Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Govt to do 'everything' to prevent evictions - McEntee

Options
1121315171823

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    Does that mean people can't sell their properties?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    There is nothing restraining people selling properties during the proposed moritorium. Zilch.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    If tenants can't be evicted then there is nobody going to buy.

    Who would spend so much just to take on hassle.

    What a country.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,519 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    They can't be evicted for no fault reasons during the time limited moritorium correct. Still nothing restraining a sale. You may be surprised who would buy if the price was right.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Just in case certain posters who think the sky is falling down and Ireland has turned into the Soviet Union, France in fact imposes an annual winter eviction ban (trêve hivernale). France appears to be still standing last time I was there a few months ago. Quite nice actually.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    Lol yeah

    Very functional .

    Sure go on ruin the surprise and tell me. Also what does if the price was right mean? Is it sell for less than its worth?

    Again totally functional and normal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    But ireland isn't France.

    Bizarre comparison to justify massive government overreach



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Is it a bizzare comparison? It's an inconvenient one for the people who think the sky is falling down I'm quite sure.

    "Massive governement overreach" is hyperbole. I'll repeat, there's nothing restraining someone selling their property during the moritorium. The new owner will have to respect the law and the terms of the moritorium, but there is zero legal restraints on a sale.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    What government promised landlords optimal selling conditions? None. If a minor rebalancing of rights in favour of tenants makes the value of the property slightly lower than otherwise, so what. You're asking everybody to care about that when houseprices are already above Celtic Tiger levels?

    This goes back to a point I made several times in the thread, a large cohort of landlords want the government to provide them with a landlords charter, where their property rights are completely unrestrained and implemented in a maximalist fashion, tax treatment is favourable (as it already is), and the government backstops rising houseprices at every turn.

    Time to grow up, tenants have rights and the government is entitled to legislate in favour of them from time-to-time.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    It will mean very little in terms of people selling their property to be honest. If it's 3 months Dec-Feb it will maximum delay a notice served in June from vacating Dec to vacating March. It won't affect that many properties, 3000 notices to terminate were issued in first 6 months of the year.

    If you issue one now it gives notice up to March which is after the ban and presumably wouldn't be affected at all by the ban.

    Around 1,500 or so notices (based on 3k in 6 months figures) due to end in the Dec- March period will be delayed by 1-3 months.

    What it does do unfortunately is cross the Rubicon in terms of government interference in the rental market, it will immediately kill short term letting supply from people going abroad temporarily etc. and make up the minds of a lot more landlords to exit the market one way or another as it sets a tip of the iceberg precedent, it will be interesting to track the notices to terminate around this.

    So the government gets the populist kudos for sticking up for tenants when in reality they are doing sweet FA for them by delaying any evictions an average of 2 months and worsening the supply problem considerably.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    Well yes there is something restraining people from selling. They can't sell the house empty.

    Its blatantly obvious it is affecting the potential sale of a house

    Don't be trying to pretend you cant see it. Put your ideology aside



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Wouldn't worry too much as any landlords who want to sell will cop on pretty quickly that higher interest rates mean lower selling prices. Investment funds warchests running dry for the same reason.

    Local authorities will be the only game left in town and landlords will end up as price takers.

    So I wouldn't be getting too smug.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,519 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    @Yurt2 I have read over this thread and all the drivel you posted. On the tax reliefs you posted they are all standard tax reliefs. However any work that can be construed as increasing the property value is not totally allowable for tax relief eg. if you replace single glazed with double glazed or replace teak windows or doors with PVC.

    However I am not really interested in getting into drivel like that. The main premises of the drivel you posted

    1 ''landlords are selling because of high house prices and it for the last eighteen months''.

    Totally incorrect according to the RTB the reduction in rental properties started in 2016 at a rye of 2kish, to 3k last year. This year that flow turned into a surge where 4-5k properties are being repossessed to be sold.

    This is in conjunction with so called professional ( REITs) entering the market. The net losses figures by the RTB are net of those being provided by the RTB. Contrary to what @Donald Trump claims these are not just amateur LL's there is a large number of LL's with multiple properties exiting the market.

    Contrary to what you and DT think a substantial number of these LL's will have capital gains tax (33% of any gain) bill on any gain in value so the only reason they are leaving is that the risk has become too large for the investment involved. This makes no sense as it could also invoke inheritance tax in a few years

    Why if being a LL is such a good investment are these LL leaving it simply risk. What has changed in the last 5-6 years to make LL start to flee the market it's basically continual changes in legislation. Every 1k in properties that are removing 250 million in investment from the rental market. It was estimated that 23-25k have exited or are exiting the market since 2016 so 6+ billion has or is leaving the provision of rental premises without being replaced.

    This rot started in 2012 when government decided to abolish bedsits as a rental option.

    2 you second premise that LL will stay if house prices fall( something you give as a fact) which is unlikely.

    The problem is short term let's are now discouraged. The person going abroad for a few years, the house of a person in a nursing home, the home of a person that moves in with children( I have advised an elder person to consider selling rather than considering this instead he has left the house vacant), houses and apartments left vacant to achieve the 2 year work around RPZ rules that now may never return to the rental market. Rentals outside RPZ's are now being switched to aerBnB because of regulations.

    So what will happen next March/ April when this eviction moratorium lapses. There will be an absolute mass serving of eviction notices, they may even be served before that if it legally possible and existing notices will all come due.

    The government had it's chance in the budget to try to encourage the government to stay instead we got this 10k pre letting expenses to encourage LL to re-enter the business. Talk about a laugh you cannot retain those in the business to remain and you want to investors to replace them and you offer them A 10k tax relief carrot which is not enough to refurbish a house to present rental standards and is about half the cost a bad tenant could cost you.

    As I have often told @Donald Trump you are waffling and you like DT need to go to counseling to get treatment for you LL hatred issues

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    For someone who is neither a landlord nor a tenant you seem awfully invested in this short term moratorium.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    That's not restraining the sale. If they want to sell, sell at what price buyers are offering. If they don't like the price don't sell.

    It's amusing that you're asking people to give a sh*t about the value of landlords properties in the sales market at a time of record high prices, when the dynamic changes and they'll probably end up as price takers.

    You'll find very few sympathetic ears, particularly when some landlord posters are threatening to evict tenants because they're in a tight spot in a debate on an internet forum.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Once upon a time I was a renter, I remember what it was like. And I see the social disaster that's going on in the country.

    This may surprise you, but some people are motivated by things other than their own narrow interests when posting and indeed with how they conduct themselves in real life.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,431 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    For all the talk of landlords "fleeing the market" it appears that most of the people who have property for rent on here aren't considering selling Bass.

    Now That's What I Call Waffle 22.


    You cannot expect to have capital investments in your property treated as write-offs for income tax purposes. If that were allowed, then a high rate taxpayer could buy a tiny cottage, extend it and upgrade it. Then rent it out and no income tax to pay, and then effectively pay a delayed tax on their income in the form of capital gains tax at that lower rate. Under the current system, if you buy a house for 100k, spend 20k upgrading it as you say, then you can't offset that 20k against your income. But you can offset it against your capital gains later. The cost basis for the house for CGT purposes will be 120k not 100k. So it is a little dishonest to imply that you can never get any write offs there.


    Anyone who is invested in any market who looks at that market and thinks it is at a peak is better to cash out at the top.

    The only impact that would cause a landlord to "flee" would likely be the upcoming tax credit which will indirectly reward tenants for letting Revenue know who they are paying money to and how much....... is it many landlords? I can't say. But I can tell you that it isn't zero...... And there will be plenty of people sweating over the next few months trying to regularise their affairs.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    I'm not going to respond to that wall of text but I'll deal with the first point for the hell of it.

    Landlord tax credits which I outlined are extremely generous to the point of comedy.

    The headline one of 100 percent relief on interest. That provides an outrageous advantage to landlords in the market and is effectively the exchequer carrying the can for the risk premium that banks build into the mortgage via interest rates. While normal mortgage holders pay down their debts with minimal relief.

    There's plenty of big-talk about "free markets", but crickets when it's when it's pointed out that the exchequer is putting in its hand in its pocket to erase the risk for landlords so they can continue rent extraction with very little to trouble their head.

    A simple thank you to the taxpayers of Ireland would suffice instead of a whinge.

    I understand I have the pro-landlord front boxed into a corner here, so I'll take your desperate ad homenim with good grace.



  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    I was a renter myself, most people have been at some stage. I also had to move as a property I rented was being sold, landlord wanted to free up money to help his daughter buy her own place. Them's the breaks, I signed a lease and I knew the terms. It didn't turn me bitter and make me blame all of my life's woes on landlords.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    I don't blame any woes on landlords. I've been making commentary on the mass whinge from landlords on here when they are an incredibly cosseted sector.

    And I note you're resorting to ad-homenims now as you're thoroughly outboxed.

    And just as "thems the breaks" when you were tossed out on your ear way back then, "thems be breaks" now for landlords via the moritorium. We had pages insisting it was unconstitutional, it was nothing of the sort, and we can say it with greater certainty now that the AG has weighed in.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    And I'd like to point out that I'm not even particularly anti-landlord. I don't particularly care if I'm believed on this point or not.

    But I am anti-whingefest from a certain cohort in the landlord sector who throw a strop every time there's a minor rebalancing of rights in favour of the tenant. Particularly tone-deaf when the state essentially bungs them money and makes it close to zero-risk via a proliferation of extremely generous tax reliefs that no other sector enjoys.

    There was a similar thread a few years ago when the government was introducing restrictions on AirBnBs. We had landlords turned AirBnB cowboys swearing on the Holy Book the government was driving over the constitution with a Sherman tank and they'd march on the Supreme Court. Similar invective was delployed when it was politely pointed out to them that the measures were in fact perfectly congruent with the constitution.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    "It's amusing that you're asking people to give a sh*t about the value of landlords properties in the sales market at a time of record high prices, when the dynamic changes and they'll probably end up as price takers.

    You'll find very few sympathetic ears, particularly when some landlord posters are threatening to evict tenants because they're in a tight spot in a debate on an internet forum"


    You are anti landlord. You are also against the rights of private citizens. Government overreach is good when it suits your agenda. "A minor rebalancing in favour of tenants "

    Talk about an under statement. Double the notice periods and now potentially a ban on eviction.

    Here in Soviet Ireland the tenant evicts the property owner

    Post edited by Tonesjones on


  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Interesting, I saw the usual crowd giving out because tax breaks were mooted for developers to make sure they keep building, saying they shouldn’t get any tax breaks.

    How in the name of Jesus are you going to get them to build if there’s no profit in it?

    Developers don’t have to build and a lot of them have memories of the last crash, ghost estates etc, they’ll just slow building right down if it looks like they can’t cover costs.

    I honestly don’t know how the people in this country can’t join the dots, (If) there’s an eviction ban it will lead to a mass exodus in March (Leo’s right on that one). The answer to all of this is simple it’s the same answer the government had to attract business, lower corporation tax, and look all the multinationals choose Ireland as their base creating jobs.

    Now can you imagine if you reduced the tax on rental income from 52% to 12%? A lot of people would probably invest, because there’s an actual return, people intending to sell might actually hang on instead because they’re making money, rents may drop because of more supply but landlords would still make a decent return.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,431 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    You're not acting in the capacity of a private citizen when you are dealing in a public good - that being the provision of rental housing. Your rights as a private citizen are to own property. Once you decide to rent it out, then that transaction is no longer "private". Any more than a publican deciding he is a "private citizen" and isn't going to serve any travelers or blacks, or the cake maker who refuses to make the "gay cake".

    If you try to get your head around that, it might help you tone down some of the whinging.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,431 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    How would you get them to build? Simply have a properly enforced vacant site levy. Use it or lose it.


    Add in a proper time limit on zonings. If you get an area rezoned for residential and it hasn't been built on within 10 years then make the obvious conclusion that there is no demand for housing in that location and stick a one-way GB zoning on it.


    I would advice you to stay away from renting property if you think there is "no return" in it at present. Anyone who thinks that must not be very good at it. The State should not continue subsidising such inefficient actors and keeping them afloat.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Again your solution is the stick rather than the carrot, stupidity at it’s finest. Plenty of issues with a vacant site levy.



    Also one of the things you don’t seem to get is that when you use a stick, people will fight you and do every thing they can not to comply.

    when you use a carrot or incentivise people then they’ll work with you, do you understand?



  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    Agree, except for the tax breaks and the extent of them, because they currently rely on that rental income tax money to balance the budget. Look at what just happened in the UK with Trussonomics, looking to fund tax breaks for the rich out of the public budget.

    I don't think anyone will make a big move there, but they need to invest somehow. In any investment the longer you tie your money in the higher the yield. Some reduced tax for increased tenures of leases to tie landlords in for 5/10/15 years has already been discussed.

    It's all a moot point because making an honest effort at mitigating landlords leaving the market would require moves that are not going to win them voters from SF. The best they can do now is to be seen to give something token on the landlord side to mitigate a sell off and cover themselves in terms of being able to say that they tried to do something to stop it, but we are in for a big sell off over the next couple of years.

    After dropping the ball on this moratorium fiasco (although it isn't official yet), to return confidence to landlords we would probably need an amendment to the constitution to be explicit on the terms of 'the common good' overriding property rights. Once the box is opened on the government defining 'common good' stuff we have the prospect of a SF government having free rein over property rights. Unfortunately the message they are sending out is: sell, sell, sell over the next two years.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    Your post is exactly the skewed attitude that has landlords selling up.

    You want to control private property then buy your own . Massive government overreach



Advertisement