Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Goverment should be compensating landlords

Options
  • 11-07-2020 11:19am
    #1
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭


    The emergency anti eviction legislation that has no end in sight means that landlords can't pursue delinquent anti social tenants, nor can they sell their property.

    The government should compensate these landlords for their losses, up to and including purchasing of the property at market value with current tenants in situ.
    That would actually help the homeless so called crisis, as no houses are being built.

    The tenants can then pay rent to the government.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    super_furry
    Registered Users Posts: 27,321 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Nah.


  • Options
    #3
    Xterminator
    Registered Users Posts: 4,717 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    HI OP

    Have you considered the people who run other businesses worse affected by covid? you know people who run a restaurant or salon, have to pay rent possibly top up staff wages, and have zero income for months. are you out shouting for their greater losses?

    Do you think that the public purse is infinite? Here is a hint, it is not. As the funds available are limited surely the government needs to target the most affected people and businesses. the permanent job losses are in the 1000's and the no. of people claiming covid assistance are above 400,000. The HSE budget has been thrown out the window.

    perhaps you are suggesting some of the funds currently being borrowed by the exchequer should be diverted from the above schemes to assist landlords? Or more should be borrowed? have you thought this through?

    Landlords have been affected, no argument. but not as bad as some sectors. I'm afraid everyone has had some pain, some sacrifice. Landlords included. Its not all refundable by the tax payer.


  • Options
    #4
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,668 ✭✭✭whippet


    Xterminator wrote: »
    HI OP

    Have you considered the people who run other businesses worse affected by covid? you know people who run a restaurant or salon, have to pay rent possibly top up staff wages, and have zero income for months. are you out shouting for their greater losses?
    .

    While I agree with most of your points and the post in general .. however .. you can’t compare the majority of landlords with business as long as the government treat their tax affairs as personal income tax ...


  • Options
    #5
    Xterminator
    Registered Users Posts: 4,717 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    I remember the taximen losing their minds when the government brought in the current taxi regulations and issuing more taxi plates. Regulation often comes at a price. the bet REITs love the current regime, and the little guy doesn't. I agree that tenants who break the lease or withhold rent should be evicted within 2 months (outside of the current pandemic where 400,000 people are still not working).

    You don't have to be a landlord. you were not bonded into landlordship by birth with no choice and were forbidden from having another job. i once worked in a fast food restaurant and it suited me when i left school. it helped when i was in college, and i wouldnt work there by choice now. The point is i didn't like the regime/industry/hours/remuneration and changed my profession.

    I don't know your circumstances/obligations etc, but i do believe that you entered into any obligations of your own free will and that your not 'owed' a living by the state.

    Landlords provide a valuable service and i think the successive governments have outsourced the whole rental sector to them. Im not personally against them in any way. But just look at the bigger picture when it come to calling for taxpayers to bail you out.


  • Options
    #6
    housetypeb
    Registered Users Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    Restaurants aren't forced to keep feeding a customer that won't pay, while landlords are expected to not disrupt their non paying tenant in the peaceful enjoyment of their free abode by demanding payment - gotta waste time going through the RTB.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,547 ✭✭✭dubrov


    whippet wrote:
    While I agree with most of your points and the post in general .. however .. you can’t compare the majority of landlords with business as long as the government treat their tax affairs as personal income tax ...

    Eh, what business is allowed to pay salaries exempt from income tax?


  • Options
    #8
    jrosen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭jrosen


    I can see some merit in an argument for something

    Im a landlord, have great tenants so this wouldnt impact me. But if a landlord has been forced to allow a tenant stay in a property where he/she is either not paying rent, running the property down etc then i do think there should be some come back or break for losses to the landlord over the time the government have a ban on evictions.
    In normal circumstances the landlord would be able to take steps to evict the person and re let the property.


  • Options
    #9
    Xterminator
    Registered Users Posts: 4,717 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    housetypeb wrote: »
    Restaurants aren't forced to keep feeding a customer that won't pay, while landlords are expected to not disrupt their non paying tenant in the peaceful enjoyment of their free abode by demanding payment - gotta waste time going through the RTB.

    no but they still pay rent gas and electricity and wages with no income coming in the door.

    At least the vast majority of landlords kept their income, and those who didn't can resort to the courts to recover any outstanding debts.

    Are you really that blinkered that you cannot see how other businesses have been affected? No One is saying landlords have been exempt from problems during the eviction ban. Im simply saying as an industry it has not been hit as bad as some others.


  • Options
    #10
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    The emergency anti eviction legislation that has no end in sight means that landlords can't pursue delinquent anti social tenants, nor can they sell their property.

    The government should compensate these landlords for their losses, up to and including purchasing of the property at market value with current tenants in situ.
    That would actually help the homeless so called crisis, as no houses are being built.

    The tenants can then pay rent to the government.

    Lost cause, you'll get no support.

    The Govt has created ticking bomb on housing. This is just packing more explosives more around it. Being a LL is Russian Roulette at the moment.


  • Options
    #11
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Xterminator wrote: »
    no but they still pay rent gas and electricity and wages with no income coming in the door.

    At least the vast majority of landlords kept their income, and those who didn't can resort to the courts to recover any outstanding debts.

    Are you really that blinkered?

    You don't understand the issue if you think going to courts is going to recover debts for an over-holding tenant. All the LL wants is his property back as fast as possible. To minimize loses. What we do in this country is maximize the losses on the LL.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    housetypeb
    Registered Users Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    Xterminator wrote: »
    ... No One is saying landlords have been exempt from problems during the eviction ban. Im simply saying as an industry it has not been hit as bad as some others.

    They seem to be the only business model being told to not mitigate their loss as speedily as possible though.
    Forcing any business to continue serving a non paying customer for an indefinite time is bad law in any book.


  • Options
    #13
    An Ri rua
    Registered Users Posts: 4,475 ✭✭✭An Ri rua


    whippet wrote: »
    While I agree with most of your points and the post in general .. however .. you can’t compare the majority of landlords with business as long as the government treat their tax affairs as personal income tax ...

    ?? It's no different than someone sizeably 'trading as' rather than limited company. Company protection is there, should they choose it. Other than that, yes, they are in business, and yes it's taxed as income tax. Same as any other small business.

    In addition, how does changing ownership of the rented asset ease the homelessness crisis OP?


  • Options
    #14
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,668 ✭✭✭whippet


    An Ri rua wrote: »
    ?? It's no different than someone sizeably 'trading as' rather than limited company. Company protection is there, should they choose it. Other than that, yes, they are in business, and yes it's taxed as income tax. Same as any other small business.

    In addition, how does changing ownership of the rented asset ease the homelessness crisis OP?


    That’s incorrect .. private landlords pay USC on all rental income and tax at the the full page rate on the rent also .. slight tax breaks for interest... when revenue take the guts of 50% of any companies revenue let me know.


  • Options
    #15
    An Ri rua
    Registered Users Posts: 4,475 ✭✭✭An Ri rua


    whippet wrote: »
    That’s incorrect .. private landlords pay USC on all rental income and tax at the the full page rate on the rent also .. slight tax breaks for interest... when revenue take the guts of 50% of any companies revenue let me know.

    'Company' being the key word.


  • Options
    #16
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,668 ✭✭✭whippet


    An Ri rua wrote: »
    'Company' being the key word.

    The vast majority of private landlords have one or two properties .. forming a company etc serves no purpose.


  • Options
    #17
    mick087
    Registered Users Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭mick087


    No its an investmnent a gamble.

    If damage is done then they should pursue the tenant through the legal sytem.

    If rent is to be paid to the goverment it should be paid to the local housing association or council once the house belong to the council.

    I for one dont wish to pay anymore gambling debts.


  • Options
    #18
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    mick087 wrote: »
    ...

    I for one dont wish to pay anymore gambling debts.

    You are already. Govt outsourcing housing to the private sector was a gamble that hasn't worked out.


  • Options
    #19
    An Ri rua
    Registered Users Posts: 4,475 ✭✭✭An Ri rua


    whippet wrote: »
    The vast majority of private landlords have one or two properties .. forming a company etc serves no purpose.

    Once again, same as any other small business. What exactly is your point?


  • Options
    #20
    Smouse156
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭Smouse156


    beauf wrote: »
    You are already. Govt outsourcing housing to the private sector was a gamble that hasn't worked out.

    True but adding one more isn’t preferable. I doubt anyone is going to support bailing out landlords


  • Options
    #21
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    mick087 wrote: »
    I for one dont wish to pay anymore gambling debts.

    The fact you think rent being paid is a gamble says a lot about the state of the market.

    It probably explains why many landlords are either leaving the market or turning to AirBnB


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    mick087
    Registered Users Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭mick087


    Graham wrote: »
    The fact you think rent being paid is a gamble says a lot about the state of the market.

    It probably explains why many landlords are either leaving the market or turning to AirBnB


    Buying a house to rent is an investment, to me any investment is a gamble.

    Im in favour of less private landlords and more decent social council homes being built. This then would cut out the private landlord.


  • Options
    #23
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Smouse156 wrote: »
    True but adding one more isn’t preferable. I doubt anyone is going to support bailing out landlords

    Adding one more what?

    I agree there will be no support for it.

    At some point in the future maybe 3-4 years from now they may have give tax concessions to get more rentals on the market or new builds. But even that is highly unlikely. They may never do that again.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/section-23-tax-relief-developments-a-roaring-success-story-for-investors-1.1130195


  • Options
    #24
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    mick087 wrote: »
    Buying a house to rent is an investment, to me any investment is a gamble.

    Im in favour of less private landlords and more decent social council homes being built. This then would cut out the private landlord.

    They outsourced it to save money. You'll be paying it as tax either way, to fund public building projects or outsourcing it to the private sector. Renting entire hotels and guest houses in lieu of housing isn't cheap either.


  • Options
    #25
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,668 ✭✭✭whippet


    An Ri rua wrote: »
    Once again, same as any other small business. What exactly is your point?

    The point is If an individual sets up a company to rent a single property they are still paying personal rates of income tax ... but this mantra of landlords need to treat it as a business is nonsense as the system does not allow them to do so. Believe me .. I tried when I had one rental property and just sold it as it wasn’t worth the hassle and small long term returns .. investing in a fund was far more rewarding.

    Why do you think there are so many private landlords wanting to get out when rents are skyhigh? System is broken for both renters and landlords.

    I was also one of those landlords who had the misfortune of a rogue tenant destroying my property -€8k worst of damage and leaving with €6k of arrears.

    I went to the RTB got a determination and as the tenant was a social welfare recipient.. i never not will see a penny of that.

    Now .. if I was to just kick them out on the street like I wanted to rather than follow the tenant friendly process you can be sure I’d have had to pay over a significant 10 figure some to the scroungers


  • Options
    #26
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    The dogma treat it like a business isn't tax advice, it's about the general approach and not be sentiment or soft about following rules or making it personal.

    Unfortunately rental market gets a soft touch in terms enforcing the law.


  • Options
    #27
    mick087
    Registered Users Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭mick087


    beauf wrote: »
    They outsourced it to save money. You'll be paying it as tax either way, to fund public building projects or outsourcing it to the private sector. Renting entire hotels and guest houses in lieu of housing isn't cheap either.


    But if we was paying tax for council homes being built then we have something to show for it, we have something for the Irish citizens.
    I see no reason we are not mass building social council housing.


  • Options
    #28
    Smouse156
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭Smouse156


    beauf wrote: »
    Adding one more what?

    I agree there will be no support for it.

    At some point in the future maybe 3-4 years from now they may have give tax concessions to get more rentals on the market or new builds. But even that is highly unlikely. They may never do that again.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/section-23-tax-relief-developments-a-roaring-success-story-for-investors-1.1130195

    Adding more private gambling debt to the public debt, like we did when we bailed out the banks and the broke glorified brickie developers.


  • Options
    #29
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    mick087 wrote: »
    But if we was paying tax for council homes being built then we have something to show for it, we have something for the Irish citizens.
    I see no reason we are not mass building social council housing.

    We'd be paying for all those tenants, who are not paying rent during the lock down etc. Or over holding and those few who cause loads of damage. We'd be paying for all the legal cases arising out of those, and repairing any damage caused. Instead the Private Landlords are. They are also mainly funding the RTB, AFAIK.

    I would say its not really worked.

    But the idea that the state isn't getting anything out of it is false.


  • Options
    #30
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    I have a house id like to sell.

    224 days notice due to tenants.
    I was going to give a full year.

    I cannot serve even a years notice under this emergency legislation .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Smouse156 wrote: »
    Adding more private gambling debt to the public debt, like we did when we bailed out the banks and the broke glorified brickie developers.

    Investment, or "gambling" as you call it, has rebuilt the country.

    Its a very different country than it was 40yrs ago because of it.

    Can't make omelettes without breaking eggs.


Advertisement