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

The bank doesn't own the property - it holds a charge. Completely legally different.

I think at one point it was 52% at the standard cut-off point, as PRSI was 4%, USC (at that point) was 7% and the higher rate of income tax was 41%.

When the higher rate dropped from 41% to 40%, it meant the 52% marginal rate only kicked in at ~70k (when USC jumped to 8%)

You pay income tax on dividends from ETFs just the same as you pay income tax from rental income on property. You pay capital gains tax on ETFs just the same as you pay capital gains on property, when you exit your position.

Deemed disposal is in addition to those two taxes, and is solely on ETFs. Which is why its rather strange that you think it should apply only to ETFs, but not to investment properties. Its not a logicaly consistent position.

We use tax policy to encourage or discourage activities all the time - taxes on alcohol, taxes on cigarettes etc. Its a well accepted tool.

Responsibility for the housing crisis is with the government. But in aiming to resolve the crisis, the government must use all the tools currently available to it. Which must include forcing some of the 160,000 vacant properties back into use.

Its morally right for the government to incentivize the use of vacant properties as actual housing when we have 5,000 homeless children in the state, very clearly yes.

If someone has a property laying vacant for years on end, while there are homeless children in need, and a state willing to pay very substantial rent to a willing landlord to house the children, then what the property owner is doing is very obviously morally wrong. Along with incredibly financially inept.

Despite earning €100,000 a year, buying a one-bed apartment in Dublin still seems an impossible dream

https://www.irishtimes.com/your-money/2025/03/03/why-buying-a-one-bed-apartment-can-be-an-impossible-dream-even-for-high-earners/

You'd want your head examined buying a one bed ! For 400,000 it's beyond belief..

Its clickbait. The article claims the fact you can only get 80% for a mortgage on a 1bed came as a “came as a bolt out of the blue” after having gone sale agreed.

I struggle to believe anyone intelligent enough to be earning over 100k a year couldn't/didn't google the very basics of mortgage requirements in the country. Or didn't discuss it with his lender. Thats on him, if its true.

If he was approved for a 90% mortgage on a 400k apartment he also obviously had at least 40k in savings. Which means hes only 26k off the requirement for the 1bed, which sounds like a lot - until you realise his net income is 5,500+ a month. He should be able to save that difference quite quickly if he needs to, given his income.

And a 330k 1bed apartment is on the high end of the market, to boot, its far from his only option. He'd have to be buying in D4 or D6 or similar to pay that. There are plenty of 1beds on the market for 250k in Dublin, nevermind cheaper down the country.

I can understand the concern.

There's a good few estates in Dublin that are absolutely destroyed with the number of cars parked on roads and footpaths. Max spaces in a new build it two, though I've seen some houses with only one parking space. I lived in a 4 bed rented house and had 5 cars. Three in the driveway and two on the footpath.

I note you omitted the other findings from the same report regarding the RPZ's and tax breaks for developers.

It is an incredibly relevant thing for you to omit. It goes directly against your view that a punitive vacant tax would have great support. It shows the public believe more in incentives unlike your view.

If you increase supply you remove the power of suppliers (unless a small number of suppliers control the market). No matter how much you want to you can't control a market. Investors invest to make money, introducing the RPZ's will result in not investing in upgrading property unless you get a return on it. Property developers wont invest unless they get a return.

If you make a market toxic suppliers will not enter it and some will leave. The suppliers have the power whether you want to accept that fact or not.

If you want to solve this issue either (a) let the State build accommodation themselves or (b) encourage the private sector. I emphasise the word "encourage" not penalise.

RPZ's have not worked the report shows this. You can't "cherry pick" parts of the poll that suits your narrative and ignore those that don't.

No not really. You kept hammering on about a punitive tax with no real way to introduce it along with not knowing anything about current tax rules and laws. You did omit details of the survey that specifically shows the public view does not line up with your view. You did cherry pick one part and even suggested it was something that has changed to favour your view.

Disingenuous at best but I would see your comment as trying to lie about the results that don't follow your wishes

No that didn't happen you cherry picked one details and ignored the rest of the results which show people understand landlords and developers are needed not punitive taxes. You were joined with others that were all about punitive taxes and didn't care one bit about who supplies housing

The figures for housing completions in 2024 were under what was expected / claimed (and hugely under whats required) in the low 30,000s. And the figures for 2025 are looking similar.

I would suspect the government is now panicking slightly about those numbers, and looking for any way to boost the numbers of houses becoming available to the market.

Encouraging a chunk of Ireland's 160,000 vacant homes back into the market, via a vacant property tax that doesn't negatively impact 95%+ of voters, is an easy - and it turns out very popular - way of doing that.

Just as a point. I’d be pro removal of RPZs, pro developer subsidies, pro tenant over holding enforcement etc. but also pro vacancy taxes

Wanting vacancy taxes is not anti landlord. It’s anti…not being a landlord…