That really has been the attitude over the past number of years and the exact reason why small landlords are running like greyhounds.There's been very good arguments been put forward by many members on this site in relation to how other assets (equities) should be treated from a tax perspective (dividends and potential gains).... Why should rentals be treated any different from equities? As far as I can see no landlord is in it for altruistic reasons! They are in for pure profit with the tenant paying their mortgage while the landlord pockets the gains...
Hilarious that they say this and stand over rental income charged effectively at 40% in a company plus 55% when you take it out whereas trading income is 12.5% and 55% when taken out. Some other income must be more other income than others.I agree. The TSG paper makes clear that most potential policy changes wouldn't be material to most landlords. LPT deductibility, CGT exemptions, being able to offset rental losses against non-rental income, etc, aren't going to move the needle much.
The TSG paper takes the view that rental profits are income like any other. And that a separate tax regime for rental income would be a major structural change that can't be justified.
I think that there will be changes for landlords in the Budget, but mainly cosmetic.
Like comparing apples and oranges. If been a private landlord was so lucrative why are so many including myself leaving the pitch?Disturbing that the government seems to be giving in to blackmail by the landlord lobby. Rentier income should not attract lower taxes than income generated from working and contributing to society.
Agreed, investment funds should pay taxes. I also agree that it should be easier for landlords to get rid of antisocial tenants. Beyond that, measures such as a complete prohibition of short-term rentals and heavy tax punishments for empty properties should help incentivise landlords to stay in business. Taxing income not derived from work less than income from employment simply isn't fair. In effect it amounts to people who don't own property subsiding those who do.foreign funds paying a fraction of the tax of small landlords
that perspective re equal taxation of income is a bit naive. It’s more complex than that. The government does not meddle in the labour market to the same degree. For example, there are no restrictions on the maximum wage or pay increase your employer can give you…..even if your colleagues doing the same job are paid twice as much. Employers can fire employees who take the p*ss a lot more easily than a landlord can remove a tenant who has decided to camp out in your property for free. An employee can reduce his income tax by paying AVCs and other deductions. A rental property is not taxed in a way which is consistent with the taxation of other businesses. The result of the government meddling, and shifting the balance of rights (with risk of a lot worse to come) has resulted in landlords making the right financial decision to exit now. Simple as that. Either the balance of rights and meddling gets rolled back, or taxation policy shifts to counteract and incentivise a few more landlords to remain in the market. That’s the story - full stop!Agreed, investment funds should pay taxes. I also agree that it should be easier for landlords to get rid of antisocial tenants. Beyond that, measures such as a complete prohibition of short-term rentals and heavy tax punishments for empty properties should help incentivise landlords to stay in business. Taxing income not derived from work less than income from employment simply isn't fair. In effect it amounts to people who don't own property subsiding those who do.
There's not a hope in hell of that happening. To do so would be to admit to a massive policy failure that the State and political class wholly and unnecessarily created.If allowing property tax as an expense is all the government give landlords in the budget, the exodus including myself will continue.
There needs to be a significant reduction in tax on rental income for me to remain. And there needs to be a mapped out plan of steps in years to come to make it financially viable for small landlords to remain in the game.
Exactly. Which is what's happening now. And will continue to happen.I think a basic point about private landlords is not understood by policy makers and many of the commentators on the housing market. No one is obliged to provide you with a commercial service. Just like local shopkeeper, hairdresser or mechanic, your local landlord is not obliged to provide you with a service. If you make it unprofitable or unattractive in other ways for them to provide the service, they will stop providing the service. Simple.
Better to do nothing so is it? And stick their head in the ground. And hope things change if their own accord.There's not a hope in hell of that happening. To do so would be to admit to a massive policy failure that the State and political class wholly and unnecessarily created.
Many of the existing landlords got stung with the rpz and many are already under the 14k so bringing the rent a room scheme for landlords may not make any difference.Better to do nothing so is it? And stick their head in the ground. And hope things change if their own accord.
What about extending the rent a room limit of €14000 tax free to landlords. If a landlord reduces rent to a little under k €1200 a month, it's tax free.
I would reduce my rent immediately and benefit the tenants hugely. If they are realistic about reducing rents, something like this need to happened.
It would be targeted solely to benefit moms and pop landlords too. And renters would benefit hugely too. It would also give certainty and might attract new small landlords into the game. A €300,000 house renter for €14,000 a year would give a investor a nett return after tax (i.e. no tax) of 4.67% which I would consider very attractive.
I like that idea. It doesn’t fundamentally change the tax system but it does effectively put a ceiling on most rents. I would be interested to see what it would cost the State in taxes foregone, when the net cost of HAPS in deducted.What about extending the rent a room limit of €14000 tax free to landlords
I agree. The same deductibles should be allowed. Income tax should not be charged on anything that can reasonably described as turnover.Surely letting a property for rent is a business? So why isn't it taxed in the same as all other businesses? If I am a self employed sweet shop owner I can deduct a lot more business expenses from my business income before it liable for tax than landlord can. Why is this the case?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?