Govt to do 'everything' to prevent evictions - McEntee

Whatever reason landlords exit the market is frankly none of your business in a free society. Many could be in financial difficulty with increasing interest rates and can't afford two mortgages. Many may be concerned by the risk of having to pay said mortgages with unpaying tenants in situe.

There is wide interest in state policy and it has repercussions on our ability to fund our society. Strong arm, populist interference in property rights should not to be taken likely by a country so dependent on FDI.

That's well and good once they are aware in advance of the terms and conditions and given the opportunity to exit if those change without having their right to sell revoked without notice.

Your confusion appears to stem from your apparent misbelief that you could not sell your property tomorrow if you wanted to.

Hint: You can.

OK so what about someone who rented their place out while working abroad who now wants to return to their own place and finds themselves homeless in Dublin purely due to a government ban on issuing (6 month!) notice?

What all of this will do is give him/her food for thought before they rent their place out in the first place when going abroad, leaving it empty, and adding one more rental unit worth of people to a queue of hundreds in Kimmage when a place comes free.

If you rent a place out short term you want to be able to return when you choose not when the government chooses.

Anyway he/she receives x in rent net of tax under your nasty scenario above and pays 2x in rent when they return and shut out of their own place by a government ban.

So maybe it's the people looking to implement this who are not the smartest dockets, or the people supporting it.

"When you sign yourself to be a landlord, you are by definition signing over the exclusive use of the property to the tenent, and it's mediated by law. It becomes their home and they are given protections against the whimseys of the property owner."

That's partially true, the constitution doesn't currently recognise the home bit, under the law landlords can give reasonable notice (its a minimum of 6 months). You can't retrospectively apply these concepts to people who, for example, rented their palce out short term on the understanding they would get it back.

There are landlords in the market who want to rent out short term.

If you want to get rid of them, this is a good step toward that, because no-one will risk renting their place out short term.

The net effect of that is less supply.

As for the x/2x, lets take a rent of 2k per month, net of tax etc. landlord receives ~1k, probably that goes toward partially paying the mortgage, whatever it's irrelevant.

They return and rent a similar place that costs them net of tax 2k.

It isn't rocket science. Plus they take on the risk of a tenant that stops paying and the eviction delays etc.

Simply not worth it. So we will have less units on the market.

In addition, you can call it a theory if you like but I can tell you it is 100% the case that locking up peoples freedom of choice over selling their property will scare large numbers out of the market, it's just obvious.

Anyone arguing otherwise is just engaging in short term thinking either because they are in genuine fear of evictions in the near term which is understandable or because they are politicians responsible for the fall out with an eye on the election.

This isn't a solution, it will mean less units available for rent in the longer term, anyone who isn't renting, i.e. most of the politicians involved, clearly don't have the long term good of the housing market in mind.

You seek a percentage increase on the total rental income for landlords by basing it on a reference to CPI referring to increase in cost.

The CPI is 10% but the majority of costs for landlords are fixed.

What proportion of your own rental income is going towards things that are increasing with inflation?

It was a simple question. What proportion of your rental income is going towards expenses related to that housing that increase with inflation? 10%, 50%, 90%, 110%?

Is it that you don't want to say because you understand the logical point I'm making and you don't like it, or that you just don't know? I'm not expecting an exact precise answer like 57.1342%. Just a rough idea.

You're just frantically throwing out word salad there. You were asked a simple question which what proportion of the rental income that you receive from your property is spent on expenses from that property which are subject to inflation?

Do you understand what a question is? Ironically, given that the answer appears to be "no", there is probably no point in me asking that one either!

If you can get that far, can you please enlighten us as to how asking a question is "not consistent" with whatever position you are imagining in your head alongside fantasies of State seizures of property and making selling property illegal.

If anyone is reverse engineering a boogyman it's you, trying to blame private landlords for the housing crisis and suggesting that they are responsible for shouldering the burden of long term housing for the state. You also have some magical idea that once someone enters into a short term lease agreement it becomes their forever home. Simply not the case under any existing law or legislation. There is plenty of scope to have long term lease agreements between landlord and tenant under existing legislation, if landlords are not keen on entering into those and want to exit the market they should be free to do so and not have their property seized by stealth changes.

Removing property rights is not a solution to anything, it's political desperation stemming from years of bad policy decisions.

I've given you an obvious example where we need short term rentals, you've first suggested that it would be good for people who are foolish enough to rent out short term to spend some time homeless to get a taste for what it's like and now you are pivoting to a new argument on FDI.

I agree that a housing crisis is not good for FDI, but I don't agree that private landlords are responsible for the housing crisis.

No sensible person would make that argument.

Well I’m glad I am no longer a landlord and I feel no shame in owning up to not being cut out for it. I only ever had one tenant and it wasn’t a good experience.

So I’ve gone down the Airbnb route and I absolutely love it and they love me and the house based on all the reviews so far.