Investment Firms Buying Estates

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

You don’t think circumstances like construction costs, nimby objections, crushing state debt are different now?

I guarantee you, if an LA applies for planning for social housing, the objections would be loud and prolonged.

So what? renting from the private sector works out cheaper does it?

lawrencesummers

The Student wrote: »

We as a State can't afford to. We can't afford more capital debt on our balance sheet.

Please don't say we can borrow at 0% interest. Yes we can but when we go to refinance and the interest rate goes up we have to service that loan so our costs as a State go up.

We don't do social housing well history shows us that. Why do you think social housing areas have the reputation they have. Deal with the causes of the reputation and the stigma of living in these areas would disappear.

Until these issues,are dealt with we will continue on the course we are on.

Where is the rent that is being paid to private landlords coming from so?

And why not have REIT funds pay tax on rental income like indigenous landlords pay if money is the problem.

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

So what? renting from the private sector works out cheaper does it?

Probably.

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

I suspect he thinks they should be building on an industrial scale so that LA does not compete anywhere with private buyers.

What’s an industrial scale?

How many are on housing lists? Take that figure and build 20% of that demand every year for 5 years, or 18% or it for 5 years. Or 15% for 6 years.

The LA needs to massively increase their construction of new property.

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

Probably.

It doesn’t.

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

What’s an industrial scale?

How many are on housing lists? Take that figure and build 20% of that demand every year for 5 years, or 18% or it for 5 years. Or 15% for 6 years.

The LA needs to massively increase their construction of new property.

If the numbers on housing lists is small, it shouldn’t have that much effect on the private market, if the numbers are high, then large scale building projects would be necessary. You think that can be done quickly, easily and without incredible costs? It would be easier, quicker and cheaper to buy existing properties.

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

It doesn’t.

Prove it.

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

Prove it.

Dont need to prove the obvious.
Feel free to disprove it.

The Student

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Where is the rent that is being paid to private landlords coming from so?

And why not have REIT funds pay tax on rental income like indigenous landlords pay if money is the problem.

The rent being paid (via HAP etc) is coming from tax revenue. Remember half the rent the State pays to private landlords goes straight back to the State.

Let's look at a simple example. Cost to build a house for the State is say 200k. Rent for same house is 2k per month before tax so 1k after tax. So instead of the State putting a debt of €200k on its books now it has a current expense of €12k.

The State does not have to kit out the house, does not have to maintain it, does not have the risk of non payment of rent, does not have any of the costs associated with providing the house.

All in all its not a bad deal for the State. Is it a good long term solution? No but the Govt are not interested in the long term. TD's are only interested in getting elected nothing more nothing less.

While REITs don't pay income tax their shareholders do when they get their income for example private pensions paid to pensioners whose pension is invested in REITs.

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Dont need to prove the obvious.
Feel free to disprove it.

Right, so when you state “it doesn’t” work out cheaper, but you don’t know why?

My counterpoint would be the cost of land, cost of building (materials for which apparently has gone up 30% recently) cost of planning, collecting rent, maintaining properties, cost evicting errant/non paying tenants, cost of properties which are abandoned fall into disrepair and remain empty etc all of this costs are currently borne by the private property owner, but you think it’s cheaper to build?

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

If the numbers on housing lists is small, it shouldn’t have that much effect on the private market, if the numbers are high, then large scale building projects would be necessary. You think that can be done quickly, easily and without incredible costs? It would be easier, quicker and cheaper to buy existing properties.

If you take social housing in isolation then it might be easier to rent or buy instead of build. Easier and faster but not cheaper.

What the government has done is look at housing in isolation over the last decade, they want to put a dent in homelessness and social housing numbers and they have focused only on that.

The entire property market has been ignored by focusing on only some aspects and first time buyers are now a big and growing part of the problem.

When you propose a change to one aspect of the housing market it has a knock on effect to others. So provide a solution to social housing by buying new homes and you create a problem elsewhere.

Everything ultimately boils down to a lack of supply, what exasperates the problem is the terrible way the small amount of supply is divided, but it’s only a symptom of the problem.

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

Right, so when you state “it doesn’t” work out cheaper, but you don’t know why?

My counterpoint would be the cost of land, cost of building (materials for which apparently has gone up 30% recently) cost of planning, collecting rent, maintaining properties, cost evicting errant/non paying tenants, cost of properties which are abandoned fall into disrepair and remain empty etc all of this costs are currently borne by the private property owner, but you think it’s cheaper to build?

The house has to be built either way.

I’m yet to see the private sector give houses to the LA’s for free.

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

If you take social housing in isolation then it might be easier to rent or buy instead of build. Easier and faster but not cheaper.

What the government has done is look at housing in isolation over the last decade, they want to put a dent in homelessness and social housing numbers and they have focused only on that.

The entire property market has been ignored by focusing on only some aspects and first time buyers are now a big and growing part of the problem.

When you propose a change to one aspect of the housing market it has a knock on effect to others. So provide a solution to social housing by buying new homes and you create a problem elsewhere.

Everything ultimately boils down to a lack of supply, what exasperates the problem is the terrible way the small amount of supply is divided, but it’s only a symptom of the problem.

Again, you are ignoring the responsibility of the buyer to cut their clothe according to their needs. If you can’t buy where you want for the price you want, consider other options. I, as a taxpayer do not owe you the opportunity to buy the house you want.

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The house has to be built either way.

I’m yet to see the private sector give houses to the LA’s for free.

I have no idea what this means in the context of our discussion. A house does not have to be built, and why would the private sector give a free house to the LA? The LA buys the house or rents it from the owner. If they buy the finished product, they cut out the hassle and movable costs of building. Dear God has the children’s hospital and schools debacle not taught us anything about large scale government building projects.

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

Again, you are ignoring the responsibility of the buyer to cut their clothe according to their needs. If you can’t buy where you want for the price you want, consider other options. I, as a taxpayer do not owe you the opportunity to buy the house you want.

Cut your cloth to measure is all well and good, everybody knows that.

But the problem here isn’t an individual one, it’s the systemic problems that exist in the property market because of policy the government has implemented and they can but won’t change.

Funny that you cite yourself as a taxpayer, when the people doing the best from property in Ireland are not taxpayers. I hope that irony isn’t lost on you the way many other concepts are.

pioneerpro

Dav010 wrote: »

Now we have huge volumes of rental properties coming on stream, but still not enough to drive rents downward

We've more than enough to drive rents downward, the problem is the amount of residential property:

1. Left empty rather than offered at a reduced rent due to RPZ and Balance Sheet implications
2. Tied up for 10+ years in the 'fair deal' scheme

yet we don’t want that anymore, we want to own our own houses where we want to live.

No, we want a *home*. When rented accommodation affords you practically no rights, or ability to have pets or overnight guests in a number of circumstances, then yes the only other sustainable alternatives to homelessness in this country involve buying property.

Again, you are ignoring the responsibility of the buyer to cut their clothe according to their needs. If you can’t buy where you want for the price you want, consider other options. I, as a taxpayer do not owe you the opportunity to buy the house you want.

'Cutting their cloth according to their needs' in this context quite literally means voluntarily unemployment and generational social welfare dependency. As that's the reality for anyone not already on HAP or some form of rent subsidy where rent is higher than the equivalent mortgage, but the valuation is higher than the 3.5x cap.

You know where people are getting continuously gazumped at the moment? The ~300-350k end of the market. This alone should refute any nonsense about 'cutting cloth' given the cost of building a new home now stands at €371,000, according to the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland.

Be it by sheer arrogance and willful ignorance about the housing market or some misplaced sense of moral righteousness, but you'd actually be shooting yourself in the foot if your draconian nonsense was enforced.

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Cut your cloth to measure is all well and good, everybody knows that.

But the problem here isn’t an individual one, it’s the systemic problems that exist in the property market because of policy the government has implemented and they can but won’t change.

Funny that you cite yourself as a taxpayer, when the people doing the best from property in Ireland are not taxpayers. I hope that irony isn’t lost on you the way many other concepts are.

Unfortunately your lack of understanding extends to taxation. The investment funds are also taxpayers, they legally avoid paying high taxes by using the taxation legislation available to them.

There has never been a time when individuals could afford to buy where they wanted for the price they wanted. It’s a fallacy, markets go through peaks and troughs, 10 years ago you might have had your choice of properties. It is simplistic to think that changing one policy will not affect another.

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

Unfortunately your lack of understanding extends to taxation. The investment funds are also taxpayers, they legally avoid paying high taxes by using the taxation legislation available to them.

There has never been a time when individuals could afford to buy where they wanted for the price they wanted. It’s a fallacy, markets go through peaks and troughs, 10 years ago you might have had your choice of properties. It is simplistic to think that changing one policy will not affect another.

So they are taxpayers that don’t pay tax.

Thanks for that delightful nugget of information.

Ace2007

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Everything ultimately boils down to a lack of supply, what exasperates the problem is the terrible way the small amount of supply is divided, but it’s only a symptom of the problem.

You keep saying that supply is the issue - it's not - it's people unwillingness to move outside of Dublin or their chosen location - go on daft.ie. or myhome.ie right now and anyone who is looking to buy a house within their budget will find it in Ireland. The problem is that it's not in Dublin or where they want to live.

Dav010

pioneerpro wrote: »

We've more than enough to drive rents downward, the problem is the amount of residential property:

1. Left empty rather than offered at a reduced rent due to RPZ and Balance Sheet implications
2. Tied up for 10+ years in the 'fair deal' scheme



No, we want a *home*. When rented accommodation affords you practically no rights, or ability to have pets or overnight guests in a number of circumstances, then yes the only other sustainable alternatives to homelessness in this country involve buying property.



'Cutting their cloth according to their needs' in this context quite literally means voluntarily unemployment and generational social welfare dependency. As that's the reality for anyone not already on HAP or some form of rent subsidy where rent is higher than the equivalent mortgage, but the valuation is higher than the 3.5x cap.

You know where people are getting continuously gazumped at the moment? The ~300-350k end of the market. This alone should refute any nonsense about 'cutting cloth' given the cost of building a new home now stands at €371,000, according to the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland.

Be it by sheer arrogance and willful ignorance about the housing market or some misplaced sense of moral righteousness, but you'd actually be shooting yourself in the foot if your draconian nonsense was enforced.

This is mostly nonsense.

While I do agree that RPZ legislation is counterproductive and hindering rent decreases, for the most part renters would argue that it benefits them. This will be particularly evident in a few months when demand surges.

It is a unique viewpoint to say tenants have “no rights” considering that tenancy legislation is very biased, in favour of the tenant.

This is the attitude I find unacceptable, you choose unemployment coupled with state support rather than moving to a job/area where you can afford to live.

When bidding on a property, the risk of being outbid by someone with more money is inherent. Is this new to you?

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

So they are taxpayers that don’t pay tax.

Thanks for that delightful nugget of information.

You are welcome.

Just to clarify, are you saying that they are not submitting income tax returns yearly, or is it that you don’t understand that a taxpayer can have a low/zero tax liability?

lawrencesummers

Ace2007 wrote: »

You keep saying that supply is the issue - it's not - it's people unwillingness to move outside of Dublin or their chosen location - go on daft.ie. or myhome.ie right now and anyone who is looking to buy a house within their budget will find it in Ireland. The problem is that it's not in Dublin or where they want to live.

There are plenty of house for sale in Detroit also.

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

You are welcome.

Just to clarify, are you saying that they are not submitting income tax returns yearly, or is it that you don’t understand that a taxpayer can have a low/zero tax liability?

This isn’t a hard concept to get. Talk about returns all you want but it’s irrelevant.

Funds don’t pay tax on rental income.

Indigenous landlords do.

It’s not that hard to understand how completely wrong that is.

nimrod86

Dav010 wrote: »

It’s not unachievable, but it’s like saying to a new graduate, start putting money into a pension straight away. It might be prudent, but that does not mean they see it as high on their list of priorities at that stage of their life.

I know among my friends I'm the exception, but I started working at 21 and immediately put in the max contribution to my pension, saved €1000/month into a savings account, and last autumn I bought my own house at aged 24.

Definitely something that can be done if you have the mindset, but most people I know my age are spending any spare cash on nights out, holidays, and cars (well less of the holidays and nights out the past year, but they seem to be finding other ways to spend the money regardless)

pioneerpro

While I do agree that RPZ legislation is counterproductive and hindering rent decreases, for the most part renters would argue that it benefits them. This will be particularly evident in a few months when demand surges.

Anecdotal rubbish. As proven by the amount of apartments left empty rather than reduced in rent. Rent control has demonstrably *never* worked.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/

Sadiq Khan making the same dogwhistle argument for years. San Fran study cited to curb his appetite.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47028342

It is a unique viewpoint to say tenants have “no rights” considering that tenancy legislation is very biased, in favour of the tenant.

Lmfao. Short of the fact its very hard to enforce evictions, we've practically no rights or long-term rental accommodations compared to almost anywhere on the continent. Belgium in particular puts us to complete shame, and shines a serious light on the 'benefits' of Section IV Tenancy - without getting started on the absolute disgrace that is owner-occupied or licensee rights (i.e. you basically have none).

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/housing-crisis-what-the-rest-of-the-world-can-teach-ireland-1.4150007

This is the attitude I find unacceptable, you choose unemployment coupled with state support rather than moving to a job/area where you can afford to live.

Ah yes, the famous 'move to Roscommon or get the boat to England'. Very sustainable stuff. You do realise that in low employment areas that HAP and social welfare has put a significant artificial floor on the market? Even if your arrogance accorded with reality, it's not an answer to anything.

When bidding on a property, the risk of being outbid by someone with more money is inherent. Is this new to you?

Being outbid for ex-social stock sold for pennies on the Euro in the 80s, against the very same council I'm funding, is a very new and unnatural phenomenon. No amount of puerile Randian-economic soapboxing is about to legitimise it as a required or remotely desirable outcome.

Ace2007

lawrencesummers wrote: »

There are plenty of house for sale in Detroit also.

Yea but your talking about supply of houses in Ireland, and saying that we have an issue, when in reality the issues is supply of houses in certain parts of Ireland that some people want to live in. A poster yesterday said that he's being pushed out of the market in South Dublin where they have been looking for a year, and wants that location because of support bubbles. Head in the sand stuff - people need to get with reality. If you can't afford what you want they buy where you can afford.

Investment funds and the likes are coming in and offering financing to developers to get home and apartments built. Without this financing the developers wouldn't be able to do borrow the monies required.

Anything that the government do when it comes to building usually turns into a disaster - for example the Children's Hospital - if this were a private company funding and building it - it would have been done 10 years ago for a fifth of the price, but most likely won't be done for another 5.

For all their flaws, the private sector and the investment funds, get stuff built.

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

This isn’t a hard concept to get. Talk about returns all you want but it’s irrelevant.

Funds don’t pay tax on rental income.

Indigenous landlords do.

It’s not that hard to understand how completely wrong that is.

Funds pay the tax they are required by Revenue to pay, ergo they are taxpayers.

The Student

lawrencesummers wrote: »

There are plenty of house for sale in Detroit also.

With respect this comment suggests a sense of entitlement. An entitlement to live where you want even if you can't afford to.

pioneerpro

For all their flaws, the private sector and the investment funds, get stuff built.

Ah yeah, and 20 years down the line when the companies have long folded and no one is legally liable, then the private buyer and the council have to cough up for fire remediation works or we end up with another Grenfell disaster.

Going to cost the state alone over €1 billion to remedy. Properties can neither be rented or sold until brought up to code.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/repairs-to-defective-apartments-could-cost-more-than-1bn-1.4424879

Jizique

Dav010 wrote: »

Funds pay the tax they are required by Revenue to pay, ergo they are taxpayers.

And if they are not required to pay tax?
I am far from a leftie (except left handed) but the willingness of the govt to defend the fact these funds do not pay tax on a similar basis to the rest of us is appalling.
Screw over the middle class, Levy our pension funds just after a market collapse, but no tax for property funds.
It is just like their opposition to Apple paying tax; indefensible.