But to let landlords panic on radio (Moneybox)

harryhound

PasturesNew wrote: »

Hardly panic .... it was one woman caller who said she'd bought a flat to rent out so she could cash it in as her future pension ...

I'd expect a panic to have been swathes of callers about to be made bankrupt, not one random woman who might at some future point be taxed a bit more than she expected.

The presenter did point out that the new expected CGT rules are just going back to how it was in 1998 - and therefore people such as BTL LLs have therefore had a little bonus the past 12 years ... and people shouldn't rely on things staying the same in any long-term game.

Having had to do these calculations on a house that I 1/8th owned since 1967; I can tell you it is a pain in the backside. It was a mixture of Thatcher indexation and Brown length of ownership rules. But first I had to establish the starting value. How long is a piece of string? Then there was lots of wasted time and effort getting the tax man to agree with my research.
Is anybody actually doing any real work in this country any more?
The real questions are:
What will the nil rate band be (currently 10,100) and what sort of indexation will there be if any?.

PrivatisetheNHSnow

Doctor_Gloom wrote: »

They've had it too easy for too long. Hopefully this is merely the start of a more just taxation regime for multiple home speculators.

the real blow would be reducing housing benefit.

less money available to pay rents=rents come down

rents come down=btl mortgages unpayable

nicko33

new_home_owner wrote: »

maybe we can dunk them in lakes like what they used to do with witches?

You believe there were witches?
Summon forth the BTL-finder General

gallygirl

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

the real blow would be reducing housing benefit.

less money available to pay rents=rents come down

rents come down=btl mortgages unpayable

A bit of an assumption there. I currently have 2 BTL's, classic HB type properties. Neither tenant is on HB. Previously had another 2 BTL's & again no HB apart from a v small top up in one case & six weeks HB when unemployed in another.

The 'real blow' for the bottom end of the BTL market would be for councils to start building council houses again. Can't see the Chuckle Brothers supporting that, busy as they are changing the constitution to protect their jobs for 5 years.

In the meantime, myself & many like me will continue offering decent accommodation, well maintained and at reasonable rates (below market rates in my case to promote stability). If I choose to sell I will do what I can to minimise CGT (legally!) but if I do have to pay it I won't shed too many tears as it will mean I have had capital growth. I really don't see why so many people have an issue with BTL landlords as a species.

brit1234

gallygirl wrote: »

I really don't see why so many people have an issue with BTL landlords as a species.

Because once upon a time there were a few landlords who relied on rents to cover their repayment mortgages. Then 10-15 years ago the buy to let model came out with everyone jumping on the band wagon. Be fore we knew we had mass fraud and property inflation with buy to let landlords mass targeting ftb properties with their unfair tax advantages. They didn't care really about rents they just wanted capital appreciation to use to buy more properties.

All of a sudden the ftb are priced out of the market and we have people like the Wilsons bragging about their 1000 properties they have.

Then our country is bankrupted because all these buy to let investors never put any real money down and the banks lose all cash flow. The government then has to buy this debt and now has to ccut public services and raise taxes.

Sorry but it is a social parasite on society and now us savers are being penalised to stop them being repossed with record low interest rates

:eek:

Sir_Humphrey

Cleaver wrote: »

I've said it once and I'll say it again. BTL is a business, and therefore is (and should be) taxed in the same way as any other business. Care to explain in what ways landlords 'have it easy' with regard to taxation in comparison with any other business or someone who completes a self-assessment form? They are subject to the same tax rules as anyone else who generates an income on something.

That would mean that all businesses get charged at 40%.

Still seems that people do not know what deficit reduction actually means.

Gorgeous_George

I'd need to reduce my rent by 90% to make a loss thanks to ridiculously low interest rates. When the rates return to a more normal 7% I'd be 'earning' around the level I had hoped for when I bought the property.

Next January, the taxman will do rather well thanks to the work I have put in to my property and the risk that I took when I bought it. I don't have a problem paying tax on this income however, assuming house prices only keep pace with inflation, it seems unfair that the inflation component of any price rise should be taxed.

For example, a house purchased for £100K today and sold in 20 years' time for £150K hasn't really increased in value. Why should the taxman take 40% of the inflation?

As it is I won't be selling and at the moment at least, CGT is not payable on death.

GG

The-mouth-of-the-south

For many amatur BTL Landlords who entered the market to geta 2nd pension - they will lose the lot.

Cleaver

The-mouth-of-the-south wrote: »

For many amatur BTL Landlords who entered the market to geta 2nd pension - they will lose the lot.

ad44downey, is that you in disguise? I'm sure it is. I'd recognise your one line, simplistic, pointless, soundbite posts anywhere. How you been anyway?

dealsearcher

PasturesNew wrote: »

The presenter did point out that the new expected CGT rules are just going back to how it was in 1998 - and therefore people such as BTL LLs have therefore had a little bonus the past 12 years ... and people shouldn't rely on things staying the same in any long-term game.

What 'bonus' would they have had if they had owned a property since before 1998 and not sold it in that time?

Why shouldn't people who invest for the long term not be able to rely on long term stability in the taxation system?

This threatened increase in the CGT rate and reduction in the nil rate band is unlikely to increase the tax take from CGT. People will just not sell their property.

An income tax or VAT increase will always bring in more tax for the government as people will not stop working or buying stuff. A CGT increase will not. People will just continue renting their properties. The main losers will be estate agents, conveyancing solicitors and the government because the lack of property sales will reduce the CGT take, not increase it.