Implications of SF in government for landlords

The main Section 34 grounds which will go are :

1) The tenant faile dot coply with his obligations i.e. pay his rent
3) The landlord intends to sell the property
4) The landlord requires the property for his own use or for his family

So SF will create tenancies of indefinite duration where the rent is frozen and the landlord can't terminate the lease if the tenant is not paying.

Brendan
 
It will take quite a few years for them to build the social houses. You can't wave a magic wand.

I don't see how they are going to reduce reliance on RAS on HAP in the meantime.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
The main Section 34 grounds which will go are :

1) The tenant faile dot coply with his obligations i.e. pay his rent
3) The landlord intends to sell the property
4) The landlord requires the property for his own use or for his family

So SF will create tenancies of indefinite duration where the rent is frozen and the landlord can't terminate the lease if the tenant is not paying.

Brendan
Click to expand...

I personally can't see any of the above being removed. What do you think coporate landlords would do if there was widespread refusal to pay rent with no consequences. This is where the big money would take on the state via the courts.

You can't stop somebody from selling their own property, I suspect you would have to sell it with the tenant is situ.

Again if the landlord needs a property for their own use or family then how can the stop this. If they want to enshire housing in the constitution then what about the landlords/family members right to housing under the constitution? How would the tenants supersede the landlords right to housing?
 
It's worth quoting Article 43 of the constitution in full:

ARTICLE 43

1 1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.

2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.

2 1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.

2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.
Click to expand...
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Agree fully, but imagine trying to sell a house with a tenant in situ who has chosen to stop paying their rent?
Click to expand...

I personally think Sinn Fein's plans are populist. If tenants stopped paying rent enmasse the sector would just fall apart and so would the tax take. If you obtain a court judgement for non payment and the tenant disobeys the court and refuses to leave.

I don't actually think Sinn Feins costings are actually correct and I think in the cold light of day they may realise they can't actually deliver what they said they could.

If they try go after the rental sector expect landlords to leave and the sector to get worse. The only benefit for the tenants will be a tax credit? so what happens to the non tax compliant landlord? Expect them to sell up before any of this happens.
 
This is what their manifesto says

4290
Not sure if there is any further information.

Salary is not wealth. But pension funds certainly are. I doubt that they plan to include pension funds.

Brendan
 
Nicklesilver said:
Don’t forget the wealth tax on all assets over 1m including your salary and pension fund.
Click to expand...

It says here that pensions are excluded - or maybe this is an OLD document?

The first 20% of the family home and the ordinary contents of the home
  • All business assets including land, buildings machinery that are used for generating and sustaining employment
  • Shares in private trading companies
  • Working farm land, livestock and bloodstock
  • Pension funds
  • Funds from personal injury claims
  • Certain pictures, prints, books, manuscripts works of art, jewels, scientific collections, gardens, trees or other land that have a national, scientific , historic or artistic value, that are kept permanently in the state and that are available for public viewing
  • Property held by charities
  • Social welfare payments
Deductions can be made for:
  • 20% of the value of the family home
  • Mortgage liabilities
  • Non-professional debts
  • Credit card balances
  • Bank overdrafts
  • Outstanding non-professional invoices
  • Outstanding tax liabilities
  • The capital value of outstanding divorce settlements
 
FG&Lab tried to introduce a wealth tax in the 1970s. By the time the lobbying was done there were exceptions all over the place. It didn't raise very much and was pretty heavy administratively.

FF abolished it when they got into government after 1977.




It's much simpler to tax wealth when there is actually a transaction or event (CGT on sale of asset, CAT on inheritance).

Most people can't estimate their wealth with much accuracy, and being obliged to do so once a year is a big imposition.
 
A house I have rented out to a family at well under the market rent, I have given notice on. I'm not waiting around for SF to force reduced rents on me and then block me from selling my own property. Let the government house the privately rented families going forward. I wasn't happy paying 50% tax on earnings from rental income but I paid it. But being vilified for making sacrifies to keep this investment property for my children and their futures just isn't worth it.

The first of many such moves by landlords all over the country no doubt.
 
BourbonWithIce said:
A house I have rented out to a family at well under the market rent, I have given notice on. I'm not waiting around for SF to force reduced rents on me and then block me from selling my own property. Let the government house the privately rented families going forward. I wasn't happy paying 50% tax on earnings from rental income but I paid it. But being vilified for making sacrifies to keep this investment property for my children and their futures just isn't worth it.

The first of many such moves by landlords all over the country no doubt.
Click to expand...

Things were restrictive enough but SF landing the housing portfolio would sink it altogether
 
I am neither a tenant nor a landlord, so excuse my ignorance, but how can landlords justify that the cost of rent is acceptable? Where I live, the rent for 3 bed semis is around €2,500 a month. It is simply not feasible that this can continue. People can't afford these high rents and on top of that, the uncertainty as to whether the rents will increase. The ordinary person should not be penalised because they are simply trying to survive in a world where landlords have been wealthy enough to be able to buy investment properties and charge extortionate rent.
 
Sanparom said:
I am neither a tenant nor a landlord, so excuse my ignorance, but how can landlords justify that the cost of rent is acceptable? Where I live, the rent for 3 bed semis is around €2,500 a month. It is simply not feasible that this can continue. People can't afford these high rents and on top of that, the uncertainty as to whether the rents will increase. The ordinary person should not be penalised because they are simply trying to survive in a world where landlords have been wealthy enough to be able to buy investment properties and charge extortionate rent.
Click to expand...

Markets exist to balance supply and demand.

High rents are a signal to people to start building new dwellings.

How else is a landlord supposed to select tenants other than the highest rent? If a landlord in your area advertised a house for €1500 she would get 200 applications. Sure, she could pick a tenant based on need or whatever but that doesn't do anything for the 199 others who want to be housed.

Low rents won't build any houses.
 
The issue is a supply side problem. Messing in the market will result in less landlords, less properties available for people and less supply. This will mean greater demand and drive rent prices higher again.

A rent freeze will protect renters in houses now, but what about new renters, people moving to dublin to start working, where will they go? There simply won't be any properties for them to rent or move into. This will hit employment and slow investment. When that happens, it doesn't matter about anything else. It's the economy stupid. If the economy isn't going well, there's no money to do anything. Period.

Landlords charging €2,500 a month for a three bed-semi is a disgrace and I say that as a landlord. Accidential one at that in negative equity. Who decides what is a fair rent to charge? If the government decides, do you not think that private owners and investors will up sticks immediately and leave for fear of interference, state control etc? Of course they will.

Due to a tax change on rental income some years ago (all liable for PRSI and USC) rent per month had to increase by 22% just for landlords to be left with the same money as before this tax change. Rather than the government penalising and hitting landlords consistently with red tape, legislation, rent freezes and making them out to the villian, why doesn't the government reverse the decision to make rental income liable to PRSI and USC and in return get landlords to reduce rents by 20%. Landlords are left with the same money, renters get a 20% reduction instead of the 1500 euro or (maximum of 8.5% reduction as per Sinn Fein manifesto) and that's real action there. But they won't. They will hit landlords and drive more out of the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top