79% of new houses bought by landlords

[Annieindublin]

For those of us who remember it from the 1970s it was corporation houses, a lot smaller than houses on other local estates and also on the “wrong” side of the old bray road, the N11 goes behind it now and there’s an underpass under the N11 linking where this house is over to the rest of the estate and stillorgan shopping centre.
Pre the stillorgan shopping centre it was across a bit of a wasteland, the “tech” was the post primary school of choice and didn’t go beyond intercert.

If the council still owned it I wonder what would have happened?

 

[Purple]

That has not changed. Approx 1/3 of council rents go unpaid. Each council reports the figures on their website.

Given that rents are set based on income and ability to pay that shows a remarkable level of selfishness and greed and a total lack of personal integrity by the tenants. I hope none of them complain about the housing shortage or rental costs etc.

 

[Purple]

The system is deliberately designed to keep property prices and rents rising and this will continue as long as the government has the corporate billions to fund this policy.

Why is it deliberately designed that way?

 

[joe sod]

They pay zero tax on their rental income in Ireland. These taxpayer funded subsidies stack the deck and make it much more difficult for owner occupiers to compete with investors for available properties.

They have to pay out most of their income in dividends to shareholders and the shareholders then pay the taxes, that's the structure of reits. They have operated in other markets for many years but are relatively new to Ireland only introduced after the crash to bring in new capital in order to try and revive the construction sector which was decimated. Ires is the last remaining reit ,the rest were taken off the public markets and properties sold off. That could happen ires aswell then there would be practically no institutional investors left in Irish market . So the problems for Irish rental markets would be catastrophic

 

[BIG-notorious]

Yep, and some of the added cost is down to additional controls on public procurement, controls intended to protect the taxpayer from reoccurrences of previous scandals but ones that add risk and administration to providers resulting in them pushing up the price.

It's actually got nothing to do with the procurement rules or other controls. Or the suite of contracts used. It's the people who are doing the work looking to cover their arses 6 ways from Sunday while also delivering a unicorn. And usually also rubber stamping every single claim/change order the contractor dreams up....

The only people who blame the rules are the ones who want to avoid responsibility for their own efficiency.