# Minister says tax measures may be needed to keep landlords from exiting the rental market,



## Páid (5 May 2022)

Tax measures may need review to keep landlords from exiting the rental market, says minister  https://jrnl.ie/5755491


Some would say that maybe it's a little too late?


----------



## noproblem (5 May 2022)

So called Landlords have been doing what the Goverment should have been doing for many years now. They've been treated like dirt,  no wonder they've left the market, and are still leaving in droves. It also needs to be said that a sizeable amount of tenants treat where they stay with total disrespect. Some won't like seeing or hearing that but the truth needs to be told. If a proper letting market existed, everything might be a lot different. Forever hearing about bad landlords, never hear about the disgraceful tenants out there.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (5 May 2022)

You need lower tax rates on landlords (small landlords with one or two properties).

You need higher tax rates on institutional landlords and reits.

You need an ability for landlords to get bad tenants out of their property quickly. It's a joke taking two years with no payment etc. 

If the government act quickly they can stem the tide and maybe attract new landlords into the sector.


----------



## Baby boomer (6 May 2022)

Páid said:


> Tax measures may need review to keep landlords from exiting the rental market, says minister  https://jrnl.ie/5755491
> 
> 
> Some would say that maybe it's a little too late?


From that article, the minister's language is very telling.  (My emphasis.)

“A changing regulatory environment, which has been necessary to ensure a fair and effective residential rental sector *that balances tenants’ rights and landlords’ responsibilities*, has resulted in a challenging compliance framework for some."

Nothing about tenants' responsibilities or landlords' rights!  What a flawed concept of balance.


----------



## Frank (6 May 2022)

Won't hold my breath or expect more than tokenism


----------



## so-crates (6 May 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> ...
> 
> You need higher tax rates on institutional landlords and reits.
> 
> ....


I can't see any reason why this is particularly necessary to encourage a rental market. The other three points make sense, this just seems designed to discourage institutional landlords, this might be a personal preference but it will not have a positive impact on availability of rental properties. The problem isn't that there are institutional landlords, the problem is that the current systems are ...discouraging... small scale landlords.


----------



## Protocol (6 May 2022)

Can there really be different income tax rates on different types of income?

OK, the DIRT tax might be different than income tax, but that is one case, and interest income is not significant at the moment.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (6 May 2022)

Protocol said:


> Can there really be different income tax rates on different types of income?


It's a fair point.

Carving out rental income from other non-employment income can have unintended consequences and there are lots of questions around the edges. For example would commercial rental income be treated the same, etc.

My own preferred solution is that all occupied rental properties pay LPT @1%. All rental income exempt from income tax, PRSI, and USC. You could have some exemption system for rental properties in renovation or with non-paying tenants but it would simplify the whole system incredibly.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (6 May 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It's a fair point.
> 
> Carving out rental income from other non-employment income can have unintended consequences and there are lots of questions around the edges. For example would commercial rental income be treated the same, etc.
> 
> My own preferred solution is that all occupied rental properties pay LPT @1%. All rental income exempt from income tax, PRSI, and USC. You could have some exemption system for rental properties in renovation or with non-paying tenants but it would simplify the whole system incredibly.


Or allow LPT be tax deductible.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (6 May 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It's a fair point.
> 
> Carving out rental income from other non-employment income can have unintended consequences and there are lots of questions around the edges. For example would commercial rental income be treated the same, etc.
> 
> My own preferred solution is that all occupied rental properties pay LPT @1%. All rental income exempt from income tax, PRSI, and USC. You could have some exemption system for rental properties in renovation or with non-paying tenants but it would simplify the whole system incredibly.


The application of PRSI/USC on rental income is one area that should be looked at . 12% in our case is a bit saucy and there is no extra benefit to landlords in paying this , it's not as if one gets extra benefits by paying it. Applying the existing tax rates would be more equitable. 

But as you have been saying on multiple threads the entire system is skewed towards the tenants and that's the issue for us. Sick and tired of not being able to do what we want when we want with our money/assets.

Our 2 properties are rented by professionals Drs and Senior Accountants and they would be paying a lot more in mortgage payments to live in those properties. 

We are charitable people and have no issue with helping those in need, but we now feel that despite a lifetime of hard work and making money paying 6 figure income tax we honestly feel like second class citizens.


----------



## T McGibney (6 May 2022)

Protocol said:


> Can there really be different income tax rates on different types of income?


This has been the case for donkey's years. 



Protocol said:


> OK, the DIRT tax might be different than income tax, but that is one case, and interest income is not significant at the moment.


Interest income was very significant when DIRT was introduced in the 1980s.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (6 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> The application of PRSI/USC on rental income is one area that should be looked at . 12% in our case is a bit saucy and there is no extra benefit to landlords in paying this , it's not as if one gets extra benefits by paying it. Applying the existing tax rates would be more equitable.


PRSI makes little odds to most landlords who are in employment. But for those who aren't, 4% on rental profits is an amazingdeal for a state pension.

If you're a landlord with other employment you pay 4% PRSI on rental income which gets you nothing additional as you pay PRSI anyway. The landlord of the house next door with no other income aside from rental profits pays 4% and gets a full state pension at 66. That's a real inequality of treatment.

It's another reason to tax rental properties different from trading and labour income.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (6 May 2022)

make LPT tax deductible yes. You could have rental income not liable for USC and PRSI (reducing effective tax rate on many 'mom and pop' landlords by 11%. If they want equality of treatment for all landlords then charging one group 51% tax rate and the other larger institutional landlords 12.5% (if even that!) then it's not really fair. Also, I would suggest that new tenancies, which are the ones increasing by 10% a year according to reports, are dominated by larger institutional type landlords, whereas 'mom and pop' landlords are often charging way under market rent as a result of being nice to previous/current tenants and not raising rents due to tenants being general good tenants anyway.

To help current small landlords,the government needs to do in on the taxation side or else helping to speed up the removal of bad tenants and instead of giving landlords nothing but "responsibilities" give them some "rights" would also help.


----------



## Firefly (6 May 2022)

I wouldn't hold out any help for landlords regarding bad tenants or on the taxation front...SF would just lap it up.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (6 May 2022)

Firefly said:


> I wouldn't hold out any help for landlords regarding bad tenants or on the taxation front...SF would just lap it up.


Yep and the others , I jokingly said to someone a few years ago that I was going to set up a new political party "Profit before People " slogans included " you work for it you keep it" , there was a rude one too, where I spelt poor as "pour" .

Some said youd probably garner 10% first preference votes


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (6 May 2022)

Firefly said:


> I wouldn't hold out any help for landlords regarding bad tenants or on the taxation front...SF would just lap it up.


what kite do you think the Minister was flying so? I expect that there will be some give to landlords (with 1 or 2 properties only) in terms of LPT being allowable and/or a reduction in the taxation rate. I really do believe that as landlords are selling up, the new landlords (small and institutional) have market rents far in excess of the rents of the properties leaving the sector. The government know this and are trying to appeal or make it appealling to exisiting small time landlords to stay in the game and not sell up. I think it will be coupled with a return of the tax credit for renters so that both sides of the equation get something. Not that this would stop SF moaning and complaining that the government are "looking after" landlords etc.

SF think that they can give/promise renters everything, penalise and punish landlords and that landlords won't act accordingly (i.e. sell up and leave) I believe their rethoric is actually driving landlords out in advance of the next election, thus reducing supply further, making the problem worse and resulting in SF gaining popularity. I don't see how SF proposals about rent freezes, security of tenure for life etc are doing anything but encouraging landlords to sell up asap.


----------



## T McGibney (6 May 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I think it will be coupled with a return of the tax credit for renters so that both sides of the equation get something.


It would be surely counterproductive to inflate rents further by introducing a tax credit for those paying them?


----------



## dereko1969 (6 May 2022)

For a bit of balance in here:

Why do we "need" Mom and Pop landlords?
If we do, why should they be more favourably treated than Professional landlords? (leave out the outrageous tax shenanigans of REITS etc)

I don't have a fixed view on this.

I've had a This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language landlord (taking security deposit for what was wear and tear) and some good ones. We had a rental property for a short while and got snookered with the RPZ having given mates rates previously. Don't and won't have a rental property in future. I agree there needs to be a better balance between tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities.


----------



## Leo (6 May 2022)

dereko1969 said:


> Why do we "need" Mom and Pop landlords?


Just one thought, mom & pop landlords often bring a different offering, REITs or other commercial scale landlords have little interest in managing the odd house in established estates, or properties outside of the major population areas. They want full developments in new complexes in the large urban centers where scale and consistent demand significantly reduces their costs. 



dereko1969 said:


> why should they be more favourably treated than Professional landlords? (leave out the outrageous tax shenanigans of REITS etc)


Is it really a level playin field if small landlords have rental income minus expenses taxed as income with no ability to fund pensions or avail of other tax reduction measures (shenanigan or otherwise   .)


----------



## T McGibney (6 May 2022)

Leo said:


> Is it really a level playin field if small landlords have rental income minus expenses taxed as income with no ability to fund pensions or avail of other tax reduction measures (shenanigan or otherwise   .)


Agreed. Add to that, being forced to pay Income Tax on non-existent income (income spent on travel, LPT and other non-allowable costs) and USC on income before capital allowances on furniture and fittings.


----------



## T McGibney (6 May 2022)

dereko1969 said:


> For a bit of balance in here:
> 
> Why do we "need" Mom and Pop landlords?


Because their diminishing presence in the market is worsening an already dire housing shortage, rents spiral and homelessness crisis.


----------



## dereko1969 (6 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Because their diminishing presence in the market is worsening an already dire housing shortage, rents spiral and homelessness crisis.


The house is still there either rented by a Professional Landlord/Council/Housing Agency or bought by an owner occupier.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (6 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Because their diminishing presence in the market is worsening an already dire housing shortage, rents spiral and homelessness crisis.


And this is the nub, if post tax there was a yield that was acceptable more wouldn't bail.
But it's not just tax , many and theres a few threads on this forum,  show that tenants have the power in terms of tenure etc, and is fully backed up and aided by the Government.......of course none of these measures are alleviating the shortage of property to rent, but in a rush to be seen to be doing something they made a bags of the whole thing.


----------



## T McGibney (6 May 2022)

dereko1969 said:


> The house is still there either rented by a Professional Landlord/Council/Housing Agency *or bought by an owner occupier.*


And what does that latter eventuality do to rental supply, and by extension rents charged?


----------



## jpd (6 May 2022)

A landlord exiting the market does not reduce the housing stock, unless the property is left vacant

Fighting over whether tax relief is given to landlords or not, does not increase the housing stock one brick

A vacant property tax would encourage property owners to bring their property back to the market either by letting it or selling it to an owner--occupier or a willing landliord


----------



## jpd (6 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> And what does that latter eventuality do to rental supply?


Adding an owner-occupier reduces the number of people looking to rent and so the net effect is zero on the overall housing market.

If all the owner-occupiers decided to sell and rent, the number of houses would still be the same as would the number of people looking for somewhere to live. 

Looking at the rental market indpendently of the owner-occupier market is a waste of time - they both work together


----------



## T McGibney (6 May 2022)

jpd said:


> Adding an owner-occupier reduces the number of people looking to rent and so *the net effect is zero* on the overall housing market.


Quite a number of assumptions there e.g. that everyone who buys an ex-rental property as an owner occupier has previously been renting, and that the incidence of house-sharing in owner-occupied properties matches that in rental properties.

Brave assumptions those.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (6 May 2022)

dereko1969 said:


> The house is still there either rented by a Professional Landlord/Council/Housing Agency or bought by an owner occupier.


But there are also limitations on this the market now is akin to 2006/2007 for prices and if people struggled to buy then they are probably less able now given the restrictions on lending imposed post the last mess.


----------



## T McGibney (6 May 2022)

jpd said:


> A landlord exiting the market does not reduce the housing stock, unless the property is left vacant


It reduces the rental stock. And unless it also and equally reduces rental demand, it will increase rents.


----------



## Sconeandjam (6 May 2022)

What is also frightening off landlords is the threat that the house they may have lived in may have to be sold with tenant in situ in the future. There would be so few landlords that would buy the properties. Banks do not lend at the moment with sitting tenants.

The mentioning of rent freezes is on the radio every few days. More and more restrictions makes it impossible to plan ahead. 

Hearing about the minister is looking at new rules on short term lets. What about those getting pyrite work done? Someone selling their house and moving to another but need a place to stay in the mean time. What about MICA or Fire precaution works needed to be carried out on celtic tiger properties. The fire precaution works will be the new pyrite. Where will those families go?

The more the Government interferes the worse it is going to get.

Think landlords have had enough of tenants not paying rent or damaging properties. 
I still do not get why a landlord is responsible for a tenants behaviour. The tenants are adults after all. Landlords are brought to RTB and they are fined not the tenant. The system is so one sided.
They maybe able to sell now when they could not before.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (6 May 2022)

Sconeandjam said:


> What is also frightening off landlords is the threat that the house they may have lived in may have to be sold with tenant in situ in the future. There would be so few landlords that would buy the properties. Banks do not lend at the moment with sitting tenants.
> 
> The mentioning of rent freezes is on the radio every few days. More and more restrictions makes it impossible to plan ahead.
> 
> ...


Great post


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (6 May 2022)

I thought there was some representative body for Landlords........perhaps I'm wrong.


----------



## T McGibney (6 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> I thought there was some representative body for Landlords........perhaps I'm wrong.


There is or was a lobby group, the IPOA. But they have scant influence if any, especially when compared to the tenant lobbyists such as Threshold and NGOs like the Peter McVerry Trust who have more regard for REITs than they have for small landlords.


----------



## The Horseman (7 May 2022)

It's a business. It's not a landlords concern how the rent I paid. 

Flip your point, if the tenants gets a pay rise should the landlord be given more rent because the tenants situation improved?

It's a business relationship nothing more nothing less. Why do people find this concept so difficult to understand.


----------



## Cameo (8 May 2022)

Reading this thread reminded me of SF threat, was considering selling my under rented house, arguments are only getting stronger to sell, I'd fear for the tenant though as there is very little to rent

Clearly I'd be much happier to keep if the numbers added up; unfortunately they dont under current taxation regime

As an aside I know s few people who rent out properties around crumlin in dublin, as of this morning there was not a single property available to rent


----------



## argolis (8 May 2022)

jpd said:


> Similarly, if a owner-occupier house is rented out following a death for example, then the number of bed spaces will probably increase.
> 
> I am finished with this thread - I still maintain that the only solution is to build more homes, a lot more homes, in places where people want to work and live. Whether they are owner-occupied or rented doesn't really matter



You're clutching at straws there. I would strongly suspect the vast majority of houses following a death are sold by the executor in order to distribute the funds of the estate because it's the simplest path forward, or they're inherited by a single family member. The only way they'd be rented is if someone inherited one, decided they don't want to live there themselves and can afford to take a hit on inheritance tax and want to rent it out rather than keep it for family purposes. I would be surprised if it was more than 10% of sales ended in rentals following the death of an owner.

No one is disputing that more houses are needed in the areas where there's demand. You're only being argued with for saying that it makes no difference whether a house is owner-occupied or rented. You don't seem able to back it up but you won't concede anything either, so you're just taking your ball and running home.

I thought the same thing for a long time until I read a post on AAM pointing out that rented houses house more people on average. I don't know if there's official stats on it but it certainly tallies with all my experiences. The Horseman just gave you an example of how switching a house from rented to owner occupied pushes overall demand higher. So, it would be better to encourage more rentals when the system as a whole is under so much pressure. Less houses would be needed overall and I'm certain that maintaining a healthy percentage of the housing stock as rentals would be good for society because certain cohorts of people can stay mobile for jobs and other social reasons.

I don't know what that percentage is now but it's trending steadily down and I think the majority of AAM recognise that as unhealthy. According to your argument, if we had only owner occupied properties and no rentals, we'd be just fine. First of all, we'd need way more houses and secondly, there's less social mobility neither of which are good.


----------



## Baby boomer (8 May 2022)

Is it not blindingly obvious that there is a shortage of *both* property for rent *and* property for purchase right now?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (8 May 2022)

The Horseman said:


> It's a business. It's not a landlords concern how the rent I paid.
> 
> Flip your point, if the tenants gets a pay rise should the landlord be given more rent because the tenants situation improved?
> 
> It's a business relationship nothing more nothing less. Why do people find this concept so difficult to understand.


If it was a true business relationship why is there governmental interference? 

If it was a true business landlords would be able to charge what the market dictates and be in full control over his/her assets and let the landlord decide who they want to let to lease to.

Its certainly isn't a true business.


----------



## The Horseman (8 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> If it was a true business relationship why is there governmental interference?
> 
> If it was a true business landlords would be able to charge what the market dictates and be in full control over his/her assets and let the landlord decide who they want to let to lease to.
> 
> Its certainly isn't a true business.


You are completely correct it is not a business due to govt interference. 

Which is one of the main reasons the sector is hemorrhaging small landlords.

I would be happy if the govt left the market and fulfilled their own obligations themselves.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (8 May 2022)

The Horseman said:


> You are completely correct it is not a business due to govt interference.
> 
> Which is one of the main reasons the sector is hemorrhaging small landlords.
> 
> I would be happy if the govt left the market and fulfilled their own obligations themselves.


Agreed,  our rental income has been used for nothing else than education primarily 3rd level and August to May coming will be the last payout allegedly, for 2 ....the net income after tax is about 13/14k should be more but in zones.

Its not a bad few bob but it's the hassle with everything that is the killer,  and both properties are "valued" at 500k plus so if we got that each I'd be delighted even after paying CGT .......we'll probably wipe our face. 

Tax probably the secondary reason for many having the government involved is primary,  and if theres a change of Government,  most probably,  itll get even worse. 

Some country.....


----------



## Lockup (9 May 2022)

jpd said:


> Adding an owner-occupier reduces the number of people looking to rent and so the net effect is zero on the overall housing market.


open market rented properties (mom and pop) have higher occupancy. I saw a stat a few years ago on this so the stupid argument that the house doesnt dissappear and someone lives in it - is ridiculous. 

Every house I ever rented was smaller that every house I owned. My friend rents his house by the room - if he sells there will be a percentage displacement. It might be 3 ppl in the house versus 5 now but multiply that over the whole market........


----------



## Páid (9 May 2022)

I know that there are a lot of issues around housing but this thread is about the *tax measures* that may be needed in order to keep landlords from exiting the rental market.


----------



## T McGibney (9 May 2022)

Páid said:


> I know that there are a lot of issues around housing but this thread is about the *tax measures* that may be needed in order to keep landlords from exiting the rental market.


Yes, but claims were made that landlords from exiting the market made no difference to it. I think it's useful that they have since been debunked.


----------



## Dermot (9 May 2022)

An acquaintance of mine who died in the last 15 months owned a large house in a desirable part of Dublin which was divided into 6 Apartments/ bedsits and the family are selling it.  It will most likely will be converted back into a luxury one-family unit due to its location.  The two family members who are inheriting could not be bothered due to the tax regime together with the hassle of renting.   That is their take on the situation and the advice that they have been given.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (9 May 2022)

Páid said:


> I know that there are a lot of issues around housing but this thread is about the *tax measures* that may be needed in order to keep landlords from exiting the rental market.


But this is really not the primary issue and if the Government decides to focus on tax alone it simply won't make a difference to the exodus.

The Government are bending and essentially implementing SF proposals as when a GE is held they'll argue that their housing policies are the same or better than eachother.

No solution is going to be found if only one aspect of the problem is addressed.

This is a highly complex issue and all aspects even the most obscure need to be understood and then hopefully a proper policy on all aspects will be created and perhaps solutions found.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (9 May 2022)

Lockup said:


> open market rented properties (mom and pop) have higher occupancy.


I highly doubt this.

I lived in a single-owner development years ago and voids were very rare. It was very actively managed to maximise cash flow.


----------



## Lockup (10 May 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I highly doubt this.
> 
> I lived in a single-owner development years ago and voids were very rare. It was very actively managed to maximise cash flow.


there was some stats here or on boards a few years ago i.e. percentage of ppl displaced when properties move from rented to Owner occupied. It makes sense really. Wish I could find the report but to me it certainly mirrored my life/experience. I would have rented smaller properties then what I owned.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (10 May 2022)

Páid said:


> If (profit > hassle) then there will be more landlords trying to make all kinds of properties available to rent.


Profit isn't the issue its cashflow,  capital/mortgage payments aren't tax deductible,  LPT is not tax deductible, neither was its predecessor,  do some upgrades in a property and its capital expenditure and can't be claimed in the year of expenditure, written off over 8 years,  other expenses that are incurred and paid out immediately and then having to wait 12 months or longer to write against tax, the preliminary tax of 90% paid foward, and I have yet to get it right and I doubt many do.

Then tax in most cases at marginal rate.

That's just tax add in the other non financial issues it's a mess.

Profit is taxable income but I'll guarantee that those paying mortgage capital are probably cash negative every year.And are hoping that market prices will get them their entire investment back.


----------



## Sconeandjam (15 May 2022)

Don’t forget USC is now charged and that is a hard one to take.  We have a Hap tenant and after all the taxes charges the council are getting a 2 bed for less than 360.
In all the years we have had to top up the mortgage pay for charges that are not allowable, property tax, nppr charges, and we kept the rents reasonable for people to afford. Dropping rents in the recession due to the housing minister dropping all rental allowance. We were one of the landlords that looked after our tenants.
We got stung with rpz and rental limits. The rent allowance limits were also low.  We have one house we have given notice and the current rent is 950 and the going rate is now 1600.
The people wanted the big corporate landlords and not the one property or 2 property landlords. We will be selling below what we paid for it as it was in the Celtic tiger times. 
The ones that benefited from our purchase are the government and the banks. We would have kept the house and tenant if there was so much pressure from certain political parties and the government. The threat of not getting the tenant out or having to selling with a sitting tenant and devaluing the property even more has made the decision for us.


----------



## Clamball (15 May 2022)

With the increase in property prices in general, a risk that the government may prevent a landlord from removing a sitting tenant if they wish to sell, and many small 1/2 property landlords unable to make a profit on rental income due to taxes and charges many landlords are choosing to sell now.  
This puts increased pressure on the rental system, more demand, less stock.  And the population keeps growing so even more demand.  Much more housing stock is needed.  And housing stock that is suitable for people to live in as tenants for their lifetime. So basic space, storage, facilities, safety etc. not the co-living spaces.
Tenants would like security of tenure as is common in many other countries, they would also like rental stock at various price points, to suit their life stage, students, young professionals, young families etc.  and thirdly they need some protection against market changes.  Most can just about afford 50% of their income on rent.

Airbnb was a market change, the government selling off much of its housing stock in the 70&80s and having many of their current social welfare house under utilised by not moving people on as their life circumstances change.
 Ireland does not have a mature rental market so many young people choose to buy when they can afford to and remove more stock from the rental market.    
Both tenants and landlords have rights and responsibilities.  There are a complexity of issues in terms of housing.  And this is why there is so much government tinkering.  

All individual landlords can do is react to the current situation and it is a good time to sell.  Trying to change the government policies to encourage more landlords to stay renting is probably fruitless as there is too much pushback from people looking for housing.   

I am sure SF will move to the mantra that housing is a basic human right and that this should be given to people free by the government.  Very few people are born homeless, but many do not remain in the housing they lived in from birth (for a multitude of reasons) even if they cannot afford to live in a new housing unit and suddenly this is the governments fault.  Maybe in 10 years we will have enough housing units to give people choices and options but not currently.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (15 May 2022)

Clamball said:


> With the increase in property prices in general, a risk that the government may prevent a landlord from removing a sitting tenant if they wish to sell, and many small 1/2 property landlords unable to make a profit on rental income due to taxes and charges many landlords are choosing to sell now.
> This puts increased pressure on the rental system, more demand, less stock.  And the population keeps growing so even more demand.  Much more housing stock is needed.  And housing stock that is suitable for people to live in as tenants for their lifetime. So basic space, storage, facilities, safety etc. not the co-living spaces.
> Tenants would like security of tenure as is common in many other countries, they would also like rental stock at various price points, to suit their life stage, students, young professionals, young families etc.  and thirdly they need some protection against market changes.  Most can just about afford 50% of their income on rent.
> 
> ...


Your last sentence has been the wish for over 40years , in 2006 we built just short of 96000 units this year it will 25% of that.

There is no Irish panacea for this , Irish panacea is to build more and more and more..., the entire property rights in the constitution needs addressing and then we would have a surplus of property to house Irelands citizens.


----------



## T McGibney (16 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> the entire property rights in the constitution needs addressing and then we would have a surplus of property to house Irelands citizens.


So you'd weaken property ownership rights while expecting people to invest more in property ownership. I don't think you've thought that one fully through.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (16 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> So you'd weaken property ownership rights while expecting people to invest more in property ownership. I don't think you've thought that one fully through.


No I was referring to the concept of ownership after death,  we all know that there are thousands of properties up and down the country that are lying idle waiting for all the legal stuff to be carried out. 
Surely this process needs speeding up and if the property isn't used within a certain period it should be sold.


----------



## T McGibney (16 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> No I was referring to the concept of ownership after death,  we all know that there are thousands of properties up and down the country that are lying idle waiting for all the legal stuff to be carried out.
> Surely this process needs speeding up and if the property isn't used within a certain period it should be sold.



Wow, a lot to unpack here. 



Paul O Mahoney said:


> we all know that there are thousands of properties up and down the country that are lying idle waiting for all the legal stuff to be carried out.


Do we?


Paul O Mahoney said:


> Surely this process needs speeding up


How exactly do you propose that this be done?


Paul O Mahoney said:


> and if the property isn't used within a certain period...


How long? Bear in mind that some people are sufficiently unfortunate to spend decades in nursing homes or similar care facilities.


Paul O Mahoney said:


> ...it should be sold.


to benefit whom exactly?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (16 May 2022)

A simple Google search will show that the figure of unoccupied houses to be between 112,000 and 181,000 the later per 2016 census the first from geo data.

I don't have the skill base to untangle the myriad of issues but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Edit the latest figures are just over 90k from January 2022


----------



## T McGibney (16 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> A simple Google search will show that the figure of unoccupied houses to be between 112,000 and 181,000 the later per 2016 census the first from geo data.
> 
> I don't have the skill base to untangle the myriad of issues but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.


It's a massive (and untrue) assumption though that they're all waiting for legal work to be done.  In many cases, the houses are unoccupied because they have reached the end of their useful life. In other cases, the owners either simply don't have the resources to renovate them or recognise that doing so would not be worth the cost and effort.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (16 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> It's a massive (and untrue) assumption though that they're all waiting for legal work to be done.  In many cases, the houses are unoccupied because they have reached the end of their useful life. In other cases, the owners either simply don't have the resources to renovate them or recognise that doing so would not be worth the cost and effort.


That maybe the case but it is still a fact that there are these housing units unoccupied even if 50% of them were habitable with some renovation it would solve certain issues that exist in our economy right now. 

Rents that are consuming over 50% of wages isn't good for anyone. 

Just to clear I'm not advocating the compulsory buying of these properties or indeed buying at below market prices but they are a resource that is in many cases rotting away and there could be incentives brought in to assist in renovations.

We certainly aren't going to build our way out of the situation and even if we were able to it would take years, meanwhile prices for rents and buying continue to increase. Today saw prices now being almost at Feb 2007 peak....with regional variations. 

There is no silver bullet to this therefore the entire issue and all its facets and nuances need to be examined and a proper equitable solution found.


----------



## dereko1969 (16 May 2022)

Perhaps not the best county to use as an example given the number of long standing holiday lets but someone pointed out on twitter that there were only 31 properties in Kerry to rent on DAFT whilst there were 1,959 available on Airbnb.


----------



## T McGibney (16 May 2022)

I know where you're coming from but think it's still worth noting:



Paul O Mahoney said:


> even if 50% of them were habitable with some renovation it would solve certain issues that exist in our economy right now.


There's no way that anything near 50% are easily reinhabitable. It appears a bigger problem than it is because the planning system incentivises their retention even in a derelict state. It's much easier to get planning for a new build if there is an existing building on the site.


Paul O Mahoney said:


> Rents that are consuming over 50% of wages isn't good for anyone.


Agreed.


Paul O Mahoney said:


> Just to clear I'm not advocating the compulsory buying of these properties or indeed buying at below market prices


You kinda did though. 


Paul O Mahoney said:


> but they are a resource that is in many cases rotting away and there could be incentives brought in to assist in renovations.


Agreed.  A very generous Section 23-type tax relief such as applied in the Rural Renewal Scheme area during the Celtic Tiger era would do the trick, but there seems to be little appetite for this.


Paul O Mahoney said:


> We certainly aren't going to build our way out of the situation


Sooner or later we are going to have to build our way out of this.


----------



## T McGibney (16 May 2022)

dereko1969 said:


> Perhaps not the best county to use as an example given the number of long standing holiday lets but someone pointed out on twitter that there were only 31 properties in Kerry to rent on DAFT whilst there were 1,959 available on Airbnb.


How many of the 1,959 were private rooms in people's homes?

In my experience, many Kerry B&Bs are listed on Airbnb.


----------



## dereko1969 (16 May 2022)

269 full properties available from June 4 - June 11. So nearly 9 times the number of rental properties on Daft. That was for 4 adults. 306 when you input for 2 adults.


----------



## T McGibney (16 May 2022)

dereko1969 said:


> 269 full properties available from June 4 - June 11. So nearly 9 times the number of rental properties on Daft. That was for 4 adults. 306 when you input for 2 adults.


Some difference in fairness between that and 1,959. Strip out the glamping pods, yurts, granny flats, student residences etc from the 269 and the gap will close further,


----------



## dereko1969 (16 May 2022)

I'm not sure what criteria the person used on twitter it was just a flat comparison. From the first couple of pages on Airbnb there didn't seem to be m/any yurts/granny flats. I think it's safe to say there are multiples on Airbnb than are available on Daft.


----------



## T McGibney (16 May 2022)

dereko1969 said:


> I'm not sure what criteria the person used on twitter it was just a flat comparison. From the first couple of pages on Airbnb there didn't seem to be m/any yurts/granny flats. I think it's safe to say there are multiples on Airbnb than are available on Daft.


Yes but if you add even 269 new units to the Kerry rental market, would it make a blind bit of difference to market rents? And bear in mind that Kerry is a heavily touristed county.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (16 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> I know where you're coming from but think it's still worth noting:
> 
> 
> There's no way that anything near 50% are easily reinhabitable. It appears a bigger problem than it is because the planning system incentivises their retention even in a derelict state. It's much easier to get planning for a new build if there is an existing building on the site.
> ...


I'm not trying to single out this section of the housing market but it's an issue as is the number of county councils that have unoccupied properties........and multiple other factors 

Everything should be on the table if we are going to fix anything, but I fear it won't happen.


----------



## Sconeandjam (16 May 2022)

There was a discussion on the radio today on RTE Joe Duffy and a landlord at the end of the program summed it all up. He had 10 properties and sold the lot.  
He said if he charged €1000 per month after taxes, usc of 6%, property tax he ended up with €200or less.  If one tenant did not pay then that was it. Just not worth it.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (16 May 2022)

Sconeandjam said:


> There was a discussion on the radio today on RTE Joe Duffy and a landlord at the end of the program summed it all up. He had 10 properties and sold the lot.
> He said if he charged €1000 per month after taxes, usc of 6%, property tax he ended up with €200or less.  If one tenant did not pay then that was it. Just not worth it.


I think in the budget they will allow property tax to be tax deductible and possibly reduce taxation to 20% plus prsi and USC. Also reintroduce the tax credit for renters.

They need to stop haemorrhaging small landlords and keep rental sector alive. And who knows, they might actually attract small landlords into the sector too.

The problem can't be fixed by hammering these landlords who by and large are charging well below market rent in a lot of instances.


----------



## Sconeandjam (17 May 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I think in the budget they will allow property tax to be tax deductible and possibly reduce taxation to 20% plus prsi and USC. Also reintroduce the tax credit for renters.
> 
> They need to stop haemorrhaging small landlords and keep rental sector alive. And who knows, they might actually attract small landlords into the sector too.
> 
> The problem can't be fixed by hammering these landlords who by and large are charging well below market rent in a lot of instances.


Might be too late. There is always a sting in the tail. 
The Government want charities, housing associations and large companies renting out houses. 

The Government do not want to build and manage council properties. They have some tenants that have not paid their rent in their existing stock. I know if they did what they do in England the rent would be paid. If you don’t pay your rent you have deemed to have made yourself homeless and the council will not help. You are offered only hostel or B and B if your lucky but you could be moved from your area out to the middle of nowhere.

Pity RTB can’t do this and speed up the eviction process. I know of landlords tied up with Rtb and in courts for years with non paying tenants. The tenant say they have no where to go and Rtb allow them to stay for a few more months before the next hearing. No rent paid in the mean time.
The big landlords have no personal connection to the tenant. Lost job can’t pay rent get out.  Many landlords with one or two properties looked after their tenants and dropped rent and now stuck with below market rent.

 If the Government could allow landlords to bring their property up to market rent that would really help. This is in the case of where landlords have not increased rents for many years and rpz were brought in. Saying now you can only increase by a percentage on not 4% yearly is really hitting these landlords. They did after all looked after their tenants.


----------



## Sconeandjam (17 May 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I think in the budget they will allow property tax to be tax deductible and possibly reduce taxation to 20% plus prsi and USC. Also reintroduce the tax credit for renters.
> 
> They need to stop haemorrhaging small landlords and keep rental sector alive. And who knows, they might actually attract small landlords into the sector too.
> 
> The problem can't be fixed by hammering these landlords who by and large are charging well below market rent in a lot of instances.


Pity the Government will not allow the resetting of rents once a long term tenant has moved on. 

At the moment you have to have a house sitting idle for 2 years in order for this to happen. It would take a number of years to get back the two years lost rent even if it was well below the market rent.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (17 May 2022)

Sconeandjam said:


> Pity the Government will not allow the resetting of rents once a long term tenant has moved on.
> 
> At the moment you have to have a house sitting idle for 2 years in order for this to happen. It would take a number of years to get back the two years lost rent even if it was well below the market rent.


That would be political suicide and would allow the howls of all sorts of nonsense from charities, SF, the left ........always remember landlords are evil people and are the same as the landlords that forced our ancestors out of hovels to die in a field or worse emigrate.


----------



## lff12 (23 May 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> You need lower tax rates on landlords (small landlords with one or two properties).
> 
> You need higher tax rates on institutional landlords and reits.
> 
> ...


You've left out one thing: a friendly lending market. One of the reasons there were so many people with 2nd properties in the first place was that we had a lending market that incentivised it. Now very few non institutional landlords get BTL mortgages. Its not really possible for anybody to enter the market without inheriting a rented property now.


----------



## lff12 (23 May 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> make LPT tax deductible yes. You could have rental income not liable for USC and PRSI (reducing effective tax rate on many 'mom and pop' landlords by 11%. If they want equality of treatment for all landlords then charging one group 51% tax rate and the other larger institutional landlords 12.5% (if even that!) then it's not really fair. Also, I would suggest that new tenancies, which are the ones increasing by 10% a year according to reports, are dominated by larger institutional type landlords, whereas 'mom and pop' landlords are often charging way under market rent as a result of being nice to previous/current tenants and not raising rents due to tenants being general good tenants anyway.
> 
> To help current small landlords,the government needs to do in on the taxation side or else helping to speed up the removal of bad tenants and instead of giving landlords nothing but "responsibilities" give them some "rights" would also help.


Perhaps relating tax paid to the actual rent value (like VAT) rather than income tax? It might be controversial but it would reward landlords who haven't hiked rent and are now locked into rents far beneath market rates.


----------



## lff12 (23 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> That would be political suicide and would allow the howls of all sorts of nonsense from charities, SF, the left ........always remember landlords are evil people and are the same as the landlords that forced our ancestors out of hovels to die in a field or worse emigrate.


I guarantee that many of those people are landlords themselves and quietly have no issue doing exactly as they please. It usually takes me 5 minutes to shift a conversation about how terribly unfair these high rents are to how unfair it is that the persons parent has to deal with this horrible tenant etc. 1 in 5 people own second properties: that's a lot of people with a stake in the game.


----------



## Sconeandjam (4 Jun 2022)

Cancel/ reverse indefinite tenancies.
Allow landlords to end further part 4 tenancies. There the nail in the coffin.
The notes in the headlines saying SF want tenants to have the right to stay in the property if the landlord sells. Populist view but can devalue property prices. Banks will not lend without vacant possession.
Reduce cgt on sale of properties. Might help those who want to sell and another landlord buy.

Have to say again to allow the resetting of rents for those landlords that kept the rents low And want to sell.
We are selling a house ( tenant there nearly 12 years and we have not increased the rent in 6 years) and rents half the going rate but we know if will be a person who wants this house to live in and not rent out. It will be a starter home or down sizer.


----------



## Nordkapp (21 Jun 2022)

Good article by Fiona Reddan in the Irish Times today on incentives to keep private small landlords in the rental market. I think it captures the main points.


Tax incentives for landlords? How very 1990s









						Seven options to ease the tax burden chasing smaller landlords out of the market
					

Exodus of small-time landlords risks escalating housing crisis. Here is what the State can do




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## T McGibney (21 Jun 2022)

Nordkapp said:


> Good article by Fiona Reddan in the Irish Times today on incentives to keep private small landlords in the rental market. I think it captures the main points.
> 
> 
> Tax incentives for landlords? How very 1990s
> ...


We can't really sneer at the 1990s though, a decade when we more or less got things right in relation to rental and other housing availability.


----------



## Páid (21 Jun 2022)

It's behind a paywall.


----------



## Capricorn 1 (21 Jun 2022)

The only thing that will encourage me to stay in the market is the removal of the threat that landlords would have to sell with tenants in situ. I have 3 rental properties. One is currently up for sale with another to follow next year. I'll consider selling the final property just before the next election.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (21 Jun 2022)

Nordkapp said:


> Good article by Fiona Reddan in the Irish Times today on incentives to keep private small landlords in the rental market. I think it captures the main points.


It's a nice article that sets out all the options. I think policymakers need to decide whether they want to keep fiddling or do something radical.

*Fiddling*

Allow LPT deducibility
Full relief on mortgage interest
Section 23-type reliefs
Making rental profits eligible for pension contributions
Reduce CGT rate

*Radical*
Tax all rental income at a flat rate of something like 25%. completely separately from other income. No deductions for anything except perhaps major renovations with the relief spread over several years. No CGT.

My guess is that they will go for a lot of superficial fiddling in favour of landlords that will leave the system more or less the same.


----------



## T McGibney (21 Jun 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> *Radical*
> Tax all rental income at a flat rate of something like 25%. completely separately from other income. No deductions for anything except perhaps major renovations with the relief spread over several years.


That would mean an effective tax increase on many recipients of rental income and would actively discourage investment in properties requiring ongoing high maintenance or costly upkeep. Belongs firmly in the* Fiddling *or *Actually Counter Productive* lists.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (21 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> That would mean an effective tax increase on many recipients of rental income


It could be easily calibrated to make it less of a burden on average. It also makes the tax treatment neutral with respect to the source of finance used - the tax system shouldn't encourage debt over equity.

Finally it has the huge advantage of simplicity which means less work for accountants


----------



## T McGibney (21 Jun 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It could be easily calibrated to make it less of a burden on average.


Not if it's a flat rate.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It also makes the tax treatment neutral with respect to the source of finance used - the tax system shouldn't encourage debt over equity.


It makes no sense, when there's a shortage of investment, to discourage new and predominantly leveraged investment.


NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Finally it has the huge advantage of simplicity which means less work for accountants


Nonsense on both counts. (The 12.5% flat Corporation Tax has been an absolute bonanza for employment of accountants and accounts staff generally.)


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (21 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Not if it's a flat rate.


"on average" - most tax changes have winners and losers




T McGibney said:


> Nonsense on both counts. (The 12.5% flat Corporation Tax has been an absolute bonanza for employment of accountants and accounts staff generally.)


A tax rate of 25% on all cash received from your tenant is remarkably simple to calculate compared to the current system. 

I know a lot of small-time landlords who aren't able to do it themselves.


----------



## T McGibney (21 Jun 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> "on average" - most tax changes have winners and losers


Yes, of course there's no way of calibrating it to ensure you won't have winners and losers.


NoRegretsCoyote said:


> A tax rate of 25% on all cash received from your tenant is remarkably simple to calculate compared to the current system.
> 
> I know a lot of small-time landlords who aren't able to do it themselves.


The issue isn't doing the calculations in a relatively simple P&L account. Anyone with a half an hour and a calculator can do those.

The issue is ensuring that people don't pay tax on non-existent profits.  Once that becomes a significant risk (it already is a marginal risk in the current tax code and it would be inherent in any system of paying tax on the basis of turnover) it would of course scare landlords who fear they'd end up even worse off under it.


----------



## Purple (22 Jun 2022)

I've always thought a site value tax would discourage institutional investors, land hoarding, vacant sites and premises and the practice of holding finished units off the market but since people don't understand the real impact of such taxes they are against it.


----------



## lff12 (23 Jun 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It's a nice article that sets out all the options. I think policymakers need to decide whether they want to keep fiddling or do something radical.
> 
> *Fiddling*
> 
> ...


I think the flat rate makes some sense. Though one of the issues right now is that there is no reward for socially beneficial behaviour like keeping rents low. An alternative could be a sliding scale that depends on the individual rent charged - so someone renting out a single property at 2k per month is charged a higher rate of tax than another landlord renting out 2x properties at 1k per month each.


----------



## Clueless Clive (23 Jun 2022)

lff12 said:


> I think the flat rate makes some sense. Though one of the issues right now is that there is no reward for socially beneficial behaviour like keeping rents low. An alternative could be a sliding scale that depends on the individual rent charged - so someone renting out a single property at 2k per month is charged a higher rate of tax than another landlord renting out 2x properties at 1k per month each.


I understand what you're trying to achieve, but it's too difficult. Wouldn't take into account location, finish or any number of other variables why one house is worth 1k and another is worth 2k, even if they're both 3 bed semi-d's. 

Flat rate of tax & making rental profits eligible for pension contributions would be a win.


----------



## T McGibney (23 Jun 2022)

Clueless Clive said:


> Flat rate of tax & making rental profits eligible for pension contributions would be a win.


Once the flat rate would be on profits less capital allowances and not on rents received/turnover I'd be all for it, and for the eligibility for pension contributions. I'd also add abolishing the ludicrous close company surcharge for "unearned" investment income that (ironically) only applies to mom & pop corporate landlords, not to the big guns.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (23 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Once the flat rate would be on profits less capital allowances and not on rents received/turnover I'd be all for it,


The problem is that rental income is taxed as trading income when it is largely passive income.

The most conscientious landlord in the world will not make much more than a lazy landlord with the identical property next door. The property is doing most of the work, not the landlord.

Rental property is wealth and is most simply taxed as a % of said wealth.


----------



## T McGibney (23 Jun 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The problem is that rental income is taxed as trading income when it is largely passive income.
> 
> The most conscientious landlord in the world will not make much more than a lazy landlord with the identical property next door. The property is doing most of the work, not the landlord.


With respect that's utter nonsense. A professional landlord who devotes time and energy to their rentals and who has strong skills in both negotiation and in screening timewasters and troublemakers will make far more money longterm than an amateur who lacks those skills and who doesn't bother working on it.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Rental property is wealth


Any income stream including a secure job or pension is a form of wealth.


NoRegretsCoyote said:


> and is most simply taxed as a % of said wealth.


Simplicity has nothing to do with logic, fairness or efficacy. Killing every first-born would be a very simple way to quell a housing shortage but nobody sane would argue for it.


----------



## cremeegg (23 Jun 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The problem is that rental income is taxed as trading income when it is largely passive income.


It is not. Rental Income is taxed as Unearned Income, and that is part of the problem.


----------



## T McGibney (23 Jun 2022)

cremeegg said:


> Rental Income is taxed as Unearned Income, and that is part of the problem.


Continuing legacy of 1970s socialism. In Ireland we never learn from past mistakes.


----------



## Purple (23 Jun 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Rental property is wealth and is most simply taxed as a % of said wealth.


All property is a form of wealth. I'd tax all property (more specifically the site value of the property). In fact there's an argument for lower taxed on properties that are rented out since they provide a social good and the income generated from them is taxed anyway.
If you own a house you don't have the cost of a mortgage or rent. That has a material impact on your net income. Why should a landlord who uses their property asset to generate an income stream be punished when if they use that same property to avoid a cost by living in it and not paying rent or a mortgage they are a good guy?


----------



## bipped (23 Jun 2022)

As an aside, there are new notice periods coming in to protect tenancies. The information is on the Threshold website - increased notice days and 90 days now required for tenancies of 6 months or less. Other notice periods also increased. Announced by the minister for housing at the launch of a tenant sentiment survey earlier today.


----------



## Sconeandjam (24 Jun 2022)

bipped said:


> As an aside, there are new notice periods coming in to protect tenancies. The information is on the Threshold website - increased notice days and 90 days now required for tenancies of 6 months or less. Other notice periods also increased. Announced by the minister for housing at the launch of a tenant sentiment survey earlier today.


The minister should do a landlord sentiment and ask reason why landlords are leaving the market. Messages here show the many reasons and not because of increase in house prices. They should include landlords that have exited the market.


----------



## landlord (25 Jun 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> You need lower tax rates on landlords (small landlords with one or two properties).



This point of view, especially if adopted by government greatly concerns me.
I am a PAYE worker who has invested in 6 rental properties over the last 20 years.
I am not quite sure how “professional landlord” is defined in Ireland, but I have also heard that professional landlords should not be allowed to benefit from any potential tax advantages.

WHY?

As a PAYE worker (professional landlord or not) with no business set up and not part of any corporation to shelter tax, why shouldn’t I benefit from any potential tax advantages.
Surely if a landlord has 1 property or 100 and is not benefitting from any other tax shelter,  he/she should then benefit from any government scheme incentivising holding on to your rental properties. The same principle goes for a potential investor looking to buy 1 or 100 properties.
We currently have a housing crisis/emergency here in Ireland in relation to a shortage of rental properties due landlords selling up so it makes no sense to me not to extend any tax incentives to multi owner landlords who are not currently availing of any other tax shelters.


----------

