|
I don't know much about this. If the rent money flows back to the state, then any subsidy might be construed as the state paying itself. The amount it is paying itself would be only notional.
By way of comparison: you could say that low earners get an income tax subsidy. That is, they are charged at the 45% rate the same as everyone else, but get some of the money back to make the effective rate lower than that. Of course, this is nonsense. But all sorts of fictional flows of money could be created and then called subsidies.
I don't think it's quite the same. If you cross an income tax threshold, you lose a proportion of the extra money you earn. You don't lose any of your existing net income, as far as I am aware. But I'm not very knowledgeable about taxes.
If the suggestion is that you go from earning £29,999.99 to £30,000.00 (1p increase) and then have to fork out an extra, say, £4k in rent, well that would be silly. I can't imagine that is what is about to happen. I'm not a great a fan of the chancellor, but he must realise that is not a sensible proposal. |
|