the term of the mortgage - providing the landlord with complete ownership of several hundred grands worth of property over time - this is a situation, where landlords here are claiming no gain.

This is a total bullshit claim, which will keep on being contested in all its forms on the thread.

Sultan_of_Ping

KyussB wrote: »

This simple point really triggers the fuck out of the landlords in this thread...

Oh I know the landlords here can do accounts - my contention, is that the landlords circling the wagon here, try to muddy the fact that they are constantly building equity on the property through the rent payments - are trying to use selective focus on accounts to state their is no gain, when there is a consistent gain over time.

This sleight of hand, is (thus far) best distilled - and it will keep being put forward consistently - through the example of a mortgaged rental, where the rent covers just the mortgage + interest, over the term of the mortgage - providing the landlord with complete ownership of several hundred grands worth of property over time - this is a situation, where landlords here are claiming no gain.

This is a total bullshit claim, which will keep on being contested in all its forms on the thread.

Well I think the only one feeling "triggered" ( what a stupid word) is you.

I doubt many built equity from about 2008 to 2015/6 if they bought before then.......if they were then no one would be in negative equity.

It's like any business. Some people bought/invested wisely or were lucky and are doing well, others were less discerning or were undone by circumstances and are not doing as well.

And plenty of businesses acquire or invest in assets that appreciate.

pwurple

KyussB wrote: »

It's quite simple: If you cover the mortgage + interest on a rental property, with the rental payments (and only manage to cover that), on a consistent basis over the term of the mortgage, then excluding exceptional circumstances, you gain from that: You own a property worth several hundred thousand at the end of it.

Virtually all of the landlords here, are very carefully trying to frame that situation, as one where a landlord does not benefit whatsoever - despite ending up with an asset worth hundreds of thousands, at the end.

Where are you getting this?

Or, they just have debt, amounting to hundreds of thousands at the end.

A heck of a lot of them buy something, it gets devalued by tenants, and they sell it for less.

If you hire a car for a weekend, you have a hold on your credit card in case you write it off. Do massive damage as a tenant to a house and it’s wah wah wah if the owner tries to recoup even the measly deposit.

runawaybishop

KyussB wrote: »

A reminder to readers, in among all the wagon circling:
Landlords here are quite literally saying, that if a rented property generates just enough income to pay for a properties mortgage + interest, causing the property to become fully owned by the landlord over the course of e.g. 10-15 years, when he did not own it before - that the landlord has not generated any profits in that time period, if the rent was just breaking even with the mortgage + interest.

This is the shit they are trying to pull, here.

Landlords here? I am not a landlord and have no intention of ever becoming one. I do, however, understand basic business economics.

Being a landlord involves more than charging rent. There are several other costs involved along with the mortgage. There is a hefty tax system. We now have rent caps on the back of a period of very low demand and hence low rents. We have a strong bias towards the tenant with no way for a landlord to expedite the removal of a tenant who does not pay.

You seem to think a business will survive if it cannot write off a loan as a debt, operates at a loss every month, has to wait 15-25 years to see a profit and on top of that a bad tenant can frustrate the system and remain not paying rent for 1-2 year with no possibility of recompense.

No one is trying to pull anything, these are the challenges landlords face and the reason so many private landlords are exiting the long term rental market. They all leave and all you will have left are REITs, and those lads will maximize their profit every single opportunity.

Ray Palmer

KyussB wrote: »

A reminder to readers, in among all the wagon circling:
Landlords here are quite literally saying, that if a rented property generates just enough income to pay for a properties mortgage + interest, causing the property to become fully owned by the landlord over the course of e.g. 10-15 years, when he did not own it before - that the landlord has not generated any profits in that time period, if the rent was just breaking even with the mortgage + interest.

This is the shit they are trying to pull, here.

We already went through this and it isn't 10-15 years it is closer to 30 years as I explained exactly what happens.

You claim the people below don't exist

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/its-not-worth-the-hassle-woman-on-nightmare-experience-of-being-a-dublin-landlord-37435400.html

Explain what margins you think are acceptable and how your model of property investment works. Never heard other businesses talk about putting money continually into a business expecting a pay off in 30 years with the hope prices rise enough on the premises. While doing so to have continual risk that time period can increase by 10+ years.

Just try and explain it because so far you haven't been able.

KyussB

Again, posters are trying to avoid the primary point, with the minutiae of landlord finances and by trying to pull-in the situation of problem tenants again.

There are multiple posters presenting the impression, that if a landlord gets their mortgage paid off by tenant rents, with little in the way of cash flow to spare after the mortgage payment - that there is no gain until the mortgage is over - even though at the time the mortgage is over, the landlord ends up with an asset worth several hundred grand.

There's a very careful narrative at play, which tries to obfuscate and hide this fact, through appeals to the complexities of landlord finances, problem tenants, negative equity, and all manner of other issues - which attempt to gloss over this principal, massive gain, that landlords achieve.

Hiding this, seems to be at the core of the 'poor landlords' narrative.

10pennymixup

KyussB wrote: »

Again, posters are trying to avoid the primary point, with the minu.........................................................................

Yawn, unfollow thread, click.

runawaybishop

KyussB wrote: »

Again, posters are trying to avoid the primary point, with the minutiae of landlord finances and by trying to pull-in the situation of problem tenants again.

There are multiple posters presenting the impression, that if a landlord gets their mortgage paid off by tenant rents, with little in the way of cash flow to spare after the mortgage payment - that there is no gain until the mortgage is over - even though at the time the mortgage is over, the landlord ends up with an asset worth several hundred grand.

There's a very careful narrative at play, which tries to obfuscate and hide this fact, through appeals to the complexities of landlord finances, problem tenants, negative equity, and all manner of other issues - which attempt to gloss over this principal, massive gain, that landlords achieve.

Hiding this, seems to be at the core of the 'poor landlords' narrative.

Only one I see avoiding points is yourself. Maybe you don't understand them.

I will make it real simple.

People cannot afford to make a loss for 25 years.

steddyeddy

Dwayne Petite Kangaroo wrote: »

Do you talk sh1t for fun or is it a career?

The aim of a rental is to completely cover the mortgage and to make addition income on top of this every month (after tax profit). It may not work out like this all the time but that’s the aim for anyone getting into the running a rental business and if the business is succeeding this is what happens so stop talking absolute and utter gutter.

Being a LL is hard work, it’s completely over taxed and LL have no rights (tenants had far too many) which is why people are getting out of the business despite you sticking your head in the sand and pretending it’s not happening.

You have serious begrudgery issues and serious issues with people who succeed in having a good income and you aren’t happy unless they are dragged down and have everything taken off them. Are you Margaret Cash by any chance?

Ah Nox, you're exhibit A, B and C here. You brag on several threads about renting houses you inherit, complain about tenants having too much rights, talk about wanting to walk into tenants houses whenever because it's your house, get your mother to wash your clothes when you return home, complain about working hard from inherited assets and then say landlords have it hard!

People who work decent jobs, don't inherit assets and pay most of their wages for rent Nox have it hard man. I don't mean to be harsh man but a good dose of reality is needed for some people.

steddyeddy

runawaybishop wrote: »

Only one I see avoiding points is yourself. Maybe you don't understand them.

I will make it real simple.

People cannot afford to make a loss for 25 years.

Wait, what loss are you talking about. Say you have two houses, one your residence and one for renting. You rent out the second house and lets say the rent generated nearly pays the mortgage leaving you to make up the rest with your work wages. At the end of that you get an asset. An asset you secure for a renter subsidised mortgage.

Geuze

Dwayne Petite Kangaroo wrote: »

The aim of a rental is to completely cover the mortgage and to make addition income on top of this every month (after tax profit). It may not work out like this all the time but that’s the aim for anyone getting into the running a rental business and if the business is succeeding this is what happens so stop talking absolute and utter gutter.

That is not the definition of profit.

Net rental profit is after the deduction of mortgage interest, not the mortgage capital repayment.

Many landlords are making large net rental profits, while also being cashflow negative, as they are building up an asset, repaying the debt.

By the way, I have 100% sympathy for landlords dealing with bad tenants.

I also agree the interest deduction should always have been 100%, as it is with all other businesses.

It was unfair to reduce it for landlords.

Samuel T. Cogley

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah Nox, you're exhibit A, B and C here. You brag on several threads about renting houses you inherit, complain about tenants having too much rights, talk about wanting to walk into tenants houses whenever because it's your house, get your mother to wash your clothes when you return home, complain about working hard from inherited assets and then say landlords have it hard!

People who work decent jobs, don't inherit assets and pay most of their wages for rent Nox have it hard man. I don't mean to be harsh man but a good dosh of reality is needed for some people.

steddyeddy

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Go raibh maith agut for that. I should have added a good (inherited) dosh for the sake of the poster

runawaybishop

steddyeddy wrote: »

Wait, what loss are you talking about. Say you have two houses, one your residence and one for renting. You rent out the second house and lets say the rent generated nearly pays the mortgage leaving you to make up the rest with your work wages. At the end of that you get an asset. An asset you secure for a renter subsidised mortgage.

There are more costs then just the mortgage* but essentially yes, many people cannot afford to run at a loss for such a prolonged period. It doesn't matter if they get a house 25 years later if they can't afford to pay for it now - the government's interference in the market and general antilandlord policies are forcing private landlords out. This isn't exactly helping the supply situation.

*Insurance, tax, repairs, inspections, advertising, maintance, redecorating etc.

steddyeddy

runawaybishop wrote: »

There are more costs then just the mortgage* but essentially yes, many people cannot afford to run at a loss for such a prolonged period. It doesn't matter if they get a house 25 years later if they can't afford to pay for it now - the government's interference in the market and general antilandlord policies are forcing private landlords out. This isn't exactly helping the supply situation.

*Insurance, tax, repairs, inspections, advertising, maintance, redecorating etc.

But you're not talking about a static market. You're talking about a market which sees relatively high increases in charges to customers. You're also talking about using an asset to pay for an asset. Like any business you'll run at a loss for a few years but it is possible to make it over the hump, invest in more property and make a large profit. Using an asset to pay off the cost of an asset also doesn't preclude a landlord actually working for a living too. Very few businesses allow for that.

handlemaster

KyussB wrote: »

Again, posters are trying to avoid the primary point, with the minutiae of landlord finances and by trying to pull-in the situation of problem tenants again.

There are multiple posters presenting the impression, that if a landlord gets their mortgage paid off by tenant rents, with little in the way of cash flow to spare after the mortgage payment - that there is no gain until the mortgage is over - even though at the time the mortgage is over, the landlord ends up with an asset worth several hundred grand.

There's a very careful narrative at play, which tries to obfuscate and hide this fact, through appeals to the complexities of landlord finances, problem tenants, negative equity, and all manner of other issues - which attempt to gloss over this principal, massive gain, that landlords achieve.

Hiding this, seems to be at the core of the 'poor landlords' narrative.

so operate at a loss year on year and cross your fingers for future ownership of a property you have no way to know what value it will have . seems very weird to run a business that way

runawaybishop

steddyeddy wrote: »

But you're not talking about a static market. You're talking about a market which sees relatively high increases in charges to customers. You're also talking about using an asset to pay for an asset. Like any business you'll run at a loss for a few years but it is possible to make it over the hump, invest in more property and make a large profit. Using an asset to pay off the cost of an asset also doesn't preclude a landlord actually working for a living too. Very few businesses allow for that.

Except rent caps throw all that out the window. Landlords would have been hit hard 10 years ago and then rent caps stop them recovering fully. Why else do you think so many landlords are quitting the market?

I wouldn't expect landlords to break even on rent/mortgage all the time but when there is reduced room to prepare for issues/reduced rental periods then people quickly realise their money is better spent in a different investment.

handlemaster

steddyeddy wrote: »

But you're not talking about a static market. You're talking about a market which sees relatively high increases in charges to customers. You're also talking about using an asset to pay for an asset. Like any business you'll run at a loss for a few years but it is possible to make it over the hump, invest in more property and make a large profit. Using an asset to pay off the cost of an asset also doesn't preclude a landlord actually working for a living too. Very few businesses allow for that.

so now its not a normal business the owner should accept they will have to make up the short fall by gaining other employment. I though that landlords were rolling in the cash ?

steddyeddy

handlemaster wrote: »

so now its not a normal business the owner should accept they will have to make up the short fall by gaining other employment. I though that landlords were rolling in the cash ?

By gaining other employment? Like everyone else does? It seems the real problem is the expectation that landlords have that the renters should completely cover the costs of a mortgage while the landlord makes a profit. In this case maybe make more sensible investments.

runawaybishop

steddyeddy wrote: »

By gaining other employment? Like everyone else does? It seems the real problem is the expectation that landlords have that the renters should completely cover the costs of a mortgage while the landlord makes a profit. In this case maybe make more sensible investments.

I think the expectation was that the government wouldn't interfere in the market and that the bad times could be handled by profits from the good times.

And landlords are making sensible investments now, that's why there are less of them.

steddyeddy

runawaybishop wrote: »

I think the expectation was that the government wouldn't interfere in the market and that the bad times could be handled by profits from the good times.

And landlords are making sensible investments now, that's why there are less of them.

What market do the government not regulate. They have to regulate a market which affects someone's home. Should we not also regulate healthcare and education?

runawaybishop

steddyeddy wrote: »

What market do the government not regulate. They have to regulate a market which affects someone's home. Should we not also regulate healthcare and education?

Did they regulate the market when rents fell through the floor? Do you think rent caps are actually helping the situation?

steddyeddy

runawaybishop wrote: »

Except rent caps throw all that out the window. Landlords would have been hit hard 10 years ago and then rent caps stop them recovering fully. Why else do you think so many landlords are quitting the market?

I wouldn't expect landlords to break even on rent/mortgage all the time but when there is reduced room to prepare for issues/reduced rental periods then people quickly realise their money is better spent in a different investment.

But again in terms of an investment it's not a bad deal. As an asset you can pay off the cost of the asset loan (mortgage) and recover an asset that will likely increase in value in the current market.

runawaybishop

steddyeddy wrote: »

But again in terms of an investment it's not a bad deal. As an asset you can pay off the cost of the asset loan (mortgage) and recover an asset that will likely increase in value in the current market.

It could just as likely decrease and the business loan, which is what it is, does not operate like it does for all other businesses.

steddyeddy

runawaybishop wrote: »

Did they regulate the market when rents fell through the floor? Do you think rent caps are actually helping the situation?

I think the ability to remove non-paying tenants and recover losses from tenants that wreck the residence would help both landlords and tenants.

Rent caps won't help the supply but they'll ensure that we wouldn't enter a situation where someone on a good salary would struggle to live in Ireland.

steddyeddy

runawaybishop wrote: »

It could just as likely decrease and the business loan, which is what it is, does not operate like it does for all other businesses.

Depends on when you buy. That's where investment acumen comes in. For example I think people who buy investment properties before Brexit are idiots.

4ensic15

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think the ability to remove non-paying tenants and recover losses from tenants that wreck the residence would help both landlords and tenants.

Rent caps won't help the supply but they'll ensure that we wouldn't enter a situation where someone on a good salary would struggle to live in Ireland.

There is an ability to remove non paying tenants but it takes years. A way of getting rid of non-payers speedily is needed. That would reduce losses and curtail damage.

steddyeddy

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is an ability to remove non paying tenants but it takes years. A way of getting rid of non-payers speedily is needed. That would reduce losses and curtail damage.

Well I'm all for a reasonable cut off time.

4ensic15

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I'm all for a reasonable cut off time.

The current situation is ludicrous.

steddyeddy

4ensic15 wrote: »

The current situation is ludicrous.

I completely agree.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

A reminder to readers, in among all the wagon circling:
Landlords here are quite literally saying, that if a rented property generates just enough income to pay for a properties mortgage + interest, causing the property to become fully owned by the landlord over the course of e.g. 10-15 years, when he did not own it before - that the landlord has not generated any profits in that time period, if the rent was just breaking even with the mortgage + interest.

This is the shit they are trying to pull, here.

Why is that so difficult to understand? If you buy a property and setup a shop there do you think paying off the mortgage on the premises is sufficient for the business to remain viable. Not in a million years is it viable, the place will close after a few months and go bust if there is no profit for at least the salary of the owner on top of covering the mortgage and expenses but for some reason you are placing LLs in some special place where they are treated differently to other businesses, mostly based on begrudgery and/or ignorance I would wager

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah Nox, you're exhibit A, B and C here. You brag on several threads about renting houses you inherit, complain about tenants having too much rights, talk about wanting to walk into tenants houses whenever because it's your house, get your mother to wash your clothes when you return home, complain about working hard from inherited assets and then say landlords have it hard!

People who work decent jobs, don't inherit assets and pay most of their wages for rent Nox have it hard man. I don't mean to be harsh man but a good dose of reality is needed for some people.

This is total fantasy bar the bit about bringing washing home. That major chip on your shoulder is starting to blind you.

steddyeddy wrote: »

But you're not talking about a static market. You're talking about a market which sees relatively high increases in charges to customers. You're also talking about using an asset to pay for an asset. Like any business you'll run at a loss for a few years but it is possible to make it over the hump, invest in more property and make a large profit. Using an asset to pay off the cost of an asset also doesn't preclude a landlord actually working for a living too. Very few businesses allow for that.

Any business who buys a premises is relying on that premises to pay for itself and make profit to pay for wages etc. Operating a rental business is no different, a person who rents out property should if they do it properly and in a functioning market make additional income every money after mortgage, tax and interest. This is the point of running a side business, to increase your monthly income.

Never mind a person who is a full time LL, how do you expect a person who is a full time LL to make a living if they cannot cover all costs like mortgages etc and extract a salary from the business?

Zulu

KyussB wrote: »

A reminder to readers, ...

KyussB has no understanding of the value of risk.

Clearly not an accountant

cordy1969

The chip on people's shoulder is astounding. Maybe those contributors would be better off settling in Russia or China where the government will gladly give you a nice house and a job.

Simple economics, the rental market is not going to improve or the housing crisis whilst you have people who believe they are entitled to something for free or a government handout.

Fix the laws surrounding tenancy, like being able to remove a tenant after 90 days. Remove the rent caps and offer incentives to have individuals or companies invest into your market. By increasing those you will increase property availability and lower rents in the long term. To do otherwise is only going to worsen the current situation.

Or go back to the old days and give everybody an allotment to grow your own potatoes to sell to the rich landlords.

Ray Palmer

steddyeddy wrote: »

But again in terms of an investment it's not a bad deal. As an asset you can pay off the cost of the asset loan (mortgage) and recover an asset that will likely increase in value in the current market.

It is really simple. Given the risk and effort the model you suggest isn't viable and nobody does it how you think it should. You can argue that is how you think it works but it simply doesn't.

It really doesn't matter what you think because that isn't how it is done. Nobody would invest in property if it was. If you make it so your model is the only allowable way and investment will stop. Less properties to rent and it won't matter they are capped there won't be anywhere to rent.

Do you think when costs go down a landlord should reduce rent?

handlemaster

steddyeddy wrote: »

By gaining other employment? Like everyone else does? It seems the real problem is the expectation that landlords have that the renters should completely cover the costs of a mortgage while the landlord makes a profit. In this case maybe make more sensible investments.

who will provide the housing if not landlords?

its a service so why wouldnt rents pay the market rate ? What other business do you say nkt im no going to pay the market rate . Youd be laughed at but for the rental market the charity begging begins

steddyeddy

handlemaster wrote: »

who will provide the housing if not landlords?

its a service so why wouldnt rents pay the market rate ? What other business do you say nkt im no going to pay the market rate . Youd be laughed at but for the rental market the charity begging begins

I work in biotechnology so I can answer this quite easily. In the case of pharmaceuticals in no way do you pay the market rate for drugs. Healthcare wouldn't work if not completely subsidised. Even in America it's subsidised.

In biotech industry we require huge (billions) government subsidy to make it worthwhile for healthcare providers to research orphan disease. That means diseases that are rare and therefore not profitable. For example cystic fibrosis. Relatively common in Ireland, but not worldwide. The pharm companies couldn't give a sh1t whether it's cured or not. It's not profitable so the governments of the world subsidise it hugely.

If rents should demand the market rate and whatever landlords can charge do you likewise think the same should be true of medicine?

steddyeddy

As someone from academia I can tell you that Irish degree programs are heavily subsidised. Would you like to pay the full price for third level education?

Fol20

steddyeddy wrote: »

I work in biotechnology so I can answer this quite easily. In the case of pharmaceuticals in no way do you pay the market rate for drugs. Healthcare wouldn't work if not completely subsidised. Even in America it's subsidised.

In biotech industry we require huge (billions) government subsidy to make it worthwhile for healthcare providers to research orphan disease. That means diseases that are rare and therefore not profitable. For example cystic fibrosis. Relatively common in Ireland, but not worldwide. The pharm companies couldn't give a sh1t whether it's cured or not. It's not profitable so the governments of the world subsidise it hugely.

If rents should demand the market rate and whatever landlords can charge do you likewise think the same should be true of medicine?

In your own example you highlight the fact that the pharma industry is heavily subsidized or else its not profitable such as cystic fibrosis. Should the landlords then not be subsidized or it will also not be profitable?

steddyeddy

Fol20 wrote: »

In your own example you highlight the fact that the pharma industry is heavily subsidized or else its not profitable such as cystic fibrosis. Should the landlords then not be subsidized or it will also not be profitable?

To be honest it wouldn't be a bad idea but in that case the landlords couldn't charge whatever they wanted either and you could bet that rules would be further enforced. It's not something I would be against.

Fol20

steddyeddy wrote: »

To be honest it wouldn't be a bad idea but in that case the landlords couldn't charge whatever they wanted either and you could bet that rules would be further enforced. It's not something I would be against.

This would mean, the business being more profitable for a ll though so that they can stay in the business. This is something the government doesnt look like they want even though its necessary. You can even see some the news agencies spinning it as a landlord budget when they pushed forward the already proposed 100pc for interest on mortgages.

Ray Palmer

steddyeddy wrote: »

As someone from academia I can tell you that Irish degree programs are heavily subsidised. Would you like to pay the full price for third level education?

You seem to be mixing up the government subsidising stuff with landlords being stopped making a profit. You want landlords to subsidise tenants until the landlord owns the property. Landlords aren't the government nor a charity. They simply won't provide a service for free and pharma companies don't either hence they are subsidised by governments.

Why don't you start giving some of your wages to homeless charities rather than expecting landlords to do it as a business plan that nobody in their right mind would start.

cordy1969

steddyeddy wrote: »

I work in biotechnology so I can answer this quite easily. In the case of pharmaceuticals in no way do you pay the market rate for drugs. Healthcare wouldn't work if not completely subsidised. Even in America it's subsidised.

In biotech industry we require huge (billions) government subsidy to make it worthwhile for healthcare providers to research orphan disease. That means diseases that are rare and therefore not profitable. For example cystic fibrosis. Relatively common in Ireland, but not worldwide. The pharm companies couldn't give a sh1t whether it's cured or not. It's not profitable so the governments of the world subsidise it hugely.

If rents should demand the market rate and whatever landlords can charge do you likewise think the same should be true of medicine?

Excellent summary as most Pharma companies don't even contemplate taking a product to market unless it has at least 1500% GP and in most cases than number is more like 3000% and upwards. I would be all for having my investments rented out at 2000% gp on average.

Can you let me know where I can sign my rental properties up for this outstanding deal that you have put forward.

handlemaster

steddyeddy wrote: »

handlemaster wrote: »

who will provide the housing if not landlords?

its a service so why wouldnt rents pay the market rate ? What other business do you say nkt im no going to pay the market rate . Youd be laughed at but for the rental market the charity begging begins

I work in biotechnology so I can answer this quite easily. In the case of pharmaceuticals in no way do you pay the market rate for drugs. Healthcare wouldn't work if not completely subsidised. Even in America it's subsidised.

In biotech industry we require huge (billions) government subsidy to make it worthwhile for healthcare providers to research orphan disease. That means diseases that are rare and therefore not profitable. For example cystic fibrosis. Relatively common in Ireland, but not worldwide. The pharm companies couldn't give a sh1t whether it's cured or not. It's not profitable so the governments of the world subsidise it hugely.

If rents should demand the market rate and whatever landlords can charge do you likewise think the same should be true of medicine?

So the companies still get their payment and make a profit just not directly. No issue with landlords working the same way.

handlemaster

steddyeddy wrote: »

handlemaster wrote: »

who will provide the housing if not landlords?

its a service so why wouldnt rents pay the market rate ? What other business do you say nkt im no going to pay the market rate . Youd be laughed at but for the rental market the charity begging begins

I work in biotechnology so I can answer this quite easily. In the case of pharmaceuticals in no way do you pay the market rate for drugs. Healthcare wouldn't work if not completely subsidised. Even in America it's subsidised.

In biotech industry we require huge (billions) government subsidy to make it worthwhile for healthcare providers to research orphan disease. That means diseases that are rare and therefore not profitable. For example cystic fibrosis. Relatively common in Ireland, but not worldwide. The pharm companies couldn't give a sh1t whether it's cured or not. It's not profitable so the governments of the world subsidise it hugely.

If rents should demand the market rate and whatever landlords can charge do you likewise think the same should be true of medicine?

So the companies still get their payment and make a profit just not directly. No issue with landlords working the same way.

handlemaster

steddyeddy wrote: »

As someone from academia I can tell you that Irish degree programs are heavily subsidised. Would you like to pay the full price for third level education?

And the provide of that service gets full payment. No issue with LL getting paid like wise. There would also be a good side to this also payment guaranteed from the government no missed payments. Where do I sign up ?

hatrickpatrick

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It really doesn't matter what you think because that isn't how it is done. Nobody would invest in property if it was. If you make it so your model is the only allowable way and investment will stop. Less properties to rent and it won't matter they are capped there won't be anywhere to rent.

Fantastic, then the housing and construction market can be run by the state and non-profits as a service, not a business. Just like health, water, and other essential services in society. The way it should be.

Ray Palmer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fantastic, then the housing and construction market can be run by the state and non-profits as a service, not a business. Just like health, water, and other essential services in society. The way it should be.

Can you tell us which countries do this at present? When do we take property off everyone that owns it and start distributing it via the state?

Property rental is a business nothing is going to change that. The world economy relies on it. Every pension plan is some way relies on it as do the banks and governments.

Construction now is not allowed be a profit making industry too according to you.

It is never going to happen. Plainly stupid idea given the economic realities of the world. How do you plan to solve the devaluation of the entire world economy?

cordy1969

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fantastic, then the housing and construction market can be run by the state and non-profits as a service, not a business. Just like health, water, and other essential services in society. The way it should be.

Excellent point again by another brainiac.

After you finish saving the world with this outstanding economic policy, can you work on groceries and fuel next please. I find it absolutely abhorrent that companies are allowed to continually profit from my hunger and need to drive to work.

Thanks.

cordy1969

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Can you tell us which countries do this at present? When do we take property off everyone that owns it and start distributing it via the state?

North Korea comes to mind.