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

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.

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.

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

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Rent a room relief has never applied to your kids anyway