[lmm]

> The House of Lords has proposed an amendment to the bill stating that leaseholders won’t be made to pay (note: not forcing the tax payer to pay, just ensuring the leaseholders don’t) and the Housing Committee (namely MP Robert Jenrick) are rejecting this on the basis that the tax payer shouldn’t foot the bill.

How does the amendment ensure leaseholders don't have to pay without putting taxholders on the hook? You can't make money from nowhere.

[iso1210]

The person that owns the actual building and land could pay.

The company and officers who sold the cladding (especially the ones who cheated on the tests) could pay

[dijksterhuis]

In a Venn diagram, "not leaseholders" will be all other space on the diagram.

I imagine it's meant to leave all other options on the table (taxpayers, developers and/or anyone else) rather than force a specific choice (except leaseholders).

[lmm]

If you legislate that it's not X and it's not Y and it's not Z, pretty soon it's no-one. Legislating that it can't be X is de facto making it the taxpayers' responsibility (or else permitting it to not be done at all).

[contravariant]

The one coherent explanation I can come up with is that they want to fund it by taxing people/companies that evade taxes.

Though that doesn't sound right for the current UK government.

[lmm]

That money would normally go into the tax bucket, so it's really still being taxpayer-funded in that case.

[contravariant]

Well they're not currently taxpayers at the very least, in contrast to the leaseholders who presumably are mostly taxpayers.

[lmm]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Money is fungible, money recovered from tax evaders rightly belongs in the general taxation pool, funding X with money recovered from tax evaders is no different from funding X with money from the general taxation pool (unless X somehow enables recovering more money from tax evaders that wouldn't otherwise happens).