Indo giving landlords tips on how to be profitable

handlemaster

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/a-single-bed-in-a-kitchen-in-stoneybatter-is-being-advertised-for-800month-36851308.html


Very often we have the indo taking a swipe at landlords with crowd pleasing articles such as the attached(as if such rental accommodation is market representative). It might just be an advise article to landlords currently bogged down in high debts, negative equity , high taxes and endless government interference in private property on how to turn a profit.

DubCount

The best tip for landlords to be profitable - sell up and invest in something else.

If the government and all our left wing housing charities spent half as much time addressing this type of genuine problem accommodation, as they do dreaming up ways to "protect tenants" who already have protection, we might actually improve things.

Vote4Napoleon

Profit is apparently evil😨

dr.fuzzenstein

With tiny live-in toilets rented for over a grand a month and the volume of complaints from LLs being directly proportional to the skyrocketing level of rents, are LLs the new taxi drivers?

Ultimate Seduction

I'm a Tennant myself and hate paying massive rent, but I really can't understand how people think a person who invested hundreds of thousands on a property shouldn't be allowed make as much profit as they can. It's a business. Don't like it, buy your own

Fanny Wank

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

I'm a Tennant myself and hate paying massive rent, but I really can't understand how people think a person who invested hundreds of thousands on a property shouldn't be allowed make as much profit as they can. It's a business. Don't like it, buy your own

I'm not a landlord but agree with your sentiment

However I also don't understand how some landlord's think rental income should have some form of special category as an income

- my bonus was paid last month. Taxed at my full marginal rate
- share dividends etc are too

What is so special about rental income?

handlemaster

Fanny **** wrote: »

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

I'm a Tennant myself and hate paying massive rent, but I really can't understand how people think a person who invested hundreds of thousands on a property shouldn't be allowed make as much profit as they can. It's a business. Don't like it, buy your own

I'm not a landlord but agree with your sentiment

However I also don't understand how some landlord's think rental income should have some form of special category as an income

- my bonus was paid last month. Taxed at my full marginal rate
- share dividends etc are too

What is so special about rental income?

For one allow full operational expenses like a normal business

DubCount

Fanny **** wrote: »

I'm not a landlord but agree with your sentiment

However I also don't understand how some landlord's think rental income should have some form of special category as an income

- my bonus was paid last month. Taxed at my full marginal rate
- share dividends etc are too

What is so special about rental income?

I am a landlord. I have never requested special tax treatment for rental income - just equal treatment. The issue of treating rental income "like any other business" comes up a lot on Boards. Some of the differences are:

- Not all costs (e.g. all your interest cost and LPT) are allowable for tax, so the effective rate is above the "normal marginal rate"
- In other business, if a customer stops paying, you stop providing the service. In rentals, it takes up to 2 years to evict a non-paying tenant
- In other business, you get to charge the same price as your competitors. In rentals, you can have 2 identical properties with 2 different price controls.

The problem is that there is a left wing agenda which is popular at the moment. "A home is a right, not a business...."... "Its the landlords property, but the tenants home...." - that type of thing. Rental business is not therefore
given the same set of rules to play by. Maybe that is right - I don't know. I do know the effect is that there are easier ways of making money, and many landlords are leaving the business at a time when we need more rental property.

Sheep Shagger

I was an accidental landlord up until about October last year, once I was out of negative equity got the place on the market.

Been burnt by a bad SW tenant, useless PRTB and then a tax bill despite making any money on a cash basis.

German investment fund bought it who plan to renovate and hike the rent - good riddance as it’s just not worth the hassle.

handlemaster

Sheep Shagger wrote: »

I was an accidental landlord up until about October last year, once I was out of negative equity got the place on the market.

Been burnt by a bad SW tenant, useless PRTB and then a tax bill despite making any money on a cash basis.

German investment fund bought it who plan to renovate and hike the rent - good riddance as it’s just not worth the hassle.

Investment fund bought your one investment property ?

Villa05

DubCount wrote:

The problem is that there is a left wing agenda which is popular at the moment. "A home is a right, not a business...."... "Its the landlords property, but the tenants home...." - that type of thing. Rental business is not therefore given the same set of rules to play by. Maybe that is right - I don't know. I do know the effect is that there are easier ways of making money, and many landlords are leaving the business at a time when we need more rental property.

I wouldnt call the current situation regarding housing a left wing agenda.

Tennants and small landlords are basically been screwed in a system that plays onto the hands of our zombie banks.

So while we have another long tennis thread of landlord/tennant bashing. The banks Hoover up everything to try and "fix" their balance sheets

Carlos Orange

Villa05 wrote: »

So while we have another long tennis thread of landlord/tennant bashing. The banks Hoover up everything to try and "fix" their balance sheets

And while people are distracted by the bank bashing a lot of rent money ends up being paid over to the government as tax.

DubCount

Villa05 wrote: »

I wouldnt call the current situation regarding housing a left wing agenda.

There are a lot of factors impacting on the current housing situation. Unnecessary building regulations, difficult planning processes, cost and availability of finance for development, and of course a government decision to move away from the direct provision of social housing. I wouldn't call any of that a left wing agenda. However, specifically for the private rental market, the "lets bring in some more rules" brigade are killing off small private landlords and are actually making being a tenant less stable and more expensive. That brigade is being driven by left leaning agenda that just wants the state to provide housing for everyone and don't see any role for private money in the sector.

The biggest irony is that while someone comes up with new rules to protect tenants every second week, nobody seems to consider or care about licensees who are in most in need of added protection.

Franz Von Peppercorn

handlemaster wrote: »

For one allow full operational expenses like a normal business

Set up a business then.

DubCount

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Set up a business then.

In the interest of educating me, please explain further...

Franz Von Peppercorn

DubCount wrote: »

In the interest of educating me, please explain further...

About how to set up a business?

DubCount

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

About how to set up a business?

Yes....my letting business is set up in a Sole Trader format, similar to most small landlords. Do I need to change this or is it the business management or administration that should change? I'm open to all suggestions to avoid tax !!

Sheep Shagger

handlemaster wrote: »

Investment fund bought your one investment property ?

Yep - buying up half of Tallaght I was told by the estate agent.

the_syco

DubCount wrote: »

The biggest irony is that while someone comes up with new rules to protect tenants every second week, nobody seems to consider or care about licensees who are in most in need of added protection.

Such as what? Giving the wrong rights to licensees would mean the end of licensees, and this in turn would screw over a load of students.

Samuel T. Cogley

Sole traders are just as valid as a business as in incorporated company.

handlemaster

Sheep Shagger wrote: »

handlemaster wrote: »

Investment fund bought your one investment property ?

Yep - buying up half of Tallaght I was told by the estate agent.

Hard to believe

DubCount

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sole traders are just as valid as a business as in incorporated company.

I completely agree. I have always understood that holding property in a company is loaded with problems including income being liable to corporation tax and then income tax on distributions, close company surcharges, and banks not wanting to lend to them as limited liability adds risk in the event of negative equity. I was just interested to see if the other poster had a more efficient tax structure that I was missing something on.

DubCount

the_syco wrote: »

Such as what? Giving the wrong rights to licensees would mean the end of licensees, and this in turn would screw over a load of students.

Licensees have no minimum notice periods outside of "reasonable" notice. There is no restrictions on rent increases. I just don't get why there are endless suggestions for new protections for tenants, but Threshold etc. never seem to have any suggestions for licensees.

Samuel T. Cogley

DubCount wrote: »

Licensees have no minimum notice periods outside of "reasonable" notice. There is no restrictions on rent increases. I just don't get why there are endless suggestions for new protections for tenants, but Threshold etc. never seem to have any suggestions for licensees.

Introducing regulation to this class of tenant would, IMHO, cause a large cohort of 'Landlords' to exit the market. Personally I think reasonable notice should be enforced but beyond that it's people renting out rooms because the money outweighs the hassle - that balance could easily be tipped.

GGTrek

DubCount wrote: »

the_syco wrote: »

Such as what? Giving the wrong rights to licensees would mean the end of licensees, and this in turn would screw over a load of students.

Licensees have no minimum notice periods outside of "reasonable" notice.  There is no restrictions on rent increases.  I just don't get why there are endless suggestions for new protections for tenants, but Threshold etc. never seem to have any suggestions for licensees.

You are wrong about what the dysfunctional communist organization called Threshold and similar "homeless" industry organizations (supported by taxpayers' money) are doing about licensees:
http://www.thejournal.ie/housesharing-2971727-Sep2016/
https://www.threshold.ie/download/pdf/20170822164450.pdf

Of course their stupid/thoughtless proposals will make so many licensee homeless very very quickly! Which home owner could be forced to keep a person in the home where he/she is living!

I shall also tell a few things about these "organizations", a few of their previous employees and managers are case officers at the RTB (direct experience) creating a massive conflict of interest that seems not to exist for the upper echelons of the RTB. In addition these organizations are so full of s..t and double standards to make me puke. At the same time they are calling for a stop to all evictions and housing as a human right to trump property rights:
https://www.simon.ie/MediaCentre/MediaReleases/TabId/206/ArtMID/851/ArticleID/141/Simon-Communities-call-for-Constitutional-right-to-a-home--.aspx
the Simon Community is evicting their tenants :'(:
https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/downloads/determination-order/0118-40081.pdf

There is only one solution to stop this crazyness, but it will not happen: cut absolutely all public funding to these politcal industry lobbying groups hiding behind homelessness. They would very quickly close business!

With respect to the OP article linked: usual tripe from the indo sold out journalists.

Villa05

psinno wrote:

And while people are distracted by the bank bashing a lot of rent money ends up being paid over to the government as tax.

The Government are the major shareholder in all the banks

The banks have loads of poor performing property assets. These needed to be offloaded

Government invited property funds in to buy this property at huge discount plus a close to 0 tax on any returns for the property funds

Government increases taxes on the existing businesses providing rental properties giving the property funds an unfair advantage

Government introduces legislation that makes building competing property onerous and expensive leading to supply demand imbalance. This leads to runaway inflation in the rental sector.

Banks have ridiculously high interest rates for development loans further curtailing supply ensuring that the once toxic assets they held increase significantly in value

The banks sold off these property assets at significant discount. These are losses that need to be reclaimed hence the higher taxes on the pre existing landlords. This extra taxation helps the Government attack you and put you out of business

The higher rents and various help to buy schemes pushes tennants into buying over renting creating a property price bubble and ensuring the property funds have a rising low tax income stream plus a much more valuable asset and plenty of takers to buy should they wish to cash in

So please be aware that the extra tax u are paying is being used to fund a policy that destroys you, your business and your customers while it benefits foreign property funds.

It creates another property price bubble to the detriment of the Irish economy

This is far from a leftist ideology. That is put out there as smoke and mirrors, deflect attention away from what's really going on


How there isn't riots on the streets I really don't know

As one expert said during the last crash is the only thing worse than the banks failing is the banks surviving

The_Conductor

Villa05 wrote: »

The Government are the major shareholder in all the banks

The banks have loads of poor performing property assets. These needed to be offloaded

Government invited property funds in to buy this property at huge discount plus a close to 0 tax on any returns for the property funds

And the icing on the cake- the property losses suffered by the banking sector in the implosion 10 years ago- can be carried as an asset on their balance sheets- so as to shelter the banks from paying tax for a very long time. AIB told prospective shareholders on their UK roadshows- that the revised taxation of debt- and the removal of the time limits on claiming the debts as a credit- are an asset valued at over 20 billion- wholly aside from any other factor.

I.e. the current government in addition to recapitalising the banking sector- have allowed them crystalise the same losses as an asset- and sell them a second time- to a new batch of investors, so the Irish consumer gets to pay for the same debt twice over..........

This was a policy introduced by the current government- abolishing the length of time over which a company had to amortize debt as a taxable cost- and allowing them to carry the debt as an asset in the first instance- despite the fact that it was the taxpayer who took the debt onboard.

Its actually a massive swindle, no matter how you look at it- but- its entirely legal- and vastly profitable- and its why AIB is so valuable to prospective investors- because they can shelter any profits by writing them against historic debt- indefinitely- despite the fact that the taxpayer paid for them..............

You couldn't make it up.

erudec

DubCount wrote: »

The best tip for landlords to be profitable - sell up and invest in something else.

If the government and all our left wing housing charities spent half as much time addressing this type of genuine problem accommodation, as they do dreaming up ways to "protect tenants" who already have protection, we might actually improve things.

Hundreds of thousands of people in Dublin share a rented bedroom with an adult they are not in a romantic relationship with, that's just vile.

handlemaster

erudec wrote: »

DubCount wrote: »

The best tip for landlords to be profitable - sell up and invest in something else.

If the government and all our left wing housing charities spent half as much time addressing this type of genuine problem accommodation, as they do dreaming up ways to "protect tenants" who already have protection, we might actually improve things.

Hundreds of thousands of people in Dublin share a rented bedroom with an adult they are not in a romantic relationship with, that's just vile.

So you never shared a bedroom with a family member !

Villa05

The_Conductor wrote:

And the icing on the cake- the property losses suffered by the banking sector in the implosion 10 years ago- can be carried as an asset on their balance sheets- so as to shelter the banks from paying tax for a very long time. AIB told prospective shareholders on their UK roadshows- that the revised taxation of debt- and the removal of the time limits on claiming the debts as a credit- are an asset valued at over 20 billion- wholly aside from any other factor.

Can a taxpayer bring a robust legal challenge against that. Isn't their criteria that taxation must fall under.

Sheep Shagger

handlemaster wrote: »

Hard to believe

Only going on what the agent tells me.

Don’t care anyway, got out with a small profit and no more headaches being a landlord. Huge weight off shoulders and housing scum bags who screw the system can be someone else’s problem (unless you have ever been on the receiving end can’t see how anyone can comment).

The_Conductor

Villa05 wrote: »

Can a taxpayer bring a robust legal challenge against that. Isn't their criteria that taxation must fall under.

I'm not aware of any specific 'criteria' it has to fall under- it just has to be legal- as this sham is. The Revenue Commissioners do actively state that they aim to mitigate any losses to the exchequer by entities engaging in either tax avoidance or tax evasion measures (obviously one is wholly legal, though morally dubious- the other is illegal). Measures like this- stink to high heaven- but *are* legal- and were specifically introduced to enable the government to offload AIB- and allow them reflect in the glory of a successful offloading of the states holding in the company. The taxpayers of tomorrow- bedamned- they're someone else's problem. Its yet another- mortgage on the people of tomorrow- but the political elite of today- to get a few touchy feely headlines about how good they are- and aren't they brilliant for offloading AIB- and look, we're getting the money we pumped into AIB back again (obviously ignoring the 20 billion in foregone tax from future years- because it doesn't suit the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow crap they're trying to sell).

It was Leona Helmsley who coined the term- 'Only the little people pay taxes, sweetie'......... Well, unfortunately- it appears to have been on the featured reading list of quite a few of our political elite. She was, akin to Al Capone, eventually sent to prison on conviction income tax evasion. Our politicians have turned a quite staggering income tax evasion- into an entirely legal income tax avoidance con.

Its hard not to be cynical- when you know that you- as an individual- really don't matter- but AIB, or some other entity such as the REITs- can have our tax law completely rewritten to bolster their bottom lines.....

Villa05

The_Conductor wrote:

Its hard not to be cynical- when you know that you- as an individual- really don't matter- but AIB, or some other entity such as the REITs- can have our tax law completely rewritten to bolster their bottom lines.....

Is it a facility that is only available to AIB or have all bailed out banks been given this permission to dodge tax. Could it be challenged under competition law. I'm assuming KBC do not have this facility and they got hit hard in the crash also

Browney7

The_Conductor wrote: »

And the icing on the cake- the property losses suffered by the banking sector in the implosion 10 years ago- can be carried as an asset on their balance sheets- so as to shelter the banks from paying tax for a very long time. AIB told prospective shareholders on their UK roadshows- that the revised taxation of debt- and the removal of the time limits on claiming the debts as a credit- are an asset valued at over 20 billion- wholly aside from any other factor.

I.e. the current government in addition to recapitalising the banking sector- have allowed them crystalise the same losses as an asset- and sell them a second time- to a new batch of investors, so the Irish consumer gets to pay for the same debt twice over..........

This was a policy introduced by the current government- abolishing the length of time over which a company had to amortize debt as a taxable cost- and allowing them to carry the debt as an asset in the first instance- despite the fact that it was the taxpayer who took the debt onboard.

Its actually a massive swindle, no matter how you look at it- but- its entirely legal- and vastly profitable- and its why AIB is so valuable to prospective investors- because they can shelter any profits by writing them against historic debt- indefinitely- despite the fact that the taxpayer paid for them..............

You couldn't make it up.

Do you not think that's reflected in the current Market Cap of AIB though and the potential proceeds the taxpayer can recoup through any further sale of equity?

Villa05

Browney7 wrote:

Do you not think that's reflected in the current Market Cap of AIB though and the potential proceeds the taxpayer can recoup through any further sale of equity?

No,
look back at the crisis bank bonds were selling for a fraction of their value on the market despite the Government guarantee. They were purchased by the likes of Roman Abramovich who made massive profits on the transaction

hmmm

We have too many quick fix and half baked solutions in this country, with politicians trying to please everyone. Building regulations massively increased, which naturally leads to higher prices. Rent controls introduced, and landlords leave. Taxes on landlords increased to satisfy the lefties, no-one can figure out why supply has now dropped. Homeless people moved to the top of the queue, suddenly we have thousands of "homeless".

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know you can't please everyone. We need a government with a bit of bravery to stand up and set out a clear path in one direction or another, e.g. "we want massive apartment building in the city centre, and we want professional landlords to run them. Here's a tax break to encourage this."