Rent freeze?

smurgen

Fol20 wrote: »

Genuinely forgot that the renters credit could act like oxygen to fire and cause rents to go up.

I actually was only commenting on private ll when I said the government don’t prop up ll. For REITS they for sure allows certain aspect I don’t approve of. I do think REITS should be treated like any other corp though and be taxed accordingly.

Once you bring in a rent freeze as we are seeing with rpz. It’s politically very hard to back track away from it and allow rents to increase again without political suicide.

As someone who has done the accounting for REITS, ICAVs and other type of real estate investment vehicles I agree. However these funds can potentially have the financial muscle we need to get developments done. The reason that these corps started here was because the market became so lucrative. If we mess with their tax we will see in my opinion one of two things 1) less of them investing here as retuns may not be as attractive compared to other countries or 2) lobbying for a greater number of devopments in a bit to make up for lost margin through higher turnover.

Fol20

smurgen wrote: »

By not encouraging house building quickly is one way. This is restricting supply. Then you had a council last week in dublin sign a 25 year lease on multiple luxury private apartments to be used for social housing from a German investment fund. At a cost at more than it would to build these apartments themselves.Such a move means that the market for private renters not seeking social housing gets a little tighter. But I don't see private landlords in here kicking up with government intervention that works in their favour.

Everything the government has done so far have been approaches to make it appear like they are helping renters. Key word here is appear. Their techniques have also angered ll so it doesn’t help either groups at the moment.

The Dundrum leasing deal was just a headline for the news and only that. If you look at any hap deal over the span of 25-35 years. HAP will pay back much more than the cost of the property. The benefit to the government here is cash flow. They don’t pay it all in one go but is spread out over x years. I’m not saying their strategy is good but the headline skews the sea when in fact all leasing deals would be like that. When you lease va buy. You will pay much more over a long period of time.

Graham

smurgen wrote: »

As someone who has done the accounting for REITS, ICAVs and other type of real estate investment vehicles I agree. However these funds can potentially have the financial muscle we need to get developments done. The reason that these corps started here was because the market became so lucrative. If we mess with their tax we will see in my opinion one of two things 1) less of them investing here as retuns may not be as attractive compared to other countries or 2) lobbying for a greater number of devopments in a bit to make up for lost margin through higher turnover.

So going back to your earlier post where "government shouldn't be propping up private landlords", you're now saying it's ok for government to prop up a private landlord as long as the landlord is a REIT?

smurgen

Graham wrote: »

What intervention would that be?

In the example I mentioned providing social housing in high end developments. It's displacing those with higher renting power into lesser accomodation thus driving up the cost of renting in lower end rental accommodation.

Fol20

smurgen wrote: »

As someone who has done the accounting for REITS, ICAVs and other type of real estate investment vehicles I agree. However these funds can potentially have the financial muscle we need to get developments done. The reason that these corps started here was because the market became so lucrative. If we mess with their tax we will see in my opinion one of two things 1) less of them investing here as retuns may not be as attractive compared to other countries or 2) lobbying for a greater number of devopments in a bit to make up for lost margin through higher turnover.

Your right. For better or worse. Even though I don’t like their unfair advantage. By tinkering with their business model in a similar vain to what the government has done with private ll. it can only mean one thing and that is less investment from them. I don’t want that to happen now however I do think there will be a point in the future post housing crisis where their tax treatment will need to be looked at. At that point you will really see how “good” these reits are when you have one strong unit that controls thousands of properties trying to fight their Corner rather than loads of single property ll with no clear direction.

Fol20

smurgen wrote: »

In the example I mentioned providing social housing in high end developments. It's displacing those with higher renting power into lesser accomodation thus driving up the cost of renting in lower end rental accommodation.

You could also say this is allowing these social housing people to remain in their local community and have those local connections bla bla bla.

I would disagree with your statement. It’s pure and simple demand that is causing rents to increase and nothing else. Yes if you tell social housing that they can only rent in specific areas etc, this will lead to its own set of problems but this is for another story

smurgen

Graham wrote: »

So going back to your earlier post where "government shouldn't be propping up private landlords", you're now saying it's ok for government to prop up a private landlord as long as the landlord is a REIT?

Nope.i hate the idea of our government Paying long term over inflated rents to a foreign investment fund and in the example of the development in Herbert Hill. I would love to get an explanation of how they thought that was a good idea.
But the advantages of a REIT is if it was to fail we wouldn't have to bail them out. I favour this over our own citizens investing in a potentially risky market. The problem is so many individuals in this country are invested in real estate that it's hard to get things done in a way that is beneficial for everyone. Any move at moderation is seen as an existential threat.

godtabh

smurgen wrote: »

They won't be allowed to thank God.

The only thing that will work is increase supply.

A rent freeze will reduce supply with little or no investment in existing units

pwurple

What a completely daft notion this is.


We have converted 80% of our residential city units to office or shop space due to the recent years tax changes and penalisation of residential housing suppliers. I was keeping the residential units for diversification and in some way for civic services. I know the market needs housing units.

But clearly this is not what SF wants.

Why should I keep residential tenants in this situation and NOT make them into another set of offices?

godtabh

pwurple wrote: »

What a completely daft notion this is.


We have converted 80% of our residential city units to office or shop space due to the recent years tax changes and penalisation of residential housing suppliers. I was keeping the residential units for diversification and in some way for civic services. I know the market needs housing units.

But clearly this is not what SF wants.

Why should I keep residential tenants in this situation and NOT make them into another set of offices?

Surely that isn’t a serious question? The hassle of a residential vs a commercial rental makes that an easy choice surely?

If I wAsnt in ne I’d be gone. As it stands I’m considering selling up at a big lose not to have to deal with the hassle but would feel for existing tenants. At what I am Charing they will struggle to afford the makers rent

pwurple

godtabh wrote: »

Surely that isn’t a serious question? The hassle of a residential vs a commercial rental makes that an easy choice surely?

If I wAsnt in ne I’d be gone. As it stands I’m considering selling up at a big lose not to have to deal with the hassle but would feel for existing tenants. At what I am Charing they will struggle to afford the makers rent

Yes when I put it like that... I'd be mad to keep them, right?

I've been doing this for 20+ years, so I've seen economy ups and downs. It's not as easy to fill commercial in a downturn. We're at peak employment now and office space is in demand. It's not always like that. The leases are longer, usually 5 to 10 years, but I've had vacant units in commercial over the years. Yes, it's certainly FAR less hassle. No 2am calls about a domestic for example.

Some of my tenants have been there 8 years, some 4 etc. We have a good relationship. It is their home and I don't want them to be fecked out on their ear either. (the going rate would would see them paying nearly double the rent I am charging). There is certainly a human aspect.

This is why I cannot understand why the govt would even consider this proposal which encourages housing suppliers to shut units.

The Student

smurgen wrote: »

Nope.i hate the idea of our government Paying long term over inflated rents to a foreign investment fund and in the example of the development in Herbert Hill. I would love to get an explanation of how they thought that was a good idea.
But the advantages of a REIT is if it was to fail we wouldn't have to bail them out. I favour this over our own citizens investing in a potentially risky market. The problem is so many individuals in this country are invested in real estate that it's hard to get things done in a way that is beneficial for everyone. Any move at moderation is seen as an existential threat.

The Govt is constrained in increasing our public debt with the IMF/Europe so they can't take any loans that increase the public debt. This is the reason they are giving preferential tax breaks to REITS etc.

This is money that does not affect banks liquidity or their requirements with the ECB.

The risk of the above approach is that individual landlords are a group of individuals who take the market price. Whereas REITS can set the market price, and whether people like it or not we need them.

What the Govt is doing is forcing by their actions the small landlords out of the market. And before you say but the property does not disappear you are correct it does not disappear but the number of bed spaces available to rent does.

If the Govt continue on their course they will have a small number of REITS controlling the majority of the market and they will then dictate housing policy to the Govt.

There is a place for all types of landlord in the market but if you give control to one over the others they will dictate future policy.

On a seperate note we need to revisit our eviction laws, if you are not paying your mortgage, rent (be it private or social) then there should be consequences. Try find a Politician to enforce any laws that deal with this.

Sleepy

We really need to make economics a mandatory subject in school so future generations won't be as susceptible the populist bull**** like this that Sinn Fein love to shout from the opposition benches safe in the knowledge they'll never have to actually enact any of it.

ELM327

Sleepy wrote: »

We really need to make economics a mandatory subject in school so future generations won't be as susceptible the populist bull**** like this that Sinn Fein love to shout from the opposition benches safe in the knowledge they'll never have to actually enact any of it.

+1
Or just move to FPTP voting, remove all the populist minority parties that are over represented

The Student

Old diesel wrote: »

The market at the moment seems to be signalling that it requires more rent even with some insane rents.

There has to be a point where you say ENOUGH and that there just isn't the money there to make people happy.

Personally I think the market needs a player to come in with the specific intention of delivering cost effective housing. The reason air travel to London is relatively cheap is because Michael O Leary made a deliberate decision to step up and reduce air travel costs. Cheaper fares.

This might even mean a state solution like opening up social housing eligibility to higher incomes.

That means higher incomes coming into a version of HAP.

Housing to my mind as it stands is a money pit.

Being a landlord is a business pure and simple. It never ceases to amaze me how people just don't get that concept.

ELM327

The Student wrote: »

Being a landlord is a business pure and simple. It never ceases to amaze me how people just don't get that concept.

See, people assume if you're a landlord then you are rich and evil
Despite the fact that you're probably leveraged to buy the properties and paying 50% tax on the rental income

Colonel Claptrap

€53m wiped off the market value of IRES overnight.

Other industry sources saying investment decisions are now on hold until a new Dail provides clarity.

Take a bow Sinn Fein.

Moomoomacshoe

The Student wrote: »

Being a landlord is a business pure and simple. It never ceases to amaze me how people just don't get that concept.

Hmmm a business when it suits them. For crying out loud the amount of cases with PRTB should tell you otherwise!! It's so bad the PRTB have set up an investigations unit as so many landlords illegally hiking rents and terminating notice etc etc.

Would love to see some competition as previous poster suggested!

is_that_so

Del2005 wrote: »

Most likely never. Plenty of legislation has been passed but the government has blocked them by not authorising the money aspect.


For all the people saying that this is a good thing can you provide evidence of a place where rent freezes did any good? There's been plenty of rent freezes.

It also has to be done in Private Members' time , which will extend the time required. Someone made the point earlier that it will just run out of time and not get through all stages before this Dail ends. That's also a fair possibility, especially if people want to get an election before March.

The Student

Moomoomacshoe wrote: »

Hmmm a business when it suits them. For crying out loud the amount of cases with PRTB should tell you otherwise!! It's so bad the PRTB have set up an investigations unit as so many landlords illegally hiking rents and terminating notice etc etc.

Would love to see some competition as previous poster suggested!

All business's have rules to follow and when they don't they are punished. How many cases don't even get to the RTB for overholding tenants were landlords pay the tenant off rather than go to the RTB?

Before you say the landlords should go to the RTB what exactly is the benefit of doing so? You might get a judgement for outstanding rent and never see a penny of it.

Why would anybody enter a market where rents are frozen, evictions are nigh on impossible, extra costs are proposed on landlords to increase energy effeciency without getting any extra income.

Seriously people wonder why we are where we are!

As I said being a landlord is a business where you try to make the highest return you can on your investment.

Old diesel

The Student wrote: »

Being a landlord is a business pure and simple. It never ceases to amaze me how people just don't get that concept.

Yes and unfortunately the money that business appears to need to keep it attractive is an unsustainable sum of money.

Rents need to go down - but landlords need it to keep going up.

There's rather an irreconcilable conflict between both of those conflicting facts.

Housing does require something different.

That's why I mentioned Michael O Leary as an example.

If I was to take the landlord model and apply it to planes then the way forward would have been keep paying more to Aer Lingus each year to fly to London.

Because we hope that if we pay Aer Lingus enough for the seat they might put more planes on the London route and thus bring prices down.

In reality what Aer Lingus needed to bring prices down was someone making a deliberate decision to bring prices down. That someone being Michael O Leary.

In the 80s a cheap trip to London meant an overnight trip by coach and Ferry.

You'd be looking at 5.30 pm out of Cork bus Station and arriving at Victoria Station in London at something like 7 or 8 in the morning.

Now you book a Ryanair.

I don't even know who even gets a coach to London anymore. You can still do it but flights are so dear now.

No I'm sorry but housing needs a strategy where someone arrives in at the lowest rent they can while still having a margin.

Think it will take some kind of housing association type model. Or a Government bond scheme for housing.

The latter would work by people putting money into a bond and the Govt pays them a guaranteed return in a specified time frame.

Anyone could put in a sum of money - small sums - big sums. Put in money as a once off or continuously as long term savings.

The Govt uses the money to develop affordable rental housing and pays a return to the people who put up the money.

A tenant could invest and win on the double - get a return on money invested AND enjoy more sustainable rent.

This current model of housing works for NO ONE so why keep throwing money at it without a plan to turn it around.

Fol20

Old diesel wrote: »

Yes and unfortunately the money that business appears to need to keep it attractive is an unsustainable sum of money.

Rents need to go down - but landlords need it to keep going up.

There's rather an irreconcilable conflict between both of those conflicting facts.

Housing does require something different.

That's why I mentioned Michael O Leary as an example.

If I was to take the landlord model and apply it to planes then the way forward would have been keep paying more to Aer Lingus each year to fly to London.

Because we hope that if we pay Aer Lingus enough for the seat they might put more planes on the London route and thus bring prices down.

In reality what Aer Lingus needed to bring prices down was someone making a deliberate decision to bring prices down. That someone being Michael O Leary.

In the 80s a cheap trip to London meant an overnight trip by coach and Ferry.

You'd be looking at 5.30 pm out of Cork bus Station and arriving at Victoria Station in London at something like 7 or 8 in the morning.

Now you book a Ryanair.

I don't even know who even gets a coach to London anymore. You can still do it but flights are so dear now.

No I'm sorry but housing needs a strategy where someone arrives in at the lowest rent they can while still having a margin.

Think it will take some kind of housing association type model. Or a Government bond scheme for housing.

The latter would work by people putting money into a bond and the Govt pays them a guaranteed return in a specified time frame.

Anyone could put in a sum of money - small sums - big sums. Put in money as a once off or continuously as long term savings.

The Govt uses the money to develop affordable rental housing and pays a return to the people who put up the money.

A tenant could invest and win on the double - get a return on money invested AND enjoy more sustainable rent.

This current model of housing works for NO ONE so why keep throwing money at it without a plan to turn it around.

I see your point but the the issue with that example is that the government do not interfere with the model as much as what they do in Ireland. It’s something most would like to see but you have to ask yourself why would a company be a disrupted in Ireland’s market when we are such a small nation, government legislation. Major capital upfront investment how will they make it cheaper.

I think someone else already mentioned that the government may not be able to create a semi state body due to Eu rules.

I’d be ok with the government to create bonds to start this business if it was allowed as it would be a good idea. The issue here though is hap and social housing does not have a good record for repayments so how can you force a tenant with very little money to pay up what they owe. This is something that needs to be fixed but again is political suicide If they resolved a long term issue plaguing housing.

Graham

Old diesel wrote: »

In reality what Aer Lingus needed to bring prices down was someone making a deliberate decision to bring prices down. That someone being Michael O Leary.

I'd argue the largest factor in bringing down ticket prices was the removal of government intervention and subsidies and the opening of the market to true competition.

While I don't disagree with your point that rents can't continue upwards forever, the fix to this is in addressing the major underlying cost (property prices) and reducing risk (reasonable processes for eviction for non-paying tenants).

Old diesel

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

€53m wiped off the market value of IRES overnight.

Other industry sources saying investment decisions are now on hold until a new Dail provides clarity.

Take a bow Sinn Fein.

I would see this as evidence that even at really stupid rents the market expectation is for long term increases with no intention to ever deliver lower rents.

The investment is on hold because - part of the anticipated profit return is coming from more rent increases.

So you enter the market at 3 k for example and you plan to always go higher.

You don't ever intend to come down to a lower figure.

If you did have a genuine intention to deliver a lower rent then current values then you'd actually plan that investment on that basis - to be profitable at a lower rate.

In which case a rent frozen at a higher level to the one you expect to deliver at isn't a barrier to entry.

The market is sending a signal of intent when a rent freeze at an already stupidly high level takes 53 million off shares.

I welcome the signal of intent as it shows us the markets true intent.

Let's be clear - im not blaming landlords for their business model being too expensive.

But it's still too expensive if it's at the price level apparently needed to make staying in the business or getting into it too expensive.

Graham

Suggestion of more market interference, market retreats.

Hands up if this came as a surprise to anyone?

Old diesel

Fol20 wrote: »

I see your point but the the issue with that example is that the government do not interfere with the model as much as what they do in Ireland. It’s something most would like to see but you have to ask yourself why would a company be a disrupted in Ireland’s market when we are such a small nation, government legislation. Major capital upfront investment how will they make it cheaper.

I think someone else already mentioned that the government may not be able to create a semi state body due to Eu rules.

I’d be ok with the government to create bonds to start this business if it was allowed as it would be a good idea. The issue here though is hap and social housing does not have a good record for repayments so how can you force a tenant with very little money to pay up what they owe. This is something that needs to be fixed but again is political suicide If they resolved a long term issue plaguing housing.

My big worry is that if you just keep unlimited rent increases then tenants will end up running out of money.

Or face a "well the only place I can afford to live is somewhere in Rural Clare but I'm a nurse in Dublin" type scenario.

At 2 k a month minimum a Tenant over a working life of 40 years will end up 960 k.

The problem is their ability to pay is going to have restrictions.

Vienna is in EU yet seems to have fairly relaxed social housing set ups.

Relaxed as in - people who in Ireland earn too much for social housing or subsidised housing can access it in Vienna.

Housing is just a mess in this country.

I'm afraid I can't get past the idea that just putting more and more rent into it won't get us there on its own.

All I see with continuous unlimited rent increases is Tenants with no money eventually.

Cyclepath

Landlords aren't a single amorphous blob. there are many kinds. The large REITs can carry debt over a long number of years and pay much less tax than individual private landlords.

Most landlords I know are not 'in business'. They are feverishly trying to hold onto an asset that is worth less than they paid for it by renting it to tenants that help to pay off the mortgage. The ultimate goal is to end up with an asset after 25 to 30 years.

While doing so, they are taxed over 50% on the supposed 'profit' and therefore end up at a loss. You only make a profit if you've inherited a house mortgage free. I got out a few years ago when the maths simply didn't stack up any more. I had a net less than zero return for 13 years of pure misery dealing with tenants that treated my property like an adventure park.

Tbh, I'm sick of listening to bullsh1tology from people that clearly know nothing about the realities of renting property. I'm also sick of hearing how private individuals with millstone 'assets' should somehow take responsibility for the government's inept approach to social housing and their inability to create and regulate a marketplace that encourages builders to meet the demand.

AlmightyCushion

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

€53m wiped off the market value of IRES overnight.

Other industry sources saying investment decisions are now on hold until a new Dail provides clarity.

Take a bow Sinn Fein.

IRES share price is currently only slightly below where it was at just a month ago. Not exactly cataclysmic now is it.

The Student

Old diesel wrote: »

My big worry is that if you just keep unlimited rent increases then tenants will end up running out of money.

Or face a "well the only place I can afford to live is somewhere in Rural Clare but I'm a nurse in Dublin" type scenario.

At 2 k a month minimum a Tenant over a working life of 40 years will end up 960 k.

The problem is their ability to pay is going to have restrictions.

Vienna is in EU yet seems to have fairly relaxed social housing set ups.

Relaxed as in - people who in Ireland earn too much for social housing or subsidised housing can access it in Vienna.

Housing is just a mess in this country.

I'm afraid I can't get past the idea that just putting more and more rent into it won't get us there on its own.

All I see with continuous unlimited rent increases is Tenants with no money eventually.

The problem is that the market is not getting a chance to find its equilibrium, in a normal market no matter what market it is when supernormal profits are earned new competition enters the market until just normal profit is earned.

So look at the current market, investors be they individuals or corporate wont invest if there is a rent freeze (ie they are hindered from maximising profits normal business objectives).

So the Govt with its policies are scaring off new investors at a time when we need increased supply.

The govt wont build social housing as (a) our national debt can rise due to IMF rules, (b) Approved housing bodies were seperate to the state so are not on the states balance sheet although the IMF said they are and (c) no politician will advocate evictions under any circumstances.

So what we have here is when you need to increase supply the govt puts a rent freeze so no new investment by private landlords as they are not maximising their investment. Prime objective of every private business.

The state can't increase its borrowing as it would exceed the limits of the IMF and our bailout. So it expects the private rented sector to deal with non paying tenants, maintence of the property, takes the lion share of the rental income for no risk at all.

Eventually rents will reach a point that people cant afford and they will drop to those levels that people can afford but it is up to the market to decide this not the Govt. If the Govt want to reduce rents then they need to encourage investment or build themselves.

Vienna is culturally different to Ireland so I don't think we are comparing like with like. It is almost a national obsession in Ireland if you can beat the system.

Iscreamkone

Rent freeze = Black economy charter
Is this what we want?

Fol20

Old diesel wrote: »

My big worry is that if you just keep unlimited rent increases then tenants will end up running out of money.

Or face a "well the only place I can afford to live is somewhere in Rural Clare but I'm a nurse in Dublin" type scenario.

At 2 k a month minimum a Tenant over a working life of 40 years will end up 960 k.

The problem is their ability to pay is going to have restrictions.

Vienna is in EU yet seems to have fairly relaxed social housing set ups.

Relaxed as in - people who in Ireland earn too much for social housing or subsidised housing can access it in Vienna.

Housing is just a mess in this country.

I'm afraid I can't get past the idea that just putting more and more rent into it won't get us there on its own.

All I see with continuous unlimited rent increases is Tenants with no money eventually.

As you said tenants can only afford so much so there will be a natural limit once market allows it. We are already starting to see this in the purchase market and the 3.5x rule. If we allow a complete free market with no interference, i think we will have short term pain however long term, it would fix the issue much quicker. In any free market, if there are super profits to be made, more will join the market which will bring down profits for existing stakeholders. Right now, the government is stopping this with their interference and continual band aids they put on it.

Vienna has legacy systems in place which might be the main reason.

handlemaster

https://m.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/mcdonald-wont-commit-to-charity-donation-after-revelations-about-4-7m-english-political-donor-38775498.html

Looks like the SF donations won't be coming for the homeless.

Mad_maxx

How long will it likely take before this turd ( bill) is enacted?

Old diesel

Mad_maxx wrote: »

How long will it likely take before this turd ( bill) is enacted?

Because of the tax rebate bit - the Govt can actually stop it via money message.

So may not go through at all in its present form.

Fianna Fail also making noise about scrutinising the bill further in later stages.

The Fianna Fail quote I saw was about "not penalising landlords who don't hike up the rent".

So further amendments possible.

Graham

Isn't this a private members bill?

Chances of it actually making it to legislation are about the same as Santy delivering everything on my Christmas list.

Yellow_Fern

mikemac2 wrote: »

For that example one more year paid off your asset and since its break even you don't put your hand in your pocket and yet you paint it as all negative ?

Why do landlords exclude this point? Unless the house is shoddy timber and will fall down in 20 years it's very relevant

Many landlords own their property outright. I saw a figure that perhaps only 40% were mortgaged.

Graham

I'd be interested in looking at the source of that 40% figure Yellow Fern.

boege

Graham wrote: »

I'd be interested in looking at the source of that 40% figure Yellow Fern.

Its actually 61% in 2018. The article suggests that those without mortgages fare better in terms of ROI. This would explain the number of cash buyers in the market over the past number of years. It also possibly explains why (non-cash) investment buyers have largely disappeared.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/why-are-landlords-leaving-the-market-in-large-numbers-1.3360363

'Sixty-one per cent of all rented property, or almost 200,000 properties, are now owned outright by investors, according to Savills.'

Graham

I wonder if that 61% includes the propertied owned by REITs.

AlmightyCushion

boege wrote: »

Its actually 61% in 2018. The article suggests that those without mortgages fare better in terms of ROI. This would explain the number of cash buyers in the market over the past number of years. It also possibly explains why (non-cash) investment buyers have largely disappeared.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/why-are-landlords-leaving-the-market-in-large-numbers-1.3360363

'Sixty-one per cent of all rented property, or almost 200,000 properties, are now owned outright by investors, according to Savills.'

I'd be surprised if landlords without mortgages didn't fare better. They don't have the expense of interest payments.

Samuel T. Cogley

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I'd be surprised if landlords without mortgages didn't fare better. They don't have the expense of interest payments.

Theres now 100% relief on mortgage interest.

AlmightyCushion

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Theres now 100% relief on mortgage interest.

That certainly helps but having no interest or less interest still works out better and more profitable.

Assetbacked

It's quite clear from reading threads in this forum that most tenants and landlords interests are aligned. Landlords' complaints here are about high tax and difficulty with evicting tenants. Tenants complaints are high rents and fear of being turfed out (but not for non-payment of rent).

Making it easier to turf someone out for non-payment of rent, reducing taxes on rent for private landlords and/or incentivising renting out a room/bedsit would be a better start than a blanket freeze on increasing rent. The rent freeze is of no benefit to the apartments offered by institutionals already at unaffordable rates and won't impact new builds.

AlmightyCushion

Assetbacked wrote: »

It's quite clear from reading threads in this forum that most tenants and landlords interests are aligned. Landlords' complaints here are about high tax and difficulty with evicting tenants. Tenants complaints are high rents and fear of being turfed out (but not for non-payment of rent).

Making it easier to turf someone out for non-payment of rent, reducing taxes on rent for private landlords and/or incentivising renting out a room/bedsit would be a better start than a blanket freeze on increasing rent. The rent freeze is of no benefit to the apartments offered by institutionals already at unaffordable rates and won't impact new builds.

I'm a tenant and I'm definitely in favour of making it easier and quicker for landlords to evict non-paying and nuisance tenants. However, reducing taxes on rents won't reduce rents in any way. If you decreased taxes for landlords tomorrow, my rent will stay the same and any new rentals that come on the market will still be at a crazy high price.

Assetbacked

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I'm a tenant and I'm definitely in favour of making it easier and quicker for landlords to evict non-paying and nuisance tenants. However, reducing taxes on rents won't reduce rents in any way. If you decreased taxes for landlords tomorrow, my rent will stay the same and any new rentals that come on the market will still be at a crazy high price.

The reduction in tax with incentives for renting out rooms and bedsits would bring more private landlords back to the market for rentals. I'm a renter as well by the way despite the username.

beauf

Assetbacked wrote: »

...The rent freeze is of no benefit to the apartments offered by institutionals already at unaffordable rates and won't impact new builds.

... other LLs should sell up, and invest back in REITs. Removes all the problems and gains maximum yield. But also should diversify their investments, so its not all in housing. As who knows what happens if a REIT gets into difficulty in the future.

Fol20

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I'm a tenant and I'm definitely in favour of making it easier and quicker for landlords to evict non-paying and nuisance tenants. However, reducing taxes on rents won't reduce rents in any way. If you decreased taxes for landlords tomorrow, my rent will stay the same and any new rentals that come on the market will still be at a crazy high price.

You’d actually be surprised. Yes decrease taxes today for ll will have absolutely no impact on your rent tomorrow.

The main difference though is that it incentivises new entrants and ll to the market. More ll in market means more availability of property for you to pick from thus over time you would think more competition will mean more competitive rentals.

Fol20

beauf wrote: »

... other LLs should sell up, and invest back in REITs. Removes all the problems and gains maximum yield. But also should diversify their investments, so its not all in housing. As who knows what happens if a REIT gets into difficulty in the future.

So you want less rentals in the market?

Assetbacked

beauf wrote: »

... other LLs should sell up, and invest back in REITs. Removes all the problems and gains maximum yield. But also should diversify their investments, so its not all in housing. As who knows what happens if a REIT gets into difficulty in the future.

Who'd buy if they sold up unless they dropped their prices below what they'd probably like?

beauf

Fol20 wrote: »

So you want less rentals in the market?

That's what everything done in the last 20yrs has achieved. Why not follow the populist route.