Woshy wrote: » We are sale agreed on a house and after a lot of soul searching and agonising we are proceeding. We signed the contracts the end of last week. We're not sure if the vendors will sign as they are also purchasing a property. They may pull out and if so, we're ok with that. It is what it is. This is our long-term family house and we're looking in a very specific area for family reasons and a property has been hard to find. We have a decent deposit as we're not first time buyers and the mortgage we will be taking is a good bit below what we had been approved for. We purposely didn't want to go too mad. We also have a good amount left in our savings after paying the deposit. The mortgage will be 18% of our current income and we think both our jobs are fairly secure (especially mine). We did a lot of sums on how we would afford the mortgage on one salary and how that would work. The rate is fixed for three years so we know what payments will be. I don't feel great about it, we really weren't sure if we would pull out or not but given all the info we made the best decision we could. Time will tell, I guess!
Springy Turf wrote: » Could you come to some arrangement with them to put the house up for sale now? Obviously no-one really knows what will happen - but I personally would be eager to get rid of the property ASAP, and unfortunately in Ireland it can take an age for a sale to close.
sparkledrum wrote: » I have had tenants in my property for almost 10 years. They have now decided to move back to Poland. I don't want to rent anymore, I want to sell the property. They're hoping to go mid August. Is it a really bad time to sell?
awec wrote: » You can see the start of it already with the 2m cut to 1m argument.
IAmTheReign wrote: » But large scale investors think in longer terms than 12 months. If you have a choice in renting an apartment immediately for 1,600 or waiting 3 months to rent it at 2,000 you break even after just 15 months. 15 months @ 1,600 = 24,000 12 months @ 2,000 = 24,000 A year later and holding out for the higher rent is worth nearly 5,000. 27 months @ 1,600 = 43,200 24 months @ 2,000 = 48,000 And with the rent cap at 4% this difference gets compounded every 2 years when you can review the rent.
Augeo wrote: » Indeed, built for corporate lets, not AirB&B etc. From a government viewpoint with all the corporate stuff going on in that neck of the woods, accommodation to support it is/was needed. The stock is now there and will no doubt be used for something if and when required. Having them there is far better then not IMO.
ngunners wrote: » What does this even mean? What will they be used for? By whom? Wouldn't 'if and when required' be right now, in the midst of a housing crisis?
The_Conductor wrote: » Its nonsensical that some landlords pay up to 54% on rental income while REITS get away with paying nada.
The_Conductor wrote: » Why? There wouldn't be any 14k limit anymore- you could earn whatever you want and just pay a flatrate tax on it. Income of 20k (not unreasonable) would net you 15k. It has to be set at a reasonable and realistic level- but I honestly think the whole 14k rent-a-room relief should be consigned to the dustbin.
neutral guy wrote: » The breakfast roll cost 2 euros in 2004 my town now cost 4.50
Springy Turf wrote: » Well there's the rub. I know I personally would never rent a room in my home if I had to pay any tax on it. It just wouldn't be worth it. In terms of other tax changes - the question first is what do you want houses to be used for. If you lower the tax rate for PAYE landlords, you will end up with more rental properties, and less owner occupiers. That's not something I would want to see.
fliball123 wrote: » You do realise if the landlord is working there is a high possibility that they are paying 51% as rental income is taxed as normal income
The_Conductor wrote: » I don't think the rent-a-room scheme should get special preference either- I think *all* rental income- should get a flatrate tax on it- without exception.
c.p.w.g.w wrote: » There is a number of houses in my sisters estate, rented to students for the academic year...strangely enough looking at the what they are charging for the rooms...they all earn under €14,000 a year. I bet the tax man is getting none of that money...smells like rent a room scheme without the home owner actually living there
The_Conductor wrote: » I think that the entire rental sector should be taxed in an identical manner. I'd argue that a flatrate tax of, say, 25% of rental income, with no allowances or deductions- applied in an identical manner, across the board- would be fair and equitable. With 356,500 private rented units in Ireland and a standardised average national rent rate of €1,129 (Jan 2019 figures, according to the RTB)- this means the private rental market is worth in the region of 5 billion- and a flatrate tax @ 25% would be worth approximately 1.25 billion to the exchequer. I have no idea what landlords are currently paying to the exchequer (as-in- a total)- but it must be a portion of the 1.25 billion that I suggest would accrue with a 25% flatrate tax on gross rental incomes.
JimmyVik wrote: » I wonder how much it would be worth if you taxed the REITS in exactly the same way as normal landlords.
Assetbacked wrote: » My guess is that they are kept high on purpose in order to achieve the aim of starving the market of supply. Kennedy Wilson and others are lecherous entities and should be beaten out of the market with the stick of regulation in the form of reduced tax benefits (i.e. tax on vacant, habitable properties and tax on rental income at rates equivalent to individual landlords).
smurgen wrote: » So the rents of these new luxury apartments that have sprung up are too high and the proposed fix is to lift the rent cap? This place is funny.
brisan wrote: » They are locked into market rates If a landlord reduces rent from say 2k to 1600 thats a 400 drop. So over 12 months that's 4800 By leaving the apt sitting there for 3 months he has lost 6k Its only worth money if he leases it out I know he is thinking eventually he will make money if he leaves it at 2k ,but he has no guarantee when, if ever prices will go back to their previous level
Assetbacked wrote: » I wonder could it be constructed to offer a 12 month fixed term lease with current preferred rate of rent due each month, with an add on of a month or two or whatever free rent at the end if the tenant adheres to the terms of the 12 month fixed term lease and unless both parties agree otherwise. So the landlord secures 12 months worth of rent in the next 15 months at his preferred rate and ensures he's not caught at a lower rate if things recover by then.
