The vicar making his tenants homeless because of tax changes...

AdrianC

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

This forum is holier than thou, isn't it?

It's not hard to be holier than this vicar.

Let's get it straight. I have no problem with him having a bunch of BtLs. I have no problem with him having a reasonable income over it.

I do have a problem with him complaining that a measure deliberately introduced to attempt to rebalance the housing market by restricting BtL is interfering with some higher calling, when he wouldn't even be subsidising his tenants from his ample income (about 2.5x national average in an area which is below average, even before his free housing) merely reducing their contribution to it.

Can you see the difference?

Miss_Samantha

QED.
Thanks

AdrianC

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

QED.

Do feel free to expand upon that response...?

booksurr

it always amuses me the contrast between C of E clergy and catholic clergy given there "should" be an element of poverty about being clergy because why, after all, do they need riches on earth when their reward awaits in heaven.

yet strangely enough the C of E vicar expects to earned a "decent" wage so he can support his wife and their (numerous) children with earthly indulgences.

as you say Adrian, his protestations belie the fact he must already be a higher rate taxpayer so is far removed from "genuine" clergy IMHO

Miss_Samantha

Is this thread about the hypocrisy of religion?

anselld

AdrianC wrote: »

And let's not forget that he must be into higher-rate tax for the change to be making any difference. Yet he complains the change will bring him INTO higher-rate.

That is not correct. It depends on his level of mortgage debt, but say for example he is paying £10k per annum in mortgage interest then his current income could be circa £35k. Nowhere near higher rate currently. Withdrawal of relief would then bring him into the higher rate.

It is not possible to conclude his current earnings from the data provided since we do not know the level of mortgage interest.

anselld

booksurr wrote: »

his protestations belie the fact he must already be a higher rate taxpayer so is far removed from "genuine" clergy IMHO

He may well be, but I cannot see how that is proven from the available data.

System

Restricting btl should be in fact a righteous thing as it'll make property more affordable to buy, if they want to save people rent (and the tax, insurance and prpfit that entails) they should encourage ownership

I wonder why vicars are paid a salary at all, should be voluntary, esp if they're already looked after then there's no reason why they can't require all assets to be donated to the church

marksoton

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Is this thread about the hypocrisy of religion?

As an institution the " Church" ( Let's not breakdown to denomination ) are some of the richest capital owners of land in the UK.

When one of theirs breaks cover and spins it as a moral issue i'm not surprised people object.

Miss_Samantha

AdrianC wrote: »

Do feel free to expand upon that response...?

See your post #12.