The eviction ban

Just looking at an RTE article today.

Does anyone else get the impression that the Government are a bit out of touch on this issue? The emphasis seems to be keeping people in their homes rather than have the burden of having move to alternative accommodation.

Obviously, being able to stay where you are is fantastic, but isn't the real problem not that you might have to move but rather that there may not be anywhere to move to?

What the government seems to be putting together is a Potemkin Village: fantastic for the few who benefit but failing the majority who are at risk.

Solutions only have to be as complicated as you want to make them. They can also be kept simple - 20% stamp duty charged on all property, Exemption to anyone buying a property they have been a tenant in for longer than a year. Clawback if subsequently sold or rented out within 10 year period

Simples

Usually when someone is selling a house they put it on the market at a price that competitive with other houses on the market in the area, usually lower if they want to sell quickly or start a bidding war, higher if they are prepared to wait but that is the sellers choice. I know when I was selling it was around the asking price for property in the area, the worse thing was having to give the tenants notice to leave even though it was coming to the end of the contract, this was 2019 when things were bad but not as bad as now. I would have sold the place to the LA if the people renting could have stayed but firstly they were offering a lower price than I would get on the open market and secondly they weren't interested. The tenants were HAP tenants at the time. I don't mind the buying in situ scheme but only if the LA's or tenants are open to some negotiating and not well this is what we are giving and you have to accept. They will be told to F off if that's the case.

Either they are out of touch or they are doing it willfully. Then main issue as you have said is the lack of availability or options of places for people to move to that is the issue and this is the fear that those renters have and landlords. As I said above I had to give tenants notice that I wasn't renewing the lease as I needed to sell and thankfully they found a better more suitable place to rent within the few months I had given them, I'm not sure they would happen now and then I would be left with headache of do I let them stay till they find a place or do I insist they leave?

And how is the market going to be with the Councils buying with open chequebooks. You can argue about the percentage. I gave an extreme example to explain the idea, but in principle it would work.

What is the sense in the Councils complaining that they don't have the money to buy property, all the while inflating that same property artificially the whole time.

I mean, we are constantly being told that all the landlords want to flee because of the regulations.....so surely they'll still want to sell up. They just won't be able to hold the LA's to ransom..........unless of course you want them to be able to do that?

RTE and Virgin Media leading with foreign news today with no bearing for anyone in Ireland (Trump) ahead of the eviction ban which comes into effect in 3 hours.

Now now. No need for ranting and whataboutery.

Stamp duty on house transactions - for everyone. There will be a sop to landlords in the form that they, and they alone, can effectively sell their property to a sitting tenant for zero (or reduced) stamp duty. Under the proposal, landlords would be advantaged relative to non-landlords.

You need to get over the foreva-handout mentality.

Perhaps you wouldn't get so angry if you tried actually reading posts rather than going off on a mental one.

In response to your apparent assertion that no property can ever be seized, I merely pointed out that that is not correct and gave you examples to the contrary. You going off on a mental one is then you extrapolating that to whatever you were on about. Famine etc. Nowhere did I, or anyone else, propose seizing houses. I merely pointed out that your assertion was wrong.

If you don't like my suggestion above of increasing stamp duty but giving the sop to landlords, perhaps you would prefer an alternate solution of just increasing SD rates but not giving any reliefs to anyone. Would you prefer that?

The concept of the government being able to raise a tax rate might be beyond some people's comprehension, but that should only be a minority. If those people are shocked, imagine what would happen if they heard that SD is currently 7.5% for many transactions, and was much higher in the past.

lols

The only "forcing out of their homes" will be done by landlords forcing tenants out of the tenants homes.

Nobody on this thread suggested any form of compulsory purchase for houses. Only you. It is a strawman. The proposed first refusal scheme will not even be a compulsory purchase. It will be that if a landlord willingly decides to sell, they will have to give first refusal to the tenant. But that comes AFTER they willingly decide to sell.

And no, your assertion on buying property to build a road happens more than you think. A lot of land is CPO'd for new roads and farms can be destroyed as businesses due to a motorway cutting them in half.

The seller of a house gets as much as the highest amount a buyer is willing and able to pay.

Stamp duty is levied on the buyer, not the seller. Not sure why you are suggesting that the seller will just "increase the price to cover the tax".

If they could "increase the price" today they would do that regardless of the SD level.

And an irrelevant one at that. You might well be talking about something you actually know zero about.

A garage built off a motorway will only be a windfall to the single one that sells the land. It will have no beneficial impact to the neighbouring farmer who now has a round trip journey of 10k to get to the fields he used to be able to walk to in 5 minutes. How many such garages are built? One every 50 miles along a motorway? When such installations are put in place, there will be a service road put in as well, but there will be no public access through it. The only public access is off the motorway itself and there will be no other development allowed around it.

While such bridges you describe do exist, they are very rare and are only constructed in the cases of a very large farm with a very large operation where the assessed damage to the business is more than the cost of building the bridge.

No matter how funny you think it is, there’s a lot of truth in it.

How so?

You can only spend a Euro once. Spend it on anything other than towards your housing and it’s gone forever.

Priorities and all that boring stuff.

Because it's cliched load of crap that doesn't apply to the real world. Most young people's wages go on rent, not fucking avocado toast. FFS. When you have to pay ridiculous rent prices, not to mention all the other basic cost of over priced living necessities, your ability to save for exorbitant mortgages gets severely cut.

I have talked.... Sure you have 😂