Yes but there are annual requirements re reporting and costs associated, so it's not worth it for your average sole trader/ self employed. The main reason one might do this in this situation is to limit liability. But no sole trader/ self employed should be exposing themselves to excessive liability.
Likewise for your typical small landlord with a single property let out, they just need to accept that they pay tax at marginal rate on this income.
I'm not a tax expert and so open to correction, but is it not fairly easy to set up a limited company. I had one myself a few years ago when I was working for myself. The issue is that in order to benefit from it you have to get money out of it and into your pocket and, in doing so, you end up paying tax at the marginal rate.
Grand and it's clarified.
No I just went on what you said which was a ludicrous statement that needed to be clarified.
I agree, won't make a difference at this stage, it's too late as investors have lost confidence.
Also, don't you know that wumming an spamming are now considered reasonable debate? Keep up 😉
Well you didn't disappoint me anyway 😂
But yes, the problem is totally caused by all the Big Bad Greedy Landlords
Why do you feel the need to repeat the same thing about 150 times over?
We know you think landlords shouldn't get tax breaks. You've never actually put forward a cogent argument as to why you think this, though. Some of us think it might be a bit of an incentive to landlords to stay in the market, which is what is currently most urgently needed. Personally I don't think it'd make a jot of difference, it wouldn't have changed my mind anyway.
Posting the same thing over and over and over again is just spamming.
When one poster has over 16,600 posts but has only four things to whinge about I think its worth blocking them.
Whenever somebody shows him how his opinions are wrong with facts and figures he calls them stupid and moves onto the next topic. I don't think there is any point in engaging in the same conversation over and over that's why most posters now recommend ignoring him at this stage.
People who own more than one property DO NOT need to be given additional tax breaks by the government imo. I have been saying that all along , grand my post was phrased poorly. But we are talking in the context of landlords tax breaks ie more money. But of course you took it out of context of the actual thread title.
But you think anyone with more than one property doesn’t need anymore money?
It's not wums because they are against your view. People are raising points as to why landlords should not get a tax break. They should however be given greater autonomy over their property
Not when they are WUMs just looking for a reaction. It's quite the adult choice to block WUMs, it means reasonable debate can continue.
Now, I expect you will completely disagree with me, given previous posts, but there you go....
There’s opposing views and then there’s trolling.
Im not a landlord by the way I just have a healthy dose of common sense.
Nope.
you said:
”But people with more than 1 property do not need more money.”
Thats a pretty ridiculous statement to come out with tbh.
Yeah it just makes the thread a landlord love in when you block everyone that has an opposing view. Pretty childish.
No you have got that ridiculously wrong.
Sure as a sole trader who pays tax at the normal specified rates on my taxable income I often resent larger businesses that pay low corporation taxes. Just as the small oft called 'accidental' landlord resents the tax arrangements for REITs.
But these are different entities. If you want the same tax arrangements as a REIT, then become one.
I think a part of it is tenants can overhold for ridiculously long periods of time and rent owed is more or less unrecoverable.
In addition its not viable to go after delinquents that damage property to recover costs.
I wonder if this could be sorted by a system where very large deposit held in escrow out of the landlord and the tenants hands would work...if a landlord is nervous about a tenant overholding but a tenant wants longer term security then maybe the deposit should reflect the length you can stay as a tenant up to some maximum like 2/3 yrs...if you pay your rent then the deposit is yours, if you don't then it goes to the landlord and you are out on the button when the time is up and the money goes to landlord?
As for damages, we'll I suppose the state would have to actually impose consequences on those causing damages for a change so I won't hold my breath....but perhaps a significant deposit held outside of landlords and tenants grasp might focus minds when it comes to ripping out light fixtures, putting holes in walls and doors, flooding places etc etc....
Might be less likely to do it if you weren't getting a couple of grand back?
Whilst some of these things are true, its also a very hostile environment for landlords currently and there have been many changes to the relevant legislation over the last few years that have made the landlords role very unpredictable and uncertain.
Govt intervention has really pushed landlords out of the game and banning landlords from selling their own property was likley the final push out of the exit door for many.
It really is a mess and the worst is yet to come in terms of the fall out for tenants, sadly.
You might have heard of a thing called inflation? It means that things cost more compared to what they used to cost.
There will be a lot of people who use that credit to pay rent that they otherwise might not be able to afford due to other costs increasing.
In terms of cost to society, that will be offset somewhat by the bringing into the tax net formerly non-tax-compliant landlords.
Nope, it’s was a tax credit for renters, not change to the rpz rules.
It allows renters to pay rent that they might not be otherwise able to afford.
Most subsidies end up in the pockets of those that provide the product. Whether that be for an EV car or solar panels etc.
Like when the government introduces a scheme to help first-time-buyers, you find that the price of a new house will jump by about that amount.
How?
The tax break is only an indirect subsidy into the landlord's pocket anyway.
Now to be fair the €500 tax break in the rent tax credit is paltry to someone paying €2,000+ per month in rent.
Im seeing those greyed out boxes too. Makes the threads so much better :)
And its a nice bonus that people, well most people have stopped quoting him too.
I think you speak for many in the same situation!
Great question, and one none of the landlord haters are able to answer with a reasoned response.
I see a lot of greyed out responses/posts from a certain blocked criminal former president. I'm guessing his audience is very small now :)
Can you put an estimate on the activity requirement? How many hours per week on average over the year would you put on it?
Well part of it is indeed regulation. The market in Ireland has been historically fairly unregulated compared other countries where the likes of rent controls in cities are the norm. Thus it is difficult to bring in such protections in Ireland without causing disruption. Going further back a lot of landlords were paid in cash and evaded tax. Harder to get away with that now.
There's also been massive capital appreciation in recent years and some people are going to want to cash out.
In addition, some landlords were accidental and so it was always a temporary thing.
Finally, some are not cut out for it and should not have got into the business in the first place.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd5cbbbd4e910e15f74e7f3250e1b58.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/04cbf1b64e8b0e561c543c5b1091ba30.svg)
