BTL should attract VAT

Graham_Devon

The point about VAT has already proven to be unworkable.

However, I think people are getting a little carried away. VAT wouldn't be charged to any existing tenants. This would be implemented on anewly bought properties from a set date. Basically the landlord would be taking it on as a commercial business.

Therefore, if a potential BTL landlord wanted to get into the game, he'd either have to charge 20% VAT on top of the market rent, or charge a lower market rent + VAT to compete with those around him. The BTL landlord would know the score before jumping in.

This isn't and never was about destroying the rental market today. It's about managing it from hereoin.

I realise the VAT idea has been proven unworkable, but theres presumably other ways in which is could be done, and it's just a discussion point really, as nothing is gonna be done anyway!

JasonLVC

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The point about VAT has already proven to be unworkable.

However, I think people are getting a little carried away. VAT wouldn't be charged to any existing tenants. This would be implemented on a newly bought properties from a set date. Basically the landlord would be taking it on as a commercial business.

Therefore, if a potential BTL landlord wanted to get into the game, he'd either have to charge 20% VAT on top of the market rent, or charge a lower market rent + VAT to compete with those around him. The BTL landlord would know the score before jumping in.

This isn't and never was about destroying the rental market today. It's about managing it from hereoin.

I realise the VAT idea has been proven unworkable, but theres presumably other ways in which is could be done, and it's just a discussion point really, as nothing is gonna be done anyway!

Anything that only applies from hereonin would instantly give the existing BTL's a unfair business advantage, in effect, it'd be a closed market - that of existing landlords being only able to compete. Who would want to enter the sector having to either cut their margins by 20% or charge this extra 20% amount simply because they are a new entrant.

Hardly going to promote growth, but it would keep your friend happy as he'll have no competitors.

The only way it would be fair is to introduce a 60% income tax on any earnings earnt by any BTL, new or old purely on their rental incomes (their others income are taxed at the usual rates).

An extra income tax in effect based on sector. Now I suspect THAT would clear out the chancers and leave the dedictaed business landlords left to the market and whilst we're at it, lets hit them with an increased CGT when selling their property, that'll keep new entrants out too.

nollag2006

JasonLVC wrote: »

Anything that only applies from hereonin would instantly give the existing BTL's a unfair business advantage, in effect, it'd be a closed market - that of existing landlords being only able to compete. Who would want to enter the sector having to either cut their margins by 20% or charge this extra 20% amount simply because they are a new entrant.
.

Exactly.

Net effect of Devon's farcical suggestion is to drive rents up, to the benefit of existing BTL landlords and at the expense of tenants and new entrants to the business.



Another Devon classic.

As he, himself, once famously posted on here: "It males me wonder if some people think before posting"

:rotfl:

Graham_Devon

nollag2006 wrote: »

Exactly.

Net effect of Devon's farcical suggestion is to drive rents up, to the benefit of existing BTL landlords and at the expense of tenants and new entrants to the business.

That's the effect you claim for every single change or very hint of regulation towards the rental market.

It's the same claim as the banks seem to threaten..."do anything and we shall leave". But they never do.

Things change....sometimes things have to change. A very simple policy alongside a regulation policy surrounding rentals could work very well. Other business sectors have to deal with changing landscapes, both political and taxation wise, and it doesn't always lead to a rise in cost to the consumer as you would make out. Competition see's to that in the sectors that do have competition.

nollag2006

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's the effect you claim for every single change or very hint of regulation towards the rental market.

It's the same claim as the banks seem to threaten..."do anything and we shall leave". But they never do.

Things change....sometimes things have to change. A very simple policy alongside a regulation policy surrounding rentals could work very well. Other business sectors have to deal with changing landscapes, both political and taxation wise, and it doesn't always lead to a rise in cost to the consumer as you would make out. Competition see's to that in the sectors that do have competition.

As an existing landlord, I'd be all for this.

Anything that pushes up barriers to new entrants thereby pushing rents up would be music to my ears.

Can't see your idiotic idea ever seeing the light of day though.

Graham_Devon

nollag2006 wrote: »

As an existing landlord, I'd be all for this.

Anything that pushes up barriers to new entrants thereby pushing rents up would be music to my ears.

Can't see your idiotic idea ever seeing the light of day though.

You'd be up for regulation set out alongside any changes?

Or did you gloss over the regulation bit?

You are not even a landlord anyway, we all know that.

chewmylegoff

It would be far simpler to just require all landlords to pay an annual licensing fee, and require them to meet certain standards. I expect your cousin wouldn't support that as it wouldnt just target new entrants to the market - he would have to pay it as well.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

It would be far simpler to just require all landlords to pay an annual licensing fee, and require them to meet certain standards. I expect your cousin wouldn't support that as it wouldnt just target new entrants to the market - he would have to pay it as well.

Why assume he wouldn't support it and why assume hes in it for as much money as he can get?

I've already stated, it's likely the houses will have to stay in the family, so he doesn't stand to prosper.

Seem's a rather stupid but easy argument to attack someone based on your own assumptions.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why assume he wouldn't support it and why assume hes in it for as much money as he can get?

I've already stated, it's likely the houses will have to stay in the family, so he doesn't stand to prosper.

Seem's a rather stupid but easy argument to attack someone based on your own assumptions.

because his idea was to charge new entrants to the market VAT, i.e. a charge he wouldn't be subject to himself.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

because his idea was to charge new entrants to the market VAT, i.e. a charge he wouldn't be subject to himself.

If he was as greedy as you want to make out, surely he would be snapping up further properties, and therefore subject to his own thoughts? Greed, by defintion, is to have more. As I said, an easy put down, but not thought through.

Honestly, it was just a 2 min (if that) convo as part of a general conversation, as my sister is having landlord problems.

He's not greedy, he's not even wealthy, though not poor. Just married into excessive family wealth which can neve really be tapped into.