Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
'If could bring in legislation to goddamn jail landlords, I would jail the Bastards"
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 30620
c montgomery wrote: »The government takes over 50% of my rental income every month and are the greatest beneficiary of rent increases. Could he not do something about the tax rates?
54% including USC etc.
The government have structured the manner in which it taxes landlords such that there is a perverse incentive to load as much debt as possible on rental properties- there is a clear disincentive to repay debt- which is bizarre, given all our economy has gone through........0 -
If you could bring in legislation, you would be a politician. Maybe you would have different ideas then?
I'm perfectly happy with competent politicians bringing in legislation. This guy is simply pandering. As I've said ad nauseum on numerous threads, the biggest beneficiary of the current rental situation is the exchequer.
At €1000 a month - I'm a fully compliant landlord and even went a bit lower than market rent to get good tenants, I don't cover the cost of the property. Now as I've said before I realise I have an asset at the end of it but when you look at it in the cold light of day there are much better performing investments with a lot less hassle.
The cost of renting could be solved tomorrow if the government would allow rent to be tax deductible. The average renter in Dublin would be between €3000 and €7000 a year better off. This is only a short term fix of course, but one has to ask themselves why won't the government apply this band aid when it's so easy to do? The simple answer is they need the money to prop up the rest of the State, primarily the absolute mess they've created with RA and lack of social housing.0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »54% including USC etc.
The government have structured the manner in which it taxes landlords such that there is a perverse incentive to load as much debt as possible on rental properties- there is a clear disincentive to repay debt- which is bizarre, given all our economy has gone through........
I was against LL's deducting interest on loans until I realised in any other business you get 100% relief of debt interest on assets. I don't think they've structured it deliberately - just ended up with some intermediate solution as general business assets depreciate and property doesn't (in the very long term).
Debt isn't really an issue, especially given the record low interest rates, it's the tax burden indirectly placed on tenants. At the moment that can't be solved by relief at the LL side but it could be solved - short term - by relief on tenants. IIRC there always was a tax allowance for rent before the crash.0 -
If rent was tax deductible, and if I take a simplified case where two buy to let apartments are let to the other owners for the same rent then no tax is paid on either. I'd say the government would stand to lose millions if that came in.
As a back of the envelope calculation, there's roughly 500,000 rentals in the country. Average rent 1000 per month, let's say 25% goes to the government coffers. That's €1.5 billion a year.0 -
Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »If rent was tax deductible, and if I take a simplified case where two buy to let apartments are let to the other owners for the same rent then no tax is paid on either. I'd say the government would stand to lose millions if that came in.
As a back of the envelope calculation, there's roughly 500,000 rentals in the country. Average rent 1000 per month, let's say 25% goes to the government coffers. That's €1.5 billion a year.
But the owners are still paying income tax on the rental income which only serves to underscore the double taxation that's currently going on.
That said of course when I'm bringing in my legislation I'm careful to ensure not presidents don't dingy the system :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 30620
MarkAnthony wrote: »I was against LL's deducting interest on loans until I realised in any other business you get 100% relief of debt interest on assets. I don't think they've structured it deliberately - just ended up with some intermediate solution as general business assets depreciate and property doesn't (in the very long term).
Debt isn't really an issue, especially given the record low interest rates, it's the tax burden indirectly placed on tenants. At the moment that can't be solved by relief at the LL side but it could be solved - short term - by relief on tenants. IIRC there always was a tax allowance for rent before the crash.
This very point comes up again and again- and some high profile publications- such as The Economist- have dedicated forums and conferences to debating just this point.
In short- it is a perceived shortcoming- however- its an international shortcoming- so until such time as the manner in which debt is treated is dealt with internationally- small, or even larger economies- who try to tackle the bizarre treatment of debt- instantly put themselves at a disadvantage in comparison to their neighbours.
In an Irish context- there is a double inequity- because some REITs etc- can structure themselves in such a manner that all of their debt is tax deductible- while smaller operators- are not afforded a similar treatment. Some of the REITs even manage to lend their Irish wings the entirety of the funding- at bizarre interest rates- between 12 and 15% not being unusual- in order to structure their Irish holding companies so they are never ever profitable.
The Revenue Commissioners are acutely aware of these shenanigans- however, seemingly powerless to do anything about it.0 -
Is he the same clown who wanted smoking allowed in pubs again? The reality is there are generations of workshy able bodied people who have been happily living on benefits and having their rent paid for them and it needs to stop. So many people think that the State should provide lifetime accommodation for them and that has to stop. All of these rent payment schemes should only be provided for a maximum of 3 years, after that people should be providing for themselves. Many of them haven't worked a day in their lives. I'm all for providing support for people who need it, but not allowing them to make a choice to live their lives on benefit having child after child.0
-
https://www.thejournal.ie/john-halligan-interview-2801068-Jun2016/
Well there you have it.
A minister for state wanting to solve his housing crisis by jailing landlords.
Maybe he should look at what the government have done to both cause and solve the crisis.
Well the solve side is easy to answer. Nothing.
But a minister coming our like that and wanting to jail the landlords is really going to help too.
What have we got running this country?
A little out of context it wasn't a reference to all landlords just to those hiking rents and putting people out on the street to hike rents.0 -
Voipjunkie wrote: »A little out of context it wasn't a reference to all landlords just to those hiking rents and putting people out on the street to hike rents.
Landlords aren't a charity though. They're a business and when a commodity is in short supply prices go up, this is only natural economics. Landlords are an easy scapegoat for populist politics, implementing legislative change to encourage more housing supply is clearly more difficult.0 -
Is he the same clown who wanted smoking allowed in pubs again? The reality is there are generations of workshy able bodied people who have been happily living on benefits and having their rent paid for them and it needs to stop. So many people think that the State should provide lifetime accommodation for them and that has to stop. All of these rent payment schemes should only be provided for a maximum of 3 years, after that people should be providing for themselves. Many of them haven't worked a day in their lives. I'm all for providing support for people who need it, but not allowing them to make a choice to live their lives on benefit having child after child.
TBH I'm not sure how you do it without affecting the innocent parties (multiple kids) but I am for building estates - with reasonable facilities - in the Midlands and letting people get on with it to a certain extent.
If you want to move back to Dublin/Cork/Galway/Limerick, fine - all you need to do is show proof of a job and let's find you suitable social housing. Frankly I think everyone would be happier given the propensity to have horses etc. roaming around housing estates.
I've also been completely converted to allowing people to buy their council homes at rates roughly equal to the private sector. Every penny you put into the house (earned rather than welfare payments) should be equity. You can pull that equity out if you want to move and buy a property in the private sector or you can purchase your home with contributions commensurate with your income. Maintenance costs would be deducted from equity or you can pay for it yourself at a more competitive private rate.
If this sort of thinking is occurring to me, a man of fairly limited imagination, why isn't it occurring to ministers of state? The answer is because it's easier and more profitable to use LLs as scapegoats.0 -
Advertisement
-
MarkAnthony wrote: »TBH I'm not sure how you do it without affecting the innocent parties (multiple kids) but I am for building estates - with reasonable facilities - in the Midlands and letting people get on with it to a certain extent.
If you want to move back to Dublin/Cork/Galway/Limerick, fine - all you need to do is show proof of a job and let's find you suitable social housing. Frankly I think everyone would be happier given the propensity to have horses etc. roaming around housing estates.
I've also been completely converted to allowing people to buy their council homes at rates roughly equal to the private sector. Every penny you put into the house (earned rather than welfare payments) should be equity. You can pull that equity out if you want to move and buy a property in the private sector or you can purchase your home with contributions commensurate with your income. Maintenance costs would be deducted from equity or you can pay for it yourself at a more competitive private rate.
If this sort of thinking is occurring to me, a man of fairly limited imagination, why isn't it occurring to ministers of state? The answer is because it's easier and more profitable to use LLs as scapegoats.
I always felt that selling off Council housing was a bad idea, they aren't building them anymore and it just removes more stock. It's ridiculous that you have a single person or a couple, whose children are now adults and living in their own homes and are still in 3 or 4 bedroom houses while people are living in emergency accommodation in hotels/hostels. A logical way of doing things would be to downsize people to 2 bedroom accommodation once they no longer have dependent children living with them.0 -
The reality is there are generations of workshy able bodied people who have been happily living on benefits and having their rent paid for them and it needs to stop. So many people think that the State should provide lifetime accommodation for them and that has to stop.
Workshy able bodied people expecting free money and free houses.........I think you're talking about landlords there.0 -
I always felt that selling off Council housing was a bad idea, they aren't building them anymore and it just removes more stock. It's ridiculous that you have a single person or a couple, whose children are now adults and living in their own homes and are still in 3 or 4 bedroom houses while people are living in emergency accommodation in hotels/hostels. A logical way of doing things would be to downsize people to 2 bedroom accommodation once they no longer have dependent children living with them.
There are clear advantages to selling the old stock and building new stock. In regards to downsizing etc. Absolutely but let people chose to do that and release equity for their own care later in life. If done properly it really is a win-win. It's counter intuitive in many ways and something I've only recently done the research on.
Obviously it's contingent on building new stock but again why not? It creates jobs.Labarbapostiza wrote: »Workshy able bodied people expecting free money and free houses.........I think you're talking about landlords there.
I'm not sure how you work that out, I work PT and study and the wife works FT and we're still having to subsidise the apartment we rent out. If the tenant needs something it gets done immediately regardless of what we need doing that month. We've held of plopping out sprogs until we can afford them to the point of maybe having to forego it completely now (mid-thirties).
All the while 30% of my wages and 50% of the wifes + around 40% of our rental income goes to the State. I don't resent that I would prefer to see a more equal society and I don't mind paying, even more, than my fair share of tax. I do kinda resent being made out to be a bastard for doing it though.0 -
Labarbapostiza wrote: »Workshy able bodied people expecting free money and free houses.........I think you're talking about landlords there.
Nope, it's the work shy able bodied, never worked, never will work people who are happy to sponge off society for their entire lives. We have generations in this country who drop out of school and have child after child that they have never and will never do an honest days work to put food on the table for or roofs over the head of those children.
There's no shortage of landlords willing to take absolute scum and house them in private estates to the detriment of the working people in those areas. I'm all in favour of a system that after 2 years of unemployment switches from Benefit cash to Benefit paid in food stamps and that after 3 years takes away entitlement to Social housing.
The only way to stop the cycle of sponging by those who refuse to work is by removing the incentives that enable them to do so.0 -
MarkAnthony wrote: »If this sort of thinking is occurring to me, a man of fairly limited imagination, why isn't it occurring to ministers of state? The answer is because it's easier and more profitable to use LLs as scapegoats.
The minister for housing, Simon Coveney, is a landlord.
That really should tell you all you need to know.0 -
Labarbapostiza wrote: »Workshy able bodied people expecting free money and free houses.........I think you're talking about landlords there.
Mod note: this is veering into 'us vs them' territory. We encourage criticism and debate but please do so in a constructive manner.0 -
c montgomery wrote: »The government takes over 50% of my rental income every month and are the greatest beneficiary of rent increases. Could he not do something about the tax rates?
Over 50% of your rental income monthly suggests you apparently have zero tax deductible expenses relating to your rental property and have other income sources above 33800. That is not painting a particularly bad picture.0 -
Landlord run a business and just happen to be in accommodation the live in a free market that we all enjoyed like the rust of us They are in the business of making profit only.the are not a charity. there is 23000 charity in Ireland . the government are in control of a lot of variables here tax on landlord income 50%, planning restrictions, house supply, relief on income for rental ,social housing selling and not buying/ building, infrastructure. Rental benefit amount and other payment HAP scheme rent price fixing ,no welfare adds . decentralised of people . But no no it's the landlord fault. I wonder who is passing the buck.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 30620
relax carry on wrote: »Over 50% of your rental income monthly suggests you apparently have zero tax deductible expenses relating to your rental property and have other income sources above 33800. That is not painting a particularly bad picture.
With all due respect- the fact that c montgomery has income other than rental income- is not relevant or pertinent- and deliberately drawing attention to the salient fact that he must have gainful employment elsewhere on an annual salary >33,800- simply makes you sound bitter. He is entitled to be employed elsewhere- as indeed are you or I.
The point that is being made- and which you are choosing deliberately to misconstrue- is that unless you raise debt against a rental property- the potential tax take on it- is over 54% (and you have RTB registration fees- unpaid vacancies- and overholding tenants who aren't paying rent- to contend with too).
I accept you're not a landlord- however, the very least you can do is try to understand where both tenants and landlords are coming from.
What is happening here- is the same old story as usual- the politicians are deflecting attention from themselves- and setting one party against the other- sure if you sling enough mud, some of it has to stick..........
Allied to the lack of any meaningful construction happening in the country- is the irrefutable fact- that small scale landlords in particular- are deserting the sector- which in turn is exacerbating the situation for tenants everywhere.
The international investors who bought up apartment blocks and continue to buy 30/40/50 apartments when they come available- did so on the basis of capital appreciation- and a stated income flow increasing at a rate of 10-15% per annum- which is plain nuts. Have a read of some of the other threads in this forum- the principle driver of rent rises in many areas- are now the REITs- and not the individual landlords at all- and what is most galling- is by and large- they're not paying tax- in some cases- at all- because they have structured their holdings such that they are loss making on paper (for example by lending the money to purchase the properties to their Irish holding companies- at 15-20% interest rates- which has happened even with reputable investors- such as the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund.
It suits the politicians to make the small scale investors with one or two properties- bogeymen- and threaten them with jail- is it any wonder they're queuing up to leave the sector.0 -
The majority of Landlords (and even business owners) in Ireland are one man/woman bands. Yes many of us have modest household incomes beyond our rental properties and do it for a number of reasons. Personally I was forced into it by being a silly boy during the boom, others do it as a little side line as they want to, others got in before the tiger and do it because despite it all it's profitable for them.
My household income is a little over €80K - okay not bad at all, but I'm paying every cent I should (we should) in tax. Fair enough if you want to begrudge me that - frankly is't not entirely unreasonable for a couple in Dublin to be earning that. My wife is the main breadwinner and I'm retraining as a barrister. Her prospects are probably a modest increase is salary, she has a pension. Me I'll be 50+ before I have a decent (over 40K) income and the likelihood is I'll never have a pension.
Do you really want to take the rental sector out of the hands of people like myself and push it into the realms of companies, generally large multi-nationals, who'll pay sod all tax? Personally I want the rental sector to go away almost entirely and the majority of people to own, that's not happening anytime soon though.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think anyone would begrudge you for what you've said. I also think most people would prefer to have LL like yourself, instead of large corporations of private investors, but LL's have a bad name, simply because rents are too high and the first finger gets pointed at LL, people pointing fingers don't inform themselves with all relevant info, before making an assumption.MarkAnthony wrote: »The majority of Landlords (and even business owners) in Ireland are one man/woman bands. Yes many of us have modest household incomes beyond our rental properties and do it for a number of reasons. Personally I was forced into it by being a silly boy during the boom, others do it as a little side line as they want to, others got in before the tiger and do it because despite it all it's profitable for them.
My household income is a little over €80K - okay not bad at all, but I'm paying every cent I should (we should) in tax. Fair enough if you want to begrudge me that - frankly is't not entirely unreasonable for a couple in Dublin to be earning that. My wife is the main breadwinner and I'm retraining as a barrister. Her prospects are probably a modest increase is salary, she has a pension. Me I'll be 50+ before I have a decent (over 40K) income and the likelihood is I'll never have a pension.
Do you really want to take the rental sector out of the hands of people like myself and push it into the realms of companies, generally large multi-nationals, who'll pay sod all tax? Personally I want the rental sector to go away almost entirely and the majority of people to own, that's not happening anytime soon though.
I do think large hedge funds are already operating as LL's in Ireland. They bought up large chucks of property at all the Allsop auctions, which is what actually created panic and started the price hikes in housing.
I honestly at this stage have no idea what the solution is. Of course build loads more, but who'll fund it at the scale that's needed?
As for the article in discussion, it's more like drunken pub talk, than an elected minister.0 -
I don't think anyone would begrudge you for what you've said. I also think most people would prefer to have LL like yourself, instead of large corporations of private investors, but LL's have a bad name, simply because rents are too high and the first finger gets pointed at LL, people pointing fingers don't inform themselves with all relevant info, before making an assumption.
I do think large hedge funds are already operating as LL's in Ireland. They bought up large chucks of property at all the Allsop auctions, which is what actually created panic and started the price hikes in housing.
I honestly at this stage have no idea what the solution is. Of course build loads more, but who'll fund it at the scale that's needed?
As for the article in discussion, it's more like drunken pub talk, than an elected minister.
I spoke to an Economist on what was his opinion on the unhealthy relationship that exists between Irish tenants and Landlords. In his opinion it start during the famine when people were basically evicted off the land with short notice from absentee landlords. This weird relationship has existed since. You will see the odd nut job try to make the connection between the absentee landlords of the 1800s and a landlord who has a single rental property who is trying to evict a tenant who hasn't paid rent in a year
There is tons of cash in Ireland. In fact we probably have never had so much savings in Ireland. But savings rates have never been lower. The Government could set up a separate semi-state company to build housing. Sell bonds to fund it. I imagine a ton of savers would jump at the idea of getting around 0.3% interest tax free a year from the state. The state should set up a private company to provide social and market rate housing. I imagine the Government would make a healthy profit from it
The state could order the NTMA to use the National Pension Reserve Fund to build housing. It doesnt matter if you build social housing or full market rate housing. Building any housing will drive down rents or stop them rising. I'm sure there is a few civil service pensions who could invest in housing0 -
What is the significance of economist with a capital 'E'?newacc2015 wrote: »I spoke to an Economist on what was his opinion on the unhealthy relationship that exists between Irish tenants and Landlords.
In his opinion it start during the famine when people were basically evicted off the land with short notice from absentee landlords. This weird relationship has existed since. You will see the odd nut job try to make the connection between the absentee landlords of the 1800s and a landlord who has a single rental property who is trying to evict a tenant who hasn't paid rent in a year
The issue is more one for a sociologist/anthropologist in any case.
There are no Civil Service pension funds. There are state aid rules on investing by the state. The state is already over-borrowed and can't/won't borrow more.newacc2015 wrote: »There is tons of cash in Ireland. In fact we probably have never had so much savings in Ireland. But savings rates have never been lower. The Government could set up a separate semi-state company to build housing. Sell bonds to fund it. I imagine a ton of savers would jump at the idea of getting around 0.3% interest tax free a year from the state. The state should set up a private company to provide social and market rate housing. I imagine the Government would make a healthy profit from it
The state could order the NTMA to use the National Pension Reserve Fund to build housing. It doesnt matter if you build social housing or full market rate housing. Building any housing will drive down rents or stop them rising. I'm sure there is a few civil service pensions who could invest in housing
Aside from that, throwing money at it is not the way to solve a problem.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
There are no Civil Service pension funds. There are state aid rules on investing by the state. The state is already over-borrowed and can't/won't borrow more. Aside from that, throwing money at it is not the way to solve a problem.
Pretty much the very first thing the Troika instructed the government to do- before any aid was advanced to Ireland- was that the National Pension Reserve Fund was to be used to bail out the banking sector. We may have gotten back our investment in BOI- perhaps even made a billion on it- and AIB may repay its debts- the rest of the sector- including of course Anglo- is down north of 40 billion- money which we will never see again. Even good companies like Irish Life- were handed over to new ownership for a song.
There are specific public sector 'pension levies' however- they are not ringfenced (nor is PRSI etc) for pension purposes- they are simply siphoned off into general taxation.
The suggestion of setting up a company to build housing and sell shares in it (made by newacc2015) is a complete non-runner too- aside from a very strong probability of running afoul of state aid rules- it would almost certainly go on the State's books- creating yet more budget mayhem- a-la Irish Water- we really do not need yet another quango to contend with- whether it had share capital- or not.
The Local Authorities were provided with 2 billion Euro for the provision of housing in the 2015 budget. This was an unusual multi-annual budget. So far they've spent less than 200 million- with the stated reason for the non-expenditure and non-construction of LA housing- being they don't have the expertise to manage large scale LA housing projects any longer. So- why the hell don't they gear up- get reasonable scale- and get going?0 -
newacc2015 wrote: »... the unhealthy relationship that exists between Irish tenants and Landlords. In his opinion it start during the famine when people were basically evicted off the land with short notice from absentee landlords. This weird relationship has existed since. You will see the odd nut job try to make the connection between the absentee landlords of the 1800s and a landlord who has a single rental property who is trying to evict a tenant who hasn't paid rent in a year
Indeed. It's not only the odd nut job. These connections get made all the time.
There's certainly an element of people chancing their arm. But I've been reading some stuff about the cross-generation effects of trauma, and am wondering if it's possible that Irish people are now genetically pre-disposed to thinking like this.0 -
None of this is backed up by fact. Compared to Germany (I'm a small time landlord in both countries) you can write off virtually nothing against your tax bill in Ireland. You can't even deduct 100% of your mortgage interest. Pre letting expenses are disallowed completely. Landlords are leaving the sector in Ireland. Why would they do that if the system is rigged in their favour as you suggest?Labarbapostiza wrote: »The disengagement from building social housing is part of the strategy. The objective being to herd the tenant class like cattle into the milking parlours of the "private" sector.
They can't give a higher state pension to people of a higher social class, so they rig the market. It's all wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Increase supply with the intention of lowering property prices and rents is not on. That would crash the banks. Whose only business model is property prices rising at a rate higher than wages.......Wages being what makers earn...rents being what takers take.0 -
newacc2015 wrote: »I spoke to an Economist on what was his opinion on the unhealthy relationship that exists between Irish tenants and Landlords. In his opinion it start during the famine when people were basically evicted off the land with short notice from absentee landlords.
An economist should know that there was no famine. There was always plenty of food in Ireland. It is not like Ethiopia or South Sudan where there is literally no food. People were put off the land for non payment of rent. It doesn't meant that nearly 2 centuries later people should not pay their rent.0 -
FG getting everything they deserve, taking onboard the likes of Halligan and totally unable to control him. What a tremendous reflection on the electorate that voted him.
Have to laugh, can only assume the case is a person from Waterford where he is from. Would absolutely LOVE to pay Waterford level rent.
I could probably get myself and family set AND pay for that persons monthly rent, and still come out with money left over from Dublin rates.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
Guys- back on topic please- if you want the thread to remain open..........0 -
Advertisement
-
It is just indicative of the anger that many people feel towards landlords. It might not be fair or even logical, but landlords are fast becoming one of the most hated groups in the country. And that is something that suits the government.
Still though, I would question the morality of anyone who puts the rent up on a property simply because they can.0
Advertisement