New Buy to Let Boom Fuelled By Higher Rents

Pimperne1

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well that entirely depends on the area and the mortgage obtained in 2007.

Going to have to wait for a response to this - he's feeding the hungry masses.

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well that entirely depends on the area and the mortgage obtained in 2007.

Indeed, one flat I bought in 2007 has just been re-mortgaged and the valuation for the mortgage showed that the property had increased by 9.6% in those last 4 years.

**NOTE** Before anyone comes back with the increase is less than inflation thus a real term fall, there has also been profits from the rent which has helped reduce the outstanding mortgage.

Kennyboy66

Percy1983 wrote: »

I will say it again...

You can't stop greed.

You can however improve "incentives".

Three obvious ones would be;

1) Why do houses under £125k have no stamp duty charged for BTL landlords ?
These are the exact properties which 1st time buyers are competing for outside the South East.

2) Why should loan interest by deductible against rent ?
Despite the predictable howls of protest, BTL for most is not a business - it is an investment. There is a difference.

3) Why should BTL investors have all the myriad reliefs against capital gains tax, like getting principle private residence relief for living in it (or pretending to) for a few months before it is sold.

Pimperne1

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

You can however improve "incentives".

Three obvious ones would be;

1) Why do houses under £125k have no stamp duty charged for BTL landlords ?
These are the exact properties which 1st time buyers are competing for outside the South East.

2) Why should loan interest by deductible against rent ?
Despite the predictable howls of protest, BTL for most is not a business - it is an investment. There is a difference.

3) Why should BTL investors have all the myriad reliefs against capital gains tax, like getting principle private residence relief for living in it (or pretending to) for a few months before it is sold.

Here's another one (although not BtL centric) "Why allow people to avoid CGT when selling their PPR". You must surely dislike that more than some BtLer making money with some risk.

geneer

chucknorris wrote: »

Oops! Someone seems to have forgotten how low mortgage trackers were in 2007 unless of course increased rental profits doesn't count as real money of course.

How can you say this Chuck.

I believe its previously acknowledged that all bulls who bought within the bubble did so with a life time base rate +0.25% tracker.

I mean they all keep saying it so it must be true. :rotfl:

chucknorris

geneer wrote: »

How can you say this Chuck.

I believe its previously acknowledged that all bulls who bought within the bubble did so with a life time base rate +0.25% tracker.

I mean they all keep saying it so it must be true. :rotfl:

I didn't I bought one with a life time tracker of base rate + 0.38% (2008 Scarboro BS) and remortgaged another 4 at 0.68% (2005 Birmingham Midshires) over the base rate, again lifetime trackers.

I don't understand why you have such a problem accepting that people are on these products, they were extremely common until about mid 2008.

I was a little unlucky though because I still had almost a year of a redemption penalty to run on the BM mortgages when I bought that house 2008, otherwise I would have remortgaged the other 4 at 0.38% over base in 2008 with the Scarboro BS.

Kennyboy66

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Here's another one (although not BtL centric) "Why allow people to avoid CGT when selling their PPR". You must surely dislike that more than some BtLer making money with some risk.

I thought I had covered that in point 3.

There is nothing wrong with people having PPR for their main property, similarly their "chattels" - the tax reasons and practicality of this are long established.

Pimperne1

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

I thought I had covered that in point 3.

There is nothing wrong with people having PPR for their main property, similarly their "chattels" - the tax reasons and practicality of this are long established.

No you haven't actually - you appear to be talking about BtLs in para 3. I gathered that you were against unearned income being tax free. Why are you content for OOs to receive such a generous allowance (unless you are benefiting of course)?

Blessed is just about everyone with a vested interest in the status quo (as far as OOs in PPRs go anyway)?

geneer

chucknorris wrote: »

I didn't I bought one with a life time tracker of base rate + 0.38% (2008 Scarboro BS) and remortgaged another 4 at 0.68% (2005 Birmingham Midshires) over the base rate, again lifetime trackers.

I don't understand why you have such a problem accepting that people are on these products, they were extremely common until about mid 2008.

I was a little unlucky though because I still had almost a year of a redemption penalty to run on the BM mortgages when I bought that house 2008, otherwise I would have remortgaged the other 4 at 0.38% over base in 2008 with the Scarboro BS.

Who says I have a problem with it.

I mean you're constantly hounded about the finer details of your financial arrangements, its no surpise that eventually, under much duress your forced to pass this information on.

At every avaliable opportunity.

jeradcjerry

As a first time buyer its so frustrating going round to the few properties which are within my (small) budget and not getting a look in because of BTL's with their massive deposits or are cash buyers.
All I would like is to get some priority when it comes between picking between FTB or people with homes already and are seeing it as a business.
OR they should get taxed higher on their yields so that that money can be invested in new property or shared ownership schemes.
it feels very skewered to the BTL's, i'd like to be able to buy property before I get to retirable age! and break the cycle of having to rent driving those proces up!