A better alternative to S24?

Agreeing to any of this is a disaster for landlords and the PRS as a whole
The drip drip drip will soon have this at 5% and on it will go as these pathetic politicians rescue every useless bloody soul with a sob story as they don't want to be thought of as nasty uncaring people by our leftie liberal press.

Think this is bad, have you read about local authorities seeking banning orders against landlords which allows them to take over your property (because you didn't fix the extractor within 3 days) and keep all the income and you will have to keep on paying the mortgage and other costs.

You can't make this stuff up!

On Axe the Tenant Tax FB page there is Steve Bolton's input from his meeting with so-called our Chancellor:
https://www.facebook.com/clause24/posts/1388067614569572

increase rents and reduce borrowings?

Credit where it is due, I much prefer what the RLA have suggested >>> https://www.property118.com/rla-credit-where-due/94330/
.

First thanks to Mark for an interesting thought on the subject. Of course this is the sort of thing lobbyists do just before a budget.
The problem I suspect is that although Mark's suggestion is fair, it is directly visible as a tax on tenants. While Section 24 is an indirect tax on tenants - the landlord charges extra because his costs have gone up.When taxes rise on the small corner shop business, do the costs get absorbed by the business or are they passed on to the customer? You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
The problem is that shifty Osborne thought he would get away with it. The action merely provided extra fuel to the ignorant and prejudiced in their hate of landlords. And I suspect that any MP with a brain has realised this hit core conservative voters - the people who work hard and save for a pension ....
But the 'tax issue' is getting much worse. There is the 3% stamp tax which has already hit the number of transactions particularly in London. The plunge in the pound has hit every foreign investor more than any CGT and I have not read here (on property118) anything on the next bomb - MAKING TAX DIGITAL!!!
If you haven't heard about that - WOW.
Quarterly tax returns. Uploading receipts ..... and using HMRC approved software ... BIG BROTHER!

Reply to the comment left by "Jamie Moodie" at "01/02/2017 - 13:17":

Hi Jamie.
Have you got a source for this? I can't imagine they would have the right to keep the income if we were paying the mortgage and all the costs.

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "01/02/2017 - 16:55":

Banning Orders
10th Feb Deadline To Respond to Landlord and Letting Agent Banning Order Consultation
The Government is currently undertaking a consultation on the offences that either a landlord or le...
https://www.theprs.co.uk/Home/Index

Reply to the comment left by "Jamie Moodie" at "01/02/2017 - 17:02":

Thanks, Jamie. I just had a look but can't find confirmation of what you said.

Reply to the comment left by "Mike W" at "01/02/2017 - 16:11":

I agree with most of what you say. Most MPs are hardened to get complaints from taxpayers whenever taxes are increased - they go hand in hand MPs are thick skinned when it comes to this. What most MPs don't realise in the case of Sec.24 is the scale of the issue, and even when it is spelt out to them (and I've done it several times with my local MP) the Treasury comeback with their specious "position statement" on this and the MP fobs you off as he/she doesn't know who to believe.

Foreign investor should, with a weaker pound, find it cheaper to buy sterling denominated assets - or have I got it all wrong??

When people write to their MPs, they might want to adapt what I wrote to mine, putting him in the position of a landlord with his MP's costs an using his numbers, which should be a matter of public record:

I have a feeling you may not have grasped exactly what the problem is, so allow me to illustrate it with a worked example, based on your own circumstances as an MP who draws a salary and expenses from the public purse.

In broad terms, your current income is composed of £74000 salary as of May this year plus expenses, based on the complete year of 2013-14's figures, of just over £129000, of which £111000 was staffing costs. In this respect you are in quite a similar position to many landlords as regards their income. In your case the total is £203000, of which part is taxable and part is an expense and thus deductible. On that basis, in very broad terms, you are liable for tax of around £19000, leaving you a post-tax income of £55000, all of the expenses income being paid out again.

Let us now consider the position if we reduced the tax relief on part of your expenses to 20%, using the same mechanism that is proposed for landlords. Because mortgage finance is usually the major expense in property, let us treat your staffing costs in the same way - MPs expenses are no more of a sacred cow to the Great British Public than landlords' income, so the parallel is rather appropriate - nobody will be rushing to the barricades to defend either of us.

Your taxable income is now deemed as £185000, comprising your salary and that part of your expenses that you use to pay staffing costs. The tax liability on that income is £69400.

"But wait", I hear you cry, "what about the 20% tax relief due on my staffing cost?" Quite right, 20% of £111000 is £22200 so we can deduct that from the raw figure - your tax liability is now reduced to just £47200, which, because all of your staffing cost expenses are actually paid out again, you must pay out of your £74000 salary, leaving you a net income of £26800, around half of your previous take-home pay. Good luck with running homes in Somerset and London on that income!

This is only fair, of course because, as you said of landlords, reducing the tax relief on your staffing costs will “level the playing field” between MPs and ordinary citizens who don’t get tax relief for employing nannies, cleaners, gardeners and the other staff they need to support their households.

The figures are actually far worse than that for many landlords, who will be expected to pay substantial tax out of a negative cashflow.

Do you now understand the reason for our concerns?