Irish Property Market 2020 Part 2

Hubertj

PropQueries wrote: »

Waterford Institute of Technology (WIT) has announced that all lectures, tutorials and practical classes will be delivered remotely for the academic year, as a result of Covid-19.

There will be some serious surplus of rental accommodation in Waterford City this year.

Irish Times link here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/waterford-it-will-deliver-lectures-tutorials-and-classes-remotely-1.4343014

yea tough on the city and tough on the students. Classes are only part of the college experience.... meet new friends, new city, leave home etc..... not much fund sitting in front of a laptop in your gaff.

fliball123

Pelezico wrote: »

You are right. Covid has been great for the economy and everyone has more money to buy houses.

We should have introduced Covid years ago to boost the housing sector.

Who said anything about buying houses? I have never advised anyone to buy or sell if I did show me <mod snip>. I only pointed out the areas where a lot of people have made savings which have gone up significantly during covid. You dont seem to like facts you like to say the same crap over and over and make stuff up.

Mod Edit.

Do not name call posters. Attack the post.
If you have a problem with the post, report it.

Pelezico

Hubertj wrote: »

yea tough on the city and tough on the students. Classes are only part of the college experience.... meet new friends, new city, leave home etc..... not much fund sitting in front of a laptop in your gaff.

How will they complete lab work? Not good for students. They get a very raw deal.

hometruths

Pelezico wrote: »

How will they complete lab work? Not good for students. They get a very raw deal.

Heard the head of the college on radio earlier saying they would still be conducting labs.

This is how he justified charging full fees!

Pelezico

schmittel wrote: »

Heard the head of the college on radio earlier saying they would still be conducting labs.

This is how he justified charging full fees!

Well, students are the least at risk group, all young and healthy.

This is a poor decision.

tom_murphy112

Pelezico wrote: »

Well, students are the least at risk group, all young and healthy.

This is a poor decision.

Sure students are the least at risk group. But that doesn't stop them from spreading it to other vulnerable people!

Look at how well college/school openings in the USA have gone so far, a good few already have had to shutdown.

Pelezico

tom_murphy112 wrote: »

Sure students are the least at risk group. But that doesn't stop them from spreading it to other vulnerable people!

Look at how well college/school openings in the USA have gone so far, a good few already have had to shutdown.

If only a few have closed down,that is really good.

tom_murphy112

This maybe beyond this thread, but I follow a guy on YouTube based in NYC that does laptop repairs and last year he was looking to rent out a new retail space for his repair business. He basically had so many issues, with how property owners was asking crazy prices and wanted to have really odd clauses in their contracts.

About a year later, he goes over a lot of the places that refused to reduce the rent and are still vacate, I wonder if this will eventually happen here as well - Thoughts ?

Interesting video to watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk5o6cbq_Qs

Taylor365

tom_murphy112 wrote: »

This maybe beyond this thread, but I follow a guy on YouTube based in NYC that does laptop repairs and last year he was looking to rent out a new retail space for his repair business. He basically had so many issues, with how property owners was asking crazy prices and wanted to have really odd clauses in their contracts.

About a year later, he goes over a lot of the places that refused to reduce the rent and are still vacate, I wonder if this will eventually happen here as well - Thoughts ?

Interesting video to watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk5o6cbq_Qs

Not uncommon for commercial properties to be empty for 10+ years.

OwlsZat

My apartment block is fully of vacant apartments. The same ads hanging on Daft at mental prices the last 2,3,4 months.

I'd assume its because they have all availed of mortgage holidays allowing them to suspend the old free market economics so many bang on about. Hardly seems fair given the exorbitant rent they've creamed over the last few years.

tom_murphy112

Taylor365 wrote: »

Not uncommon for commercial properties to be empty for 10+ years.

Yikes - assuming someone still has to pay the loan/mortgage on the property + other taxes on it too

The_Conductor

BEdS_83 wrote: »

yeah, was talking to my wife about this a few days ago, keep reading that people saved a lot during the lockdown =/ but I didn't, 100% it's my fault of course, but I couldn't even see from where I would save, bill kept coming, rent had gone up 2 weeks before they lock that out. spending more on heater and electricity, supermarket bill went trough the roof.

Yes- I see all the media about people saving thousands- funny how I don't know anyone who did. Bills went up- sure, some people saved on childcare- but just as likely they massively increased expenditure in other areas. I know I did.

Das Reich

fliball123 wrote: »

This argument is null and void we have had more births than death for at least the last 30 years and apparently we are going to have another baby boom next year due to covid.

Exactly. He was not counting the people that had 76 to 80 at that time.

The_Conductor

OwlsZat wrote: »

My apartment block is fully of vacant apartments. The same ads hanging on Daft at mental prices the last 2,3,4 months.

I'd assume its because they have all availed of mortgage holidays allowing them to suspend the old free market economics so many bang on about. Hardly seems fair given the exorbitant rent they've creamed over the last few years.

We need a way to fairly tax rental income- while at the same time disincentivising landlords from keeping units empty (irregardless of whether or not they have debt associated with the properties- and keep in mind over a third of Irish rental properties are not mortgaged).

hometruths

The_Conductor wrote: »

We need a way to fairly tax rental income- while at the same time disincentivising landlords from keeping units empty (irregardless of whether or not they have debt associated with the properties- and keep in mind over a third of Irish rental properties are not mortgaged).

You cannot really penalise landlords for holding vacant properties whilst at the same time banning evictions for unpaid rent.

If I was a landlord with a debt free property that became vacant during Covid, I would not look for another tenant in the short term.

The_Conductor

schmittel wrote: »

You cannot really penalise landlords for holding vacant properties whilst at the same time banning evictions for unpaid rent.

If I was a landlord with a debt free property that became vacant during Covid, I would not look for another tenant in the short term.

You could structure property tax in a fairer manner- so that it is paid by the resident of the property, rather than the owner, and in the event that the property is a residential property and not let, then it incurs a higher rate of property tax- so there is an impetus to let property rather than leaving it vacant- and in the case of REITs etc- they should not be allowed to offset property tax against rental income (as they currently are doing)?

MerlinSouthDub

The_Conductor wrote: »

We need a way to fairly tax rental income- while at the same time disincentivising landlords from keeping units empty (irregardless of whether or not they have debt associated with the properties- and keep in mind over a third of Irish rental properties are not mortgaged).

What's unfair about the current tax system on rental income? It seems to me that the problem here is the rent pressure zone rules. These were always going to mean that landlords would be very reluctant to reduce rents.

awec

The_Conductor wrote: »

You could structure property tax in a fairer manner- so that it is paid by the resident of the property, rather than the owner, and in the event that the property is a residential property and not let, then it incurs a higher rate of property tax- so there is an impetus to let property rather than leaving it vacant- and in the case of REITs etc- they should not be allowed to offset property tax against rental income (as they currently are doing)?

What?

How is it fairer to tax someone against an asset they do not own? All this will do is screw tenants even further, they pay rent, and as the property becomes more desirable up goes the rent and up goes the tax.

The person accumulating the wealth should be the one paying the tax. If you want to incentivise against vacancy, then introduce lower property tax rates for any property registered with the PRTB as being a residential letting.

The_Conductor

awec wrote: »

What?

How is it fairer to tax someone against an asset they do not own? All this will do is screw tenants even further, they pay rent, and as the property becomes more desirable up goes the rent and up goes the tax.

The person accumulating the wealth should be the one paying the tax. If you want to incentivise against vacancy, then introduce lower property tax rates for any property registered with the PRTB as being a residential letting.

This is precisely how its done in pretty much every other jurisdiction.
Its a local tax for spending on local services, facilities and amenities. It beggars belief that its not paid by the resident? Its also allowable as an expense in any other sector other than the residential letting sector- this however does not stop the REITs claiming it as an operating cost. This tax- and the manner its applied in the sector- is just wrong on so many different levels.

It is not a tax on the accumulation of wealth- and in a falling market it could actually be an accumulation of debt.

Why should there be lower property tax for any units let and notified as let to the RTB?

The purpose of the tax is to fund the provision of local services, facilities and amenities. It is not supposed to be a penal tax on people because they own an asset- there are far better ways of taxing the wealthy than property tax.

If you accept the purpose of the tax- then its hard to argue that someone other than someone living in the area in which the benefits of the tax are to be reaped- should pay the tax.

This is hinted at- in the manner in which local authorities can enhance or discount the collection by 15% (not aware of any enhancing it- but several habitually discount it).

I think having the resident pay it- is fair- but I also think there should be a super-levy on vacant residential units to be paid by the landlord- to actively discourage them from leaving the units vacant.

hometruths

The_Conductor wrote: »

You could structure property tax in a fairer manner- so that it is paid by the resident of the property, rather than the owner, and in the event that the property is a residential property and not let, then it incurs a higher rate of property tax- so there is an impetus to let property rather than leaving it vacant- and in the case of REITs etc- they should not be allowed to offset property tax against rental income (as they currently are doing)?

For sure you could do this and it might make sense to some on paper, but in reality as long as you are messing about with RPZs and eviction bans many LLs will be better off paying the increased property tax and keeping it vacant.

And you'd also have to wonder why a tenant who is not making rent payments with impunity would pay the property tax.

The_Conductor

An added benefit of this- if structured properly- is they would reduce the rent rapidly to fill units- to avoid the super-levy?

hometruths

The_Conductor wrote: »

I think having the resident pay it- is fair- but I also think there should be a super-levy on vacant residential units to be paid by the landlord- to actively discourage them from leaving the units vacant.

It would make more sense to address the question of why landlords are currently incentivised to keep units vacant.

The_Conductor

schmittel wrote: »

And you'd also have to wonder why a tenant who is not making rent payments with impunity would pay the property tax.

If you leave collection with the Revenue Commissioners- its hard to avoid paying it without a damn good reason- and would probably have to be paid (or subvented) by the local authority for HAP and other recipient payees in any event.

The_Conductor

schmittel wrote: »

It would make more sense to address the question of why landlords are currently incentivised to keep units vacant.

Its the same reason that unpaid rent is not included in landlord insurance in Ireland- but is elsewhere. Tenents know they can play the system and get away with it. Providing they don't cause damage to a unit- a landlord is unlikely to waste his/her time chasing them anyway.

hometruths

The_Conductor wrote: »

If you leave collection with the Revenue Commissioners- its hard to avoid paying it without a damn good reason- and would probably have to be paid (or subvented) by the local authority for HAP and other recipient payees in any event.

I agree that the Revenue have sharper teeth than your average landlord.

But it is like my initial point - what sort of government simultaneously says:

a) "We've locked down the economy and times are tough but that is no excuse to not pay your property tax"

and

b) "We've locked down the economy and times are tough so that is a good excuse to not pay your rent."

hometruths

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its the same reason that unpaid rent is not included in landlord insurance in Ireland- but is elsewhere. Tenents know they can play the system and get away with it. Providing they don't cause damage to a unit- a landlord is unlikely to waste his/her time chasing them anyway.

Exactly. Solve that problem and you'll go a long to way to removing incentives for landlord to keep units vacant.

edjkdkjdhjkd

The_Conductor wrote: »

Yes- I see all the media about people saving thousands- funny how I don't know anyone who did. Bills went up- sure, some people saved on childcare- but just as likely they massively increased expenditure in other areas. I know I did.

pretty much, even if a couple saved everything it would still not make much difference and would not be the type of money to take a couple with no intention of buying to magically being in a position to capitalize on the property market crash.




Also, for every person who managed to somehow save a decent amount of cash during lockdown, there's likely 10 joe soaps who were put on the Covid payment and are out of pocket.

Mic 1972

The market is very strong, there is no reason for a seller to pull their property off the market now. Chances are they are going to go over asking prices. This is a perfect time to sell.
Whatever it is that is keeping the market going, it remains a mystery.
I don't believe that the Covid payments are responsible for keeping the property value so high

The_Conductor

I'll reply again tomorrow- I'm having difficulty loading this thread, not sure if this will post........

Mic 1972

tom_murphy112 wrote: »

This maybe beyond this thread, but I follow a guy on YouTube based in NYC that does laptop repairs and last year he was looking to rent out a new retail space for his repair business. He basically had so many issues, with how property owners was asking crazy prices and wanted to have really odd clauses in their contracts.

About a year later, he goes over a lot of the places that refused to reduce the rent and are still vacate, I wonder if this will eventually happen here as well - Thoughts ?

Interesting video to watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk5o6cbq_Qs

sorry but this is just a bitter guy who couldn't get the rental properties he wanted. In one case he complained about an old restaurant that was turned into an art gallery. It's none of his business to decide what a LL should do with their property and how they are going to profit from it

Another video is called 'The NYC real estate bubble REFUSES to pop'
I think i know the type guy, we have a few in here :-)