New incentives for landlords may come to light.

You still banging around. This is mad. You're chasing me fella.

Another fallacy.

You're not paying my mortgage, your paying your rent.

And technically, unless your a dole lifers, your employer is paying your rent.

And as I like to say, since my properties are mortgage free, you're paying for my hot tub and sauna!

Appreciate it bruv!

Ultimately there is no difference between "dole lifers" and those that seek perpetual economic rent off the backs of others in society.

Interesting comment. Can you extrapolate on that? Particularly in relation to landlords that also work full time jobs.

thats exactly how it should work. person a cannot afford to buy it or chooses not to. someone else buys it and rents it to them . they take on the risk and cost involved up front and the customer pays for it. person b takes on that themselves along with the risk but also the reward if it works out.

if you go into a tool hire shop and hire out a 1000 euro jack hammer for 100 a day . after 10 days you dont own it but its paid for. the hire shop has recouped their investment less overheads and any future hire for that machine is profit.

These false equivalences are nonsense to be fair. Surely you can see the difference between hiring out a tool from a hire shop and leasing property?

Again, you convert your cost of capital into rental income. Not the capital itself.

I'll spend 100k on a building tomorrow, you can spend 100k on jackhammers and I'll rent you my building to use as your tool-hire business premises. I'm going to demand that you pay me a rent equal to what you take in on renting your 100k worth of jackhammers - deal?

It is not me who is raving. It is ok if you can't understand it. No worries.

I'll repeat it one last time. You swap your cost of capital, i.e the interest, plus some systemic risk you take on, for the rental income.

It is not an economic entitlement for you to outbid someone on something that they need, and expect that the way things work is that that person should now pay for your cost of financing that thing, plus paying all the capital.

Comparing to jackhammers/teleporters/whatever is silly. For one, you are comparing an active business effort with a passive investment. For another thing, those things are basically consumed. Your 100k jackhammers will likely be worth a lot less in 10 years than my 100k building. Do you not agree?

Core problem is the market commodification of residential housing. Homes. The dial is completely maxed to 11 on this. In many ways its reverting back to the land league times.

Oke Dokey. Let's suppose you want to set up a business tomorrow. @listermint will take out a mortgage and outbids you on a specific premises you need worth 1m that he mortgages for 20 years, and rents it to you at a price such that he will have the mortgage fully paid off in that time. When the 20 years are up, you give him back his original capital inflation protected (i.e just hand back the property).

You also need a loan of 1m to set up the business. Due to a change in the law, only certain people can give loans so you are stuck with dealing with one of us. I go to the financial markets, borrow 1m off them which I will fully pay off over 20 years, and I give it to you and charge you enough to cover my interest and capital repayments. When the 20 year are up, you give me back my original capital inflation protected (i.e. hand me back 1m in real terms ..... or if you want to mirror the above, you have to give me a lump sum equal to the then value of the building in question).

You probably think that the first one is fair but agree that the second one is not how things should work in terms of repayments for the loan. But in both cases you are getting 1m of capital. In both cases you are paying for the use of that capital at a rate that covers the interest and capital repayments for the person who loaned it to you. And at the end, you are handing back the capital in real terms.

In both cases, in reality. what you should be getting charged is a spread over the cost of the capital. That spread will compensate for risk etc. You don't include the capital itself in repayments.

No it didn't. There was a proposed purchase and it did not proceed.

Now, can you show me one single example of an investment fund buying an estate of houses - if not, amend your post

Maybe check more up to date information. The deal did not proceed.

There is even as thread here for the individuals who purchased their homes in that estate.

You got to love the people who want to decide how much money or profit a landlord should make. They hear about the risks but just want to dismiss it and point out profit that MAY have been made. We also have the assumptions that all landlords are generational wealth but if not any other support they have gotten means they are the same.

Out of my grandparents 3 grew up in tenements in Dublin the other raised on a farm with 9 siblings with only one getting the farm which was not my grandparent. One of my parents grew up in a tenement until 5 and then they got a council house which they rented and then bought later on. So no generational wealth but one of them got state housing. The council sold the house to them for the expressed view it would get them off state aids.

My father worked extra jobs to buy the property his mother grew up in as a tenement. He fixed up the building using builders, then sold it for a profit. That is a lot of tax he paid between the labour, materials, purchase (stamp duty) and capital gains. He then bought another property using section 23 which was to encourage people to invest in property. Again the property was rundown and not habitable. I was there with the rest of my family fixing up that place. He kept it and then did the same with another property. According to some all that work means nothing.

So we his children saw this and did similar. I guess that makes it generational wealth as parents helped with deposits on initial homes but they didn't give us deposits for additional properties but we still did labour and paid for labour to fix the places.

The other thing is passive income is not what it is. The amount of domestic disputes with tenants is ever present whether partners or just housemates it comes up all the time. Had an argument with one another so somebody moves out and now the rent is short. More than one dead person so many violent threats and a few attacks. Gardai calling about tenants, pure destruction of property, maintenance calls and emergency calls. One tenant would regularly lose his keys and ring late at night to come down and let them in etc... No way a passive income.

Going back to my mother the council house neighbours are either the children or grandchildren of the original tenants. They never managed to take the leg up and just remained in the housing and never getting higher paid/skilled jobs than their parents. Certain people want to blame the people who took the leg up and ran with it and not only that they want to take it away and give it to the people who did nothing to help themselves with the same leg up. Many of these people have no qualms about fiddly state benefits and working under the table.

What's your point? Any business that hasn't made a profit over the last decade has gone out of business. More importantly any business whose outgoings exceed its receipts will be insolvent unless it has a magic money tree to plug the gap. Maybe landlords have such a tree which allows them to charge a rent for a property which is less than its mortgage payment. Or maybe some people only want cash rich property investors who can hoover up all residential rental property and then out of the goodness of their institutional hearts rent them out to tenants at low rents because they dont have any mortgage payments and own the property outright. I mean why should they charge any rent really cos they're so rich.

Please educate me so. There would be few enough which would not have a forward sale agreed so that they get finance. Also where it is build to rent for apartments there are lower standards. Please tell me which developers have built whole estates and the. Sold them off at the end with no pre agreement. They would be few and far between. You might not know as the sale might only be announced at the end but that’s not the same thing. The developers need finance and the easiest way to get finance is via a presale.