Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, it is a part of the overall tax expense associated with operating a rental property in Hawaii and, as far as I know, it is pretty unique to Hawaii.
GET is only one of many unique taxes that landlords need to take into account across the United States.
For instance, different states have different rules on transient or vacation rentals regarding rates, length of stays, etc....singling out GET doesn't spell out the entire story.
Different states have different rules on what can be deducted/not deducted - caps/limits
You completely dismissed my brief analysis depicting real world numbers for investors that own real property on Oahu. It shows that the total tax liability (state + city) is higher for a landlord on Oahu than it is in California. .81% was an average figure; there are municipalities with lower rates than that in California.
.
CA Property taxes start at a minimum of 1% of assessed value. Each municipality adds to that.
GET is only one of many unique taxes that landlords need to take into account across the United States.
For instance, different states have different rules on transient or vacation rentals regarding rates, length of stays, etc....singling out GET doesn't spell out the entire story.
Different states have different rules on what can be deducted/not deducted - caps/limits
Great. But we're not talking about transient or vacation rentals. And we're not talking about rentals across the United States. We're talking about one specific rental unit where the landlord was called greedy for charging $2,100 per month and where the poster indicated that property taxes are low in Hawaii so that can't be an excuse for charging high rent.
In the context we're talking here, and in relationship to this specific thread and the prior comments, GET is a tax that a landlord must consider when setting the rent on their unit. And it is a tax is not readily apparent to most people from the mainland who are not landlords in Hawaii. So it is valid to point out GET expense in addition to property tax to help illustrate how there is more involved than just "low property tax" when a poster refers to a landlord as "greedy".
As someone who owns property both here in Honolulu and San Francisco, I can't stress enough how much cheaper it is for landlords here in Honolulu
For some folks, it's cheaper to be a landlord in San Francisco than it is in Honolulu, thanks to California's Proposition 13 and the disparities in "assessed values." Long-time property owners in California tend to have "assessed values" that are much lower than those of more recent property owners. http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/Prop13.pdf
I agree proposition 13 does help long term homeowners but you are still subject to potential sticker shock. Take the $2,000,000 home - that yearly increase although capped adds up
Well, it is a part of the overall tax expense associated with operating a rental property in Hawaii and, as far as I know, it is pretty unique to Hawaii.
So while on the surface it may appear that "property taxes are low in Hawaii", as one poster stated to support their argument that a landlord is greedy to charge $2,100 per month for a duplex, property tax alone does not tell a full story regarding state tax expenses on a rental property in Hawaii that the landlord must take into account when setting the rent.
It should also be pointed out that GET is also applied to purses in Hawaii.
Yes GET applies to purses. The landlord is also probably "hiding" their property taxes in the rental and making the tenant pay GET too. Double taxation and pure greed. Also what's up with landlord figuring out the wattage used by tenants? That's abuse.
I agree proposition 13 does help long term homeowners but you are still subject to potential sticker shock. Take the $2,000,000 home - that yearly increase although capped adds up
Not so much when you bought that $2,000,000 home for $500,000 20 years ago. Prop 13 gives long term landlords a huge competitive edge against new landlords that is not available to them in Hawaii.
Yes GET applies to purses. The landlord is also probably "hiding" their property taxes in the rental and making the tenant pay GET too. Double taxation and pure greed. Also what's up with landlord figuring out the wattage used by tenants? That's abuse.
Can you explain what you are saying? It does not make sense.
While the landlord cuts the physical check and files the forms - this is not a landlord expense.
No tenant/no rental income = no GET.
Tenants bear all the cost of the GET however you want to spin it - it is simply part of the rent whether it is explicit to the tenant or not.
The beauty of GET unlike other fees across the nation is that it is only incurred on the revenue - take for example, Seattle - typical family of 4 water bill is over $150/month so if the landlord includes water in the rent, it isn't much different than GET (and GET has other tax deduction benefits where water doesn't) - but if the family moves out, there is still some connection expense, etc....
Property tax happens no matter what/tenant or not. Why anyone gets hung up on GET as a landlord when the tenant is really paying it is odd. You remodel the property and have no tenant, you still pay property tax (which compared to much of the landlord is very low) but no GET.
GET is absolutely a landlord expense. Like you said, the landlord is responsible for reporting it, filing it and cutting the physical check out of their bank account and to the state. Please explain to me how this expense is not the landlord's when the landlord does all the paying.
I'll try to simplify this for you... let's say a landlord needs to rent a house for $4,000 to break even, and that is the absolute most he could get for the property based on current market conditions. Can the landlord charge the tenant the additional $180 ON TOP the $4,000 because the cost of GET is always covered by the tenant? The answer is no, the additional $180 comes out of the landlord's savings. The market sets the rental rate. It's not market rent PLUS GET.
Yes, no rental income = no GET. Your point is? How many RE investors out there buy real estate to just let it sit vacant? 1%? Maybe?
What tax deduction benefit does GET have that utility costs (e.g. water) don't? They are both operating expenses that offset potential income and are treated no different.
There is nothing beautiful about GET. It is a highly regressive tax that disproportionately impacts renters over owner occupants.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
