The Goverment should be compensating landlords

Pkiernan

The emergency anti eviction legislation that has no end in sight means that landlords can't pursue delinquent anti social tenants, nor can they sell their property.

The government should compensate these landlords for their losses, up to and including purchasing of the property at market value with current tenants in situ.
That would actually help the homeless so called crisis, as no houses are being built.

The tenants can then pay rent to the government.

super_furry

Nah.

Xterminator

HI OP

Have you considered the people who run other businesses worse affected by covid? you know people who run a restaurant or salon, have to pay rent possibly top up staff wages, and have zero income for months. are you out shouting for their greater losses?

Do you think that the public purse is infinite? Here is a hint, it is not. As the funds available are limited surely the government needs to target the most affected people and businesses. the permanent job losses are in the 1000's and the no. of people claiming covid assistance are above 400,000. The HSE budget has been thrown out the window.

perhaps you are suggesting some of the funds currently being borrowed by the exchequer should be diverted from the above schemes to assist landlords? Or more should be borrowed? have you thought this through?

Landlords have been affected, no argument. but not as bad as some sectors. I'm afraid everyone has had some pain, some sacrifice. Landlords included. Its not all refundable by the tax payer.

whippet

Xterminator wrote: »

HI OP

Have you considered the people who run other businesses worse affected by covid? you know people who run a restaurant or salon, have to pay rent possibly top up staff wages, and have zero income for months. are you out shouting for their greater losses?
.

While I agree with most of your points and the post in general .. however .. you can’t compare the majority of landlords with business as long as the government treat their tax affairs as personal income tax ...

Xterminator

I remember the taximen losing their minds when the government brought in the current taxi regulations and issuing more taxi plates. Regulation often comes at a price. the bet REITs love the current regime, and the little guy doesn't. I agree that tenants who break the lease or withhold rent should be evicted within 2 months (outside of the current pandemic where 400,000 people are still not working).

You don't have to be a landlord. you were not bonded into landlordship by birth with no choice and were forbidden from having another job. i once worked in a fast food restaurant and it suited me when i left school. it helped when i was in college, and i wouldnt work there by choice now. The point is i didn't like the regime/industry/hours/remuneration and changed my profession.

I don't know your circumstances/obligations etc, but i do believe that you entered into any obligations of your own free will and that your not 'owed' a living by the state.

Landlords provide a valuable service and i think the successive governments have outsourced the whole rental sector to them. Im not personally against them in any way. But just look at the bigger picture when it come to calling for taxpayers to bail you out.

housetypeb

Restaurants aren't forced to keep feeding a customer that won't pay, while landlords are expected to not disrupt their non paying tenant in the peaceful enjoyment of their free abode by demanding payment - gotta waste time going through the RTB.

dubrov

whippet wrote:

While I agree with most of your points and the post in general .. however .. you can’t compare the majority of landlords with business as long as the government treat their tax affairs as personal income tax ...

Eh, what business is allowed to pay salaries exempt from income tax?

jrosen

I can see some merit in an argument for something

Im a landlord, have great tenants so this wouldnt impact me. But if a landlord has been forced to allow a tenant stay in a property where he/she is either not paying rent, running the property down etc then i do think there should be some come back or break for losses to the landlord over the time the government have a ban on evictions.
In normal circumstances the landlord would be able to take steps to evict the person and re let the property.

Xterminator

housetypeb wrote: »

Restaurants aren't forced to keep feeding a customer that won't pay, while landlords are expected to not disrupt their non paying tenant in the peaceful enjoyment of their free abode by demanding payment - gotta waste time going through the RTB.

no but they still pay rent gas and electricity and wages with no income coming in the door.

At least the vast majority of landlords kept their income, and those who didn't can resort to the courts to recover any outstanding debts.

Are you really that blinkered that you cannot see how other businesses have been affected? No One is saying landlords have been exempt from problems during the eviction ban. Im simply saying as an industry it has not been hit as bad as some others.

beauf

Pkiernan wrote: »

The emergency anti eviction legislation that has no end in sight means that landlords can't pursue delinquent anti social tenants, nor can they sell their property.

The government should compensate these landlords for their losses, up to and including purchasing of the property at market value with current tenants in situ.
That would actually help the homeless so called crisis, as no houses are being built.

The tenants can then pay rent to the government.

Lost cause, you'll get no support.

The Govt has created ticking bomb on housing. This is just packing more explosives more around it. Being a LL is Russian Roulette at the moment.

beauf

Xterminator wrote: »

no but they still pay rent gas and electricity and wages with no income coming in the door.

At least the vast majority of landlords kept their income, and those who didn't can resort to the courts to recover any outstanding debts.

Are you really that blinkered?

You don't understand the issue if you think going to courts is going to recover debts for an over-holding tenant. All the LL wants is his property back as fast as possible. To minimize loses. What we do in this country is maximize the losses on the LL.

housetypeb

Xterminator wrote: »

... No One is saying landlords have been exempt from problems during the eviction ban. Im simply saying as an industry it has not been hit as bad as some others.

They seem to be the only business model being told to not mitigate their loss as speedily as possible though.
Forcing any business to continue serving a non paying customer for an indefinite time is bad law in any book.

An Ri rua

whippet wrote: »

While I agree with most of your points and the post in general .. however .. you can’t compare the majority of landlords with business as long as the government treat their tax affairs as personal income tax ...

?? It's no different than someone sizeably 'trading as' rather than limited company. Company protection is there, should they choose it. Other than that, yes, they are in business, and yes it's taxed as income tax. Same as any other small business.

In addition, how does changing ownership of the rented asset ease the homelessness crisis OP?

whippet

An Ri rua wrote: »

?? It's no different than someone sizeably 'trading as' rather than limited company. Company protection is there, should they choose it. Other than that, yes, they are in business, and yes it's taxed as income tax. Same as any other small business.

In addition, how does changing ownership of the rented asset ease the homelessness crisis OP?

That’s incorrect .. private landlords pay USC on all rental income and tax at the the full page rate on the rent also .. slight tax breaks for interest... when revenue take the guts of 50% of any companies revenue let me know.

An Ri rua

whippet wrote: »

That’s incorrect .. private landlords pay USC on all rental income and tax at the the full page rate on the rent also .. slight tax breaks for interest... when revenue take the guts of 50% of any companies revenue let me know.

'Company' being the key word.

whippet

An Ri rua wrote: »

'Company' being the key word.

The vast majority of private landlords have one or two properties .. forming a company etc serves no purpose.

mick087

No its an investmnent a gamble.

If damage is done then they should pursue the tenant through the legal sytem.

If rent is to be paid to the goverment it should be paid to the local housing association or council once the house belong to the council.

I for one dont wish to pay anymore gambling debts.

beauf

mick087 wrote: »

...

I for one dont wish to pay anymore gambling debts.

You are already. Govt outsourcing housing to the private sector was a gamble that hasn't worked out.

An Ri rua

whippet wrote: »

The vast majority of private landlords have one or two properties .. forming a company etc serves no purpose.

Once again, same as any other small business. What exactly is your point?

Smouse156

beauf wrote: »

You are already. Govt outsourcing housing to the private sector was a gamble that hasn't worked out.

True but adding one more isn’t preferable. I doubt anyone is going to support bailing out landlords

Graham

mick087 wrote: »

I for one dont wish to pay anymore gambling debts.

The fact you think rent being paid is a gamble says a lot about the state of the market.

It probably explains why many landlords are either leaving the market or turning to AirBnB

mick087

Graham wrote: »

The fact you think rent being paid is a gamble says a lot about the state of the market.

It probably explains why many landlords are either leaving the market or turning to AirBnB

Buying a house to rent is an investment, to me any investment is a gamble.

Im in favour of less private landlords and more decent social council homes being built. This then would cut out the private landlord.

beauf

Smouse156 wrote: »

True but adding one more isn’t preferable. I doubt anyone is going to support bailing out landlords

Adding one more what?

I agree there will be no support for it.

At some point in the future maybe 3-4 years from now they may have give tax concessions to get more rentals on the market or new builds. But even that is highly unlikely. They may never do that again.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/section-23-tax-relief-developments-a-roaring-success-story-for-investors-1.1130195

beauf

mick087 wrote: »

Buying a house to rent is an investment, to me any investment is a gamble.

Im in favour of less private landlords and more decent social council homes being built. This then would cut out the private landlord.

They outsourced it to save money. You'll be paying it as tax either way, to fund public building projects or outsourcing it to the private sector. Renting entire hotels and guest houses in lieu of housing isn't cheap either.

whippet

An Ri rua wrote: »

Once again, same as any other small business. What exactly is your point?

The point is If an individual sets up a company to rent a single property they are still paying personal rates of income tax ... but this mantra of landlords need to treat it as a business is nonsense as the system does not allow them to do so. Believe me .. I tried when I had one rental property and just sold it as it wasn’t worth the hassle and small long term returns .. investing in a fund was far more rewarding.

Why do you think there are so many private landlords wanting to get out when rents are skyhigh? System is broken for both renters and landlords.

I was also one of those landlords who had the misfortune of a rogue tenant destroying my property -€8k worst of damage and leaving with €6k of arrears.

I went to the RTB got a determination and as the tenant was a social welfare recipient.. i never not will see a penny of that.

Now .. if I was to just kick them out on the street like I wanted to rather than follow the tenant friendly process you can be sure I’d have had to pay over a significant 10 figure some to the scroungers

beauf

The dogma treat it like a business isn't tax advice, it's about the general approach and not be sentiment or soft about following rules or making it personal.

Unfortunately rental market gets a soft touch in terms enforcing the law.

mick087

beauf wrote: »

They outsourced it to save money. You'll be paying it as tax either way, to fund public building projects or outsourcing it to the private sector. Renting entire hotels and guest houses in lieu of housing isn't cheap either.

But if we was paying tax for council homes being built then we have something to show for it, we have something for the Irish citizens.
I see no reason we are not mass building social council housing.

Smouse156

beauf wrote: »

Adding one more what?

I agree there will be no support for it.

At some point in the future maybe 3-4 years from now they may have give tax concessions to get more rentals on the market or new builds. But even that is highly unlikely. They may never do that again.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/section-23-tax-relief-developments-a-roaring-success-story-for-investors-1.1130195

Adding more private gambling debt to the public debt, like we did when we bailed out the banks and the broke glorified brickie developers.

beauf

mick087 wrote: »

But if we was paying tax for council homes being built then we have something to show for it, we have something for the Irish citizens.
I see no reason we are not mass building social council housing.

We'd be paying for all those tenants, who are not paying rent during the lock down etc. Or over holding and those few who cause loads of damage. We'd be paying for all the legal cases arising out of those, and repairing any damage caused. Instead the Private Landlords are. They are also mainly funding the RTB, AFAIK.

I would say its not really worked.

But the idea that the state isn't getting anything out of it is false.

Pkiernan

I have a house id like to sell.

224 days notice due to tenants.
I was going to give a full year.

I cannot serve even a years notice under this emergency legislation .

beauf

Smouse156 wrote: »

Adding more private gambling debt to the public debt, like we did when we bailed out the banks and the broke glorified brickie developers.

Investment, or "gambling" as you call it, has rebuilt the country.

Its a very different country than it was 40yrs ago because of it.

Can't make omelettes without breaking eggs.

DubCount

mick087 wrote: »

Buying a house to rent is an investment, to me any investment is a gamble.

Im in favour of less private landlords and more decent social council homes being built. This then would cut out the private landlord.

This never stops amazing me.

Buying a house to rent out is an investment. So a LL can maximise their investment by increasing rent? No - buying a house to rent out is a social service. So should the state support losses incurred in providing a social service? No buying a house to rent out is an investment? So can a LL select the tenants they want based on their ability to pay? No - buying a house to rent out is a social service......

Its a never ending game of Landlord heads I lose, tails I Lose.

The state providing housing through council built and managed properties is a great idea - but we cant afford it, and the Councils dont want to do it anyway even if the tooth fairy provides the funding.

For as long as we have a private rental sector, pick a side and stick to it. Its either and investment or a social service - its not what suits the government to hide from its own responsibilities.

beauf

Pkiernan wrote: »

I have a house id like to sell.

224 days notice due to tenants.
I was going to give a full year.

I cannot serve even a years notice under this emergency legislation .

There was talk about the Govt stopping LLs from selling up. They said it would never happen because it would be unconstitutional.

I know this is an emergency. But makes you think...

Pkiernan

The government's bailing out partime student workers at 350 week, and wage subsidies to people sitting at home doing nothing.

How can lls be prevented from elling their property?

beauf

The private rental market was forced into taking social housing. They didn't want it.

Anyway no way will there be any payments for LLs. It would be too unpopular.

beauf

Pkiernan wrote: »

The government's bailing out partime student workers at 350 week, and wage subsidies to people sitting at home doing nothing.

How can lls be prevented from elling their property?

You can't sell without vacant possession. You can't get a property vacant.

Pkiernan

beauf wrote: »

You can't sell without vacant possession. You can't get a property vacant.

I know. I'm the OP, wanting to sell.

Smouse156

beauf wrote: »

Investment, or "gambling" as you call it, has rebuilt the country.

Its a very different country than it was 40yrs ago because of it.

Can't make omelettes without breaking eggs.

Agreed! But taking risks involves failure. One can’t have all the upside and then look for a bailout on the downside

beauf

Smouse156 wrote: »

Agreed! But taking risks involves failure. One can’t have all the upside and then look for a bailout on the downside

So your saying tenants shouldn't have got a bailout...

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

If the government want to criminalise the eviction of non-paying tenants, then why don't they foot the bill for non-payers?

Money should be stopped from wages or single mother's allowance etc.

To the person who suggested recouping moneys through the courts? LOL. As if Jacinta the town bike could or would cooperate and even if she did there's no chance her single mothers allowance would be stopped.

perfectkama

Thank god de pubs are open

Pkiernan

Smouse156 wrote: »

Agreed! But taking risks involves failure. One can’t have all the upside and then look for a bailout on the downside

What are all the upsides exactly? Please show me how I can get them?

How would you like it if the government forced you to work for your employer for 12 months after they stopped paying you?
And if you refused to work for nothing you get fined 10 grand?

perfectkama

op ur post has descended into most exciting black hole to which all contributors here should be part... now its not to late 4 de pub

An Ri rua

whippet wrote: »

The point is If an individual sets up a company to rent a single property they are still paying personal rates of income tax ... but this mantra of landlords need to treat it as a business is nonsense as the system does not allow them to do so. Believe me .. I tried when I had one rental property and just sold it as it wasn’t worth the hassle and small long term returns .. investing in a fund was far more rewarding.

Why do you think there are so many private landlords wanting to get out when rents are skyhigh? System is broken for both renters and landlords.

I was also one of those landlords who had the misfortune of a rogue tenant destroying my property -€8k worst of damage and leaving with €6k of arrears.

I went to the RTB got a determination and as the tenant was a social welfare recipient.. i never not will see a penny of that.

Now .. if I was to just kick them out on the street like I wanted to rather than follow the tenant friendly process you can be sure I’d have had to pay over a significant 10 figure some to the scroungers

This is the problem. It IS a business and unfortunately reluctant and accidental landlords, those with one or maybe two houses, aren't able or don't want to meet the regulatory requirements, be they tax, health and safety, legal etc. For a variety of reasons.
The returns that small landlords expect from property is the problem. And unrealistic. 5% is good and 10% would be phenomenal. It's a long-term game. Not realistic to compare it to a fund as the asset is also appreciating. More akin to shares with dividends.
Incidentally, shares with dividends cause income tax. Shares without cause CGT. Assuming profits of course.
You mentioned setting up a company. In that case, the company pays corporation tax, and you as a director pay income tax on salaries taken. If you get it in your pocket, you'll pay income tax.
If it's set up as trading as, you'll pay income tax and USC etc. Same as any sideline second income.

An Ri rua

Pkiernan wrote: »

What are all the upsides exactly? Please show me how I can get them?

How would you like it if the government forced you to work for your employer for 12 months after they stopped paying you?
And if you refused to work for nothing you get fined 10 grand?

Clearly there are downsides. Dodgy non paying tenants etc.
But upsides? You have had tenants in constant occupancy such that they are entitled to 224 days notice (they earned that). Yes, those rules changed in very recent years and that's caught many landlords unaware. But they earned that security. Or a good measure of it, before the increases. Agreed?

I assume they always paid their bills on time? Should be a given. But in business, how many pay their bills on time? I spent 1/3 of my month as a rep, back in the day, collecting (dragging) cheques out of customers.

Also, have they been there 7 or 8 years? Close enough I think? Was the furniture and white goods new on day 1? What I'm getting at is did you claim allowances on a new 8 year cycle but the tenants didn't see those goods? I am sure many landlords do. I've had family and friends fall victim to it.. Charged a tidy sum but no refurb in 5-6-7-8 years, yet clearly old furniture and white goods on arrival. So that means the landlord has been claiming allowances at 12.5% per annum on goods bought for personal purposes or at least not for that tenancy anyway. Be very clear, I'm not insinuating anything about your practices. I'm saying that there are upsides to be had, though in that example marginal at best and dodgy at worst.

The regulatory regime as it stands does not suit small landlords. It is most definitely aiming towards REITs and institutional investors. I wish you well in your sale and I hope the process works out well for both you and tenants. It's important for everyone to start well and finish well.
Kind regards

Graham

An Ri rua wrote: »

in business, how many pay their bills on time? I spent 1/3 of my month as a rep, back in the day, collecting (dragging) cheques out of customers

Were you at any stage compelled by law to continue supplying goods/services to those that didn't pay for 12 - 24 months (while paying customers were excluded)?

larva

Are LLs really expecting to get paid their due rent at the end of this from their tenants because there will be thousands owed that will take longer to pay back than the time left on a lease in many instances. Taking of a deposit for some compensation and the eviction if still non paying

Graham

I expect most tenants who have come to an arrangement with their landlords will stick to them where they are able.

I've no doubt there will be a larger number than usual that are either unwilling or unable to pay but I don't think it's helpful or accurate to suggest this will be the majority.

An Ri rua

Graham wrote: »

Were you at any stage compelled by law to continue supplying goods/services to those that didn't pay for 12 - 24 months (while paying customers were excluded)?

100% fair point.
Just pick your tenants carefully.

Xterminator

Xterminator wrote: »

no but they still pay rent gas and electricity and wages with no income coming in the door.
.

Rent yes, gas minimal when closed, electricity minimal when closed and government are paying 80% of wages if people are kept on or they can just lay them off so wage bills are minimal.

Yellow_Fern

whippet wrote: »

That’s incorrect .. private landlords pay USC on all rental income and tax at the the full page rate on the rent also .. slight tax breaks for interest... when revenue take the guts of 50% of any companies revenue let me know.

What you could add is that rental income is treated as unearned income and so the USC contributions don't count as real contributions which I think is horribly unfair.