What's the verdict for home owners after today's budget

lisyloo

I'm still glad I bought!

I don't think anyone (on this thread) is disputing that buying is good long term.
However there are lots of people who for various reasons cannot buy.
For example - unemployed, students, self-employed, economically mobile or even working people who can afford the mortgage but still don't qualify for one.
I am both an owner occupier and a renter but there is definitely a feeling here that renters are being sneered at as some kind of underclass, in fact on one thread someone did say they were glad to be in the "elite" of homeowners.
I'm glad that being an owner occupier hasn't made me an elitist snob and I haven't lost my humanity, although I too am glad I bought.

Mummyisbeauty

I just wish they would deal with the shortages of school places as well over oversubscribed doctor and dental surgeries before they build too many more houses.

ruggedtoast

Osborne has spanked the bottoms of buy to let landlords and the internets are full of the sound of 'em squealing!

Its a beautiful, sonorous sound. The sound of justice.

ruggedtoast

“Currently interest payments of £100 only cost £55 after tax relief, but will cost £80 from 2020. A landlord who borrows at even a modest level might end up paying more in tax now than he makes in profit.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-2015-emergency-uk-live-investors-balk-at-george-osbornes-tightening-of-buytolet-tax-restrictions-10376242.html
:T:T
:T:T
:beer::beer::beer::beer:

ruggedtoast

helenislov, London, about 2 seconds ago
Can everyone stop calling this 'relief' or 'perks'. Financing cost is a COST! You pay tax on profit, not on turnover. This works for every other business - why is it different on property? And for the people claiming a 'special case' because "Houses are Homes"... Why don't we tax food companies on turnover not profit then? Or utility companies? Or transport companies? Food isn't a luxury, it's a necessity! No loans for them anymore! Watch the economy collapse with that kind of thinking! And finally this total nonsense about a level playing field needs to be properly exposed. If you cook a meal to eat at home then you will not receive any of the "special benefits" enjoyed by the entrepreneur around the corner who has just set up a restaurant - he is able to deduct the cost of ingredients and hiring a chef before tax. Is this horribly unfair? Should you be taking to the streets and complaining about the 'perks' given to restauranteurs? The lack of logic is infuriating!

Source: The internets

Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

They don't like it up'em.

lisyloo

Its a beautiful, sonorous sound. The sound of justice.

I'm hearing........wait a minute.............is that...............envy?

I am not a landlord.
I think the change is right, but some people's attitudes are funny.

wotsthat

“Currently interest payments of £100 only cost £55 after tax relief, but will cost £80 from 2020. A landlord who borrows at even a modest level might end up paying more in tax now than he makes in profit.”

I can't quite imagine the likely market response to this.

It's going to be difficult to tell because even if the average interest payment is £300(?) and the tax change is £75 it's being phased in over 5 years so changes will be subtle. It's interesting, to me, that less well off landlords are unaffected so leaves BTL very much in the realms of the amateur. Maybe it starts to look more attractive for wealthier people using a limited company and maybe that'll drive professionalism.

Pretty sure one response will be for the average BTL owned per landlord to drop as they offload to lower earning spouses.

lazer

Generali wrote: »

Interesting post but it's all supposition.

Do you have any actual numbers to back up your thoughts or is this all just prejudice?

Here you go actual numbers:
Aspire Housing Association Accounts
http://www.aspirehousing.co.uk/uresources/documents/1738-AspireHousingLtd(Association)20122013AnnualStatement-Final.pdf

Surplus - £413k which is 1% of turnover (ie:1% of Rent)

I have struggled to find accounts for private landlords - but they are likely to by making much more than 1% profit

Grainger (Although vey large and specialised - but its a publiv company so accounts are published!)
http://www.graingerplc.co.uk/~/media/Files/G/Grainger-Plc/pdf/Grainger%20AR%202014%20web.pdf

Profit is 24% of turnover.

No business would be happy with a 1% net profit, where a not for profit organisation will be - therefore rents paid to a housing association should be cheaper than rents paid to a business as the business wants to make a profit and the housing association doesn't. This does not mean that there is a subsidy, there isn't as the housing associations do breakeven.

If the housing associations were making a loss and the government topping them up then they would be getting subsidised rent, but the only governemnt funding is via housing benefit which is payable to both housing assocaitions and private landlords.

The campaign to make people in social housing pay market rent is going about it in the wrong way - Rental prices are too high in the private rental market, we should not be aiming to replicate this in the social housing market, we should be aiming to reduce rental prices in the private market instead of increasing social housing rental prices.

padington

Q: If Bob earned 34k in a regular job and had a lodger for £7.5k and one BTL with an income of £10.2k how much extra would the new BTL rules cost Bob directly when they kick in ? If mortgage repayments were £14200 a year in total.

Crashy_Time

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Osborne has spanked the bottoms of buy to let landlords and the internets are full of the sound of 'em squealing!

Its a beautiful, sonorous sound. The sound of justice.

:rotfl::rotfl: How many were sitting there thinking they would get MORE perks...:rotfl: