Tax Treatment of Landlords has to be Revisited

[Greenbook]

I never suggested expropriation, so stop making stuff up.
But making private landlordism the central plank of our housing policy is dysfunctional.

I dislike the phrase " social housing" as it implies that the state should only provide housing to the most distressed citizens, those on the verge of homelessness. In practice, however, huge numbers of working people are being subsidised through the private rental market. The HAP is claimed by the majority of Irish renters, so why not use the funds to provide long term, stable , secure housing for people.

Agreed! (though I don't think that the majority of renters are on HAP). All those things should have been done long ago! Social housing should also be available for lower paid working people. The PRS should only be used by those who rent by choice because it suits them and can afford to do so. But this is government policy going back over 20 years - the government came up with the idea of HAP not landlords and I agree it is a waste of money. Thousands of houses would have been built with it over the years and we would not be in the mess we are in now.

 

[Allpartied]

Agreed! (though I don't think that the majority of renters are on HAP). All those things should have been done long ago! Social housing should also be available for lower paid working people. The PRS should only be used by those who rent by choice because it suits them and can afford to do so. But this is government policy going back over 20 years - the government came up with the idea of HAP not landlords and I agree it is a waste of money. Thousands of houses would have been built with it over the years and we would not be in the mess we are in now.

The trajectory over the recent past has been for more and more private renting, with the associated state assistance.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2022/0526/1301144-esri-report-on-renters/

Along with the rent being subsidised by taxpayers , the private landlords also want more tax incentives. One representative, on the radio, was suggesting that landlords should only pay 20% tax on their rental income. I mean, that is simply obscene. Imagine the scenario, where a nurse, doing an overtime shift in a busy A/E is paying 40% tax on her hard earned income, while Mr Landlord, sitting at home, is paying 20% on his, largely unearned, income.

 

[azerty]

I never suggested expropriation, so stop making stuff up.
But making private landlordism the central plank of our housing policy is dysfunctional.

I dislike the phrase " social housing" as it implies that the state should only provide housing to the most distressed citizens, those on the verge of homelessness. In practice, however, huge numbers of working people are being subsidised through the private rental market. The HAP is claimed by the majority of Irish renters, so why not use the funds to provide long term, stable , secure housing for people.

"How about we abolish private landlords and force them to sell their properties?
The great thing about houses is that the landlords can't export them overseas, or stick them in a security box. They have to hand them over to someone else, someone who actually needs the house to live in. As the private landlords flood the market with their houses, the price would fall and many more people could get to live in their own house, at an affordable price."
What do you mean by that then?

 

[Allpartied]

"How about we abolish private landlords and force them to sell their properties?
The great thing about houses is that the landlords can't export them overseas, or stick them in a security box. They have to hand them over to someone else, someone who actually needs the house to live in. As the private landlords flood the market with their houses, the price would fall and many more people could get to live in their own house, at an affordable price."
What do you mean by that then?

Well, they can keep the property if they want to , pay the appropriate tax ( I suggested 50%) or they could live in it. Force, in this context means make it unviable to hold on to the property for its current purpose, of lining their pockets with other people's hard earned income.

 

[Greenbook]

The trajectory over the recent past has been for more and more private renting, with the associated state assistance.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2022/0526/1301144-esri-report-on-renters/

Along with the rent being subsidised by taxpayers , the private landlords also want more tax incentives. One representative, on the radio, was suggesting that landlords should only pay 20% tax on their rental income. I mean, that is simply obscene. Imagine the scenario, where a nurse, doing an overtime shift in a busy A/E is paying 40% tax on her hard earned income, while Mr Landlord, sitting at home, is paying 20% on his, largely unearned, income.

I agree, major tax incentives like a 20% rate for landlords is crazy for various reasons. But, this is part of the mess we are in. Despite high rents and huge demand (any rental will get a 100 applicants these days) landlords are leaving. It is a stampede at this point. An eviction ban, which will very likely have to be extended, has had to be brought in to stop them from leaving. Now extremely generous tax breaks are being asked for to bribe them in to staying. That makes no sense, but it is happening and demonstates that there is something very wrong. Think about it - decent returns, unlimited demand. Landlords should be piling in, but they are heading for the hills.

 

[T McGibney]

Well, they can keep the property if they want to , pay the appropriate tax ( I suggested 50%) or they could live in it. Force, in this context means make it unviable to hold on to the property for its current purpose, of lining their pockets with other people's hard earned income.

When you've trolled so hard, you've forgotten how you opened your trolling.

 

[Allpartied]

When you've trolled so hard, you've forgotten how you opened your trolling.

I have been ribbing a little bit, but I'm makin a serious point. As someone who grew up in rented accomodation, who now sees my children, on modest wages , trying to negotiate the maelstrom of the Dublin housing crisis, I can see that the current arrangements are not working. They will not be fixed by continuing to build a housing policy on private landlordism. It won't work, for more and more people. Teachers, nurses, shopworkers, delivery drivers, council maintenance, all the ancilliarly workers needed in large cities. Those groups on average earnings are not able to find housing, unless they pay a huge chunk of their income to a landlord. As for buying, forget it.

That coupled with the insecurity of private renting is a recipe for misery, widespread anxiety, and societal discord. Communities are already broken down, with little sense of social connection, as people move on every year or two.

So, time to shout stop and do something else.

 

[T McGibney]

I have been ribbing a little bit, but I'm makin a serious point. As someone who grew up in rented accomodation, who now sees my children, on modest wages , trying to negotiate the maelstrom of the Dublin housing crisis, I can see that the current arrangements are not working. They will not be fixed by continuing to build a housing policy on private landlordism. .... So, time to shout stop and do something else.

Yet when I asked you a basic question on how your proposed alternative might work, you fell silent.

 

[Greenbook]

When you've trolled so hard, you've forgotten how you opened your trolling.

In fairness, he may not be trolling. I think he/she is just an intelligent observer ie. not a landlord or a tenant, who unsurprisingly thinks all landlords are a resident evil due to the constant soundbites of Rory Hearne, Eoin O'Broin etc. It is easy listening to media commentary to think that tenants have no rights at all, there is a nirvana elsewhere in Europe and we are particularly backward and pro-landlord here.

To my mind the answer is obvious and he/she is saying this also - we need more social houses and more new houses to buy. Then landlords can get back to doing what we should be doing - providing accommodation to people who rent by choice because that is what suits them

 

[Allpartied]

Yet when I asked you a basic question on how your proposed alternative might work, you fell silent.

I said that the state would fund housing, through the local authorities, or by creating not-for profit housing trusts.
The financing of state housing would come from the state. It would be paid back by rent. If rent doesn't cover the costs then the state would subsidise the housing through the taxations system. This, currently, happens anyway, except the subsidy is going to private landlords, or large international investors.
We did this in the 50's, 60's and 70's. You said something about slave labour, or making your own concrete blocks, which I didn't really understand.
But public investment in public housing is perfectly viable. It was the norm until the Anglosphere fell under the dark spell of Regan and Thatcher.
Spending billions on public housing would be a very positive investment, with huge societal benefits , for decades to come.
Everyone is looking for the quick fix, a tax break, or rental zones, or some such brainwave, but the only solution is long term planning. Large scale, nationwide and funded by good old fashioned public investment.

 

[Firefly]

When you've trolled so hard, you've forgotten how you opened your trolling.

I'm not so sure it's trolling, which is even more worrying..

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

The trajectory over the recent past has been for more and more private renting, with the associated state assistance.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2022/0526/1301144-esri-report-on-renters/

Along with the rent being subsidised by taxpayers , the private landlords also want more tax incentives. One representative, on the radio, was suggesting that landlords should only pay 20% tax on their rental income. I mean, that is simply obscene. Imagine the scenario, where a nurse, doing an overtime shift in a busy A/E is paying 40% tax on her hard earned income, while Mr Landlord, sitting at home, is paying 20% on his, largely unearned, income.

Yes cause the landlord didn't have to work to actually pay for the property did he? The 170,000 odd landlords with 1 or 2 properties didn't have to earn anything to pay for them.
As a landlord, I think you are right. Continue as we go, stick your head in the sand and fingers and toes crossed that the landlords stop exiting the rental sector and supply stops shrinking, rents stop increasing. It'll be alright on the night lad.

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

Well, they can keep the property if they want to , pay the appropriate tax ( I suggested 50%) or they could live in it. Force, in this context means make it unviable to hold on to the property for its current purpose, of lining their pockets with other people's hard earned income.

Your comments are all over the shop. They do pay the appropriate tax, 52% if earning over 40k a year, so higher rate than your suggested rate of 50%. So doing this and renting out, are the LL's still not "lining their pockets with ther people's hard earned income"?!

You could be onto something here; what about those greedy people with savings in the banks? They are lining their pockets as the banks are lending to poor unfortunates and charging them interest. By your logic, we should take their money off them, a bit like Hitler did to the Jews in WWII. Can we apply the same to people other possessions; cars, bicycles, clothes etc.

 

[azerty]

Well, they can keep the property if they want to , pay the appropriate tax ( I suggested 50%) or they could live in it. Force, in this context means make it unviable to hold on to the property for its current purpose, of lining their pockets with other people's hard earned income.

I am "lining my pocket" so much that I as thousands more have decided that I am leaving the market. Don't get me wrong, I do feel that my investment has been beneficial in the long term. I have been more lucky than some that took the risk and lose their shirt during the crash. But while it is not unviable, I have decided it is not a good investment for the moment. I don't lose but renters will as it's one less property available for them. It's in this context that people are speaking of incentives. Not for me to make more money as the goal but for stopping me for leaving or considering leaving.
Not because renting should only be done privately but because in the short term, there's no way the supply will be enough. Making me worried about risks of expropriation or whatever policies doesn't help the rental sector. I am really concerned about the rental situation for the next 3 to 5 years as even instructional investment might dry up a bit.

 

[Firefly]

Yes cause the landlord didn't have to work to actually pay for the property did he?

The harder I work, the luckier I get..

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

I was thinking about the tax treatment of landlords over the last while and while I thankfully haven't ever had a bad tenant, I believe that I would favour two things over a reduction in tax. Believe me, I want to pay less tax, who doesn't.

I would also like for RPZ to be looked at. It's unfair to limit LLs with mortgages to 2% a year, especially when they are miles behind market rent. This is a driving force for small one property LL to leave the sector. If on a tracker mortgage your interest may well have increased upto €200 a month since July 2022 and yet your rent can be increased perhaps €25 - €50 max a month. That €150 differential may have turned a small profit into a loss making investment for many LL.

Secondly, I wish SF would shut up with the scare tactics. Work with LL to solve the problem. Fighting and alienating LL isn't going to do anything to solve things, ease the plight of renters etc. It does seem to gain them politic point scoring from the very people they are hurting the most, i.e. renters.

 

[Allpartied]

Your comments are all over the shop. They do pay the appropriate tax, 52% if earning over 40k a year, so higher rate than your suggested rate of 50%. So doing this and renting out, are the LL's still not "lining their pockets with ther people's hard earned income"?!

You could be onto something here; what about those greedy people with savings in the banks? They are lining their pockets as the banks are lending to poor unfortunates and charging them interest. By your logic, we should take their money off them, a bit like Hitler did to the Jews in WWII. Can we apply the same to people other possessions; cars, bicycles, clothes etc.

My 50% of the property value, was a tax for keeping the property vacant. This would encourage the landlord to sell.

People with money in the banks, over the last few years, have been getting negative interest rates. Whilst their money has been lent to property investors at historically low interest rates, so that they can buy properties that they then rent out to hard working people.
You can dress it up all you like, but the fact is that an investor who has 300K ( inheritance, well paid job, luck) will be able to exploit people who don't have 300k, through our dysfunctional housing system.

Congraulations for bringing Hitler into the discussion. Previously, I've been compared to North Korean dictator Kim Yong Un, plus Lenin and Stalin, but never Hitler. So, that's a first.

 

[T McGibney]

My 50% of the property value, was a tax for keeping the property vacant. This would encourage the landlord to sell.

So if Granny falls and has to undergo nursing home care and in the meantime wants neither to sell nor let out her house during her absence in case she recovers sufficiently to return, she gets a tax bill of 50% of the property value?

People with money in the banks, over the last few years, have been getting negative interest rates. Whilst their money has been lent to property investors at historically low interest rates, so that they can buy properties that they then rent out to hard working people.

Where are all these investors? Buy to let has been dying as an option for 15 years, apart from a dead cat bounce around 2013.

You can dress it up all you like, but the fact is that an investor who has 300K ( inheritance, well paid job, luck) will be able to exploit people who don't have 300k, through our dysfunctional housing system.

Socialist victimhood narrative again.

Congraulations for bringing Hitler into the discussion. Previously, I've been compared to North Korean dictator Kim Yong Un, plus Lenin and Stalin, but never Hitler. So, that's a first.

That's what happens when you troll people about expropriation and taxing grannies for 50% of the value of their homes.

 

[Firefly]

Socialist victimhood narrative again.

With a nice sprinkling of communism thrown in for good measure.

 

[Firefly]

So if Granny falls and has to undergo nursing home care and in the meantime wants neither to sell nor let out her house during her absence in case she recovers sufficiently to return, she gets a tax bill of 50% of the property value?

Why not just property? Shouldn't the government expropriate all those cars in driveways now that more and more people are working from home? Those cars could be given to those who get council houses but not near where they're from, so they can visit their relatives.