Unless...fewer companies show an inclination to relocate people here and/or set up here in the first place because they can't hire people, it's a hostile environment, and it's just getting too expensive to run a large operation here. Companies used to come here because SP made it attractive for them do so. Not anymore. They can't have it both ways.x9200 wrote:With the plan of increasing the population using FT (what else) it does not look like the demand will go down. Making condition less favourable for property investment will on the other hand limit the No of properties available for the rental. Conclusion?Barnsley wrote:The rents can only go up if there is demand.Sergei82 wrote:You're still looking at taxes only, not at tax+housing "package"? A bit lower taxes will be more than offset by much higher housing rents due to the new property tax and recent cooling measures. Overall, we're still screwed.
If there is a restriction in the supply of foreign talents will not the demand go down thus rents will come down as landlords seek tenants?
Same here, but the top link on his page takes me to the one I showed. Sounds like they're load balancing, and my IP is stuck to a host with the old data.therat wrote:I use the link provided by Barnsley,
It show
YEAR OF ASSESSMENT 2013 (For the year ended 31 Dec 2012)
That's the one I find in IRAS
Actually, once you start earning over a certain (quite low) amount, you get very close to 50%.iamsen wrote:But it's not a flat 50%, it's progressive, like the rest of the developed world.alittlerisky wrote:Move to Belgium. 50% income tax. Then start moaning!
No one really pays half their salary in tax.
Of course, I'm excluding VAT, pensions and health insurance etc but the point stands.
If you include those (and they're taxes, so why not?), many people do. Unless you mean just Belgium, for which I can't speak.iamsen wrote:But it's not a flat 50%, it's progressive, like the rest of the developed world.alittlerisky wrote:Move to Belgium. 50% income tax. Then start moaning!
No one really pays half their salary in tax.
Of course, I'm excluding VAT, pensions and health insurance etc but the point stands.
^^^ +1sundaymorningstaple wrote:I doubt very seriously that rentals well increase as as result of the increase of property taxes. In fact, I reckon the rentals will come down anyway due to the increased number of vacant properties. The more that are vacant because of the pogrom against foreigner PMETs, the lower the eventual rentals will go. With the, the property values will start to drop, overall, if the LL doesn't drop their asking prices the property will soon become a liability instead of an asset.
The dynamics is different but there is a clear dependence one type of the other. TBP, private for rental are dependent on HDB (negligibly the other way around for obvious reason). Both of the types show increase in the rental prices, not only HDB what is kind of to be expected as the low end private and high-middle HDB serve the same group of people.Wd40 wrote:Depends on the type of property you are talking about. HDB has newer restrictions against subletting and more and more people are forced to sell so lesser number of them are available for renting.
Private property again split by mass market and ccr has their own dynamics.
I think net net rents have been pretty stable since 2011 beginning, i.e. very nominal increase or no increae at all in rent and not like the crazy increases like in the year 2009 and 2010. If future to I expect rents to be flat, but going down, not yet.
JR8, I agree with you 100% and as landlords oursleves in the UK, we adopt exactly the same philosophy. To be fair to our landlord, I think they just got caught up in the endless 'rents are going up' hype that goes on everywhere here, and once their agent pointed out the real situation they quickly accepted the suggestion to keep us on at the same rent. We have always strived to be 'model tenants' everywhere we've lived here and I think that does pay off (aside from the fact that it's a good way to behave anyway). For example, if anything breaks in the apartment, I usually fix it myself if I can, although we'll normally let the landlord's agent know that we've done so, unless it's a trivial item. We only call on him if something major (like an AC unit failure) occurs. So the landlord knows that we're 'low maintenance' tenants.JR8 wrote:@ Mi Amigo
I find this opportunism so short-sighted, and akin to ‘everything also must grab’. My philosophy as a landlord is almost the reverse. If I have a tenant that is good, intelligent (doesn’t call you out to repair a dumb problem they’ve clearly caused themselves), pays on time etc., then I simply don’t review their rent. I had two young tenants in one flat, always paid on time, no hassle. After c5 years one moved out, the other took over the lease. He stayed for another 5-odd years, by which time he was a senior journalist at the FT, popping up on the TV news etc., Certainly during the latter 7-odd years the rent stayed the same. My costs didn’t change, and each year they/he had a greater and compounding incentive to be ‘model tenants’ and stay on, as I knew that they knew what a deal they were getting. As a landlord what is not to love about that.
I’ve probably said it before, but one of the first things drilled into me by a couple of old-timer landlords was ‘voids kill!’. As a landlord, especially a newbie one ... get it let pronto and be open to offers from sound-looking tenants.
What you are describing is the concept of the ‘Sticky customer’. One who is presumed to be so embedded that they will pay up, rather than go to the trouble of changing provider. That as a landlord is highly short-term and naive imho.
@ X9
3-4 year voids. Genuine LOL! There you are, QED/case-in-point.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests