Politics of Taxing BTL Landlords

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Innys1 wrote: »

You wrote this:



Which implies, in your fairytale world, that wealth is not created unless something is PRODUCED - at least according to your definition.



Yes, the transport industry doesn't producing anything - moving something from A to B is not producing anything. Nor do hotels, the travel industry or anything else I listed. So, they don't create wealth, at least according to you.

As for a service people would rather not have, tell that to the Uni students, those on working visas or seconded employees which I listed earlier and you conveniently ignored.

Plus, I note you didn't respond to my point concerning unemployed agents, gas engineers and builders. It must have slipped your mind - not.

Finally, you're jealous of BTL landlords because they have more money than you do or ever will. That's pretty obvious.............as is your ignorance.

Of course those are producing something. It doesn't have to be something you can hold in your hand, !!!!!!.

No builders would become unemployed if the amount of BTL dropped. I can't prove that, you can't prove it wrong, so it's pointless arguing the case.

Why on earth do you think BTL landlords have more money than me? Do you think it's the only way to make money? For the record some do and a lot don't.

mwpt

Innys1 wrote: »

As I posted elsewhere, I suspect other prudent landlords, will do the same. Plus, I'll be raising rents because the market rate is inevitably going to go up. I reckon that's not really what Osbo had in mind.

Do you believe there is slack in the rental market?

mwpt

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

Just in the process of buying our first buy to let, and the only thing that might change is that I WILL pay more tax, and it won't impact my voting for the evil !!!!!!!s that are in charge.
That it has always been my intention to be a fair and reasonable landlord, offering quality accommodation to working families, at a reasonable price, whilst building a future income stream that will provide that extra something into my retirement, is clearly not what the Tories want. What they do want is the really rich to get richer.

Grow up. Life isn't that black and white.

buglawton

mwpt wrote: »

Grow up. Life isn't that black and white.

"Oh yes it is"

TopQuark

Innys1 wrote: »

You wrote this:

Finally, you're jealous of BTL landlords because they have more money than you do or ever will. That's pretty obvious.............as is your ignorance.

Utterly ridiculous and frankly hilarious response!
A poster doesn't agree, ergo, they must be jealous. Puts me in mind of that hideously vulgar Harry Enfield character who went around telling everyone 'I'm considerably richer than you'.

jjlandlord

It's not that a poster does not agree.

Many posters here clearly have an issue with landlords.

I suppose that for whatever reasons they rent when they would prefer not to. OK, we get it.
But that's not landlords' fault, is it? If anything without private landlords they would be on the street.

People should abstain from always blaming others for their own situation.

Lastly, those who claim that private landlords do not produce anything surely also think that hotels, B&B, and all hiring businesses in general do not produce anything.
People are just stupid enough to hand money to businesses that do not provide anything of value in exchange...

And when there'll only be 2-3 landlords controlling your whole local letting market you will be completely stuck.

jjlandlord

Re. people arguing that driving small landlords away is a good thing because the industry will be in the hand of real 'professional'.

Think again.

Lettings agents are even less liked then landlords.

With large corporate landlords tenants would face faceless corporations, call centres, 'computer says no', plenty of fees.

No more personal relationship and discussion. Only essentially large lettings agents.
Don't worry that they will not forget to squeeze as much rent as possible at all time, to pressure renewals for fees, and to set high referencing and admin fees.

benjus

jjlandlord wrote: »

Re. people arguing that driving small landlords away is a good thing because the industry will be in the hand of real 'professional'.

Think again.

Lettings agents are even less liked then landlords.

With large corporate landlords tenants would face faceless corporations, call centres, 'computer says no', plenty of fees.

No more personal relationship and discussion. Only essentially large lettings agents.
Don't worry that they will not forget to squeeze as much rent as possible at all time, to pressure renewals for fees, and to set high referencing and admin fees.

In principle I do support the idea that corporate landlords may be better - especially in terms of stability, security of tenure, and taking a businesslike attitude to the properties.

However, I think you're probably right that the reality would be pretty dire. I live in a leasehold property maintained by a residents' company which is very effective. However, up until about 18 months ago it was maintained by a certain very large property maintenance company - and from what I hear from the other residents they were a nightmare to deal with.

mwpt

jjlandlord wrote: »

I suppose that for whatever reasons they rent when they would prefer not to. OK, we get it.
But that's not landlords' fault, is it? If anything without private landlords they would be on the street.

Why do you people just not get it. NO HOUSING IS DEMOLISHED WHEN A BTL EXITS THE MARKET. NOR IS IT CREATED WHEN YOU GUYS BUY UP THE USED HOUSING STOCK.

For every BTL who exits the market, that is one more property for an owner occupier, and one less renter on the demand side. No-one has to "be on the street" when a BTL sells up. It's astounding that you guys run businesses based on property and you don't get this simple economic truth about the market.

You also seem to think you're the reason property exists or is built? But BTL has risen dramatically over the last what, 15 years, and our rate of construction has fallen. BTL is not the solution to our housing problems and no bunnies were harmed in the making of this post.

TopQuark

jjlandlord wrote: »

It's not that a poster does not agree.

Many posters here clearly have an issue with landlords.

I suppose that for whatever reasons they rent when they would prefer not to.

Maybe so in some cases, although not in mine. I'm both a landlord and a tenant (neither in the UK). Let's not pretend that letting property does anything economy-boosting though. If everyone were to give up their jobs tomorrow and become rentiers the country would cease to function.