Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,137
Actually, nationwide house prices peaked in 2007, fell dramatically until 2012 and have risen pretty dramatically since then. In other words, the 2004-2012 time period doesn't neatly coincide with our property boom/bubble.1. Those who bought between 2004-2012 buy during the boom years and thus took on the most debt and need the support.
Are you arguing that purchasers with cheap mortgages are more deserving of State support than purchasers with more expensive mortgages? That seems a very odd logic to me.2. But the single most important reason to extend this MIR is because its CHEAP for the government to do so ... low interest trackers during this period keep the cost of providing MIR very low and yet think of all that political capital that FF gain from extending the relief.
If it's inequitable that it's only for people in 2004-2012, well then it should be extended to all PPRs.
Why should less well off taxpayers subsidise asset purchases by better off taxpayers?
Regardless of your politics, that doesn't seem very fair.
I would prefer to see my taxes being spent on people that are genuinely in need - not on subsidising middle class house purchasers.
The cost of mortgage interest relief to taxpayers in 2015 was €232 million so we're not talking about small beer. If the objective is to lower the tax burden on middle earners, wouldn't it make more sense to reduce income taxes generally rather than subsidising a random selection of taxpayers?
€232 million ... I wonder how that stands in comparison to the total budget for social housing, rent supplements, HAP, emergency housing?
For what it's worth, according to the Department of Housing, the overall exchequer provision for housing in 2015 amounted to €676 million.
All MIR does is subsidise house purchases for one cohort to the detriment of those that don't receive the relief. You seem to be conflating "middle class social welfare" with fiscal rectitude. That just seems bizarre to me.
MIR was finally abolished in the UK back in 2000 - it's long past time that we followed suit.
Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that MIR should be extended beyond the end of this year because there is a vast amount of money spent on the underpriviliged and you want your fair share of the pie. With respect, that's just the special pleading of a vested interest - it's not a coherent argument... Again, why should those households that rent their homes be expected to subsidise house purchases by better off households?
We're not talking about the UK's housing policy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?