Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Rent a room 14K tax free scheme to be extended to SW recipients

  • 19-05-2022 12:35pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭


    So let me get this straight.

    The big corporate investor LLs who are supposed to pay just 12.5% tax are paying little or no tax at all.

    Homeowners renting rooms can earn 14K tax free and not be bound by tenancy legislation and standards.

    Now social welfare tenants who are getting the lion’s share of their rent paid for them by the State can also make 14K tax free renting out rooms in council homes. That’s along with any and all other benefits remaining intact.

    What kind of mugs are small landlords renting out one or two properties, paying 52% tax and risking enduring two years of no rent, trying to get non paying tenants removed. And sure if they smash up the property, it’s just tough luck!

    You’d want to be stark raving mad to rent out a property in this crazy system.

    We should all just get out, sign on the dole, get a cut priced rented council house, medical card, fuel allowance, back to school allowance etc and 14K a year renting out rooms.

    Being a small landlord in Ireland is a mugs game.

    (Edit At time of posting I had interpreted the article as applying to SW tenants living in State supplied social housing. I have since been kindly informed that it’s not applicable to SW “tenants” . I stand corrected on that)

    https://www.newstalk.com/news/welfare-recipients-to-be-allowed-to-earn-extra-income-renting-out-a-room-1344375?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0_kai5H23IDGrsN_0nEpPTgAEOz0oyJ9mJEWYVykmu4xywf_idxk29yAs#Echobox=1652942375-1

    Post edited by L1011 on


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 592 ✭✭✭CrookedJack


    Or you could sell your investment property, and let someone move into it, taking a family off the social welfare list. You don't have to be a mug, I don't have to pay for someone to rent from you, the country has more money to spend on services. Win win win.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    Nope, won’t be selling my property, it’s for my kids when they’re ready to move in. And it wasn’t purchased as an “investment property”. It was my first home, I lived there.

    And BTW, the only people paying to rent from me are my two tenants. Rest assured, you’re not paying a cent towards their rent.

    Would be better off to let it stand idle at this stage.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,864 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Its not win win. If all landlords sell there be no properties to rent, this is what happened 12 years ago. Except the position we are in now will be worst.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 592 ✭✭✭CrookedJack


    That's not what I suggested, and that's not what happened 12 years ago. It's just hyperbole.

    Well then how are you the mug? You get to give your kids a property, that will be at least partially paid for by someone else. And the someone else likely directly or indirectly subsidised by taxpayer money, so able to pay you more. Unless you think your rental income should be tax-free and so your gift to your children to be even more directly paid for by the rest of us?

    It really doesn't sound like you're the mug here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    Wrong again sunshine, nobody else paid for my property but me.

    I bought and paid for my ex home in FULL 25 years ago.

    I only began renting it out four years ago, my tenants weren’t even born when I had my house paid for in full.

    And no, their rent is not subsidised by taxpayers, they are paying their rent from their own pockets.

    So, dear, you have not paid a single cent towards the house I shall be giving to my kids.

    And I said nothing about wanting to rent it tax free, do not put words into my mouth.

    I am pointing out how inequitable the system is for small time landlords who are getting screwed for 52% tax whilst corporates, other property owners and now, even SW tenants can rent out without any such tax burden.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 592 ✭✭✭CrookedJack


    Great, good for you then. You're a great case for rental income being taxed as it is purely income generated from your wealth. Still can't see how you're a mug though.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,832 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    There would be no law against you setting up your own business officially and availing of those 12.5% corporate tax rates.

    The reason people generally do not do so, is that you are stung on the other end anyway - when you take any money out of the business for your own use, you are taxed on it then at your marginal rate. The same as any existing business.

    The system, of which you appear to be so critical, appears to have afforded you a number of properties which are fully paid for. If you think that you would be better off giving those away so that you have no assets, and then getting yourself on the dole, you can actually do that if you want to.


    Why is it a common theme that you see that amateur landlords think their additional income should be tax exempt? I find it quite strange. If I was a schoolteacher and invested in a restaurant, I don't think I'd be assuming that I shouldn't have to pay income tax on the income from the restaurant. If I was a mechanic and set up a sideline car-hire business, I wouldn't expect for my sideline income to be tax free.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    So what you’re saying is, citizens who’ve busted their butts to pay for their own property should continue to be penalised by an unequitable tax system.

    Meanwhile citizens who may never have worked a day in their lives, been handed their income by the State, given a home for a fraction of the rent, handed medical cards, fuel allowances, back to school allowances etc should now be handed the added bonus of making 14K tax free from a home that other taxpayers have paid for, and continue to support them in?

    Makes me wonder why anyone bothers to get off their arse and work at all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,832 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    As I pointed out, it would be trivial for you to put yourself into their shoes should you so wish. There are plenty of charities etc that would gladly accept a gift of your properties. You could then organise to be fired from your job (if you still work) and go on the dole and get yourself a free house.

    You can put yourself into their shoes very quickly. They can't put themselves into yours quite as quickly



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    Oh, spare me that one.

    I grew up in a corporation estate and watched almost every girl I went to school with, walk from the school gate to the SW office to sign on. And then proceed to pop out kids one after the other in order to get bumped up the social housing list.

    Whilst I was busting my butt working and saving every penny I could to put a roof over my own head,

    They we’re jetting off on foreign holidays and having their income and benefits handed to them on a plate.

    They could have very easily put themselves “into my shoes” as you put it, if they’d got off their arse and worked.

    But they didn’t, and why would they?

    There is no incentive for people to provide for themselves in this country.

    The opposite applies, you’re penalised by the tax system for providing for yourself.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,832 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    I find that those least capable are more likely to attribute their luck to either hard work or genius.


    Again, to repeat, you can put yourself into their shoes tomorrow if you want. And you can also avail of the 14k tax free income today if you want.


    Be careful what you wish for!!!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,864 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    It is what happened 12 years ago. Alot of landlords got pissed off with the government as brought in a rent ceiling but wouldn't bring in a min rent during the property crisis when rent went through the floor.

    So there was protection for the tenants but not the landlord, so once the property crisis ended, alot of landlords sold their properties and got out of that business.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 592 ✭✭✭CrookedJack


    Only children think of tax as a punishment. The tax system is designed to be inequitable as wealth is unequal. Are you honestly suggesting we should tax people by how hard they worked in the past? Seems silly to me.

    Whereas taxing people who have wealth and are using it to generate income seems perfectly fair.

    How does paying a reasonable amount of tax on income generated by your wealth make you a mug?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    What I’d “wish for” is an equitable tax system that doesn’t screw one set of citizens who’ve worked for everything they own. In order to provide for another set of citizens, many of whom have had their lifestyle handed to them since the day they left school. Or at the very least, make this 14K tax free allowance available to every citizen in the country equally that provides accommodation for rent.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,409 ✭✭✭1874


    why tax exempt or some form of it would be a good idea for small landlords,

    Because they are funding and taking all the risk of providing property which the State and thereby the taxpayer would otherwise have to fund, thats not to say there arent problems with private rented property, there certainly are risks for those providing the service.

    The State has no problem allowing vulture funds away with zero tax liability, where the profits go outside the state (and given there is little or no tax paid, why are people so opposed to where that would be most likely only reinvested or spent withing Ireland?).

    I'd have no issue with social tenants not having allowances affected by letting a room, but I think there should be conditions, such as they pay the liability for any additional insurance or better still obliged to take it out themselves for any additional people, potentially agreement from the landlord as wear and tear would be increased, and so long as the number of people was not incompatible with the property, ie too many people or vehicles, which could be a safety concern or affect others living nearby (noise or no space for vehicles).

    My problem with the 14k allowance, especially as it is now given to SW tenants is how it is implemented.

    It's a 14k allowance, it should stay that way, if you earn anything over 14k the entire amount is taxed, that's ridiculous, it would be simpler to enforce and encourage people to be more open and honest if the 14k limit was tax free regardless, anything over that could be taxed at X value, not necessarily the marginal rate someone pays but something defined, and it should be possible to do a basic return online for it, no hardcopy form filling or making it complicated needing an accountant, just a guided online process.

    I think it would open the possibility of making more rooms available to the market more significantly, when people think they might get the hassle of dealing with the Revenue, I think they weigh the hassle and inconvenience and just wont bother.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,613 ✭✭✭tscul32


    Will the 14k be taken into account for social welfare benefits? Like when assessing household income for means testing. I presume many of these tenants aren't in paid employment so even if it was liable to income tax they'd barely have a tax bill for 14k.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,832 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    The risk is idiosyncratic and therefore should not be compensated.


    It is the one completely passive and capitalistic income and it amazes me that people think they should be allowed to get it tax free.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,832 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    It is available to you. Has been for years. It's nobody's fault but your own if you did not know it



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,409 ✭✭✭1874


    Why is it a common theme that you see that amateur landlords think their additional income should be tax exempt? I find it quite strange. If I was a schoolteacher and invested in a restaurant, I don't think I'd be assuming that I shouldn't have to pay income tax on the income from the restaurant. If I was a mechanic and set up a sideline car-hire business, I wouldn't expect for my sideline income to be tax free.

    It isn't essential for people to go to a restaurant, the State don't need to provide people restaurants to eat at, If the State wont invest in the cost of providing houses (thereby saving the taxpayer in the shortterm at least), and a private citizen does, why are some so adverse to the provider treating it like a business and making a profit? or be bilked for tax. If you apply your logic to Restaurants, the owners should just feed people if the State aren't, no profit is allowed to be made, people can come in and vandalise the place or eat and not pay without being thrown out or pursued for costs. You certainly cant write off costs in rental accomodation like a business such as a restaurant can, even to improve it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    If this comment was directed to me.

    1. I don’t know where you’re getting “a number properties fully paid for? I rent one single property, that was my first home.
    2. I have said nothing about expecting rental income to be “tax excempt”. Don’t put words into my mouth. I’ve repeatedly said I’d like to see an “equitable” tax system. Since when does “equitable” equate to “tax exempt”?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,832 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Hold on now. It is likely that all you did was go to a bank, fill out a form and borrow other people's capital to outbid someone else for an already built house.

    Don't be over-estimating your own societal contribution in being able to fill out a form and then being able to figure out that 205 was a number bigger than the 200 the next bidder was offering.


    If you don't know how to write off costs against your rental income, hire a better accountant.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,409 ✭✭✭1874


    I think that is the point, I thought it was available to them already (it certainly is for ordinary private paying tenants) but I take from this that their benefit may be means tested and now it is just being made official that this wont affect their SW entitlements



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    The article states “The monthly payment is exempt from tax and is excluded from social welfare means testing”.

    So looks like their 14K tax free allowance won’t affect their SW money and benefits.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,409 ✭✭✭1874


    But in a capitalistic system, you feel its ok for a business (a vulture fund) to not pay tax? but a small time landlord or private person cannot avail of such a thing?

    Im not saying fund people through a system because there is risk, that risk should be limited by real measures, such as rules and laws, Im saying if someone is providing housing which if they are doing whether they are renting out a complete property or rooms, they have provided the funds to do that from after tax income already, collectively those people are saving the State and taxpayer billions from the state building and providing housing.

    Effectively the State agrees with this already, otherwise why is there tax exempt status for vulture funds? because the state knows they have to incentivise them to provide the funds and they are (have to be) compensated ongoing, OR they would not turn up here OR latterly would close up shop. Why are some people so opposed to this being offered to people, citizens withing the State?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,832 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Nothing stopping you from setting up a business.

    You'll learn the hard way though that you will be taxed upon taking your money out of the business. When it stays inside the business, it is subject to business taxation rules. Once it flows out into your pocket so that you can spend it on coke and hookers, then it becomes subject to your personal tax at that point.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    I said “Every citizen that rents out accommodation “.

    So if one citizen rents a room and another citizen rents one house, in an equitable system both would receive the same tax allowance. Especially when the former are having the property provided for them, for the most part, by the State.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,832 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    No. Those two things are only the same in your head because you want them to be. But that is only in your head.

    You are free to rent out a room or rooms in your house, and once that is your only rental income, that is 14k tax free. Same as anyone else can. You can't decide to unilaterally apply that to whatever different random conditions suit you personally and whinge if you can't do that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    Well it would appear that I’m not alone in my “whinging” then, as small LL’s are exiting the market in their droves.

    And the primary reason they’re giving for leaving is “high taxation” followed by onerous legislation.

    And of course the rise in house prices.

    Handing citizens, many of whom have never worked a day in their life, a 14K tax free allowance to rent out accommodation in a property that they don’t own, and is provided for them for the most part by the State, is just another slap in the face for small time LL’s.

    And yet, another reason why, after my current tenants leave, I won’t be renting out my *one and only rental property again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 592 ✭✭✭CrookedJack


    In fact this is all the article is saying. Recipients of social welfare benefits will be able to earn 14k in room rental without it affecting their means test.

    Not, as the OP mistakenly says, that "SW Tenants" will be able to rent out rooms suddenly and earn 14K tax free.

    This is a sensible idea to allow people with pensions, or other Social welfare payments, who own their own homes, to rent out rooms where previously they wouldn't due to losing their benefits.

    OP is just using this as a pretext to then rail against "SW tenants" and the fact he has to pay income tax like the rest of us.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,832 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    100% up to you. Hopefully the councils will start enforcing proper vacant property levies too at some point in the future. Planning permission is a licence afforded by the State for a particular purpose and the State is fully entitled to make sure that the corresponding implicit obligations are fulfilled.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Nah, nah, Anto and Deco do be now getting 14k a year to buy more drugs with. Hell in a hand-cart, Joe.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    What exactly have I been mistaken about?

    They’re not going to be taxed on the 14K therefore it is tax free.

    The article says the 14K tax free allowance won’t affect their means testing, so if the SW tenant who has been means tested is receiving medical cards, fuel allowances etc, their benefits won’t be affected by the extra 14K earnings they’ll be getting from a property belonging to the State.

    Even more happy days for them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Happyhouse22


    Pretty sure coke and hookers would be a business expense..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Happyhouse22


    Probably mentioned already but there is nothing stopping you from availing if the rent a room scheme. In fact you don’t even have to own your own property to avail of it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,184 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    This is for people who own their own property, not those in social housing (who would have to pay rent based on that income, and any benefits/income of their lodger(s) too).

    Its realistically for people on non contributory pensions, those with living alone allowance on a contributory pensionm, some disability payments or temporarily unemployed but who own their property. A small enough number of people, many of whom wouldn't take a lodger in for any amount of money.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    You appear to be assuming I’ll be leaving my house vacant, I won’t be leaving it vacant.

    I just won’t be renting it out again.

    So they won’t getting any “vacant property taxes” from me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,832 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    I have a friend who is unfortunately on disability due to a degenerative disease which she will never recover from. She bought a house not too long before she was diagnosed. She had to leave her professional career soon afterwards due to the illness. So the measure could help people like that. Although due to covid, she would not really be able to take a lodger on at the minute


    It is a bit much for some begrudging bitter randomer who has been lucky enough to have fully paid for a house 25 years ago to be whinging about the fact that my friend might be in a category of someone who is able to allow someone to live in a room in her house in return for a little bit of rent without affecting her disability payment.


    How greedy can ya get like?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Luxembourgo


    Im not sure what this means. I might be reading it wrong but I think this would only apply to those on means tested welfare who own their house/are paying a mortgage? Which seems fairly fine to me

    It wouldn't cover those in social housing etc



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,409 ✭✭✭1874


    It doesn't matter where anyone got the money, whther out of their own pocket, bank account, under the mattress or as a loan to fund such a purchase, thats not relevant. Nor have I overestimated my ability or contribution in being able to outbid someone else, the whole system is messed up from being poorly handled by successive Govts, who could have introduced legislation that would benefit good tenants and landlords, now it mostly favours the worst of both. Anyone not letting a rental property seems to think you can write off anything at full cost, you cant, I had a good accountant, dont need them anymore as Im out a few years thankfully, its a joke of a system. Not one response why you are so adamant that a private Citizen should be taxed to the hilt for providing housing but a vulture fund isnt taxed at all?

    You'll learn the hard way though that you will be taxed upon taking your money out of the business. When it stays inside the business, it is subject to business taxation rules. Once it flows out into your pocket so that you can spend it on coke and hookers, then it becomes subject to your personal tax at that point.

    I am well aware you get taxed taking money out, but uninformed people come along and expect private landlords to treated differently, the worst of both worlds, assuming you can write everything off at full value even if it is a cost related to damage.

    Anyway, none of that is relevant to the whole 14k topic, my opinion is householders (tenants, SW recipients as owners or tenants, and paye owners), should have the 14k limit, but taxation should start after the 14k, the idea of taxing the entire amount if a person receives 1 cent over 14k is ridiculous. There certainly shouldnt be RSI or USC on such an item, tax at a set rate, maybe not related to PAYE rates, all because it encourages people to open their homes up to letting a spare room or rooms which takes the pressure off Housing at NO cost to the state or taxpayers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,585 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    There is a number of anomalies in the way small LL are treated. First off we pay PRSI on the rental income but it is treated as unearned income. You therefore do not qualify for any social welfare benefits like disability, widow's pension or the old age pension.

    Next there is a question of what you can write off in the line of either home improvements or even repairs. If you replace anything with a better quality product you are supposed to put the difference into capital expenditure.

    There fore if you replace a teak front door with a PVC one you should only write down the value of the teak door. It's similar with facia and soffit or with windows. A tenant could seriously wreck your house a d you could find it impossible to offset the costs against tax.

    You are not supposed to include pre rental expenses. If you decide to do up an old house to rent it and money spend may never be refundable through the tax system.

    Revenue will seriously question any expenses you may include for phone, car expenses etc. The RTB is a pain. They have recently upgraded there system and your old login details are no longer available. Not only that it seems they may or may not have your previous details.

    It was just by chance I saw the new annual fee which of you do not pay you get surcharged for. Imagine having to request you bill off the phone or electricity company.....and if you did not request it and pay it on time they would surcharge you.

    There is a very good reason that small landlords are leaving the system, the present system is a deterrent as well to renting empty properties. A basic bed now is 300+ euro new by the time you add delivery. More and more LL are moving towards expecting tenants to provide there own beds and furniture.

    Another bug bear is while a LL cannot legitimately refuse a HAP tenant, insurance companies can discrimate against LL that tent to these tenants and charge them a premium over standard pricing.

    There is a huge difference between rental income in rural Ireland and large urban areas. My son is renting in Dublin he pays more for a room than I get for a two bed house.

    Only a few years ago there was a move which was going to for e LL to bring rental properties up to A or B rating it was only because of the rental shortages bit was put on the back burner.

    Property tax is not allowed against tax. The government at some stage in the future will make us responsible for what ever replaces the TV licience. They were going to make us responsible for water charges.

    The whole rental area needs to be radically reformed.

    The RTB need to become fit for purpose.

    Any tenant/ LL disputes should be heard within 30 days. In the case of appeals by either side to court a three month deposit should be handed over.

    If tenants stop paying the rent there should be automatic eviction. If there is an issue over rent the money should paid into an RTB escrow account to prevent tenants not paying after losing a case. No money into escrow account eviction.

    Forms for rent reviews etc should be less complicated.

    On the taxation side it should be treated like any other business. If PRSI is charged the rent should be treated as earned income.

    Legitimate expenses should be allowed. If you have to replace a door or a window you should be allowed to write them off against tax.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 592 ✭✭✭CrookedJack


    You are mistaken when you say SW Tenants can earn up to 14k tax free by renting one of their publicly provided rooms. SW Tenants cannot sublet. So, basically the whole thrust of your post is wrong.

    Your, frankly predjudiced, view of recipients of social welfare benefits being dolers in council houses is just false. Most recipients are pensioners, or carers, or single parents, or disabled. They should all be able to rent a room they own like any other citizen, subject to the same allowances.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,832 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    If you put the cost of your door towards capital expenditure, then I'd imagine it increases your tax base for CGT purposes later.


    The extension of being allowed to write capital improvements off against income would be that you could buy a small derelict property and extend and upgrade it over time, cancelling out the rental income, and end up with a valuable capital asset at the end. Should you sell it, then you would be subject to CGT on the increased amount (less than the higher rate of marginal tax) , but should you leave it to someone in your will, then it would not be. It would be subject to CAT by the person, which might be very little or nothing given personal exemptions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    Well if the allowance doesn’t apply to people living in Social housing provided by the State, I stand corrected on that.

    I’d like to see clarification of it as there’s already social housing tenants on social media asking if they’ll be able to rent a room to their own adult children who are on social housing lists.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    Thank you for informing me of this.

    If this is the case, I stand corrected on that part.

    However, will still be getting out of the renting market asap due to high taxation and ridiculous legislation.

    Small time LL’s would be far better off to quit renting their property and instead rent out a couple of rooms in their own home and not be bound by tenancy legislation.

    Availing of the 14K tax free allowance and not held to ransom by non paying tenants living for free for two years before leaving your property in tatters.

    It’s a mug’s game.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48 porkmaster


    What is an antonym for desperation? Confidence? Hopefulness? Reasoned diligence?

    "We, the government's of Ireland, have such confidence with the housing crisis we simultaneously created and ignored, that we would like to move forward with hopefulness and ask that social welfare recipients who have a home of some sort, all 23 of them, do their part by accommodating someone from who knows.

    Next week we will be inviting out to tender an analysis on the suitability of hedgerows to house people until we build sufficient accommodation within the year (whispers 3075) . Our reasoned diligence should inspire and bring hope to the people of Ireland, we have planned the future of Ireland all the way out to next weekend. Now let us pray, "yamma yamma yamma just build more yamma yamma yahhhh, it's worked really well so far don't look at anything else yamma yamma yahhh. Go ye in peace."


    Full confidence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Luxembourgo


    Some people never miss a trick 😂

    Look its a typical FG badly explained scheme which leads to more confusion then actual action but makes for a sound bite (as a former FG voter).

    If its what you think it is, it's an absolute joke, but I don't think even they are that stupid



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,184 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Rent a room relief has never applied to your kids anyway



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee


    They’re afraid of losing power the next election.

    Nothing they’ll come up with to pander to the entitlement brigade would surprise me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 117 ✭✭YipeeDee




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 380 ✭✭Leilak


    ah thats great news im in social housing so ive 2 rooms i can let out now, yesss quids in.....yippeeee



  • Advertisement
Advertisement