ps I think it would be better rather than getting rid of MIR completely, to replace it with a scheme whereby people who opt for MIR are thereby committing themselves to a 'clawback' of the MIR e.g. liability at 33% or 50% of the asset gain up to a maximum of the MIR amount.Incidentally, you were arguing on another thread in favour of the State subsidising the purchase of private residences through MIR. Do you think that it's fair, in principle, that somebody can make substantial tax-free profits on the sale of an asset the purchase of which was subsidised by the State? Genuine question.
The key thing is that the 'clawback' is limited in some way by the MIR amount (perhaps interest adjusted), it does not become a general grab at the asset gain.