Council tenants allowed rent out rooms for up to €14,000 a year tax-free

It's too expensive due to demand. Even with a price control in place, the issue of demand would not be resolved, and likely such a price control would not be effective. There are two ways to reduce rent prices; reduce the demand or increase the supply. Ideally, we would want to do both, but the state has demonstrated time and time again that it will do everything possible to increase demand whilst keeping supply at a trickle.

I strongly oppose council tenants getting 14k tax free.

Tax free is tax free. It's not going to be recognised as income.

A regular worker in private accommodation might have to be getting 20 or 30k raise or overtime pay to get the equivalent after the taxman comes for him.

Makes me a bit sick reading it to be honest.

Hmm, just a thought. Could someone apply for rent allowance to pay the rent for this scheme?

Yes but they have to PAY full whack for their own house by WORKING and SAVING for it.

They had to pay for their house with their after tax income.

And they probably don't get other state supports and certainly no free maintenance and appliances.

That's the difference.

Agree 100%.

It makes not one cent of difference to any of the posters whinging about it, yet whinge they will.

The regular worker may well be receiving tax credits, child benefit, working family allowance, children receiving SUSI fees and maintenance grants. They may or may not be a council tenant, differential rent could well mean they are paying significant rent.

How are they any worse off as a result of this measure?

No

With respect, I think that you are not understanding why people are upset. These houses are paid for and maintained by taxes and borrowing, both of which place a cost onto the shoulders of taxpayers. The tenants of the social houses are paying a pittance of rent to live in a house or an apartment that is simply beyond the means of many of the said taxpayers who are paying the bill. Now, the state is offering the tenants of the social houses a chance to make money off the people who are already paying to keep them in accommodation that they themselves cannot afford.

Put simply, many here take umbrage at this because it is an ethically bankrupt proposal.

There would be some on here happy to force local authority tenants to wear a hairshirt for daring to avail of subsidised housing.

If that is what you wish to believe, then so be it.

The flip side of it is that a number of these tenants will also be upset that there are no “local” houses available for their adult children and their families.

The "woe is me, me poor sore toe" is off the charts.

I'm self employed, one has to be an optimist when you are the show on the road. Self pity is never going to put a penny in your pocket.

As you say, people can't complain about rent cost and shortage and then complain about a measure to alleviate that. They chose to though, self pity.

Council rented houses are typically a lifetime tenancy.

The tenant could win the lotto, triple their income, etc., and remain paying rent in the LA house.

The rent will increase, as the rents are typically based on incomes.

There is a TD living in social housing.

Look at the list of proscribed topics of conversation on the main property thread. It's not hard to understand why we're in such a mess when the limits of conversation are so narrow.

Maybe they could if they could afford a house.

BAck when I was young the scam was that s single mother would get the council house and then the boyfriend/husband would move in. I remember the whole estate was like that.

The next one will be that the secret boyfriend/girlfriend rents a room and pays 14k a month while claining rent allowance. I can picture the scamsters already trying to come up with the best method.

I agree with a lot of that. However we are talking about council housing here. These are properties that belong to the state that are being provided for very low contributions from the tenants. If there is excess capacity, that should be used - but not by enriching social tenants. If there is excess capacity in social housing, the state should be filling that and collecting any rents for the benefit of the state.

There is something uncomfortable about Joe and Jane Taxpayer providing social housing and then allowing the recipients of that social housing charge rents tax free to other citizens who may have too high an income to be eligible for social housing.

I take your point but how would the State manage a system like that ?

Would some official decide who would be sent around to share the family home of people in social housing ?

A stranger deciding which stranger you must share with.

By the time all the objections were sorted out the game wouldn't be worth the candle.

It is absolutely an ethically bankrupt proposal.

Although I don't much like the alternatives, it's the likes of this that makes you want to see this government out on it's ear.

Re elect a new one and this time, maybe whatever coalition is thrown up, they'll be servants of the public.

Max they ever pay is 15% of the household income. Its 12% of the principal earner's income and I think most just pay that. 12% of the NET and DECLARED INCOME.

Easy street. Great deal.

And now 14,000 a year up for grabs tax free, no increase in rent.