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

Cleaver

Doctor_Gloom wrote: »

Great post. Anyone who has more than one home in this country should be subject to a punitive tax regime.

The thing is, my gloomly little friend, is that when I had a BTL I was paying 40% tax on the profit. There aren't many individuals / companies in this country that pay 40%. Our banks certainly don't (isn't around 8% a good estimate for our banks?), Sir Phillip Green certainly doesn't, Tescos don't... I could go on.

If you really feel that strongly about people not paying enough tax I would suggest you make a stand against some of our larger tax avoiding corporations rather than a few BTL landlords, many of which will pay 20% or 40% tax already.

PasturesNew

This is hilarious reading

The_Fox_3

Cleaver wrote: »

Who's a suspect troll? Me? Nearly 5,000 posts is some pretty impressive trolling.

What does 'speaking the truth' mean? There isn't a minority market for BTL, there's simply a market for private rental houses. I would completely agree with a reasonable view that BTL is far, far too big in this country and a decrease would be preferable.

But I asked you a simple question: if you 'ended' BTL where would people like me in 2003 live?

In terms of my situation, I rented for about 4 years (happily), owned for 2 years (happily), had a BTL whilst owning for about 4 years (happily) and now just own one place (also happily).

It's threads like this that make me wish the likes of dopester posted more often. There's a guy who has pretty much opposing views to me on certain aspects of this subject but has the intelligence, class, thought and cleverness to not only engage everyone in debate but can make someone like me look at my own opinion and think "hmmm, am I really sure about what I think?".

Instead we get Dr Fox here dribbling the same unitelligent rantings we've heard a million times before.

Hear these storys all the time online, only thing is that in the real world nobody knows anyone like this. It's an urban myth created by BTL's.
Real tenants like hard working couples who cannot afford to get out of the rent trap, or BTL feeding off HB, we all know 100's of storys like that in the real world, not your fairytales.

Look mate, if you want a property BTL ramping site go to PMT motley fool, they will love you there.

LilacPixie

OP so what prompted your little rant today?? Your single lady friend has money issues and her landlord wont/can't help out? Would it me the same rant against mortgage companies if she couldn't pay the mortgage or maybe against to local authority if she lived in a LA property?

PasturesNew

Cleaver wrote: »

The thing is, my gloomly little friend, is that when I had a BTL I was paying 40% tax on the profit. There aren't many individuals / companies in this country that pay 40%. Our banks certainly don't (isn't around 8% a good estimate for our banks?), Sir Phillip Green certainly doesn't, Tescos don't... I could go on.

If you really feel that strongly about people not paying enough tax I would suggest you make a stand against some of our larger tax avoiding corporations rather than a few BTL landlords, many of which will pay 20% or 40% tax already.

On the other hand, many have no profit and are paying no tax. They'll pay CGT when they sell, if they can't find a way to "hide" the property as a BTL anyway.

How would anybody actually know if I was trousering rent money and paying no tax? I'm sure a lot do, for reasons from stupidity/cluelessness through to intent to evade.

Also, if I buy one at £50k, then a year later MEW £20k out of it, is there any tax to pay? How easy is it to hide that? How does it work?

Lots of opportunity for cash dealing and ducking and diving.

stringsmk2

The_Fox wrote: »

Yes

Look, some of you BTL apologists can be as clever as you want, but i will tell you this, if a survey was done asking those living in rented to day if they would prefer to be giving the chance to buy BTL would be dead in a year.

You idiots can come up with your individual heart warming storys..
"we had a lovely couple who loved me and Mrs Landlord so much they named their first born after one of us, in time they grew to respect and love us so much for putting a roof over their sad little heads that they decided that Mr Landlord could inpregnant her as well as naming the other offspring after us again"

I general nobody wants BTL or second home ownership to the degree we have it, it is destroying aspiration.

In your idealistic world, what was I supposed to do with the property then?

Leave it empty?

stringsmk2

Doctor_Gloom wrote: »

Great post. Anyone who has more than one home in this country should be subject to a punitive tax regime. They are nothing but greedy chancers who give no consideration to the dire social implications of their actions.

Its not a great post, its just realisation that they can not do anything about the current market and life that we live in.

What is fundamentally wrong with me wanting a second home on the coast or in the alps? Am I not allowed to aspire to the finer things in life, or should we just live in a socialist state.

Get a grip !!!!!!

diable

Doctor_Gloom wrote: »

Great post. Anyone who has more than one home in this country should be subject to a punitive tax regime. They are nothing but greedy chancers who give no consideration to the dire social implications of their actions.

I agree the same as people with more than one television or a family with more than one car, wealth should not be flaunted or taxed so it hurts same as women's shoes and handbags as there would be many a happy husband if women were only allowed to own three of each.

diable

Doctor_Gloom wrote: »

That's way too low. It should be 80% or 90%. That'd help solve the problem.

Rents would just go up anyway. Its a no win situation.

hermum

diable wrote: »

I agree the same as people with more than one television or a family with more than one car, wealth should not be flaunted or taxed so it hurts same as women's shoes and handbags as there would be many a happy husband if women were only allowed to own three of each.

Own 3 husbands:eek: