Rent supplement is in the crosshairs


Focus Ireland on the radio banging on about raising rent supplement to prevent homelessness. This particularly pisses me off as they are my chosen charity and I’ve always spoken highly of them to everyone. Sharpening my email pitchfork as we speak…


I was thinking you’d be pissed off listening to that this morning. Such binary positions are most often the espousals of highly vested interests.

Also and this was the most interesting to me aside form the magic money request. Did I hear it right that of the 150 families who have been evicted classed as homeless were all in fact previously renting.

Not a David Hall in site it seems. :angry:


I sent a polite but firm email to the CEO. Let’s see…

I complained to them previously about use of chuggers and I got a polite and well-thought-out response from a real person, so I’m hopeful of a proper response.


Things must be bad in Cork…no available accomm in the Mallow are so a family of 6 had to sleep in a car last night-4 kids under 4, youngest being 1 month old!!!


Logic. Yes. … Puzzling. I wondered how come, too. Carried on pinning around. Such fun. Then came accross this:

That one was from 16 December 2014

So, maybe the threat of losing ones place at the trough to a shinner gives one the ability to make logical noises for a while. In their linked document, though, they have a fuzzy landlords nuts in a pliers rent assistance scheme, and they do want to ‘Broaden the Mortgage to Rent scheme so that more people struggling with their mortgage can avail of the scheme and stay in their home’, yoiks, and buy into Thatchers ‘right to buy’ scheme for council tenants. Gulp. So I ain’t sayin’ they’re all perfect, or on the same page, even, so put the handcuffs away, now, Nigel. And PBP want to up the rent (landlord) allowance. Fists in the air, yaaaay. Oh my Gawd.


Dublin local authorities took full page ads in the Irish Times today with the sole intention of increasing rents. … -1.2224571

As a landlord I should be happy but this is just f–king with the market.


I might have a house for rent in the next few months and this looks interesting. I would happily take 85% market value rent guaranteed for 20 years (5 year rent reviews) and not have to deal with the tenants or be responsible for maintenance.

There must be a catch?? Apart from not having access to the house for 20 years.


Ads on the radio for this also…they’re really pushing this


Here’s the landlord maths for me:

House value: 330k.
Market rent: 1300pcm.
Mortgage: 1100pcm (230k principal, so only 230/pcm is interest)
85% rent: 1100pcm.

On face value that sees me making a loss as after marginal tax (with relief for interest and insurance) as I’m only left with ~460k/mo. After property tax and insurance that’s about 375/mo.

But I’m only paying 230/pcm to hold the asset, so I’m actually making 145/mo, the rest is savings.

So that’s 1740/year after tax on my 100k equity, or 1.74% net yield.

Not great.


Interest figures. What would you get on deposit for 100K after DIRT? Also no potential capital upside with cash (or downside, inflation aside).

My figures would be more like;

House value: 260k.
Market rent: 1400pcm.
Mortgage: 591pcm (185K C&I tracker +0.7%)
85% rent: 1200pcm.

So would turn a decent profit (need some time to fully crunch the numbers).

I was more interested in the pros & cons of RAS compared to the general private letting.


My shares in a blue chip are paying higher yield than that outside of fairly good capital appreciaton with lower tax liabilities and near instant liquidity.
Property in Ireland doesn’t seem to be a great investment.
I’m not financial investment wizard but when shares purely on dividend payments look better than Irish property then there must be something wrong with Irish property.


Could be, but also a lot can go wrong with shares in a short space of time. After a certain wealth is achieved there’s a higher value attached to sleeping easy at night and property can have some advantages there for some. The really risk adverse are paying money to have their money kept safe these days. So some would see low yields in a property market that has already had a recent crash as acceptable. I have money in both and the shares are the ones that worry me more and more as I get older.


The only house you can sleep easy in is your own. If it isn’t the house you sleep in then it is a cold investment decision.
I have the “benefit” of seeing those around me having bought investment properties where the rent doesn’t cover the mortgage and having been forced to move in to them for their own use. They don’t sleep easy; the houses are an anchor around their necks.
I can understand investing in multi-tenant residential properties or commercial properties or mixed. I can’t see the sense in investing in multiple family homes which struggle to wash their own faces although some here are heavily invested in this highly leveraged asset class.


It’s the Irish way, dipole. Shure you know that


What I meant was you can’t even sleep easy in your own house if your investments are causing you worry. Avoiding worry is worth a lot to me. I sold up property in 2006 and put some of it in shares and most of it in savings in Northern Rock. I made some nice money on the shares and a good return from the savings. Then the shit hit the fan in 2007 and there was a run on Northern Rock. Those were some worrying days when I, like many, didn’t know if my money would come out again. These are the kinds of experiences that install a healthy worry about your investments in you for life. Anyway, it all turned out well for me and I bought property again in 2012. That was a great weight off my mind, having my money work again in something that was unlikely to disappear overnight (since the crash had already just happened). So far it has been an excellent investment - providing income and a lot of capital appreciation. My point here is to say that for me, the worry over where your money is is a real drag on life satisfaction. I’m not at the stage where I will pay someone to guarantee I get my money back (bonds with negative interest rates) but I’m happy to leave 10%+ returns from the stock market to other people. The worry of a stock market crash would rob me of precious quality of life. So for me, property is an attractive alternative. I’m even thinking of going in again later this year when I sell the last chunk of my shares.


AFAIK, you don’t get any say in who the tenants will be. So you could end up with a bunch of undesirables.


Yes this is the first thing that came to mind. However if the rent is guaranteed, the council look after maintenance (need clarity) and I would assume the contract would have a stipulation around serious structural damage etc.

Need to get some more details.


Most politicians are already housed.


I’d rather live in a bedsit than live rough on the streets.


Looking at the document, I can only see studio apartments being mentioned - by definition they have their own bathroom (not a shared one like bedsits).
In reality, many students voluntarily live in quasi-bedsits when sharing a house with others. So proper, affordable student accommodation would free up family homes, right?
FD: I signed up to become a member of Renua. BTW, those policies are drafts ATM… :slight_smile: