Well, if the wife hadn't had a flat, he could have claimed for somewhere else, so why not? Surely even you Geoff saw the absurdity of a situation whereby if I had 500k invested paying 5%, and a 500k flat on a 5% 500k mortgage, then I could claim, but if I moved the 500k from one pot to another (as many did), then I could no longer claim?
If the whole thing is about redistribution of wealth, then be upfront about it and bash up income tax. But it isn't about that. Anny money paid or not paid, justly or injustly, doesn't come from a pot that would otherwise have gone to a deserving cause. One could equally argue that MPs work all kinds of hours and should be entitled to the extra money, which they could spend as they wish. My argument is just to scrap the restrictions would not cost as much as people think. Assume that it gets taken from benefit fraudsters, or the Ministry of Defence.
Sure, it might enrich those who don't need it, but as a rule I don't think it enriches those who don't deserve it. Is that the nub of the difference between us?
Re: Hard cases - bad law
If the whole thing is about redistribution of wealth, then be upfront about it and bash up income tax. But it isn't about that. Anny money paid or not paid, justly or injustly, doesn't come from a pot that would otherwise have gone to a deserving cause. One could equally argue that MPs work all kinds of hours and should be entitled to the extra money, which they could spend as they wish. My argument is just to scrap the restrictions would not cost as much as people think. Assume that it gets taken from benefit fraudsters, or the Ministry of Defence.
Sure, it might enrich those who don't need it, but as a rule I don't think it enriches those who don't deserve it. Is that the nub of the difference between us?
PJ