Do you think that tenants are ready for Property Tax-inspired rent increases?

MistyCheese

Sounds like I'll have to downgrade so and rent somewhere that will be the same price I'm paying now after the charge is added. I'm going to miss having my own toilet.

ABajaninCork

In the UK, if the tenant (or indeed homeowner) is on benefits, then the council tax is paid in part or in full depending on the benefits claimed. Is the same thing to happen here I wonder?

djimi

MistyCheese wrote: »

Sounds like I'll have to downgrade so and rent somewhere that will be the same price I'm paying now after the charge is added. I'm going to miss having my own toilet.

Youre problem is that you already feel you are paying too much for your current property. Take that issue up with your landlord rather than trying to fight a battle that you have no hope of winning.

MistyCheese

djimi wrote: »

Youre problem is that you already feel you are paying too much for your current property. Take that issue up with your landlord rather than trying to fight a battle that you have no hope of winning.

Who's fighting now? I don't recall fighting any battles. I can't be bloody bothered getting on my horse and charging at windmills.

You'd think it was all of you guys potentially moving the big deal you're making of it. I had no idea so many Boardsies cared about my address.

P. Breathnach

Tenants are not interested in their landlords' costs, nor do most of them care whether a letting yields a profit. They pay the minimum rent they need to pay to get the sort of accommodation they want.

That minimum is determined by supply and demand. Where there is excess supply, rents tend to be low; where supply is scarce, rents are higher. In the medium-to-long term, if landlords can not make money from renting, they will exit the rental market - provided there is a possibility of selling the property at a satisfactory price.

There are some places where landlords are trapped. If they rent a place out, they are losing money, but increasing the rent will cause the tenants to leave; but if they leave the property vacant, they lose even more; and they cannot sell at a price high enough to bail them out of their predicament.

There are other places where it may be possible to increase rents.

The market is too varied for generalisations to have much relevance to particular cases.

gurramok

If landlords pass this tax onto the tenants, the tenants should withhold last months rent as a punishment. Treating the tenant as a cashcow for a LL's financial problems is not on.

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

If landlords pass this tax onto the tenants, the tenants should withhold last months rent as a punishment. Treating the tenant as a cashcow for a LL's financial problems is not on.

That is just a ridiculous post. The equivalent is maintaining that when rents drop landlords should keep the deposit to punish the tenant.

gurramok

OMD wrote: »

That is just a ridiculous post. The equivalent is maintaining that when rents drop landlords should keep the deposit to punish the tenant.

Who loses out more in your scenario? Think about it, be realistic. Tenants are human beings, they ain't exactly rolling in money.

peter_dublin

gurramok wrote: »

Who loses out more in your scenario? Think about it, be realistic. Tenants are human beings, they ain't exactly rolling in money.

What is your point, owning a property is a business. Apply your logic to all business and come back to us, Audi should drop their prices because people can't afford one, not while demand is high, the same applies to the rental market, can't afford the rent in an area, rent elsewhere, can't afford a Audi, Get a Ford or an "older" Audi.

It's simple business not charity, the landlord owes you nothing. We're back to this attitude that is prevelant here (Boards.ie) that somehow the landlord owes people some dues. It's business, simple as. Prices are decided by the market in the area as a whole and as such they will rise and fall with demand and other social factors such as an area becomming more desirable. Should it reach a point where you can't afford it, then tough, the landlord owes you nothing as a tenant and you should move to a more affordable property so that landlord can pratice what is "standard" business pactice in any other area but raises such emotive responces on Boards.

Also your statement that all tenants are not rolling in money is pointless as neither are a lot of landloards and most people are "not" tenants because they are "poor" as you seem to imply. I never choose to rent because I was poor, I rented in selected areas because I had a requirement or desire to live in the area. I bought because I desired to live long term in the area, when work forced my move I rented the property and now rent another myself.

Villa05

kkelliher wrote: »

I think its a bit of dreamland to think lanlords generally will not pass it on. The market will decide and if the majority of lanlords increase then tenants will not have a choice.

As a property tax based on funding local authoritites I personally believe it should be paid by the occupier of the property but we will have to wait and see

The market is the number of properties, not the number of owners of properties. Nama is keeping a significant amount of properties off the market, this will change as the countries financial position worsens.

Property Tax is a tax on ownership, there is a separate charge scheduled to come in 2016 for services which the occupiers will pay, be they owners or renters. Irish people tend to loose there brains when it comes to property buying decisions. The property tax is tool to help people keep their head when buying.

rubberdiddies

gurramok wrote: »

Who loses out more in your scenario? Think about it, be realistic. Tenants are human beings, they ain't exactly rolling in money.

how do you know tenants aren't rolling in money? same as how do you know landlords are? You're generalising.

Landlords are also human beings. I used to be a tenant too.

I'm being very realistic. I cant afford to pay a property tax on my home and also on the property that I rent out, along with the service charge that we currently pay on that property.

To counter that I will be passing on the tax in the form of a rent increase. Simple. If my current tenants wont pay it, then so be it.

At the end of the day there are approx 1.4million private households in Ireland. At a conservative guesstimate of €300 average property tax, thats €420million being taken out of someones pockets (be it tenant or Landlord), which in turn will affect the economy as a whole very negatively. my point here is that if I end up paying the €600, then that's €600+ less that I will have to spend in the economy next year.

Anyways, I'm rambling now, but regardless of the outcome of the discussion here, i will be passing on the tax.

djimi

gurramok wrote: »

If landlords pass this tax onto the tenants, the tenants should withhold last months rent as a punishment. Treating the tenant as a cashcow for a LL's financial problems is not on.

Aside from the fact that withholding the last months rent is going to serve to do nothing more than ensure that you wont get your deposit back, why on earth should a landlord be out of pocket so that you can rent for cheaper? Stop and think about it for a second. And I say that as a tenant, not a landlord.

OMD

Villa05 wrote: »

Property Tax is a tax on ownership, there is a separate charge scheduled to come in 2016 for services which the occupiers will pay, be they owners or renters. Irish people tend to loose there brains when it comes to property buying decisions. The property tax is tool to help people keep their head when buying.

If the aim of the tax is to help people keep their head when buying, then surely stamp duty should have been better. Property tax will average eventually at about €1500-2000 I would have thought. Why do you believe this is a better than being charged an upfront fee of up to 9% of the properties value?

gurramok

peter_dublin wrote: »

It's simple business not charity, the landlord owes you nothing....

Exactly. Passing on a property tax to a tenant is illegal and an own goal for the LL. A LL depends on a tenant to pay the rent to help their business. The tenant has a few avenues available to counteract this, one is withdrawing the last months rent in lieu of deposit before moving out.(yes that's illegal too)

This means the LL will have to go to the PRTB(assuming regged) to chase the last months rent and to chase any damage costs, that can take a very long time, is it worth it for the LL?
While this is going on, does a LL want a property vacant for a month while getting a new tenant? That's the loss of 2 months rent already. Then they have the agency costs of procuring a new tenant, add in the cost of refurbishing their property to attract that new tenant. Then add that the LL might have lost a good tenant and their new tenant could be a nightmare, its a big risk. That's the real world situation.

All these costs add up because the LL was not abiding by the law in the first place treating the tenant like a cashcow, the LL's financial situation is not the tenants problem, renting is a business. Going down the path of increasing rent due to the property tax is an own goal for the LL.

djimi

gurramok wrote: »

Exactly. Passing on a property tax to a tenant is illegal and an own goal for the LL. A LL depends on a tenant to pay the rent to help their business. The tenant has a few avenues available to counteract this, one is withdrawing the last months rent in lieu of deposit before moving out.(yes that's illegal too)

This means the LL will have to go to the PRTB(assuming regged) to chase the last months rent and to chase any damage costs, that can take a very long time, is it worth it for the LL?
While this is going on, does a LL want a property vacant for a month while getting a new tenant? That's the loss of 2 months rent already. Then they have the agency costs of procuring a new tenant, add in the cost of refurbishing their property to attract that new tenant. Then add that the LL might have lost a good tenant and their new tenant could be a nightmare, its a big risk. That's the real world situation.

All these costs add up because the LL was not abiding by the law in the first place treating the tenant like a cashcow, the LL's financial situation is not the tenants problem, renting is a business. Going down the path of increasing rent due to the property tax is an own goal for the LL.

Its a business agreement. Look at it that way and it will become a lot clearer to you. Property costs landlord x amount per month, they are allowed to set the rent at that amount provided it is not higher than the market value. No business operates on a loss; I have no idea why you would think that this would be any different.

Also its not illegal for the landlord to pass any cost onto the tenant in the form of a rent increase, provided the rent is within the market rent. Given that the majority of landlords are going to pass this cost on, expect market rental prices to rise accordingly.

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

Exactly. Passing on a property tax to a tenant is illegal a

No it's not. You are misinterpreting the rules. Increasing the rent to reflect increased costs(such as tax) is totally legal. It is even expected and the government have made this clear frequently.

rubberdiddies

gurramok wrote: »

Exactly. Passing on a property tax to a tenant is illegal and an own goal for the LL. A LL depends on a tenant to pay the rent to help their business. The tenant has a few avenues available to counteract this, one is withdrawing the last months rent in lieu of deposit before moving out.(yes that's illegal too)

This means the LL will have to go to the PRTB(assuming regged) to chase the last months rent and to chase any damage costs, that can take a very long time, is it worth it for the LL?
While this is going on, does a LL want a property vacant for a month while getting a new tenant? That's the loss of 2 months rent already. Then they have the agency costs of procuring a new tenant, add in the cost of refurbishing their property to attract that new tenant. Then add that the LL might have lost a good tenant and their new tenant could be a nightmare, its a big risk. That's the real world situation.

All these costs add up because the LL was not abiding by the law in the first place treating the tenant like a cashcow, the LL's financial situation is not the tenants problem, renting is a business. Going down the path of increasing rent due to the property tax is an own goal for the LL.

firstly, it's not a business for me.
secondly, show me the documentation that states that increasing rent by €50 per month is illegal?

the tenant can of course withhold the last months rent, but then will face court down the line. And yes I've seen this happen many times. Tenant will eventually find it hard to rent if subsequent potential LL's look for references.

you say that all those costs add up because the LL didnt abide by the law in the first place. what law is this you speak of?

What you are suggesting doing is illegal. Why do you advocate theft?

murphaph

MistyCheese wrote: »

I'm trying to imagine a conversation with my landlord that begins with him saying "Misty, I'm putting up the rent..." Every single version ends up with him having an empty property for a lwhile.

Even if all landlords do the same?

gurramok

djimi wrote: »

Its a business agreement. Look at it that way and it will become a lot clearer to you. Property costs landlord x amount per month, they are allowed to set the rent at that amount provided it is not higher than the market value. No business operates on a loss; I have no idea why you would think that this would be any different.

Also its not illegal for the landlord to pass any cost onto the tenant in the form of a rent increase, provided the rent is within the market rent. Given that the majority of landlords are going to pass this cost on, expect market rental prices to rise accordingly.

OMD wrote: »

No it's not. You are misinterpreting the rules. Increasing the rent to reflect increased costs(such as tax) is totally legal. It is even expected and the government have made this clear frequently.

rubberdiddies wrote: »

firstly, it's not a business for me.
secondly, show me the documentation that states that increasing rent by €50 per month is illegal?

the tenant can of course withhold the last months rent, but then will face court down the line. And yes I've seen this happen many times. Tenant will eventually find it hard to rent if subsequent potential LL's look for references.

you say that all those costs add up because the LL didnt abide by the law in the first place. what law is this you speak of?

What you are suggesting doing is illegal. Why do you advocate theft?

A few contradictions there, some of ye say its a business and some say its not, which is it? And where does it say that the govt expect the tenant to pay for the property tax?

So what ye are saying is that a landlord cartel which passes the property tax onto the tenant hence helping to increase the market rate in a particular area results it being legal somehow. Nice loophole. That will not work in the real world as the tenant knows its a tax on ownership not occupancy. Tenants ain't stupid.

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

A few contradictions there, some of ye say its a business and some say its not, which is it? And where does it say that the govt expect the tenant to pay for the property tax?

So what ye are saying is that a landlord cartel which passes the property tax onto the tenant hence helping to increase the market rate in a particular area results it being legal somehow. Nice loophole. That will not work in the real world as the tenant knows its a tax on ownership not occupancy. Tenants ain't stupid.

There is no loophole. It is totally completely legal. Not a loophole, not some sneaky way around rules, it is totally within the rules. You simply don't understand it. That is not our problem. Do a little research, inform yourself then come back and take part in the discussion. By the way I am not a landlord and never have been. I have been a tenant

murphaph

gurramok wrote: »

Who loses out more in your scenario? Think about it, be realistic. Tenants are human beings, they ain't exactly rolling in money.

I think you're making the classic mistake of believing that all landlords are rolling in money. Many are scraping by, subsidising the rental property mortgage with their own wages, and any additional costs will put them over the edge. I'm not in that situation myself, but I know people who are.

rubberdiddies

gurramok wrote: »

A few contradictions there, some of ye say its a business and some say its not, which is it? And where does it say that the govt expect the tenant to pay for the property tax?

So what ye are saying is that a landlord cartel which passes the property tax onto the tenant hence helping to increase the market rate in a particular area results it being legal somehow. Nice loophole. That will not work in the real world as the tenant knows its a tax on ownership not occupancy. Tenants ain't stupid.

you are still generalising. cant you not see that? I'm a landlord, but its not a business for me. Circumstances saw me ending up with this property. Thats life. I don't own a company, I'm not a sole trader. It's not a business for me. I'm a PAYE worker. Simple.

Cartel? Seriously? What loophole? Inevitably, rents will rise in some areas as a result of this tax. In a similar way as when there was a VAT increase in last years budget, the prices of almost all goods in shops increased. Similarly as the price of diesel goes up (as a result of both tax increases and the general price fluctuations), transport costs increase and goods we pay for in the shops increase also. Costs like this in all walks of life have always been passed on. This is no different.

Presumably you are a tenant and I can understand your frustration at impending rent increases, but thats life really.

djimi

Renting is a business. Anyone, landlord or tenant, who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Any landlord who does not approach it as a business I would run a mile from.

snickerpuss

I think it depends on supply and demand. The apartment next door has been vacant for over month and a half and the price has come down once already. Not every area has people queuing up to live there. This is North Dublin so quite a lot of rental properties relatively nearby in Belmayne, Northwood, Northern Cross, Clongriffin etc...

Will examine my options if an increase is mooted. Been here 3 years and take very good care of apartment so would be up to landlord to risk empty apartment for month or two if next door is anything to go by.

rubberdiddies

djimi wrote: »

Renting is a business. Anyone, landlord or tenant, who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Any landlord who does not approach it as a business I would run a mile from.

well in that case half the landlords in the country who are PAYE, dont own a company and arent registered as a sole trader must be breaking the law so

djimi

rubberdiddies wrote: »

you are still generalising. cant you not see that? I'm a landlord, but its not a business for me. Circumstances saw me ending up with this property. Thats life. I don't own a company, I'm not a sole trader. It's not a business for me. I'm a PAYE worker. Simple.

You are running a business, like it or not. You might not be doing so by choice, but that doesnt change things. You are better off facing this reality now; its best for you and for your tenant in the long run.

gurramok

rubberdiddies wrote: »

you are still generalising. cant you not see that? I'm a landlord, but its not a business for me. Circumstances saw me ending up with this property. Thats life. I don't own a company, I'm not a sole trader. It's not a business for me. I'm a PAYE worker. Simple.

Cartel? Seriously? What loophole? Inevitably, rents will rise in some areas as a result of this tax.

Presumably you are a tenant and I can understand your frustration at impending rent increases, but thats life really.

I disagree, it is a business. Its an ownership tax, find a way of paying it if you have to borrow money from the local credit union. Your financial problems have nothing to do with the tenant. If you cannot afford to keep your 2nd property, get out of the landlord business and sell it. Thats life really.

murphaph wrote:

I think you're making the classic mistake of believing that all landlords are rolling in money. Many are scraping by, subsidising the rental property mortgage with their own wages, and any additional costs will put them over the edge. I'm not in that situation myself, but I know people who are.

So what? A landlords financial problem is not a tenants concern. As said above, if they're broke, get out of the business of letting out property.

OMD wrote:

There is no loophole. It is totally completely legal. Not a loophole, not some sneaky way around rules, it is totally within the rules. You simply don't understand it. That is not our problem. Do a little research, inform yourself then come back and take part in the discussion. By the way I am not a landlord and never have been. I have been a tenant

You've a nice way with words and using that to get around rules. Tenants know the rules too, they will not get shafted on this ownership tax by rogue landlords.

rubberdiddies

djimi wrote: »

You are running a business, like it or not. You might not be doing so by choice, but that doesnt change things. You are better off facing this reality now; its best for you and for your tenant in the long run.

i think we might be going off topic here....
please tell me why you think it's a business and why I'm better off facing this reality etc? I genuinely would like your reason.

djimi

gurramok wrote: »

So what? A landlords financial problem is not a tenants concern. As said above, if they're broke, get out of the business of letting out property.

Any rental property must wash its own hands so to speak. If a property costs a landlord €750 a month then they are fully entitled to ask for €750 a month for it, provided that is not above market rental price. If a €600 a year tax is introduced then they are fully entitled to up the rent to the €800 a month that the house is costing them, provided the general trend in the area is for landlords to do this.

Whinge about it all you want; this is the reality of renting in this country.

rubberdiddies

gurramok wrote: »

I disagree, it is a business. Its an ownership tax, find a way of paying it if you have to borrow money from the local credit union. Your financial problems have nothing to do with the tenant. If you cannot afford to keep your 2nd property, get out of the landlord business and sell it. Thats life really.



So what? A landlords financial problem is not a tenants concern. As said above, if they're broke, get out of the business of letting out property.

Do you go into shops and give out when they put the prices of food up? Or do you still pay it?

do you give out when the publican puts up the price of a pint, or do you still pay it?

My financial issues are of no concern to the tenant. Exactly. So if I want to charge extra to pass on a tax then I can. and I will. It's my property. not yours or the tenants. if they don't want to pay it they can leave. No hard feelings etc.