Tax Treatment of Landlords has to be Revisited

[RonnieShinbal88]

He doesn't want to actually do anything to keep small landlords in, other than failed token gestures that he can point to later in his defense when accused of doing nothing. Anything meaningful that helps small landlords will be seized upon by the opposition. This is as clear as day at this point.

At this stage they will revoke property rights altogether rather than do anything that yields more support to Sinn Fein.

There was a good article in the examiner that summarised issues for small landlords:

Rents are at a record high, so why are private landlords quitting the market in droves?

Penalties outweigh any incentives for small landlords

www.irishexaminer.com

The minister is well aware, he is just playing politics in his own and his party cronies interests.

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

It's not their responsibility, but it's the business that they chose to engage in.

Correct. But then the government changed all the rules. Rental income subject to prsi and USC. Tenancies of indefinite duration introduced. Eviction ban introduced. Threats of not getting vacant possession of their property until the tenant decided. Introduced temporary RPZ that are never going to be removed.

They chose work hard and invest their money, maybe provide a pension for themselves and are vilified for it. Good point well made Clubman

 

[ClubMan]

Good point well made Clubman

Thanks.

 

[T McGibney]

Can you tell me where the people who actually will do the building are at this moment in time? Are they on the dole? Or living in Canada or Australia? Will they leave the private sector and come take a public sector job?

This is always the solution, but I've yet to hear anyone actually provide the detail on it. That fella Rory Hearne peddles this rhetoric constantly and never explains any detail.

Where has Rory Hearne, the former People Before Profit election candidate, advocated a loosening of planning and building standards regulations, and the sharp cutting of taxes on capital gains and development land profits, to incentivise those builders who are now messing around with mickey mouse house renovation, farm and commerical projects to return to doing what they do best?

 

[Leo]

It's not increasing supply is the urgent issue. The urgent issue is stopping the exodus of landlords from the market. At a time when demand for rental accomodation and markets rents are highest ever.

No the fundamental issue remains the lack of supply, everything else is just distraction. For years we have delivered significantly less housing than needed. Estimates in recent years suggest we need 50k+ houses per annum, for the last number of years we have delivered less than half that, in that context, less than 6000 landlords leaving the market isn't great news, but some of those will be the accidental landlords caught in the boom taking advantage of high property prices in advance of a predicted recession and not all of those properties will leave the rental market. The bigger landlords continue to get bigger with the institutional players continuing to expand their portfolios

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

Where has Rory Hearne, the former People Before Profit election candidate, advocated a loosening of planning and building standards regulations, and the sharp cutting of taxes on capital gains and development land profits, to incentivise those builders who are now messing around with mickey mouse house renovation, farm and commerical projects to return to doing what they do best?

Where has he??? On the tonight show on Virgin Media pretty much once a week, on his instagram page, in his articles on the Journal, in his artilces in the Examiner newspaper, and whenever he is on the radio. He says the solution is to create a state construction company, but never explains where the builders, blocklayers, electricians, plumbers, scaffolders, plasterers, painter, engineers, architects, draughtsmen, roofers, carpenters etc are currently who will be employed by this company. Also, what pay rates they will get and if coming from the private sector, how will he attract them to the public sector? And also, what happens to private sector building supply if all these people leave for the public sector? Or does he just want to abandon private sector building and do all public sector building.............if so, whose going to pay for all these houses?

Its very irratating to see so called experts putting forward this as the solution when it's naive to say the least. The problem and challenge is a lot more complex and interdependent that he puts forward. I'd like to see him break it down and explain the process of doing what he suggests, but that'll never happen.

 

[T McGibney]

Where has he??? On the tonight show on Virgin Media pretty much once a week, on his instagram page, in his articles on the Journal, in his artilces in the Examiner newspaper, and whenever he is on the radio. He says the solution is to create a state construction company, but never explains where the builders, blocklayers, electricians, plumbers, scaffolders, plasterers, painter, engineers, architects, draughtsmen, roofers, carpenters etc are currently who will be employed by this company. Also, what pay rates they will get and if coming from the private sector, how will he attract them to the public sector? And also, what happens to private sector building supply if all these people leave for the public sector? Or does he just want to abandon private sector building and do all public sector building.............if so, whose going to pay for all these houses?

Its very irratating to see so called experts putting forward this as the solution when it's naive to say the least. The problem and challenge is a lot more complex and interdependent that he puts forward. I'd like to see him break it down and explain the process of doing what he suggests, but that'll never happen.

I share your scepticism of Hearne but unless I'm sorely mistaken he has never advocated

- loosening planning and building standards regulations,
- cutting capital gains and development land profits taxes
- otherwise incentivising current and would-be private builders

so I'm still puzzled why you claimed that Hearne peddles my rhetoric on housebuilding?

 

[T McGibney]

Rogue landlords have their property taken over by the state..no ifs or butts, do it right, or get out of the market

This idea is one of the worst that I have ever read, here or elsewhere. If implemented, it would overnight, not only undermine but totally obliterate the housing market.

If you direct terrorism or sell drugs from your property, you won't have your property confiscated by the State. Yet you're suggesting that such a penalty should attach to breaching tenancy legislation?

No sane property owner, individual or corporate, nor any of their lenders, would expose themselves to such a catastrophic risk.

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

No the fundamental issue remains the lack of supply, everything else is just distraction. For years we have delivered significantly less housing than needed. Estimates in recent years suggest we need 50k+ houses per annum, for the last number of years we have delivered less than half that, in that context, less than 6000 landlords leaving the market isn't great news, but some of those will be the accidental landlords caught in the boom taking advantage of high property prices in advance of a predicted recession and not all of those properties will leave the rental market. The bigger landlords continue to get bigger with the institutional players continuing to expand their portfolios

You are very naive to think that 6000 landlords leaving the sector annually isn't an issue. It's a major issue for currently renters and future renters. It's a major issue for people are working currently but not in a position or unwilling to purchase a property suitable to their needs. It's a problem when the 6000 landlords leaving are being replaced by a couple of hundred (at best!) entering the rental sector. It's a problem when the ones leaving are non-institutional or 'mom and pop' landlords who are highly likely to charge towards the lower end of the rental price range. Institutional landlords are a more recent phenomenon and are concentrated in urban areas like Dublin, Cork and to a lesser extent Galway and Limerick only. They also charge 'market rent' which are much much higher than those 'mom and pop' landlords. To argue otherwise is very naive.

Yes, some landlords will leave the sector regardless of any tax changes etc. That's a normal market. You have landlords leaving and entering the market. If you have a situation like now, with huge swathes of landlords leaving, few entering, that's a systemic problem that is not be rectified. Putting a ban on evictions isn't solving the problem. It's like a dam that is building up more pressure and will result in an avalanche of homelessness in the near future. There's minimal investment into the rental sector from non-institutional investors at a time when rent are astronomical. Why is that? Another systemic problem that isn't being resolved. They aren't entering because of the risk to their investment. Excessive regulation and constant changing of the rules. And so the problem gets worse and worse and all the while, nothing is actually being done about the problem, apart from talking about the problem.


1) Stop landlords in the game from leaving, by engaging with them and give them something for something. Another poster suggested setting rents at €1250 a month and it's tax free. A landlord would be in the same position in such a scenario as someone currently charging €2500 a month (non-mortgaged property). The tenant would benefit hugely and I would suggest there's a small percentage of non-institutional investors actually charging in the region of €2500 per month, so landlords would also benefit to varying degrees.
2) Start charging REITS a tax on profits or rental income. Nothing huge, but have them ACTUALLY pay something.
3) Invest in the RTB or a fit for purpose body to speedily enable landlords to evict non-paying tenants. Also, establish a database for rogue tenants and landlords to benefit the sector as a whole.

I'm not a genius, but the above three steps, hell even the first step, would make tenants lives a lot easier and benefits a huge proportion of landlords without any immediate increase in supply. But at least the build up would ease a little.

Then you can start looking at increasing supply and attracting investment into the sector. At the moment, it's like trying to catch a speeding car, you might catch it eventually, but you are going to spend a lot of energy and time trying to catch it than if it was stationary or much slower moving.

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

so I'm still puzzled why you claimed that Hearne peddles my rhetoric on housebuilding?

i never said he peddles "your rhetoric".

 

[T McGibney]

i never said he peddles "your rhetoric".

That fella Rory Hearne peddles this rhetoric constantly and never explains any detail.

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

Rogue landlords have their property taken over by the state..no ifs or butts, do it right, or get out of the market

This is a bonkers far left proposal to beat all others alright. In tandem to do, would you suggest that non-paying, troublesome tenants should be immediately evicted and no assistance from the state be given to their housing needs again. No ifs or butts, tenants do it right, or get out on the street? What's good for the goose, is it good for the gander LS400?

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

i never said he peddles "your rhetoric".

That fella Rory Hearne peddles this rhetoric constantly and never explains any detail.

Yes, he peddles the rhetoric of what I said in the preceeding paragraph of post number 77. Not your post or what you said, you are confused.

 

[T McGibney]

Yes, he peddles the rhetoric of what I said in the preceeding paragraph of post number 77. Not your post or what you said, you are confused.

If I am confused, it's with good reason as you literally quoted a post on mine in that post.

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

If I am confused, it's with good reason as you literally quoted a post on mine in that post.

you are going down a rabbit hole here and taking the discussion off topic. I was refering to your suggest "build build build".

I agree with you, this is the ultimate solution but it's not something that's going to deliver in the next 3-6 months. It will deliver at best in 12 or 18 months time at the earliest. I'm suggesting ideas that can have an immediate impact right now, today and tomorrow. The three points in post number 89, point 1 especially, is something that can be brought in very quickly, and is something that alleviates the pressure both on landlords and tenants. It gets rents down quickly and can a very significant amount. And also rewards/encourages/entices/benefits (whatever word you prefer) landlords to stay in the game until your "build build build" solution starts bearing fruit.

 

[T McGibney]

you are going down a rabbit hole here and taking the discussion off topic. I was refering to your suggest "build build build".

That's fair enough, but you shouldn't have linked me with Hearne. My version of "build build build" is clearly different from his.

To answer your original question, the boom that suddenly took flight in 1997 & 1998 will recur whenever the government gets its act together and allows private housebuilding to resume on a large scale. The country is full of under- and mis-employed builders and tradesmen working in occupations as diverse as domestic retrofitting, hotel/nursing home maintenance, farming, factory work, supermarkets & shops, security industry etc, all of whom would jump at an opportunity to return to more lucrative work in construction.

I agree with you, this is the ultimate solution but it's not something that's going to deliver in the next 3-6 months. It will deliver at best in 12 or 18 months time at the earliest.

It will take a lot longer than that for any solution to work properly. You don't unwind 15 years of bad policy in a few years. But we must have patience.

The three points in post number 89, point 1 especially, is something that can be brought in very quickly, and is something that alleviates the pressure both on landlords and tenants. It gets rents down quickly and can a very significant amount. And also rewards/encourages/entices/benefits (whatever word you prefer) landlords to stay in the game until your "build build build" solution starts bearing fruit.

Point 1 definitely would help. But imposing higher taxes on REITs and putting "rogue landlords" on a register like sex offenders would do the opposite.

 

[jpd]

2) Start charging REITS a tax on profits or rental income. Nothing huge, but have them ACTUALLY pay something.

You seem to have forgotten that the purpose of a REIT is to supply housing by gathering funds from private individuals and corporations and planning, building and managing housing units (usually, but not exclusively appartments)

85% or more of the profits have to be returned as dividends to the investors who pay income tax and USC on this income

So it is not true that profits from REITs are untaxed - they are taxed in the hands of the eventual beneficiaries

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

You seem to have forgotten that the purpose of a REIT is to supply housing by gathering funds from private individuals and corporations and planning, building and managing housing units (usually, but not exclusively appartments)

85% or more of the profits have to be returned as dividends to the investors who pay income tax and USC on this income

So it is not true that profits from REITs are untaxed - they are taxed in the hands of the eventual beneficiaries

taxed if shareholders are resident in ireland. In a lot, likely the vast majority of REITS, this is not the case. So there's no tax collected in Ireland.

 

[PebbleBeach2020]

To answer your original question, the boom that suddenly took flight in 1997 & 1998 will recur whenever the government gets its act together and allows private housebuilding to resume on a large scale. The country is full of under- and mis-employed builders and tradesmen working in occupations as diverse as domestic retrofitting, hotel/nursing home maintenance, farming, factory work, supermarkets & shops, security industry etc, all of whom would jump at an opportunity to return to more lucrative work in construction.

I find it hard to believe there's thousands of such workers who would be willing to return to construction sector who haven't already done so at this stage. The money to be earned is construction is multiples of what can be eared in farming, supermarkets and shops, security etc. Likely there are other reasons for staying away, if that's the case.

 

[Leo]

You are very naive to think that 6000 landlords leaving the sector annually isn't an issue.

Perhaps have a read of what I said again. AT no point did I suggest it wasn't an issue, just that it's not the fundamental or primary issue.

It's estimated that approaching 6,000 left last year, but that's double the number of the year before and is likely an anomaly based on pending recession and very high property prices. Sure, some are scared of what legislation might come, but many others, including posters on here continue to invest in BTLs.

They also charge 'market rent' which are much much higher than those 'mom and pop' landlords. To argue otherwise is very naive.

Are you suggesting that a smaller private landlord putting a new house on the market is not seeking market rent? Anything to suggest that is widespread?

Yes, some landlords will leave the sector regardless of any tax changes etc. That's a normal market. You have landlords leaving and entering the market. If you have a situation like now, with huge swathes of landlords leaving, few entering, that's a systemic problem that is not be rectified.

Do you have numbers on the total number of tenancies registered in 2022 versus previous years? I searched but the latest data I could find was from 2020.