2021 Irish Property Market chat - mod warnings post 1

Cyrus · 08-03-2021 11:17pm

Pelezico wrote: »

That is nonsense. Why would the bank seek an explanation for early repayment of a mortgage?

When interest rates were higher about a thousand years ago early payment was very good strategy.

It’s still a good strategy it’s a gteed 2-3 percent net return on your investment

Pelezico · 08-03-2021 11:19pm

Graham wrote: »

I don't see the part that suggests these will come from the private market or where "DCC have recently stated they're in active negotiations with c. 4,000 property owner in the city".

Cyrus wrote: »

It’s still a good strategy it’s a gteed 2-3 percent net return on your investment

It used to be 17%. Yes , I had a 17% mortgage and used to do small overpayments every month.

Timing belt · 08-03-2021 11:21pm

Villa05 wrote: »

The taxpayer provides essential services to these buildings like water, waste, transport services and infrastructure. Without these services the properties are worthless, its not unreasonable for business that benefit from these services and provision/maintenence of infrastructure to make a contribution to their cost like every other citizen

Do you agree that landlords pay for these services? If the answer is yes then I don't see where the issue with a REIT is as they have to distribute income to their investors who in turn pay tax.

If the REIT was to pay the tax then the investor would be paying tax twice by using a company or corporate vehicle.

Do you think individual Landlords should pay double the tax they are paying?

Timing belt · 08-03-2021 11:26pm

Pelezico wrote: »

That is nonsense. Why would the bank seek an explanation for early repayment of a mortgage?

To ensure that another loan was not taken out with the property being used as collateral.

Pelezico · 08-03-2021 11:32pm

Timing belt wrote: »

To ensure that another loan was not taken out with the property being used as collateral.

Nonsense. The deeds are with the bank and cannot be used as collateral.

Going in with loads of cash is a different matter but that would be the same for any transaction

Timing belt · 08-03-2021 11:45pm

Pelezico wrote: »

Nonsense. The deeds are with the bank and cannot be used as collateral.

Going in with loads of cash is a different matter but that would be the same for any transaction

After the 08 crash they found that multiple banks all had claims on the same property and none knew about the other claims and to enforce anything would be a legal nightmare..... So it is not rubbish.

If the bank know that you got 50k of a loan from a relative and 150k of a mortgage from them then they will be reluctant to lend to you because the relative could claim that he owns 25% house and argue in court for years and years.

hometruths · 09-03-2021 9:19am

BPFI have published their latest housing market monitor, confirming the fall in individual BTL investors:

At the peak of the mortgage activity in 2006, BTL loans accounted for around 20% of total mortgage drawdowns compared to less than 1% in 2020. At the same time, there has been a marked increase in the role of non-household buyers which includes private companies, charitable organisations, and state institutions who now account for 23% of all market transactions, up from 3% in 2010.”

Also confirming the state as a major buyer as indicated by many posters on here.

Knowing the wasteful attitude of the councils, what worries me is that I suspect Graham might be correct - there was no such thing as active negotiations, they were just earmarked for purchase and paid whatever price the vendor asked.

Graham · 09-03-2021 9:45am

schmittel wrote: »

there was no such thing as active negotiations, they were just earmarked for purchase and paid whatever price the vendor asked.

I understand a very significant chunk were not to be purchased at all, they are council owned sites earmarked for social/affordable housing.

JimmyVik · 09-03-2021 9:58am

schmittel wrote: »

BPFI have published their latest housing market monitor, confirming the fall in individual BTL investors:

Also confirming the state as a major buyer as indicated by many posters on here.

Knowing the wasteful attitude of the councils, what worries me is that I suspect Graham might be correct - there was no such thing as active negotiations, they were just earmarked for purchase and paid whatever price the vendor asked.

When I was buying I was given a list by a friend who works in the council (in the department that procures private property for the council) of estates to avoid. The list included old estates that now or soon would have had 20% of the properties bought or rented by the council and, to my surprise, entire sections (up to half) of estates with new builds that were bought or agreed to be bought by the council even before they were built. And there were a lot of estates on that list.
The council have so many properties either bought or rented in many estates that they cannot actually buy or rent anymore in those estates. I think the term they used was "socially satisfied" for the estates like this. Basically means full to the brim of council rentals/ council owned.

PropQueries · 09-03-2021 10:22am

Graham wrote: »

I understand a very significant chunk were not to be purchased at all, they are council owned sites earmarked for social/affordable housing.

If the pre-covid regularly media reported figures of c. 5,000 AirBnB homes in Dublin was correct and the Minister for Housing said back in July that:

“The Airbnb properties that are now not being used – is there an opportunity for the state to buy more of them? It’s something that I’m looking at, absolutely. It is something that I want to do frankly,” said O’Brien. If there are opportunities for the state to buy, at reasonable prices, so we can house people and then they can rent them on a secure basis from the state, then we should.”

Wouldn't that number of former AirBnB houses and apartments fit in nicely with the c. 4,000 homes figure DCC stated they had currently earmarked for purchase or rental? It is 8 months later at this stage.

Link to Minister for Housing interview in July 2020 here: https://www.thejournal.ie/darragh-o-brien-housing-minister-5146915-Jul2020/

JimmyVik · 09-03-2021 10:26am

PropQueries wrote: »

If the pre-covid regularly media reported figures of c. 5,000 AirBnB homes in Dublin was correct and the Minister for Housing said back in July that:

“The Airbnb properties that are now not being used – is there an opportunity for the state to buy more of them? It’s something that I’m looking at, absolutely. It is something that I want to do frankly,” said O’Brien. If there are opportunities for the state to buy, at reasonable prices, so we can house people and then they can rent them on a secure basis from the state, then we should.”

Wouldn't that number of former AirBnB houses and apartments fit in nicely with the c. 4,000 homes figure DCC stated they had currently earmarked for purchase or rental? It is 8 months later at this stage.

Link to Minister for Housing interview in July 2020 here: https://www.thejournal.ie/darragh-o-brien-housing-minister-5146915-Jul2020/

I always thought there was something amiss here.
State passes legislation and stamps the foot down to make it extremely difficult and unprofitable for the people who own rentals or airbnbs to continue to operate their business.
Make the environment unbearable so owners are pressure to sell. All so that the state can swoop in and buy them up.
Something definitely wrong with that picture. Major bullying going on there.

fliball123 · 09-03-2021 10:37am

schmittel wrote: »

I wonder why.

Well thats just how its gone and its not just Ireland that is unique in this , all first world countries property is set for sale for a couple as apposed to a singleton.

PropQueries · 09-03-2021 10:40am

schmittel wrote: »

BPFI have published their latest housing market monitor, confirming the fall in individual BTL investors:

Also confirming the state as a major buyer as indicated by many posters on here.

Knowing the wasteful attitude of the councils, what worries me is that I suspect Graham might be correct - there was no such thing as active negotiations, they were just earmarked for purchase and paid whatever price the vendor asked.

I'll agree that it's entirely possible that I'm giving DCC too much credit

But given that it's so hard to get actual up to date real data in this country, in most cases, we have to read between the lines whenever someone involved in such issues releases a statement or makes an off the cuff comment in order to see what's really going on at the present time IMO

JimmyVik · 09-03-2021 10:49am

I'll see if i can find that "Socially satisfied" list and post up a snippet.

Edit, Here is a screenshot of part of it.
Donabate and Lusk arent in that shot, but is choc full..

Pretty sure under FOI you could probably get the full updated list off each council.

Villa05 · 09-03-2021 11:00am

Timing belt wrote:

If the REIT was to pay the tax then the investor would be paying tax twice by using a company or corporate vehicle.

You do regularly post about the attractive returns for these Reits. These returns are partly a product of not having to pay for inputs provided by the state. It is only fair and proper that they make a contribution to cover that cost.

Private landlords are taxed quiet heavily

hometruths · 09-03-2021 11:03am

Graham wrote: »

I understand a very significant chunk were not to be purchased at all, they are council owned sites earmarked for social/affordable housing.

I have no doubt its true that a big chunk of the 4000 referenced in the article Props linked are council owned, but I am equally sure that a chunk are earmarked to be bought from a third party. The BFPI figures indicate this.

It is undeniable that the state is an elephant in the market place either by direct purchase, or by agreeing to lease the properties that charities and private companies purchase.

Reading the exchange between you and Props about active negotiations vs earmarking made me think that a big part of the problem is that the state is unlikely to be negotiating actively enough.

PropQueries · 09-03-2021 11:08am

schmittel wrote: »

I have no doubt its true that a big chunk of the 4000 referenced in the article Props linked are council owned, but I am equally sure that a chunk are earmarked to be bought from a third party. The BFPI figures indicate this.

It is undeniable that the state is an elephant in the market place either by direct purchase, or by agreeing to lease the properties that charities and private companies purchase.

Reading the exchange between you and Props about active negotiations vs earmarking made me think that a big part of the problem is that the state is unlikely to be negotiating actively enough.

And given that there are less than c. 3,000 homes for sale in all of Co. Dublin (on MyHome.ie) and DCC is just one of 4 councils in Co. Dublin, it doesn't take much activity on the part of the 4 Dublin councils to move the market price significantly in either direction.

As they're buying, it drives prices up, as they exit, it drives prices down.

Graham · 09-03-2021 11:11am

PropQueries wrote: »

Wouldn't that number of former AirBnB houses and apartments fit in nicely with the c. 4,000 homes figure DCC stated they had currently earmarked for purchase or rental? It is 8 months later at this stage.

DCC Target for 'acquisitions' this year is 295.

That's not my guess. That's not my interpretation. That's not a number I've contrived by smushing together 37 random facts and sentences from assorted news sources.

That's the number from DCC.

295 Acquisitions

PropQueries · 09-03-2021 11:13am

Graham wrote: »

DCC Target for 'acquisitions' this year is 295.

That's not my guess. That's not my interpretation. That's not a number I've contrived by smushing together 37 random facts and sentences from assorted news sources.

That's the number from DCC.

295 Acquisitions

As I'm regularly asked. Do you have a source/link for that? I'm sure you have or you wouldn't have mentioned it

Graham · 09-03-2021 11:14am

PropQueries wrote: »

As I'm regularly asked. Do you have a source/link for that? I'm sure you have or you wouldn't have mentioned it

DCC housing report Jan 2021.

hometruths · 09-03-2021 11:17am

Graham wrote: »

DCC housing report Jan 2021.

A link would be helpful?

awec · 09-03-2021 11:18am

schmittel wrote: »

A link would be helpful?

https://councilmeetings.dublincity.ie/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=30657

Hubertj · 09-03-2021 11:27am

Villa05 wrote: »

You do regularly post about the attractive returns for these Reits. These returns are partly a product of not having to pay for inputs provided by the state. It is only fair and proper that they make a contribution to cover that cost.

Private landlords are taxed quiet heavily

Which inputs don’t they pay for?

hometruths · 09-03-2021 11:33am

awec wrote: »

https://councilmeetings.dublincity.ie/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=30657

Interestingly they exceeded their target for 2019 acquisitions by over 100%. I wonder will they have exceeded again given that the Minister told them to ramp up their buying - Minister tells councils to buy up properties as social housing target 'will not be achieved'

Graham · 09-03-2021 11:38am

schmittel wrote: »

Interestingly they exceeded their target for 2019 acquisitions by over 100%. I wonder will they have exceeded again given that the Minister told them to ramp up their buying - Minister tells councils to buy up properties as social housing target 'will not be achieved'

Acquisitions do look like they're exceeding targets by about 250 units per year for a total of 500 - 600 units p.a.

Looks like there are currently 335 acquisitions in the pipeline.

JimmyVik · 09-03-2021 11:46am

Graham wrote: »

Acquisitions do look like they're exceeding targets by about 250 units per year for a total of 500 - 600 units p.a.

Looks like there are currently 335 acquisitions in the pipeline.

I wonder what that will do for the average person looking to buy a home.

The_Conductor · 09-03-2021 11:50am

JimmyVik wrote: »

I wonder what that will do for the average person looking to buy a home.

You will be competing against the state- who have no financial limitations, and will outbid you, regardless of what you bid, if it is a property they are interested in.

Thats what it will do.

Aka- they are an inflationary effect on the market- along with being a monster who will bludgeon all other prospective buyers for any properties they might be interested in.........

Villa05 · 09-03-2021 11:50am

awec wrote:

This way gave them political cover, while also giving those on the scheme a tangible benefit, especially for the "squeezed middle" who very rarely see much direct benefit for their taxes. People bought a house 1/2/3 years ahead of schedule, at a price likely higher than they would have paid, but offset against 1/2/3 years worth of rent.

The squeezed middle are squeezed directly as a result of poor policies like this. It drives up house prices. It would be foolish and mis leading to deduct that there is a benefit

The lower to middle income (and ABOVE) young workers are crushed with rents far higher than a mortgage with the beneficiaries of those rents increasingly contributing nothing to this state. The renters have been economically neutralised so scope for rasing taxes from this group has been wiped out.

As 50% and growing of total rents including corpo let's are state subsidised, those getting grants will have to pay more or forego potential income tax cuts as the grant they received pushed up prices and rents further

In addition the high cost of property and services that require property (childcare) means workers on lower incomes are less likely to have children or have less children meaning less people to cover the ballooning pensions crisis

Then we get this right left divide with scapegoats being blamed for all society's ills and as a result we get the worst policies from the right/left rather than policies that are best for the country be they right or left leaning (they do exist you know)

Yes there may be some initial benefit from ftb grants, but deep down they even know that they will pay for it many times over.

The only true beneficiary are the speculators land hoarders and developers. The casino has been rigged for their benefit

....................

In other news our debt per head of population is 75% above the EU average

Source Irish Times

awec · 09-03-2021 11:55am

Villa05 wrote: »

The squeezed middle are squeezed directly as a result of poor policies like this. It drives up house prices. It would be foolish and mis leading to deduct that there is a benefit

The lower to middle income (and ABOVE) young workers are crushed with rents far higher than a mortgage with the beneficiaries of those rents increasingly contributing nothing to this state. The renters have been economically neutralised so scope for rasing taxes from this group has been wiped out.

As 50% and growing of total rents including corpo let's are state subsidised, those getting grants will have to pay more or forego potential income tax cuts as the grant they received pushed up prices and rents further

In addition the high cost of property and services that require property (childcare) means workers on lower incomes are less likely to have children or have less children meaning less people to cover the ballooning pensions crisis

Then we get this right left divide with scapegoats being blamed for all society's ills and as a result we get the worst policies from the right/left rather than policies that are best for the country be they right or left leaning (they do exist you know)

Yes there may be some initial benefit from ftb grants, but deep down they even know that they will pay for it many times over.

The only true beneficiary are the speculators land hoarders and developers. The casino has been rigged for their benefit

....................

In other news our debt per head of population is 75% above the EU average

Source Irish Times

You are overthinking it. Most people who want a house don't give a crap about any of this.

They want to buy their house and move on with their lives. They don't spend their time looking at the taxes REITs pay, or the profits of land owners or developers or whatever else.

The HTB suited them perfectly. They bought a house sooner than they otherwise would have, and they have likely never looked back. The biggest complaint was the difficulty in getting a deposit together while paying rent. HTB addressed it.

PropQueries · 09-03-2021 12:24pm

Villa05 wrote: »

The squeezed middle are squeezed directly as a result of poor policies like this. It drives up house prices. It would be foolish and mis leading to deduct that there is a benefit

The lower to middle income (and ABOVE) young workers are crushed with rents far higher than a mortgage with the beneficiaries of those rents increasingly contributing nothing to this state. The renters have been economically neutralised so scope for rasing taxes from this group has been wiped out.

As 50% and growing of total rents including corpo let's are state subsidised, those getting grants will have to pay more or forego potential income tax cuts as the grant they received pushed up prices and rents further

In addition the high cost of property and services that require property (childcare) means workers on lower incomes are less likely to have children or have less children meaning less people to cover the ballooning pensions crisis

Then we get this right left divide with scapegoats being blamed for all society's ills and as a result we get the worst policies from the right/left rather than policies that are best for the country be they right or left leaning (they do exist you know)

Yes there may be some initial benefit from ftb grants, but deep down they even know that they will pay for it many times over.

The only true beneficiary are the speculators land hoarders and developers. The casino has been rigged for their benefit

....................

In other news our debt per head of population is 75% above the EU average

Source Irish Times

Also in other news. According to the Irish Times today:

"EU poised to affirm tax on tech giants if global agreement fails. Leaders are working towards consensus, but EU ready to take unilateral action if needed.

European Union leaders are poised to affirm their commitment to a unilateral tax on tech giants if they fail to agree on a global framework with partners, including Joe Biden’s US administration, by the middle of this year."

There's so many fires we have to fight this year, it will take a significant luck of the Irish to come out the other side with a quick return to an economy that looks anything like 2019 IMO

There may also be a quick reversal of any approved or soon to be approved housing measures (which appear to be primarily on the demand side of the equation) if the government finances do take an abrupt turn IMO

Link to Irish Times article here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-poised-to-affirm-tax-on-tech-giants-if-global-agreement-fails-1.4505268

awec · 09-03-2021 12:27pm

PropQueries wrote: »

Also in other news. According to the Irish Times today:

"EU poised to affirm tax on tech giants if global agreement fails. Leaders are working towards consensus, but EU ready to take unilateral action if needed.

European Union leaders are poised to affirm their commitment to a unilateral tax on tech giants if they fail to agree on a global framework with partners, including Joe Biden’s US administration, by the middle of this year."

There's so many fires we have to fight this year, it will take a significant luck of the Irish to come out the other side with a quick return to an economy that looks anything like 2019 IMO

There may also be a quick reversal of any approved or soon to be approved housing measures (which appear to be primarily on the demand side of the equation) if the government finances do take an abrupt turn IMO

Link to Irish Times article here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-poised-to-affirm-tax-on-tech-giants-if-global-agreement-fails-1.4505268

This is interesting, you were absolutely convinced this time last week that OECD was guaranteed to completely screw us.

All not going so rosy on the tax change front it seems. Who would have thought it?

PropQueries · 09-03-2021 12:32pm

awec wrote: »

This is interesting, you were absolutely convinced this time last week that OECD was guaranteed to completely screw us.

All not going so rosy on the tax change front it seems. Who would have thought it?

Well, that's the EU on board

On Sunday, the Sunday Times reported that:

"Rishi Sunak has enlisted America’s support to launch an international campaign to raise taxes on online companies such as Amazon that have cashed in on the coronavirus pandemic. The chancellor plans to use the G7 summit, which Britain is hosting in June, to push for changes to global laws so he can increase taxes on internet firms. Sunak revealed he had already had talks with Janet Yellen, the US Treasury secretary."

So, that's the UK also on board. Let's see if the USA gets on board?

Link to Sunday Times article here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-recruits-us-to-raise-taxes-on-internet-giants-z9qtstdln

Subutai · 09-03-2021 12:35pm

PropQueries wrote: »

Well, that's the EU on board On Sunday, the Sunday Times reported that:

"Rishi Sunak has enlisted America’s support to launch an international campaign to raise taxes on online companies such as Amazon that have cashed in on the coronavirus pandemic. The chancellor plans to use the G7 summit, which Britain is hosting in June, to push for changes to global laws so he can increase taxes on internet firms. Sunak revealed he had already had talks with Janet Yellen, the US Treasury secretary."

So, that's the UK also on board. Let's see if the USA gets on board?

Link to Sunday Times article here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-recruits-us-to-raise-taxes-on-internet-giants-z9qtstdln

You would be foolish to assume that the Commission’s pronouncements equal the EU being on board. Any real change in tax regulation will require unanimous approval at Council.

awec · 09-03-2021 12:35pm

PropQueries wrote: »

Well, that's the EU on board On Sunday, the Sunday Times reported that:

"Rishi Sunak has enlisted America’s support to launch an international campaign to raise taxes on online companies such as Amazon that have cashed in on the coronavirus pandemic. The chancellor plans to use the G7 summit, which Britain is hosting in June, to push for changes to global laws so he can increase taxes on internet firms. Sunak revealed he had already had talks with Janet Yellen, the US Treasury secretary."

So, that's the UK also on board. Let's see if the USA gets on board?

Link to Sunday Times article here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-recruits-us-to-raise-taxes-on-internet-giants-z9qtstdln

It's the EU Commission affirming commitment to tax change. They can affirm commitment all the want, it would be odd if they did anything else given their messaging in recent years.

There's a chasm between talking the talk and walking the walk as it seems they are finding out.

fliball123 · 09-03-2021 12:39pm

awec wrote: »

It's the EU Commission affirming commitment to tax change. They can affirm commitment all the want, it would be odd if they did anything else given their messaging in recent years.

There's a chasm between talking the talk and walking the walk as it seems they are finding out.

This talk has been going on for the guts of a decade and this is the third American president that this kind of talk has been bandied about and yet nothing has happened. I will believe it when it is enforced.

PropQueries · 09-03-2021 12:39pm

Subutai wrote: »

You would be foolish to assume that the Commission’s pronouncements equal the EU being on board. Any real change in tax regulation will require unanimous approval at Council.

What's more foolish? The state spending money we may not have in 12 months on demand side housing policies or the state pulling back until the cloud clears and seeing if there's a cheaper way of resolving the housing "crisis"?

I think the housing "crisis" has already been resolved and the state is fighting the war from three years ago. They're introducing very expensive demand side housing policies at a time when we may not either need them or be able to afford them IMO

Subutai · 09-03-2021 12:50pm

PropQueries wrote: »

What's more foolish? The state spending money we may not have in 12 months on demand side housing policies or the state pulling back until the cloud clears and seeing if there's a cheaper way of resolving the housing "crisis"?

I think the housing "crisis" has already been resolved and the state is fighting the war from three years ago. They're introducing very expensive demand side housing policies at a time when we may not either need them or be able to afford them IMO

I don’t see how this relates to what I said at all.

Timing belt · 09-03-2021 1:22pm

Villa05 wrote: »

You do regularly post about the attractive returns for these Reits. These returns are partly a product of not having to pay for inputs provided by the state. It is only fair and proper that they make a contribution to cover that cost.

Private landlords are taxed quiet heavily

You are missing the point..the investors in Reits will end up paying the same tax as a landlord at present.

P.s. just to be clear I post that property has an attractive yield at present (for any investor whether it is private landlords or funds/reits) and have never posted about returns from any fund or REIT.

Hubertj · 09-03-2021 1:49pm

https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/commercial/arid-40240229.html

Good news for commercial property but also the jobs front in the cork region. Further demonstrates apples commitment to Irish operations. Also strange they would continue to invest and expand Irish operations when a tax apocalypse is due to hit Ireland. Could it be they have already factored tax changes into their plans? Would large MNCs with dedicated tax teams have the forethought to factor this into their future plans? Amazing thought. I fear they haven’t checked board.ie and are making a terrible terrible mistake.

JimmyVik · 09-03-2021 1:49pm

What you have are housing minister after housing minister wrecking the whole housing economy, just to be seen to be doing something.
Once the current one has wrecked it some more, off he goes and in comes the next one.
This goes all the way back to Simon Coveny. He started the wrecking ball rolling and each one since one has made it worse.
But they just all hand the problem off to the next guy and walk away.

JimmyVik · 09-03-2021 1:51pm

Hubertj wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/commercial/arid-40240229.html

Good news for commercial property but also the jobs front in the cork region. Further demonstrates apples commitment to Irish operations. Also strange they would continue to invest and expand Irish operations when a tax apocalypse is due to hit Ireland. Could it be they have already factored tax changes into their plans? Would large MNCs with dedicated tax teams have the forethought to factor this into their future plans? Amazing thought. I fear they haven’t checked board.ie and are making a terrible terrible mistake.

More likely they are fully aware that there will be, as usual, no change in the tax situation. And even if there was, its still good enough for them.

awec · 09-03-2021 2:27pm

I see that British overseas territories are officially the top 3 worst tax havens.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/09/uk-overseas-territories-top-list-of-worlds-leading-tax-havens

I wonder if Rishi Sunak's new focus on raising taxes, which we hear is going to be trend-setting for worldwide tax increases on business, will include their overseas territories? Does anyone want to take a guess?

P.S. Ireland doesn't even make the top 10. Maybe an option for us is to double Ireland's corpo tax rate and designate the Aran Islands an offshore territory instead?

Villa05 · 09-03-2021 2:42pm

awec wrote:

You are overthinking it. Most people who want a house don't give a crap about any of this.

The art of a con job is to make your victim feel you are benefitting them when in reality you are fleecing them and their country

This is engrained in a system developed by the government of that same country

Think about that for 5 seconds

hometruths · 09-03-2021 2:48pm

awec wrote: »

I see that British overseas territories are officially the top 3 worst tax havens.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/09/uk-overseas-territories-top-list-of-worlds-leading-tax-havens

I wonder if Rishi Sunak's new focus on raising taxes, which we hear is going to be trend-setting for worldwide tax increases on business, will include their overseas territories? Does anyone want to take a guess?

P.S. Ireland doesn't even make the top 10. Maybe an option for us is to double Ireland's corpo tax rate and designate the Aran Islands an offshore territory instead?

We're 11th.

Corporate Tax Haven Index ranking: 11
Financial Secrecy Index ranking: 29
Tax lost each year to tax havens: $14,462,658,146
Tax loss inflicted each year on other countries: $15,830,940,779

fliball123 · 09-03-2021 3:04pm

schmittel wrote: »

We're 11th.

and Germany , U.K, France and the U.S are all in the top 25 . Whats your point?

Villa05 · 09-03-2021 3:06pm

Timing belt wrote:

You are missing the point..the investors in Reits will end up paying the same tax as a landlord at present.

Timing belt wrote:

P.s. just to be clear I post that property has an attractive yield at present (for any investor whether it is private landlords or funds/reits) and have never posted about returns from any fund or REIT.

Investors in a manufacturing company or service provider pay tax on profits/divideds. These products and services are taxed using the VAT system. Is this double/triple taxation? This is a quiet common and internationally accepted form of commerce

Seperatly many of these reits / vulture funds were invited in from abroad. Will foreign investors/shareholders be taxed in their home country thus leaving 0 contribution to the Irish state that provide essential services to those properties from people who do pay tax in Ireland?

cnocbui · 09-03-2021 3:07pm

Hubertj wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/commercial/arid-40240229.html

Good news for commercial property but also the jobs front in the cork region. Further demonstrates apples commitment to Irish operations. Also strange they would continue to invest and expand Irish operations when a tax apocalypse is due to hit Ireland. Could it be they have already factored tax changes into their plans? Would large MNCs with dedicated tax teams have the forethought to factor this into their future plans? Amazing thought. I fear they haven’t checked board.ie and are making a terrible terrible mistake.

They moved the tax focus to Jersey:

Apple moved profits to tax haven Jersey after Ireland crackdown: reports

November 6, 2017 / 5:36 PM / CBS/AP

After drawing scrutiny for its use of tax loopholes in Ireland in 2013, Apple (AAPL) came up with another plan: find another tax haven that wasn't in the spotlight.

The technology giant subsequently revamped its overseas subsidiaries to take advantage of favorable tax laws on the European island of Jersey, according to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and The New York Times.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/apple-moved-profits-to-tax-haven-jersey-after-ireland-crackdown/

Lying stunts, having previously claimed they weren't in Ireland for tax rorting.

cnocbui · 09-03-2021 3:12pm

fliball123 wrote: »

and Germany , U.K, France and the U.S are all in the top 25 . Whats your point?

Ireland is the worst offender:

Study claims State shelters more multinational profits than the entire Caribbean
Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 04:35

Ireland is the biggest “tax haven” in the world used by multinationals to shelter profits, according to a new study by economists from the United States and Denmark.

The research from academics at the University California, Berkeley and the University of Copenhagen estimates that foreign multinationals shifted $106 billion (€90 billion) of corporate profits to Ireland in 2015.

This was more than all of the islands of the Caribbean combined ($97 billion/€83 billion), and well ahead of Singapore ($70 billion/€60 billion), Switzerland ($58 billion/€49 billion) and the Netherlands ($57 billion/€48 billion), according to the researchers.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-is-the-world-s-biggest-corporate-tax-haven-say-academics-1.3528401

If I were a dictator running the EU, I would have turfed Ireland out, not only for this, but for all it's other cute-hoor anti single market practices.

fliball123 · 09-03-2021 3:16pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Ireland is the worst offender:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-is-the-world-s-biggest-corporate-tax-haven-say-academics-1.3528401

If I were a dictator running the EU, I would have turfed Ireland out, not only for this, but for all it's other cute-hoor anti single market practices.

Well hang on there are 10 above them, also if all of them are on this list it means they are all doing it in some capacity.

awec · 09-03-2021 3:16pm

schmittel wrote: »

We're 11th.

I'm sure we can get ourselves down the list a bit by adopting the same approach as the likes of the UK.

2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

Comments

2021 Irish Property Market chat - mod warnings post 1