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

Proposal for landlord tax break in budget

Options
1246711

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    You said anyone with a second property didn't need any more income, that's forced retirement.



  • Registered Users Posts: 799 ✭✭✭kazamo


    Do you really believe that the RTB will be financed so that non payers will be turfed out quicker ?. It would then fall on the state to house them and the State has been running away from this sector for decades.

    if the state were really bothered, they could underwrite the non payers by paying the shortfall owed to the landlords. But that would require money and effort and never gonna happen.

    Far better to leave the private sector suffer the losses than sully the state with even the thought that some of the population will not pay. And if matters come to a head, promise it will be fixed at the next budget, or is it the one after 🤔



  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    They are never going to speed up evictions in the current environment. The delays represent free housing for the government, because they don't have to house those problem tenants while they tie them up for years in free lodgings at the cost of a private property owner, through round after round of red tape.

    Imagine a politician proposing speeding up evictions in the current environment, you'd need to introduce HIA's in the Dail from the carnage of politicians all rushing to attack them at the same time, trying to publicly score points for the next election and show their 'outrage'.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    Good point.

    Any tax breaks will be just paying the landlord a token sum to incentivize the landlord to let it ride. Like giving a tiny bit better odds against ruination - but the house makes the rules so the house always wins. They arent trying to solve the problem here they are trying to persuade the landlord to keep taking a huge risk, instead of taking the risk out of the equation in the first place.



  • Registered Users Posts: 371 ✭✭bluedex


    Ok boys and girls, time to re-tell this fairytale, already posted in another thread:

    Once upon a time, in the far away continent of Europeland, there was a nation called GoodButNotPerfect, or GBNP for short. This was a fair and prosperous land, with one the most equal societies in whole wide world. It had a benign, temperate climate, and was safe from most of the natural disasters that befell other nations, like earthquakes, volcano eruptions, life-threatening wildfires and floods. It had a much envied proportional election system for government and a progressive taxation system. It did have a violent and and poverty-ridden recent past, mainly because of their greedy, oppressive neighbour, Great Brainless (GB for short), which it had successfully overcome. All in all, it was one of the best nations in the whole wide world for quality of life. It aspired to someday change it's name from GoodButNotPerfect to AbsolutelyPerfect, something no nation had ever done in the history of the whole world.

    However, it did face some significant problems, like every other nation in the whole wide world. Firstly, there was a shortage of one of the basic essentials, called Units. These Units were expensive items, of various fixed sizes, in a fixed location, but they were a requirement for the people of GBNP to have a happy life. Not everyone could afford to buy one, but there were other options: you could share with your family who owned one or you could rent one from someone. Some people had more than one Unit, they bought a second one as a pension or maybe inherited one from family. A lot of people borrowed money to buy them, from the moneylenders in GBNP. However, GBNP's population increased very quickly in a short space of time, a lot of it due to immigration. This was because it was a prosperous land and people were returning to their homeland or seeking their fortune, but also because of refugees from wars and conflicts in other lands. It was very difficult to produce units quickly enough for everyone, as they were costly and time consuming to make, and subject to a lot of regulation. So, a shortage of Units was the result. It became particularly hard for the people who rented Units to find any, something which we will return to.

    The second problem was a group of people in the nations population called The Freeloaders, who expected the nations government to supply them with everything for free, including Units of their preferred size and location, and to run their lives for them so that they had no personal responsibility. This group also reproduced rapidly, in order to avail of more of the nations generous welfare.

    The third problem was the opposition parties to the nations government were very cunning and cynical in their drive to obtain power. The main opposition party was called So Farcical (SF for short). Whenever there were plans to produce more Units, they objected and prevented them being produced as they knew this would make the problem worse and make more people angry that the government had not solved the problem. They promised that they would do what no-one else in the world could do, and solve the Unit problem immediately and once and for all. They claimed to have a Magical Money Tree that would assist them. The Pea Brained People party (PBP for short) also always objected to everything without having anything sensible to say. These opposition parties were heavily supported by the Freeloaders.

    This tale is about the private citizens of GBNP who owned Units and rented them to people who didn't own any. Most of these owners were good but a small number were bad, and most renters were good but a small number were bad. The bad ones made life extremely difficult and stressful for the other good party, and it was tricky to figure out if you were engaging with a good one or bad one beforehand. The owners who rented paid a large amount of tax every year to the nations government on the revenue they received, sometimes more than their net income, but did so to keep their Unit for sale, or to give to a family member, in future years.

    Due to constant and increasing criticism and pressure from the Freeloaders and the opposition parties, the nations government made some very foolish, short-sighted and ill-advised decisions in their effort to solve the Units rental problem, over a number of years. They forbid the owners to raise the price of the rental, no matter how much the input cost rose, the demand rose or the market developed. They created a special committee, the Ruining Things Brigade (RTB for short) which made it difficult for owners to get their Units back in good condition and made their life more difficult in general. They passed legislation which made the renting process more confusing, more difficult, and gave them and their Units less protection from the bad renters. Finally, they closed down a large part of the Unit rental market by forbidding owners from taking possession of their Units for a long period of time, even if they needed to use them. You ask: in the face of all these overwhelming obstacles, why would the owners not stop renting their Units and sell them to people who wanted to buy them? Well, that is exactly what happened. All the owners sold their Units. The people who had enough money to buy Units were very happy, but the people who didn't have enough money to buy and rented instead were very, very unhappy. Now they had to share a Unit with their family or friends. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the opposition parties and their supporters, the Freeloaders, who complained that there was now no supply of Units for the people who didn't have enough money to buy them. Sensible people tried to point out that this was the result of all the policies that the opposition had insisted on, and the Freeloaders had wanted. In fact SF and PBP and others like them had said they would go even further with these policies, as they didn't believe the owners should have any rights to their Units, they should be made surrender them to the Freeloaders. However, the opposition and the Freeloaders wouldn't listen, they were too busy wailing and moaning and blaming everyone else in the nation of GBNP.

    I wish I could say there was a Happy Every After to this fairytale, but there isn't...


    Now, luckily this is just a fairytale, as obviously nothing this stupid or crazy could happen in the real world inhabited by intelligent humans. So I don't want any comments pointing out things people disagree with, it's not real, it's just a simple story!

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,989 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    Why would the state underwrite non payment of rent. Every tenant would stop paying their rent tomorrow if that was the case.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    Not if the state went after them for what they now owe the state. As it is they can stop paying and its the landlords problem. And the landlord might as well be pissing into the wind trying to go after them for money owed. Maybe the state might have more luck.

    Also if the state was on the hook for lost rent instead of the landlord you might see some proper laws enacted to stop tenants overholding and not paying rent.

    You need to take do something about the huge risks to landlords to concince landlords to stay in the market or even to get new landlords to come into the market.



  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    That is certainly a problem with the HAP scheme. State was offloading the non-payment problem onto the private sector, but at the same time changing regulations etc. to make it harder and harder to deal with unpaying tenants, private landlords are getting out. Now the state will have liability for the full cost of the social housing unit as they are forced to buy it and will pay that up front all at once to the landlord. Underwriting a lifetime of rental payments in one go. Money that might have been better spent building new social housing units.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,336 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Who’s the WUM?

    You think people should only be allowed to own one property and that people who own two don’t need anymore money as owning two homes automatically means those people have loads of cash? Have I got that right 😂😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 799 ✭✭✭kazamo


    That option is open to the tenants as it is…

    Is it only a problem if the state is on the hook for it ?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,841 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    How about a contract between landlord and local authority ?

    5 years agreed rent tax free then you get the house back and you can do what you like with it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,841 ✭✭✭✭elperello




  • Registered Users Posts: 19,343 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    You are unfortunately dealing with what is effectively an extension of the entitled "foreva homes for free" mentality. Handout handout handout.

    They want to be able to get a loan of other people's money, outbid the next sucker on a house, then have the State guarantee them against any downside while someone else pays for the house for them.

    They have no concept of "risk/return" basics. They want the return of a high-risk venture, but in a risk-free environment.


    If they want a "risk-free" investment, then there are plenty of (close enough) candidates out there. But they will have to accept a risk-free return



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,989 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    Google Dublin City Council unpaid rent. The state already does not go after unpaid dents from its own tenants. Not a hope they'd collect all rent owed by all tenants in the country under your scheme!



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,336 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie




  • Registered Users Posts: 19,343 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Your post is extremely childish. Or is it that you genuinely can't comprehend the other poster's posts?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,989 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    But it isn't happening with every tenancy in the country. It happens too frequently, but not to the extent you are suggesting.

    We need a "can't pay we'll take it away" system here, and physically remove non paying tenants from properties. It's a grasp the nettle moment, government won't want to do this because the moron media will wheel out Mary who hasn't paid rent in 3 years and publish her sob story on the front page. However actually doing this would send a message to other non-payers to get their house in order, and signal to landlords that their interests are being looked after by the state.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden




  • Registered Users Posts: 799 ✭✭✭kazamo


    I wasn’t suggesting it was happening in every tenancy, but the option is available to every tenant and as it’s in the private sector, the State has no issues with it.

    I agree with your proposal 100% but it needs politicians with backbone…….and then buy houses on the housing market to house those who still won’t pay. The chances of success are dwindling by the second. Far easier for the state to pretend the problem is greedy landlords 😏



  • Registered Users Posts: 371 ✭✭bluedex


    Thanks. It mainly gets ignored because, although it's totally just a fictional fairytale, it has some elements that are uncomfortably close to the truth - too much so for the idiots on here who think less private landlords will improve the situation.

    My, purely personal, advice to private landlords who are undecided about holding or selling: sell and get out, it's not going to get any better. Just have a look at the attitude towards private landlords from a huge number of people in this country, it's nowhere near being worth the risk, hassle and abuse.

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,336 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie




  • Registered Users Posts: 371 ✭✭bluedex


    How do you put someone on ignore if their profile is private. Asking for a friend...

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,336 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Theres certain posters that seem to revel in the idea of derailing and destroying every property thread on this site with their ignorant one sided view on this topic.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭DownByTheGarden


    Threads are much more interesting with them on ignore. I actually had to ask someone how to put someone opn ignore too. Ive done it once but i cant even remember how to now anymore



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,343 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Says the fella either deliberately making stuff up or else genuinely incapable of reading other peoples posts 🤣


    The poster you replied to said none of the things that appeared to manifest in your brain that you think they said



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,989 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    Thise who won't pay should not be given a house. The amount of people who treat this country as a bloody charity is ridiculous.



  • Registered Users Posts: 371 ✭✭bluedex


    So anyone know how to do it? I'm still seeing meaningless drivel from one particular poster.

    Edit: it's ok I got it. Ahhh, that's so much better :)

    Please nobody quote the offender, I think it's pretty obvious who I mean

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,436 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    All true and given the fact that Dublin City Council have a third of their tenancies in rent arrears and are owed over 40 million (despite an av weekly charge of just 70 euro) you can understand why they dont want to be responisble for housing social tenants.

    But, it is their job to do so & is not the job of private landlords.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,155 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    For anyone else who fancies a bit of peace and quiet in this and other similar threads, go to

    https://www.boards.ie/profile/ignore

    and manually put in the name to place WUM's on your ignore list.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,336 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    As Kevin bridges says……………enjoy your night mate.



Advertisement