Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
You miss the point. The actions being taken by one bank today are irrelevant. My point is to ask if you really want to trust the banks to act in the best interests of society on an ongoing basis? I don't trust the banks. We need proper legislative controls.As for your 2nd point, yes, banks are far stricter in trying to get capital repayments now from property investors.there are plenty of threads here on AAM. In fact,there was a big article in just last weeks Sunday business post you may have read how permanent tsb are calling in all capital repayments now by property investors irrespective of their finances.
The question is whether interest-only is a legitimate expense. It's not. It is a tax avoidance advice, designed to maximise the interest paid, and therefore the state subsidy. It is not a legitimate expense.As for your third point, you are quite right in that if you have the income you pay the tax. However, if tax relief was taken away then property investors would be in negative cash flow each month and you think they should pay tax on this income even though they are making a loss? Nonsense.
This is contrary to the fundamental basis of any tax i.e. You pay out tax on any surplus cash you have after expenses.
So you're happy with the way house prices went after Bacon was abolished then?
.
It certainly wasn't the only cause, but it was right up there with a number of other bubbling policies.Bacon being abolished didn't create the property bubble.
Just wondering has the current 75% interest relief been signalled for reduction in the 4 year plan?
It certainly wasn't the only cause, but it was right up there with a number of other bubbling policies.
The question is whether interest-only is a legitimate expense. It's not. It is a tax avoidance advice, designed to maximise the interest paid, and therefore the state subsidy. It is not a legitimate expense.
I'd love to see some data to support your claim that 'few people are in a position to do it'. Certainly, recent purchasers of residential property will be struggling, but I suspect there an awful lot of landlords whose mortgages are older and at modest levels, but are still maximising their interest to avail of the state subsidy.OK - we're not gonna agree here it seems.
But suffice to say, byu your own admission you're only reason for getting this abolished is because you say it unfairly facilitates the investor who wants to take advantrage of the relief by allowing them save loads of their other cash in different accounts this unfairly taking advantage of this relief.
You're right - it does allow someone do this should they wish.
However - so few people are in a position to do it it is negligible in the extreme.
Hardly reasonable to abolish it for everyone else who have paid significant amount of property taxes already.
You may say that it is also unreasonable to expect the state to cover it instead.
Your comment of what other property taxes people have paid previously should be disregrded is also very unfair and would seem at odds with most peoples sentiments.
For example,it is for this very reason why people who have paid stamp duty are exempt from paying this new property tax for a number of years (7 years i think). (i.e. previous taxes paid are indeed considered relevant)
Everyone seems in agreement that this is equitable.
You could make exactly the same arguement about public sector salaries, or AIB shares or whatever - that the stated 'lured' people in. We are in drastic times, and we need to cut back. Landlords should be taking their fair share of the pain.Complainer,
The terms under which people could invest in property were set by the State. As I have said already, they "lured" people in.
To then shut the door behind them, and change the rules of the game is immoral. No other word describes it.
You have still not given a proper explanation why landlords should go to the hassle and expense of providing accommodation if they cannot write off their expenses.
Landlords should be taking their fair share of the pain.
Landlords should be taking their fair share of the pain.
I'd love to see some data to support your claim that 'few people are in a position to do it'. Certainly, recent purchasers of residential property will be struggling, but I suspect there an awful lot of landlords whose mortgages are older and at modest levels, but are still maximising their interest to avail of the state subsidy.
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?