Its bash the landlord time again

beauf

kalych wrote: »

.... I do not see any people of merit arguing against a change in the policy to combat climate change. Why should a change in the government policy on housing be any different? Houses are a type of habitat? ....

The difference is govt policy with housing makes no sense. It's making the crisis worse. Govt policy is doing nothing to solve the shortage of social and affordable housing...REits are not interested in that section of the market. You don't see them investing in that type of housing.

Ireland doesn't have much of a reputation on environmental issues either. That was a poor example. Terrible on cycling issues, our EV charging network is abysmal etc.

beauf

eagle eye wrote: »

If you are not happy about it then sell your properties. Simple solution.

It certainly solves the problem for landlords.

kalych

Fol20 wrote: »

Your comparing apples with oranges. My analagy for describing tenants overholding is actual theft as they receive a service and do not pay for it. In your example. Private bodies are struggling to sell their good due to environmental impacts. So they are not stealing the service or product. If the governement or a person was taking the coal and using it but not paying for it. This would be the equivalent of my analogy.

They are changing the policy for coal wtc butnits gradual and has a long term global view in mind with some real positive impacts on the environment. The changes the government are making on rental legislation is hap hazard, reactive at best and has been performed by several other countries with little to no good results and actually prooves a hinderence in the market. The EU even said it causes problems ywt they still went ahead with it.

Your right people need to adapt to an ever changing market place, however in this case REITs are not making up enough of a difference in what is required to having a functioning market and they are also only target specific types of rentals that dont cater to the lowest common denominator.

In terms of adaption and ever changing situations. You could also say that the lower paid should move out of dublin if they cant afford it but they expecr from a social aspect that they should be able to remain. Its a little hypocritical to expect all the benefits and none of the positives with everything you discuss

Quite a lot of points to cover here. It may be hard to cover them all, so if you want to argue any one of them in detail, let me know.

As a summary I would say that your points are political in nature and I'm not prepared to go into discussion into what is good or bad policy. It will not lead to everyone agreeing, maybe we can at least agree on that

Only thing I can point out is that in relation to comparing apples and oranges that was by design. My whole goal in this argument was to move the discussion on from the "Landlord costs due to bad tenants and more regulation" that was prevailing on this thread into what the cause of this was.

I stated my hypothesis: it is by design from Government policy and continued renter bashing is not helping the LL's case. The points you make above are more reasonable, but outside of the remit of this thread as I see it. If you make threads on those, I'll be happy to debate those points and I feel we might agree on most points you make.

kalych

beauf wrote: »

The difference is govt policy with housing makes no sense. It's making the crisis worse. Govt policy is doing nothing to solve the shortage of social and affordable housing...REits are not interested in that section of the market. You don't see them investing in that type of housing.

Ireland doesn't have much of a reputation on environmental issues either. That was a poor example. Terrible on cycling issues, our EV charging network is abysmal etc.

As per might post to Fol, happy to discuss government policy on the rental market separately. My understanding was that this is about rent controls, not rental market structure. Rent controls are the same for REITs and private LLs, hence no point in complaining. Unless you are complaining about REITs, then it should be a different thread.

the_syco

kalych wrote: »

The reason people don't support their argument is that they are prepared to blame anyone and everyone instead of correctly pointing out to the rest of the country to pressure politicians to make REITs pay more taxes.

The REITs have the money to argue their way if they want to do something. Individual landlords don't.

kalych wrote: »

Renters' rights aren't your problem.

Actually, they are. The tenant can leave the property with no notice, and not much will be done against them. If the landlord wants the tenant to leave because they're not paying rent, it can take up to 9 months and more money to evict them.

Deleted User wrote: »

I just think that the money would be better spent actually building homes rather than supporting a multitude of homeless charities. After all the most of the money goes on wages, followed by costs of fundraising with very little being spent on those they claim to care for.

This argument has been brought up before, but you never give your solution on where these people will go between no support of charities, and the building of the houses? Between finding the land, buying the land, building the houses and fitting out the houses, where will the families that will live in the houses live before said houses are built? Also, some people will prefer to be homeless until they can get a house in a certain area. Logic doesn't seem to enter their reasoning.

kalych wrote: »

And there's the issue. REITs take the best tenants at the top of the market. Private LLs are left with the lower end, that have restrictive controls put in place by the government (RAS, HAP). Hence the dole bashing. Dole people are mostly renters

Do REITs not take on RAS/HAP people? Is it because REITs do not having the proper tax documents that are needed?

eagle eye wrote: »

If you are not happy about it then sell your properties. Simple solution.

Until you have paid off the mortgage, the bank owns the property, and can refuse to let you sell the property if it means that you will owe money (negative equity) without an asset to hold the debt against.

But the LL's who do own their properties outright are leaving, thus the problem with nowhere left to rent.

kalych

the_syco wrote: »

The REITs have the money to argue their way if they want to do something. Individual landlords don't.

Guess that's market forces for you. :rolleyes:

On the REITs accepting HAP and RAS: if it does happen and they still make their 6% return, then even less for private LLs to complain about. If not, then it should.

The Student

kalych wrote: »

I disagree with these points. Government changes policy all the time. We are moving away from coal towards sustainable energy.

To borrow your example that would mean stealing from coal mine owners because they are used to a stable income from previous years. Apart from Trump I do not see any people of merit arguing against a change in the policy to combat climate change. Why should a change in the government policy on housing be any different? Houses are a type of habitat?

edited: All LL are tying to do is minimise their risks. There are alternatives that are better for society. also to point out that at any point any private LL can sell up and invest into REITs, it's not like they are closed funds. There is also the added benefit of diversification, where you won't get stuck with 1 overholding tenant, as you are invested into all of REITs properties simultaneously. Risk is diversified.

Govt policy changes are gradually introduced using your example of climate changes. Govt policy on housing is changed almost overnight.

kalych

The Student wrote: »

Govt policy changes are gradually introduced using your example of climate changes. Govt policy on housing is changed almost overnight.

For individual regulations you are correct. But the department of Finance presentation I linked about 12 posts above suggests this has been the government general policy for at least 5 years now and the information about it available in the public domain. Too late to worry about something that's been fact for years. Obviously accepting that a different government can reverse or change it at any point, but we would need a different government for that

the_syco

kalych wrote: »

On the REITs accepting HAP and RAS: if it does happen and they still make their 6% return, then even less for private LLs to complain about. If not, then it should.

The REITs pay around the 12% mark in tax, compared to 40% that the LL's pay; do the REITs have to pay USC, and all the other taxes that have been added on over the past few years?

kalych

the_syco wrote: »

The REITs pay around the 12% mark in tax, compared to 40% that the LL's pay; do the REITs have to pay USC, and all the other taxes that have been added on over the past few years?

It's irrelevant. The real discussion if we want to go into the government policy on the rental market is not the benefit it brings in taxes, but the volatility it brings due to leverage. Private LLs bring leverage into the market, REITs don't. For that reason alone after the biggest property slump ever in Ireland the government goes with the less risky option-remove leverage from the rental sector. REITs are a perfect mechanism for that. The benefits can then be adjusted with specific taxation or tax avoidance mechanisms.

titan18

kalych wrote:

As per might post to Fol, happy to discuss government policy on the rental market separately. My understanding was that this is about rent controls, not rental market structure. Rent controls are the same for REITs and private LLs, hence no point in complaining. Unless you are complaining about REITs, then it should be a different thread.

Rent controls are there for both and are a risk. Now, can you understand that returns are much higher for REITs than small scale landlords due to taxes and risks are mitigated due to the scale of their operations. Returns are enough to mitigate the controls and problem tenants for REITs and aren't anymore for landlords.

As for renter bashing that you've been saying, that's not been happening. It's lazy waster bashing. If a bad tenant didn't have the ability to overhold for years and pay no rent, landlords wouldn't be in this position and leaving in droves, but as tenants do and government wants to give them more abilities to do so, small scale landlords are leaving. Larger ones aren't as their returns are still high enough to overcome it and 1/2 problem tenants out of 100 is easily overcome by them.

beauf

kalych wrote: »

As per might post to Fol, happy to discuss government policy on the rental market separately. My understanding was that this is about rent controls, not rental market structure. Rent controls are the same for REITs and private LLs, hence no point in complaining. Unless you are complaining about REITs, then it should be a different thread.

The market is not the same for REIT and small LLs.

You might aswell say the rules are the same for Tesco as your local corner shop.

To suggest it does, indicates a complete lack of understanding of the sector.

Fol20

What your failing to recognize however is that REITs are not targetting the average joe. They are buying blocks and let them to either the higher end of middle to upper end of things. They are not going for middle to low end. Im not blaming them, if i owned them i would do the same thing. A lot of people on boards bash REITs, personally im ok with them somewhat as they are setup differently to an individual which brings about its own complexity etc. what im not ok with is the general anti ll sentiment that we also see, such as this article when the treatment is the polar opposite of what they publish.

kalych

titan18 wrote: »

Rent controls are there for both and are a risk. Now, can you understand that returns are much higher for REITs than small scale landlords due to taxes and risks are mitigated due to the scale of their operations. Returns are enough to mitigate the controls and problem tenants for REITs and aren't anymore for landlords.

As for renter bashing that you've been saying, that's not been happening. It's lazy waster bashing. If a bad tenant didn't have the ability to overhold for years and pay no rent, landlords wouldn't be in this position and leaving in droves, but as tenants do and government wants to give them more abilities to do so, small scale landlords are leaving. Larger ones aren't as their returns are still high enough to overcome it and 1/2 problem tenants out of 100 is easily overcome by them.

Great post. Fully agree will all points raised. The problem is that we're talking about the same thing, but not looking at all the components. REITs are specifically the mechanisms that the government chose as a policy measure exactly because they are able to mitigate all the leverage risks while also due to their size being able to generate a return.

We're not trying to ruin it for the private LLs, we're trying to eliminate rented accommodation being underwritten by mortgages and thus bringing leverage and volatility into the market. The winners that can deliver it will survive, the rest not so much. Nothing to do with renters.

kalych

beauf wrote: »

The market is not the same for REIT and small LLs.

You might aswell say the rules are the same for Tesco as your local corner shop.

To suggest it does, indicates a complete lack of understanding of the sector.

Can you suggest specifics? your post is unclear with no specific examples.

kalych

Fol20 wrote: »

What your failing to recognize however is that REITs are not targetting the average joe. They are buying blocks and let them to either the higher end of middle to upper end of things. They are not going for middle to low end. Im not blaming them, if i owned them i would do the same thing. A lot of people on boards bash REITs, personally im ok with them somewhat as they are setup differently to an individual which brings about its own complexity etc. what im not ok with is the general anti ll sentiment that we also see, such as this article when the treatment is the polar opposite of what they publish.

What most people are failing to recognise is that in 10 years time all rentals will be higher end apartment blocks. The lower end of the market will be the apartment blocks that are new right now, but will have aged by then. All PDHs (primary dwelling houses) will be mostly your standard semi-Ds. That's the new vision of the market by the Government: all apartments are mostly for rent, all students live in purposefully built accommodation, all semi-Ds are PDH.

Eire Go Brach

I have heard from someone in that same department.

“Homeless crisis will never be solved. To many people are making money from it”

beauf

kalych wrote: »

For individual regulations you are correct. But the department of Finance presentation I linked about 12 posts above suggests this has been the government general policy for at least 5 years now and the information about it available in the public domain. Too late to worry about something that's been fact for years. Obviously accepting that a different government can reverse or change it at any point, but we would need a different government for that

This thread is worrying about yet another raft of changes they want to bring in now. Some of which will apply to existing tenancies, backdated in effect.

Some one said just leave if you don't like it. This makes that very difficult. So hence get out now while you still can.

kalych

beauf wrote: »

This thread is worrying about yet another raft of changes they want to bring in now. Some of which will apply to existing tenancies, backdated in effect.

Some one said just leave if you don't like it. This makes that very difficult. So hence get out now while you still can.

Correct, and my point so far has been about exactly this. This set of changes is not the last one, the government is shaping the market to only be profitable to institutional investors. Everyone else should sell up and if they want to invest for their pension into property, reinvest the sale proceeds into REITs (disclaimer: not advocating to invest into REITs and not affiliated, just pointing out that if an investor is hell bent on investing into property, you have that option). The Government just want to eliminate your ability to buy with leverage.And it has nothing to do with rental controls, it's by design.

titan18

Who's we? You a member of government?


Also, I think you're giving too much credit to government that this is a policy measure, and if it is, they're more retarded than I thought they were. It's more likely FG/FF members or their bodies are profiting out of this rather than it being a general government policy imo.

REITs pay less taxes than the traditional landlord, have more lobbying power and ability to force decisions over a load of separate landlords, are only interested in what they can get out if it themselves so will have no interest in renting anywhere outside Dublin, the commuter belt and a few of the smaller cities, and imo are generally negative economically as the returns are either in pension bodies or foreign owners and not reinvested back in with a smaller scale landlord.

In 10/20 years time when the fruits of this change over are apparent, it'll be clear it was idiotic.

As for eliminating people's ability to over leverage in buying BTL property, that's Central Bank's domain and is solved a lot easier by making mortgages harder to come by for BTL properties than it is by fiddling with the market and rent controls.

beauf

kalych wrote: »

Can you suggest specifics? your post is unclear with no specific examples.

kalych wrote: »

What most people are failing to recognise is that in 10 years time all rentals will be higher end apartment blocks. The lower end of the market will be the apartment blocks that are new right now, but will have aged by then. All PDHs (primary dwelling houses) will be mostly your standard semi-Ds. That's the new vision of the market by the Government: all apartments are mostly for rent, all students live in purposefully built accommodation, all semi-Ds are PDH.

What your saying is everyone else in this thread is wrong, and your the only one who has a grasp of the rental market. Regardless of their first hand experience of running a business in it.

How likely is that...

kalych

titan18 wrote: »

Who's we? You a member of government?


Also, I think you're giving too much credit to government that this is a policy measure, and if it is, they're more retarded than I thought they were. It's more likely FG/FF members or their bodies are profiting out of this rather than it being a general government policy imo.

REITs pay less taxes than the traditional landlord, have more lobbying power and ability to force decisions over a load of separate landlords, are only interested in what they can get out if it themselves so will have no interest in renting anywhere outside Dublin, the commuter belt and a few of the smaller cities, and imo are generally negative economically as the returns are either in pension bodies or foreign owners and not reinvested back in with a smaller scale landlord.

In 10/20 years time when the fruits of this change over are apparent, it'll be clear it was idiotic.

I've given you the government rationale:
https://taxpolicy.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/E3_DeirdreDonaghy.pdf

You're free to consider it during the next election. Maybe SF will deliver a better proposition for the private LLs :rolleyes:

kalych

beauf wrote: »

What your saying is everyone else in this thread is wrong, and your the only one who has a grasp of the rental market. Regardless of their first hand experience of running a business in it.

How likely is that...

All I'm saying is I've actually taken the time to read the government policy on this. Nobody on this thread seems to have so far and it's been out for 5 years

beauf

Everyone in this thread seems well aware of about the Govt policy. Its been going on far longer than 5yrs.

Fol20

kalych wrote: »

What most people are failing to recognise is that in 10 years time all rentals will be higher end apartment blocks. The lower end of the market will be the apartment blocks that are new right now, but will have aged by then. All PDHs (primary dwelling houses) will be mostly your standard semi-Ds. That's the new vision of the market by the Government: all apartments are mostly for rent, all students live in purposefully built accommodation, all semi-Ds are PDH.

Housing is very archaic in nature and i doubt all it will happen in my lifetime however i could see this as the future.it takes years for small Blocks to be built in ireland
And the grandiose infrastructure you mention is realistic but wont be for a very long time.

beauf

Its not forward its backward to Georgian and Victorian times. 20 to a two room apartment.

titan18

kalych wrote:

You're free to consider it during the next election. Maybe SF will deliver a better proposition for the private LLs

Nah, I'll still vote FG after Renua (if they've got a candidate). I don't like them but there's not much choice for anyone right of centre for economic matters. Whoever is the most right leaning economic candidate is who I'll vote for.

the_syco

kalych wrote: »

It's irrelevant. The real discussion if we want to go into the government policy on the rental market is not the benefit it brings in taxes

What? Landlords rent their properties to get money. The more taxes, the less money, so as their properties generate less they leave. So taxes are relevant to the landlords.

kalych wrote: »

but the volatility it brings due to leverage. Private LLs bring leverage into the market, REITs don't. For that reason alone after the biggest property slump ever in Ireland the government goes with the less risky option-remove leverage from the rental sector. REITs are a perfect mechanism for that. The benefits can then be adjusted with specific taxation or tax avoidance mechanisms.

Leverage? What REITs exist outside of Dublin, where LL's will be getting out of the game because non-paying tenants can overhold by months before getting evicted? Have not seen REITs going for semi-detached housing estates.

Mickiemcfist

Jesus Christ, Danny Devito is at it again:

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/builders-fear-affordable-homes-wont-sell-warns-council-boss-37662409.html

"We simply can't get anything. If there were properties out there we'd buy them up, if there's hotels available they would buy them up and put families into them," said Mr Kenny. "We've actually followed through on a number of hotels and we haven't been successful."

Build the phucking things yourself! How does he not know that competing for properties is only driving prices up?

Eric Cartman

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Jesus Christ, Danny Devito is at it again:

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/builders-fear-affordable-homes-wont-sell-warns-council-boss-37662409.html

"We simply can't get anything. If there were properties out there we'd buy them up, if there's hotels available they would buy them up and put families into them," said Mr Kenny. "We've actually followed through on a number of hotels and we haven't been successful."

Build the phucking things yourself! How does he not know that competing for properties is only driving prices up?

"developpers building for 300-350k in cabra are worrying they won't sell it" says it all when thats his definition of an affordable house.