Landlordism 2.0

[Milltown Row2]

I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

No, you should put all your savings into the bank and let them get rich off the back of it!

If you have money and can afford the payments and hassle of being a landlord then do it, its the perfect nest egg for retirement.

I'd love to do it and currently paying what seems like a mortgage for my student daughter!

[Angelo]

I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It's exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else's expense from a basic human need. It's a disgusting way of life.

You could extrapolate on that a lot though. Where do you stop.... food?

Surely the banks are currently doing that with interest on mortgages.

There is a huge difference between someone who has a house or two that they rent versus what is going on in Dublin with companies buying entire housing estates. Simple work around more than 3 houses and you're taxed to the balls. Cuts it right out. Massive boom and bust in housing is good for nobody. You need an even steady flow, with little incremental price rises over time.
But there is a need for a rental market. People need short term rents for jobs and college etc. They don't always want to buy so the market must offer both.

The principle is the exact same. Exploiting a housing crisis to make money.

The only difference is that the chap with the two or three properties hasn't got the same financial capital to buy more because if he had then he would.

Policy makers aren't interested in tackling this though.

[Angelo]

I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

No, you should put all your savings into the bank and let them get rich off the back of it!

If you have money and can afford the payments and hassle of being a landlord then do it, its the perfect nest egg for retirement.

I'd love to do it and currently paying what seems like a mortgage for my student daughter!

But the issue is if everyone could they would.

The fact that it's allowed makes it tougher on people to buy their own home or afford rent. Those who can afford it can increase their wealth while others are screwed.

[imtommygunn]

Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Tax at 80 percent on a second rental property & 95 on a third. Put an end to quangos and vulture funds, & vultures like poster girl Kate.

This for me would be great if it happened.

[shark]

Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Has that not be done to an extent up here recently. You can't ofset your mortgage payments against the rental income anymore.  Is that the same in The south?

No it's not. the lowered the % you could offset, a few years ago. But they've actually brought it back up to 100%.

edit: I'm talking mortgage interest. which is I presume what you meant. you could hardly offset the actual payment of the capital in the North until recently?

[thebigfella]

I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It's exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else's expense from a basic human need. It's a disgusting way of life.

To own your own property?

[thewobbler]

I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It's exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else's expense from a basic human need. It's a disgusting way of life.

To own your own property?

No. The need for shelter.

Surely you can relate the surge in rental prices with a surge of people and businesses buying up multiple properties? If not, why not?

——

Do we really expect public servants - firemen, police, ambulance drivers, nurses, refuse collectors, etc. - to travel 90 minutes in from far-reaching suburbs to do work they can do elsewhere? Because put simple, they can't afford even suburban rent and mortgages on their salaries.

Or do we want them all to start on €100k a year, regardless of whether they're useful or not?

I can't see how we can have it both ways.

[seafoid]

Gardai used to provide a lot of rental space in Dublin but the involvement of international capital tears the arse out of it.They see the rent as a yield - say it's 5% - it's far more than they can get investing in bonds or whatever they used to do.

[weareros]

The big question that will have to be answered is will construction workers work for nothing on affordable housing when an investment firm is willing to pay €414,000 per rental property (as they did in Santry) before ground is even broke? Have seen figures that gov should be able to build 100,000 units at €50,000 per unit. When our best tradesmen head to America and Australia where there will be untold work under Biden's stimulus package, can't see them working for nothing in Ireland. It's backbreaking and hard work. Taxpayer will need to pony up at least 40b to pay for that housing. Eliminating the vulture funds will not eliminate construction costs and cost of supplies in a global market, or developer hesitancy to build without guaranteed profit. Have not seen one party address that.

[BennyCake]

It's absolutely terrible and as such I can totally understand how young people are turning away from FF and FG in their droves. The approach to housing in the ROI is a national disgrace. The young people should really be out on the streets protesting.

The problem is that nobody on social media is telling them they should protest.

Trump being elected, BLM, women's rights, equal pay, and they're all out with their placards.

[seafoid]

Yields at 5% or whatever will draw more money in and drive up prices. That is what happened when outside capital came into other industries.
Salaries won't rise at the same rate and house prices will be out of sync with the real economy. Then it's only a matter of time until prices collapse.

The Government should tsx rents at 80% to dampen down financial interest in Irish housing.

[Louther]

I've seen an issue locally where houses have come up for sale, regular 3/4 bed semi D's with estate agents. Their has been plenty of interest for young couples and families to look at buying or trading up from apartments. But in number of cases the local authority have waded in and been buying these up and out bidding anyone.

They making it hard for people to get their own property and also building their own social housing.

Are these purchases right? They seem to be counter productive as they force people to stay renting or even onto their own lists if they priced out of the market.

[armaghniac]

The big business landlords are different though. They won't be a person with compassion / empathy etc. They'll just be businesses looking for a quick buck. They're unlikely to be too humane.

The individual landlords of the landlords who own a small number of houses are different

No they aren't. You might to tell yourself otherwise, but when people "invest" in property it's an investment that ensures that everyone must pay more for property.  They're every last bit as culpable in the housing crisis as the big corporations. Every last bit.

At present rents have gone up more than houses. If people or companies do not purchase houses to rent then those rents would increase even more, in the absence of adequate supply.  This is not a simple problem to solve in the short term, you can favour one group more than others, but someone loses out. 
However, the Maynooth situation is not ideal, it would be better if the big companies providing rentals would develop some sites of their own and increase the supply.

[Angelo]

The big business landlords are different though. They won't be a person with compassion / empathy etc. They'll just be businesses looking for a quick buck. They're unlikely to be too humane.

The individual landlords of the landlords who own a small number of houses are different

No they aren't. You might to tell yourself otherwise, but when people "invest" in property it's an investment that ensures that everyone must pay more for property.  They're every last bit as culpable in the housing crisis as the big corporations. Every last bit.

At present rents have gone up more than houses. If people or companies do not purchase houses to rent then those rents would increase even more, in the absence of adequate supply.  This is not a simple problem to solve in the short term, you can favour one group more than others, but someone loses out. 
However, the Maynooth situation is not ideal, it would be better if the big companies providing rentals would develop some sites of their own and increase the supply.

How on earth would those rents increase further if venture capitalists weren't buying those house?

One of the dumbest contributions I've ever read on this forum. If those houses were instead being bought up first time buyers and the likes who are currently the people who are being squeezed in the rental market, are currently the people who are part of the reason the rental demand is so high, rental demand is then reduced.

What you have said is typical neo-liberal nonsense. The govt policies of enabling investors gobble up residential properties is the driver behind an insane rental market.

[armaghniac]

One of the dumbest contributions I've ever read on this forum.

I suggest you look to your own posts for that. How is Castro today?

f those houses were instead being bought up first time buyers and the likes who are currently the people who are being squeezed in the rental market, are currently the people who are part of the reason the rental demand is so high, rental demand is then reduced.

What you have said is typical neo-liberal nonsense. The govt policies of enabling investors gobble up residential properties is the driver behind an insane rental market.

It is the same number of peopple and the same number of houses either way, whatever way you divide it.