scheister wrote: » I like the above idea but it might not be feesable cost wise. What about an SSIA type product where the bonus is only paid if account is used as part of a property purchase. My mind is also thinking the solution is not to put more money in the purchasers hands as that will only increase prices but find a way to make buildings the houses cheaper.
The Student wrote: » Correct I am suggesting extending the rent a room model to landlords. An example may help, assume a couple is paying €2000 per month in rent. The Landlord sees €1000 after tax and Revenue get the other €1000. Instead the tenant pays the landlord €1000 and the landlord has no tax liability on that. The tenant gets a tax credit of €1000 equivalent to the €1000 the Revenue were receiving. After one year the tenant has €12000 in tax credits, after two years they have €24000. These tax credits can be used as a deposit on a property. The tenant is then out of the rent trap and can afford to purchase a new property for a lower monthly repayment then the rent. Ultimately they will not need to be housed by the State in the future. Taking this onwards the property the person was renting now becomes available for the rental market so the supply of rental properties has increased by one which can be used to house those who will be renters for life (either by choice or financial reasons). As supply has increased and demand remains the same (in this scenario) the rent price will decrease.
L1011 wrote: » It has no end date. I think they are suggesting that an equivalent relief should be allowed for landlords with one (or more?) rental property that isn't a PPR; with the expectation that it'd reduce rents. It'd also reduce tax income but presumably they think it'd reduce HAP expenditure equivalently. But I may have interpreted it entirely wrong so don't take this as putting words in their mouth! Realistically very hard to work out the state revenue impact of such an idea due to an obvious loss of income vs a potential reduction in expenditure.
Nevermindnow wrote: » I'm out of touch. Do you mean the 14k tax free rent a room relief? I didn't realise that it had an end date in the near future. I could be picking up this wrongly though.
The Student wrote: » The opt in tax treatment would be unfair as it would act as a disincentive to make repairs/improvements as it could not be written off against tax. I have suggested extending the rent a room scheme to the Minister via the housing forum last year.
barrier86 wrote: » awec wrote: » Cash buyers would probably be preferred in every single sale. It's nothing new, they are the least amount of hassle. I agree. But this is pretty much saying mortgage buyers are not welcome, it doesn’t sit right with me at all. That’s just me, mind.
awec wrote: » Cash buyers would probably be preferred in every single sale. It's nothing new, they are the least amount of hassle.
barrier86 wrote: » Just thought I’d throw this in here. I saw a house today go up for sale. Estate agents first line in the description is Cash Buyers Preferred. How do first time buyers even have a chance anymore?
LotharIngum wrote: » Just having a chat with a colleague about that now and he made some very good points. He said that's going to have a lot of consequences. House prices for normal buyers are going to be inflated. Rents are going to go up because unless you are on hap you aren't getting a house in the near future. Because now landlords wants to invest now anyway and then you have the Reits being the only ones owning houses for rent, and those are rented to the council. So now you have majority council estates with a minority of suckers who bought in them. We have central bank rules to cool housing prices but we have the government/councils inflating purchase prices now by buying up the available houses by proxy and then also getting their 10% allocation on top of that. Its the government again going to overheat the property market. All just to cover up mistake after mistake that they have made with trying to push social tenants to private landlords. Its going to be an unmitigated disaster.
The Student wrote: » This does not surprise me at all. We don't have the capital to build so its cheaper in the short term to rent with the REITS for the Council, however in the long term it is more expensive for the Council. And yes the middle income worker not entitled to any State Support is screwed yet again. Isn't Ireland just a great place to live!
LotharIngum wrote: » Theres going to be more of that to come. My other half works in the coco office and she told me that they are now going direct to REITS and telling them that they will rent as many houses as they can buy off them on very long leases. They are trying to encourage the REITS to buy houses as well as apartments. Great deal if youre are a REIT. Buy 50 houses in bulk for a discount. And be guaranteed before you even buy them that you can rent to them to the council with no input for 30 years or whatever the lease is. They cant lose. The loser there is the tax payer and the normal house buyer. Tax payer pays for the houses. Normal buyer has to compete with super power when looking to buy. When the normal buyer does buy it turns out they are a private owner in a majority council estate. The middle income worker is just so screwed in this country.
voluntary wrote: » On the other hand, REITs buying the whole blocks in bulk provide a superb demand to builders and pay no delay cash so the same builder can immediately start building more and more blocks instead of trying to offload one by one to the public first. We will get more builds in less time due to REITs.
jay0109 wrote: » Like the outcome of French revolution, it's too early to say. Lets see in 10 years time, especially if the REITs/Foreign Funds keep buying up whole blocks at a time.
Amirani wrote: » Are all private landlords tax resident in Ireland?
AlmightyCushion wrote: » You're leaving out that REITs must distribute at least 85% if their income to shareholders. Those shareholders will then pay tax/PRSI/USC on those dividends.
Amirani wrote: » We're in a better situation now than we were previously with respective to the variety of landlords. This is being masked somewhat by the lack of supply across the board, which is causing all the main issues we're seeing.
awec wrote: » Government won't do this, because what's most likely to happen is the tenant's rent stays at €2000 and the landlord just pockets the extra €1000. Giving landlords a tax break and then expecting them to pass it all on to tenants is naive.
jay0109 wrote: » For years we listened to Commentators and Politicians calling for the 'professionalisation' of the Irish landlord, that there was too many amateurs in the market renting out 1 house each. Well, be careful what you wish for
voluntary wrote: » I don't like quoting SF sources, but it came up first in the google:"Foreign REIT investors paid between 2% and 3% effective tax on €238 million of property profits in 2015 – Doherty" “The only tax paid by foreign REIT shareholders is Dividend Withholding Tax (DWT), when dividends are paid to them. The rates of DWT for foreign investors vary from 20% to 15% to 0%. " “It is a scandal that foreign investors in REITs earned €238 million in profits from their Irish property holdings in 2015, but in the same year, these investors only paid €5.27 million tax to the State, an effective tax rate of 2%. “Furthermore, foreign investors are not liable to Capital Gains Tax on the disposal of REIT shares"https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/45147 Would the above be factually incorrect?
Cryptopagan wrote: » They are subject to Dividend Withholding Tax whether they are resident in Ireland or not.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0a6588cde0d154ae21c3c7b22084752a.svg)
