"None of our children on the list are getting these houses"

Spanish Eyes

BanditLuke wrote: »

Ah this is the part where you tell me all those people in arrears have sky sports subs, brand new iphones and 2020 cars in the driveway.

No, just pay your way. But obviously they don't have to, there are no sanctions.

WE are paying for this remember? But no one remembers that.

CinemaGuy45

BanditLuke wrote: »

I'd be leaving Mr. Mitty to it tbh :pac:

Yes pure bullcrap I would not want a job with him as my boss that's for sure.

BanditLuke

BanditLuke wrote: »

Ah this is the part where you tell me all those people in arrears have sky sports subs, brand new iphones and 2020 cars in the driveway.

Does it matter? They're still in arrears on a system that favors them... It's not as if they're being discriminated against. The point is that these people are leeching off the system, otherwise they would be up to date on their rather small payments... especially when you consider what other people (often on minimum wages) have to pay in rent and other costs.

You're arguing as if everyone is innocent. Logically, they're not considering the sheer amount of support in terms of welfare, and other benefits that are available in this country.

BanditLuke

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I think we are talking to the wall.

Ah it's just the way certain posters are. The punch down crowd

gmisk

BanditLuke wrote: »

No im not taking the piss. Everyone i know in social housing pays rent to the council based on their wages.

You do know social housing isn't just for those unfortunate enough not to have a job right?

Great as they should.
It's a pity 60 plus percent are behind on their very low rent in Dublin alone. Plus no incentive to catch up as zero residents have been evicted for non payment

Millionaire only not

Eric Cartman wrote: »

85% of rsidential sky sports subscriptions are to low income and unemployed people, its in bskyb's marketing kit, its why theres so many ads for payday loans and sub prime financing companies.

Ah they need the sky for day time tv after getting up at 12 !

str8talkingguy

What's most laughable about this thread is people thinking all their tax money is funding social housing, when in reality social housing is a tiny tiny % and in reality almost all of it is towards bank debt.

Spanish Eyes

str8talkingguy wrote: »

What's most laughable about this thread is people thinking all their tax money is funding social housing, when in reality social housing is a tiny tiny % and in reality almost all of it is towards bank debt.

Irish debt is a rollover, will never be paid like most other countries with debt like USA for example.

We have a chance to sort things out rationally for the taxpayer. That's all I want now.

Eric Cartman

str8talkingguy wrote: »

What's most laughable about this thread is people thinking all their tax money is funding social housing, when in reality social housing is a tiny tiny % and in reality almost all of it is towards bank debt.

https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/other/2020/

2.56 billion on housing
3.29 billion in working age income supports
0.65 billion in working age supports (back to education etc..)
0.81 billion in supplementary payments like rent assistance and fuel allowance
= 9.87 billion euro , and that completely excludes the fraudulent claims for disability and carers

4.83 billion servicing the national debt

we spend almost twice on people who choose not to work than we do on servicing the debt.

str8talkingguy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/other/2020/

2.56 billion on housing
3.29 billion in working age income supports
0.65 billion in working age supports (back to education etc..)
0.81 billion in supplementary payments like rent assistance and fuel allowance
= 9.87 billion euro , and that completely excludes the fraudulent claims for disability and carers

4.83 billion servicing the national debt

we spend almost twice on people who choose not to work than we do on servicing the debt.

You are being fooled like a lot of people, it looks like that on paper, hap scheme counts in them figures which is where most of it goes, where they often stay for a few months here a few there in off season holiday homes and B&Bs at absolute extortionate rents. You people don't know half of what's going on while the landlords rake it in. They could a built houses for everyone in the last couple years with the money they been paying for high priced B&Bs. The figures would shock anyone not in the know.

n97 mini

alastair wrote: »

Nope - the maternity hospital masters did no such thing: https://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0313/46939-citizenship/

Immigration figures grew after 2004, they didn’t reduce.

Article says they didn't argue for a change in the law. I never said they did. I said they flagged the phenomenon.

"Other letters and records released show that the Masters of Dublin's three main maternity hospitals have been expressing concern to the Government for 18 months about the growing number of non-national births. The letters from the Masters do not propose any constitutional change"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/citizenship-tourists-a-tiny-group-statistics-indicate-1.1309031?mode=amp

There was a huge drop in claims for international protection as a result of the change. Almost 11,000 in 2002, down to around 4,000 in 2004.

Eric Cartman

str8talkingguy wrote: »

You are being fooled like a lot of people, it looks like that on paper, hap scheme counts in them figures which is where most of it goes, where they often stay for a few months here a few there in off season holiday homes and B&Bs at absolute extortionate rents. You people don't know half of what's going on while the landlords rake it in. They could a built houses for everyone in the last couple years with the money they been paying for high priced B&Bs. The figures would shock anyone not in the know.

I do a lot of work for landlords, youve no clue if you think theyre raking it in, most with less than 4 units in dublin are only starting turning a profit over paying the mortgage in the last 3 years.

The only ‘rich’ ones were already rich and inherrited grandads 4 bed in blackrock and make 1800 a month after tax on it while servicing their own mortgage in dalkey at 3.5k a month.

Yurt2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I do a lot of work for landlords, youve no clue if you think theyre raking it in, most with less than 4 units in dublin are only starting turning a profit over paying the mortgage in the last 3 years.

The only ‘rich’ ones were already rich and inherrited grandads 4 bed in blackrock and make 1800 a month after tax on it while servicing their own mortgage in dalkey at 3.5k a month.

God help them. Personal choices and all that.

ILoveYourVibes

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I do a lot of work for landlords, youve no clue if you think theyre raking it in, most with less than 4 units in dublin are only starting turning a profit over paying the mortgage in the last 3 years.

The only ‘rich’ ones were already rich and inherrited grandads 4 bed in blackrock and make 1800 a month after tax on it while servicing their own mortgage in dalkey at 3.5k a month.

its not exactly true its a source of income for most of them or it should be. They have been very stupid if its not.

Eric Cartman

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

its not exactly true its a source of income for most of them or it should be. They have been very stupid if its not.

Bought btl’s with 100% mortgages a decade ago, 40% tax on rental income means rent has ro be 2x hefty mortgage to turn a profit

Calhoun

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I do a lot of work for landlords, youve no clue if you think theyre raking it in, most with less than 4 units in dublin are only starting turning a profit over paying the mortgage in the last 3 years.

The only ‘rich’ ones were already rich and inherrited grandads 4 bed in blackrock and make 1800 a month after tax on it while servicing their own mortgage in dalkey at 3.5k a month.

Either way we know that for the most part they earn a fairly generous income a month and there are allot of smaller landlords breaking the law in the pressure zone with yields of 8% give or take.

Edit to also point out this is only one metric and there is a push seemingly to bring in institutional investment as allot of smaller landlords exit it. So its more than likely somewhere in the middle. Not all are raking it in, some are but some are also breaking the law to get ahead, i would say those who are breaking the law are the ones not closing up shop.

Eric Cartman

Yurt! wrote: »

God help them. Personal choices and all that.

Theyre not looking for sympathy, just to stop being portrayed like mr moneybags from monopoly because they rent out a gaf or 2 when in reality jacinta on HAP overholds for 12 months and theyre about to have their retirement fund reposessed

Eric Cartman

Calhoun wrote: »

Either way we know that for the most part they earn a fairly generous income a month and there are allot of smaller landlords breaking the law in the pressure zone with yields of 8% give or take.

Edit to also point out this is only one metric and there is a push seemingly to bring in institutional investment as allot of smaller landlords exit it. So its more than likely somewhere in the middle. Not all are raking it in, some are but some are also breaking the law to get ahead, i would say those who are breaking the law are the ones not closing up shop.

A good property in D2/4 will yeild 8-9% gross, you lose half that in tax and thats if theres no vacancy or repairs to be done. Most landlords in dublin under mortgage are netting 3.5-5% , drop that off a % if an agent is involved , ones doing airbnb or corporate lets getting 10-12% nett , managed and little risk of overholding. Them and the ones without mortgages making money

Yurt2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Theyre not looking for sympathy, just to stop being portrayed like mr moneybags from monopoly because they rent out a gaf or 2 when in reality jacinta on HAP overholds for 12 months and theyre about to have their retirement fund reposessed

Since when is property an appropriate financially sound stand-in for proper pension provision? Personal choices etc etc.

Jacintas (groan) make up what percentage of those seeking rental accommodation? Overplayed and clichéd.

In my renting years, I was nickled and dimed and outright screwed by too many mom and pop landlords to give a sh*t now. Always paid my rent on time, never damaged a property beyond normal wear and tear. I'm sure plenty of people reading can relate.

And, at the end of the day, buy-to-let landlords don't add to housing stock.

Yurt2

Further, there is absolutely zero moral basis for passive rental income to be taxed at less than PAYE levels. If you want to make the arguement that institutional landlords should pay the same rate, you might be on to something.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

In my renting years, I was nickled and dimed and outright screwed by too many mom and pop landlords to give a sh*t now. Always paid my rent on time, never damaged a property beyond normal wear and tear. I'm sure plenty of people reading can relate.

And, at the end of the day, buy-to-let landlords don't add to housing stock..

I bought my property 3 years before the banking crash as a place for me to live. The crash happened and I couldn't afford to live there while paying the mortgage, taxes, and associated fees. Since then, I have not managed to live there. It's only in the last two years that my home has passed the point of negative equity, and I've a grand total of two years where I made an actual profit over the mortgage and tax (so I've been dealing with losses every other year).


And as for repairs... Many tenants (students/professionals - both genders) are animals destroying or stealing everything they could before leaving. Nearly every time I've had a set of tenants change, I've had to redecorate and replace almost everything. No Dogs allowed? Lets tear up the front and back gardens with dogs and leave dog **** everywhere. Yup. Had to fork out for the replanting of the lawns and flowers on three different occasions. Yay! Thankfully, I have a foreign family of professionals in there now, and they're very good with the place.

There are heaps of us out there in Ireland who would love to live in their homes, but it's simply not feasible. If I was living in Ireland now, perhaps it would be, but the cost of relocation, along with loss of rents, make that very difficult, with little actual benefit to doing so. I'll still be taxed to the hilt and still need to pay the mortgage.

I'm not a buy-to-let landlord, but I've become one unintentionally. I think there's a misconception about people who rent out their houses. Fine, those who buy an apartment block, or have a row of houses to rent, would be as you said... but even then, I'd be more sympathetic. You don't know what it's like to be a landlord until you've had to deal with the crap that other people throw at you. Being a landlord destroyed my faith in the "common" person, because it seems that the majority (these days anyway) have no respect for other peoples property if they're renting it.

TBH, I would need to see some hefty profit projections before I'd become a landlord for rent... It's just not worth it in the hassle, and lesser costs while you have the property.In many instances, The rights of tenants have shifted to being greater than the landlord, regardless of the behavior of the tenants.. so nope. A horrible situation to be in, unless you manage to get wonderful tenants which is, apparently (from landlord/property owner forums) becoming much rarer.

Yurt2

By the law of averages, there are of course bad tenants out there. But paint me cynical when you hear landlords on boards saying every second tenant is a nightmare one and use their exaggerated apocryphal tales to undermine tenants rights and to lobby for tax cuts on passive income.

A culture developed around buy-to-let landlords where they believed that their investment should be a winner in every economic environment, and many I rented from in the past from weren't shy to jack up rent to unsustainable levels. I have a friend who was renovicted no less than three times in 18 months. A fantastic tenant, people like that deserve protection from spivvery.

If buy-to-let landlords frequently say 'tough sh*t' when people bring up unsustainably high prices, you'll have to forgive other people responding with 'tough sh*t to you too' when they go on the moan about negative equity.

When you get a car loan and drive it off the forecourt, you're in immediate negative equity by the time you get a mile down the road also. I don't care about that, nor do I necessarily care that much more about negative equity for property (with particular reference to buy-to-let investments).

At the end of the day, BTL landlords are seeking to maximize but their rental yield AND the capital appreciation of the asset. A renter going about their business working a 40 hour work week (or more) is getting squeezed on both sides by rental inflation and inflation on the price of homes. A lot of landlords want it all, that's their MO.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

By the law of averages, there are of course bad tenants out there. But paint me cynical when you hear landlords on boards saying every second tenant is a nightmare one and using that as a blunt cudgel to undermine tenants rights and to lobby for tax cuts on passive income.

If I had been making profits over all the costs, then it would be passive income. I haven't. It's been a drain on resources for over a decade, and only recently, have I started making any actual profit.

I don't paint you cynical. I paint you as a renter, and unaware/uncaring of what it's like to deal with tenants. We all base our opinions on our personal experiences. I was the same before when I was a renter. I didn't appreciate just how expensive it is to run a house that is being rented.

As for undermining tenant rights, I never have. Nor would I be pushing for tax cuts, simply because I know that Ireland needs to make revenue to pay for everything. It's a continuation on the principle, that I don't expect anything for free. I left Ireland, to work, so that I could pay my mortgage and debts from the crash. I didn't stay on welfare, and struggle/limp along expecting others to cover for me.

A culture developed around buy-to-let landlords where they believed that their investment should be a winner in every economic environment, and many I rented from in the past from weren't shy to jack up rent to unsustainable levels. I have a friend who was renovicted no less than three times in 18 months. A fantastic tenant, people like that deserve protection from spivvery.

I'm sure he should be protected (Although I don't know what renovicted means). There are incredibly good tenants out there, just as there are crappy/dishonest landlords. There are also the opposites. As for your claims believing their investment to be a winner, you skipped over where I said many of us didn't buy for an investment, but were made into landlords not from choice. Negative equity is a bitch... and many of us don't live in Dublin.

If buy-to-let landlords frequently say 'tough sh*t' when people bring up unsustainably high prices, you'll have to forgive other people responding with 'tough sh*t to you too' when they go on the moan about negative equity.

When you get a car loan and drive it off the forecourt, you're in immediate negative equity by the time you get a mile down the road also. I don't care about that, nor do I necessarily care that much more about negative equity for property (with particular reference to buy-to-let investments).

Ahh well, since you're only talking about buy-to-let investments, I'll pass. Although I suspect you're including anyone renting out their property (or properties) in that statement, regardless of the circumstances of how they came to be in that situation.

Tacitus Kilgore

Idbatterim wrote: »

meh, government offer a free housing and people wonder why people would hold out for it? LOL!

whats the altertnative? try save a deposit, by existing for years, living at home or in a kip, then paying a marginal tax rate of FIFTY percent?

Who's paying FIFTY percent tax?


NOONE, stop lying about it ffs.

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

If I had been making profits over all the costs, then it would be passive income. I haven't. It's been a drain on resources for over a decade, and only recently, have I started making any actual profit.

I don't paint you cynical. I paint you as a renter, and unaware/uncaring of what it's like to deal with tenants. We all base our opinions on our personal experiences. I was the same before when I was a renter. I didn't appreciate just how expensive it is to run a house that is being rented.

As for undermining tenant rights, I never have. Nor would I be pushing for tax cuts, simply because I know that Ireland needs to make revenue to pay for everything. It's a continuation on the principle, that I don't expect anything for free. I left Ireland, to work, so that I could pay my mortgage and debts from the crash. I didn't stay on welfare, and struggle/limp along expecting others to cover for me.



I'm sure he should be protected (Although I don't know what renovicted means). There are incredibly good tenants out there, just as there are crappy/dishonest landlords. There are also the opposites. As for your claims believing their investment to be a winner, you skipped over where I said many of us didn't buy for an investment, but were made into landlords not from choice. Negative equity is a bitch... and many of us don't live in Dublin.



Ahh well, since you're only talking about buy-to-let investments, I'll pass. Although I suspect you're including anyone renting out their property (or properties) in that statement, regardless of the circumstances of how they came to be in that situation.

Not a renter any longer thank goodness but I remember vividly what it was like.

A renoviction is the practice of landlord using renovation as a pretext to break the lease, do some plaintative sprucing up and putting it back on the rental market at significantly higher rent. In my network of friends from uni a majority of them would have been renovicted at some stage, some more than once.

Property owners are quick to tell those in the rental trap to suck it up re rents and property prices. Well, if you're in negative equity and are 'an accident landlord' and you don't like it, don't go cribbing to the government for tax cuts. Take a bath on your investment and move on. No one put a gun to your head and made you buy it in the first instance (I think I'm doing this right).

alastair

n97 mini wrote: »

Article says they didn't argue for a change in the law. I never said they did. I said they flagged the phenomenon.

"Other letters and records released show that the Masters of Dublin's three main maternity hospitals have been expressing concern to the Government for 18 months about the growing number of non-national births. The letters from the Masters do not propose any constitutional change"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/citizenship-tourists-a-tiny-group-statistics-indicate-1.1309031?mode=amp

There was a huge drop in claims for international protection as a result of the change. Almost 11,000 in 2002, down to around 4,000 in 2004.

Asylum claims had nothing to do with citizenship for children born here. In fact you could make the case that anyone seeking residency would be more likely to make an asylum claim after 2004, as the mechanism of residency through parenthood of an Irish child was removed. But clearly that didn’t happen. So the change in law had no consequence for asylum claims.

And the letter from the Masters on resources did nothing to initiate the referendum. Unsurprisingly the number of non national mothers giving birth in the maternity hospitals has not changed since before the referendum - it was 25% of births then, and still stands at 25% now.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

Not a renter any longer thank goodness but I remember vividly what it was like.

A renoviction is the practice of landlord using renovation as a pretext to break the lease, do some plaintative sprucing up and putting it back on the rental market at significantly higher rent. In my network of friends from uni a majority of them would have been renovicted at some stage, some more than once.

Property owners are quick to tell those in the rental trap to suck it up re rents and property prices. Well, if you're in negative equity and are 'an accident landlord' and you don't like it, don't go cribbing to the government for tax cuts. Take a bath on your investment and move on. No one put a gun to your head and made you buy it in the first instance (I think I'm doing this right).

True enough. Nobody made me buy a house. Sure, I was constantly told by people that I was stupid when I was renting and wasting money, rather than simply buying a place, but it was my choice to do so. All before the crash, mind you, so our awareness of economic instability was different.

I wouldn't be one to go looking for tax cuts.. as I said previously. I've always understood that Ireland is a country with limited resources, and needs the revenue from tax for it to improve... which I guess is one of the reasons I get so annoyed by the examples within this thread of people gaming the system. Not going to get into a debate about being a landlord, because I know how such threads go on boards. Been there, done that, no rush to repeat.

I'll be happy to sell my house (it's on the market now), and get away with a marginal profit. I won't be buying a property in Ireland again. Lesson learned. Not a complaint, nor am I whining. Just a statement of belief. The focus on the lower income groups and the pushing of migrants/minorities into council/state bought houses, makes a mockery of house purchasing unless you've managed to buy into the more stable (expensive) residential areas. Can't see new residential areas gaining a similar reputation for exclusivity to drive up prices, to warrant the costs of maintaining a place over time.

Westwood

Westwood wrote: »

Brand new build here in Ratoath co Meath 400 houses, 10% given to foreign nationals as council houses, not 1 Irish family, these houses start at 310k-500k, call it what you like racism or whatever but it's sickening to the stomach

Bit confused here. What exactly is making you sick to your stomach?

Yurt2

alastair wrote: »

Asylum claims had nothing to do with citizenship for children born here. In fact you could make the case that anyone seeking residency would be more likely to make an asylum claim after 2004, as the mechanism of residency through parenthood of an Irish child was removed. But clearly that didn’t happen. So the change in law had no consequence for asylum claims.

And the letter from the Masters on resources did nothing to initiate the referendum. Unsurprisingly the number of non national mothers giving birth in the maternity hospitals has not changed since before the referendum - it was 25% of births then, and still stands at 25% now.

There was every consequence as when the pregnant women in question claimed asylum at the port of entry, there was no way to remove them from the state and they were then given a window to take advantage of the jus soli birth rules as they were at the time.

It was a major pull factor.

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

There was every consequence as when the pregnant women in question claimed asylum at the port of entry, there was no way to remove them from the state and they were then given a window to take advantage of the jus soli birth rules as they were at the time.

It was a major pull factor.

Except there’s no evidence to support this notion. The serious reduction in asylum applications took place in the two years prior to the referendum. The reduction in numbers for the two years following the change in law was about 1,000. The reduction in the two years prior to the change was 7,000. The numbers applying were already falling, and at a faster rate before the change in the law.