(Potential) Landlords - What Would Get You Into / Keep You In The Market

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, its a business, not a social service.
I actually understand that and it is the reason why the taxes are not high on my issues with being a landlord, my work is taxed, and my other incomes are taxed.
The fact is however that in the past few years, the government has restricted the LL from taking business decisions. Some LL are restricted in terms of rent they can charge and charge way below the market. LLs are asked to act to compensate for the failures of the state in terms of housing.
In that context, the question can be asked I feel. If I am restricted in the income I can make for the common good, why should I not be compensated in terms of taxes? If the rent I charge is potentially €7200 below the market rate, should that be compensated in some way? Indeed I am not a social service, I am a business. When I invested, I saw an investment opportunity. By the way, the property I bought was for sale for 2 years, empty. I didn't take it from anyone, no first-time buyer, and no low-income family. At the time, with the lending conditions, a €30K income would have been sufficient.
 
Last edited:
Yes - I think its something that gets missed, but there is no reason why, for example, a nurse earning 55k a year should pay more tax than someone whose sole earnings come from renting property earning the same.

I'm not saying that it's fair that a landlord would pay less tax than any other worker (if it's his sole income). I'm not advocating for it and I've said previously I'm okay with the tax I pay. However, if the government want to incentivise landlords to stay in / get into the market, then I can say for sure that tax incentives would lead to me investing more. Obviously if they are going to put more money in my pocket and make it more attractive than other investments, I'm going to put in money as would others.

Also, I would imagine that the vast, vast majority of landlords are not "professional" landlords, it's far more likely that they are accidental or mam and dad type landlords and that the property is an investment to try help them in the future rather than the main income earner.
 
We've kinda understood this for a long time already but the question is rather is there any reason why they should pay less tax than this other person?
cause of the housing sitation at the moment. Cause 40% of all house sales in Q4 last year were landlords exiting the market. Cause of the knock on impact of lack of rental accommodation will have on the economy in terms of FDI, growth etc......
 
cause of the housing sitation at the moment. Cause 40% of all house sales in Q4 last year were landlords exiting the market. Cause of the knock on impact of lack of rental accommodation will have on the economy in terms of FDI, growth etc......
No, my question was is there any reason why the nurse should pay less tax than the other person owning the property?
 
i don't understand what point you are trying/failing to make here. Read the title of the thread and keep posts relevant
It was a direct response to this comment and as such totally on-topic.


Yes - I think its something that gets missed, but there is no reason why, for example, a nurse earning 55k a year should pay more tax than someone whose sole earnings come from renting property earning the same.

It's been assumed here, almost to the point that it's axiomatic, that rental income should be taxed equally or higher than trading or occupational income. Yet until 2008/9, the opposite was the case as rental income was not subjected to USC & PRSI. Until then we had surpluses of rental and housing stock. And within a few years we had localised housing shortages, and then a ultimately a chronic rental and housing crisis. Join the dots.
 
Last edited:
no one thing is the solution. But I think if landlords were consulted about leaving or staying in the market, the following are likely notes of feedback.

1) Taxation - LL are taxed to much to make a profit and worthwhile in terms of the risk they take and the investment of upto hundreds of thousands of euros in equity in a property.
2) Stuck in RPZs. Good and fair LL's have been punished for doing just that with the temporary intrduction (there's a laugh) seven years ago of RPZs. These motivate people to leave the sector and compel new entrants (what few their are) are charge the absolute maximum rent achievable.
3) Non-paying tenants. If tenants don't pay, they should be out within 3 months, or even less. If I go into a restaurant for my lunch, eat it and get the bill and tell the owner I cannot pay, I do not sit at the table and order dinner and eat that and repeat again. I don't eat in the restaurant for 2 years without paying any bills and expect to be fed. And yet with housing, it's legal to do just that. How is that fair? Big motivator for LL's to exit.

There are many others, but I don't see anything positive in the sector for LL's in the last 7 plus years. Nothing. Just increased taxation, increased regulation, increased threat and a reduction in rights. Who in their right mind invests in such sectors and remains in such sectors??? Things are bad now, they are going to get worse again in 2023 and even worst again in 2024 and 2025. The rental sector, I don't know if it can't be rescued at this stage, I think if they did something on the three points above, it would certainly retain a significant amount of LL's. Some will leave, that's normal and to be expected. It's normal, because there should be new investment. But what little new investment there is, is charging €2000 for a property that was probably €1,200 or €1,300 by the LL who is exiting.

As these LL's leave, more people are pushed into emergency acccommodation, paid for by the State. The State loses 52% of the €1,200 rental income. Whereas by giving a tax break and permitting the LL to say increase rent to €1,500 or €1,600 or something closer to market rent would keep the tenant out of emergency accommodation and tax revenue from the landlord would be retained. I know someone will pick up the tenant is the loser here, but maybe reduce rental income to 20% and reduce rents to €1,000??? I'm a LL and I would rather charge rent of €1000 a month @ 20% tax rate than charge €1,600 a month at a tax rate of 50%. Both scenarios I pocket €800 but I'd infinitely prefer one over the other.

It's a combination of things are going to start the improvement process. Unfortunately, this Minisiter and the government seem to total unwilling, not brave enough, or too bloody stupid to actually do something on the supply side (i.e. the LL) to try and improve things for the demand side (i.e. the tenants)
 
I'm a LL and I would rather charge rent of €1000 a month @ 20% tax rate than charge €1,600 a month at a tax rate of 50%. Both scenarios I pocket €800 but I'd infinitely prefer one over the other.
In neither scenario do you pocket €800, unless in an unrealistic world of no rental costs (and no mortgage repayments).

If your rental costs are €600 per month, cutting your rental income to €1,000 a month will devastate your after-tax return.
 
christ man, you know well want point I'm making. But incase you don't follow........I'd prefer to charge tenants much lower rent and end up in the same position after tax as I am now.

Do you follow what I'm saying???

Its not about pitting LL v tenants or doing something for one side and nothing for the other (like they have for the last 7 years btw in the tenants favour just so it's clear!. It's about the two sides finding a beneficial outcome/solution to the crisis we now find ourselves in.
 
you know well want point I'm making. But incase you don't follow........I'd prefer to charge tenants much lower rent and end up in the same position after tax as I am now.
How do you do that when your costs are either fixed or increasing? As presumably are your mortgage repayments.

And there's no need to swear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.