Is nobody concerned at all about the amount that the government gets from their rent?

LotharIngum

IT just struck me about all the anti landlord stuff going around.
Nobody is at all p1ssed at the government for the sheer amount they take from the rent you pay to your landlord.
Over 50%.
Imagine if the government were to forego that tax in return for the landlord reducing the rent.

But think about it folks. Over 50% of what you are paying is going to the government, so they are actually more to blame for your high rent thatn your landlord is.

If they really want to reduce rents, they should think about using a carrot approach and fessing up to how much they are contributing to high rent.

Stick approaches have failed miserably and always will.

If your landlord wants to get €50 more from your rent he has to charge you €100.

Now imagine this. You are paying €14000 rent now. The government forego enough tax to make it cost neutral to your landlord to reduce your rent to €12000.

The landlord still makes the same after tax profit. You are €2000 better off.
The government is €2000 better off for rent allowance tenants and the worse off for working tenants.
The stick just isn't working. All it is doing is convincing landlords to quit. And convincing potential new entrants to stay away.

There would be many ways of achieving this, but buy in from Leo is required. He holds all the power to reduce rents, but he wont budge. Too easy to rake it in and make people who cant work it out for themselves think that the landlords are the bad guys here.

James Bond Junior

LotharIngum wrote: »

IT just struck me about all the anti landlord stuff going around.
Nobody is at all p1ssed at the government for the sheer amount they take from the rent you pay to your landlord.
Over 50%.
Imagine if the government were to forego that tax in return for the landlord reducing the rent.

But think about it folks. Over 50% of what you are paying is going to the government, so they are actually more to blame for your high rent thatn your landlord is.

If they really want to reduce rents, they should think about using a carrot approach and fessing up to how much they are contributing to high rent.

Stick approaches have failed miserably and always will.

I often think a lot of the housing crisis could be solved if tax on rental income was reduced to a flat rate in line with VAT. It gives the landlords more room to compete in times of over supply and an incentive for others to enter the rental market in times of under supply.

artanevilla

Do you think if taxes were lowed the rents would come down too?

It would just mean the LL gets more of a percentage.

The rent will be what people are willing to pay.

Amirani

You could attempt to make this argument for any industry; prices would be halved if the Government eliminated income tax. It's a silly argument.

Should builders not have to pay income tax? If they didn't then they could be employed cheaper and therefore houses could be built cheaper. How about Doctors? Then healthcare would be cheaper.

If you're earning income, you should pay tax on it. End of story.

The solution to the rental issues is increasing supply. I don't think eliminating income tax on activity for a certain segment of the population is the way to do this.

Fanny Wank

Over 50% of my bonus went to the govt too. As will next year's payrise (if I get one)

Strangely I rarely if ever hear anyone give out about marginal tax rates for income other than rental.

_Brian

artanevilla wrote: »

Do you think if taxes were lowed the rents would come down too?

It would just mean the LL gets more of a percentage.

The rent will be what people are willing to pay.

Not directly they wouldn’t.
But, it would make it an attractive business again and bring many more investors who would bring more properties to the rental market. The high rents currently are being driven through lack of supply, if the supply increases it brings down rents through competition. It’s a win-win, I think even discounting 50% of the rent from tax consideration would have an effect. It would maintain a revenue stream for the government while alleviating tue market forces that are driving up rents.

There’s something wrong with a rental market where a landlord has little incentive to rent a property as a result of excessive taxation.

dubrov

Welcome to the world of income tax

You don't know what rate of tax any given landlord is paying on rental income. Some could be paying nothing at all.

You are also assuming rents come from the government.
There are a few of us who pay rent without any assistance out of net pay.

Targeting tax breaks at landlords won't suddenly increase supply. It would probably only line their pockets.

Increasing supply through construction is a long term solution that stops giving rent to landlords, doesn't reduce tax collected and doesn't try to influence behaviour through money.

Rodin

Increasing the HAP payment also drives up rents and disadvantages low to middle income earners.

Put more money into renters pockets and the rent just goes up.

Twas easy access to credit drove up house prices.

mikemac2

Charlie McCreevy cut VAT and then when it was found that consumers saw no benefit the old rate was put back

Hotels recieved a cut and prices have never been higher

Cutting tax on rental income may be a superb idea but I don’t foresee any large drop in rents. Landlords will keep the difference

3DataModem

The government pays a lot more private rent (HAP, etc) than it gets in tax on private rent.

BarryD2

_Brian wrote: »

But, it would make it an attractive business again and bring many more investors who would bring more properties to the rental market.

Depends what you mean by 'investor'.

Why would you want to add incentives to encourage the 'buy to let' market? That just removes houses from the market that otherwise people in need of a home might buy and pushes prices up.

There is a need for rental properties but the provision of these should be run as full time businesses.

4ensic15

When the Section 23 reliefs were in place apartments went up in great numbers. Increased supply drove down rents.

Victor

LotharIngum wrote: »

Nobody is at all p1ssed at the government for the sheer amount they take from the rent you pay to your landlord.
Over 50%.

If the government is getting that much, you must be earning an awful lot. Even if you took no capital allowances, and no pension or health insurance credits, you would have to be earning at least a million a year to pay 50% tax. May I interest you in the tiniest of violins?

http://services.deloitte.ie/tc/Results.aspxGross Nett Tax Effective tax rate
€10,000 €10,000 €- 0%
€30,000 €25,388 €4,612 15%
€100,000 €61,199 €38,801 39%
€300,000 €157,199 €142,801 48%
€1,000,000 €493,199 €506,801 51%
€3,000,000 €1,453,199 €1,546,801 52%

James Bond Junior wrote: »

I often think a lot of the housing crisis could be solved if tax on rental income was reduced to a flat rate in line with VAT. It gives the landlords more room to compete in times of over supply and an incentive for others to enter the rental market in times of under supply.

So, you want better off people with investments to pay less tax than less well off people trying to put food on the table?

dar100

Amirani wrote: »

You could attempt to make this argument for any industry; prices would be halved if the Government eliminated income tax. It's a silly argument.

Its not a silly arguement at all. However, your analogies are

Should builders not have to pay income tax? If they didn't then they could be employed cheaper and therefore houses could be built cheaper. How about Doctors? Then healthcare would be cheaper.

He was talking about tax break at source on what can often be nearly one months salary for people. Doctors charge 50 euro, once a year for most healthy people. A roof over your head is a basic need; people are willing to give everything they have to keep theor children warm. Your analogy is disgusting


If you're earning income, you should pay tax on it. End of story.

I agree. However, depending on your business you may be exempt on certain taxes.

The solution to the rental issues is increasing supply. I don't think eliminating income tax on activity for a certain segment of the population is the way to do this.

Of course you do, its done for multi nationals on a much larger scale. Supply wont solve a dam thing regarding prices. We had far too many houses in boom and prices kept rising. To many vested interests for this to occur

Pkiernan

Victor wrote: »

If the government is getting that much, you must be earning an awful lot. Even if you took no capital allowances, and not pension or health insurance credits, you would have to be earning at least a million a year to pay 50% tax. May I interest you in the tiniest of violins?

http://services.deloitte.ie/tc/Results.aspxGross Nett Tax Effective tax rate
€10,000 €10,000 €- 0%
€30,000 €25,388 €4,612 15%
€100,000 €61,199 €38,801 39%
€300,000 €157,199 €142,801 48%
€1,000,000 €493,199 €506,801 51%
€3,000,000 €1,453,199 €1,546,801 52%

So, you want better off people with investments to pay less tax than less well off people trying to put food on the table?

Rental income attracts PRSI and USC too, and is not classified as pensionable.

Triple whammy blow.

JJayoo

Instead of lowering the tax they could use a certain amount specifically for social housing

Snipp

LotharIngum wrote: »

IT just struck me about all the anti landlord stuff going around.
Nobody is at all p1ssed at the government for the sheer amount they take from the rent you pay to your landlord.
Over 50%.
Imagine if the government were to forego that tax in return for the landlord reducing the rent.

But think about it folks. Over 50% of what you are paying is going to the government, so they are actually more to blame for your high rent thatn your landlord is.

If they really want to reduce rents, they should think about using a carrot approach and fessing up to how much they are contributing to high rent.

Stick approaches have failed miserably and always will.

Coming from a landlord, 50% does not go to the government. My Retention is around 50% however when you add in other fees and the letting agency get their share.

kurtainsider

artanevilla wrote: »

Do you think if taxes were lowed the rents would come down too?

It would just mean the LL gets more of a percentage.

The rent will be what people are willing to pay.

Why not turn this argument on its head then? Rent paid to those evil landlords should be tax deductible. That would halve rents in the morning. Brilliant!! I'll ring the minister.

What I'm really saying is that the revenue takes a huge chunk every time money moves in the state. The tenant gives half (in very broad terms) their income to the gov then pays the landlord the rent out of what's left. The landlord gives half (again in very broad terms) of the tenants rent to the gov in tax then pays the mortgage etc out of what's left.

The genius of this scenario here is that the government comes on the radio 3-4 times a day to lament the greed of the landlords for taking all the poor tenants money and no one (certainly not the right-on crowd at RTE) ask the why the Gov finishes up with 75% (minimum) of everyones rent and then point the mob in the direction of the landlord.

Please wake up!!!

Jet Black

They should temporally reduce tax paid by the landlord but rent paid has to be reduced accordingly. Like a house with a rent of €1600 at a rate of 40% reduced to €1200 at 15%. Tenant is better off by €400 a month. Landlord is better off by €60 a month, government take the hit. Sooner they sort it out the sooner they can put it back to the higher rate.

Quick example

James Bond Junior

To clarify on my point, relaxing tax on rental income may incentivise people into becoming landlords and thus the rental market cpuld increase and drive down rental prices due to increased supply. Basic economic principles. Look at the post Celtic Tiger years where supply was high and rents were extremely low yet taxes were still high. A mass exodus of landlords ensued meaning the rental market contracted and rental prices rocketed.

Jet Black

If you allowed landlords to evict non paying tenants supply would definitely increase. If tax was zero I'd still be reluctant to rent out my place because if I get a non paying tenant whos there for a year I'll be paying zero tax anyway.

kurtainsider

My take on the rental housing sector:

1. The gov won't build council houses - for reasons obvious to all.
2. They want the private sector to provide this accommodation.
3. They tax the landlord to the hilt on rental income- at personal rates rather than commercial.
4. They fall over themselves on the media to vilify greedy landlords.
5. They sit back confident that no one sees through the swindle.

I don't have an answer for the housing crisis other than that people who can, should get a job and be self reliant. But at least let's have a little honesty in the debate.

PS - I'm a huge supporter in the welfare state for people who through no fault of their own need state assistance and have no issue in paying my taxes to this end.

LotharIngum

Jet Black wrote: »

They should temporally reduce tax paid by the landlord but rent paid has to be reduced accordingly. Like a house with a rent of €1600 at a rate of 40% reduced to €1200 at 15%. Tenant is better off by €400 a month. Landlord is better off by €60 a month, government take the hit. Sooner they sort it out the sooner they can put it back to the higher rate.

Quick example

Well done that man.
Glad to see at least one person gets the idea.
The rest are exactly where Leo wants them, twisted and bitter and eager to jump down the evil ex landlords throat, instead of looking at the government.

Ronaldinho

LotharIngum wrote: »

Well done that man.
Glad to see at least one person gets the idea.
The rest are exactly where Leo wants them, twisted and bitter and eager to jump down the evil ex landlords throat, instead of looking at the government.

And how do you propose to fill the hole in Govt's tax take that your plan will result in?

kurtainsider

Ronaldinho wrote: »

And how do you propose to fill the hole in Govt's tax take that your plan will result in?

That's a different issue. Why don't you start a new thread? Maybe call it "Do people who bust their holes all their lives working pay enough tax?"

Geuze

Bear in mind that tax is not paid on the gross rent.

Tax is paid on the net rental profits, which is often way, way less than the gross rental income.

kurtainsider

Geuze wrote: »

Bear in mind that tax is not paid on the gross rent.

Tax is paid on the net rental profits, which is often way, way less than the gross rental income.

And very often it's way way not.
Would you consider educating yourself on this subject at all?

Geuze

With no debt and/or capital allowances, ok there won't be much deductions off the gross rent.

Jet Black

Ronaldinho wrote: »

And how do you propose to fill the hole in Govt's tax take that your plan will result in?

I think by more rentals coming on the market because the lower tax. I know it would have to be more than double whats there now with my tax change above and I think there would have to be more protection for tenants and landlords before even a fraction of that is available. The government need to take the hit until they sort this mess out. Once supply catches up and there's some incentive in the rental market they can switch it back to the old rate.

Quiet please

37% of Fine Gael tds ARE landlords.

kurtainsider

Quiet please wrote: »

37% of Fine Gael tds ARE landlords.

And 63% AREN'T landlords. Were you attempting a make point perhaps?

Pkiernan

Geuze wrote: »

Bear in mind that tax is not paid on the gross rent.

Tax is paid on the net rental profits, which is often way, way less than the gross rental income.

Please explain how it is way way less.
There are some deductions but not many.

Senature

Landlords pay the same tax rates as any other individual in the state. There are very few things that are not deductible expenses, but should be, such as property tax.
Please can the landlords here explain what is apparently so unfair/wrong about this.

pwurple

I have a business... a small shop. I have a business loan on it. The interest on that loan is an expense of running business, I can deduct that from the profit calculation.

I have a flat rented out, also with a loan... a mortgage. I can’t deduct that interest from the profit calculation.

Different rules. = not fair.



Massive corporation has apartment complex with loans. Writes off all the interest, doesn’t pay PRSI, USC etc. pays corporate tax rate instead of income tax.


Different rules = Not fair.

. They also put in rules to penalize landlords for reducing the rent (rent pressure zone anyone).

It’s death by a thousand cuts. Loads of little tweaks that keep having the effect of raising rents.

Pkiernan

Senature wrote: »

Landlords pay the same tax rates as any other individual in the state. There are very few things that are not deductible expenses, but should be, such as property tax.
Please can the landlords here explain what is apparently so unfair/wrong about this.

Why does rent attract PRSI? The government doesn't give the landlord any welfare when the dwelling can't be rented.

Why is interest earned on saving taxed lower than income tax?
Why is CGT lower than income tax?

Why aren't earnings from gambling taxed?

lawred2

LotharIngum wrote: »

IT just struck me about all the anti landlord stuff going around.
Nobody is at all p1ssed at the government for the sheer amount they take from the rent you pay to your landlord.
Over 50%.
Imagine if the government were to forego that tax in return for the landlord reducing the rent.

But think about it folks. Over 50% of what you are paying is going to the government, so they are actually more to blame for your high rent thatn your landlord is.

If they really want to reduce rents, they should think about using a carrot approach and fessing up to how much they are contributing to high rent.

Stick approaches have failed miserably and always will.

You don't think people should pay income tax on income?

Why would that be?

I mean I don't disagree that 52% of my bonus going to the government is stomach churning but why should rental income be treated any differently?

(I would expect that very few if any landlords are paying over 50% combined taxes on rental income)

angel eyes 2012

Ronaldinho wrote: »

And how do you propose to fill the hole in Govt's tax take that your plan will result in?

I am not convinced that everyone pays the correct level of income tax on rental income. A colleague in work with an apartment let out is deducting the cost of the entire monthly mortgage payment when completing his return. When I suggested that he should seek advice on the matter in case of revenue audit etc. he didn't want to hear. I think this is an area that Revenue could be more proactive about as there are is a good cohort of landlords out there that are either under-declaring or not declaring at all.

Another area the Government could clean up on is medical card fraud. 44% of the population are in receipt of one. A couple on my parents' road have one each, drive a Merc, have a long held rental property in Dublin and have a holiday home in the Canaries that they rent out. Neither have serious illness and having a chronic illness does not entitle you to a medical card anyway, it's based on income. I'm not naive though, I understand this is not an appealling area to tackle for politicians in respect of votes.

Senature

Most of the mortgage interest is deductible against tax, I agree this should be the same across the board for all business types, but to say mortgage interest is not deductible is incorrect and misleading.
I am soon to be self-employed. I will pay PAYE, PRSI, USC on the profits made on the service I provide. A corporation providing the same service does not pay the same taxes, they pay corporation tax. I can set up a ltd company and do the same if I wish, but all things considered, I am likely to be better off remaining as simply self-employed. My expenses will be low, so not much to deduct from income before it is taxable. I don't see why that should be different for landlords.
The tax rate on interest earned on savings has only been lowered in the last couple of years, and only by a few measly percent. Given the trouble people got into by not having cash reserves, including the problems in the banking system, it would seem prudent to me that cash savings be incentivised to some extent.
I don't understand the point re PRSI. If your income is low enough, the government will provide you with welfare assistance, and you will get a state pension etc.
I know nothing about taxation rules of earnings from gambling, don't see how that's particularly relevant to this thread.

Having said all that, I agree landlords face many difficulties. The rules around the rent pressure zones for example are well meaning but very poorly thought out and obviously a total failure in terms of what they were trying to achieve. Also there are massive problems with delays of removal of non paying tenants, or those who cause property damage. That landlords are left footing the entire bill for the above with no real avenue for compensation is not right at all.

However, this thread is about the tax payable on rental income, and I don't see the argument for it to be treated differently than other income.

Old diesel

lawred2 wrote: »

You don't think people should pay income tax on income?

Why would that be?

I mean I don't disagree that 52% of my bonus going to the government is stomach churning but why should rental income be treated any differently?

(I would expect that very few if any landlords are paying over 50% combined taxes on rental income)

There is a massive difference between income tax of 50 percent and paying zero.

Corporation tax for example is 12.5 percent.

It's a lot less then 50 percent but is justified on basis of creating jobs.

In a rental shortage then it seems prudent to remove barriers to investment OR staying in the sector.

If you are the government and you are losing landlords everyday and people become homeless as a result and you are going to pay 5 grand a month to a hotel per family then you mIght listen to the guy who could continue suppling you a far more suitable solution at 1500 to 2 k a month when he cites tax as an issue for him leaving the market.

Ditto how we handle bad tenants - a fair system shouldnt take a year or more.

Ditto supports in upgrading properties to hit some standard YOU the Govt thinks is needed.

4ensic15

Pkiernan wrote: »

Why does rent attract PRSI?

To raise money.

Pkiernan wrote: »

Why is interest earned on saving taxed lower than income tax?

It is not.

Pkiernan wrote: »

Why is CGT lower than income tax?

When CGT was higher people didn't realise gains, which lowered the revenue from CGT and acted as an inhibition to investment.

Pkiernan wrote: »

Why aren't earnings from gambling taxed?

Because people would have to be allowed for losses on gambling if profits were taxed. More money is lost on gambling than won.

Senature

If landlords are selling up for any reason, the property is then available to be used for housing, so I don't see how this contributes to homelessness. Properties that have changed use to short term lets and or are being left vacant are definitely increasing homelessness. Personally, I totally understand why landlords would choose short term letting or vacancy under the current circumstances, but I don't think it should be allowed. Properties are originally given planning permission to provide a function, they should be fulfilling it.

Still not understanding why the tax rate is the problem. Have landlords not always paid approximately this level of tax? Why is it suddenly a problem now?

Sleeper12

LotharIngum wrote: »

IT just struck me about all the anti landlord stuff going around.
Nobody is at all p1ssed at the government for the sheer amount they take from the rent you pay to your landlord.
Over 50%.
Imagine if the government were to forego that tax in return for the landlord reducing the rent.

But think about it folks. Over 50% of what you are paying is going to the government, so they are actually more to blame for your high rent thatn your landlord is.

If they really want to reduce rents, they should think about using a carrot approach and fessing up to how much they are contributing to high rent.

Stick approaches have failed miserably and always will.

Many landlords will be happy for you to believe that the government tax all of your rent but this simply is not true. Your landlord only pay tax on the profit after expenses



Here's an example given by a landlord on another thread:

Ill give an example
Rent 1500
Mortgage(interest only part) 700
Maintenance +misc @20pc =300
That leaves you with 1500-(700+300)=500
Tax &50pc =250

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057909222&page=16


The example above shows that the tax take is actually around 33 percent. This can differ from one rental to another.



The only was any landlord can pay 50 percent or higher in tax is if they own the property outright, don't insure it & spend zero on maintenance accountant, advertising, phone, stamps etc.



I have never heard of a landlord paying over 50 percent of the rent in tax & I can't see how it can be possible when expenses are fully tax deductible.



It's a myth. Don't believe this nonsense

EDIT: I think I made a mistake in calculations there. Paying 250 in tax is actually less than 17 percent of the 1500 rent

17 percent is nowhere near the 50 percent some would have you believe.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Old diesel wrote: »

There is a massive difference between income tax of 50 percent and paying zero.

Corporation tax for example is 12.5 percent.

It's a lot less then 50 percent but is justified on basis of creating jobs.

In a rental shortage then it seems prudent to remove barriers to investment OR staying in the sector.

Why would reducing taxes on certain types of amateur landlords (with another job) reduce rental prices? Corporations can already pay just 12.5% so corporate landlords are already in that position.

If you are the government and you are losing landlords everyday and people become homeless as a result and you are going to pay 5 grand a month to a hotel per family then you mIght listen to the guy who could continue suppling you a far more suitable solution at 1500 to 2 k a month when he cites tax as an issue for him leaving the market.

The problem is we are not building enough houses. The problem isn’t that there is a glut of houses to sell and still a problem with homelessness. In that case you might consider taxation policies that encourage landlordism.

If there were more landlords in the present environment houses would be even harder to buy for first time buyers and there would still be a rental crisis.

Ditto supports in upgrading properties to hit some standard YOU the Govt thinks is needed.

Ok, so no regulations at all then.

The Student

Senature wrote: »

If landlords are selling up for any reason, the property is then available to be used for housing, so I don't see how this contributes to homelessness. Properties that have changed use to short term lets and or are being left vacant are definitely increasing homelessness. Personally, I totally understand why landlords would choose short term letting or vacancy under the current circumstances, but I don't think it should be allowed. Properties are originally given planning permission to provide a function, they should be fulfilling it.

Still not understanding why the tax rate is the problem. Have landlords not always paid approximately this level of tax? Why is it suddenly a problem now?

If a property is rented to four people and sold to a couple you have lost two bed spaces to the rental market.

Senature

I think one of the main problems for landlords is that their mortgages are too high. If you try to start a small business with a massive loan you are going to struggle, for years and years, and ultimately find it extremely difficult to succeed. The problem here is not tax, it is the business structure.

As an example, someone working as a self-employed plumber or carpenter, will be treated roughly the same as a landlord for tax purposes.
In that business, they are supposed to do their work to certain set standards and comply with regulations. Also, some people will delay paying them for work they have done, some will try not to pay at all. They are likely to receive plenty of money one week, followed by little or nothing for extended periods, and still have to pay their rent/mortgage/bills/food/childcare etc. Their work van or shed might get broken into with materials and tools robbed. They will find it very difficult to work if they are physically sick or injured etc etc. As a self employed person, social welfare supports are not as easily accessed.

Would anyone advise the person above to get a loan for upwards of 100,000 before starting that business to fund the vehicle, tools, materials, premises etc they might need? Don't think so.

TheChizler

This whole corporation tax vs landlord tax thing annoys me. Do people think the employees of those corporations are happy to leave the low-taxed profits sitting in a bank account? No. They get paid a salary, or income, which is subject to the same income TAX, PRSI, and USC as the rest of us.

I'm sure the executives have some creative accounting practices that lessen their tax bill, but there are way more employees that don't. I'd be interested to see the total of percentage of rental income for one of these companies that ends up as tax, through corporation tax, VAT, and employee tax, and the breakdown of expenses. That would be somewhat meaningful.

A corporation is not equivalent to a sole-trader, it has employees you need to account for when you're talking about cash in pocket. Direct comparisons are meaningless.

Senature

The Student wrote: »

If a property is rented to four people and sold to a couple you have lost two bed spaces to the rental market.

Technically true, WHEN that is the case. The opposite can also be true where a single person was living in a 2 bed rented house/apartment that is then sold to a couple with a child. For example my grandparents spent 20 years living in a house just the two of them, having raised their family. My granny was then there for 10 years by herself. The house was sold after she died, and now houses a family of 5. Unless you have some studies to support this type of claim, I don't think this argument stands up to scrutiny.

Monokne

artanevilla wrote: »

Do you think if taxes were lowed the rents would come down too?

It would just mean the LL gets more of a percentage.

The rent will be what people are willing to pay.

As a landlord, I completely disagree. I am stuck with a property I can't sell and a business I don't want. If VAT was 20%, I'd reduce rent by a few hundred euro no bother.

Sleeper12

The Student wrote: »

If a property is rented to four people and sold to a couple you have lost two bed spaces to the rental market.

It could equally have as much chance of mum, dad & three children buying it & actually increasing its occupancy total

Grumpypants

I've always said the best rent control the government could put in place is a tax free allowance of 10k for a single, one property, landlord. Much like the 14k rent a room scheme. But have it so if you charge 10,001 you pay tax on it all.

Over night rents would drop to 833 a month which is a fair price and a fair rental income.

For me to earn 833 now i'd have to jack up my rent to 1,333. A 500 euro increase would cripple my HAP tenant and add her to the homeless list.