Capital Gains Tax up to 40%!

Graham_Devon

How many would be able to just sell in 50 days anyway?

What about tennants occupying the places?

chucknorris

chucky wrote: »

obviously yield on an investment or even a [STRIKE]guaranteed[/STRIKE] steady amount of incoming cashflow minus costs = profit have no place in your statement.

The last BTL mortgage I took out was 80% I could have paid cash if I had wanted to, but I prefered to keep the cash and borrow. As it happened I got a huge (short term) bonus as that mortgage was only a 0.38% above base rate tracker and I am earning more on my savings that I held back.

dopester

I think we're going to see many a squeeze put on BTL landlords, portfolios leveraged with debt, and values in general. Prepare yourself for more to come.

StevieJ

dopester wrote: »

I think we're going to see many a squeeze put on BTL landlords, portfolios leveraged with debt, and values in general. Prepare yourself for more to come.

Wishin'n'Hopin

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

obviously yield on an investment or even a [STRIKE]guaranteed[/STRIKE] steady amount of incoming cashflow minus costs = profit/loss have no place in your [STRIKE]soundbite[/STRIKE] statement.

I did say highly leveraged.

Unfortunately many amatuers who jumped on the bandwagon in more recent years are dependent on capital growth in order to generate a profit. One thing many had in common was the lack of capital to invest, often releasing existing equity to fund the deposit.

Interest is a cost, so profit is determined after interest is deducted.

StevieJ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I did say highly leveraged.

Unfortunately many amatuers who jumped on the bandwagon in more recent years are dependent on capital growth in order to generate a profit. One thing many had in common was the lack of capital to invest, often releasing existing equity to fund the deposit.

Interest is a cost, so profit is determined after interest is deducted.

So makes total sense that it is tax deductable

Thrugelmir

StevieJ wrote: »

I can't see that at all, it would be discriminatory against a particular sector that provides a roof over the head of many, a reduction in LHA is more likely.

With a massive budget deficit to reduce. Every option will be considered in order to increase taxation revenues. A move like this has no impact on the economy.

dealsearcher

Getting back to the thread title ....

I would say that the government should really introduce a 40% CGT with a taper relief arrangement. A straight increase to 40% would put too much of a shock into the system. People who have owned property for some years under different CGT rules could be placed in considerable difficulty with such a sudden change in the system. People who buy to let subsequent to any increase in CGT rate will know what they are getting in to. People who have bought before can not be expected to have forecast such a change.

StevieJ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

With a massive budget deficit to reduce. Every option will be considered in order to increase taxation revenues. A move like this has no impact on the economy.

The BTL sector have taken up the slack of a decimation of LA housing, of course it has a effect on the economy.

Thrugelmir

StevieJ wrote: »

So makes total sense that it is tax deductable

You are quite correct. However I would have thought the primary long term objective is to make an after tax profit.