It doesn't suit the government narrative to not vilify landlords or encourage them to remain in the market without strings attached. SF will give out that they are siding with wealthy landlords. SF won't have to worry about landlords by the time they get into power, thousands upon thousands of them will be gone by early 2025 anyway.
RPZ zones were temporary (a bit like the USC). What the RPZ zones do is protect existing tenants but crucify new tenants. Any new property for rental (and there aren't many) have the rent set to the maximum. Advertised for €2500 a month, if you get it, brilliant, if not, drop it to €2400 etc. Someone will take it eventually (or very very quickly given the market at the moment).
Existing landlords, who didn't raise rents for years due to having a good tenant, are left with charging the same tenant a fraction of same rent. I know landlords who haven't any interest in charging the maximum rent, I know I don't want to do so. But we are faced with rent 40% lower than our next door neighbour because they are new to the rental game whereas I'm not. I genuinely don't agree with that. If people actually believe that this isn't driving landlords out of the market, you are naive.
If people don't think landlords are leaving because SF are saying that if they are in power after the next general election, that landlords will have to sell a property wiht the tenant in situ, you are naive. That's like saying, you can sell your property in the next 2 years to absolutely anyway or after that, you can only sell to someone who is a cash buyer (banks won't lend unless there's vacant possession) and who wants to be a landlord. What percentage of the market of house buyers is that.........1% or less???? Talk about annihilating the value of your asset in two years time.
What the situation is becoming is that only rentals will be managed by huge REITS and charging the maximum rent possible. Anyone charging 'below market' rent will be encouraged to leave (and re-enter the market if they want). I could sell my house for 300k and buy another house in the estate that wasn't a rental and go from charging €1300 a month to €2000 a month. The only winners are the government (stamp duty and increased income tax on rental income), solicitors and estate agents. The landlords will benefit when the cost of selling and re-buying are covered (probably 2-3 years) and the tenant gets absolutely screwed with rent increasing over 50%. How is that a system that works.
For me, I would suggest this, if market rent in an area is €2000 a month, for a landlord, any landlord who charges 25% lower than the market rent, their income tax payable on rental income be capped at 25%. In this instance, instead of a tenant paying €24,000 a year in rent, they are paying €18,000. They win. The landlord, assuming no expenses whatsoever (unlikely but for the sake of calculations) would receive €18,000 in rent instead of €24,000 but they would pay tax @ 25% on €18,000 leaving them with €13,500 nett as opposed to 52% on €24,000 leaving them with €11,520. The government instead of receiving €12,000 in income tax would only receive €4,500. You can see why the government don't want to do this, but will instead make some stupid proposal on Tuesday to reduce tax if landlords sign up for 10 year leases or else increase the tax write off on pre-letting expenses (which is so immaterial to the vast majority of landlords that it's totally pointless).
Instead of a tax credit for renters, "putting a months renter back in renters pockets" as SF like to shout about, the above would put 3.33 months rent back in renters pockets. Plus, the benefit for renters is three times greater than it is for landlords.
I would like a minister or official to say what they think the rental market in Ireland is going to look like in 3-5 years time. There aren't any small landlords coming in and renting a house for €1200 or €1400 a month. Its REITS charging €2,500 plus for 2 bed apartments and leaving the things idle and being able to afford to do so until someone is willing to pay it.
www.thetimes.co.uk
