Open Letter To Jane Ellison MP @JaneEllison

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "07/09/2016 - 17:18":

I have exchanged further correspondence with the Treasury since my email of 7 September, above.

On 20 September, Nicholas Irvin sent me the standard letter that the Treasury has been sending out for well over a year now. .It included the following:

“We understand that some landlords, such as the landlord that you know, may face difficult
decisions regarding their properties. This is why the Government has chosen to act in a
proportionate and gradual way. Basic rate income tax relief will still be available on a
landlord's finance costs, the restriction will not be introduced until April 2017 and then it
will be phased in over 4 years. This gives landlords time to plan ahead of the changes.”

I immediately sent an email to Messrs Hammond, Gauke and Irvin, and Mrs Ellison, with the following question:

“If you consider a 78% reduction of net income to £10,900 - for two people to live on - and a tax rate of 83% to be proportionate, would you please advise me what you would regard as disproportionate.”

Today Mr Ryan sent the following reply:

“Thank you for your email dated 20 September. In the previous letter, the word ‘proportionate’ was reflective of the fact that the Government is phasing in the change to the tax treatment of finance costs for landlords. This change is being introduced gradually from April 2017 over 4 years.”

So I have sent the following email to Messrs Hammond, Gauke and Irvin, and Mrs Ellison:

"The word gradual in both letters can only refer to something that happens over time, in this case the phasing-in over 4 years. The word proportionate refers to a comparison of one thing with another. It is disingenuous to pretend that it means gradual, and the attempt insults my intelligence. The fact that both words are used in the standard letter indicates that they mean different things.

However, the pretence that the word does not have its normal meaning here is a clear admission that the Treasury has no justification for using the word proportionate in connection with Section 24. A tax rate of 83% is clearly disproportionate when compared to the maximum rate of 45% which will be applied to all other types of business. In fact, it is ruinously confiscatory. Do you not agree?"

Via my MP, I got a standard letter from Jane Ellison, who - in her wisdom - again talks about level playing field (with buyers of residential properties to live in).
Could any of the esteemed people here give me a few punch lines to demolish that idiocy? I will certainly be sending a reply.
Thanks a million!
WSF

Reply to the comment left by "Whiteskifreak Surrey" at "04/05/2017 - 13:01":

Hi Whiteskifreak.
I would ask for their justification in creating a very un-level playing field with the large Build to Rent providers of rental housing who are exempt from Section 24. And I would ask them to supply details of the additiional Government assistance, for example in the form of loan guarantees, to these institutions and also to publish which ones have donated to the Conservative party. I would also ask for their view of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales' assessment that far from creating a level playing field, Section 24 puts a cliff edge in the middle of that field
There is also a section in my report which can be copied and pasted pointing out the idiocy of comparing properties rented out as a business (which are taxed becsuse they are businesses) with the non-business of living in your own home (where there is no tax levied on imputed rent).
I would stress that you want real answers to these legitimate and logical points and not a repetition of Treasury sophistry.

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "04/05/2017 - 13:19":

Thank you Ros,
very good points, I will certainly do that ! Will post here when / if I her back.