NoRegretsCoyote
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,766
Here it is.
I had remembered it wrong. Gross rental is about €3bn, with a bit more than a billion as allowable expenses. Therefore profits is €2bn or so, it says nothing about tax.
Here it is.how many years ago was that? Prior to Revenue making rental income liable to PRSI and USC? Any link to same please?
The total amount of gross rental income declared on residential properties in 2018 is of the order of €3,043 million, an increase of €195 million from 2017........ The total net profit declared was of the order of €1,933 million, while the net loss declared was of the order of €29.7 million. The amount of chargeable profit/loss is after expenses have been deducted but before any capital allowances or losses forward.
Excellent point. Any cost imposed on a landlord has to be grossed up and charged to the tenant.It's not so long ago the government decided overnight to make rental income liable to PRSI and USC. So the effective tax went from 40% to 52%. To pay this tax, landlords had to increase rents 24% just to maintain their current income. This was neither fair on tenants or landlords, yet the only winners were the government in terms of extra taxation revenue. The only losers were tenants, in terms of higher rents. And the only ones who got the blame and nothing else was the landlords.
yes it doesn't have anything on the rate of tax paid, if you want to correct your original post.Here it is.
I had remembered it wrong. Gross rental is about €3bn, with a bit more than a billion as allowable expenses. Therefore profits is €2bn or so, it says nothing about tax.
An ever increasing proportion of the buy to let market are using institutional money to purchase, and this is not reflected in the mortgage numbers.he figure for buy to let lending is now currently 1.4% of mortgages whereas in 2006 it was 19.9%.
Not really.you are focusing in on a retired person only
Rental income - allowable expenses = rental profit. You know, what you pay tax on!it's not tax on rental profits either, it's tax on rental income that's charged (after allowable expenses are removed). There is a big BIG difference.
So a 35 year old with an investment property but wages + rental income of €25000. That's realistic alright. He has no mortgage on this property either no?If the individual in my example was, say, 35 and had a total income, including rental profits, of €25,000, he would only pay tax at an effective rate of 12%. A heck of a lot less than your suggested flat rate of 42%.
Of course it's realistic!That's realistic alright.
Or they inherited a place in a different part of the country from Granny and they rent it out while they are in college or they have decided that they just want to walk the earth for a few years or lots of other reasons.Of course it's realistic!
The taxpayer in my example might have a high-earning spouse and only works part time.
Or might not work at all.
As someone who bought their first pair of slippers in the past 12 months, I suppose I am now of the mom-and-pop cohort (which is a lot cuddlier than Gen X). For us, we could afford the shortfall between the mortgage and net income (after tax is paid). I would see it as a form of saving and would be a lot cheaper as it would keep herself out of BTs1) taxation is too highly and unfairly punished mom-and-pop landlords with taxation rates of 52%.
It’s exactly doubled in value as seven years ago was pretty much the very bottom of the market.what did you buy for and what will it sell for? to give an idea of the scale of the incentive to sell now.
If 200k to 400k then yes it makes sense to sell and back free of CGT.It’s exactly doubled in value as seven years ago was pretty much the very bottom of the market.
I have a dilemma regarding selling that property because I have above market average rent on that property, with fantastic tenants (on homeless HAP… therefore pretty much guaranteed income) where as my others are all below market average. However each year from now that I do not sell I eat into my CGT benefit.If 200k to 400k then yes it makes sense to sell and back free of CGT.
Would you consider going back in and buying again? Or no interest in being a landlord?
I have a dilemma regarding selling that property because I have above market average rent on that property, with fantastic tenants (on homeless HAP… therefore pretty much guaranteed income) where as my others are all below market average. However each year from now that I do not sell I eat into my CGT benefit.
I want to bump a post I made a while ago in another thread as it is so important this message gets out there……
RENTS ARE NOT AT RECORD HIGHS FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF LANDLORDS !!!
I keep track of the number of rental properties on daft in Swords. A few years ago there were around 200 or more properties available. The last few weeks has averaged less than 10.
The SAMPLE of properties being used as a measure of rental prices is therefore tiny !!!
The vast majority of landlords are restricted by the rent pressure zone limitations and are achieving rents way below market average.
The tiny sample on daft often represent brand new landlords who are not subject to RPZ restrictions and landlords who ignore the restrictions knowing that no body is actively monitoring the rules. So rents as reported on Daft are jacked up according to whatever supply and demand will allow. So this market average rent is massively artificially inflated.
Was there a time these landlords were getting a higher rent than they are currently getting?
Just a suggestion to cater for those on the different tax rates…Not really.
If the individual in my example was, say, 35 and had a total income, including rental profits, of €25,000, he would only pay tax at an effective rate of 12%. A heck of a lot less than your suggested flat rate of 42%.
Rental income - allowable expenses = rental profit. You know, what you pay tax on!
I want to bump a post I made a while ago in another thread as it is so important this message gets out there……
RENTS ARE NOT AT RECORD HIGHS FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF LANDLORDS !!!
The sentiment of these two statements seems to contradict each other.Hey odyssey06,
Apologies if I am misunderstanding your question, but are you suggesting a landlord who was achieving for example €3000 per month a few years ago is now only getting €2000. I can’t think of too many cases where a landlord would be reducing the rent over time?
Well yes that's kindof my point. Are there many landlords out there who are getting less than their own particular "all time high" for a property?Hey odyssey06,
Apologies if I am misunderstanding your question, but are you suggesting a landlord who was achieving for example €3000 per month a few years ago is now only getting €2000. I can’t think of too many cases where a landlord would be reducing the rent over time?
The sentiment of these two statements seems to contradict each other.
RENTS ARE NOT AT RECORD HIGHS FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF LANDLORDS !!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?