Mortgage Relief extended to 2020

P

Paul Reilly

Registered User
Messages
78
For people on variables like me the Mortgage Interest Relief is all that helps us afford our mortgage.

It is great news that this has now been extended in the Budget 2017

This is a step in the right direction but for others on high variables with no relief the rates remain too high.

Hopefully these will be tackled in the Bill proposed by Fianna Fail but more competitiveness also required.
 
How does one qualify for this relief? Is it dependant on when you drewdown your mortgage?
 
Hi Paul, this is the first time I've seen anyone say it's confined to the 2004-'08 years. I know these are the years people paid the most and have the most negative equity but I must say it's very discrimatory for everyone else and just like SVR rates very unfair. I've said before and I know I've been rebuked by a few people on this site on this issue before but it should be retained for people on the high SVR'S also which includes people from outside the above years as loads of people are still struggling. It's the least the useless governments we've had in this country could do for people who are paying way over their share towards the banks return to profitability seeing as nothing has happened.
 
On the citizensinformation website it says that "Mortgage interest relief was due to be abolished entirely after 31 December 2017. It will now be retained beyond this date, on a tapered basis. Details are to be announced in Budget 2018"

I wonder what this tapering basis means? I drew down my mortgage in 2010 and I am finding the MIR a lifesaver as we are down to a one income household at the moment.
 
Paul Reilly said:
If you drewdown between 2004 and 2008
Click to expand...

That is incorrect - MIR is still available to borrowers that took out their mortgages prior to 31 December 2012.

Realistically, there is zero chance of MIR being extended to cover mortgages drawn down after that date.
 
Am I correct in saying that if you were on a tracker and therefore on a low interest rate then this relief wont be as beneficial because you are paying less interest in the first place? And so those that are on higher SVR (and obviously drewdown btw 2004 and 2012) would benefit the most?

Im surprised this relief doesn't get a lot more publicity due to its discriminatory nature. I would have thought proponents of a fairer society would be up in arms over this!

Unlike Showmethemoney, above, there are many folks that drew down a mortgage in that period that are very comfortably off.
 
Paul Reilly said:
If you drewdown between 2004 and 2008

Although to the best of my knowledge its deducted at source
Click to expand...

I stand corrected on this.......

I think the point on 2004-2008 mortgages is that those of us who bought during this period should have been finished receiving MIR at the relevant stages. (ie. 2010-2014) It was for these buyers that it was originally extended to 2017 & now until 2020.
 
jim said:
Am I correct in saying that if you were on a tracker and therefore on a low interest rate then this relief wont be as beneficial because you are paying less interest in the first place? And so those that are on higher SVR (and obviously drewdown btw 2004 and 2012) would benefit the most?
Click to expand...

Yes, although the relief is subject to certain ceilings.

jim said:
Im surprised this relief doesn't get a lot more publicity due to its discriminatory nature. I would have thought proponents of a fairer society would be up in arms over this!
Click to expand...

I guess all reliefs are discriminatory to some extent.

There was really no justifiable reason for extending MIR beyond 2017 but that was one of the prices for FF's support of the current government.

I suppose you could argue that anybody that bought after 31 December 2012 would have been aware that they wouldn't get any MIR and this would have been reflected in the price they paid.
 
No that I know of - MIR was certainly abolished some time ago in the UK and France.

In my opinion, it is grossly inequitable to use public funds to subsidise the acquisition of private assets. Many taxpayers will never be in a position to purchase a property so why should they subsidise those who can?
 
Looks like I got facts wrong re years

As regards tapering this is where the relief os reduced year on year until 2020.

FF dont want this or SF but FG do.

Prob means mortgage will increase by 50 euro each year so by 2020 youll be paying 150 more in repayments on your extortionate SVR
 
Last edited:
Paul Reilly said:
As regards tapering this is where the relief os reduced year on year until 2020.

FF dont want this or SF but FG do.
Click to expand...

Here is the text of what FF agreed in the Confidence and Supply Agreement:

"Retain mortgage interest relief beyond the current end date of December 2017 on a tapered basis".
 
They agreed it of course in the programme for Govt but wanted full relief retained until 2020 but FG wanted relief gone after 2017.

In the end they agreed on a tapered basis which is a disaster. The reason there was little about this is that the media focussed on the Rental problems.

Standard Variable Mortgages are now way down the governments priority list as homelessness, rental crisis, first time buyers MEDIA flamed issues have usurped them.

We need someone to get the papers and Claire Byrne live discussing SVRs again
 
@Paul Reilly @Brendan Burgess is always looking for volunteers to discuss their personal story with the media on the high SVR issue. Problem is no one wants to go public with it, making it a hard story to sell. The media find it easier to get people who are in the rental crises, homeless or first time buyers to 'personalise' their stories.

To be fair, the MIR and high SVR are separate issues, although linked via mortgage affordability. Someone who took out a mortgage yesterday is likely to be paying a high SVR with no MIR, and someone who took out a mortgage in 2007 is likely to be on a tracker with MIR.


Sarenco said:
In my opinion, it is grossly inequitable to use public funds to subsidise the acquisition of private assets. Many taxpayers will never be in a position to purchase a property so why should they subsidise those who can?
Click to expand...
@Sarenco I do 'kind of' agree with you here. However its highly likely that the people purchasing the house [private asset] are ones who are net contributors to public funds, and get very little in return for their contribution. I do think there has to be some incentive for those who contribute most to the public purse and cannot just be take, take, take.
That said, I am not sure MIR is the way to go about it, and also believe the tax rebate for first time buyers was absolutely wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top