Should David Cameron be allowed to rent out his London home?

[LilyBolero]

David and Samantha Cameron are renting out their Notting Hill home, reportedly for an income of 72k annually. They are only able to do this because they are provided with a London home (Downing Street) at the taxpayer's expense. Should this be allowed? Should they have to pay rent on Downing Street? And should he still claim to be a member of the 'middle classes'?

My answers;
Yes, this should be allowed, IF they pay rent on Downing Street.
and
NO he should not claim to be a member of the middle classes!

Of course the rich subsidise the poor - that is the whole point of taxation, public services and the redistribution of income. I have no idea why you find that (extremely basic) economic principle so surprising.

I cannot remember where I read that the split was 25/75 - it was quite recently, probably in The Economist. But it doesn't matter whether it is 10/90 or 40/60 to illustrate the principle (though 10/90 would be very shocking).

Think they should sell it, buy something equivalent in size up north and put the rest back into the coffers

rich subsidise poor
working adults subsidise elderly
working adults subsidise children
healthy subsidise unhealthy

and so on

to say "rich subsidise poor" is a simplistic view of the situation which neglects the fact that during one lifetime we move through many different situations.

Like edam I would like a link to the 25% / 75% stat to see what it is based on.

Oh sorry just seen that you can't remember where you saw it. Shame as it would have been interesting to see how it was worked out.

Of course he should be allowed to. You clearly just hate everything he does because this is no brainer!

Of course it's a simplification - but that doesn't mean it is not a useful truth.

It is politically and economically impossible to endlessly plunder the coffers of the 25% to improve the lot of the 75%. Income inequality is a serious problem but it does no one any goo to prevent the rich from continuing to earn in a legal and moral way (as the Camerons are doing by letting their home).

Bonsoir, you are twisting the facts and I'm sure you know it. Saying 'rich people pay more taxes' in absolute terms is hardly earth-shattering - they have more money. But they don't always pay more in proportion to their income and wealth

Some rich people pay the taxes due on their income, same as everyone else. Sadly many rich people use their money to pay expensive financial advisers to avoid as much tax as they can. Meaning those with fewer resources have to pick up the slack.

Often poor people end up paying a bigger proportion of their income in taxes than less well off people - remember the private equity boss who boasted that he paid less tax than his office cleaners? (Probably took some of his money in capital gains, I imagine.)

For instance, with direct taxes on spending, we all pay VAT at the same rate however much money we have. And poor people have to spend every blinking penny they earn while the rich can invest. The highest marginal tax rates are inflicted on people coming off benefits and starting work, as it happens. Something Ian Duncan Smith is promising to sort out, although from today's papers it looks like the Treasury will stop him.

Btw, I looked up the OECD stats on household income/benefits/taxation and it seems the biggest net contributors to the national pot, as a proportion of income, are the middle earners and the next highest group (dividing the population into fifths), not those at the top.

Of course he should be able to rent it out!
If a job requires you to 'live above the shop' then what you do with your own property is up to you.
If he left it empty there'd be cries on here of 'how dare the rich bastard leave an empty house..'

Let's not forget that an MPs/PMs job is highly unstable - they can be out of a job literally overnight every 4/5 years.

FGS - these 'I hate you, cos you're richer than me' threads really piss me off.. The fact that he has personal wealth outside of politics is irrelevant, but seemingly some people won't be happy until our politicians give all their worldly goods to the great unwashed needy public and go around wearing old sacks...

What a ridiculous thread/question.

Exactly fluffy.

Whatever your political views, this is an absolute no-brainer. Is anyone seriously suggesting that everyone whose employment requires them to live 'on the job' should be forced to leave their personal property standing empty so that no one can benefit from it?

I bet the people complaining on this thread would do exactly the same thing if they or their spouse took on a job where they were forced to live 'above the shop'. They would either rent out their home, or sell it and invest the profit, but you can be darn sure they wouldn't just move out and leave it standing empty for several years!!

"these 'I hate you, cos you're richer than me' threads really piss me off.. " - couldn't agree more, it's a shame that what could sometimes be an interesting debate gets hijacked by a minority who frankly just resent anyone who is better off!

Edam -

Ferguson didn't boast about paying less tax than his cleaner, he was criticising the system and what's more it's irrelevant now that tax is paid on CG at 28% rather than the 10% it was in 2007.

I'd also be genuinely interested in a link to the OECD stats you refer to, because the ONS stats say something very different (although admittedly they are two years out of date and I can't find anything more recent).

Do we know that DC actually owns it rather than Sam Cam? If they own it equally, then she will be liable for the tax on her half of the rent. Given that she has quit her job as she is pregnant, then that rent money will go to replacing her lost income. If it is her name only on the deeds then she will be renting it out not him, and she will be paying the tax.

Following on from what scary just said, the home is (presumably) half Sam's as well, and she's been forced to move out of it - not just away from the memories of her late son, but also to look after a brand new baby in strange and, no doubt, uncomfortable surroundings. Not only that, but she's just had the job of Prime Minister's Wife thrust on her - no job description, help or salary, but an awful lot of criticism when she doesn't do it well. I wasn't a fan of Cherie Blair, but I did have some sympathy when she complained about having to meet all the obligations and expenses of being Prime Minister's wife out of her own income.

If you think of the £72k as being Sam's salary for the job she's going to do, it seems a lot more reasonable to me.

So. Did the taxpayer contribute to the mortgage on the Cameron's London home? If so, the same proportion of income from the rental should go straight back into the country's coffers.

He is an MP, so gets paid by the taxpayer, so yes, the taxpayer contributes. Perhaps you'd like to extend that to all public servants, so that we can't own or profit from our own homes.

No scaryteacher. What I meant was, were the mortgage contributions paid from expenses. If so, they are not part of their normal salary.

I'm surprised they want to, given that they are supposed to be pretty loaded. But have no beef with it.

I don't like Cameron or his party, but I don't begrudge the Prime Minister a couple of official residences FGS.

I do, (begrudge him some official residences) within the context of him introducing reforms that may cost the most vulnerable people in society their homes.

Well, we disagree then.

About this. Not about Cameron generally.

:)

I think the thing that really grates on me in this situation is his harping on "We're all in this together" when QUITE OBVIOUSLY we are all not.

It's not just related to Cameron actually - I think the whole MP expenses thing was SO wrong, and it has changed my perception of those who hold public office considerably. There is a problem when people can benefit financially personally, as then decisions may be made in order to do that. There was a hilarious Newsnight where they acted out some of the conversations between MPs and the people charged with implementing the 'new' expenses system - really was funny in a very ironic sort of way.

Within the expenses system, both Cameron and Clegg claimed almost the maximum amount, despite them knowing firstly that there was very little money in the public purse, that people were going to be suffering due to cuts, and that they themselves were loaded and could easily afford not to claim.

Samantha Cameron is the higer earner of the two. She was earning (according to reports) approx £400k and he was earning around £130k. I would imagine that she is the first named person on the mortgage application as the higher earning person. It isn't his house, it is their house and it is her earned income that has mostly gone into paying for the house. I can't believe anyone is seriously suggesting that they shouldn't be able to rent out the house. I am not a Tory supporter, I just think it unfair when we (especially us women) dont respect the career and financial position of the likes of Cherie, Samantha and Miriam are in, and the fact that in each of their relationships, they were the higher earner prior to (and during) their husbands being in power.

BeenBeta - thank you so much for that link about PM's pay, it's absolutely made my day.

Of course DC should be able to rent his house out - if he is making at tody profit or just making enough in rent to cover the mortgage (although I doubt that) it is up to him. He is obliged to live in Downing Street - it is up to him whether he sells his family house or keeps it and rents it.

beenbeta - i think you are wrong in stating that Tony Blair sold his house at the top of the market. If he held on to it it would have been worth FAR more in 2007 than it was sold for in 1997. In fact he was advised to sell his house and invest the proceeds in stocks, which plummetted and wiped out his investment.

In any case, they can do what they like. I wouldn't do that job for the pittance it pays.

Of course he should be able to rent out his house & as his downing street place comes with the job he shouldn't have to pay to live there. imho He's not a member of the middle class though!!

He can do what he likes of course. But it's yet another thing that makes a nonsense of that nasty little "look at all these greedy public sector bosses who earn more than the PM" piece of spin a few weeks back.