Excellent article on how important small landlords are and how screwing them over hasn't worked

And the state housing estates and social housing tenants going into rent arrears has worked so well for Ireland. At least with privatisation this would not happen (if we had a functioning market) without the state telling the private landlord to do its bidding but under the States rules!

Capitalism is by its very nature effecient and effective. Something the State has and will never be!

Actually institutional investors have greatly increased the number of units they own and bring to the rental market. Bad as it is, it would be exponentially worse were it not for those corporate investors. The rental sector is not highly volatile, in fact it has remained under supplied for some time and will continue to be for years.

There are many existing landlord who have been in the business for years and have their loans paid off who are delighted with the way things are going. Rents are massive. I met a landlord the other day who has an apartment bought for 40k in 1996 on a 100% loan which is paid off and now earning 1500 a month. He has a good reliable tenant for the last 3 years who ios causing no problems. When it goes empty it may well be 1700.

There was very little money invested. 100% loan. Tax relief on 26k of the rental income in addition to interest relief. 18k a year less service charge of 1500 and another 500 for repairs and renewals means a taxable income of 16k even at 52% the has €150 a week plus capital gain. The work mainly involves checking the bank account to see that the rent has come in every month and making a transfer for the service charges every year.

40k in 1996 is still about 75k in today's money. If it was a 100% loan too, with the repayments, by the end of the term they are going to have paid around 100-120k. Even if they are the luckiest landlord in the world and get away with €500 a year in repairs and upkeep (my average is about 2K). That and the service charge is another 50K.

You are still looking at around the 150-170k mark of an investment of their own money. To earn that 150K they had to actually earn 300K in rental income.

So after earning 300K, waiting 25 years, providing a service for 25 years, being on call 24/7 for 25 years. They now earn €150 a week.

.....and its disturbing to see how some are still living in denial, once again, our property markets are currently in a state of collapse, our approaches to date, i.e. financialisation have completely failed, period!

yes institutional investors have indeed increased the number of units, but this is coming at a cost, in rising long term insecurity, precariousness of markets, as their ultimate goal is to maximize outcomes, no matter what, even if it means selling up after a short period etc. this also gives them a more favorable position for monopolisation of these markets, crowding out alternatives such as small time landlords. small time landlords simply cannot compete with these larger players, in nearly every way, forcing them out of markets. this in turn creates a positive feedback loop, whereby the only true gainers are these major investors, giving them a more favorable position in regards the design and outcomes of public policies, they basically end up writing public policy, dictating there outcomes, primarily for their gains!!

this approach is over, its also not just evident in property markets, but in many if not most other markets, with more or less the same outcomes! again, this just creates perfect rent seeking markets, whereby everything is owned by minorities, and we re all forced to jump to their needs, and they continually call the shots, effectively making our whole democratic and political process virtually useless, sound familiar!

Considering the number one reason for landlords leaving the industry, as well as the number one reason those with empty properties just leave them empty, is that they can't make money due to the tax rate I'd say it would go a long way.

If being a landlord was such easy money why isn't everyone doing it? We should have a rental market with landlords falling over themselves to build houses and rent them out.

There was a Section 23 allowance of on the property when he bought itin 1996. The property netted out at 26k for purchase. I never said every landlord was in a similar position but many are. The ones in a good position keep their mouths shut. All the bleating is coming from those who bought during the Celtic Tiger period and foolishly overstretched themselves.

TBF it has been alluded to that this would only be where LL charge below this amount, above it all rental income would be taxed.

Having said that it's not feasible. A lot of LL would be no better off. As I pointed out in another post it tweaking of the system for the smaller LL with 1-3 properties.

The real gain might be on encouraging those with vacant properties to consider leasing them. It's becoming a real issue with those that inherit property or those who's family are in nursing homes having no interest in renting property because of costs involved.

I am seeing more and more this happening. A few structured reliefs could resolve this.

A 3kiah rental tax free allowance on first 2-3 properties.

A business relief off 100k per house on sale where owner is in the business 10+ years and over 60 years old of age on first 3-5 houses

The allowing of pre rental expenses where there is a necessity to upgrade house before renting.

Allowing smaller LL where rent is below prevailing market rates to increase that by 5%+/year

Where tenant is not paying rent for there to be a mechanism to evict faster

BS as I posted earlier in generally a lot of section 23 property ( especially in smaller urban and holiday area) has failed to hold it value.

As well it's not just Celtic tiger accidental LL that are exiting the market. Those with below market rents are also selling up. Some that bough property from 2014-2016 where there is a 5 year capital gain exemptions are also exiting because of f strong market prices.

There is a bit of f a stampede at present. Many smaller LL's were afraid you would have to sell with tenants Insitu.

The problem is the RTB, not tax. The big institutional landlords are able to pick the cream of tenants and thus minimise the risk of loss. Their tenants are almost invariable you well paid professionals who can afford the rent, don't want to get a bad name and who will buy a property themselves or leave the country after a few years. If they encounter an occasional problem with a delinquent tenant is is only a flea bite. They can afford the time and money to resolve it. The one unit landlord is left with the less desirable tenant and if a tenant turns out to be delinquent, their loss is potentially ruinous.

A lot of Section 23 made mone. Consider this one

https://www.daft.ie/for-sale/apartment-51-the-redmill-brunswick-street-smithfield-dublin-7/3901356

Would have sold for 80K new in 1997, Sec 23 of 65 K. Now asking €325k. Netting out the Sec 23 allowances it cost €60k, so a five fold increase. The rent would have paid the loan off in the years since leaving a nice surplus.

I still find this exclusion of pre-letting expenses ridiculous. Imagine someone starting a restaurant and told the can't claim for renovating the property and fitting it out. They can only start claiming for things after they've served their first customer.

Not sure what Revenue were ever trying prevent, was it people buying stuff that they kept for themselves and put through as expenses?