Winter 21/22 Eviction Ban (was: And just like that, FFFG lose 298000 votes))

If the theory is that new "buy to let" purchases (due to tax breaks) will reduce the pool of homes available in the "first time buyer" pool, and in turn drive up the house prices.

Surely the inverse is true. That if you get more houses moving from buy to let into FTB pool, then those prices should fall.

40% of houses being sold are by landlords leaving, and they are going into the FTB pool as no landlords are entering, but the prices are not going down??

Weird.

Well you are talking about percentages rather than absolute numbers and not giving any comparison at that. You can see the graph I posted above which shows that there hasn't been a significant increase in the number of units actually sold.

Rents are already far above mortgage repayments. Let's take the extreme of 0% tax on rental income. Suppose a private buyer (doesn't have to be FTB) can get a maximum mortgage which results in a 1,500 a month mortgage. But at the same time a more wealthy investor knows that if they outbid that buyer, so that their resulting mortgage is 1600 per month, then they can safely rent it to the private buyer for 2,500 a month. What do you think the result will be?

In buying an asset like that, you are substituting interest for rent. Many on here appear to expect to substitute interest and capital repayments for rent. That is only the case in a dysfunctional market. It is not the way it should be.

But what you should take from Kris landlord story is the fact that nobody has an issue with paying that tax in Poland and there are no rental crisis in Poland so their rental market works despite the fact that their population is so much bigger than us.

A €1,600 a month mortgage will get you a mortgage of just under €300,000. Good luck getting a house for 300k that you can rent fo 2500

It's your argument, the onus is on you to make it coherent.

If you want to invent hypothetical scenarios that have no bearing in reality to prove your point then how is that my problem?

Houses in my estate are selling for €272K. The AMV rent is €1,200.

If buy a house and then put it up for rent at 2,500 it just won't rent. It's not going to drive up rent prices, it's not going to drive up house prices. It's just going to leave me with an empty house and massive debt to manage.

The only way it might work is if you get someone in their 20s that can take a 35-40 year mortgage to keep the payments low enough that the 0% tax bonus would mean they can almost cover the mortgage and other costs without having to dip into their pocket too much.

Incentivize private sector to house homeless

No tax, no rtb registration, grants where vacant or offices refurbished to living accommodation and less regulation on standards.

If anyone is hard done by there an army of homeless charities competing for clients.

Idiot politicians squabbling about an unconstitutional eviction ban need to scrap RPGs ffs all barriers no action's.

It's a socialist dream to take out LLs regardless of the well flag consequences it to late no investors will trust govt unless the scrap rtb and rpz

What will be there next target foreign investment ?

Yep, good point.

So the LL would need to hold the property with family in situ for X period if they wanted to sell on the open market.

Still unsure as to whether the LL has to accept the offer from the Tenant of LHA, as long as it mstches the IV.

That part is interesting.

The usual confused waffle from you. You used first timer buyer rates rather than the higher buy to let rates to illustrate your trolling.

Would you agree with the removal of all "socialist" State subsidies then? I definitely would. All HAP payments etc. to be stopped tomorrow.

Let rents fall to their actual market level rather than having the State give massive subsidies to private property owners and inflating property prices.

Something like 50% of all renters receive some assistance. Presumably that is because they can't afford the level of rent. Pull that artificial intervention and let rents find their actual market level.

Unfortunately for yourself, your stats simply reinforce what I am saying.

As I am sure you are aware, the tax credit was being brought in retrospectively. Many of the non-tax compliant fleeing the market would have registered as landlords for 2022. They would have done so for 2022 and hoped that if they left that there would be no audit of their previous years.

Your stats support this - the overall number of houses sold was broadly in line with previous years but the number of those marked down as rentals jumped whereas the number of non-rentals went down significantly

Don't worry about it. It's ok if you can't follow it. It was a few posts in a chain. Perhaps someone there could help walk you through it?

The comparison was between a tenant buying a house vs. paying rent on it. The figures used were simply illustrative. 1,600 for the persons mortgage vs them paying rent of 2,500 for the same house. Other poster got confused - apparently thinking I was giving a legally binding quote or something - and decided to tell us that for 1,600 the person could only get a mortgage of 300k (which is wrong, but irrelevant anyway) and that they wouldn't pay 2,500 rent for that house.

Does that make it any easier to understand? I'm afraid I can't really make it any more simple. Why on earth do you think that the tenant would get a buy-to-rent mortgage to buy a house to live in themeselves? You do know there are other types - right?

Well put a different figures on it if you think the point is illogical. Lets suppose the person can get a mortgage for 1500 or the other person can outbid them and charge them rent of 1550..... Is that any better to explain the concept? Will that make you happy? I don't know where the other poster is going on about me saying the tenant needs a but-to-let mortgage

(That is even before you get into the other point that the rent is swapped for the mortgage interest, not mortgage interest + capital repayments)