T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,944
Great point. It's worth noting how eg BBC News now occasionally refer to "the 2008 financial crisis" while what we experienced in and post-2008 was much more than that.
Last edited:
Tax Treatment of Landlords has to be Revisited
- Thread starter Always Learning
- Start date
- Status
Good article by Conor Skehan, former head of the housing agency, in todays Irish Independent. The heading is “the eviction ban has to end if we are serious about fixing our housing crisis”.
Amongst the points he makes is
“Far from being a problem, landlords are an important part of the housing market. They need to be protected”.
Amongst the points he makes is
“Far from being a problem, landlords are an important part of the housing market. They need to be protected”.
I think this is it in a nutshell. In particular the regulatory risk. I (personally) would be investing more in but to lets if it weren’t for this latter risk. I don’t (by itself) have a problem with the taxation of rental profits, albeit see how this lever needs to be applied to negate the deterrent of the regulatory risk.
Cork TD urges renters facing eviction to 'break the law' as eviction ban ends
"It's better to break the law than to break the poor, and what's been proposed here is something that will break the backs of many poor families who are struggling in this country"
www.corkbeo.ie
Get out and stay out and let the shouters have their say.
Investors will get nothing but hardship from elected reps such as above.
McGrath is looking into incentives rejected 6 months ago by Donahoe.
How can you base such a large investment on that.
moneymakeover
Registered User
- Messages
- 913
To summarize the situation,
The government lifted the eviction ban.
Linked to that is a newfound hope of tax relief for both tenant and landlord.
And a kind of reluctant acceptance that what is good for the landlord might also be good for tenants.
But is there any hard information?
The papers suggest that Donohue bottled it last budget, and that maybe Varadkar is more up to it?
Is maybe Fine Gael more supportive of the landlord?
Whereas fianna fail more supportive of builders?
The government lifted the eviction ban.
Linked to that is a newfound hope of tax relief for both tenant and landlord.
And a kind of reluctant acceptance that what is good for the landlord might also be good for tenants.
But is there any hard information?
The papers suggest that Donohue bottled it last budget, and that maybe Varadkar is more up to it?
Is maybe Fine Gael more supportive of the landlord?
Whereas fianna fail more supportive of builders?
Lol Varadkar is in the wrong party, he's more left than the communistic people before profit. He's done precisely nothing for "those that get up early" nor has his Govt done anything to manage this problem, ....no longer read the jam tomorrow kite flying nonsence. Nor will I be waiting on the budget.
The soone FG get rid of him the better, he won't be returned at the next election and I for one will not vote for him despite being a FG member and in his constituency.
The soone FG get rid of him the better, he won't be returned at the next election and I for one will not vote for him despite being a FG member and in his constituency.
moneymakeover
Registered User
- Messages
- 913
He was the one to take a stand on the eviction ban? Not boring Micheal.
It would seem it's a politically a hot potatoe to do anything positive for landlords.
So it's understandable in the current climate that landlords get the totally negative treatment. Only leeway was the the removal of the eviction ban.
Last edited:
I'm Nobody
Registered User
- Messages
- 46
I wonder how much tax the government have lost, with the 45,000 landlords that have left the market.
RonnieShinbal88
Registered User
- Messages
- 251
There isn't a single politician that wasn't playing to the populist vote on this, FF/FG appear to have suddenly grown some principles, acting in the common long term interest. But then there was speculation in the Indo yesterday that the removal of the eviction ban was just to prevent a build up of landlords all getting out at the same time before the next election if they had extended it, the timing might have been brutal for them.
So not sure that counts as growing principles, it's just consistent with trying to maximise votes.
Maybe that is what politicians are supposed to be doing in which case we should look at separating out housing policy along with monetary policy being decided by central banks, because long term interest can't be trusted to politicians who need short term votes.
moneymakeover
Registered User
- Messages
- 913
Today Irish times
Under a policy being worked out tenants will be given a chance to buy from a landlord selling up, or a local authority or Approved Housing Body buy as a “backstop” option if that was not achievable. The changes could convince landlords to hold off an eviction in favour of achieving a tax break, Government sources believe.
That's a bit lame in my opinion
If, if, if
What about attracting investors into the market?
Under a policy being worked out tenants will be given a chance to buy from a landlord selling up, or a local authority or Approved Housing Body buy as a “backstop” option if that was not achievable. The changes could convince landlords to hold off an eviction in favour of achieving a tax break, Government sources believe.
That's a bit lame in my opinion
If, if, if
What about attracting investors into the market?
The red tape and bureaucracy that will surround today's Irish Times report as quoted above is another kite flying exercise. It will do nothing for Landlords or Tenants.
Timeline could be Landlord giving up to six months notice. After that the tenant decides to tell the LA. LA acknowledges the correspondence from tenant. After 3 months LA say they are not in the market for the property and to Contact the AHB and so on and on and then we have an election and the file lost.
Timeline could be Landlord giving up to six months notice. After that the tenant decides to tell the LA. LA acknowledges the correspondence from tenant. After 3 months LA say they are not in the market for the property and to Contact the AHB and so on and on and then we have an election and the file lost.
Why are they going on and on about that "solution"? About 14k private LL left last year. They are planning to buy 1500 properties. It's still mean that 12.5k properties would have left the market by the end of the year if we follow the same trend. And that's if they reach their target.
From the Irish Times website , referencing an interview given by Micheál Martin to Journalists in Washington this morning.
“Tánaiste Micheál Martin said that the State has “turned a corner” on housing and that there will be no changes to the tax treatment of the rental sector before the budget.”
“Tánaiste Micheál Martin said that the State has “turned a corner” on housing and that there will be no changes to the tax treatment of the rental sector before the budget.”
Yeah another concern as you say are timescales to process. How quick will it be to sell to an LA or AHB. Will there be an "SLA" to deliver in good time all the steps i.e valuation, agreement, engage solicitor, contracts, completion, proceeds.
And, again, will they pay market value ? (if this seemingly fantasy scheme actually happens)
And, again, will they pay market value ? (if this seemingly fantasy scheme actually happens)
Last edited:
Tax aside was listening to Morning Ireland and an interview with some environmental group ( fiends of the earth) she was pushing hard for a date by which private rental stock should be fully overhauled and retrofitted to get best energy rating.
Perfect timing really.
Perfect timing really.
It seems ' the tax treatment of landlords' is now to be revisited.So sticking to the title of this thread I just wonder how this could be done and if other landlords on AMM have views on what might is possible,feasible and acceptable in order to keep them in the market with regard to Tax.I know there are other issues but my question is specifically in relation to Tax
RonnieShinbal88
Registered User
- Messages
- 251
I pay roughly 2% of the equity I have invested in tax on rent received less expenses annually, so getting rid of all tax would represent a 2% bump in yield for me.
They are never going to do that, but at that level I'd have a decision to make, holding on for 15 years that extra yield might compensate for a 30% loss in value on selling due to e.g. a market crash or selling with tenants in situe, or it would cover lost income for the lengthy eviction of a non-paying tenant.
If they matched the rent a room relief of first 14k as others have proposed on here, presumably you wouldn't be able to deduct any expenses on the excess, that would be taxed at 52%, so it wouldn't actually work out as a huge saving for me. I'd get an improvement of roughly 1% in yield terms, it wouldn't cover the cost of the risk events above. Personally it wouldn't keep me in, but in conjunction with other measures in terms of control of your property and avoiding regulations that impact on sale value it might.
Reducing the overall tax level to 20% would be similar in that the tax savings would be (very roughly) 1% bump in yield.
Edit:
for rental owners with no mortgage the impact would be very different of course as they have no mortgage interest to offset profit.
They are never going to do that, but at that level I'd have a decision to make, holding on for 15 years that extra yield might compensate for a 30% loss in value on selling due to e.g. a market crash or selling with tenants in situe, or it would cover lost income for the lengthy eviction of a non-paying tenant.
If they matched the rent a room relief of first 14k as others have proposed on here, presumably you wouldn't be able to deduct any expenses on the excess, that would be taxed at 52%, so it wouldn't actually work out as a huge saving for me. I'd get an improvement of roughly 1% in yield terms, it wouldn't cover the cost of the risk events above. Personally it wouldn't keep me in, but in conjunction with other measures in terms of control of your property and avoiding regulations that impact on sale value it might.
Reducing the overall tax level to 20% would be similar in that the tax savings would be (very roughly) 1% bump in yield.
Edit:
for rental owners with no mortgage the impact would be very different of course as they have no mortgage interest to offset profit.
Last edited:
The property tax should have been addressed ages ago. That it was not shows how they dropped the ball.
20% would do it for me and as a farfetched idea, the ability to put some rental only unearned income into an approved pension would be a shift in thinking. Latter may be far fetched but if they want people to stay in or attract new owners, they need a fresh approach to how rental income is categorised.
- Status