Property tax to be passed onto tenants? No thanks.

Max Power1

gerryo777 wrote: »

If it's called a principle residence tax then whoever's principle residence it is should pay the tax. End of!!!

So what happens when the tenant doesnt pay then?

The judgement is against the property. I (tenant) have no intention of paying this. Its an owners tax, the landlord - as owner - can pay it or not as he sees fit. either way it wont affect me.

oceanclub

Jacknory wrote: »

This is a household tax not a property tax.

It states quite clearly that the owner of the property is liable for the charge. This is not an opinion; it's a fact, and not up for dispute.

There are lots of services that my income tax covers which I don't get any benefit from. Needless to say, the logic that I should be able to pass on my income tax to someone else who does get that benefit would be consider risible.

P.

jmayo

I think this issue really highlights that a fair chunk of the landlord class, be it the ones who had to rent out their former homes or the ones who became landlords using leveraging and interest only mortgages, may be just hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

There seems to be a belief out there that if any new costs, such as property taxes, are applied to them then they should be able to immediately push it onto their tenants.

The fact is there should always have been property taxes, like the old residential rates, and these taxes should have been factored into the costs and thus the rental yield that could be achieved.
What it appears happened was that some landlords borrowed way too much and they can't factor in any more costs without upping the rent.
They assume that they can just continue upping rent to cover their increasing costs.

That might have worked when there was greater demand than supply, credit was cheap and the government were flush with money to keep an artifical floor on the rental market.

What will landlords do if a) Interest rates jump and b) Property taxes are calculated based on actual property size and location ?

In those cases costs borne by the landlord can have increased drastically so do they propose that they can push all those costs onto their tenants ?

As time goes on I think you are going to find what landlords were fiscally conservative and what ones have no drawers on when the tide goes out.

Jacknory

oceanclub wrote: »

It states quite clearly that the owner of the property is liable for the charge. This is not an opinion; it's a fact, and not up for dispute.

There are lots of services that my income tax covers which I don't get any benefit from. Needless to say, the logic that I should be able to pass on my income tax to someone else who does get that benefit would be consider risible.

P.

You will be the one that uses the services not the landlord. Tell me, when you boil a kettle of water (which this tax will also cover), should the landlord pay for your tea/coffee? When you have a shower, should the landlord pay to keep you clean?

Move out if you don't want to pay for this but don't expect the landlord to have to shell out for items that you use and he/she doesn't benefit from.

oceanclub

Jacknory wrote: »

You will be the one that uses the services not the landlord. Tell me, when you boil a kettle of water (which this tax will also cover), should the landlord pay for your tea/coffee? When you have a shower, should the landlord pay to keep you clean?

Move out if you don't want to pay for this but don't expect the landlord to have to shell out for items that you use and he/she doesn't benefit from.

As you know, the landlord's association also want to impose the €200 "second home tax" on tenants. This tax has nothing to do with services. So this argument is nonsense.

P.

Max Power1

Jacknory wrote: »

You will be the one that uses the services not the landlord. Tell me, when you boil a kettle of water (which this tax will also cover), should the landlord pay for your tea/coffee? When you have a shower, should the landlord pay to keep you clean?

Move out if you don't want to pay for this but don't expect the landlord to have to shell out for items that you use and he/she doesn't benefit from.

Ownership of an asset perhaps?
You know - the home that you rent is owned by the landlord.

odds_on

I believe it will eventually be combined with the water charge tax as one single tax. The tenant will then pay that single tax. So why not now, and get used to it.

ShadowHearth

I should stop coming to this part of boards.ie... It upsets me every single time

Jacknory

oceanclub wrote: »

As you know, the landlord's association also want to impose the €200 "second home tax" on tenants. This tax has nothing to do with services. So this argument is nonsense.

P.

If you read what I posted earlier you will see that I do not agree with the second home tax being pushed on to tenants. I didn't refer to this in my last post so I don't see what part of my argument was nonsense.

oceanclub

Jacknory wrote: »

If you read what I posted earlier you will see that I do not agree with the second home tax being pushed on to tenants. I didn't refer to this in my last post so I don't see what part of my argument was nonsense.

Well, given that I posted the OP, I made the logical conclusion that proposal is indeed what we were actually discussing, rather than your proposal B. Proposal B is still wrong, I guess less wrongier than the IPOA's. (That is, to say, there is no get-out clause from taxes simply because you are not the direct beneficiary.)

P.

Jacknory

Max Power1 wrote: »

Ownership of an asset perhaps?
You know - the home that you rent is owned by the landlord.

The landlord pays the mortgage for the asset which is covered by the rent paid by the tenant. The landlord does not benefit from the services in the area, the tenant does. The household tax is for these services. It couldn't be more straight forward.

cursai

If the tenants turns off the heat electricity and water. The house would fall apart.

odds_on

Jacknory wrote: »

The landlord pays the mortgage for the asset which is covered by the rent paid by the tenant. The landlord does not benefit from the services in the area, the tenant does. The household tax is for these services. It couldn't be more straight forward.

For many unwilling landlords (who for one reason ir another have had to rent out their homes) the rent does not pay the mortgage. Many landlords have to add some money from other income or savings (leaving aside damage beyond the value of the deposit).

gerryo777

cursai wrote: »

If the tenants turns off the heat electricity and water. The house would fall apart.

Go back to sleep!

horgan_p

Amateur landlord hour again ?

Listen , landlords will have to pay the charge. The only question is whether to absorb the cost or to pass it on.

Tenants will either pay the increased rent or move out.

The market will always find its own level.
It's just another cost of doing business, if you're not willing to accept that then you shouldn't be in business (which is what renting a house out is).

Jacknory

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, given that I posted the OP, I made the logical conclusion that proposal is indeed what we were actually discussing, rather than your proposal B. Proposal B is still wrong, I guess less wrongier than the IPOA's. (That is, to say, there is no get-out clause from taxes simply because you are not the direct beneficiary.)

P.

As I said before, if the landlord tries to pass this charge on to you, move out if you don't like it. I will not pay for the second home tax as I do not own the property but there is no reason whatsoever to refuse a tax for services that you use. If you drive you pay motor tax, if you use services you pay the tax to cover said services. Logic can be wasted on some people.

Jacknory

oceanclub wrote: »

Well, given that I posted the OP, I made the logical conclusion that proposal is indeed what we were actually discussing, rather than your proposal B. Proposal B is still wrong, I guess less wrongier than the IPOA's. (That is, to say, there is no get-out clause from taxes simply because you are not the direct beneficiary.)

P.

BTW
You should maybe change the heading of your post from " Property tax to be passed onto tenants? Feck off." to " Property tax and second home tax to be passed onto tenants? Feck off

oceanclub

Jacknory wrote: »

there is no reason whatsoever to refuse a tax for services that you use

Er, yes there is when the tax is not mine to be paid. It's frankly bizarre that landlords think that tenants have a _moral_ obligation to pay their taxes.

P.

Max Power1

Jacknory wrote: »

The landlord pays the mortgage for the asset which is covered by the rent paid by the tenant. The landlord does not benefit from the services in the area, the tenant does. The household tax is for these services. It couldn't be more straight forward.

eh no!

Max Power1 wrote: »

So what happens when the tenant doesnt pay then?

The judgement is against the property. I (tenant) have no intention of paying this. Its an owners tax, the landlord - as owner - can pay it or not as he sees fit. either way it wont affect me.

snubbleste

Whenever I need a laugh, I go to the ipoa website and read comments posted there.

Why don't we have a proper rental lobby group in this country, instead of a registered charity?
Tenants are people and live in 'family homes' too.

IPOA says that landlords should impose a €25 charge on tenants on a monthly basis to meet other charges imposed by the government.
Threshold chair Senator Aideen Hayden said in response: “I’m horrified that a national representative body would make such a misleading and irresponsible call.
“When the Department of the Environment introduced this charge in the recent Budget, it stated very clearly that owners – not occupiers – would be liable.” http://www.thejournal.ie/charity-insists-tenants-should-not-be-liable-for-household-charge-305540-Dec2011/

daltonmd

So, let's say the landlord sends out a letter stating that he is placing a fee of 25 euro per month to cover these taxes. What happens if the tenants simply don't pay it? What if they are not in a lease or are coming out of a lease this month, what then?

Will the landlords evict the tenant?

Landlords cannot simply apply charges to rents and if tenants do not sign up then what can they do?

Evict them? For what? If you are a tenant paying the agreed rent then landlords have no grounds for eviction.

It is laughable that the government have to bring in legislation for this charge yet landlords think that they can pass it to the tenant willy nilly!!

Lol - don't think so,...

Jacknory

oceanclub wrote: »

Er, yes there is when the tax is not mine to be paid. It's frankly bizarre that landlords think that tenants have a _moral_ obligation to pay their taxes.

P.

Its frankly bizarre that you think a tax imposed on a landlord should not be passed on to the tenant for services used by the tenant.

Jacknory

Max Power1 wrote: »

eh no!

What you outlined in your previous post is correct. But what you highlighted from my post is also correct.

oceanclub

Jacknory wrote: »

Its frankly bizarre that you think a tax imposed on a landlord should not be passed on to the tenant for services used by the tenant.

Hang on while I find out who availed of my share of income taxes for, say, hospital stays, this year, and get them to refund me. Why should I pay income tax that someone else benefits from? It's frankly outrageous.

P.

Jacknory

oceanclub wrote: »

Hang on while I find out who availed of my share of income taxes for, say, hospital stays, this year, and get them to refund me. Why should I pay income tax that someone else benefits from? It's frankly outrageous.

P.

Your income tax is not what we are discussing unless I missed something . I'll try once more.......while the tax is levied on the owner it is reasonable for that owner to pass this to the tenant as they are the ones using the services that this tax is being imposed for. Maybe I'm taking crazy pills and this is completely illogical or you can't understand this basic reasoning.

daltonmd

Jacknory wrote: »

Your income tax is not what we are discussing unless I missed something . I'll try once more.......while the tax is levied on the owner it is reasonable for that owner to pass this to the tenant as they are the ones using the services that this tax is being imposed for. Maybe I'm taking crazy pills and this is completely illogical or you can't understand this basic reasoning.

But it's not for services it's a pre cursor to property tax until they figure out how to apply the charge fairly - and when the decision is made on how to charge the property tax, renters will not be liable.

If it was for water charges and public lighting and it was payable to local councils then you would have a reasonable argument. But it's not.

Jacknory

daltonmd wrote: »

But it's not for services it's a pre cursor to property tax until they figure out how to apply the charge fairly - and when the decision is made on how to charge the property tax, renters will not be liable.

If it was for water charges and public lighting and it was payable to local councils then you would have a reasonable argument. But it's not.

Right now it is for services.....might change in the future but right now it is what it is. If it was a property tax then renters of course wouldn't and shouldn't be liable but as a landlord is a businessman, expect rent increases across the rental market when this does happen.

daltonmd

Jacknory wrote: »

Right now it is for services.....might change in the future but right now it is what it is. If it was a property tax then renters of course wouldn't and shouldn't be liable but as a landlord is a businessman, expect rent increases across the rental market when this does happen.

You have hit on what they will probably do in the future. They will then impose the property tax and revert this charge to a service charge payable by renters. They obviously had some reason not to put this charge to tenants now.

Landlords cannot impose charges out of the air for whatever reason. If a tenant has signed a lease for x amount then the LL cannot demand anything above that. And again you have hit on the reason - Rent Increases - not going to happen I'm afraid, LL's can try but they will never force tenants to pay this and will not be able to evict tenants for non-payment - it won't hold unfortunately.

Tayla

wildefalcon wrote: »

How will someone who has a celtic tiger mortgage afford it, either? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

You're missing the point, it's your asset, the tenant will never own this house or gain financially from it, why should they pay?

Balmed Out

A property tax is paid by the owner of the property. Some may try to pass it on but they would have to do so indirectly by increasing rent.

Morally it is ridiculous to think this should be passed onto the tennant. Id be of the opinion that it should be a far higher rate for anyone would more then one property.
Lets not forget why we have to pay this tax, the usc etc etc. Its because of a property bubble. People who rent a home for the most part didnt contribute to this. People who bought property and especially those who bought more then one did so and should be paying more to sort it out.