The Wilsons are going under.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

you either get a 50% exemption of your council tax on empty furnished properties or you get 100% exemption on unfurnished empty property.

you got to be stupid to have to pay or even owe council tax on an un-let property.

at least it gets the frothers all excited and trying to speak a foreign language.

you're not very good at this are you :eek:

It's for 6 months chucky. Not indefinately. 6 months.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's for 6 months chucky. Not indefinately. 6 months.

thanks and well done.... but...............................

6 months is 26 weeks - is that how long the properties were unlet for?
does the article tell you how long they were un-let for or did you make that bit up? (for a change)

by your own admission your not the brightest and a bit slow... even you should have realised this.

but to show that you either can't read or even understand the article... you should have picked up on this and frothed at the mouth

Wilson insists these arrangements are being entered into ' voluntarily' and 'with no compulsion' from lenders. He says that only 15 per cent of the properties do not yield enough rent to cover their mortgage bills. 'We have looked at the most sensible way forward,' he said.

leveller2911

chucky wrote: »

you either get a 50% exemption of your council tax on empty furnished properties or you get 100% exemption on unfurnished empty property.


Thats why BTL's should be classed as a commercial business .If its not rented out then the "owner" should pay council tax. Aren't BTL mortgages a commercial venture?

If you own business units you don't get any discount on the business rates.....

Emy1501

chucky wrote: »

as i said it was what was said on this interview, the interviewer doesn't seem to contest it - if it right or wrong i don't know but i don't read HPC.co.uk so don't know the real truth. sorry



could that not be allow larger capital repayments?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-431224/How-maths-teachers-clocked-707-houses-240m-fortune.html

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article1043004.ece

They re-mortgage the properties to get the capital to buy the next and had 700 properties in 2007. There was also a programme on then back in 2004 on ITV which if you ever saw you would know most of their properties were not bought in the 90's

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

6 months is 26 weeks - is that how long the properties were unlet for?
does the article tell you how long they were un-let for or did you make that bit up? (for a change)

Does the article tell YOU how long they were unlet for then?

Getting a little annoyed there chucky?

Mr.Brown_4

I'm just glad I didn't try to copy the Wilsons gamble. Bit difficult to sleep at night with all those problems.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Tell me. What have I made up?

I have said that the exemption on council tax lasts 6 months.

What am I making up here?

you getting annoyed there :j:j

council tax exemptions are usually 6 months

but you're claiming the properties were un-let for longer than 6 months

it's not the Graham Devon show you know - take a step back from the keyboard, stop gripping the mouse so tightly, let go of it and go for a walk... it will do you good...

but don't worry [STRIKE]MrBrown[/STRIKE] reweird will thank your post

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

you getting annoyed there :j:j

council tax exemptions are usually 6 months

but you're claiming the properties were un-let for longer than 6 months

Was I?

Oh. I'm sure I just said it was for 6 months. Didn't know I was claiming anything other than that.

Dunno what I would do without you chucky, you know, to tell me what I'm saying even though I haven't said it.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Was I?

Oh. I'm sure I just said it was for 6 months. Didn't know I was claiming anything other than that.

Dunno what I would do without you chucky, you know, to tell me what I'm saying even though I haven't said it.

you'd probably be less stressed trying to contradict everyone of my posts....

you say some peculiar things trying to be clever and then claim that you never say them - it happens all too frequently.
give it up son, you're not bright enough and onto a loser with that one...

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

you'd probably be less stressed trying to contradict everyone of my posts....

you say some peculiar things trying to be clever and then claim that you never say them - it happens all too frequently.
give it up son, you're not bright enough and onto a loser with that one...

Oh right.

So let me educate myself a little here.

YOU can claim that the properties are NOT unoccupied for 6 months. You don't actually know this, but you will claim it anyway. And THAT is of course ok for you to do that.

I "claim" so I am told that the properties are unoccupied for over 6 months....not that I ever said that.... but I'm simply told that's what I meant. I don't actually KNOW this, so therefore I am wrong.

So I'm wrong on two counts where you are right....

Firstly that the article doesnt state something, therefore you are obviously right and I am wrong.

And secondly when I don't say something, therefore you tell me what I am claiming, you are right because you have told me I am saying something else and I am therefore wrong.

Wow. That's an eye opener to me. Obviously I haven't quite got the jist of forums.