Originally Posted by TheChizler
Maybe it's just me but I think quite often on here things come across like landlords have it much worse than the rest of us when it comes to tax, as if there's a special landlord tax of >50% on all related income.
I'm making the point that a non-landlord self employed person, or even a PAYE person on the upper rates of income tax, USC and PRSI would already be paying similar rates on equivalent income. Also if all someone does for income is rent out one or two properties they could be paying very little tax.
You seemed to imply there is a difference in taxation rates
or some differences for self employed and landlords previously, now you are agreeing they are the same, which is what I stated,
What you seemed to have missed that I was suggesting is, that at no cost to anyone the State could with the stroke of a pen, offer private landlords the opportunity of lower tax rates (for rental income) if they passed that on in rent reductions (such a suggestion would benefit the tenant, it will no doubt raise peoples shackles, but if potential landlords are to be encouraged to stay in or enter the market there has to be some incentive, this offers the landlord the opportunity to pass on the tax reduction as a rent decrease).
Percent reductions of tax paid could be given for rent reductions, general upgrades, thermal efficiency upgrades.
IF the State was in anyway concerned about how much rent tenants were paying they could think outside the box a little and rents could actually fall, with no one losing out except the State, they already offer such incentives to REITS, significant incentives.
The State (Revenue) might realise a paltry reduction in income tax incoming but the potential benefits are enormous, and as Ive already suggested
I think that landlords are treated
differently from self employed and businesses for tax in that they are taxed (USC and PRSI too) on income, ie the lot, which means this causes commensurate increases for tenants rents, because somewhere along the line (usually at the beginning) the mortgage and other costs have to be paid immediately on a regular basis and taxes not long after that, annually on a regular basis.
Whereas businesses have better protections from rogue customers and criminals, and pay tax only on the profit after costs, which seems to present the opportunity for a much lower tax bill.
Note* the greater the tax bill, the greater the need to have the rent at a level that pays all costs.
I doubt very much many people who rent a property or two could manage to live on the rental of two properties all their potential working lifetime and foot their bills, when all costs have to be paid also (mortages, tax, USC, PRSI, Insurances, maintenance, etc etc), what you're suggesting is if they have no costs, which isnt realistic for the entire duration of ownership, thats more an exception than the rule. I'd say its more typical that landlords have to supplement what is coming in from rent to cover the costs.