Property tax to be passed onto tenants? No thanks.

daltonmd

smccarrick wrote: »

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.

Firstly Daft lists "ASKING" prices.

Secondly: Market forces are driven by the following.

Income
Tastes and preferences
Prices of related goods and services
Consumers' expectations about future prices and incomes
Number of potential consumers.

Economics 101

Landlords can "ask" whatever rent they want but if tenants have falling incomes then they simply won't have the money.

Economics 101 is not - landlord has an extra charge so pass it on.

Tenants will move, scale down, change location - why? Because they can, that's an upside of renting.

Spiritofthekop

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

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.

100% Correct. Well said.

yosser hughes

Rents in this country are too high as it is. The amount of money the govt. spends on rent allowance is effectively a subsidy for landlords and distorts the market. Added to that NAMA also distorts this market as its stated aim is to withold property until prices 'recover'.
First of all prices are never going back to where they were and I'm sorry but if you bought in a bubble there are consequences.
Landlords seem to think they are 'entitled' to a profit. Not if you overpaid for the property you're not.
This state has always favoured property owners and tenant rights and legislation are still weighted very much in favour of the landlord.
Pay the tax,you don't realise how good you have it.

jmayo

big syke wrote: »

I wouldnt call that nice i'd call it a very good business decision. If she couldnt afford it and/or asked to move out you would have to Re Let the property, mayb do a few bits around the house and possibly lose a couple of months rent. Smart move on your part no doubt, but your hardly mother teresa.

Well I would never have guessed that ray palmer was not mother teresa.

smccarrick wrote: »

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).

Hang on this tax was labelled a property tax not a service charge was it not ?
If it was a service charge would the government not have said it was the resident that would pay rather than what they have said that it would be the owner who pays.
Also have they not said there would be a property tax at a flat rate initially because they need to value all the properties in order to have correct adjusted rates for every property ?

I know the water has really been muddied by the likes of Kenny stating it is to be used for funding local services.

But would property rates/property taxes not also be used to fund local services anyway ?

smccarrick wrote: »

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).

Do'h
Yes we all know about the state of our often Victorian installed water infrastructure and we all know who have already being paying charges.

smccarrick wrote: »

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.......

Where is this specifically stated or are you just connecting dots ?

smccarrick wrote: »

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

No it is a way of ensuring that people cough up and we don't have the debacle as seen with bin charges.

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......

I can show you a fair few empty properties in Dublin, South County Dublin to be exact, all near major transport links as well.
There may not be a glut of empty properties in the likes of Dublin 1 or Dublin 2, but move further out and there are enough.

steve9859 wrote: »

...
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.

Well sorry in advance for my comment, but the non professional landlords need to suck it up and don't expect someone else to pay your often massive mortgage and other associated costs just because you are not a professional landlord and have been forced by economic circumstances to move house.

You get what the market dictates and if that is not enough then tough luck.

daltonmd

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.

Completely agree - They call it a household charge in one breath but then imply that renters are not households in another?
In clarifying it they give it the same parameters as a property tax.

It can't be both and the level of anger from landlords is understandable - but just because they are furious is this right to take out on tenants?

The anger should be directed at the government, they should seek legal advice about the name of the tax.

It's can't be a household charge to a property owner already paying a tax on his second home yet magically turn into property tax when renters query it?

Julie London

I am a landlord and I will not be passing on the household charge to my tenants. Not even sure if I will bother paying it, im going to hang on and see what happens as I can see another bout of political unrest . I will only be paying it if the vast majority of people pay

Zamboni

oflahero wrote: »

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.

No need to be like that.
The simple fact is the Budget indicated it was a property tax, Kenny later indicated it was a services charge and muppet Hogan said ah sure let the landlords and tennats fight it out amongst themselves.
This is ambiguous and the only thing that really counts is the wording of the legislation.
I'm no making any interpretation on how I view it, I am simply making the point that it is a complete mishap by the Government.

Spiritofthekop

Household Charge 2012 : The Details

December 15, 2011 | Posted by Money Guide

These are the details of the new Household Charge – a new Property Tax that were announced in Budget 2012 and will be introduced in Ireland from January 2012 .
The Bill has yet to be passed into Law – but it was passed in the Dail on Dec 14th.

The 2012 Household Charge amount will be set at €100 a year . The Household Tax will have to be paid before March 31st in each year of liability to avoid penalty charges.

Owners of residential property will be liable for the charge on each residential property they own as at 1st January 2012.

Tenants will not have to register to pay the Household Charge.

Billing: No bills or invoices for this household charge will be sent – the charge will be on a self declaration basis.

CASE CLOSED.

Zamboni

Spirit, Oflahero and Oceanclub, personally I hope you are all correct but...

When did moneyguideireland become a legitimate reference point?

daltonmd

Spiritofthekop wrote: »

Household Charge 2012 : The Details

December 15, 2011 | Posted by Money Guide

These are the details of the new Household Charge – a new Property Tax that were announced in Budget 2012 and will be introduced in Ireland from January 2012 .
The Bill has yet to be passed into Law – but it was passed in the Dail on Dec 14th.

The 2012 Household Charge amount will be set at €100 a year . The Household Tax will have to be paid before March 31st in each year of liability to avoid penalty charges.

Owners of residential property will be liable for the charge on each residential property they own as at 1st January 2012.

Tenants will not have to register to pay the Household Charge.

Billing: No bills or invoices for this household charge will be sent – the charge will be on a self declaration basis.

CASE CLOSED.

Ah, but the issue of the landlord increasing the rent to cover the charge is very much case on-going.

the_syco

Graces7 wrote: »

As I have said before, I am not prejudiced. I take everyone as they present.

I disagree with this point, as you only seem to attack landlords.

Spiritofthekop wrote: »

Tenants will not have to register to pay the Household Charge.

What thine line means is that the tenant doesn't have to personally pay it themselves, as the landlord does it for them. It doesn't however say that the tenant doesn't have to pay for it in his rent.

daltonmd

the_syco wrote: »

I disagree with this point, as you only seem to attack landlords.


What thine line means is that the tenant doesn't have to personally pay it themselves, as the landlord does it for them. It doesn't however say that the tenant doesn't have to pay for it in his rent.

Eh no - don't disregard the first line:
Owners of residential property will be liable for the charge on each residential property they own as at 1st January 2012.

Tenants don't have to register because it is not a charge for them. The reason for that line is for those landlords who may tell the tenant that they are liable.

Spiritofthekop

the_syco wrote: »

I disagree with this point, as you only seem to attack landlords.


What thine line means is that the tenant doesn't have to personally pay it themselves, as the landlord does it for them. It doesn't however say that the tenant doesn't have to pay for it in his rent.

Any LL with half a brain who has good tenants already residing will not apply it to the monthly rent.

borderlinemeath

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!!!!!!

As an aside, why do you speak of your landlord with such contempt? She's supplying you with a service, you live in her property and she pays the banks and the government taxes so you don't have to.

It really is a divide and conquer tactic by the government, and all smoke and mirrors, is it for water/services/councils/troika stipulations - the confusion is deliberate in the extreme. Nobody - landlord or tenant agrees with it but it's just getting each others backs up.

the_syco

Spiritofthekop wrote: »

Any LL with half a brain who has good tenants already residing will not apply it to the monthly rent.

Any LL with half a brain will not show that they're applying it.

daltonmd wrote: »

Eh no - don't disregard the first line:
Owners of residential property will be liable for the charge on each residential property they own as at 1st January 2012.

Tenants don't have to register because it is not a charge for them. The reason for that line is for those landlords who may tell the tenant that they are liable.

My understanding is that this is to prevent tenants being double charged. Whilst it's true that they shouldn't penalize good tenants, they would be foolish not to include it for any future new tenants.

daltonmd

the_syco wrote: »

Any LL with half a brain will not show that they're applying it.


My understanding is that this is to prevent tenants being double charged. Whilst it's true that they shouldn't penalize good tenants, they would be foolish not to include it for any future new tenants.

Well I would say that your understanding is wrong. Because nowhere does it say that tenants are to be charged once, let alone double charged.

Landlords can of course add it to the asking rent of future tenants, but in this climate rising rents simply can't be justified.

I certainly do feel for landlords and if it was a charge payable by tenants then I would pay it - but it's not, it's a pre cursor to a property tax, it's giving the government time to bring in a more equitable way of taxing property.

Monife

borderlinemeath wrote: »

As an aside, why do you speak of your landlord with such contempt? She's supplying you with a service, you live in her property and she pays the banks and the government taxes so you don't have to.

It really is a divide and conquer tactic by the government, and all smoke and mirrors, is it for water/services/councils/troika stipulations - the confusion is deliberate in the extreme. Nobody - landlord or tenant agrees with it but it's just getting each others backs up.

Tenant's pay taxes too. We are not all poor, second-class citizens just because we don't have an over-inflated mortgage.

wolfpawnat

borderlinemeath wrote: »

As an aside, why do you speak of your landlord with such contempt? She's supplying you with a service, you live in her property and she pays the banks and the government taxes so you don't have to.

Because she is rude, does not interact with me unless she wants something, never when I have something to ask of/off her, eg 7 months to sort a mould problem, and her idea of "sorting" is painting over it! She pays the banks yes, but for an apartment that she will own at the end of it all, the rent being supplied by me aids in the repayments of her mortgage, without myself or another person paying her rent, she would have to pay it herself!

But yes, as I have said in other threads with regards to different cuts and taxes made by the government, they are having us argue with one another rather than all of us as a unit going against them!

daltonmd

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Because she is rude, does not interact with me unless she wants something, never when I have something to ask of/off her, eg 7 months to sort a mould problem, and her idea of "sorting" is painting over it! She pays the banks yes, but for an apartment that she will own at the end of it all, the rent being supplied by me aids in the repayments of her mortgage, without myself or another person paying her rent, she would have to pay it herself!

But yes, as I have said in other threads with regards to different cuts and taxes made by the government, they are having us argue with one another rather than all of us as a unit going against them!

What would she want from you aside from the rent? You waited 7 months to have her sort out a problem? PRTB is there for you? Why not use it.

As to her owning the apartment at the end of her mortgage? I don't think so.

borderlinemeath

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Because she is rude, does not interact with me unless she wants something, never when I have something to ask of/off her, eg 7 months to sort a mould problem, and her idea of "sorting" ispainting over it! She pays the banks yes, but for an apartment that she will own at the end of it all, the rent being supplied by me aids in the repayments of her mortgage, without myself or another person paying her rent, she would have to pay it herself!

But yes, as I have said in other threads with regards to different cuts and taxes made by the government, they are having us argue with one another rather than all of us as a unit going against them!

Ever gone on a holiday and stayed in a hotel or apartment? Shock horror, you have to pay to stay in a place that you don't own!! And never will!! And what you pay goes towards paying back the bank that lent the money!!:rolleyes:

She is providing you a service.
You would have to pay to live somewhere.
If renting - then you get away without a lot of extra costs and get to claim rent allowance if applicable.
If owning - at the end of a very very long mortage you will own a property that you have paid a huge amount of interest in, paid huge taxation on and put years on you in stress.

What was the cause of the mould by the way? Usually in apartments it's caused by poor ventilation/too much steam in kitchens/bathrooms/ clothes drying on rads. Or leaks from gutters/upstairs apartments.

If the mould was a problem with the building then it would have been the management company/construction company sorting the problem, not the landlord. So I'm assuming you caused the problem by virtue of it being the landlords problem ie isolated to your apartment

oceanclub

borderlinemeath wrote: »

If the mould was a problem with the building then it would have been the management company/construction company sorting the problem, not the landlord. So I'm assuming you caused the problem by virtue of it being the landlords problem ie isolated to your apartment

Those utterly selfish tenants and their breathing, I bet.

P.

borderlinemeath

Monife wrote: »

Tenant's pay taxes too. We are not all poor, second-class citizens just because we don't have an over-inflated mortgage.

Where did I say that you are poor second class citizens? Can you quote me on that? :rolleyes:

You don't pay stamp duty
You don't pay tax on rental income which in many instances doesn't cover the mortage
You don't pay NPPR
You won't be paying the new tax.

If unemployed you are eligible for rent allowance

You have the protection of the PRTB and Threshold. Landlords also have protection of the PRTB but it works mainly for the tenant.

You can walk away from a problem. ie the area becomes undesirable (ghost estates) or planning permission is passed for something considered undesirable (prison/incinerator/dump)

Renters have far more leeway than owners and landlords. So stop playing the poor mouth.

daltonmd

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Where did I say that you are poor second class citizens? Can you quote me on that? :rolleyes:

You don't pay stamp duty: Because we didn't buy a house.
You don't pay tax on rental income which in many instances doesn't cover the mortage: Because we didn't buy a house.
You don't pay NPPR; Because we didn't buy a house
You won't be paying the new tax. Because we didn't buy a house

If unemployed you are eligible for rent allowance - And you're entitled to Mortgage interest supplement

You have the protection of the PRTB and Threshold. Landlords also have protection of the PRTB but it works mainly for the tenant. : And we were screwed during the boom by high rents and low quality rentals and had zero protection from unscrupulous landlords who could pick and choose their tenants

You can walk away from a problem. ie the area becomes undesirable (ghost estates) or planning permission is passed for something considered undesirable (prison/incinerator/dump)

Because we didn't buy a house.

Renters have far more leeway than owners and landlords. So stop playing the poor mouth.

And stop expecting renters to pay for your choices in the past - we made one choice - to rent and what did we hear? Well the same as those who bought and that was "renting is dead money".

You chose to buy.

borderlinemeath

daltonmd wrote: »

And stop expecting renters to pay for your choices in the past - we made one choice - to rent and what did we hear? Well the same as those who bought and that was "renting is dead money".

You chose to buy.

I haven't expected anybody to pay for any choices I have made. Read back on this thread, I haven't contributed in that way at all.

I never said renting was dead money. I have rented in the past but I chose to buy because I needed somewhere to live and I had enough to furnish a mortgage. This thread is now turning on the homeowner!!

Snakeblood

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I never said renting was dead money. I have rented in the past but I chose to buy because I needed somewhere to live and I had enough to furnish a mortgage. This thread is now turning on the homeowner!!

The thread is turning on people who want other people to pay their way.

Edit: Actually, that was harsh, so I retract it. But your previous post seemed to be complaining that people who rent didn't have to pay tax on their rental income. That drove me berserk with rage. It's income. You're supposed to pay tax on it. Why should anyone have any sympathy with someone who has to pay tax on money they earn?
Why should anyone care if your rental income doesn't cover your mortgage? You bought a house and rented it as a business proposition right?

Further, you're complaining about a situation which you entered into willingly.

borderlinemeath

Snakeblood wrote: »

The thread is turning on people who want other people to pay their way.

It's been pointed out many many times on this thread that being a landlord is like running a business. It's a service provided to tenants, not a charity.

Damie

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Where did I say that you are poor second class citizens? Can you quote me on that? :rolleyes:

You don't pay stamp duty
You don't pay tax on rental income which in many instances doesn't cover the mortage
You don't pay NPPR
You won't be paying the new tax.

If unemployed you are eligible for rent allowance

You have the protection of the PRTB and Threshold. Landlords also have protection of the PRTB but it works mainly for the tenant.

You can walk away from a problem. ie the area becomes undesirable (ghost estates) or planning permission is passed for something considered undesirable (prison/incinerator/dump)

Renters have far more leeway than owners and landlords. So stop playing the poor mouth.

Well I for one, apologise for grabbing you by the neck, dragging you to a bank, forcing you to take out a ridiculous mortgage on an over-priced lump of mortar. There, I said it.

daltonmd

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I haven't expected anybody to pay for any choices I have made. Read back on this thread, I haven't contributed in that way at all.

I never said renting was dead money. I have rented in the past but I chose to buy because I needed somewhere to live and I had enough to furnish a mortgage. This thread is now turning on the homeowner!!

No it's not - you are the one who said this:
"Renters have far more leeway than owners and landlords. So stop playing the poor mouth"

And why point out all the charges you pay as a homeowner to tenants - who don't own?

I mean "you don't pay tax on rental income" - no I don't but I didn't get a share when landlords made a profit either.

I pay tax on the rent that I pay.
Also, all those things you pointed out are advantages of renting, we don't have the advantage of owning a home and during the boom, when many bought and sold, we didn't have the advantage of making huge money.

We simply rented, it was our choice and we shouldn't be punished for this.

Snakeblood

borderlinemeath wrote: »

It's been pointed out many many times on this thread that being a landlord is like running a business. It's a service provided to tenants, not a charity.

Given the landlord's dole, it's quite the opposite of a charity for tenants.

wolfpawnat

daltonmd wrote: »

What would she want from you aside from the rent? You waited 7 months to have her sort out a problem? PRTB is there for you? Why not use it.

As to her owning the apartment at the end of her mortgage? I don't think so.

I was getting the whole "no problem I'll sort it, all the way from Oct to April!" I didn't want to call them in until necessary, they were brought in in February, still took her 2 months!

Why else would she get a mortgage to buy a property unless she was going to own it, she gets the deeds, so she then owns it.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

What was the cause of the mould by the way? Usually in apartments it's caused by poor ventilation/too much steam in kitchens/bathrooms/ clothes drying on rads. Or leaks from gutters/upstairs apartments.

If the mould was a problem with the building then it would have been the management company/construction company sorting the problem, not the landlord. So I'm assuming you caused the problem by virtue of it being the landlords problem ie isolated to your apartment

Not sure what caused it, all the surrounding apartments are fine apparently, I don't dry clothes indoors and the mould is only in the 2 bedrooms, so food cannot be blamed for it either, She said she was having it investigated, still waiting.

And all problems in the complex regardless of whether an owner or tenant resides there, complaints have to be made to the company by the property owner. I have contacted both the owner and the management company about it, nothing was done. I have never had anything other than a nice and decent LL's before now.