New RPZ rules mean you'll soon be paying even more rent. That's the whole point
Look at the rush to restrict rent caps, the only measure preventing total housing chaos.
Yet this reckless intervention is being framed as a national rollout of protections for renters - the exact opposite of what it is.
They're calling it a 'reform' of the Rent Pressure Zones, which were reluctantly brought in in 2016 and only after runaway rents had reached a peak.
Limiting rents to a 2 per cent annual hike was absolutely necessary to stop the greed.
But these changes to RPZs will leave it toothless, and pile more pain on renters. The express purpose is to make rents higher so the market is "attractive" to investors. The only thing investors find attractive is money.
Now, tenants are trapped into higher rents on both sides - forced to pay more if they stay long-term in the same place, or, if they move to a new place. Do I stay or do I go? Either way, you'll be stiffed for the highest rent possible.
Landlords will be able to 'reset' rents after six years for sitting tenants; and they can reset them too, for new tenants.
Government is determined to make the market more profitable for the investors they bend over for. This is being done on the backs of renters already stuck paying extortionate average rents of €2,000 nationally and €2,500 in cities.
The reform - rushed into legislation on Friday - will ensure more rent hikes, sparking ever-upwards market rates.
Sinn Fein's Eoin O Broin described it as "the deathknell of rent pressure zones as we know them'.
The reason it's being done is to drive rents up. Taoiseach Micheal Martin and Housing Minister James Browne have stated this. They want an Ireland of higher rents.
Martin said it was about enabling a 'stable environment in which to invest'. James Browne said: "Rents may go up." May? Will. If they don't go up, the investors won't invest.
Our leaders claim it will be more costly in the short term, but lead to more supply in the long term. What use is that to tenants? That's punishing renters to pander to investors.
It's also an empty pledge, as such investors deliver small volumes of very expensive rental in affluent parts of Dublin and Cork - helping just the chosen few.
It goes against the Housing Commission advice, which recommended RPZs stay in place while an alternative system of rent controls is formulated.
The Central Bank's Robert Kelly said the changes will 'be painful for renters'.
He said: 'It's likely to be positive in terms of the level of supply, as they have rent resets within them. But the pain felt by households is not even, due to the housing crisis'.
Good news for the investor - bad news for the renter.
The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week
Mike Allen from Focus Ireland called it 'a solution that says 'we can deliver more housing, but you won't be able to afford to live in it'. That's not a solution.'
I was at the Raise the Roof rally outside the Dail on Tuesday. I've been attending such protests since 2015, usually with my son Luc and his friend Filip. I've seen them grow from little boys into young men, over the time.
They're now taller than Eoin O Broin, who they first met at these protests when they were six or seven.
And yet it is still going on. Childhoods continue to be lost to it. This latest move makes it clear the crisis is actually profit-driven policy.
At the rally, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald said they had gathered at the rally to call out the Government's "spoof and outright lies".
TD Paul Murphy correctly called it a 'manufactured crisis' that 'transfers wealth from workers to a tiny few at the top, the corporate landlords and developers'.
Deputy Rory Hearne said it is 'clearly government policy to have a permanent housing crisis'.
For a government to do that to its own people is, in my view, tantamount to treason.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
5 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
EU-US trade deal: Business groups welcome certainty but say 15% tariff 'still substantial burden'
Business groups have tentatively welcomed the framework trade agreement reached between the EU and the US, as it brings more certainty for firms, but the 15% tariff on imports to the US 'still represents a substantial burden for many industries'. On Sunday, US president Donald Trump met with EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen at his golf course in Scotland to finalise a framework trade deal with the EU. The agreement will see the US impose 15% tariffs on imports from the bloc. This is up from the 10% currently in place, but is lower than the 30% Mr Trump threatened to impose from August 1 should a deal not have been reached. Trade between the EU and the US accounts for almost a third of global trade. Speaking after the meeting, Mr Trump said: 'I think this is the biggest deal ever made.' Ms von der Leyen said the deal will 'bring stability, it will bring predictability'. Ms von der Leyen defended the trade deal as 'the best we could get', adding that it was not to be underestimated given the looming threat of 30% tariffs. A baseline tariff rate of 15% on EU goods imported into the US would apply to cars, semiconductors and pharmaceutical goods, Ms von der Leyen said. Meanwhile, a zero-for-zero tariff rate had been agreed for certain strategic products, including aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, and certain generic drugs. No decision has been made on a rate for wine and spirits. The deal also includes $600bn of EU investments in the US, along with EU purchases of US energy and military equipment. Ibec: Brexit-style supports needed Ibec chief executive Danny McCoy said the agreement brings an 'end to a significant amount of uncertainty for some businesses'. 'However, a 15% tariff still represents a substantial burden for many industries. 'Sectors which rely heavily on the US market, and operate within small margins, will once again be significantly impacted by an additional 5% tariff on top of what they have already had to absorb over the past several months, and well in excess of the 1% effective tariff which existed before April." He added: 'Our message to the Government, as it was with the 10% tariff, is that the most exposed sectors will require support similar to the interventions provided as a response to Brexit. Chamber Ireland: Viable firms need tariff supports Chamber Ireland welcomed the agreement on trade tariffs, with its chief executive Ian Talbot stating: 'Certainty is critical for businesses, and we've seen the impact of uncertainty over the past couple of months in terms of investment. 'While tariffs are never welcome news for businesses on either side of the Atlantic, reaching an agreement — however imperfect — is preferable to no deal. It, at least, allows companies to plan and adapt in the short term.' Mr Talbot also called for the EU and the Government to create a 'fund to support viable businesses in adapting to new tariffs', and also to ensure 'potential arbitrage issues with Northern Ireland are clearly understood and addressed'. This is the latest deal Mr Trump has reached with a few countries around the world before his August 1 deadline. Agreements with the US have also been reached with Britain, Japan, Indonesia, and Vietnam, but Mr Trump's administration has failed to deliver on a promise of '90 deals in 90 days'. He has periodically railed against the EU, saying it was 'formed to screw the US on trade'. Mr Trump said that the EU wanted 'to make a deal very badly' and said, as he met Ms von der Leyen, that Europe had been 'very unfair to the US'. His main bugbear is the US merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which reached $235bn in 2024, according to the US Census Bureau data. The EU points to the US surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance. Mr Trump also talked about the 'hundreds of billions of dollars' that tariffs were bringing in. Additional reporting Reuters
Irish Examiner
10 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Alcohol health labelling 'will add over a third to costs'
Taoiseach Micheál Martin was lobbied by business representative group Ibec to delay the introduction of alcohol warning labels for 'at least' four years due to tariff fears. Ibec chief executive Danny McCoy warned the Fianna Fáil leader that the new requirements would lead to packaging and labelling costs increasing by 'over one-third'. The letter also suggested that some distillers had even suspended brewing in fear of impending tariffs by the US administration. Mr McCoy also sent the letter to Tánaiste and trade minister Simon Harris and health minister Jennifer Carroll MacNeill in early June. The Government agreed earlier last week to suspend the rollout of warning labels for two years. In May 2023, then health minister Stephen Donnelly signed the Public Health (Alcohol) (Labelling) Regulations 2023. It was envisaged that the law would make it mandatory for alcohol product labels to state the calorie content and grams of alcohol in the product. They would also warn about the risk of consuming alcohol when pregnant and about the risk of liver disease and fatal cancers from alcohol consumption. The change was due to come into effect in May 2026, to allow a three-year implementation period for the drinks industry. However, there have been rumblings in recent weeks that the plan would be postponed, with Mr Harris saying that it would be additional disruption and a 'potential trade barrier' as tariff negotiations continue. At Tuesday's Cabinet meeting, the Tánaiste told ministers that Ms Carroll MacNeill will defer the plans for two years. This is despite reports that it would be a four-year pause. Correspondence released under Freedom of Information (FoI) shows that the Taoiseach was being lobbied by Ibec to drop the labelling plans. On June 3, Mr McCoy called for the plans to be dropped for four years 'at least'. 'The wider drinks sector, but particularly many of the new emerging distilleries, have significant exposure to these new tariffs and the wider trade uncertainty,' wrote Mr McCoy. 'The majority of distilling across the country is now suspended. The introduction of new labelling requirements for the drinks sector, which will add over one-third to product labelling and packaging costs, should be suspended for at least four years to give some certainty to operators. 'Reducing regulatory burden costs to free up resources to allow companies invest in finding new markets would be a positive development.' Mr McCoy said that the legislation had been cited by the US administration in its 2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, which he said was 'cause for further concern and reason for this legislation to be deferred'. He added: 'The industry does not want this to be an issue of disagreement in overall efforts to secure a resolution on trade relations and restoration of a tariff-free trading environment.' Further correspondence shows the letter was also forwarded from the Taoiseach's office to the Department of Enterprise several days later seeking an update on enterprise minister Peter Burke's engagement with Ms Carroll MacNeill. A letter sent from Mr Burke to Ms Carroll MacNeill on May 15 was also released under FoI. He said that recent months have seen 'significant global uncertainty and a rapidly shifting trading landscape', which he said 'could have profound competitiveness implications for small open economies like Ireland'. Mr Burke said that Ireland would be the first country in Europe to introduce the labels. 'The proposed measures will mean increased production and sale costs for Irish producers and importers and add to the price payable by consumers at a time when prices are also rising due to a multitude of other factors,' wrote Mr Burke. 'Notwithstanding the overarching health benefits of the proposal, I would ask you to consider pausing the introduction of the proposed new requirements.' Calls not to delay plans Meanwhile, Mr Martin was urged not to delay the plans and received a letter just last week from Alcohol Action Ireland chief executive Sheila Gilheany. She said that 'postponing alcohol health information labelling is not consequence free given the thousands harmed by alcohol in Ireland.' Read More Delaying alcohol warning labels prioritises profiteering over health, says Irish Medical Organisation
Irish Examiner
11 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Jim Power: Budget countdown begins with big promises
The publication of the summer economic statement has set the budgetary process in motion, and the destination will be reached in early October. The two relevant ministers have outlined a budget package of €9.4bn, with a net tax package of €1.5bn, and an expenditure package of €7.9bn. This expenditure package will be comprised of current expenditure increases of €5.9bn or almost 75% of the total; and capital spending of €2bn or just over 25% of the total. Proposed Vat cut On the tax side, the Government has given a commitment to reduce the Vat rate for part of the hospitality sector — the food element — to 9% and this would cost around €580m in foregone taxes. If this is delivered and applies from January 1 next, it means that effectively less than €1bn would be available for personal tax changes. To put this in context, it is estimated that a 1% indexation of the employee tax credit would cost around €230m in a full year, so to index for projected inflation in 2026 would cost somewhere in the region of €460m; or a 1% decrease in the 40% tax rate would cost around €540m. If the government delivers the Vat cut from the beginning of 2026, which it has committed to, the tax package will be small. So not surprisingly, there are suggestions that the cut might be delayed until July, thereby significantly reducing the cost in 2026. If this transpires, the hospitality sector would have every right to be aggrieved. Restaurants and food businesses are the most crucial element of our tourism product, and many businesses are struggling to stay afloat. Inflation Data released by the CSO last week show that in 2024, Irish food prices are the third highest in the EU-27 and are 12% above the EU average. In the year to May, agricultural output prices increased by 20.7%, with cattle prices up by 48%. These prices obviously feed into restaurant input costs, but the pressures are compounded by labour costs, insurance, water charges, commercial rates etc. I am a supporter of the reduced Vat rate, and I think it is now more appropriate to provide some limited support to a key employer of people all over the country, and a vital part of the tourism offering, rather than to pump money through excessive expenditure into an economy that is still doing quite well. Does the Irish economic cycle need a continuation of out-of-control current expenditure now? I think not. Even if the Vat cut is pushed out, the extent of the easing of the personal tax burden will be miniscule. We should have learned from the past We should have learned our lessons from the pro-cyclical policies of the past. The summer economic statement projects planned expenditure of €108.7bn this year, which is €3.3bn higher than planned in Budget 2025, and it is likely to turn out even higher than this latest projection. Not surprisingly, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council is not happy and has justifiably accused the Government of 'poor planning and budgeting.' Obviously, the ability of the two ministers to deliver the proposed budgetary package, and indeed to deliver the ambitious, but detail lacking, revised National Development Plan, will be heavily contingent on the future performance of the economy, and especially the actions of Donald Trump. Downward creep in projections There is not a lot of detail in relation to economic assumptions in the summer economic statement, but it is interesting to note that for 2025 the Department of Finance is projecting growth of 2% in modified domestic demand (MDD), down from 2.5% in April, and 2.9% in Budget 2025 last October. For 2026, MDD is projected to grow by 1.8%, down from 2.8% in April, and 3% in Budget 2025. There is downward creep occurring in Ireland's economic projections, which seems logical in the context of Trump-induced uncertainty. In relation to the National Development Plan, it is quite amazing that we must await detail on the projected spend until close to budget time. What in the name of God has been happening since January? The aspirations outlined in the revised plan — such as energy, water, housing, transport infrastructure, and climate change — are difficult to argue with, but delivery on time and on budget will be essential. One hopes there will be greater control, transparency and accountability in relation to National Development Plan delivery than we have seen with major infrastructure projects such as the children's hospital and the infamous bicycle shed.
