Why do our think tanks lose it when it comes to landlords?

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,680
I heard this on the news yesterday. The NESC bemoaning the loss of rental properties.

Government urged to consider tax treatment of landlords

The National Economic and Social Council (NESC) has recommended the Government consider further action to improve the tax treatment of landlords.
www.rte.ie

I don't agree that some improved tax treatment will solve the problem, but maybe it will.

Then, in the next breath...

The NESC report also suggests that over the medium term, something like the National Car Testing system could be set up for rental properties to ensure they meet minimum standards.

This is so frustrating. They seem to think that it's only about money. They don't realise that every time they propose some new regulation, they make the problem worse.

Brendan
 
Hi Brendan

It's membership is dominated by the usual mixture of public servants, left-leaning NGO types, and social partner reps. I'm sure every time someone constructive like Seamus Coffey proposes something, there is someone else with an ideological blindspot or vested interest who wants to water it down or counter it.
 
The (fear of a) loss of control of the asset is the reason landlords are leaving. Regulations that limit the owners ability to sell and remove blocks to their revenue stream are the problem.
What matters is regulations which make the asset less liquid.

"Can I sell by property when I want?" and "Do I have access to a meaningful remedy if my tenant can't or won't pay their rent?" are far more important questions than "What tax will I pay?"
 
Likewise, Taxes were the least of my issues with the whole thing.

I guess making the agenda about tax plays to the crowd.
 
The great irony of all the proposals made to strengthen regulation of private landlords is that the biggest landlord in the country - the state - is exempt. Local authorities are not required to register with the RTB or meet the minimum standards they enforce on other landlords. It is an open secret that large sections of the local authority stock doesn't come anywhere close to the minimum standards.
 
Why do our think tanks lose it when it comes to landlords? - That's the only question asked here and the answer is simple:-
Losses and problems in a small business* are always trumped by possible "homelessness."

* A landlord operates a small business.

How much does he/she owe the banks is deemed as incidental like any other small business. The rights of the owner of the property are also trumped. Please don't take this as my opinion as I don't agree or disagree with the answers.

The title of thread probably should say:- Why should landlords be treated differently from all other small business owners?
 
Last edited:
Leper said:
Why should landlords be treated differently from all other small business owners?
Click to expand...
that is the essence of the problem.

If I run a corner shop and want to change it from a hardware store to a cafe I can do so.

If I've had enough of the cafe or want to retire I could turn the property into a single family home or selling it as a going concern and I can do so
(I know change of use is required for residential, but lets take that as a given, I dont know of any CoCo that would refuse).

However with what is being proposed; if I want to leave the property owner/rental business, I can't do so without taking a huge loss. Unlike a commercial property, a residential property with a sitting tenant is unmortgageable.

So, yes please - treat us like a small business owner - that would be far preferable to where we are now.
 
If other businesses were treated the same way as landlords i.e. hotels then I’d be able to go to a hotel, book 1 nights stay, come down in the morning and say actually I’m not paying and I’m going to stay here free of charge for the next 2 years.
 
Leper said:
Why do our think tanks lose it when it comes to landlords? - That's the only question asked here and the answer is simple:-
Losses and problems in a small business* are always trumped by possible "homelessness."
Click to expand...

Hi Leper

Your argument is a very good example of how some ideological viewpoint can worsen the problem you are trying to solve.

Don't be blinded by homelessness. These policies are increasing homelessness for renters by driving landlords out of the business.

Brendan
 
how is the business model feasible when inflation is down to 7.8 %
but your business can only increase by 2%,
No other business is confined in this way..
As was said on the RTE program the other night, service charges on apartment goes up 10% to 3750 euro a year, in return
Landlord can get an extra 20 euro a month.
PRTB registration is now 20 euro a year per registration where it used to be every 4 years,
how can that be allowed within the 2%.
Landlords, which is a terrible term are being used for political gain.
Eviction ban means that loss making business owners are being forced to continue to operate at a loss.
RPZ''a were brought in as a temporary measure, same as Eviction ban.
As a landlord of many years i don't want preferential tax rates, i want the ability to operate, pay taxes and survive.
The idea that i need a tax subsidy to make my loss making business more viable is irksome
given that government interference has made it so.
 
Leper said:
The title of thread probably should say:- Why should landlords be treated differently from all other small business owners?
Click to expand...
The other question is why is the State's moral responsibility to house it's citizens (if such a responsibility exists and I'm in two minds on that) be foisted on private landlords?
Why are landlords greedy when they seek to charge the market rate but those selling homes at the market rate are not?
 
I don't know why suddenly I became a social service. I am all for renting at a reasonable fair price but I didn't sign for that. There's also a discourse lately that in some way LL take the property away from the renters, the social housing stock or first time buyers. I certainly know that nobody wanted the property I bought as it was for sale for 2 years.
 
I remember an official from the housing department saying on tv in the middle of the recession that if he had to do it again, he was not sure he would buy as renting was a good flexible housing option... At the time, I was chocked. I thought it was fairly disingenuous.
 

I’m just answering the question which was asked, nothing more. I am a landlord though in another country. We need solutions, not reminders of how much we’re losing. We gained in better times, we’re now just treated and seen as casualties of ourselves. Many think that if we keep shouting somebody will eventually listen; they won’t!

Have a look at a separate thread on why landlords are exiting the business. The risks and small profits and hassle experienced by landlords make it almost impossible to carry on. Now somebody wants a sort of NCT for rental properties. This is on top of Housing Registration, Additional Insurance, Increased Running Costs etc. Landlords have become the Brits of Ireland - Blame them for everything.

Sooner or later landlords will have to get organised and tackle the problems. They’ll have to stop competing against themselves and pull together, then perhaps somebody will listen.
 
Last edited:
Less tax would cover increasing outlays.Government did tweak CGT regime some years ago to encourage people into the market.We need both less regulation and less taxes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register