Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

1802803805807808943

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,548 ✭✭✭extra-ordinary_


    The main word you seem to have skipped over after the drilling down is "estimated". Their estimates may be way off.

    I personally know of several rental setups that are not registered with the RTB, that do not fall into any of the categories of their '"estimates" - i.e. fully professional rental setups in Dublin paying full market rate, where landlord pretends the tenants are not actually 'tenants'. This 'landlord' has multiple 'rental' properties. Surely he cannot be on his own - we are in the middle of a housing crisis.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,035 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Exactly the type of landlord I would be looking for, I'd prefer cheaper rent than a tax credit. I suspect most rentals in Limerick were 30% under new rental levels prior to the eviction ban. Since then the exodus of landlords has been like a tsunami and new rentals are like hens teeth

    Never ever under estimate the ability of FFG to fcuk things up. It astounds me that a State completely incapable of managing it's own rentals would tax those people that can to the tune of 50%+.

    Yet we continue to vote for these fools and I'm surrounded by blue shirts. Where is the problem here? The people or the gangsters we vote for



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I suspect a considerable number of those LLs who left the market over the last 2 years, had SFs proposed complete ban on no fault evictions in mind, when it looked a strong possibility that they would form the next government. I don’t agree with RPZ legislation, it has made matters even worse, but it would be churlish not to acknowledge that there were strong calls for its introduction from people other than FFG, some (SF/PBP) who said it didn’t go far enough.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    The main opposition party manifesto is to increase marginal rates on income over €100k (i.e. what most landlords will pay) to almost 60% so maybe that’s why?

    How do you think landlord rental income being taxed at lower rate than a nurses overtime would play in this country?

    Giving out about the rate of tax in this country and using it as a reason to vote for opposition in the same post…

    SF, PBP, Labour, Social Democrats…lol



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,926 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    And the eviction ban was pushed by SF, PBP, Solidarity, SD and Labour party. The probably because of the pressure exerted by opposition the government caved in. However TBF they removed the eviction bas as fast as possible when they saw the issues with it.

    One of the reasons for significant rent increases in Linerick was that LL in area that were not in RPZ's significantly rose the rental prices as they feared the introducing of RPZ's which happened last year.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    RPZ legislation perfectly encapsulates where Irish policy has gone.

    Left wing opposition screaming for an outright ban on any increases in rent at all.

    Government realises this is lunacy but conscious of public perception of landlords, along with knowing there is no alternative ‘right wing’ party in Ireland move sharply to the left and deliver a slightly softer version where increases are capped at 2% but not banned

    Prices continue to rise. Left wing parties continue to scream for outright caps on rent increases. Government responds again with slightly tighter policy (capped at inflation or 2%, whichever is lower)

    I can almost guarantee nobody in FG believes in RPZs but they have tactically taken up that position as they know anybody who doesn’t agree with them has to vote for them anyway as all opposition parties want a more extreme version of what we already have.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,035 ✭✭✭Villa05


    There is no requirement to increase income taxes in this country with plenty of scope reduce them were they spent a bit more wisely. A party that represents people who get up early should recognise that

    If it meant that the nurse was doing the overtime in Ireland and not Qatar, would that be progress?

    FFG should be representative of these people instead they are muppets to high finance with funds, land hoarders, and developers the benificaries of there policies, not the people or the economy.

    All these entities have former FFG politicians as there lobbyists and the country and it's people will again pay a very high price.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    I’m extremely pro-lowering taxes on all middle to high income earners. Therefore I will continue to vote for current government.

    As, scarily, despite having the most progressive tax system in the world, every single opposition party openly wants to increase income taxes on mid to high incomes further.

    There is no doubt FG in particular would love to reduce the 52% marginal income tax but they would get utterly annihilated for doing so. We get what we deserve as a voter base.

    The political spectrum is split between hard left (SF, PBP, SD, Labour), centre left (FF, FG) and anti immigration (i would say right wing but don’t think these people have any economic policies and if they did, I expect they would be left wing given their support base).

    Centre left (what we have) is the best of a very bad bunch.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 980 ✭✭✭stevedublin




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,914 ✭✭✭Rocket_GD


    I am in no way in agreement with DataDude right leaning housing beliefs or majority of their beliefs to be honest as they come across as very elitist in my opinion. However they are correct that "At present, Ireland's top marginal rate of tax is 52 per cent for employees and 55 per cent for self-employed."

    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2024-02-01/220/#:~:text=Minister%20for%20Finance,-Share&text=At%20present%2C%20Ireland's%20top%20marginal,the%20top%20marginal%20tax%20rates.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 781 ✭✭✭engineerws


    Yes nothing to see.

    People renting on an informal basis where likely to be paying 30pc less rent than those with a formal agreement in place.

    And these houses rental without a formal rental agreement being in place were more likely to be located in a rural area.

    Just massive and endemic tax fraud 👍



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Wrong.

    48% on income over €42,000 (single person€ and 52% on income over €70,044. Actually 55% for self employed over €100k

    You’re forgetting PRSI and USC



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,926 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    You can look at it that way but tge winner is the tenant who are getting discounted probably most of the tax due to the government. The LL is taking IMO taking a huge risk with little upside if he is caught.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 781 ✭✭✭engineerws


    Why are they not caught? The CSO should just send in the data to revenue or send revenue around. Charge them €20k for every year of theft, problem solved 👌



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,926 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,035 ✭✭✭Villa05


    I’m extremely pro-lowering taxes on all middle to high income earners. Therefore I will continue to vote for current government

    Would you correlate high personal taxes with extremely poor housing policy. We've had multiple examples of where 2 to 3 housing units could be provided for what the state is paying for 1. Additionally housing was sold for half the price of what the state is paying in subsidies for new supply

    We are at our peak in terms of numbers at work and salaries for those people. Housing should be able wash it's own face and be a net contributer to the state in such circumstances. Instead the department of housing is going through 8 billion per year (circa 25% of 2023 paye receipts) .

    I'm not so sold as you on FG being centre left. The indigenous wealth of the country is in land and property and contributes little or no tax, with all policies pumping the value to unsustainable levels. There a top 5% party with housing policies akin to a wolf disguised as a sheep.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,620 ✭✭✭combat14


    and the leg up for FTBs is only after they have borrow the absolute max mortgage the bank will give them - the government is effectively propping up prices for builders and adding a second interest only mortgage onto buyers



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,035 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Rpzs might have worked had they a corresponding tax break to compensate LL's for increased costs/inflation and a plan to balance supply/demand dynamics. FFG policies were abysmal in this aspect

    I'm only familiar with the city and surrounds. They've been Rpz for much longer and many landlords were caught with below market rents, given the recession effects were far more traumatic than the rest of the country



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    No not really. Housing spend was less than 6% of government spending in 2023. It’s less than the GROWTH in Health spending in the last 5 years alone.
    In terms of your comment on ‘washing its face’, the figure you’re quoting is purely the budget allocated to spending. You don’t have the numbers on what it’s generating on the other side as all of the income is allocated centrally. The €6bn is not a ‘net spend’ because the DoH don’t receive the stamp duty, income tax, VAT etc. that housing generates.

    I’m pretty right wing but even I accept there’s going to always need to be some spend on social and affordable housing. So if you could even optimistically halve that €6bn it really makes no difference to the overall finances of the country.

    On FG not being centre left. Of course there is a spectrum, and I agree property taxes are far far too low in this country (again, the biggest opposition party want to abolish this altogether) but they’ve been in government for 16 years which has seen us

    • have the most progressive income tax system in the world, which redistributes wealth inequality more than any other country
    • Introduce RPZ zones
    • Increases in HAP, Social Hosuing, Affordable purchase etc.
    • Eviction bans
    • Unprecedented growth in state spending on health and welfare

    There will definitely be some counter examples (e.g. upcoming inheritance tax nonsense) but on the big areas issues of taxation and welfare it’s very difficult to say Ireland is not being governed as a predominantly left wing country.

    Much of the things you have given out about in your posts, all opposition parties want to do, but in a more extreme way. You’re giving out about left wing policies and saying you’ll protest that by voting more left. I don’t see any logic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    In fairness, its completely valid to criticise current government for their actions even if opposition parties may be even more extreme.

    Opposition parties are not in government - despite the screeching they do not/should not influence actual policy.

    That FG/FF have been so anti landlord despite not relying on any SF/PBP/SocDem/LAB support to keep them in govt is quite astonishing.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Agree you can complain but what are you actually going to do? Vote for one of the even more anti landlord/higher tax parties?

    Thats why it makes sense. You only need to be slightly less anti landlord than all the others to maximize your votes.

    Id have some hopes that with their new 5 year mandate under Harris that FG will go back to what they really think rather than pandering to pick up some centre left votes. Time will tell.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    "More than half of landlords in the Republic had a net rental income of below €10,000 in 2019, according to a report by the Central Statistics Office (CSO).

    A further 28.6 per cent generated income between €10,000 and €19,999, meaning that nearly 80 per cent earned less than €20,000 from renting their properties.

    Only 43.7 per cent of landlords said employee income was their primary income source."

    These figures are from 2019, but I doubt they're incredibly different now. You could presumably keep the %s similar by upping the figures generously to say €15k and €30k.

    As such it seems very unlikely "most" landlords have taxable income over €100k, even combinining rental income and income from employment (for the minority who have it as their primary income).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 781 ✭✭✭engineerws


    Doesn't matter, they're breaking the law. People have been sent to jail for not having a tv licence.

    €20k per year fine up to and including confiscation of the illegally rented property 👍



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Sounds pretty remarkable if true. A) not sure how you clear less than €10k on a rental these days, B) we probably need to set up a gofundme for landlords of the country. They’re all broke!

    In any case the context of the post was responding to a poster specifically complaining about those paying 50%+ (I.e. earning over 70k) and giving out about the government…as if all the other parties aren’t planning to make that particular tax rate even higher.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    They're CSO statistics, and quoted from an Irish Times article, so the truth of them isn't really questionable.

    Some more probably relevant quotes

    "First, despite all the noise in the market the vast majority of landlords (86 per cent) own only one or two properties. Most of them own one.

    For sure the 1.2 per cent of commercial landlords at the other end of the scale with net rental income of more than €100,000"

    According to the same CSO figures 22.8% of landlords have only their rental income as income, and 16.5% of landlords have only pensions or welfare as any other income on top of the rental income.

    So the idea that "most" landlords are earning in excess of €100k a year (even from all income sources combined) and so would be hit by income tax increases on that demographic seems very unlikely given all those figures.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,132 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    It's not possible to legislate away economic realities. If such a law is not being followed by such a great many people, then the law is probably unenforceable. The housing crisis has been caused by having too many people trying to live in too few houses. The state can pass as many laws as it wishes, but this will not change anything until one or both of the above contributing factors has been changed.

    Regarding this:

    "€20k per year fine up to and including confiscation of the illegally rented property"

    Be very careful what ideas you throw out. There are many very dangerous and ideologically addled minds in Ireland who would have a stroke due to excitement if the state were ever given the power to confiscate private property.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,035 ✭✭✭Villa05


    No not really. Housing spend was less than 6% of government spending in 2023. It’s less than the GROWTH in Health spending in the last 5 years alone

    Your post ignores that the Department of Housing spend is increasing house prices and rents not making them more affordable. As a result homeowners and renters can't afford health insurance, pensions, and childcare.

    This means that the state has to subsidise these areas more. I've given the example of a family earning more than mine who qualify for medical cards due to there rent spend. Is this a phenomenon that is increasing or decreasing? We are talking median to average salaried couples with children. Childcare costs in Dublin were double the cost of Limerick, what's the difference? Property prices. How many families qualify for family income supplement as a result of extortionate rents/ high mortgages.

    I could go on and on but much of the increasing spend in other departments is directly linked to high property prices and extortionate rents. The direct beneficiary of this spending are the friends of Fine Gael: Land hoarders/owners, developers, investment funds

    Do you still belive that FFG are left wing?

    How much tax and economic activity is foregone by untaxed extortionate rents leaving the country to foreign investment/private equity funds. No contribution to the services that allow those properties exist and now the state is paying upto 130,000 per unit to build these. When are taxpayers going to wake up and take note of this state sponsored theft

    Higher property prices mean higher insurance and maintenance costs

    We all want lower taxes, we are not going to achieve this by using those taxes to pump property prices, you might get the illusion of lower taxes for a while, but continuation of FFG policies and you'll be back at 2010 levels of taxation if not 1980's levels



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Sinn Fein have published their housing plan, and say they will provide affordable housing costing between 250 and 300k, by the state covering the land costs, and retaining ownership. Not unlike long leaseholds that used to be common:

    The purchaser buys the home, at the cost of construction, and is given free indefinite use of the public land subject to a legally binding covenant providing them, their children and subsequent generations free indefinite use of the public land subject to two conditions.

    These relate to the onward sale and use of the property and are necessary to ensure protection of the wider taxpayers’ interests, which is important given the significant size of the public investment involved, and the imperative of ensuring a supply of affordable homes into the future.

    The property cannot be rented out in the private rental sector. If the owner has to live elsewhere for an extended period for work or family reasons, then the property can be rented out temporarily by the owner. The rent is set by the local authorities’ affordable rental scheme.

    If the owner sells the property, they sell it to another eligible affordable purchaser at the future affordable purchase price determined by factors, such as wage inflation and for example the value of home improvements. This ensures permanent affordability for subsequent buyers.

    it's a good idea IMHO, certainly when compared to the alternative solutions currently being offered by FFG.

    Of course many will knock it based purely on the fact it is an SF policy, and they think SF would be bad for government. I totally understand why SF would not be an ideal governing party but that is a largely a separate issue to this housing policy.

    I suspect they'll struggle to communicate the advantages of this policy when compared to First Home Scheme etc and it will all remain largely irrelevant in the end.

    https://vote.sinnfein.ie/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Sinn-Fein-Affordable-Homes-Plan.pdf



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    If you think about it, the current policy of affordable housing being built/financed by the state then sold off for good is as stupid as the policy of selling off social housing to tenants.

    The govt needs a pool of social and affordable homes in the country. But once you sell on an affordable home today it is gone from the affordable market and instead exists in the private market.

    Having affordable housing sold on within the scheme actually makes sense. Otherwise you are just transferring state assets to private speculators who will later profit.

    Current affordable home buyers could make a mint in 10 years time with the price differential between affordable purchase and private market that they can then sell through.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt




Advertisement
Advertisement