Property tax to be passed onto tenants? No thanks.

Ray Palmer · 21-12-2011 6:00pm

Snakeblood wrote: »

Bedsits are being banned. Gone in 2013. Legislation is coming in on that. It would have been banned long ago as unfit for human habitation if it hadn't been for lobbying by terrible landlords.

These terrible landlords who rented bedsits, and then convert to normal human accommodation, spend a lot of money doing so, I presume. Then they start paying their property tax on their renovated property. Then you are saying they just won't rent the property until rents pick up? That really makes no sense to me at all.

You can render a property non habitable, you still have to pay tax on it if you own it.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that not everyone on RA lives in a bedsit. What about the landlords who accept rent allowance, in houses. Are they going to sell their houses? Or keep them, rent to no one, and pay the property tax (which you keep seeming to ignore), or are they going to lower their rents.

Want to put up the link to this legislation because you'll find it very vague and will not exclude them. Just becasue a place is small doesn't make it unfit for humans. You should see some of the places in Spain, France, Italy etc.. People go on about standards here but I have seen worse in Europe rented by well paid people.

Pretty sure you don't have to residental tax on a property if it isn't residential. You also don't pay rates unless it is being used as a business. Houshold tax also relies on it being a household.

What I was pointing out RA applies on a much bigger scale than just houses and standard accomadation.

It doesn't matter they won't do away with RA and they can't afford to. To think it is some LL subsidy scheme is just riddiculous.

Snakeblood · 21-12-2011 8:48pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Want to put up the link to this legislation because you'll find it very vague and will not exclude them. Just becasue a place is small doesn't make it unfit for humans. You should see some of the places in Spain, France, Italy etc.. People go on about standards here but I have seen worse in Europe rented by well paid people.

Pretty sure you don't have to residental tax on a property if it isn't residential. You also don't pay rates unless it is being used as a business. Houshold tax also relies on it being a household.

What I was pointing out RA applies on a much bigger scale than just houses and standard accomadation.

It doesn't matter they won't do away with RA and they can't afford to. To think it is some LL subsidy scheme is just riddiculous.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/si/0534.html

There you go. Each house has to have a toilet, shower and kitchen, with ventilation, each house meaning an individual dwelling.

Are you basing the idea that people who own property but don't have anyone in it don't have to pay the property tax on anything in particular? The Irish Times claims that the previous property tax for second residences applied to any owned residence except for unsold ones:

The charge, which goes to local authorities, applies to people who own homes that are not their principal residences.
It chiefly applies to holiday homes and rental properties but not to mobile homes.
Granny flats are also excluded from the charge if a relative lives there rent-free.
It applies to vacant residential properties, unless they are newly-constructed and unsold.

What's going to make this one different?

Victor · 22-12-2011 7:30am

yosser hughes wrote: »

Not wasting my time with you,as judging by your incoherent,unpunctuated posts you are too myopic and can't actually see reason either.

Damie wrote: »

Its taken you this long to figure that out:D The biggest WUM on boards tbf:p

Knock it off the two of you. If there is a problem with a post, report it.

The_Conductor · 22-12-2011 8:45am

I'd like to further add- personally abusive comments are not tolerable in this forum. If you attack another poster- you will be banned. If you disagree with what someone posts- attack the post- without attacking the poster. If you believe a post has gone over the line- report it, specifying the reason you're reporting it.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

daltonmd · 22-12-2011 10:07am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not once have the government susbisdised my rent. They pay for a service I provide. If I and other LL did not the governement would have to pay a lot more to provide accomadation. There is a reason they no longer build as much council housing and that is becasue they privatised the service. Not unlike what they have done with many other aspects ranging from road repair to bin collection.

If RA wasn't there I would simply not provide the rentals for that market. It is a a theory that rent is artifically high due to RA but it misses the fact this property would not be provided the supply would constrict and likely push up prices.
I like everybody would have been able to benifit from the celtic tiger. Wages went up and costs went up too. Every extra earned meant more tax was paid. Everybody was involved and it is a joke to suggest that LL were some how

You keep rolling out that LL are some different class. They aren't they are generally people who worked up an investment not lords or barons. Do you see shop owners as some different class too?

You certainly blame a lot of people and hold yourself in some great view when it comes to what has happened.

What would you do with the property if there was no RA? Landlords in general don't buy property to rent to those on RA, or do they?
Many renting now and availing of RA do so because they have lost their jobs. To avail of it you have to be privately renting for 6 months.

If RA was taken away, then rents would fall to their natural levels, whether you realise it or not 50% or private landlords tenants are in receipt of RA, the other 50% of the rents are based on this.
As a tenant I am in direct competition with the government regarding the rent that I pay, you know there is something seriously wrong with the rental market when you look in any location in this country you will see the flaw.
Take Blanchardstown as one example - 2 bed apartments asking the same as 3 bed houses to rent 800 euro pm.
Take a look at the rent allowance for a couple = 800 Euro.

So there's the market, dictated by Rent allowance.

Ray Palmer · 22-12-2011 3:22pm

daltonmd wrote: »

What would you do with the property if there was no RA etc...

So there's the market, dictated by Rent allowance.

1) Show where you get your 50%.
2) As I have stated I reduced rent to allow for RA as do many LL. Never said it didn't have any impact but not nessarily as you beleive
3) Yes LL buy property to rent to RA
4) Property was/is adapated for RA
5) Taking the a maximum of RA is common for some LL as the price is of little concern to the the tenant. This does not mean all rent in the area is effected
6) Rental ads generally say no RA so would contradict any 50%. It would suggest 50% are avialble to rent to RA but strangely they are not.
7) There is a lot of property rented not on any figures as people avoid tax. This would effect rent price much more IMHO
8) Still not a subsidy

Where are the people going to live if there is no RA? How could they afford any rent? It isn't going to happen because it can't, nothing happens in a vacum without casue and effect. Focusing on one point you are in favour of without realising the effect it will have on other aspects is actually very important which you should consider.

IF RA was gone I'd dump the tenants I have on it and rent the property at full market rates which I may do anyway due to increases in taxes. Much better and less hassle than dealing with the forms and missed payments due to RA.

Snakeblood · 22-12-2011 3:34pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

1) Show where you get your 50%.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0610/rent.html

Minister for Social Protection Eamon Ó Cuiv said the reductions were designed to reflect the reductions in the rental market and would ensure that landlords are not charging artificially high rents.
The rate for couples or one parent families with one child has dropped from between €568-€932 to between €400 and €930.
The rate for couples or one parent families with three children has been reduced from between €663-€1,110 to between €500-€1,100.
The Minister says the measure is expected to save up to €20m this year.
He said these rates related to the next eighteen months but that they would be reviewed if rents increase during that period.
95,000 households are supported by rent supplement, which the Department of Social Protection says is about half of the total private rented market in Ireland.
In 2009 the Department paid over €500m in rent supplement

mikemac1 · 22-12-2011 3:48pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

IF RA was gone I'd dump the tenants I have on it and rent the property at full market rates.

You seem to be renting to RA tenants below market rate. Ok, that's a decision you've made

But it's still a floor on the market
Oh we can all pick and choose examples but I'll give the common two bed in Dublin which is €930 according to the excellent citizens information site

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html#l62fd2

The single person with a good job or the working couple are competing against that.
The single person competes with the rent allowance tenant for the room in the house or the studio/bedsit.

Anyway, you can rent lovely two beds in Dublin for less then that.
The rate is clealy too high

5) Taking the a maximum of RA is common for some LL as the price is of little concern to the the tenant.

If you're giving cheap rent to your tenants then it's what you decided to do.

Every landlord wants the "working professional" and there are more landlords then these.
Cut RA and you'll see rents tumble

Ray Palmer · 22-12-2011 4:15pm

First off that is not a figure nor worked out, it is the RTE quoting somebody else who has shown how they worked it out. You might be surprised but the government can intentionally be misleading on press statements.

mikemac1 wrote: »

You seem to be renting to RA tenants below market rate. Ok, that's a decision you've made

But it's still a floor on the market
Oh we can all pick and choose examples but I'll give the common two bed in Dublin which is €930 according to the excellent citizens information site

But LL won't rent to people on RA so they aren't competing. Cut RA too drastically and there will lots of people out on their ear. Tenants will subsidise their RA in order to stay where they are.

Some of us have been here before. It is hard for RA tenants to get places and there is no way 50% of the market is RA in Dublin. Maybe the rest of the country make it up. It is a misconception that RA tenants are competing in the market becasue they are already on a limited pool as can be seen of any rental website. Unless all the ones not able to rent are not accepting RA hence the majority of ads.

Snakeblood · 22-12-2011 4:24pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

First off that is not a figure nor worked out, it is the RTE quoting somebody else who has shown how they worked it out. You might be surprised but the government can intentionally be misleading on press statements.

But LL won't rent to people on RA so they aren't competing. Cut RA too drastically and there will lots of people out on their ear. Tenants will subsidise their RA in order to stay where they are.

Some of us have been here before. It is hard for RA tenants to get places and there is no way 50% of the market is RA in Dublin. Maybe the rest of the country make it up. It is a misconception that RA tenants are competing in the market becasue they are already on a limited pool as can be seen of any rental website. Unless all the ones not able to rent are not accepting RA hence the majority of ads.

Statistics or evidence for your claims.

mikemac1 · 22-12-2011 4:29pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

First off that is not a figure nor worked out, it is the RTE quoting somebody else who has shown how they worked it out.

It came direct from the Minister and the Department
If the Minister doesn't have the info then who does?

You asked for backup, you got the official line and now you don't want to believe it

What's acceptable so?

Ray Palmer · 22-12-2011 4:36pm

mikemac1 wrote: »

It came direct from the Minister and the Department
If the Minister doesn't have the info then who does?

You asked for backup, you got the official line and now you don't want to believe it

What's acceptable so?

Nobody has the information becasue so many rent without paying taxes or registering with the PRTB.

Ray Palmer · 22-12-2011 4:37pm

Snakeblood wrote: »

Statistics or evidence for your claims.

Go look up daft for ads that take RA and those that don't

Snakeblood · 22-12-2011 4:40pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Go look up daft for ads that take RA and those that don't

Not good enough, Ray, I provided you with links when you requested them that directly proved you were talking rubbish. Now you're rubbishing them again, and you've got nothing but your opinion to back it up. Stop denying linked evidence and pretending your opinion is as good as evidence. They're not, they just make you look like you're burying your head in the sand.

Ray Palmer · 22-12-2011 5:02pm

Snakeblood wrote: »

Not good enough, Ray, I provided you with links when you requested them that directly proved you were talking rubbish. Now you're rubbishing them again, and you've got nothing but your opinion to back it up. Stop denying linked evidence and pretending your opinion is as good as evidence. They're not, they just make you look like you're burying your head in the sand.

To take one figure and beleive it the truth when it doesn't marry up with other evidence is burying your head in the sand. It is well known there are many LL avoiding tax and not registerd with PRTB. You want to ignore that as a noticiable figure fine. People are on here quite regularly saying LL won't take RA. If 50% do you wouldn't think that would happen.

I choose not to beleive the figure as it can't possibly be accurate and I think that figure is important. You make your choice when making up your hypothetical beleif and I'll do the same. It's good enough for me.:p

Snakeblood · 22-12-2011 5:16pm

Edit: I'm just sick of talking to you on this so I'm not going to.

Ray Palmer · 22-12-2011 5:32pm

Snakeblood wrote: »

I'm producing evidence: It's not a hypothetical belief. It's an opinion born from observed fact. You produce nothing, but rubbish and unfounded denials of facts born from nothing but anecdotal evidence and a miasma of prejudices. That's barely qualifies as studied wilful ignorance. You hammer down people who cite evidence, and come out with preposterously stupid pronouncements that you don't and can't back up. It's worthless talking to you because you won't actually engage.

Edit: You might not be a troll, but you're just really bad at knowing what a discussion requires.

You have not produced evidence you quoted a party quoting another party without citation.
Ignore the bleedin obvious if you want. Your hypothetical situation is what will happen is RA is reduced. You want to trust those figure go ahead I for one know they aren't true. If you notice I was hammering down a theory of what might happen if RA was done away with . Any proof it will happen as stated.
You are harping on a bout one very questionable figure when in fact the whole arguement made has lots of non proved data. I'll stick to my form of debate and continue to question unknowable stats

daltonmd · 22-12-2011 5:43pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

1) Show where you get your 50%.
2) As I have stated I reduced rent to allow for RA as do many LL. Never said it didn't have any impact but not nessarily as you beleive
3) Yes LL buy property to rent to RA
4) Property was/is adapated for RA
5) Taking the a maximum of RA is common for some LL as the price is of little concern to the the tenant. This does not mean all rent in the area is effected
6) Rental ads generally say no RA so would contradict any 50%. It would suggest 50% are avialble to rent to RA but strangely they are not.
7) There is a lot of property rented not on any figures as people avoid tax. This would effect rent price much more IMHO
8) Still not a subsidy

Where are the people going to live if there is no RA? How could they afford any rent? It isn't going to happen because it can't, nothing happens in a vacum without casue and effect. Focusing on one point you are in favour of without realising the effect it will have on other aspects is actually very important which you should consider.

IF RA was gone I'd dump the tenants I have on it and rent the property at full market rates which I may do anyway due to increases in taxes. Much better and less hassle than dealing with the forms and missed payments due to RA.

1) The Department of Social Protection is currently paying for half the private rented accommodation in the country, for more than 95,000 people
http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2011-11-23.382.0

2) Which proves the point that your rental rate is based on what you/the tenant receive from the state.

3) Then you should transfer the the RAS

4) You mean it's to standard, because if it wasn't then they wouldn't accept you.

5) But it;s of concern to the other 50% of the rental market and of concern to the taxpayer.
6) See point number one, it's 50% of the private rental sector.

7) But landlords have to advertise and they receive rent do they not? SO it does effect the market.

8) 50% of the market is subsidised - if you had 10 properties on an estate and 5 of them have a supplement of 500pm - are you saying that you would offer those with no supplement a lower price? I don't think so.

The people will live in houses and properties that are vacant and being held up by NAMA. If you and every landlord receiving this subsidy simply said - right that's it - I'm not renting this out anymore, then how would you repay the bank? Answer, you wouldn't, you would have to dump it meaning more property for sale on the market, meaning investors coming into the market buying at low prices meaning lower rents.

If you think by dumping the RA tenants that you would get more on the open market then I don't think so. Where do you think the money would come from? i mean if tenants can barely afford rent without RA then what makes you think we could afford more?

The rental market is warped and twisted and people simply cannot see it - you seem to think that the world owes you a buck. You seem to think that you are doing some kind of good turn by buying a property with loads of incentives, and then renting it to people less fortunate than yourself.

It's a business. You are in it to make a profit, if you didn't do it then people would still be housed.

daltonmd · 22-12-2011 5:51pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

To take one figure and beleive it the truth when it doesn't marry up with other evidence is burying your head in the sand. It is well known there are many LL avoiding tax and not registerd with PRTB. You want to ignore that as a noticiable figure fine. People are on here quite regularly saying LL won't take RA. If 50% do you wouldn't think that would happen.

I choose not to beleive the figure as it can't possibly be accurate and I think that figure is important. You make your choice when making up your hypothetical beleif and I'll do the same. It's good enough for me.:p

Ray, are you serious? There has been a 60% increase in private renters claiming rent allowance since 2007, the start of the recession funnily enough, you know, when people started losing their jobs.

Are you seriously saying (among other claims) that if a tenant who was in a property for 5 years suddenly lost his job and asked his landlord to sign the RA forms, so that he, the landlord could continue receiving his rental income, that the landlord would kick the tenant out? Really?

You see that's the bit you're missing. As I said, you have to be in private rented accommodation in order to be eligible for RA - so whether you "choose" to believe it or not, the landlords had a choice, accept the RA from their tenants who were good and decent, or kick them out, pay money to advertise and risk a vacant period, really defeating any purpose.

Time to wake up.

Ray Palmer · 22-12-2011 5:57pm

daltonmd wrote: »

Time to wake up.

Yeah time to wake up RA won't be done away with! If it is I'll come back and say you were right. Still not for one minute beleive what you beleive will happen as a result either.

You will be able to dance with glee as people suffer if it happens.

It won't have any bad effects at all everybody will win everywhere.

mikemac1 · 22-12-2011 6:09pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yeah time to wake up RA won't be done away with!

I don't think any poster here ever claimed it would be abolished

But it's likely it'll be reduced by a few per cent or more

That link on the last page, why is is the State paying up to €930 a month for a two bed in Dublin when you can rent one privately for less? And I mean a nice apartment, not some dive

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You will be able to dance with glee as people suffer if it happens.

Yeah, because taxpayers and people in private rented accommodation are concerned over hundreds of millions spent on rent allowance but you seem to think we want people thrown out on the street :rolleyes:

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It won't have any bad effects at all everybody will win everywhere.

Rents will drop even more
Landlords will still need to make their mortgage payments so if they can't command high rents they'll take what's on offer, the market will sort itself out
And if the landlord can't make it work then sell up. It's a business after all

daltonmd · 22-12-2011 6:12pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yeah time to wake up RA won't be done away with! If it is I'll come back and say you were right. Still not for one minute beleive what you beleive will happen as a result either.

You will be able to dance with glee as people suffer if it happens.

It won't have any bad effects at all everybody will win everywhere.

Ray, show me where I said RA would be done away with? Never said it because I don't believe that will be the case.

But RA was supposed to be a short term measure to assist those "in betweeen jobs" - RAS was introduced for long term housing.

Regarding the underlined bit - I believe that if RA was reduced then rents would fall - now, here you say that you don't believe that to be the case - which is funny because you, in saying this 2) As I have stated I reduced rent to allow for RA as do many LL. have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is absolutely the case. Meaning that according to you and many other landlords, Rent allowance is propping up the market.

As to dancing with glee? No, I'll be happy when I and many thousands are paying market rent and trust me the last people to suffer witll be the tenants.

Who said that when the tide goes out we'll see who has swimming gear on - or something to that effect??

yosser hughes · 23-12-2011 1:11am

daltonmd wrote: »

Who said that when the tide goes out we'll see who has swimming gear on - or something to that effect??

Warren Buffet I think.

edit: I wouldn't waste anymore time on this if I were you. Beligerence and willful ignorance is a waste of everyone's time. Responding is pointless in the face of ignorance.

the_syco · 23-12-2011 6:12pm

daltonmd wrote: »

If RA was taken away, then rents would fall to their natural levels, whether you realise it or not 50% or private landlords tenants are in receipt of RA, the other 50% of the rents are based on this.

If RA was taken away, lots of people would live rent free, as they would probably not be able to pay the rent and as they'd have nowhere to go I doubt they would leave.

daltonmd wrote: »

Answer, you wouldn't, you would have to dump it meaning more property for sale on the market

If you already owned the house, you could leave it empty. If you bought it during the boom, the bank would not allow you to "dump" it as you owe too much.

Tayla · 24-12-2011 4:26am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

But LL won't rent to people on RA so they aren't competing. Cut RA too drastically and there will lots of people out on their ear. Tenants will subsidise their RA in order to stay where they are.

Some of the landlords who are planning on passing this tax onto the tenant are saying that they can apparently barely make up the difference between the rent and the mortgage as it is, are they just going to leave the house empty and not pay a penny? or would they rather take what they can get and go interest only on the mortgage to at least have a chance to hold onto the property.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is a a theory that rent is artifically high due to RA but it misses the fact this property would not be provided the supply would constrict and likely push up prices.

It's not a theory at all. A lot of Landlords would have no choice but to lower the rent because there are simply not enough tenants out there who can afford to pay for rent themselves without state assistance. Either that or the house will remain empty and the landlord won't get a cent for it.

steve9859 wrote: »

But I pay a 2nd home tax already (I think it should go up, incidentally), but this tax is for local amenities. Therefore, the people who live there should pay.

If the local amenities weren't there then nobody would rent your house from you anyway.

daltonmd wrote: »

WE need to accept that rents are too high - I don't see a scenario where people will be left homeless without this subsidy. What I do foresee is that many landlords would go to the wall without this. This subsidy is yet another bailout for the banks, after all not only is RA keeping an artificial floor on rents but where is the money going? For the most part it's being repaid to banks for BTL mortgages.

There are very few prosperous landlords, but much like when people try to sell their homes "for what's left on their mortgage" - rents are based on what a landlord has to repay to the bank.

That's a crazy situation that we are in,

What I resent in this thread is the notion that tenants should subsidise the debts of landlords, and that's what is happening. People here laying out what their outgoings are per month and some thinking that they can raise rents on tenants because they cannot afford, or feel that they should not be liable for a charge that is aimed at them.

I pay tax on the income that I use to pay my rent, for years there was a few tax credits for tenants, that has been reduced , nothing like the tax breaks that owners and BTL investors received. Section 23's and the like.

New tenants in the rental market after last December are not entitled to claim rent relief and for us already claiming it - it is being phased out in 2017- didn't see a big hullaballoo about that.

My tax credits are being reduced my 25% in 2012 - maybe I'll ask my landlord for a rent reduction based on this - can you imagine if tenants did this.

Landlords can't have it everyway, expecting tenants to suck up these reductions along with lower disposable income and higher cost of living, yet try to pass on these new charges.

+1

Julie London wrote: »

I am a landlord and I will not be passing on the household charge to my tenants. Not even sure if I will bother paying it, im going to hang on and see what happens as I can see another bout of political unrest . I will only be paying it if the vast majority of people pay

Good for you Julie, this is the route landlords should be following, there is plenty of time to take a wait and see approach before we get to the courts and large fines stage so landlords should just not pay.

If you do pay this then you're just inviting the government to hit you with a much bigger charge in the next couple of years. Are landlords going to keep passing pass it on as it increases? There is only so much that people can actually pay for rent and if this tax is going to be in the hundreds then you will probably end up with less money to pay back the mortgages regardless of whether it's the landlord or tenant who pays it.

The_Conductor · 24-12-2011 10:38am

Tayla wrote: »

Some of the landlords who are planning on passing this tax onto the tenant are saying that they can apparently barely make up the difference between the rent and the mortgage as it is, are they just going to leave the house empty and not pay a penny? or would they rather take what they can get and go interest only on the mortgage to at least have a chance to hold onto the property.

Some perhaps. We keep reheating the argument that some landlords are 'barely able to make up the difference between the rent and the mortgage' as is. This is a very false argument- in particular- because its the gross allowable expenses (and not what the landlord is paying on his or her mortgage) that determine whether he or she is loosing money. In any event- at present 3/4 of the interest paid is an allowable expense- due to fall to zero, along with mortgage interest relief (TRS) for owner occupiers by 2017.

Whether the landlord can cover their mortgage from the rent or not- doesn't matter one damn iota. Its a complete and utter red herring.

Tayla wrote: »

It's not a theory at all. A lot of Landlords would have no choice but to lower the rent because there are simply not enough tenants out there who can afford to pay for rent themselves without state assistance. Either that or the house will remain empty and the landlord won't get a cent for it.

True. Rents are set at market rates. The principle determining factor of market rates is currently what the floor on rents are- which is what will the purchaser of last resort be willing to pay (no disrespect to tenants- its actually an economic term). The various rental schemes are setting an artificial floor on the market in all but the luxury segments of the market. If you were to lower the support- it could take a year or 18 months for the market to factor this into the equation- but it sure as hell is a direct correlation.

Tayla wrote: »

If the local amenities weren't there then nobody would rent your house from you anyway.

You do have a not insignificant cadre of people who like the peace and quiet of rural living. They may be in the minority- but you will find you can rent a pleasant property in the middle of nowhere too.......

Tayla wrote: »

Good for you Julie, this is the route landlords should be following, there is plenty of time to take a wait and see approach before we get to the courts and large fines stage so landlords should just not pay.

There is a lot of political activism against this charge- and its April deadline. It will be interesting to see what happens. This is why they are bringing forward property tax to 2013 (the 100 Euro tax while billed as a 'Property tax' is not, in actual fact- its an interim measure).

The new bill to purloin people's bank accounts to pay the tax and/or fines for non-payment of this- is a step too far imho.

Tayla wrote: »

If you do pay this then you're just inviting the government to hit you with a much bigger charge in the next couple of years. Are landlords going to keep passing pass it on as it increases? There is only so much that people can actually pay for rent and if this tax is going to be in the hundreds then you will probably end up with less money to pay back the mortgages regardless of whether it's the landlord or tenant who pays it.

Much bigger? Well- its already pencilled in at 350 for 2013, and economists have pointed out that an average payment of between 800 and 1,500 will be necessary to make the government's figures add up by 2017........

This may assist in modifying the Irish psyche, so that owning property is not seen as the be-all and end-all........

What does the property tax mean for the larger picture? I imagine it would infer a reduction of 4-6% in the gross value (which is relative at best) associated with residential property- with the bulk of this deduction focused on non-apartments. Its now seen as most politically correct to charge the tax based on property size, rather than value- we'll see........

the_syco · 24-12-2011 6:56pm

smccarrick wrote: »

Its now seen as most politically correct to charge the tax based on property size, rather than value- we'll see........

As the value is going downwards, they'll most likely do it on size. Also, if done on size they can put all apartments in one cat, semi-d's in anther cat, etc. It would also roll out quicker, imo. But this makes too much sense, so I doubt it'll go ahead :P

The_Conductor · 24-12-2011 10:51pm

the_syco wrote: »

As the value is going downwards, they'll most likely do it on size. Also, if done on size they can put all apartments in one cat, semi-d's in anther cat, etc. It would also roll out quicker, imo. But this makes too much sense, so I doubt it'll go ahead :P

Somehow I think you're right

Apparently the IFA have issued a statement inferring that people in Urban areas (hint hint, Dublin........) should bare the brunt of the tax as they enjoy more facilities and amenties than do rural dwellers............

Perhaps someone might point out to them that the cost of supplying facilities/amenties (such as roads, water, lighting etc) is shared by a much smaller number of people in rural areas, and consequently has a far higher per person cost associated with it........

The previous tax was widely known as a Dublin tax- as at the time property in Dublin was worth a multiple of the price of rural properties- certainly not the case anymore........

The Commission on taxation are due to commence their study and report later next year, I really hope they heed their mantra of taxation being applied in an equitable manner in their suggestions..........

Personally I think that people living in managed complexes/apartments/estates (etc) should have their management charges figured into any property tax- as much of the money they are paying goes towards facilities provided automatically by councils in non-managed estates/developments etc. Indeed in many cases, the bulk of management fees are for public liability insurance............

It really is a case of watch this space- and no matter what they come up with, there are going to be disappointed people fighting their corners.........

daltonmd · 28-12-2011 5:19pm

the_syco wrote: »

If RA was taken away, lots of people would live rent free, as they would probably not be able to pay the rent and as they'd have nowhere to go I doubt they would leave.

If you already owned the house, you could leave it empty. If you bought it during the boom, the bank would not allow you to "dump" it as you owe too much.

Nobody said RA would be done away with - it won't.

I wish you would read this back and realise that you have actually set out what is wrong with the whole property marker, sales and rentals.

To say that if someone "owns" a house outright that they would leave it empty rather than lower their rent, would simply NEVER happen.

If you already own a house then you can afford to rent it out at 50% of the "artificial market value". These are the people wearing swimming shorts.

If you bought during the boom then you can't drop your rent - because you owe the bank, it is also being propped up by RA - these are the naked people.

In any business if you don't have enough coming in to pay the outgoings then you don't keep increasing your prices - you fold up and get out. That's the way it works.

the_syco · 30-12-2011 3:05am

daltonmd wrote: »

Nobody said RA would be done away with - it won't.

I do believe I said "IF..."
and if you read my post, you'd see that I was disagreeing to the post that said

If RA was taken away, then rents would fall to their natural levels

But anyhoo's, the government are already doing an excellent job at getting various classes fighting amongst ourselves...

Property tax to be passed onto tenants? No thanks.

Comments