BTL, vile lowlife business, nobody wants to be living under their roofs

chucknorris

jennikitten wrote: »

Since you seem to enjoy ranting and raving so much, how about turning to a more worthwhile cause such as poverty or people trafficking or animal testing or child abuse?

I know the answer to that one. It's because he wouldn't personally benefit.

twadge_face

The_Fox wrote: »

I am coming with my begging bowl now:)

I want to start an anti BTL site, if anyone can help me in anyway i would be gratefull. I will plough a few bob into it myself, BUT I NEED THE HELP.
Just remember those of you that are forever posting on HPC, do you think they really want the property crash to actually happen and then end. Housepricecrash was purchased as a going concern a few years ago,work it out yourself.

I'm initially enthused and can assist with the website side but would like to do a little bit of research first to gauge interest from visitors on this site. We could do a poll?

Linton

The_Fox wrote: »

In the same houses Duhhhhh!

When all the landlords(most sorry) vanish not one house will be lost, they just don't vanish you know.

Do the people live in those ex landlorded houses for free or do they pay someone? If so, who?

chucky

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

Why... you...!!! :mad:

you just can't handle the truth...

twadge_face

chucky wrote: »

you just can't handle the truth...

Don't quote me out of context.

Arcaine

Cleaver wrote: »

As a genuine question, are there any other businesses that you can set up that are subject to their own tax legislation?

This isn't me trying to make a point, I genuinely have no idea.

Obviously if you run a 'business' on your own that isn't a registered company, whether it's eBay selling, a BTL, public speaking, selling homemade clothes etc. etc. you pay in line with income tax, so 0%, 20% or 40% etc.

And if you register your business as a company you are subject to those taxes. But are any of these taxes business-specific, or are they all the same?

The one that spring to mind to me is the North Sea oil tax and I am pretty sure there are some sort of company gambling tax. I am sure there are some others though.


A list of industry specific taxes and duty (sorry I have to check these things)

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?topicId=1081861484

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not tax specific that I am aware of off the top of my head.

But looking at it from a different angle, there are plenty of business's turned down through planning legislation, whereas a different business may get accepted for the same plot / space.

Take for instance Tesco's. My local one isn't allowed to sell paint, because there are shops in the town that sell paint. They also had to fund a new community centre to get planning permission amongst other stuff.

However, BTL can take over entire areas with no real disinsentive. Ashford, Kent.

Second home owners can buy up swathes of properties in local areas destroying the local community. Cornwall.

Thank God there's someone on this thread worth discussing this issue with.

I think the idea of some form of social good (or whatever you want to call it) from landlords is a much more constructive and interesting approach than a tax. I think specifically just taxing the letting industry much more would simply cause a rise in rents in the short term and a lack of private rental over the medium term, and I always think higher taxes as a disinsentive to an industry is the wrong way to go.

As someone who has rented properties and also rented a property out, I think a national register for landlords would be a smashing idea. You know when you buy a car and you pay a small fee and you find out whether the car is stolen, has finance, been written off etc.? The same system could be applied to landlords where you can check their insurance, certificates on the property, mortgage status, equity in the house etc. This would make it a lot easier to find landlords who met all the criteria needed to rent a house. Like a Corgi register for landlords.

I think letting agencies should also be looked at. We used a letting agency when we rented out a house because we lived miles away and were also not experts in the lettings business. Our letting agency were okay, but they ran the house like nazis. They rang me one day to say that they'd done an inspection and everything was fine, aside from the fact that the tenants had put up a childgate at the top of the stairs as they have a toddler. This was against the rule of putting things in the wall, so they had asked them to take it down. I was livid - these people pay me a good amount every month to live in this house and why they hell shouldn't they have a childgate to stop their child falling down the stairs?! Basically, there seems a culture with letting agencies (and a lot of landlords) to screw the tenants over at every step and I'm not sure how you stop this. Maybe legislation is the answer. Another example is renewal fees when the tenant wants to extend the contract - what is the point of this? Surely your rent and the monthly fee taken by the letting agency should cover all of this.

I'm not sure what can be done about second home owners. There's loads of ideas around only allowing to owners to sell it for a certain capped amount, or tax, but I just can't see how any of them would work in real life.

And you know better than to get me started on Tesco Graham.

The_Fox_3

jennikitten wrote: »

Since you seem to enjoy ranting and raving so much, how about turning to a more worthwhile cause such as poverty or people trafficking or animal testing or child abuse?

I am working for crisis at the royal docks rough sleepers centre on Xmas eve and Xmas day, my shift is 3pm to midnight, what do you do?

Come and meet me if you are feeling charitable and want to help.:)

As angry as i am, i still realise i am blessed in that i personally have a lovely warm double bed to get in every night with snowy fields to look out over at the moment.

DervProf

Anecdotal :

Did a job yesterday for a local (friendly) customer. Small 3 bed semi, ex council house he was renovating. Had a little chat with him about "stuff". Turns out he moved from a flat, not too far away. Decided he wanted a house and was going to sell the flat. In the end he kept the flat and rents it out (which pays the mortgage on the house).... "It's my pension".

Fine, it makes economic sense, I suppose. However, this got me thinking. Working class bloke in his 40s. Was able to buy a modest flat about 12 years ago (before BTL and Brown's "boom" took place). He can now afford to buy an additional home, payed for by the one he bought 12 years ago. Now, he's a working class chap, so I doubt he's on a fantastic salary. Good for him that he can do what he's doing, but if he was 12 years younger, looking for a modest flat (like the one he's renting out now), could he buy it, or would he have to rent it ? If he did manage to buy it, would he be able to buy a house and rent out the flat in 12 years time ?

Accountant_Kerry

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Rational is now "burning at the stake"?

Hmm, yer.

Rational would be suggesting what would happen if new tax legislation came in tommorow for all new BTL purchases going forward.

I choose burned at the stake as it seems that this sort of extremist view is what the OP is suggesting!

New tax legislation would affect any business start up of course, BTL included. But how many are currently entering BTL at the moment? This does not deal with the historic BTL issue surely?