A return to MIRAS - what do you think?

tara747

No

carolt wrote: »

MY OH, who asked me what I was typing, disapproves as he thinks it would just ramp property prices further, and that the last thing we need to do is put more of taxpayers' money into propping up the housing market.

Which is a damn fine point. Wish I'd thought of it.

I agree 100% with your OH!!!! MIRAS should never be reintroduced.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

it should come back to help top rate taxpayers out. so instead of paying 40% on interest payments they only pay 20%. that would get more money spent in the economy.

I thanked this post by accident, was trying to press the 'quote' button!!! Needless to say I wholeheartedly disgaree.

ukcarper

But if being fair is the only objective you would have to apply capital gains tax to homeowners, which would make it almost impossible to buy a bigger house

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

The difference between the situation for property investors and entrepreneurs is that businesses create jobs and BTL landlords don't. Thus I don't see why the tax privileges for property investors (unless they are involved in construction, which obviously creates jobs) are justified. Why should the rest of society subsidise people who want to enrich themselves, unless they will create jobs in the process?

But they pay tax on the profit from the rent received, where is the subsidy?

CLAPTON

The conservatives changed MIRAS so that the relief was only given on basic rate tax and then Labour abolished it altogether.


Whatever the superficial attractions of any subsidy on mortgage payments or key workers or first time buyers etc that unless the SUPPLY of houses increases any such subsidy simply means the price of property will rise as people can now 'afford' to pay more.

Kohoutek

StevieJ wrote: »

But they pay tax on the profit from the rent received, where is the subsidy?

The tax relief on the mortgage interest. Why should that be offset?

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

The tax relief on the mortgage interest. Why should that be offset?

Because it is a business expense, is that not obvious?

StevieJ

I do believe there should be no tax on rent for your primary residence, to enable you to
rent out elsewhere, or maybe offset rent paid with rent received. This would allow people more flexibility to move around, say for work without having to sell the property each time.

Kohoutek

Whenever the government grants tax relief, on businesses or charities, the taxpayer is subsidising that business or charity by not collecting tax where it has the legal right to demand it.

Why should that apply to BTL landlords? I don't think it's a socially desirable or helpful activity, so why grant tax relief? If it's a 'business' where only one person gains, then I don't think there should be any tax relief. The government should encourage charitable organisations and entrepreneurs that create employment, but why would you want to encourage BTL?

moggylover

No

silvercar wrote: »

You used to be able to get £30k MIRAS each as a couple, but only one lot of £30k if you were married. I remember people moaning how they were losing out by getting married. I don't think the WIKI article has the dates quite right. I thought it was finally abolished before 2000, possibly as early as 1990. I remember it was restricted to basic rate and then 15%, possibly down to 10%, then abolished.

It was originally on multiple persons within a couple, this was reduced to one lot per house around 1987 and I believe it was the mid 90's that it was phased out altogether. Was certainly still in place when I originally bought this house in 1990.

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

Whenever the government grants tax relief, on businesses or charities, the taxpayer is subsidising that business or charity by not collecting tax where it has the legal right to demand it.

Why should that apply to BTL landlords? I don't think it's a socially desirable or helpful activity, so why grant tax relief? If it's a 'business' where only one person gains, then I don't think there should be any tax relief. The government should encourage charitable organisations and entrepreneurs that create employment, but why would you want to encourage BTL?

so you would discriminate against all one person 'businesses' and not allow business expenses to be offset against turnover?

so no self employed plummer, electrician, hair dresser, shop keeper, disc jockey would be allowed to offset businesses expenses?
Many people might argue the opposite that we should be encouraging new businesses so one day thay can grow into large organisations