BTL is in desperate need of reform

Wee_Willy_Harris

StevieJ wrote: »

ANYONE can benefit because it would be availble to everyone. OK not everyone would be in a position to take it up only the 70% of households that are owner occupied.

So, it wouldn't benefit anyone other than the LL then.

chewmylegoff

StevieJ wrote: »

ANYONE can benefit because it would be availble to everyone. OK not everyone would be in a position to take it up only the 70% of households that are owner occupied.

there is already a tax break for people in the situation you describe - they can offset their mortgage interest and any other costs against the income. they only pay tax if they make a profit, therefore people aren't being screwed at all. there is no problem that needs to be fixed.

what you are really advocating is a tax break which would most benefit professional landlords who are more likely to be making a profit on the property they are renting out. they will be able to select their most profitable property to set this tax break against and thus benefit the most.

StevieJ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

there is already a tax break for people in the situation you describe - they can offset their mortgage interest and any other costs against the income. they only pay tax if they make a profit, therefore people aren't being screwed at all. there is no problem that needs to be fixed.

what you are really advocating is a tax break which would most benefit professional landlords who are more likely to be making a profit on the property they are renting out. they will be able to select their most profitable property to set this tax break against and thus benefit the most.

Where is the profit if they have to pay rent somewhere else, now if you are suggesting they can offset the rent paid against the rental income received then fair enough.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Are you having a giraffe with this comparison?!

I guess a more appropriate comparison would be the tax free rent a room scheme where a tax break is available but not everyone will use it.

If you already have a lodger or are thinking about letting furnished rooms in your home, you can receive up to £4,250 a year tax-free (£2,125 if letting jointly). This is known as the Rent a Room scheme

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4017804

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

I guess a more appropriate comparison would be the tax free rent a room scheme where a tax break is available but not everyone will use it.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4017804

I guess your idea is to get more people renting out their homes, therefore reducing supply to the property market?

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I guess your idea is to get more people renting out their homes, therefore reducing supply to the property market?

Ah, I see where you guys are coming from now

Wee_Willy_Harris

StevieJ wrote: »

Where is the profit if they have to pay rent somewhere else, now if you are suggesting they can offset the rent paid against the rental income received then fair enough.

So, you want the flexability of renting AND the security of ownership... and all for free??

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Ah, I see where you guys are coming from now

Thats good.

I have no idea really what your proposal achieves, or why you would want to see such a policy?

Just so they can move jobs without selling? How many people can do that with ease, with families etc? I don't know where you are coming from....apart from, like I say, reducing availiable properties.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thats good.

I have no idea really what your proposal achieves, or why you would want to see such a policy?

Just so they can move jobs without selling? How many people can do that with ease, with families etc? I don't know where you are coming from....apart from, like I say, reducing availiable properties.

It would be a lot easier if they don't have to sell their house into a stagnant market, it is about flexibility and mobility of the workforce.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

It would be a lot easier if they don't have to sell their house into a stagnant market, it is about flexibility and mobility of the workforce.

I would think the numbers are miniscule. People generally tend to buy in a location they wish to settle in, for schools, friends, family reasons etc.

Theres far more pressing, and may I say, important issues to look at rather than this niceity for, what I can see, no real reason....apart from what I have already stated.