2 out of 3 young adults living at home

why for you sell up @purifol0 , property prices are as close as they ever will be to the Celtic tigers peeks I hope!

The issue is that you can't manage the risks as you either do not know how to, or don't have the capacity (I mean financial) to do so.

One should never put their eggs into the same basket. Diversification is one of the easiest and most effective way of managing risk.

If 1-in-10 tenants will wreck a place, then if you have 100 apartments to let out, you are going to get 8/9/10/11/12 etc. bad tenants. The risk will be built into your margin. The problem is that if you have only one apartment, then 9 times out of 10 you'll be on the pigs back, but one time out of ten will ruin you. It isn't the market that needs to change to suit you (although things can always be improved, but that's a different topic) the issue is that you probably shouldn't be in that market in the first place.

(Diversification by having multiple properties/tenants only diversifies that actual "bad tenant" risk, not the exposure to the overall housing market.)

Will people renting pump tonnes of money into a house that they don't own? No of course they won't. However the vast majority will look after it as it is literally their HOME while they live there.

How on Earth could other housemates not hear rats running around? We had a couple of mice a couple of winters ago and everyone of us could hear them til we caught them.

Id say most landlords would be only too happy if HAP was cancelled, but only if they are allowed to have theor property back and rent it to someone who can pay the rent themselves. Any landlords ive ever spoken to dont want to be renting to HAP tenants at all.

Because they're the wrong sort of people and EU won't pat them on the head for it.

They might not individually want to rent to a HAP tenant, but they sure as hell want there to be other HAP tenants pushing up rents.

Remove HAP tomorrow and all rents drop. Even for non-HAP completely private renters. What is the mad statistic - isn't it something like 50% of all renters get some form of social contribution towards their rent?

I take it you haven't been renting the last few years from this statement.

Your point of it "not an appealing investment". Let's say a LL has a 300k mortgage on the property that was worth 350k 10 years ago when they purchased. They've been earning 32k per year after tax in the GDA as stated above by https://www.boards.ie/profile/purifol0 . Mortgage payments at todays rate are roughly 2k over 25 years meaning they are making a 8k profit per annum after tax.

Fast forward 10 years and the property has appreciated and is now worth 525k (not unreasonable in this market) They have made roughly 80k in passive income and they're asset which is nearly half paid off purely by the tenants is worth substantially more than it was. They could easily increase mortgage repayments and clear this much earlier than anticipated. They will have made 160k in passive income (20 yrs not inc rent increases) and now are left with an asset worth 525k which all they needed was a 50k deposit for, 10 fold on their initial investment and could have roughly 160k in liquid assets.

I did take into account taxation, I used the example that a poster had mentioned in their specific example, took off the 8k tax. God forbid that tenants would have some rights for where they live when they are paying for a wealthier person's asset for them. Rent caps also included, I didn't increase the rent at all in the example despite them being allowed a 2% increase year on year which far outweighs any mortgage rate increases.

We don't need more one property LL's. We need properly regulated large scale Build to Rent for the rental market that is professionally managed, not managed by John and Mary who put their second hand furniture and household equipment in a house, do little maintenance on it and expect gratitude that they are only increasing the rent by 2% ie. the maximum that they can.

It's not a lack of understanding, I know that they do and I'm raising that this in itself is an issue. I'm saying we already have too many of them and we certainly don't need more.

Being a LL shouldn't be seen as a hands off passive income stream, they need to be properly managed and regulated so tenants aren't waiting 3 months for something like a faulty washing machine to be repaired. I doubt my previous LL or any LL for that matter would live in the house where every time the washing machine went on there's a 50/50 chance your kitchen would get flooded.

I used the example provided by a person who manages a property on behalf of their parents who are the LL's in the Greater Dublin Area. They provided the figures, not me. The figures were 40k before and 32k after tax which is 3.3k a month which for a 3 or 4 bed in Dublin is fairly standard.

It may be "unfair" to some, but for people who bought "homes" instead of "property" negative equity won't apply. In any case, we absolutely need to bring the prices of houses down and fast, because without doing that we are setting up and extremely grim future for thousands of people. And that reduction in prices will either happen with a crash, which nobody wants, or it'll happen as a consequence of building more stock, and I'd include public housing into that equation which is the much better outcome for the majority.

So I'm not to use an actual LL's figures that they freely provided through their own experience. I thought that was far more reasonable than to create my own out of the blue.

I was using a simplified example but I'll simplify it even more, LL's are getting their tenants to pay for their asset worth 000ks that they only needed a deposit to pay for. Any sale of this asset will result in a minimum of x 5 return on investment. They don't need further benefits or incentives.