Broken Manifesto promises

Broken Manifesto promises

7:16 AM, 11th March 2017, About 8 years ago 41

Text Size

The 2015 Conservative manifesto included the following pledge: “We will commit to no increases in VAT, National Insurance contributions or Income Tax”.  To see a copy click here

Not everyone read it at the time, but very few people could have avoided seeing David Cameron on television on 29 April 2015 pledging that there would be no increase in income tax: click here

The Guardian printed the related press release that morning: click here

It stated: “David Cameron will pledge to introduce a new law within the first 100 days of a Conservative government to prevent any rises in income tax, VAT or national insurance in the next parliament.” And “In a keynote speech, designed to be one of the highlights in a week of Tory campaigning on the economy, the prime minister will say on Wednesday: “This is the clearest choice on the economy for a generation. And beyond the plain facts, it also comes down to gut instinct. When you’re standing in the polling booth, ask yourself: on the things that matter in your life, who do you really trust?

“When it comes to your tax bill: do you trust the people who taxed you to the hilt when they were in power and still haven’t come clean about the taxes they want to increase next time round? Or do you trust the Conservatives, who have cut income taxes for 26 million people and who will cut your taxes again next time?””

These were excellent questions.

This week Philip Hammond broke the promise by announcing an increase in NI contributions for the self-employed.  This resulted in a media onslaught and several Tory MP’s spoke out against the breach of promise which would increase the NI deduction by 1% of someone’s income.  The Daily Telegraph’s deputy editor Allister Heath described the move as an unforced error.

However, there has been a deafening silence from MP’s over the first breach of promise – which was announced a mere 10 weeks after Cameron made it on TV.

In July 2015 George Osborne announced Clause/Section 24, restricting the deductibility of mortgage interest for landlords who bought properties in their own names.  This means that many will pay tax on a fictitious amount of profit with effect from April 2017, increasing their Income Tax.

The result of the NI increase for a self-employed person earning £50,000, according to Patrick Collinson’s video in the first article above, will be an increase of £500 a year, or 1%

Whereas Section 24 will more than triple the tax of one landlord that I know, and leave her without enough to live on, as described on page 12 of Dr Beck’s report: click here

She will not be entitled to any benefits though because of her fictitious income!

She will have to pay an extra 60% of her income in tax because her tax rate will go up to 83%. This increase will be 60 times as big as that resulting from the NI increase, but Tory MP’s have kept silent about that, despite the complaints they have received from taxpayers for the last 20 months.

Dr Beck’s report describes how, in order to be able to pay the extra tax and prevent bankruptcy, the landlords with the most properties have to increase the rents they charge, often for the first time in years.  As tenants on capped benefits cannot afford the increases, they are being evicted and made homeless. Councils have to put them in “temporary” accommodation at greater cost.

Homelessness is going to increase enormously due to the breach of promise that is Section 24. It will be an unforced disaster, not just in terms of the human misery of the extra homeless, but in the economic lunacy of paying more to accommodate them in hotels and B&B’s.

But where is the media uproar?  Where are the objections from Tory MP’s?

And where are the objections from Opposition MP’s for that matter?


Share This Article


Comments

Gromit

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

0:01 AM, 19th March 2017, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "18/03/2017 - 15:11":

It's "levelling the playing field" with hoteliers.

TheMaluka

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

0:43 AM, 19th March 2017, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Barry Fitzpatrick" at "19/03/2017 - 00:01":

Welcome, Barry, to the "Intimate Web of Spin Doctors".

Old Mrs Landlord

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

7:42 AM, 19th March 2017, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "19/03/2017 - 00:43":

Intricate web surely?

Whiteskifreak Surrey

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

20:29 PM, 26th March 2017, About 8 years ago

UPDATE:
In response to my letter sent to my MP (asking for passing it to TM and PH) I now received my MP's reply. She confirmed she had passed my correspondence to both. She is going to write to me as soon as she receives a full response (no doubt there will be a standard letter).
I wonder if anyone else received anything from their MP?
I guess quite a number of people did write to them.

Dr Rosalind Beck

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

20:43 PM, 26th March 2017, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Whiteskifreak Surrey" at "26/03/2017 - 20:29":

Hi Whiteskifreak. I am also waiting after my MP sent the letters onto TM and PH. I expect it will take a month or so before we get the ludicrous replies.

Luke P

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

21:26 PM, 26th March 2017, About 8 years ago

Nothing back from mine yet.

Whiteskifreak Surrey

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

11:26 AM, 5th April 2017, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Luke P" at "26/03/2017 - 21:26":

It is worth checking the Axe the Tenants Tax FB page. https://www.facebook.com/pg/clause24/posts/?ref=page_internal
There is a post from Mark Wilson (dated 4 April) showing pages from a letter he received via his MP from Treasury.
Not surprisingly usual tons of governmental TOSH.

NW Landlord

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

11:30 AM, 5th April 2017, About 8 years ago

Same old garbage not even worth bothering anymore this is happening all my energies are on restructuring and diversifying they arnt going to listen untill damage is done it's obvious I support all the efforts but they are looking futile and we are low down in the pecking order with all this brexit stuff

Appalled Landlord

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

21:54 PM, 5th April 2017, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Whiteskifreak Surrey" at "05/04/2017 - 11:26":

Hi WS

Jane Ellison’s letter includes one sentence that is new: “A long standing principle of the tax system is that, for individuals, income from property is not usually considered trading income.”

However, a manual from HMRC states that “The profits of a rental business are calculated in the same way as the profits of a trade.” http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/Manuals/pimmanual/PIM1103.htm

So if the taxable profits are calculated in the same way, what does the word “considered” mean? Is it inverted snobbery?

And what does the word “ usually” imply?

And another manual from HMRC states that tax on businesses run both by companies and by individuals is based on the same generally accepted accounting practice. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/BIM31005.htm

So on what basis does she imply that her claim only applies to individuals?

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales pointed out that since April 1999, “taxable rental income has been calculated in the same manner as income from a trade or a profession and interest has been deductible as a business expense.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmpublic/finance/memo/fb80c.pdf

So, for individuals and for companies, the current system has been in force for 18 of the 21 years since BTL mortgages were launched. That seems to be long standing.

Is any part of her sentence true? Or is it meaningless guff intended to mislead MP’s?

Anyone who receives a reply with this sentence in it should ask the MP to point out the above discrepancies to Jane Ellison and request an explanation from her.

Whiteskifreak Surrey

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

22:12 PM, 5th April 2017, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "05/04/2017 - 21:54":

Thank you Appalled Landlord. If you are on FB might be worth publish your reply there - extremely good points IMHO!

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Automated Assistant Read More