The Irish rental market needs more regulation

beauf

steddyeddy wrote: »

Probably something to do with all the smiley faces and question marks your tagging onto sentiments.

I see you now you're avoiding answering the question.

steddyeddy

beauf wrote: »

You're talking about enforcement.

It is enforced. Thats why there Just not timely.

You've quoted it being enforced, thats the case in the article.

We'll agree to disagree B.

beauf

Lol, you'll call it a draw then....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs

So what regulation that isn't there are you looking for.

Rodney Bathgate

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's what happens if you read one post Rodney.

What is the point of your responses to me posts? I read YOUR opening post. It is biased nonsense. Can you not stop attempting to deflect from that?

steddyeddy

I don't think they're privileged if they earned their house(s).

I do however think that there's a big sense of entitled in the business models presented by some landlords.

For example there's several different business models to being a landlord. A lot of landlords seem to lump this in to one single business model, i.e renting a house to someone.

Thus you get someone saying that there's no profit in renting and you barely make even.

I have yet to here a landlord here including the type of investment initially made as a factor in whether they make a profit.

For example inheriting a house, getting a house with a mortgage, buying a house outright with cash or buying to let are the biggest determinants as to whether you make a profit.

You can't simply get a buy to let mortgage, take on tenants who essentially pay of that asset and complain that you don't make a profit on top of paying off an asset. That is entitlement and a sign of someone who has no idea about the realities of business. Fair play for people for doing it but be realistic as to what you're getting out of it.

CtevenSrowder

uptherebels wrote: »

Id say it's more wanting to acquire a private asset but trying to get someone else to pay for it.

DT, who I responded to, highlighted a certain part of klaaz's post. He seemed to be talking about homeowners in general, not just Landlords.

steddyeddy

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

What is the point of your responses to me posts? I read YOUR opening post. It is biased nonsense. Can you not stop attempting to deflect from that?

Sorry it upset you Rodney.

steddyeddy

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

DT, who I responded to, highlighted a certain part of klaaz's post. He seemed to be talking about homeowners in general, not just Landlords.

In fairness DT was also replying to a poster who was of the mind that tenancy fees should be enough to completely pay for an asset. interest on that asset and provide a profit on top of that. In the minds of people like that a mortgage isn't an asset loan, it's a business expense.

steddyeddy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Exactly, so it has to cover the cost of itself including the mortgage payments to break even, thus when you lump the obscene tax on top, rent usually has to be around 2x the mortgage payment to break even in the short term, hence my original point, landlords aren't all scrooge mcduck sitting on piles of cash screwing over tenants like the original post suggested.

So let's say you get a buy to let mortgage. You're expectation is that the investment to be successful you have to have the asset completely paid for by the tenant as well as any other expenses?

What happens after you pay the mortgage off? Does your profit margin change? You're presenting an extremely simplistic view of investment.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

The only difference is that they (LL) were able to get a mortgage/buy a property. That's not privilege.

You answered the point to yourself:

Deleted User wrote: »

A privilege being a special right, or benefit/advantage, only available to a particular group of people?

The only thing preventing others from becoming a property owner is financing/money.

Not everyone can get access to credit. Even when you get access to it, you can understand that others have access to more.




Imagine there is an investment opportunity in your area. If you put 50m in you will own part of a fabulous new shopping centre. Why don't you put it in? If Johnny Ronan can get a loan of 50m but you can't, is he not in a privileged position? Similarly, if you can get a 300k loan but the fella down the road can't, are you not similarly privileged in comparison?



Having no access to credit is one of the main drivers of continuing global poverty. Hence the importance of microfinance etc. Organisations such as Grameen Bank help to lift swathes of people out of poverty by providing access to credit. Access to credit is a privilege

Donald Trump

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness DT was also replying to a poster who was of the mind that tenancy fees should be enough to completely pay for an asset. interest on that asset and provide a profit on top of that. In the minds of people like that a mortgage isn't an asset loan, it's a business expense.

It wasn't only that.The apparently expect to have the tax on their "profit" to be covered as well!

Better Than Christ

Deleted User wrote: »

How exactly are LL "most privileged people in the country"?

If you own more than one house, you are literally among the most privileged people in the country.

Deleted User wrote: »

Very few LL would be able to live entirely off their rental incomes... where are you getting the idea that LL don't work, in addition to being LL?

I didn't say they don't work in addition to being a landlord. Should they be exempt from paying tax on what they earn in addition to being a landlord? Or is it just the money that they don't work for that shouldn't be taxed?

Deleted User wrote: »

So... people would be renting off the State instead? Unless you're expecting houses to be built with no costs involved.. and no purchase needed by people? Where would the State get the money to do this massive undertaking?

The state would borrow the money and pay it back over a long period of time, like they always do with large infrastructural projects that benefit the country, and then rent the homes to people at an affordable percentage of their income, deducting at source to ensure that nobody gets away without paying.

Rodney Bathgate

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry it upset you Rodney.

No one is upset Eddie. Just pointing out the stupidity of the opening post and general direction you want the thread to go in.

Better Than Christ

Better Than Christ wrote: »

If you own more than one house, you are literally among the most privileged people in the country.

Two points.

Once again, it's not an advantage that the remainder of society are excluded from. There's no preferential treatment. Everyone can buy properties if they have the funds.. or the credit rating.

Second, this is the first you'e said more than one house. You simply said "landowner". I am a landlord. I have one house which I rent out to other people.... and I wasn't born into a position to buy a house easily. I worked, saved, and invested my way into the position to afford the purchase and mortgage requirements. Which other people can do too.

I didn't say they don't work in addition to being a landlord. Should they be exempt from paying tax on what they earn in addition to being a landlord? Or is it just the money that they don't work for that shouldn't be taxed?

why should someone who doesn't even have to work for it be exempt - your words.

Not that I particularly agree or disagree. LL should pay taxes like everyone else.

The state would borrow the money and pay it back over a long period of time, like they always do with large infrastructural projects that benefit the country, and then rent the homes to people at an affordable percentage of their income, deducting at source to ensure that nobody gets away without paying.

Right. State capitalism. That worked out so well in the past. You're advocating the State become the sole/primary landlord in the country.. you don't see any issues with personal freedoms, bias, and corruption?

Not to mention the debt needed to pay back.. Why are people in such a rush to embrace National debt? It's an incredibly short sighted measure with increasingly negative consequences as time goes by.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

You answered the point to yourself:

Hardly

Not everyone can get access to credit. Even when you get access to it, you can understand that others have access to more.

I have a good credit rating because I have over two decades of building up such a rating, and being careful with my finances. Anyone with a clear rating could do the same.

Imagine there is an investment opportunity in your area. If you put 50m in you will own part of a fabulous new shopping centre. Why don't you put it in? If Johnny Ronan can get a loan of 50m but you can't, is he not in a privileged position? Similarly, if you can get a 300k loan but the fella down the road can't, are you not similarly privileged in comparison?

Having no access to credit is one of the main drivers of continuing global poverty. Hence the importance of microfinance etc. Organisations such as Grameen Bank help to lift swathes of people out of poverty by providing access to credit. Access to credit is a privilege

Sure, you can use the words in such a manner. Now, consider the post I was responding to... You honestly don't see the difference?

beauf

What a trainwreck of a thread.

If have million euro apartment that I want to rent who should set the the level of that rent or how it makes money? It's a private business. End of.

If you want subsidized housing the govt should provide that. If they don't want property speculation that should put rules around that also.

The reason the conflict exists is because the govt forced people into private rental market, and forced the private market to take those people.

Not all countries do it this way Austria has a different model. But the govts that have been voted in here this is the way they have done it.

If you want to change this, is political change you need.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardly



I have a good credit rating because I have over two decades of building up such a rating, and being careful with my finances. Anyone with a clear rating could do the same.



Sure, you can use the words in such a manner. Now, consider the post I was responding to... You honestly don't see the difference?

Sure look. You can try pointing out to the fella who went to school in Blackrock, repeated their Leaving in Leeson St to get the points to get into BESS in Trinity and then got a start in his daddy's friend's business that he had some advantages by happenstance of birth and I'm sure that he will reply that he worked to get where he was and that was the only thing that contributed


Access to credit is a privilege. Whether you respect that or not it is fact

Better Than Christ

Deleted User wrote: »

Second, this is the first you'e said more than one house. You simply said "landowner". I am a landlord. I have one house which I rent out to other people.... and I wasn't born into a position to buy a house easily. I worked, saved, and invested my way into the position to afford the purchase and mortgage requirements. Which other people can do too.

I didn't say "landowner". I said "landlord". Do you have trouble reading? And if everybody had the luxury of being able to invest their way into a position where they can afford to become a landlord, you'd have no tenants. The tragic irony is that many tenants are too busy working to pay their landlords' mortgages to be able to afford a mortgage of their own.

Deleted User wrote:

why should someone who doesn't even have to work for it be exempt - your words.

Not that I particularly agree or disagree. LL should pay taxes like everyone else.

Then what the hell are you even arguing about? That's literally the point I was making. Jesus Christ.

Deleted User wrote:

Right. State capitalism. That worked out so well in the past. You're advocating the State become the sole/primary landlord in the country.. you don't see any issues with personal freedoms, bias, and corruption?

It worked perfectly well in this country in the past, when it was a lot poorer than it is today. Until then they sold most of them off for a pittance. It might kill the private rental sector (i.e. landlords would no longer have the 'personal freedom' to charge €1,500 for shoebox apartments), but it would give others the freedom to eventually buy homes of their own at more affordable costs. I can see why a landlord would have an issue with that, but the least you could do is admit that your issue is based around your own selfish interests and the potential loss of your own privilege.

Deleted User wrote:

Not to mention the debt needed to pay back.. Why are people in such a rush to embrace National debt? It's an incredibly short sighted measure with increasingly negative consequences as time goes by

That attitude could be applied to any vital infrastructural project. If everyone had your short-sighted attitude, we'd still be passing through the main streets of Moate, Kinnegad and Enfield to get from Galway to Dublin.

lawrencesummers

I think il hang around here for a bit.

I do love a bit of landlord bashing, always good to see what way jealously manifests itself in some people.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

Sure look. You can try pointing out to the fella who went to school in Blackrock, repeated their Leaving in Leeson St to get the points to get into BESS in Trinity and then got a start in his daddy's friend's business that he had some advantages by happenstance of birth and I'm sure that he will reply that he worked to get where he was and that was the only thing that contributed


Access to credit is a privilege. Whether you respect that or not it is fact

Sure. We all have a degree of privilege compared to those less fortunate than we were. I attended AIT (Business Studies & Finance), worked part-time jobs to help cover my costs, graduated with a diploma (having failed my degree exams), worked, went back to college to complete my degree years later, and worked further. I saved enough to buy a run-down one bedroom house, renovated it completely by myself, and sold it to make 30k profit. That was my deposit for my existing house. Got the mortgage, lived in the house for 4 years, and then the banking crash occurred. No supports from others, although my parents tried. Lost my employment, still needed to pay the mortgage and other costs which kept rising.. and so I rented out my home to others.. and left Ireland to get enough work to pay my mortgage and other costs. It wasn't viable to return to Ireland to rent or take away the rental income since I wouldn't be able to cover the loss of income, and the subsequent costs of resettling.

It's not a sob story. I'm not saying it to garner any sympathy because there shouldn't be any. It's a story repeated across all of Ireland, by many people I have encountered. However, it reinforces the point that what I did, anyone else could have done.

I didn't attend a university or get a top degree. I entered working at the bottom, gained experience, and struggled up the employment ladder, until I was able to afford what I wanted. The same as many others.

The point is that, for the majority of the Irish population what I got, in terms of a house/mortgage, is equally possible for them. There were no freebies. I had the same State education as others. I didn't receive any references to land me better jobs. There was no investment or financial help from external sources. I did it myself.

The only real privilege is possibly over the absolute poor, however, many disadvantaged groups gain educational grants or other supports that weren't available to me. Sure, there is always going to be an element of privilege... but it's pretty damn small for anyone who isn't mentally/physically challenged.

My first investment was bought outright by me. No bank would have financed me. Selling that property gave me the credit rating to gain a mortgage. Privilege? It just sounds like an excuse for people unwilling to do the legwork to set themselves up first.

Better Than Christ

Better Than Christ wrote: »

I didn't say "landowner". I said "landlord". Do you have trouble reading? And if everybody had the luxury of being able to invest their way into a position where they can afford to become a landlord, you'd have no tenants. The tragic irony is that many tenants are too busy working to pay their landlords' mortgages to be able to afford a mortgage of their own.

My mistake. Landlord. Fair enough.

My current tenants are a foreign family. Both parents are professionals working for an international company nearby. They have no interest in buying a property in Ireland... just as I've had other tenants (who were Irish) who also had no interest in buying a property at that stage in their lives... because owning a property ties you down, and costs a lot (which takes away from their chance to enjoy themselves).

It's incredibly naive to believe that everyone would buy a house if they could. Many people have no desire to be tied down.

Although I do find it interesting that you get annoyed by my mistake, but don't directly respond to what I wrote.

It worked perfectly well in this country in the past, when it was a lot poorer than it is today. Until then they sold most of them off for a pittance. It might kill the private rental sector (i.e. landlords would no longer have the 'personal freedom' to charge €1,500 for shoebox apartments), but it would give others the freedom to eventually buy homes of their own at more affordable costs. I can see why a landlord would have an issue with that, but the least you could do is admit that your issue is based around your own selfish interests and the potential loss of your own privilege.

You still haven't explained the whole privilege thing... leaving it to someone else to do so for you... considering the phrase you used.

I generally have no issue with LL charging whatever they like (there are limits) because it's a buyers market. The only real issue is with people who refuse to live and travel. Ireland is a tiny country... and yet people often complain about travelling an hour to work, demanding that they should all have a house near the city center or near their parents.

It would make more sense to upgrade the transport network in Ireland, and encourage a return of people to areas outside of the cities.

And yup.. You've got no issues with such a system controlled by the government. Right. Ok, then. Enough said.

That attitude could be applied to any vital infrastructural project. If everyone had your short-sighted attitude, we'd still be passing through the main streets of Moate, Kinnegad and Enfield to get from Galway to Dublin.

Oh, I give up. You obviously have never bothered reading anything about the negatives regarding national debt, especially considering the after effects of covid on the world economy. Debt is becoming far riskier and more expensive than it was in the past.

On a side note, not that I know, but weren't some of those infrastructure projects covered by EU funding?

beauf

We used to have neighbours who had lease cars and rented their house, even though they were on very good salaries.
They weren't Irish, and their mindset to renting/ownership was very different, and quite refreshing to be honest.
Changed their car every year or two, always to something new.

lawrencesummers

beauf wrote: »

We used to have neighbours who had lease cars and rented their house, even though they were on very good salaries.
They weren't Irish, and their mindset to renting/ownership was very different, and quite refreshing to be honest.
Changed their car every year or two, always to something new.

Where are they now?

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure. We all have a degree of privilege compared to those less fortunate than we were. I attended AIT (Business Studies & Finance), worked part-time jobs to help cover my costs, graduated with a diploma (having failed my degree exams), worked, went back to college to complete my degree years later, and worked further. I saved enough to buy a run-down one bedroom house, renovated it completely by myself, and sold it to make 30k profit. That was my deposit for my existing house. Got the mortgage, lived in the house for 4 years, and then the banking crash occurred. No supports from others, although my parents tried. Lost my employment, still needed to pay the mortgage and other costs which kept rising.. and so I rented out my home to others.. and left Ireland to get enough work to pay my mortgage and other costs. It wasn't viable to return to Ireland to rent or take away the rental income since I wouldn't be able to cover the loss of income, and the subsequent costs of resettling.

It's not a sob story. I'm not saying it to garner any sympathy because there shouldn't be any. It's a story repeated across all of Ireland, by many people I have encountered. However, it reinforces the point that what I did, anyone else could have done.

I didn't attend a university or get a top degree. I entered working at the bottom, gained experience, and struggled up the employment ladder, until I was able to afford what I wanted. The same as many others.

The point is that, for the majority of the Irish population what I got, in terms of a house/mortgage, is equally possible for them. There were no freebies. I had the same State education as others. I didn't receive any references to land me better jobs. There was no investment or financial help from external sources. I did it myself.

The only real privilege is possibly over the absolute poor, however, many disadvantaged groups gain educational grants or other supports that weren't available to me. Sure, there is always going to be an element of privilege... but it's pretty damn small for anyone who isn't mentally/physically challenged.

My first investment was bought outright by me. No bank would have financed me. Selling that property gave me the credit rating to gain a mortgage. Privilege? It just sounds like an excuse for people unwilling to do the legwork to set themselves up first.

Not sure what your issue is with all this.


Someone who is in a position of privilege, is in that position regardless of how they got there. They are still privileged to be there. Their route there might have been less privileged compared to others who ended up at the same position. It's not an insult

beauf

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Where are they now?

LL sold the house. So they are renting some where else. Much bigger as it happens.

Better Than Christ

Deleted User wrote: »

It's incredibly naive to believe that everyone would buy a house if they could. Many people have no desire to be tied down.

There are also a lot of people like me, who have no desire to be tied down, but the current rental market - too expensive and no security of tenure - leaves them with very little choice but to buy. Incidentally, I'm very aware that being able to realistically contemplate that choice is a relatively privileged position to be in.

Deleted User wrote: »

You still haven't explained the whole privilege thing... leaving it to someone else to do so for you... considering the phrase you used.

He explained it perfectly well. You seem to be taking it all very personally. All I said was that being a landlord is a privileged position and they should pay their taxes like the rest of us (a point with which you happen to agree anyway).

Deleted User wrote: »

And yup.. You've got no issues with such a system controlled by the government. Right. Ok, then. Enough said.

It worked perfectly well in this country before. Certainly better than schemes like HAP where the state pays private landlords whatever the market dictates.

beauf

Donald Trump wrote: »

Not sure what your issue is with all this.


Someone who is in a position of privilege, is in that position regardless of how they got there. They are still privileged to be there. Their route there might have been less privileged compared to others who ended up at the same position. It's not an insult

It has multiple means depending on context.

Social privilege is a special, unearned advantage or entitlement, used to one's own benefit or to the detriment of others.

A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. Land-titles and taxi medallions are pronounced examples of transferable privilege. These can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth.

There a whole load of other meanings. Its quite obvious social privilege is implied and when challenged, people backtrack and conflate into some other meaning.

beauf

Better Than Christ wrote: »

...It worked perfectly well in this country before. Certainly better than schemes like HAP where the state pays private landlords whatever the market dictates.

Depends what you mean by better. For the Govt the current system works better as the LL carries the risk and the costs when it goes wrong. So its a cost saving. That it has overheated the market, or contributed to that, is a consideration.

lawrencesummers

beauf wrote: »

LL sold the house. So they are renting some where else. Much bigger as it happens.

Them? The house or the rent? Or all of them.

beauf

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Them? The house or the rent? Or all of them.

The house. I have no idea what the rent is. Couldn't find a place to stay in the area, so they moved a bit further out, and got a bigger place.