Will vacant homes tax have much impact on supply??

windmilllane

We are hoping to sell a large (family) home in the near future. We are outside Dublin and there is a shortage of suitable family homes. I'm just wondering will the vacant home tax prompt lots of people to make their house available to rent or even sell it. I know there have been no definate announcement but what do others think? I personally know of several people with second houses and don't rent them out because they have had terrible experiences with tenant.

The_Conductor

Windmilllane- the bigger issue with all the vacant homes nationally- is the vast preponderance of them are in places people do not want to live. I.e. a very small minority of them are in Dublin, Cork, Galway and our other major urban cities/conurbations.

I'd be more asking whether people think the vacant property tax will come in at all- rather than how it'll affect supply. I don't think its an enforceable tax- and if they try- I can see people performing all manner of contortions to get out of paying it.

I strongly suspect it may not come in at all.

seamus

Like everything, it's a matter of scale. If any such tax is a token amount like the NPPR charge was, then it's unlikely to change peoples' minds. People sit on property without renting it out because they consider it money already in the bank.

It needs to be substantial, e.g. an inflation-linked percentage of the property value, on top of the LPT. Effectively a "use it or lose it" tax that should prompt people to either rent it out or sell it if their long term plan was to leave it vacant.

I agree with the above - that it's unlikely to come in at all. The vast majority of those affected will be people sitting on old inherited family houses who'll either have no choice but to sell it because they can't find someone to live in it, or who'll have a loophole of some sort that keeps them exempt. In both cases, the underlying issue of property supply won't be addressed.

Realistically like the creation of the RPZ's, they should be focussing a charge on vacant properties and undeveloped sites within specific pressure zones - places where people want to live.

And in the end you might find that the amount of land being sat on by the private sector in these areas is pretty low.

pwurple

I can't see it being enforceable.

Will people just sign up to having a vacant home and hand over a fee, or will they simply say their son, daughter, uncle, dog, cat etc live there.

Inspections?

Also, many buildings which are vacant, are also uninhabitable.

I personally think its going to be extremely hard to enforce a vacant home tax. How will the powers that be prove its vacant, its a lot harder than it sounds to prove.

Because of this I see it having little difference on the number of houses available to rent. Leaving aside the excessive rights tenants have currently to occupy a property from a a taxation point of view a reduction in income tax for LLs and relief on CGT tax even if a house is rented out would be far more beneficial taxation measures for freeing up supply.

Graham

It makes much more sense to just implement a more significant property tax across the board rather than singling out vacant properties.

That and an accompanying reduction in levies on new builds should help reduce new build costs (all be it slightly), and help limit the swings in property related tax revenues during upswings/downturns.

The_Conductor

Graham wrote: »

It makes much more sense to just implement a more significant property tax across the board rather than singling out vacant properties.

That and an accompanying reduction in levies on new builds should help reduce new build costs (all be it slightly), and help limit the swings in property related tax revenues during upswings/downturns.

They're doing this already- there is to be a wholescale reappraisal of property tax for 2019. The taoiseach and the Minister- have (apparently) already been discussing it. There are a few different proposals on the table- however, the main gist of what they're talking about- is moving away from a pure market value approach- to have a hybrid value and property size approach. This takes into account that the cost of delivering services is lowest- to the vast bulk of properties of high worth (in the capital and its environs) based on the relative higher density of properties in the vicinity- whereas larger more remote or rural properties- which may be worth far less- may generate significantly higher costs for local authorities, in delivering statutory services, facilities and amenities that they are entitled to.

I.e. the plan is a further move away from the LPT being a Dublin based tax- where the other local authorities are cross-subsidised from Dublin.

Its expected everyone will pay higher LPT- however, some LAs may have to increase their taxes significantly more than others.

One Dublin based LA has also discussed whether, or not, they are allowed securitise LPT income- to pay for large one-off purchases (of social housing). Not aware that they have an answer one way or the other on this.

antoinolachtnai

There are tens of thousands of vacant homes in Dublin.

The government has to bring some pressure to hear. The crisis is really acute.

Obviously it is sad if a person has had s bad experience. But if they can't rent the property they should be encouraged to sell it. This is hardly unreasonable.

The_Conductor

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There are tens of thousands of vacant homes in Dublin.

The government has to bring some pressure to hear. The crisis is really acute.

Obviously it is sad if a person has had s bad experience. But if they can't rent the property they should be encouraged to sell it. This is hardly unreasonable.

Antoin- honestly- while there are some vacant homes in Dublin- I seriously doubt it is tens of thousands- and of those that are defined as 'vacant' just how many of them are in a fit state to be let to someone? Keep in mind the HAP checklist. You'd be incredibly lucky if you even got a couple of hundred units which were in a fit state to pass the HAP NCT (as Threshold have taken to calling it).

Having a HAP NCT- is all well and good- however, if it is a hindrence to bringing units to market- we have to assess what our priorities are- and prioritise accordingly. At the moment- supply is the critical issue- I would argue quality must follow supply as an absolute criteria for getting units up and running- its is important- but not as important as getting units up and running.

At the moment- good luck getting even a couple of hundred units in Dublin up and running- if they have to pass a HAP checklist.........

Peregrinus

The_Conductor wrote: »

They're doing this already- there is to be a wholescale reappraisal of property tax for 2019. The taoiseach and the Minister- have (apparently) already been discussing it. There are a few different proposals on the table- however, the main gist of what they're talking about- is moving away from a pure market value approach- to have a hybrid value and property size approach. This takes into account that the cost of delivering services is lowest- to the vast bulk of properties of high worth (in the capital and its environs) based on the relative higher density of properties in the vicinity- whereas larger more remote or rural properties- which may be worth far less- may generate significantly higher costs for local authorities, in delivering statutory services, facilities and amenities that they are entitled to.

It depends on what you think the purpose of a property tax is.

If it's simple revenue raising, to cover the cost of providing services to the property, market value is not really relevant, whereas location/remoteness is.

But if your object is to tackle the under-utilisation of the housing stock, then a market value based approach makes sense. It stands to reason that, the higher the market value of a residential property is, the greater its utility as a residence, and therefore the greater the societal detriment if it goes unused.

One approach would be a market-value based annual tax, with an exemption for the principal private residence, plus a provision allowing the tax as a credit against tax on any rental income. In effect, this would mean that you could avoid the property tax by either using the property as your main residence or letting it out on commercial terms, with the property tax largely falling on vacant properties, properties occupied for free or at a nominal rent, second homes, holiday homes, etc.

troyzer

The_Conductor wrote: »

Windmilllane- the bigger issue with all the vacant homes nationally- is the vast preponderance of them are in places people do not want to live. I.e. a very small minority of them are in Dublin, Cork, Galway and our other major urban cities/conurbations.

I'd be more asking whether people think the vacant property tax will come in at all- rather than how it'll affect supply. I don't think its an enforceable tax- and if they try- I can see people performing all manner of contortions to get out of paying it.

I strongly suspect it may not come in at all.

It's not rocket science, you just whack a vacant surcharge onto your property tax bill.

antoinolachtnai

The_Conductor wrote: »

Antoin- honestly- while there are some vacant homes in Dublin- I seriously doubt it is tens of thousands-

There are 32,000 such homes according to the CSO. (see https://www.eire.com/2017/by-the-end-of-the-year-providing-some-relief-in-the-dublin-property-market/)

and of those that are defined as 'vacant' just how many of them are in a fit state to be let to someone? Keep in mind the HAP checklist. You'd be incredibly lucky if you even got a couple of hundred units which were in a fit state to pass the HAP NCT (as Threshold have taken to calling it).

Well, do up the place so. It's not that big a deal. Get a loan if needed. Or else sell it to someone who is in a position to do it.

There is an emergency, after all. Maybe we could waive the rules for a couple of years for a property coming on-stream for the first time?

wordofwarning

There is a massive opportunity cost to have a property lie vacant. It is not an explicit tax, but by leaving an apartment or a house empty. It is costing you in foregone income

If you go to Dublin City Centre, the vacant properties often Georgian/Victorian houses that are cost prohibitive to bring into the modern standards. It makes no sense to spend €1m to renovate your vacant house when a near perfect condition one on the same street is going for €400-450k. A vacant property tax might encourage people to sell. But who is going to buy a house that needs €1m spent on it when you can buy a perfect one for €400k?

If we are going to introduce a vacant property tax, as it is under utilising the housing stock. Are we really going to say a single person living in a 3 storey over basement that could house 4/8 couples is a proper use of the housing stock? Why do we have an issue with a property being empty, but yet a property being completely under utilized is fine?

We don't need a vacant property tax. We need a proper LPT. One that would make a single person consider selling up that entire property they are under utilising.

Going after vacant property is nothing more than feel good populism. We need to discourage all under utilising of properties.

jamesthepeach

Most of the vacant houses in Dublin belong to the council's.

What they should be doing is having a local property tax for every single person that lives in an area like they have in the UK. The person pays it, not the property owner.
Then ring fence some of that money for housing.

antoinolachtnai

wordofwarning wrote: »

There is a massive opportunity cost to have a property lie vacant. It is not an explicit tax, but by leaving an apartment or a house empty. It is costing you in foregone income

If you go to Dublin City Centre, the vacant properties often Georgian/Victorian houses that are cost prohibitive to bring into the modern standards. It makes no sense to spend €1m to renovate your vacant house when a near perfect condition one on the same street is going for €400-450k. A vacant property tax might encourage people to sell. But who is going to buy a house that needs €1m spent on it when you can buy a perfect one for €400k?

Can you give an example of a street like this?! What type of house will cost a million euros to do up to a habitable standard?

Going after vacant property is nothing more than feel good populism.

I don't know if that's true. Families need homes. They really need homes they can occupy in whole. Even a quarter of those 32000 vacant homes would make a real difference.

wordofwarning

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Can you give an example of a street like this?! What type of house will cost a million euros to do up to a habitable standard?

A lot of the streets in Dublin 1, 2, 4 & 7. A house in Parnell St will costs hundreds of thousands to renovate if it is in a some what decent state. If the roof is missing, you are looking at millions. Some of these houses are nearly 5000-6000 sq foot.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I don't know if that's true. Families need homes. They really need homes they can occupy in whole. Even a quarter of those 32000 vacant homes would make a real difference.

Why is an empty 5000 sq foot house unacceptable. But yet a single person living in that house is acceptable? Surely our LPT system should discourage the under utilisation of properties? Do you think a single person living in a house of 8 flats is significantly more acceptable and should be unpunished versus living it empty.

We are trying to get run down property that may costs millions to bring into modern standards back into the housing market. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of under utilised homes that are could be occupied tomorrow. Yet we are targeting the most expensive and difficult homes to house these families.

A proper LPT would get tens of thousands of people who are living in homes far too big for them to downsize. It is nothing but populism to go after houses that will be extremely expensive and time consuming to get people into instead

Colonel Claptrap

The local authorities have several boarded up properties. They claim they don't have the money to refurbish them.

Their solution: tax individuals with vacant properties, who don't have the money to refurbish them......

Here's a crazy idea. Why don't the councils get their house in order first, before harassing citizens with a tax regime with more loopholes than swiss cheese.

antoinolachtnai

wordofwarning wrote: »

A lot of the streets in Dublin 1, 2, 4 & 7. A house in Parnell St will costs hundreds of thousands to renovate if it is in a some what decent state. If the roof is missing, you are looking at millions. Some of these houses are nearly 5000-6000 sq foot.

Why would it cost millions of euros to put a roof on a house?

Why is an empty 5000 sq foot house unacceptable. But yet a single person living in that house is acceptable? Surely our LPT system should discourage the under utilisation of properties? Do you think a single person living in a house of 8 flats is significantly more acceptable and should be unpunished versus living it empty.

Do you think there are many of these houses? I think you are talking about a small number of homes. There are only 15,000 homes with more than 9 rooms in Dublin according to the census.

We are trying to get run down property that may costs millions to bring into modern standards back into the housing market. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of under utilised homes that are could be occupied tomorrow. Yet we are targeting the most expensive and difficult homes to house these families.

A proper LPT would get tens of thousands of people who are living in homes far too big for them to downsize. It is nothing but populism to go after houses that will be extremely expensive and time consuming to get people into instead

Can you show us the statistics to demonstrate that there are hundreds of thousands of under-utilised homes that there would be immediate demand for?

To do what you propose, you have to move two households to get one household into a home. Where is the original user of the home supposed to go? That person will just put more pressure on the 1-bed rental market.

I am not saying it's not a good idea. I'm just saying that it'd be much faster to bring the tens of thousands of vacant houses into use.

fg1406

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Most of the vacant houses in Dublin belong to the council's.

Or where I live, NAMA own about 10 vacant properties. They have been empty for about 6 years now. Will the government charge this tax on NAMA properties or force them to stop hoarding empty homes and sell or arrange to sell them on the open market?

Chester Copperpot

The_Conductor wrote: »

They're doing this already- there is to be a wholescale reappraisal of property tax for 2019. The taoiseach and the Minister- have (apparently) already been discussing it. There are a few different proposals on the table- however, the main gist of what they're talking about- is moving away from a pure market value approach- to have a hybrid value and property size approach. This takes into account that the cost of delivering services is lowest- to the vast bulk of properties of high worth (in the capital and its environs) based on the relative higher density of properties in the vicinity- whereas larger more remote or rural properties- which may be worth far less- may generate significantly higher costs for local authorities, in delivering statutory services, facilities and amenities that they are entitled to.

I.e. the plan is a further move away from the LPT being a Dublin based tax- where the other local authorities are cross-subsidised from Dublin.

Its expected everyone will pay higher LPT- however, some LAs may have to increase their taxes significantly more than others.

One Dublin based LA has also discussed whether, or not, they are allowed securitise LPT income- to pay for large one-off purchases (of social housing). Not aware that they have an answer one way or the other on this.

I can't think of very many statutory services, facilities and amenities that LA's provide to people outside of urban areas. In this eventuality surely they would have to start providing some services as they couldn't charge for non existent services

antoinolachtnai

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Most of the vacant houses in Dublin belong to the council's.

Whatever vacant property tax is brought in, it should apply equally to county councils, or NAMA, or whomever.

The_Conductor

Chester Copperpot wrote: »

I can't think of very many statutory services, facilities and amenities that LA's provide to people outside of urban areas. In this eventuality surely they would have to start providing some services as they couldn't charge for non existent services

Currently- it includes, but is not limited to-

Roads
Water
Amenities such as Library services
Environment protection services
Local pounds for abandoned, strayed, lost animals
Recreation facilities and amenities
Planning and development services

etc etc etc

The cost associated with the provision of almost any service is a function of numerous things- including the absolute quantity of that service, the difficulty in delivery the service (remoteness etc) and the population density to which the service is being delivered (aka- the two libraries in Co. Sligo are the most expensive libraries per head of population using them- in the entire country- even managing to eclipse the county library in Leitrim (how- I don't know)).

My Dad lives in a remote area of Sligo- which was on its own water scheme which is now being managed by Sligo Co. Co. The water quality is top-notch- however, given the remoteness of the area it services- while I don't know the figures- I'd be shocked if it wasn't atrociously expensive to administer.

And then you have things like the road network- even minor roads linking townlands- have to be maintained, have their hedges cut, their verges sorted for winter etc etc

It is damn expensive for any local authority to provide their statutory services to remote areas- yet, they have to do it. Hence- Sligo closed down its libraries- to focus on keeping its roads open etc etc. Its a balancing act- that the Dublin councils don't have to undertake- however, arguably- they should be ringfencing a significant portion of their income into returning derelict LA properties into use- and augmenting the supply of LA properties- where they are needed (which is predominantly in the Dublin area- we don't need LA properties in Carrick-on-Shannon- we need them in Dublin 1 (and radiating outwards).

pwurple

troyzer wrote: »

It's not rocket science, you just whack a vacant surcharge onto your property tax bill.

Alright Mr Not rocket science.

How do you determine if a property is both vacant and inhabitable? Heresay doesn't count. You need a legal mechanism. There is no register of what is occupied, and not occupied. Who do you post the bill to? Everyone in the country?

How well that worked with water charges.

Also, you can't squeeze money from a rock. If someone has a dilapidated property they can't refurbish, and can't sell (pyrite, subsidence, remote, some legal issue with right of way etc), where exactly are they getting this money?

It's asinine. Yet another hairbrained scheme which will cost more to administer than it will ever bring in.

The_Conductor

pwurple wrote: »

How do you determine if a property is both vacant and inhabitable? Heresay doesn't count. You need a legal mechanism. There is no register of what is occupied, and not occupied. Who do you post the bill to? Everyone in the country?

I'd suggest the HAP checklist be run against each and every 'vacant property' and only those that pass the HAP checklist- are deemed vacant and fit for habitation.

The knife cuts both ways.

If any property fails a HAP inspection- it is not habitable.

Net result- there isn't a single vacant but habitable dwelling in the entire country?

Peregrinus

Other countries do have taxes on vacant properties. It can be done. Back in the days when we had rates, there was an exemption for uninhabitable properties, so that too can be done.

(But, no, Conductor, they're not the same thing.)

seamus

pwurple wrote: »

How do you determine if a property is both vacant and inhabitable? Heresay doesn't count. You need a legal mechanism. There is no register of what is occupied, and not occupied. Who do you post the bill to? Everyone in the country?

Self-declaration. There are a number of exemptions for property tax, you have to apply for them. Likewise if you have a vacant uninhabitable property, you apply for an exemption from any vacant home surcharge.

Building an initial database of potentially vacant properties wouldn't be that difficult. You take a combination of a few databases - Revenue have a few of them, the RTB register, etc. - and then start sending out letters to suspected vacant properties advising the owner that they will be subject to a surcharge and that they need to declare the property as inhabited and prove it to be so.

On a national level, it's pretty ridiculous. You'll end up with a tonne of people declaring their parents' house as a holiday home so as to avoid paying a surcharge.

But as I say, if you focus in on specific areas where property is under pressre then the practicalities and the admin costs of it should justify the returns.

antoinolachtnai

We do have a list of all the properties for LPT. Revenue also knows which ones are Principal Private Residences. It's not too difficult to figure out which ones are unoccupied.

There is no need to get blood out of a stone. Just collect the tax when the property is eventually sold.

There are loads of houses tied up with various sorts of disputes or problems. But we have to bring some pressure on the owners to resolve these difficulties and get them back into the housing market.

I do think we need incentives as well to make it easier to get property back into the market.

wordofwarning

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Why would it cost millions of euros to put a roof on a house?

I doesn't... If the house has no roof, it will cost millions to bring the house to a modern standard ie it will have lots of rot and damage from the elements.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Do you think there are many of these houses? I think you are talking about a small number of homes. There are only 15,000 homes with more than 9 rooms in Dublin according to the census.

In between the canals, the houses are generally extremely large. Does that 15,000 homes include all the massive houses split into units? It seriously doubt it.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Can you show us the statistics to demonstrate that there are hundreds of thousands of under-utilised homes that there would be immediate demand for?

What stats do you need? Go to any estate built in the 1960s/1970s in Dublin and you will find dozens of 3/4 bedroom homes in perfect condition with one person living in them.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

To do what you propose, you have to move two households to get one household into a home. Where is the original user of the home supposed to go? That person will just put more pressure on the 1-bed rental market.

Councils can build one bedroom apartments. It is cheaper and easier to build a block of one bedroom apartments, than to be housing estates full of 3/4 bedroom homes.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I'm just saying that it'd be much faster to bring the tens of thousands of vacant houses into use.

It is faster assuming the houses are in good condition. But most vacant houses are vacant for a reason. They are in absolute bits. You can assume it is quicker to bring a house not occupied since the 1950s

Are you from Dublin? You appear to grasp the sheer size and scale of how bad the vacant homes are in Dublin City Centre. DCC has reports of some of them being vacant since the 1930s. Some have been vacant since the tenements were closed. Some are destroyed from being tenements, then pre-63s and then vacant since pre-63s were banned

wordofwarning

wordofwarning wrote: »

..............


What stats do you need? Go to any estate built in the 1960s/1970s in Dublin and you will find dozens of 3/4 bedroom homes in perfect condition with one person living in them............ .

Do you think the owners should be taxed prohibitively for this even though they quite likely paid for the house?

pwurple

The_Conductor wrote: »

I'd suggest the HAP checklist be run against each and every 'vacant property' and only those that pass the HAP checklist- are deemed vacant and fit for habitation.

The knife cuts both ways.

If any property fails a HAP inspection- it is not habitable.

Net result- there isn't a single vacant but habitable dwelling in the entire country?

Awesome, you go ahead, set that up and resource it.

You'll have your net result some time around 2050.

antoinolachtnai

wordofwarning wrote: »

I doesn't... If the house has no roof, it will cost millions to bring the house to a modern standard ie it will have lots of rot and damage from the elements.

This is a different issue, but a house like that is not habitable. It is not included in the statistics of the CSO. They only count habitable homes.

In between the canals, the houses are generally extremely large. Does that 15,000 homes include all the massive houses split into units? It seriously doubt it.

I don't know what your point is here.

What stats do you need? Go to any estate built in the 1960s/1970s in Dublin and you will find dozens of 3/4 bedroom homes in perfect condition with one person living in them.

I would prefer if you could present a table of statistics.

Councils can build one bedroom apartments. It is cheaper and easier to build a block of one bedroom apartments, than to be housing estates full of 3/4 bedroom homes.

Have you evidence for this statement?

It is faster assuming the houses are in good condition. But most vacant houses are vacant for a reason. They are in absolute bits. You can assume it is quicker to bring a house not occupied since the 1950s

CSO only counts habitable houses.

Are you from Dublin? You appear to grasp the sheer size and scale of how bad the vacant homes are in Dublin City Centre. DCC has reports of some of them being vacant since the 1930s. Some have been vacant since the tenements were closed. Some are destroyed from being tenements, then pre-63s and then vacant since pre-63s were banned

Yes, I live in Dublin 2. The houses you are referring to are basically brownfield sites and should be demolished and rebuilt. They are not examples of vacant homes.

Falcon L

I have a large family home to sell in Raheny, Dublin. It could have been on the market at the start of May. The delay in getting probate through is keeping the house off the market. I'm not expecting this to be resolved before the end of the year. So, it sits empty.

I know it's only a small number of houses that would be in this position, but as Tesco says, every little helps.

antoinolachtnai

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

We do have a list of all the properties for LPT. Revenue also knows which ones are Principal Private Residences. It's not too difficult to figure out which ones are unoccupied.

It's very difficult, a house will not have to be a PPR to be exempt from a vacant house tax. A rented property won't be subject to it and nor will a house being lived in by the family member of the owner. Now how do you prove said family member actually lives there? How do you prove its not being used some of the time by the owner, say the vacant property is in the country and they live in the city who is to say they don't go out the country every weekend or maybe the wife and kids live in the country home while the man lives in the city for work in the house (this could be actually the case or on the other hand someone can just pretend its the case quite easily).

antoinolachtnai

Aranza Mammoth Knee wrote: »

It's very difficult, a house will not have to be a PPR to be exempt from a vacant house tax. A rented property won't be subject to it and nor will a house being lived in by the family member of the owner. Now how do you prove said family member actually lives there? How do you prove its not being used some of the time by the owner, say the vacant property is in the country and they live in the city who is to say they don't go out the country every weekend or maybe the wife and kids live in the country home while the man lives in the city for work in the house (this could be actually the case or on the other hand someone can just pretend its the case quite easily).

Those are really good questions.

There are a few ways to go about it.

One would be that if a person is that you tax the owners on their non-PPRs with a tax that can be offset against income tax. If someone is living in a house that they don't own, then they are paying rent on it or else getting the use of the house for free. If they are getting it for free, this would mean that this 'gift' would effectively be taxed. I know a lot of people would not like this, but it would be effective and fair.

Another way would be to require a declaration that the house was occupied and under what circumstances, if it is neither the owner's PPR nor registered with RTB as having a tenant. The information could be verified easily enough with site visits.

A measure like this doesn't have to be 100 percent effective. Even if 30 percent of the vacant housing in Dublin was brought into circulation it would make a big big difference.

seamus

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

A measure like this doesn't have to be 100 percent effective. Even if 30 percent of the vacant housing in Dublin was brought into circulation it would make a big big difference.

For many people, just the hassle alone of having to deal with it could be enough to make them put the property on the market. A lot of properties sit vacant through sheer inertia - i.e. it costs very little in real money to leave them sitting there.

pwurple

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Those are really good questions.

There are a few ways to go about it.

One would be that if a person is that you tax the owners on their non-PPRs with a tax that can be offset against income tax. If someone is living in a house that they don't own, then they are paying rent on it or else getting the use of the house for free. If they are getting it for free, this would mean that this 'gift' would effectively be taxed. I know a lot of people would not like this, but it would be effective and fair.

Another way would be to require a declaration that the house was occupied and under what circumstances, if it is neither the owner's PPR nor registered with RTB as having a tenant. The information could be verified easily enough with site visits.

A measure like this doesn't have to be 100 percent effective. Even if 30 percent of the vacant housing in Dublin was brought into circulation it would make a big big difference.

I completely disagree. Waste of time. It will make zero difference. No one is going to bring a property online with this. Legislation, paperwork, departments set up, inspections, investigations. Every trick in the book will be employed to make sure the houses are exempt. All for a handful of semi-derelict tenements? Puh-lease. People will gladly pay the couple of hundred euro and leave the place vacant rather than suck up 10,000 euro worth of damage and hassle from a delinquent tenant.

Do you honestly think people WANT to leave a source of income vacant?

Sweet baby Jesus. Simply address the root cause of the problem, instead of trying to penalise further.






It is unprofitable / too risky to be a service provider. THIS is the problem. If people were allowed to make any f-ing money off it without being taxed to the eyeballs, there would be a 100,000 units available for rent by Christmas.

antoinolachtnai

pwurple wrote: »

It is unprofitable / too risky to be a service provider. THIS is the problem. If people were allowed to make any f-ing money off it without being taxed to the eyeballs, there would be a 100,000 units available for rent by Christmas.

If a person owns a property outright and can't make money in the current climate, with rents at record levels, they are never going to let out that property.

There is a lot of rubbish talked about being a landlord. You do need to know a lot and have a lot of skill to do it properly. But there is certainly money in it. If you have property, there has never been a better time to rent.

Being a landlord isn't for everyone. That's ok, there's no shame in it. But if you don't want to rent it out yourself, sell it or lease it long-term to someone who can.

For sure, there needs to be a 'carrot' there too.

antoinolachtnai

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If a person owns a property outright and can't make money in the current climate, with rents at record levels, they are never going to let out that property.

There is a lot of rubbish talked about being a landlord. You do need to know a lot and have a lot of skill to do it properly. But there is certainly money in it. If you have property, there has never been a better time to rent.

Being a landlord isn't for everyone. That's ok, there's no shame in it. But if you don't want to rent it out yourself, sell it or lease it long-term to someone who can.

For sure, there needs to be a 'carrot' there too.

There is also the CGT tax relief, that could be worth a very large amount of money to someone who buys low and sells high and this is lost of the place is rented.

Allowing someone to rent out their property and avail of this relief might free up vacant properties.

However there is also the big elephant in the room which is the severe lack of rights LLs have over their own properties coupled with the crazy levels of taxation. Taxation erases much of the profits and LLs take a huge risk in renting the property due to the rights tenants have to more or less do as they please. Unless a number of these issues are addressed long term letting is not attractive to many.

antoinolachtnai

You won't get the CGT tax relief unless it is your PPR, i.e., you are living in it.

I just don't see how the tax situation is in any way unfair in relation to a property you already own outright. It is the same rate of tax everybody else pays on their income.

pwurple

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If a person owns a property outright and can't make money in the current climate, with rents at record levels, they are never going to let out that property.

There is a lot of rubbish talked about being a landlord. You do need to know a lot and have a lot of skill to do it properly. But there is certainly money in it. If you have property, there has never been a better time to rent.

Being a landlord isn't for everyone. That's ok, there's no shame in it. But if you don't want to rent it out yourself, sell it or lease it long-term to someone who can.

For sure, there needs to be a 'carrot' there too.

Rents are at record highs, but only if you bumped it up in that teeny window before they clamped a rent cap on, and you are a corporate fund paying 3% tax instead of 50%. You have people stuck in a happy hour sale condition, who were renting it out to a decent tenant for 5 years during a recession, never upped the rent because of tenant loyalty. Tenant has moved on, and they can't adjust rent to market value. Market is frozen... UNLESS, you take the property OFF the market to "live in it yourself" for a reasonable period of time, and put it back on.

Oh ****, now there are less properties available because of this ridiculous cycle that has been created.


How many supermarkets would stay selling an item if you price-capped what they sell while they had a sale on?

Also, don't know if you noticed, but purchase prices aren't exactly low either. You can explain to me how you can purchase a flat for 200,000. Pay interest of 6% on that loan, and then make some money off it with a rent cap of 4% and the inability to evict a non-paying tenant? Oh yeah, and pay ~50% tax on rent, with the inability to write off the loan interest (unlike EVERY other business loan in existence), plus prtb, property tax, maintaining appliances, furniture et al.

I have been at this lark 20 years... long enough to not need to be patronised by you thanks. I only thank my own foresight to have 70% of my property in the commercial / retail space rather than poxy residential. And the residential I do have, I rent unfurnished. Residential turns from a measly 5% yield to major loss making overnight. As soon as a formerly well behaved tenant misses rent, or has a domestic, or throws a party which smashes a few windows.

Morning til night on media I hear about this housing crisis. It's of their own doing. Stop crucifying the service providers.

pwurple

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You won't get the CGT tax relief unless it is your PPR, i.e., you are living in it.

I just don't see how the tax situation is in any way unfair in relation to a property you already own outright. It is the same rate of tax everybody else pays on their income.

Is unfair, because the tax you pay is based on WHO you are. Two houses side by side. One owned by a pension fund, one owned by a guy. Pension fund pays 3% of that rent into tax. Guy pays 50%.

How is that fair?

antoinolachtnai

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You won't get the CGT tax relief unless it is your PPR, i.e., you are living in it.

As far as I'm aware this does not apply to the 7 year rule which is what I was referring to.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I just don't see how the tax situation is in any way unfair in relation to a property you already own outright. It is the same rate of tax everybody else pays on their income.

Its totally unfair to be paying tax at the marginal rate on rental income, especially if paying a mortgage.

Its not even treated as a business as other businesses have far more allowable deductions against tax for instance. In reality there should be low flat rate of tax applied to rental income, it needs to more profitable to encourage people into the game. Of course if you are a REIT you are basically tax exempt which is insane while hard working people trying to make some money renting a house or two are crucified in tax.

antoinolachtnai

Sure, there could be an allowance for a few years to let people get properties back into circulation.

If the government is going to give tax breaks or other subsidies, and I think they should, it makes the most sense to give them in relation to the building of new properties, not in relation to properties which are already in the market.