Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The eviction ban

1246737

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,562 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    AFAIK the tenant would have to match the other offer, they would have first refusal but only at the market price. The LL would not have any obligation to accept a lower offer from a sitting tenant.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,562 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    Th legislation has yet to be finalised but it doesn't force a LL to sell just give a sitting tenant first refusal, the opportunity for a sitting tenant who is in receipt of HAP to apply to a local authority buy + rent back scheme but either would be at the market price i.e. match any offer from a private buyer.

    The LL still has the choice to sell or not so there's no compulsory purchase element to it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,562 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    It won't be easy to get the balance right. The legislation will need to avoid inflating house prices by putting local authorities in a bidding war against private buyers.

    It also needs to consider the needs of private renters who aren't in receipt of HAP but don't have the means to have a deposit or get a mortgage.

    This middle cohort, above the HAP means threshold but below the means to buy should not be forgotten and left hang out to dry.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Not good enough, you need to cut income tax on rent to the bone, as well as guarantee the rent for non payers, sorry but that’s what it’ll take to make landlords turn around and decide it’s worth the risk, or potential investors investing. A debt moratorium WTF postponing someone’s debt when what they want to do is get it paid off as quickly as possible? Nope sorry there’s a price to keep people letting properties and the government either pays it or watches the rental market collapse.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,562 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    or why not just cut out the middle man and have the government give the renters a free home ...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    They’re welcome to do it, but there has to be a radical overhaul of the system if they want to keep the landlords they have, they’ll just keep leaving if their costs aren’t covered or it’s causing hardship, simple as that



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,562 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    One thing worth looking at, that I haven't seen much mention of, is to defer or reduce inheritance tax / capital gains tax on a property, perhaps on a sliding scale, provided it is rented for a number of years. This could help reduce the number of forced estate sales.

    There's no single magic bullet. It will take a number of coordinated measures to navgate a way out of the current housing crisis.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,974 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    The biggest problem with selling to sitting tenants or the council is that it only addresses one segment of the rental market ie families. If the family could afford to buy the place of the landlord there is a decent chance that would happen anyway as there is nothing stopping them bidding anyway.

    It doesn't address a situation where you have a number of adults house sharing. This is not unusual ie at college, starting first job etc. It's very hard for 4/5 people to buy a house together even if they want to. It's s highly unlikely that a number of random people or even friends will want to buy a house together. Even in a situation where a council bought a house like this it's unlikely they would keep renting to the existing tenants. The housing lists are long enough.

    The biggest problem with the eviction ban is that its a short term only measure and long term makes the rental market worse. We need people investing in housing and the rental market. An eviction ban just makes the situation worse for people wanting to rent in future as it puts investors off. It also discourages landlords putting houses back on market when tenancies naturally end.

    The only people it benefits at all are existing tenants. No one seems to care about future renters. Which has been the focus of all measures so far introduced by the government egged on by the opposition. Unfortunately measures that produce a functional rental market don't seem to be vote winners.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,694 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    How on earth is a landlord playing the system by using the rent money to pay their mortgage?

    Your posts are like something PBP would come out with.



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭squidgainz


    What's your point tho? The rent is still disgustingly high. My response was in reply to someone laughably claiming landlords are charity hahaha



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,560 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    That may well be the case, but good luck arguing that in court.

    Landlords who take court action will point to the numbers and say this measure is affecting our rights and doing nothing for the policy problem, the solution lies elsewhere and not in attacking our rights. Court will likely agree and tell government to address the other 9 reasons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,560 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    We are one of the most equal countries in the world, and also have less poverty than most.



  • Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Ham_Sandwich


    everyone is entitled to a home it should be a referendum but alot of land lords are up against it they have to pay taxes on there wages and there money they get from the rent should be one or the other and lot of land lords are there by accident not fair to tar them all with the one brush



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭squidgainz


    Another person who doesn't believe in income tax. Christ on a bike.



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭squidgainz




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,608 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    To be honest, the government should never have introduced the eviction ban as it just stored up problems. We will now have a big bang mass eviction when this expires. The ban was never sustainable.

    Another massive policy mistake as a result of bowing to populism. Government deserve all the opprobrium they get.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,117 ✭✭✭eggy81




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,880 ✭✭✭Economics101


    Tax breaks, like cutting tax on rental income "to the bone", are generally a terrible idea. They narrow the tax base and make marginal tax rates higher then they otherwise might be. If landlords' taxable income is defined properly and consistently with any other small businesses, i don't see the problem: you deduct all relevant costs, such as mortgage, maintenance, etc and you tax what's left. I'm not sure if landlord's rental income is treated consistently with other businesses.

    Maybe someone can clarify this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,295 ✭✭✭Deeec


    Right Im going to try and explain something to you - first of all of course landlords should pay income tax but they shouldnt have to pay such a high amount. Alot of the anti-landlord brigade dont realise that landlords only get a tax deduction on the interest portion of their mortgage payment - they do not get a tax deduction for the capital portion. This means although the mortgage may be substantially covered by the rent paid the landlord can still be left with a cashflow problem due to tax. See the example below - lets assume for simplicity annual rental income is €18000, mortgage is €15600, interest portion is €2400.

    Tax calculation

    Rent €18000

    Interest -€2400

    Insurance -€1000

    Misc exp -€3200

    PROFIT -€11,400

    Tax @ 52% -€5928 ( assuming all landlords credits, cut off used in PAYE job)


    Now lets look at this from a cashflow point of view ( money in v money out)

    Rent €18000

    Mortgage -€15600

    Insurance - €1000

    Misc exp -€3200

    Tax -€5928

    Deficit -€7728 - This means €7728 per year has to come from somewhere else to cover the costs of having the rental property

    All the above is before the landlord needs to spend money on furniture, boilers, structural repairs etc. Can you now see why landlords want to get out?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,608 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    It's not exactly fair though to subsidize the capital though. At the end of the day, the landlord is left with a valuable asset.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 192 ✭✭boccers


    I wonder do most people realise this because if they do I don't see how so much hatred for landlords can be out there. Your example perfectly illustrates why so many landlords are leaving the market. A rental company that is taxed at 12.5% and can write off all expenses is so different to a regular PAYE worker/workers with a second house they are renting out being taxed as your example shows.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,295 ✭✭✭Deeec


    They may be left with a valuable asset depending on location, type of property, condition of the property, market at the time etc. But If landlords have to every year pull money from other income or savings to cover the cost of a rental property than its not a great investment. Many small landlords are struggling personally because of this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,295 ✭✭✭Deeec


    Most people think the rent paid to the landlord is covering the mortgage and its happy days for the landlord when its far from that when tax is factored in. Maybe the government should look at allowing all the mortgage payment to be tax deductible and then charge a larger capital gains tax rate when rental properties are sold.

    Of course its a different story for landlords that have no mortgage - they are doing well.



  • Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭bluedex


    It doesn't really matter what anyone thinks of LLs. There are certain facts and logical conclusions that the LL bashers don't seem to acknowledge.

    Facts:

    • There has been increased government intervention in the rental market over the last 5-10 years, like rent controls and now the "eviction ban".
    • There has been a mass exodus from the rental market by private property owners - it's not a recent phenomenon, it started years ago when owners saw the commentary, the trends and the likely outcome, which they predicted correctly in the main.

    Conclusion:

    • It's reasonable to say there's a link a between the two points above.

    Although I can understand the short term emotional/humanitarian reasons for a temporary winter ban, from a medium/long term prospective the eviction ban should not have been imposed as this will reduce supply further. Supply is already way too low for the property market as a whole, buyers and renters.

    So, it's irrelevant what anyone thinks of LLs. Being a LL basher achieves absolutely nothing and actually exacerbates the problem, it's just people having a moan and ignoring the real issues.

    Less private LLs = less supply of rental properties = higher rents & more people without their own home.

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,608 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    That's the risk you take with investing, returns are not guaranteed.

    To change it that so the amount of money that a landlord would need to put in is reduced effectively makes it a state guaranteed completely risk free investment. i.e. essentially giving assets to the wealthy.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,965 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    You say that like most landlords are actually paying tax.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭Sunny Disposition


    Giving tenants 'first refusal' to buy houses if a landlord sells, yet another stupid idea, which will spook existing landlords and make investors less likely to get involved. The State needs to stay the fck out of things, coercinglandlords to do things with properties they actually own is going to discourage people from continuing to rent out housing.


    Ending the eviction ban is 100% the right move, but it will be opposed by the likes of PBP, SF etc. It's not that these people have sh!t for brains, they also know it's the right move and that extending it would further worsen the position for tenants.

    However they are also very cynical and are gambling that they can inflict some political damage on their opponents. They think the public are so stupid that they won't understand that an eviction ban discourages landlords and will lead to further scarcity.

    Rent controls and eviction bans have been unmitigated disasters, but still these loony lefters want more of such measures. Populism at its worst. And FF/FG introducing these things in the first place is a big part of the reason the market is fcked.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,295 ✭✭✭Deeec


    The vast majority of landlords are paying tax. You will still have idiots though that are not - legislation on rental properties is so strict now that any landlord not declaring their income to revenue is very foolish. Ive heard of a case recently where a landlords insurance wouldnt pay up because he wasnt registered with revenue. Any landlord not paying tax will be eventually be caught out one way or another.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭Sunny Disposition


    Excellent point. Landlord bashing has been the basis for a lot of Irish housing policy and it has destroyed the market. A load of jackasses thought the landlords will just be there anyway, no matter what obstacles are put in their path. Well, they're finding out that's not the case.


    Given the stupidity it has shown in recent years it is very surprising that the Government opted to do the right thing by tenants and landlords by ending the eviction ban. They're even trying to explain why it's a good idea, in the face of a crowd of idiots (who also know what the right thing to do is) shouting and wailing.


    It really is a serious indictment of SF, they know measures like the eviction ban are going to result in more hardship for tenants, but they still criticise the ending of it, because they believe the public are too stupid to understand the reality.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,560 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Mortgage interest relief is gone or reduced. Certain expenses such as refurbishment pre-renting aren't allowed either. Neither are purchase costs such as solicitor and estate agent fees etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭Sunny Disposition


    The State shouldn't underwrite their investment. Realistically if a landlord can't break even at the moment they should never have got involved in property. The idea that the State would take the risk out of it is yet another well-intentioned but utterly impractical idea that would destroy the market in time.

    The State needs to confine itself to building houses, not trying to help or hinder landlords. The vast majority of them would just like to be left alone. They'll pay their tax, they knew they had to from the outset. But they can do without all these other interventions such as rent control and now limiting who they can sell to.

    I'm largely out of property myself for the last few years, and despite the high rents I'm very glad to be so. The State just can't seem to leave the market alone, and even though it has a disastrous record over the last five years, the politicians are still going around with their size 12s, wrecking it further.



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭squidgainz


    I'm an accountant. I am fully aware they don't get a tax reduction on their capital amount , that would be obscene. Hahah deficit , but certainly not a loss. That's the key thing here. You've literally just made up a rental figure and made up an mortgage figure. NOWHERE in Dublin would a mortgage payment be anywhere near a rental payment. I completely agree on eviction ban being lifted, but not with lowering landlords tax. It is income tax rates. Same for all.



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭squidgainz


    Just to repeat , there is not one rental property in Dublin available that doesn't go way beyond a landlords mortgage amount. Not one. It's 2k a month for a box of shite. That mortgage is probably around 800. So your points make zero sense. With Dublin anyway.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,295 ✭✭✭Deeec


    I said I was using example figures to illustrate the cashflow issues for landlords. It may not be realistic for Dublin but it is realistic for the rest of Ireland.

    Really as an accountant you do not see the issues with a deficit? Would you be a happy as a landlord having to fund a deficit every year?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,295 ✭✭✭Deeec


    OMG so you know what every landlords mortgage payment in Dublin is now.

    You are coming across very foolish in what you post. You sound like a very disgruntled renter!

    Im not engaging with you anymore - you dont seem to understand the situation. You have to look at it from both sides.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,335 ✭✭✭howiya


    Assuming the same re tax credits if you earned that 18k in your PAYE job you would be paying more tax than outlined in your example. This is why I would be opposed to tax breaks or different rates, whatever may be introduced.

    Now tax treatment is a different thing and I'd like to see the negative cashflow in your example treated the same way as AVCs. Essentially the landlord in your example is contributing to their future financial wellbeing, not unlike an AVC. The landlord would get further tax relief of roughly 3.1k using the figures in your example. Any such relief could be tied to the property only being sold once pension age is reached.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭Sunny Disposition


    I was a landlord for decades and still am, in a small way. But I could never see any justification for the State not taxing my income on it. It would be grossly unfair and particularly repugnant at the moment. I think SF are pushing this agenda that people are leaving because of the tax regime, but that's not the case, which is fairly obvious with rents at such high levels.

    What would help landlords, as I've said above, is if the State started to get out of the way. The introducing of rent pressure zones was a good example of a nonsensical proposal that spooked landlords and made things far worse for tenants. The eviction ban was another such move. The amount of protection for people who just stop paying rent is another.

    If the State stayed out of the way over the last ten years both tenants and landlords would be a lot better off.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,295 ✭✭✭Deeec


    Yep the treating of mortgage payment as a pension payment and offering tax relief on it is very good idea that would ease tax liability for landlord.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭HerrKuehn


    By AVC do you mean a pension? The landlord can (more difficult nowadays) put the property into a pension structure and benefit from that. Of course there are the downsides that it is taxed on the way out. So pension contributions are just taxed later. I think it would be insane to have the capital portion tax deductable. I think it makes sense to have the interest deductable.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Only if they keep it, and they’re not they’re selling them, either way it’s the wrong way to look at it, as a renter you’re paying for a service, what bills the landlord has or what they have to pay is none of your business frankly, just as when you pay for a hotel room how the hotel uses that money to pay staff cover loans etc is none of your business, the same with renting a car etc.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,273 ✭✭✭The Spider


    Can’t disagree here I’ve argued for it to be treated the same as any other business for tax purposes, with the associated write downs etc. The problem there is a significant amount wouldn’t pay any tax because they don’t make any profit



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,624 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    I cant understand the fascination with linking the eviction ban to homelessness? The are two separate issues and treating them the same distracts from what is actually the problem.

    If someone gets evicted from a rental property one of two things happens, another tenant moves in who was previously homeless or the house gets sold and someone who didnt have a house previously moves in, so the homeles figure goes up one and comes down one, ie nothing changes.


    Yes individuals have a terrible time because podge and his family are getting evicted from their rental house, but rodge is delighted because he buys that house and moves in with his family to have a secure home.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,295 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    You're not accounting for the fact that a rental property tends to have more people living in it.

    So a 3 bedroom house might be rented with three tenants. Maybe even 4-5 if you've couples sharing rooms.

    Tenants are evicted, house is sold to a first time buyer couple.

    Occupancy of the house has now reduced from anywhere from 3-5 people down to 2.



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭squidgainz


    Your example was stupid. Not helpful at all. I own my own house. I actually agree with a lot of landlords here about eviction times etc . But do not claim the poor mouth re tax. Not having that because its utter horseshite.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,335 ✭✭✭howiya


    Similiar to a pension but I haven't thought it through, whether or not it should be in a pension structure.

    Look at this way using the example in the thread. Throw 7728 a year into an investment property and have to deal with the management of the property, repairs etc or throw a 7728 lump sum into an AVC each year and get a refund of 3091 from revenue.

    I wouldn't ordinarily agree having the capital portion tax deductible hence why I've only suggested that the negative cashflow amount from the example be used in my suggestion.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,560 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Exactly the point. An eviction ban does nothing for homelessness generally, it only changes the identity of the homeless.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,335 ✭✭✭howiya


    I've asked this before but have never seen an answer. What is stopping you registering as a business and getting the same tax treatment as the limited company running the local shop? Are there any legal obstacles to this?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭HerrKuehn


    I think you must be public sector the way you are referring to it. You aren't getting a refund from revenue, you are deferring taxation until you draw it down. That is why it would need to be in a pension type structure for it to be any way comparable. You don't have access to pension funds (expect in very restricted ways) until you start drawing the pension down. The landlord is otherwise just accumulating an asset they have current access to.



  • Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭bluedex


    The LL bashers still at it?

    The facts:

    • There has been increased government intervention in the rental market over the last 5-10 years, like rent controls and now the "eviction ban".
    • There has been a mass exodus from the rental market by private property owners
    • Less private LLs = less supply of rental properties = higher rents & more people without a home.

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,619 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    I own a single rental apartment in Dublin city, and have had to subsidize the tax due with my after-tax income every year. When the RPZ controls came in, I had a tenant in the apartment who was still on the same rent as when I first let it 5 or so years previously, I hadn't increased it because they were great tenants.

    As a result the rent has been caught way below market rent ever since, with no prospect in sight of ever getting close to it. And with mortgage interest increasing faster than I can increase the rent, that situation is only getting worse lately.

    The latest tenants left a couple of months back, and I'm now one of those landlords getting the f* out, selling even thought the sale price has also been compromised by the RPZ limits. I'm just not willing to gamble on what measures might be taken in the future to further limit my control over the property and lettings.

    So there's your theory blown out of the water.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement