Property tax to be passed onto tenants? No thanks.

Snakeblood

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You guys have some sense of entilement when it comes to other peoples' money..

Aren't you the gent who wants to charge as much as possible at all times in case of some future possibility that you'll have a tax on your asset increased?

big syke

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Longest I have ever had a place empty is a week in 20 years. Really €150 a month cheaper and I am not doing her a favour. You guys have some sense of entilement when it comes to other peoples' money. As I said I am not going to do it any more. Much better than other places in the area and will easily get an extra €150 if not €200 a month. Condesing boiler, new double glazed windows and the whole place is insulated way above new build standards.

If I am am not even seen as doing her a favour might as well look out for my own financial interest

Well thats very hard to believe....a week?? Cleaning, viewing etc would take that long surely?

What does that have to do with mine or anyones sense of entitlement?
I said you made a smart business decision but your calling it a favour out of the goodness of your heart...?

Thats what wrong with some landlords they think that when they actually do something like reduce rent to accomodate a decent/long standing tenant that they deserve a blue peter badge for it....

They are being business smart and making decisons that please both sides.

Graces7

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yes in your predjudice you missed I improve my property don't put up the rent and give my long term tenants a reduced rate below the market rates. That is me being nice when I don't have to.

As I have said before, I am not prejudiced. I take everyone as they present. The prejudice is entirely yours; or is it some kind of defence mechanism? Sounds so.

Your definition of nice is interesting, You say you are doing only what any landlord should do. That is not being nice. Nice is another thing altogether.

Ray Palmer

big syke wrote: »

Well thats very hard to believe....a week?? Cleaning, viewing etc would take that long surely?

What does that have to do with mine or anyones sense of entitlement?
I said you made a smart business decision but your calling it a favour out of the goodness of your heart...?

Thats what wrong with some landlords they think that when they actually do something like reduce rent to accomodate a decent/long standing tenant that they deserve a blue peter badge for it....

They are being business smart and making decisons that please both sides.

Business smart is when you improve something you can charge more for it. As pointed out many times the tenant isn't doing me a favour I am running a business just becasue they can't afford the market rate why should I reduce the rent? You can't have it both ways.

It isn't good bussiness sense to reduce rent when I could get more that could be made up within a short time allowing for a vacant period. I show the place as I am doing it up. If the quality is good and the price is good people fall over each other trying to get the place. People in the area know I am a good LL and am quick to address any problems.

professore

It always amazes me how landlords in this country seem to think the laws of economics don't apply to them.

I run a small business. If I have lots of clients queueing up for my services I charge more. If I have less clients I charge less. If the government impose a tax I have to pay it - e.g. commercial rates. I can't hand my clients a bill for this - i have to look at the market. If I can't make enough money because there's not enough clients or they don't pay or don't pay me enough or I do a crap job I go bankrupt. That's business.

So stop moaning and live in the real world.

professore

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Business smart is when you improve something you can charge more for it. As pointed out many times the tenant isn't doing me a favour I am running a business just becasue they can't afford the market rate why should I reduce the rent? You can't have it both ways.

It isn't good bussiness sense to reduce rent when I could get more that could be made up within a short time allowing for a vacant period. I show the place as I am doing it up. If the quality is good and the price is good people fall over each other trying to get the place. People in the area know I am a good LL and am quick to address any problems.

Agreed, except if none of your potential customers can afford your rent then you have to drop it, or sell, or get out of the rental business - but I think you're one of the few LL's who get this.

Ray Palmer

professore wrote: »

Agreed, except if none of your potential customers can afford your rent then you have to drop it, or sell, or get out of the rental business - but I think you're one of the few LL's who get this.

I'm like nintendo it may not be the best product but I can afford to sell it cheaper and never sell at a loss.

My discounted rent is going to have to go as I am not taking an extra expense of the new taxes as well. Let the government provide cheap accomadation like they always should be.

Graces7

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I'm like nintendo it may not be the best product but I can afford to sell it cheaper and never sell at a loss.

My discounted rent is going to have to go as I am not taking an extra expense of the new taxes as well. Let the government provide cheap accomadation like they always should be.

So you are going to break the law in fact? Discounted? Trading standards would have a field day with you.

For E2 a week? By how much are you planning to put up the rents?

Damie

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I'm like nintendo it may not be the best product but I can afford to sell it cheaper and never sell at a loss.

My discounted rent is going to have to go as I am not taking an extra expense of the new taxes as well. Let the government provide cheap accomadation like they always should be.

I'm ashamed to say I've only realised now, that you are a wum....;)

odds_on

snickerpuss wrote: »

If it was mooted to me by my landlord that he was looking for either €100 or €300 annually towards this I'd tell him to start looking for a new tenant and it is more than likely that if he put it up for rent again that he'd lose at least one months rent from us - €850. Won't be worth most landlord's effort if tenants go this route.

It's your asset, you will own it outright eventually so as far as I'm concerned the landlord can pay the taxes, especially the second home tax. I'm sorry if some people bought apartments they no longer want and have to rent out but frankly it's nothing to do with me, I just want somewhere to live and I'm not here to subsidise decisions that didn't work out for other people who are now landlords.

That's like playing musical chairs. You will leave your current rented property and move into a different one which, unbeknown to you will have the household charge included in the rent and someone else who moved out of another property will move into where you currently reside - and pay a higher rent because it will also now include the household charge.
Round and round we go.

The_Conductor

jmayo wrote: »

This tax is not meant to be for water or refuse, etc.

The agreement with the Troika- is the introduction of this tax is a temporary measure to pay for water rates residentially, as a flat rate charge, until such time as we are in a position to implement it on a usage basis (aka until such time as we have water meters installed in all residential properties).

We agreed to charge for domestic water use from the 1st of January, period.

Farmers, businesses and non-residential water users have been paying on either a flat rate or a per usage basis, for years- however their water charges are insufficient to pay for the upgrading that is necessary to our water systems (we can debate the actual amount needed to be spent, however international norms are a wastage of less than 20% of treated water- and we need to spend upwards of 8 billion to hit this ambitious (or not depending on your point of view) target).

The EUR100 charge- is being dressed up as an introduction to property tax in the country- if we are being honest about what we've signed up to however- its a flatrate implementation of water charges, and likely to remain so- until mid 2013, when we are scheduled to move over to a usage based system.

The property tax element- isn't due to go over 1,200 before 2015- once again it depends on whether exemptions are granted to people- the more people who are exempt the tax- the higher the tax for everyone else.......

Today's announcement that salaries, social welfare, pensions and bankaccounts are to be purloined to meet these taxes- is a noxious move however.......

Graces7

Damie wrote: »

I'm ashamed to say I've only realised now, that you are a wum....;)

As in female? Ah this all makes more sense then as in the female being deadlier than the male..

And why ashamed? Ray?

daltonmd

odds_on wrote: »

That's like playing musical chairs. You will leave your current rented property and move into a different one which, unbeknown to you will have the household charge included in the rent and someone else who moved out of another property will move into where you currently reside - and pay a higher rent because it will also now include the household charge.
Round and round we go.

That may be the case, but, if the tenant leaves to move into another property they won't take one that's asking more than the present one, meaning the tenant still pays the same rent.

The landlord, however, will have a vacant period and advertising costs to cover and he/she will have to hope that the next tenant is as good as the present one.

This won't drive rents up - it will drive them down.

The_Conductor

daltonmd wrote: »

That may be the case, but, if the tenant leaves to move into another property they won't take one that's asking more than the present one, meaning the tenant still pays the same rent.

The landlord, however, will have a vacant period and advertising costs to cover and he/she will have to hope that the next tenant is as good as the present one.

This won't drive rents up - it will drive them down.

You are presuming an excess of rental accommodation- which is *not* the case in Dublin and Cork- there may be 200,000 empties nationwide- but they're not in desireable locations where people are willing to pay over the odds for......

Less urban locations with an excess of available rental accommodation (think Portlaoise, Carrick, Mullingar and elsewhere around the country), will doubtless not be able to pass the charge onto tenants as a rental increase- Landlords in Cork and Dublin are an entirely different story though.......

daltonmd

smccarrick wrote: »

You are presuming an excess of rental accommodation- which is *not* the case in Dublin and Cork- there may be 200,000 empties nationwide- but they're not in desireable locations where people are willing to pay over the odds for......

Less urban locations with an excess of available rental accommodation (think Portlaoise, Carrick, Mullingar and elsewhere around the country), will doubtless not be able to pass the charge onto tenants as a rental increase- Landlords in Cork and Dublin are an entirely different story though.......

Where did I mention excess of rental accommodation? You said it would be like musical chairs and stated that if a landlord tried to pass on the tax then the tenant would move to another property and unbeknownst to them the tax would be included.

That might be the case - but the tenant will still be paying the same rent.

I made the point somewhere else, if landlords think that when they go to renegotiate rents that they can simply impose a hike on the rent, it is absurd for anyone to think that in this climate they could INCREASE the rents - not going to happen.

I am a tenant and let's say my rent is 800pm, if my landlord tried to add the charge to my rent then I would look for another property for........ 800pm.

Is the tax included on this? I couldn't care less, but my rent is the same while my landlord now has to advertise and cover a vacant period.

Under no circumstances would I look to rent a property that is more expensive - what would be the point?

steve9859

Only just stumbled on this thread now, and this has probably been said, but I am a landlord by virtue of having to move with my job and rent somewhere in the UK (for which I pay council tax, as it is based on the occupier, as any tax that is being raised to pay for local services should be).

So I pay my non principal residence tax already. The €100 property tax is to pay for local amenities, so I am not going to pay that. The tenants are paying, and they have agreed to it. It is a nonsense to make non-professional landlords, forced by the economic situation to move house, pay rent on the rented property plus swallow the shortfall between the mortgage and rental income on the owned property, and pay two separate property taxes on the same property!!

The tenants need to suck it up and pay their share

Edit: sorry that last comment comes across as a little harsh, but I am annoyed by some of the tenants comments on this thread.

mikemac1

steve9859 wrote: »

The €100 property tax is to pay for local amenities, so I am not going to pay that.

Is it?
Is the tax handed to each council and stays in the area?

Genuinely asking, I don't know.
So I pay Tipp North, does the tax stay with the council or is it all handed up to Michael Noonan in Dublin?

steve9859

mikemac1 wrote: »

Is it?
Is the tax handed to each council and stays in the area?

Genuinely asking, I don't know.
So I pay Tipp North, does the tax stay with the council or is it all handed up to Michael Noonan in Dublin?

Noonan said specifically that it is be ringfenced to pay for local services. It is also his justification for charging apartment owners who already pay a service charge - in an interview on newstalk I listened to the other morning he said that those apartment owners will still avail of local roads and streetlights etc not paid for by the apartment management company.

It will morph into an Irish version of council tax, but targeted at owners rather than occupiers, which IMO is completely wrong

HerbSimpson

steve9859 wrote: »

Noonan said specifically that it is be ringfenced to pay for local services. It is also his justification for charging apartment owners who already pay a service charge - in an interview on newstalk I listened to the other morning he said that those apartment owners will still avail of local roads and streetlights etc not paid for by the apartment management company.

It will morph into an Irish version of council tax, but targeted at owners rather than occupiers, which IMO is completely wrong

Noonan also said renters are exempt and the landlords have to pay it.

wolfpawnat

zac8 wrote: »

If my landlord tries to land this on me I'll just move. There's plenty of choices out there.

Or maybe I should preempt him and request a rent reduction?

I am asking for one, but mainly because I am paying 100e min over all my neighbours!!!!

If I am forced to pay a household charge I will not be happy, I get nothing from paying rent here only a temporary place of residence, the landlord gets the actual property. But if that cow thinks I am paying her second property tax she can take a running jump off Bray Head!!!!!!

daltonmd

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I am asking for one, but mainly because I am paying 100e min over all my neighbours!!!!

If I am forced to pay a household charge I will not be happy, I get nothing from paying rent here only a temporary place of residence, the landlord gets the actual property. But if that cow thinks I am paying her second property tax she can take a running jump off Bray Head!!!!!!

That's what renting is. That's the service that's provided.

nxbyveromdwjpg

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I am asking for one, but mainly because I am paying 100e min over all my neighbours!!!!

If I am forced to pay a household charge I will not be happy, I get nothing from paying rent here only a temporary place of residence, the landlord gets the actual property. But if that cow thinks I am paying her second property tax she can take a running jump off Bray Head!!!!!!

Hilarious. You are paying for somewhere to live, which are you being provided with. If the house is in negative equity, do you want your share of that too??

nxbyveromdwjpg

Spiritofthekop wrote: »

THE TENANT IS ALREADY BUYING YOUR HOUSE FOR YOU.

Oh dear :rolleyes:

Carlos_Ray

steve9859 wrote: »

The €100 property tax is to pay for local amenities, so I am not going to pay that.

Do you really believe this? None of these austerity measures are going to benefit the average person in Ireland. None of the money raised is going back into the country. Its going straight to bond holders and to pay off the bailout.

Although I totally disagree with the property tax, I disagree even more with owners trying to get tenants to pay the charge. Its a tax for people that own property... that is clear to everyone. Just because things didn't work out for you and like many people, you find yourself in a difficult position, doesn't mean others should be forced to pay for your misfortune.

You bought a property in the good times, it was a gamble that didn't pay off. Luckily for me, I chose not to gamble. That's life, but sorry I'm not willing to pick up any charges that you or any other landlord are now incurring as a result of their choices. If the government had announced 200 euro tax breaks on all landlords would they be knocking on their tenants doors to reduce the rent accordingly? Don't make me laugh.

The government are delighted that this row has broken out between tenants and landlords because its dividing people. Everybody should be standing together and refusing to pay it. However, landlords won't stand against it as long as they think they can pass the bill on. Thats the crux of the issue, and thats why the Government will succeed in pushing this through.

hmmm

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

None of the money raised is going back into the country. Its going straight to bond holders and to pay off the bailout.

Bank bailouts are over. It's going to pay for the huge deficit we are running on our budget because taxes are too low, the PS is too big and we pay too much in social welfare.

wolfpawnat

daltonmd wrote: »

That's what renting is. That's the service that's provided.

I stated that, she gets an apartment at the end, I do not, she wanted multiple properties, she can pay for her greed herself.

nm wrote: »

Hilarious. You are paying for somewhere to live, which are you being provided with. If the house is in negative equity, do you want your share of that too??

I stated in my post, I am merely paying for the short term address. I do not get anything more from it (eg part ownership in it) , nor should I be expected to contribute more to it (ie her taxes for her property!)!

The_Conductor

daltonmd wrote: »

, it is absurd for anyone to think that in this climate they could INCREASE the rents - not going to happen.

I disagree- check DAFT and other property outlets. Rent is increasing once again in certain high demand areas. There is a supply constraint in high demand areas- that regardless of whether you kit out NAMA'ed properties and put them on the market or not- is not going to be satisfied. It is the high demand areas that will get away with including the charge in the rent- the lower demand areas (and I listed 4 or 5 places around the country with in some cases mindboggling quantities of excess rental property)- who will have to suck it up and accept that its another cost that is not going to be met.

Rents are increasing in parts of Dublin, Cork and Galway at present- because there is inherent demand for rental properties in the areas concerned, and a finite supply. It really is economics 101 to be honest.

The_Conductor

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Do you really believe this? None of these austerity measures are going to benefit the average person in Ireland. None of the money raised is going back into the country. Its going straight to bond holders and to pay off the bailout.

One of the things we signed up with the Troika- is the introduction of water rates. The property tax element was not in my opinion a Troika demand at all- water rates were and are.

We need to invest just under 10 billion in our national water networks to bring them up to international standards (aka loss of less than 20% of treated water between the point of treatment and the point of consumption)- this is a one off charge- we then have an annual maintenance/upkeep charge for the network of 300-400 million.

We can get on our high horses all we like about Anglo, Bond Holders, Government ineptitude etc etc etc- however this does not do anything about the fact that the water that everyone thinks is free running from their taps- has a significant financial cost associated with it. Farmers and non-domestic users already pay for water- and are metered in most parts of the country. Over the next 18 months the metering of domestic supplies should be complete.

Enda Kenny murkied the water (if you'll excuse the pun) with comments he made concerning property tax back last June.

We can bitch and moan about bondholders, bankers and the government- until the cows come home. Our current expenditure- aside from bonds and bank transfers, is billions in the red. Look at our social welfare system- basic rates of over EURO220 a week- and compare it with the basic rate of £64 a week up the M1?

When we voted in the Labour FG government- we voted for increased taxation as a ratio, over and above cuts in expenditure.

People are moaning about Joe down the road in his mansion paying the same tax as Billy in his one bed modest apartment. So what? Joe will get his comeuppance. The tax is to be charged both on property size and property value in time.........

People need to stop backstabbing one another- it deflects from attributing blame at those who we pay to represent our interests.

Zamboni

Leaving the rights and wrongs of LL/tennant aside for a moment, the government, especially Phil Hogan and Enda Kenny, are spineless weasels that they have not put this in black and white who should pay for this tax.
This level of ambiguity around such a contentious issue shows either pure incomepetence, thoughtlessness or indeed a divide and conquer attitude.
The way this particular issue has been dealt with demonstrates astonishingly immature governance.

oflahero

Zamboni wrote: »

Leaving the rights and wrongs of LL/tennant aside for a moment, the government, especially Phil Hogan and Enda Kenny, are spineless weasels that they have not put this in black and white who should pay for this tax.
This level of ambiguity around such a contentious issue shows either pure incomepetence, thoughtlessness or indeed a divide and conquer attitude.
The way this particular issue has been dealt with demonstrates astonishingly immature governance.

Eh? What have you got stuck in your ears? You can level many charges at Hogan/Kenny alright, but ambiguity over this tax is not one of them

http://www.moneyguideireland.com/household-charge-property-tax-more-details.html

The. owner. pays. He even repeated the fact while introducing it in the Dail.