The Irish Times: Unpaid rent, destroyed properties: Landlords’ tales from the renta

Cryptopagan

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Why shouldn't they?

Dude, you are advocating something that is really unpopular. Most voters don’t want the gaff next door having a load of students renting it, and won’t want to incentivize that model. What are you going to say to them to convince them to vote for a government that will incentivize it? You’re not asking to maintain the status quo here; you’re asking for a change. You have to persuade people.

Cryptopagan

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

So we take 30% of those houses you'd like to buy and turn them over to social housing - I'm all for that but it's not going to solve your problem.

Nope, that doesn’t help either, and I haven’t suggested it. The social housing either has to be new housing, or bought from people who have moved to new housing.

Samuel T. Cogley

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Dude, you are advocating something that is really unpopular. Most voters don’t want the gaff next door having a load of students renting it, and won’t want to incentivize that model. What are you going to say to them to convince them to vote for a government that will incentivize it? You’re not asking to maintain the status quo here; you’re asking for a change. You have to persuade people.

The status quo isn't being maintained though is it? LL's are leaving the market, supply is drying up and rents are increasing. This precisely down to the government tinkering with populist legislation rather than dealing with the issues.

Many people don't want to live next door to social housing but we have to incentivise that.

Samuel T. Cogley

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Nope, that doesn’t help either, and I haven’t suggested it. The social housing either has to be new housing, or bought from people who have moved to new housing.

I've not suggested otherwise.

Take 30% of new supply and turn it over to social housing. It's still not going to help those who want to buy.

Cryptopagan

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The status quo isn't being maintained though is it? LL's are leaving the market, supply is drying up and rents are increasing. This precisely down to the government tinkering with populist legislation rather than dealing with the issues.

Many people don't want to live next door to social housing but we have to incentivise that.

By status quo I just mean the current regulatory and tax regime.

People can of course have objections to social housing—indeed to any form of development—happening in their area. That does not mean that they think social housing, or building houses in general, is not a good, socially-desirable thing, just they don’t want it next to them. That’s it’s own problem. But you won’t find many voters who think cramming students or newly-arrived workers from abroad into suburban semis is a socially good thing, and something we should change the tax and regulatory regime to facilitate.

pwurple

If social housing was to be above 20%, I'd like to see the danish model encouraged. Where priority is assigned based on societal needs, and benefits, and it is self-funding.


http://www.housingeurope.eu/resource-102/social-housing-in-europe

Fol20

Cryptopagan wrote: »

People want to remain mobile, what does that mean? Are they like travellers moving from town to town? If there is one thing people hate, it’s having to move.

I hope your being sarcastic here as if your not. Your whole opinion just went out the window in my books...

Fol20

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Of course we do but just as we got rid of bedsits with unintended consequences, getting rid (which is what we're doing) of 2/3 of all LL's is madness. We have to bring social housing on stream first. If the market wasn't so stacked against LL's there would be less of them selling up.

Oh really, id be very careful forcefully removing someone as it might cost you more that letting them sit idle on your place for a year.

Fol20

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

So we take 30% of those houses you'd like to buy and turn them over to social housing - I'm all for that but it's not going to solve your problem.

Are you really?? come budget 2020, the government will be looking for new revenue generating measures to pay for the 30pc social housing. Your basically hitting the people that pay rent, work 50 hours a week, feck the rental situation even more to benefit the people that live in their own place be it through social or private purchasers.

What should happen is sort out the rental situation first, then move onto long term ownership. If people can save more of their money from renting, it affords the people who are smart with their money to actually save and buy a house.

Fol20

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Dude, you are advocating something that is really unpopular. Most voters don’t want the gaff next door having a load of students renting it, and won’t want to incentivize that model. What are you going to say to them to convince them to vote for a government that will incentivize it? You’re not asking to maintain the status quo here; you’re asking for a change. You have to persuade people.

Stop focusing on just student rentals. Student rentals are normally in specific college areas of cities and most of these areas are filled with students. Students need a place to stay while they are in college. Do you now want a college student to buy their own place instead of renting as short term accommodation is only for travelers apparently..

There are private ll out there that dont actually let to students you know.

Samuel T. Cogley

Fol20 wrote: »

Are you really?? come budget 2020, the government will be looking for new revenue generating measures to pay for the 30pc social housing. Your basically hitting the people that pay rent, work 50 hours a week, feck the rental situation even more to benefit the people that live in their own place be it through social or private purchasers.

What should happen is sort out the rental situation first, then move onto long term ownership. If people can save more of their money from renting, it affords the people who are smart with their money to actually save and buy a house.

We need to move unsuitable people out of the private rental market in my view. Social housing should be shaken up, of course. This forever home bull**** for starters. But genuine working people on HAP should be in social housing not in the private rental space IMO.

The Student

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

We need to move unsuitable people out of the private rental market in my view. Social housing should be shaken up, of course. This forever home bull**** for starters. But genuine working people on HAP should be in social housing not in the private rental space IMO.

But I am entitled to me forever home beside me ma

The_Conductor

The Student wrote: »

But I am entitled to me forever home beside me ma

Hoi- you're not Erica Flemming........

The Student

QUOTE=The_Conductor;110291162]Hoi- you're not Erica Flemming........[/QUOTE]

daithiK1

Cryptopagan wrote: »

They can set the rents at what the market can bear. And the only way to address that is to increase the housing supply. And since small time landlords do nothing to increase the housing supply, I see no reason we should act to incentivize them to stay in business.

plenty of current small time landlords currently leaving/considering leaving the business but have zero intention of selling. Happy to sit on the asset without the risks/taxes.

Fol20

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

We need to move unsuitable people out of the private rental market in my view. Social housing should be shaken up, of course. This forever home bull**** for starters. But genuine working people on HAP should be in social housing not in the private rental space IMO.

Fair point. On my extremely limited knowledge of the danish model that was quoted earlier, it seems decent. It doesnt seem be a burden on the government yet at the same time provide rental accommodation at a sustainable rate. More importantly it doesnt seem like the tenants ever own it either at a steep discount.

Fol20

Small time ll dont increase housing supply.
They increase the rental supply.

The more rentals available the more likely rent will decrease naturally to a more sustainable level.

Increasing the supply of property is a completely different topic than what is being discussed here and has its own issue with cost of land, labour, vat , credit availability etc. the rental and buyer industry have completely separate issues.

pinkyeye

daithiK1 wrote: »

plenty of current small time landlords currently leaving/considering leaving the business but have zero intention of selling. Happy to sit on the asset without the risks/taxes.

No including the amount of empty houses throughout the country that people are terrified of letting or those tied up in the Fair Deal scheme who won't bother because 80% of all income will be taken from them and if a tenant decides to destroy the house? Owners problem.

Cryptopagan

Fol20 wrote: »

I hope your being sarcastic here as if your not. Your whole opinion just went out the window in my books...

Heh, went out the window in my books, talk about mixing metaphors.

Cryptopagan

daithiK1 wrote: »

plenty of current small time landlords currently leaving/considering leaving the business but have zero intention of selling. Happy to sit on the asset without the risks/taxes.

Well, they still bear the risk that the asset’s value will go down. If too much property is left idle (which I think is already happening) we can look for ways to penalize that behavior. But it’s not an argument for making small time landlording more attractive. Once again, if you want people to support tax breaks (or whatever) for small time landlords, make a persuasive case for why it will benefit society to encourage small time landlording.

Fol20

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Well, they still bear the risk that the asset’s value will go down. If too much property is left idle (which I think is already happening) we can look for ways to penalize that behavior. But it’s not an argument for making small time landlording more attractive. Once again, if you want people to support tax breaks (or whatever) for small time landlords, make a persuasive case for why it will benefit society to encourage small time landlording.

You do know for the past 10 years everything that has come come has been penalties/anti taxation of ll, how does this benefit society? Why should any class get tax breaks unless it benefits that class. You make it seem like ll are not part of society when they are just like renters,parents, blue collar workers etc.

Its quite easy to say why it will benefit society if more tax breaks are given. With more tax breaks means more incentive for ll to either stay in the market and or more enter it. It will not be immediate and is more medium/long term but rental price would either grow at a slower pace/plateau. If they are not given, more ll will continue to leave with rental prices continuing to increase like what they have been doing for the last few years.

Cryptopagan

Fol20 wrote: »

Stop focusing on just student rentals. Student rentals are normally in specific college areas of cities and most of these areas are filled with students. Students need a place to stay while they are in college. Do you now want a college student to buy their own place instead of renting as short term accommodation is only for travelers apparently..

There are private ll out there that dont actually let to students you know.

I was talking in response to a poster who argued that having casual smalltime landlords was a positive because students, not because I think that every single rental property is filled with students. I’m not going over all those points again, cheers.

Paddy The Pirate

Why is it such a big ask to expect housing to be provided to our citizens ? None of us asked to born as we were.. Why should those whose parents went to school and college and got themselves well paying jobs ridicule those who couldn't do those things, and who haven't the money for a house? We can't keep shoehorning the "lesser" in society into hotel rooms and hope they disappear

the_syco

Paddy The Pirate wrote: »

Why is it such a big ask to expect housing to be provided to our citizens ?

Why should they get houses in prime Dublin locations when those that want to buy a house have to buy further out?

Graces7

the_syco wrote: »

Why should they get houses in prime Dublin locations when those that want to buy a house have to buy further out?

why not?

The Student

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Well, they still bear the risk that the asset’s value will go down. If too much property is left idle (which I think is already happening) we can look for ways to penalize that behavior. But it’s not an argument for making small time landlording more attractive. Once again, if you want people to support tax breaks (or whatever) for small time landlords, make a persuasive case for why it will benefit society to encourage small time landlording.

If somebody wants to leave a property idle its there prerogative. Why is it okay to penalize people for doing that. Once the property does not become dangerous then it should be left to use or not at the owners decision.

You fail to realize it is the State responsibility to house people not the individuals. Build houses by the State, give people low cost/affordable housing if you want via the State but be prepared to live with the consequences.

We don't do dealing with the consequences well. Ever wondered why private houses are left stand idle, ever thought why social housing areas have such a bad reputation?

Deal with reason why people prefer to leave houses empty, deal with cause of this bad reputation areas have and maybe just maybe the housing crisis will improve, it may not be solved but it could get a bit better and any help is going the right way rather than making it worse.

The Student

Graces7 wrote: »

why not?

Lets take an example to consider your post.

Suppose we have a finite amount of land to build on within a certain area. Lets just say we have enough room for 1000 properties in for example Dublin 4.

However there is a demand for 1200 properties made up of a mixture of social, affordable and open market houses.

So we only have enough space for 1000 properties and this is utilizing the land to its fullest and meeting the appropriate building regulations regarding size, etc.

How do you decide who gets the 1000 properties and what is the make up of the 200 who must move elsewhere.

I am curious on your answer to this type of situation.

IAmTheReign

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Ok, so we should return to a situation that facilitated large scale tax evasion, because that will definitely lead to a functional housing market in the long run. Get real.

Plenty of fixed term leases lapse into open ended leases at the end of the term already and that's totally legal. You're assuming that non fixed term leases would facilitate tax evasion without saying why. Have you any evidence to support that claim?

The_Conductor

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Plenty of fixed term leases lapse into open ended leases at the end of the term already and that's totally legal. You're assuming that non fixed term leases would facilitate tax evasion without saying why. Have you any evidence to support that claim?

There is no evidence.
Revenue have sections dedicated to dealing with Landlords, Taxi drivers- and any other accumulator of 'unearned income'. They also have a new computerised system which is supposed to remove a lot of the randomness from targetted audits. It would be an incredibly foolhardy individual who thought it worthwhile to play chicken with the Revenue Commissioners.

Klonker

Paddy The Pirate wrote:

Why is it such a big ask to expect housing to be provided to our citizens ? None of us asked to born as we were.. Why should those whose parents went to school and college and got themselves well paying jobs ridicule those who couldn't do those things, and who haven't the money for a house? We can't keep shoehorning the "lesser" in society into hotel rooms and hope they disappear

So we can all decide not to work and get a free house where ever we want?