If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)

Welfare recipients can become landlords soon



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,657 ✭✭✭ TheIrishGrover

    Under the plans, a new disregard will be introduced to a limit of €14,000 per year for those who rent a room in their own home, which is similar to Revenue’s existing rent-a-room relief scheme which has been in operation for a number of years. The new rules will apply to those who are in receipt of means-tested social welfare payments.

  • Registered Users Posts: 36,563 ✭✭✭✭ Boggles


    People who are working are already able to earn €14,000 tax-free by renting out a room under Revenue’s Rent-a-Room scheme

  • Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭ Confused11811

    I'm just going to copy and paste what I wrote in another thread on this non-issue

    "Regarding pensioners those on the contributionary pension who owe thier own home or have a council/AHB house can do this already without penalty from the social welfare. It has an affect for those on the non contributionary pension in that they won't be means assessed.

    I don't begrudge them at all. I know a few pensioners in large council houses who have actively been in contact with the council to downsize them to small houses but the council have no suitable stock. There's a huge amount of 3 and 4 bed council houses with one or two over 65's living there. IMHO we should be more concerned about that issue.

    The only welfare recipients this actually really affects are those on "allowance" payments such as disability allowance but those numbers are small, the big one is Jobseekers allowance. All welfare recipients on "Benefit" payments are not means assessed.

    The big issue here is for the private landlords of those "allowance" welfare recipients on HAP, RAS or rent allowance. While those tenants could previously sublet a room (if not forbidden by the rental agreement) they probably wouldn't do so because loosing money from thier welfare payment.

    However rent allowance is basically a thing of the past replaced by HAP and RAS. These schemes are administered by the local council and not the DEASP (welfare) There may be a financial impact reducing the RAS or HAP payment because of the increase of household income. The same council rules on income should apply here regardless of the social welfare change of policy. So TBH the incentive may not be all that good as you may think.

    TBH the announcement sounds like the government half arsed attempt of trying to tackle 2 issues , housing and inflation rises for social welfare low income earners. It gives the latter an option of getting more money. The reality is most already had that option and didn't choose to take it, they probably won't now so it's affect on housing is probably going to be next to zero. But the government can say , look at what we did to help."

  • Registered Users Posts: 27,003 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78

    i know a chap thats thinking of leaving Ukraine's have his house until they need it, you have to admire his generosity, but......

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 60 ✭✭ busy bee 33

    Why can’t we just build up?

    Build up (minimum 30 storeys) in a strategic location along the quays, these will be reserved only for people working in the vicinity.

    Build another one of similar size and quality for low income workers in receipt of state support in a cheaper and less strategic location.

    Build a third one for people who solely earn social welfare. Do not mix the occupants, keep them strictly segregated.

    At the same time we don’t want to resort to social apartheid.

    Massively increase public transport to / from these locations to encourage efficient travel. Double the wages of P/T drivers.

    Post edited by busy bee 33 on

  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 63,157 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011

    The majority of actual rental accommodation is never actual assessed due to a lack of resources. Extending inspection to rent a room setups would

    a: Add so much bureaucracy that people would stop renting them out

    b: Be just performative and not actually effective, as they simply would not be inspected.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,928 ✭✭✭ Gregor Samsa

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭ Pussyhands

    Why are you acting like it's something uncommon? Most people know what it's like to share a house with someone. Anyone who is single or doesn't own their own home is likely sharing.

  • Registered Users Posts: 22,377 ✭✭✭✭

    There are a multitude of issues here. You're focusing on welfare.

    On accommodation, it's very simple to me, don't allow it if resources are not there to undertake prior assessments and then routine inspections.

    It's this country all over to make a situation worse before fixing a problem which is all this will do.

  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 63,157 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011

    The resources don't exist to do that for conventional rentals currently. How are you proposing to fund the massive increases required to do it for conventional rentals first?

  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 63,157 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011

    People in social housing will not be able to rent a room out without it affecting their differential rent. Few of them would have a spare room anyway

    This is not for people in social housing or private rented - it is for the small number of people on means tested welfare who own their own house. Some retired, some on disability payments, etc.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,928 ✭✭✭ Gregor Samsa

    You're the one who started the thread just because you heard that welfare recipients were going to be entitled to the allowance. I'm only focusing on your lack of knowledge of the whole situation. You've gone from complaining about a specific scheme that a handful of welfare recipients will be able to make use of, to an entire overhaul of the whole domestic rental regulatory framework and system - and all because you heard a few people on the dole, disability or state pensions would be allowed take in a Ukrainian in need that's willing and able to pay their way for accommodation, and not have their welfare cut off.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭ Sardonicat

    The first €14000 rental income is disregarded. Now it will be the same for Welfare recipients, as long as the rental income stays below €14,0000, their entitlement to their benefit won't change. And Welfare recipients is a very broad sweep of folk, not merely those currently signing on.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,548 ✭✭✭ tabby aspreme

    I suppose, Single Maaaas will only have one kid now, as it's more profitable to rent the rest of the house, than have more sprogs

  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 63,157 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011

    This isn't an option for those in social housing

    Anyway, if you only have one kid (or all girls/all boys) you only get a two bed anyway.

  • Registered Users Posts: 35,666 ✭✭✭✭ Gatling

    But if your living as a couple your means tested and if one is earning you get less assistance , but you can essentially rent out a room to a ukrainain and the income doesn't effect your welfare payment ,

    But the rest of us would lose money and medical cards .

    So much for people wanted to equal system not a two tier system

    Langley, Virginia


  • Registered Users Posts: 36,563 ✭✭✭✭ Boggles

    The scheme isn't specific to renting a room to any Nationality.

    Also you are equating 2 completely different things.

    Neither scenario would be "punished" now for a change in circumstances.

  • Registered Users Posts: 35,666 ✭✭✭✭ Gatling

    So they can become landlord and earn 14k + and face no cuts ,but a young older couple with a child face sanctions if one earns a little bit more .

    Another fine disaster led by the government

    Langley, Virginia


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 36,563 ✭✭✭✭ Boggles

    Again you are equating 2 completely different things.

    It's an incentivization scheme that already existed and has now been expanded.

    There is nothing stopping the younger couple benefiting from the same scheme.