Sir, – Olivia Kelly and Mary Minihan referred to the NPPR (non-principal private residence) charge as a charge on second homes (Home News, July 3rd). It is, in fact, a charge on a house in which one does not reside.
I have been affected by this tax and I do not have a second home (and in reality the bank owns my only home). I let my home when I emigrated. I am aware of others who, due to reduced income, have let their homes and have had to move in with parents. We are people who never wanted to be landlords and who would gladly sell our “NPPR” if we could. It is probably fair to say that the tax take in relation to the NPPR has been boosted by the recession.
I am aware that there is no sympathy for landlords, but I should point out that anyone who bought a house recently is not financing their mortgage from the income from the lease alone. Also, only 75 per cent of interest is deductible from the rental income for income tax purposes. Finally we have the NPPR and household charges.
Who would be a landlord? When the NPPR charge was introduced, the Government’s publicity referred to it as a tax on second homes to pay for the services of the council services. It seems that this misnomer was to avoid the reaction that we have seen with the introduction of the household charge. The penalty of €20 per month for non-payment is excessively penal and there is no provision for mitigation, even though the Government’s publicity misrepresented this charge and misled the public.
This charge needs to be reviewed so that it is only payable by those with second homes. It should not be payable by those who would love to, but who cannot, live in their homes due to the recession. – Yours, etc,