Property tax to be passed onto tenants? No thanks.

daltonmd

wolfpawnat wrote: »

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.

Sorry, what I meant is that she may well end up owning it - but she's more than likely subsidising the mortgage and has seen a huge drop in price, meaning that it could cost her twice what she paid for it to own it.

steve9859

jmayo wrote: »

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.

I am not moaning about this because of negative equity. I bought before the boom, my property is still worth more than I bought it for, and my mortgage is perfectly affordable.

But I pay a 2nd home tax already (I think it should go up, incidentally), but this tax is for local amenities. Therefore, the people who live there should pay. If the government want to put in place a bigger 2nd home tax, fine. but Noonan has made it clear what this particular tax is being ringfenced for

The_Conductor

Snakeblood wrote: »

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

Landlord's dole?
If you're talking about the Rent-Allowance / RAS / RS schemes- these are subsidies paid to tenants to enable them to afford to rent property they would not otherwise be able to afford (for whatever reason).
Certainly these schemes- and levels at which they're pitched, does put an artificial floor on rent 'market-rates', however to call these schemes 'Landlord's dole' is both petty and incredibly ignorant.

Personally I think that these schemes are set at far too high a level- and should be reduced- however we need to accept that there are a sizeable number of people out there- often through little fault of their own, who are unable to house themselves, and by simply pulling the carpet from under their feet- you're not going to satisfy anyone (other than the government accountants).

Letting a property is a business- with strict rules that must be adhered to. Failure to adhere to these rules has consequences. Part of these rules includes being tax compliant (as indeed for any other business), but also meeting any regulations that government or designated agencies come up with.

Suggesting that the various rental schemes are 'landlord's dole' is an insult to both landlords and also tenants- especially those who make an effort to be good tenants, or those landlords who meet all the strict rules they have to follow.

We sold off our council housing stock in the 80s and 90s- which in reflection, was a ridiculous thing to do- as we have no public housing that we can rely on to meet our most critical housing needs.

We seem to be on a tenants versus landlord's (and vice versa) bashing binge in this thread and elsewhere.

The new property tax is an additional cost of ownership- as are the other changes in the budget- most notably PRSI deductions on the gross rental income (which to be honest in most situations at current levels is significantly more than the property tax).

The budget has introduced additional costs of ~440 to~460 on landlords. It should not be the case that we have landlords and tenants up in arms over who is going to meet this- there should be some sort of a consensus, that a fair tax will be paid by landlords (aka the property tax) however the 4% PRSI deduction on gross rental income- really is taking the piss.

The amount of recycling of myths going on in this thread would be hilarious, were the topic not so critical (ok, the EUR100 property tax isn't going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back- its when it reaches EUR1000-EUR1500- as is proposed- its a wholly different story).

Times are hard, and they are only going to get a hell of a lot harder for all of us- if we keep sniping at one another...........

Snakeblood

smccarrick wrote: »

Landlord's dole?
If you're talking about the Rent-Allowance / RAS / RS schemes- these are subsidies paid to tenants to enable them to afford to rent property they would not otherwise be able to afford (for whatever reason).
Certainly these schemes- and levels at which they're pitched, does put an artificial floor on rent 'market-rates', however to call these schemes 'Landlord's dole' is both petty and incredibly ignorant.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about, where they pay it at rates that are higher in some cases than the 'open market' rent for the area. It's too high at the moment. Not saying it should be gone, but it shouldn't be as high as it is.

smccarrick wrote: »

Personally I think that these schemes are set at far too high a level- and should be reduced- however we need to accept that there are a sizeable number of people out there- often through little fault of their own, who are unable to house themselves, and by simply pulling the carpet from under their feet- you're not going to satisfy anyone (other than the government accountants).

You're not going to satisfy anyone anyway. There' s no money. That's what people don't seem to get. You can't maintain the same level of service spending 17billion less. I'm not saying people should be thrown out (although I'm afraid that's going to happen anyway for some people when the rental market readjusts as it's going to have to do when Rent Allowance etc. is reduced.

smccarrick wrote: »

Letting a property is a business- with strict rules that must be adhered to. Failure to adhere to these rules has consequences. Part of these rules includes being tax compliant (as indeed for any other business), but also meeting any regulations that government or designated agencies come up with.

The last 4 landlords I've had have all had PRTB forms, and all asked to be paid in cash. Now, I'm not saying that they were dodgy, and this is a relatively small sample, but I'd be willing to bet a reasonably large percentage of Landlords aren't tax compliant

smccarrick wrote: »

Suggesting that the various rental schemes are 'landlord's dole' is an insult to both landlords and also tenants- especially those who make an effort to be good tenants, or those landlords who meet all the strict rules they have to follow.

How is it insulting to tenants? It's money given to the landlord by the state preventing the rental market falling to its natural level. If they didn't get it, they'd either sell up or go bankrupt or god forbid lower their rents. I was pissed off about the bailout of the banks because it's propping up a failed enterprise. Why should I feel different about propping up landlords who can't cover their expenses (whatever they may be) in a market that isn't 50% subsidised? I realise they're providing a service to the tenant, but if they weren't, someone else would once house prices collapsed enough to make buying a property and renting a viable option. It's insulting to landlord's in the same was as dole is to people on the dole.

smccarrick wrote: »

We seem to be on a tenants versus landlord's (and vice versa) bashing binge in this thread and elsewhere.

Yeah, that's largely because they have divergent interests. Tenants want to rent as cheaply as possible for as good quality a domicile as possible, and landlords want exactly the opposite. Like. I'm not joking but where you are saying people should stand together on this doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me. We have different interests, the only thing unifying us is that the government is trying to take money from us all (as they should be, because we need to pay for services). The money's going to come from somewhere.

smccarrick wrote: »

The budget has introduced additional costs of ~440 to~460 on landlords. It should not be the case that we have landlords and tenants up in arms over who is going to meet this- there should be some sort of a consensus, that a fair tax will be paid by landlords (aka the property tax) however the 4% PRSI deduction on gross rental income- really is taking the piss.

Don't know about that, to be honest. I've got additional costs in my life as a result of the budget. Is my landlord going to help me out with those if I explain how motor tax went up massively for me? Or is he going to take the reasonable view that we had a financial arrangement we were happy with and I've got to sort out my own problems? Because the consensus of landlords here seems to be fairly explicitly to pass on the cost to the tenant. Just ask the IPOA.

smccarrick wrote: »

The amount of recycling of myths going on in this thread would be hilarious, were the topic not so critical (ok, the EUR100 property tax isn't going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back- its when it reaches EUR1000-EUR1500- as is proposed- its a wholly different story).

It'll shake people out of the property market hopefully, and people who made the mistake of getting into it will hopefully be able to suck up the debt and get on with their lives.

smccarrick wrote: »

Times are hard, and they are only going to get a hell of a lot harder for all of us- if we keep sniping at one another...........

They're going to get harder either way. 17bn budget reduction in 3 years? Not pretty.

Zamboni

If Landlords don't pay, they will get fined.
If tennants don't pay the suggested service charge, it will ultimately result in eviction notices etcetera and well that takes time. I doubt the PRTB or court would look favourably upon a landlord who is paid up to date in rent evicting a tennant for not paying a household levy.
Stephen Faughnan can shove it.

daltonmd

smccarrick wrote: »

Landlord's dole?
If you're talking about the Rent-Allowance / RAS / RS schemes- these are subsidies paid to tenants to enable them to afford to rent property they would not otherwise be able to afford (for whatever reason).
Certainly these schemes- and levels at which they're pitched, does put an artificial floor on rent 'market-rates', however to call these schemes 'Landlord's dole' is both petty and incredibly ignorant.

Personally I think that these schemes are set at far too high a level- and should be reduced- however we need to accept that there are a sizeable number of people out there- often through little fault of their own, who are unable to house themselves, and by simply pulling the carpet from under their feet- you're not going to satisfy anyone (other than the government accountants).

WE need to accept that rents are too high - I don't see a scenario where people will be left homeless without this subsidy. What I do foresee is that many landlords would go to the wall without this. This subsidy is yet another bailout for the banks, after all not only is RA keeping an artificial floor on rents but where is the money going? For the most part it's being repaid to banks for BTL mortgages.

There are very few prosperous landlords, but much like when people try to sell their homes "for what's left on their mortgage" - rents are based on what a landlord has to repay to the bank.

That's a crazy situation that we are in,

What I resent in this thread is the notion that tenants should subsidise the debts of landlords, and that's what is happening. People here laying out what their outgoings are per month and some thinking that they can raise rents on tenants because they cannot afford, or feel that they should not be liable for a charge that is aimed at them.

I pay tax on the income that I use to pay my rent, for years there was a few tax credits for tenants, that has been reduced , nothing like the tax breaks that owners and BTL investors received. Section 23's and the like.

New tenants in the rental market after last December are not entitled to claim rent relief and for us already claiming it - it is being phased out in 2017- didn't see a big hullaballoo about that.

My tax credits are being reduced my 25% in 2012 - maybe I'll ask my landlord for a rent reduction based on this - can you imagine if tenants did this.

Landlords can't have it everyway, expecting tenants to suck up these reductions along with lower disposable income and higher cost of living, yet try to pass on these new charges.

oflahero

Zamboni wrote: »

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

When did moneyguideireland become a legitimate reference point?

OK, the bill itself:

3.—(1) In the year 2012 and in each subsequent year thereafter,
each person who, on the liability date of the year concerned, is the
owner of a residential property shall, subject to this Act, pay to the
relevant local authority the sum (in this Act referred to as a “house- 25
hold charge”) specified in accordance with this section.

Now, landlords can 'should be' and not fair' all they like, and indeed may freely attempt to raise the rent in order to cover these extra costs, but as has been pointed out here so many times, the market rate is a function of ability to pay, not of the landlord's cost base.

Had my landlord contacted me in the past to tell me he was reducing my rent in accordance with the last ECB rate cut in his mortgage, then I would certainly be giving the proposed IPOA begging letter some consideration. But he didn't, and therefore such a letter will be sailing straight from letterbox to compost.

When revised household charges come in (as they will) that specifically state that the resident must pay for, of course I'll be paying them. But the fact that we're even having a discussion over this tax at all is just laughable.

daltonmd

oflahero wrote: »

OK, the bill itself:



Now, landlords can 'should be' and not fair' all they like, and indeed may freely attempt to raise the rent in order to cover these extra costs, but as has been pointed out here so many times, the market rate is a function of ability to pay, not of the landlord's cost base.

Had my landlord contacted me in the past to tell me he was reducing my rent in accordance with the last ECB rate cut in his mortgage, then I would certainly be giving the proposed IPOA begging letter some consideration. But he didn't, and therefore such a letter will be sailing straight from letterbox to compost.

When revised household charges come in (as they will) that specifically state that the resident must pay for, of course I'll be paying them. But the fact that we're even having a discussion over this tax at all is just laughable.

The most important line in that post.

jmayo

steve9859 wrote: »

I am not moaning about this because of negative equity. I bought before the boom, my property is still worth more than I bought it for, and my mortgage is perfectly affordable.

But I pay a 2nd home tax already (I think it should go up, incidentally), but this tax is for local amenities. Therefore, the people who live there should pay. If the government want to put in place a bigger 2nd home tax, fine. but Noonan has made it clear what this particular tax is being ringfenced for

If it is called a property tax and the government says it is liable to be paid by the owner then I think it is a property tax.
They have previously stated they would bring in flat fee property tax until they could arrive at valid valuations of all the property out there and then correctly set the tax per property.

I do think property tax will and should be higher.
Imagine the whinign and nashing of teeth then.
Also I do think water rates should be charged on residents and that they could start with flat €50 fee.

smccarrick wrote: »

Letting a property is a business- with strict rules that must be adhered to. Failure to adhere to these rules has consequences. Part of these rules includes being tax compliant (as indeed for any other business), but also meeting any regulations that government or designated agencies come up with.

I think we know that our regulations and regulatory authorities in this country are a complete joke.
Remember the previous program that highlighted how bad some of the rental accomodation in this country is ?
Add that to the regulation of financial sector, construction, childcare, health care and we are a complete joke. :mad::mad:

smccarrick wrote: »

Suggesting that the various rental schemes are 'landlord's dole' is an insult to both landlords and also tenants- especially those who make an effort to be good tenants, or those landlords who meet all the strict rules they have to follow.

It is a bailout for lots of landlords.
Without it they would be bust.

smccarrick wrote: »

We seem to be on a tenants versus landlord's (and vice versa) bashing binge in this thread and elsewhere.

The budget has introduced additional costs of ~440 to~460 on landlords. It should not be the case that we have landlords and tenants up in arms over who is going to meet this- there should be some sort of a consensus, that a fair tax will be paid by landlords (aka the property tax) however the 4% PRSI deduction on gross rental income- really is taking the piss.

The amount of recycling of myths going on in this thread would be hilarious, were the topic not so critical (ok, the EUR100 property tax isn't going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back- its when it reaches EUR1000-EUR1500- as is proposed- its a wholly different story).

Times are hard, and they are only going to get a hell of a lot harder for all of us- if we keep sniping at one another...........

Listen this country was split years ago, primarily by the bertie ahern governments that decided some sections of society deserved and were entitled to more.

He and his gang favoured the public sector through increased numbers and spending.
Benchmarking was dreamt up to bring their pay upto to the levels of private sector workers involved in short term booming industries.
Firstly it was the dot com boom and secondly the cheap credit and construction boom.
All of that was unsustainable and now the same sector see it as their entitlement and no matter what the rest of society is meant to cough up.

bertie and his gang chose to heavily favour property development, speculation, ownership, and investment.
Their tax policies favoured investment in property through low capital gains tax, incentives such as section grants, tax writeoffs for hotels and private healthcare institutions and interest relief.

Well now those groups that did well under bertie are being asked to give back some of the gains they made.
Of course the ass fell out of the golden property train to riches and the ones that signed up feel that the rest of us should help bail them out.
Remember all those tv/radio programs and column inches looking for bailouts for the little guys ?

Well I say fook them.
Like the developers and bankers the same property investors/speculators did not want to share the loot when they were lucky enough to sell on their property at some massive profit and likewise they sure as hell would not have shared their capital appreciation if the bubble had continued.

I actually detest this claptrap about us all hanging together, having consensus and not sniping at each other.

The ones that are usually coming out with this are the very ones who did very well in the boom, actually looked down their noses at us naysayers as losers, but are now screwed because of the decisions they made.

The problem in this society is not that we are sniping at each other, it is the fact that some sectors of society (bankers, developers, property gamblers and public sector) still feel the rest should pay for them and their decisions.

Actually smccarrick I am disappointed that you have resorted to this line.
Are you a landlord ?

daltonmd

jmayo wrote: »

Like the developers and bankers the same property investors/speculators did not want to share the loot when they were lucky enough to sell on their property at some massive profit and likewise they sure as hell would not have shared their capital appreciation if the bubble had continued.

I actually detest this claptrap about us all hanging together, having consensus and not sniping at each other.

The ones that are usually coming out with this are the very ones who did very well in the boom, actually looked down their noses at us naysayers as losers, but are now screwed because of the decisions they made.

The problem in this society is not that we are sniping at each other, it is the fact that some sectors of society (bankers, developers, property gamblers and public sector) still feel the rest should pay for them and their decisions.


Actually smccarrick I am disappointed that you have resorted to this line.
Are you a landlord ?

Absolutely correct, they kept their profits tightly to themselves and now want us all to share the losses.

borderlinemeath

daltonmd wrote: »

Absolutely correct, they kept their profits tightly to themselves and now want us all to share the losses.

This is a huge generalisation about all landlords.

Not all landlords are in negative equity, some professional landlords are good, some are shiite. The shiite ones are the ones that boasted about the "investment" they bought at the height of the boom because the bank was throwing money at them and never had a clue what they were getting themselves into. They can't seem to comprehend that as a landlord you are effectively running a business and there are costs associated with it.

Most of the accidental landlords - ie those that bought a house to live in and have moved out due to cohabitation with a partner/can't afford it due to loss of income are the ones that are suffering losses and along with the shiite landlords are the ones that are shouting the loudest about not being able to afford to pay the tax.

People are different, I always wanted my own home. My sister on the other hand has been renting for the past 12 years and couldn't be happier. She is in her current place for the past 7 years and unless the landlord sells it, she won't move out or ever consider buying. And I know if her landlord passed on the €100 tax to her she would pay it as she considers where she lives to be her home and it would be a small price to pay. The problem will be when it's increased beyond peoples means in the years to come.

Graces7

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.

roflol... as I said, I take as I find. You read criticising as attack? That is interesting indeed lol

The days of tugging forlocks and doffing caps is over..

daltonmd

borderlinemeath wrote: »

This is a huge generalisation about all landlords.

I didn't read beyond this. If you would care to check out the previous post I underlined what I was referring to.

"The ones that are usually coming out with this are the very ones who did very well in the boom, actually looked down their noses at us naysayers as losers, but are now screwed because of the decisions they made."

No generalisation made whatsoever.

borderlinemeath

daltonmd wrote: »

I didn't read beyond this. If you would care to check out the previous post I underlined what I was referring to.

"The ones that are usually coming out with this are the very ones who did very well in the boom, actually looked down their noses at us naysayers as losers, but are now screwed because of the decisions they made."

No generalisation made whatsoever.

What do you consider doing well in the boom? Most of the posts that disagree with paying the tax are from people that have let their home out to tenants because they have emigrated/cant afford it. Hardly doing well if you ask me.

The people who did well in the boom were the people that resisted buying anything in the property market.

Snakeblood

borderlinemeath wrote: »

What do you consider doing well in the boom? Most of the posts that disagree with paying the tax are from people that have let their home out to tenants because they have emigrated/cant afford it. Hardly doing well if you ask me.

The people who did well in the boom were the people that resisted buying anything in the property market.

The people who did well in the bubble were pretty clearly the ones who bought something, sold it, and clung onto the profits. The people who resisted buying were paying exorbitant rents. They trod water during the bubble, while other people shot up, only to shoot down, or shot up and maintained by getting out at the right time.

yosser hughes

Snakeblood wrote: »

The people who did well in the bubble were pretty clearly the ones who bought something, sold it, and clung onto the profits. The people who resisted buying were paying exorbitant rents. They trod water during the bubble, while other people shot up, only to shoot down, or shot up and maintained by getting out at the right time.

You have figures for the amount of people who sold at the peak and did not re-invest in property or bank shares?

daltonmd

borderlinemeath wrote: »

What do you consider doing well in the boom? Most of the posts that disagree with paying the tax are from people that have let their home out to tenants because they have emigrated/cant afford it. Hardly doing well if you ask me.

The people who did well in the boom were the people that resisted buying anything in the property market.

Wrong. Those who did well were those who sold there homes for multiples and used their profits to buy more property - those who did well were those who remortgaged using "paper profits" and blew it on top of the range cars and shopping trips to New York while those who rented were completely screwed because hey - it was supply and demand don't you know.
Those who flipped to get their "dream homes" and who ploughed savage amounts of money into these houses and who basically lived beyond their means, they lived on borrowed money while renters paid real cash to landlords.
Renters who didn't buy were laughed at for being fools, it was dead money - the mantra of the celtic tiger. Most of us who didn't buy weren't "Lucky" we couldn't afford to, most of us were offered mortgages but when we sat down we realised that if things went wrong then we would be left bare arsed, so we chose not to avail of the cheap credit and gorge ourselves on a lifestyle that we didn't deserve to have.

Hairdressers and carpenters buying property for half a million, driving BMW's on tick - these were and are working class people who simply wanted to live in an upper class world.

Louis Vuitton bags for 1k, shoes that cost a months wages.

I lived next door to people like this - the extended their home up and out, at a costs of 1000's, both drove Mercedes, sent their kids to private school, dressed them head to toe in Gucci and Ralph Lauren, bought a holiday home in Bulgaria, where they even had a fkn maid - they lived the high life, they profited and now that it's gone they are screaming about "how unfair" the charge is - they wouldn't even have wiped their arse with 100 euro 4 years ago - it would be lunch to them.

borderlinemeath

Snakeblood wrote: »

The people who did well in the bubble were pretty clearly the ones who bought something, sold it, and clung onto the profits.

Very few people did this. The lure of the property ladder was too much for most. And clearly not who daltonmd was talking about when he was describing landlords here:

"The ones that are usually coming out with this are the very ones who did very well in the boom, actually looked down their noses at us naysayers as losers, but are now screwed because of the decisions they made."

The people who resisted buying were paying exorbitant rents. They trod water during the bubble, while other people shot up, only to shoot down, or shot up and maintained by getting out at the right time.

Not necessarily. We resisted buying a bigger house even though ours was valued at more than we purchased it for. We looked at a property but couldn't justify the price based on what we had paid for ours. Plenty of people resisted buying because things went a bit too mad and not enough people sold at the right time - they kept holding out for a higher price.

borderlinemeath

daltonmd wrote: »

Wrong. Those who did well were those who sold there homes for multiples and used their profits to buy more property - those who did well were those who remortgaged using "paper profits" and blew it on top of the range cars and shopping trips to New York while those who rented were completely screwed because hey - it was supply and demand don't you know.
Those who flipped to get their "dream homes" and who ploughed savage amounts of money into these houses and who basically lived beyond their means, they lived on borrowed money while renters paid real cash to landlords.
Renters who didn't buy were laughed at for being fools, it was dead money - the mantra of the celtic tiger. Most of us who didn't buy weren't "Lucky" we couldn't afford to, most of us were offered mortgages but when we sat down we realised that if things went wrong then we would be left bare arsed, so we chose not to avail of the cheap credit and gorge ourselves on a lifestyle that we didn't deserve to have.

Hairdressers and carpenters buying property for half a million, driving BMW's on tick - these were and are working class people who simply wanted to live in an upper class world.

Careful now, you'll have the hairdressers and carpenters giving out that you're picking on them and calling them working class.

Again more statement generalisations from somebody who seems to have a class issue now.

Louis Vuitton bags for 1k, shoes that cost a months wages.

Really? Have you got proof thats what all the people living on cheap credit were buying?

I lived next door to people like this - the extended their home up and out, at a costs of 1000's, both drove Mercedes, sent their kids to private school, dressed them head to toe in Gucci and Ralph Lauren, bought a holiday home in Bulgaria, where they even had a fkn maid - they lived the high life, they profited and now that it's gone they are screaming about "how unfair" the charge is - they wouldn't even have wiped their arse with 100 euro 4 years ago - it would be lunch to them.

I'm suprised you didn't move if they disgusted you that much. Seeing as you rent you have the freedom to move away from such superfluous people.

This entire post comes across as a class rant at this stage, miles away from the topic of the property/household/services charge, call it what you will.

daltonmd

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Careful now, you'll have the hairdressers and carpenters giving out that you're picking on them and calling them working class.

Again more statement generalisations from somebody who seems to have a class issue now.



Really? Have you got proof thats what all the people living on cheap credit were buying?

I'm suprised you didn't move if they disgusted you that much. Seeing as you rent you have the freedom to move away from such superfluous people.

This entire post comes across as a class rant at this stage, miles away from the topic of the property/household/services charge, call it what you will.

Wow. That's all I can say. It's not a class rant. It's about people who lived a lifestyle that they could not afford unless they borrowed money.

Hairdressers and carpenters are working class and it's you that has the class issue if you feel that its an insult to be working class and called it.

Many people lived beyond their means, it's why we are in the state we're in now. The level of personal and credit card debt in this country is unreal, we have one of the highest levels of household debt in the developed world.That's not generalisation, that's fact.

jmayo

borderlinemeath wrote: »

What do you consider doing well in the boom? Most of the posts that disagree with paying the tax are from people that have let their home out to tenants because they have emigrated/cant afford it. Hardly doing well if you ask me.

If you care to luck at these same people you will find some were doing very well or rather living very well during the boom/bubble.
They had expensive cars like BMWs, Range Rovers, they holidayed a few times a year.
How many times do we find builders used as examples of the poor ones who now have to emigrate to make a living.
Except that little picture leaves out the fact that they often had very nice shiny jeeps and sports cars during the bubble, that they had invested too much in property that is now worthless and some even had expensive recreational hobbies that involved vists to club/bar toilets and rolling euro notes.
Hell I knew bog standard builders with racehorses, landscapers with Porsche 911s and sparks with powerboats and ordinary workers with multiple investment properties leveraged to the heavens.

Some were creaming in huge fees/salaries, often had numerous people working for them and/or their property portfolio on paper was on the up and up and the cheap credit was funding their dream lifestyles.
Except when the bottom fell out of it, the spending was shown to be based on the cheap credit rolling on and on.
Most of these people were in some way connected, either directly or indirectly, to the construction bubble.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

The people who did well in the boom were the people that resisted buying anything in the property market.

No these were the people who did well after the boom.
Except now this very same group are expected to help pay for the spendthrifts and dodgy decisions of others.
This group is basically expected to be punished for being prudent.

Snakeblood wrote: »

The people who did well in the bubble were pretty clearly the ones who bought something, sold it, and clung onto the profits.

Again the other ones that were doing well in the bubble also included the ones that were involved with the bubble and those that spent like there was no tomorrow often money belonging to someone else and only lent to them.
The smart ones got out in time and the eejits were the ones that actually believed the hype.

Ray Palmer

jmayo wrote: »

If you care to luck at these same people you will find some were doing very well or rather living very well during the boom/bubble..

You see there is massive generalisations there that require placing the blame on everybody that isn't you and ignoring the fact that it is not true for a lot of other people.
For example I am long trerm LL and had nothing to do with increasing house prices. Paid a lot of taxes over the years and am now being panalised with everybody else. In your mind I am the same as everybody else who went crazy which includes everybody who bought anything over priced while they had money.

After years of paying tax I was then entitled to nothing when work dried up but was after paying over 40k that year in tax alone. Mean while there are people who have barely paid any tax entitled to a lot more than I am.

What the government then do after years of provideing a service, which they avail of, is charge me a 2nd property tax which is meant to be a household charge and tax me more.

If you want to talk about equity and fairness you are right LL never get it and people love it regardless of actual facts.

yosser hughes

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You see there is massive generalisations there that require placing the blame on everybody that isn't you and ignoring the fact that it is not true for a lot of other people.
For example I am long trerm LL and had nothing to do with increasing house prices. Paid a lot of taxes over the years and am now being panalised with everybody else. In your mind I am the same as everybody else who went crazy which includes everybody who bought anything over priced while they had money.

After years of paying tax I was then entitled to nothing when work dried up but was after paying over 40k that year in tax alone. Mean while there are people who have barely paid any tax entitled to a lot more than I am.

What the government then do after years of provideing a service, which they avail of, is charge me a 2nd property tax which is meant to be a household charge and tax me more.

If you want to talk about equity and fairness you are right LL never get it and people love it regardless of actual facts.

Ray,you're being subsidised by the taxpayer whether you have tenants in receipt of rent allowance or not. Rents are artificially high in this country and you are beneifitting from that.Without that distortion I would suggest your business model would not work.
Spare me the poor landlord line.

jmayo

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You see there is massive generalisations there that require placing the blame on everybody that isn't you and ignoring the fact that it is not true for a lot of other people.
For example I am long trerm LL and had nothing to do with increasing house prices.

Did I say the long term landlords were an issue ?
I am not blaming everyone that isn't me.
I don't blame other people who were prudent and didn't feed the bubble.
On the other hand if you did then tough luck now when chickens come home to roost.
I have shag all sympathy for lots of people who are now wailing about their lot.
They made their beds and don't expect the rest of us to make them anymore comfortable.
For instance I have shag all sympathy for lots of our particularly younger unemployed builders.
A lot of them chose to go into the industry, were on pretty good money and were blowing it left right and centre.
I have a lot of sympathy for older builders, who had been in the game from way back and had managed to survive the dark days of the 80s, and sadly saw their livelihood go to the wall like the johnny come latelies.

And speaking of generalisations, I had to tear apart one of your posts around here recently where you used the old ff line of how the government and construction bubble were not to blame for the mess the economy is in, but all of us are to blame and that our problems are down to global problems. :rolleyes:

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Paid a lot of taxes over the years and am now being panalised with everybody else. In your mind I am the same as everybody else who went crazy which includes everybody who bought anything over priced while they had money.

Did I say you were the same ?
You were probably old enough, shrewd enough, maybe lucky and well placed to have been able to get properties before the bubble.

But you would have greatly benefitted from the celtic tiger and subsequent bubble by increasing rents, decreasing interest rates, section grants to put against taxable income and the ability to remortgage to buy more properties.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

After years of paying tax I was then entitled to nothing when work dried up but was after paying over 40k that year in tax alone. Mean while there are people who have barely paid any tax entitled to a lot more than I am.

I know the joys of unemployed self employed in this country is a joke.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What the government then do after years of provideing a service, which they avail of, is charge me a 2nd property tax which is meant to be a household charge and tax me more.

If you want to talk about equity and fairness you are right LL never get it and people love it regardless of actual facts.

Ah FFS the property owned class of this country were subsidised for a damm long time and it continues through over inflated rent allowance.
So please less of the poor mouth.

Ray Palmer

Not once have the government susbisdised my rent. They pay for a service I provide. If I and other LL did not the governement would have to pay a lot more to provide accomadation. There is a reason they no longer build as much council housing and that is becasue they privatised the service. Not unlike what they have done with many other aspects ranging from road repair to bin collection.

If RA wasn't there I would simply not provide the rentals for that market. It is a a theory that rent is artifically high due to RA but it misses the fact this property would not be provided the supply would constrict and likely push up prices.
I like everybody would have been able to benifit from the celtic tiger. Wages went up and costs went up too. Every extra earned meant more tax was paid. Everybody was involved and it is a joke to suggest that LL were some how

You keep rolling out that LL are some different class. They aren't they are generally people who worked up an investment not lords or barons. Do you see shop owners as some different class too?

You certainly blame a lot of people and hold yourself in some great view when it comes to what has happened.

Snakeblood

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not once have the government susbisdised my rent. They pay for a service I provide. If I and other LL did not the governement would have to pay a lot more to provide accomadation. There is a reason they no longer build as much council housing and that is becasue they privatised the service. Not unlike what they have done with many other aspects ranging from road repair to bin collection.

If RA wasn't there I would simply not provide the rentals for that market. It is a a theory that rent is artifically high due to RA but it misses the fact this property would not be provided the supply would constrict and likely push up prices.
I like everybody would have been able to benifit from the celtic tiger. Wages went up and costs went up too. Every extra earned meant more tax was paid. Everybody was involved and it is a joke to suggest that LL were some how

You keep rolling out that LL are some different class. They aren't they are generally people who worked up an investment not lords or barons. Do you see shop owners as some different class too?

You certainly blame a lot of people and hold yourself in some great view when it comes to what has happened.

How would the supply constrict? Would Landlords just not do anything with the houses, continuing to pay the property tax on them with no income from them, or would they sell them to someone else? What would they do with them?

yosser hughes

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not once have the government susbisdised my rent. They pay for a service I provide. If I and other LL did not the governement would have to pay a lot more to provide accomadation. There is a reason they no longer build as much council housing and that is becasue they privatised the service. Not unlike what they have done with many other aspects ranging from road repair to bin collection.

If RA wasn't there I would simply not provide the rentals for that market. It is a a theory that rent is artifically high due to RA but it misses the fact this property would not be provided the supply would constrict and likely push up prices.
I like everybody would have been able to benifit from the celtic tiger. Wages went up and costs went up too. Every extra earned meant more tax was paid. Everybody was involved and it is a joke to suggest that LL were some how

You keep rolling out that LL are some different class. They aren't they are generally people who worked up an investment not lords or barons. Do you see shop owners as some different class too?

You certainly blame a lot of people and hold yourself in some great view when it comes to what has happened.

Not wasting my time with you,as judging by your incoherent,unpunctuated posts you are too myopic and can't actually see reason either.

Damie

yosser hughes wrote: »

Not wasting my time with you,as judging by your incoherent,unpunctuated posts you are too myopic and can't actually see reason either.

Its taken you this long to figure that out:D The biggest WUM on boards tbf:p

Ray Palmer

Snakeblood wrote: »

How would the supply constrict? Would Landlords just not do anything with the houses, continuing to pay the property tax on them with no income from them, or would they sell them to someone else? What would they do with them?

A lot of RA property is specifically provided so while now there are horrible places with 6 and 7 bedsit type places these would just be changed to more standard housing. instead of 6-7 you may have 3. It doesn't take much to render a property as non habitable. Lots of LL would simple do that and wait for prices to increase.

RA is paying for a service and is not a subsidy. If it wasn't there who is going to provide accomadation for the people living there at the moment.

I don't rent this kind of property and rather it wsan't there but the reality is it serves a purpose. There are lots of people who really don't want to be renting beside some RA tenants. Nothing wrong with RA tenants but there is something wrong with a lot of people who happen to be on RA.

Snakeblood

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A lot of RA property is specifically provided so while now there are horrible places with 6 and 7 bedsit type places these would just be changed to more standard housing. instead of 6-7 you may have 3. It doesn't take much to render a property as non habitable. Lots of LL would simple do that and wait for prices to increase.

RA is paying for a service and is not a subsidy. If it wasn't there who is going to provide accomadation for the people living there at the moment.

I don't rent this kind of property and rather it wsan't there but the reality is it serves a purpose. There are lots of people who really don't want to be renting beside some RA tenants. Nothing wrong with RA tenants but there is something wrong with a lot of people who happen to be on RA.

Bedsits are being banned. Gone in 2013. Legislation is coming in on that. It would have been banned long ago as unfit for human habitation if it hadn't been for lobbying by terrible landlords.

These terrible landlords who rented bedsits, and then convert to normal human accommodation, spend a lot of money doing so, I presume. Then they start paying their property tax on their renovated property. Then you are saying they just won't rent the property until rents pick up? That really makes no sense to me at all.

You can render a property non habitable, you still have to pay tax on it if you own it.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that not everyone on RA lives in a bedsit. What about the landlords who accept rent allowance, in houses. Are they going to sell their houses? Or keep them, rent to no one, and pay the property tax (which you keep seeming to ignore), or are they going to lower their rents.