Rents soar to (another) record high

cells

mwpt wrote: »

No, it works like this. Speculators in highly leveraged property portfolios are crying and using operation human shield (see the crowdsourcing campaign over at 118) to try and influence the change of law. I'm just pointing out that people like buglawton crying that he was just trying to "shape his own future" (come on, am I the only one who sees how absurd this statement is, hint, we all try to shape our own future) are not victims. They are leveraged speculators and they must take responsibility for their decisions. Blaming everyone else for your decision to accrue a portfolio of homes using high leverage while FTBers can't afford one, well... absolutely no sympathy here. Start a real business simpletons.

Take the london glasses off. Homes are cheap in at least half the country so scrub 'FTB cant afford one' for the majority of the country

The tax change for interest was stupid that you cant see that is your failure. Do you not see how stupid it is to tax one type of renting bricks differently to the rest. Do you not see how stupid it is to tax one type of owner of one type of renting bricks different to the rest. Not to mention long term a shift from landlords paying higher taxes towards corps paying lower taxes is bad for everyone as the difference is going to need to be made up by taxpayers

Either way you read far too much like a typical hpc-er now. Your views can be summarised as.... I hope we get a house price crash so landlords who bought properties can suffer and so I/Others can possibly buy a bigger better house. Why not just say that its no worse than silliness about 'over-leveraged property speculators' pricing out the salt of the earth FTBs

CLAPTON

of course the government can change the rules and the laws and taxation : history shows however, that populist irrational law often doesn't help the intended target group, creates uncertainty and creates a 'not business friendly here' environment.

and of course we know, because Dave and George have told us, that uncertainty can cause GDP reduction, unemployment, NHS collapse, dearer holidays and WW3.

buglawton

mwpt wrote: »

No, it works like this. Speculators in highly leveraged property portfolios are crying and using operation human shield (see the crowdsourcing campaign over at 118) to try and influence the change of law. I'm just pointing out that people like buglawton crying that he was just trying to "shape his own future" (come on, am I the only one who sees how absurd this statement is, hint, we all try to shape our own future) are not victims. They are leveraged speculators and they must take responsibility for their decisions. Blaming everyone else for your decision to accrue a portfolio of homes using high leverage while FTBers can't afford one, well... absolutely no sympathy here. Start a real business simpletons.

Just gotta wonder who is crying into their soup on this.

I do believe in at least trying to be in control of my future, hence co-managed 2 different family businesses in the past where personal capital investment was needed. Not just investment but a dollop of competence too and both were decently profitable till I wound them down at the appropriate time.

Finally I get involved with BTL. And despite a fixation among some contributers here about being highly leveraged, I'm not. I was hoping this was an adult thread debating the economy, soaring rents (if true) and the wherefores thereof.

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

No, it depends on if you go under when things change or not. If so, you were too leveraged. HTH.

Don't be coy. I'm sure you could suggest a % LTV that you consider over leveraged.

By your definition above very few landlords are over leveraged because not many are going to be going under.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

Don't be coy. I'm sure you could suggest a % LTV that you consider over leveraged.

By your definition above very few landlords are over leveraged because not many are going to be going under.

Don't be simple. It's pretty obvious that over leveraged will be defined by the business becoming unviable if conditions on the debt payments change. It's self explanatory.

mwpt

buglawton wrote: »

Just gotta wonder who is crying into their soup on this.

I do believe in at least trying to be in control of my future, hence co-managed 2 different family businesses in the past where personal capital investment was needed. Not just investment but a dollop of competence too and both were decently profitable till I wound them down at the appropriate time.

Finally I get involved with BTL. And despite a fixation among some contributers here about being highly leveraged, I'm not. I was hoping this was an adult thread debating the economy, soaring rents (if true) and the wherefores thereof.

I am glad you ran prior businesses and made people better off. Regarding your BTL, if you are not too highly leveraged (over leveraged for wotsat) then you will still be profitable and I don't see what your problem is.

I too like to be in control of my future and take appropriate actions. Most people do. Leveraged BTL are not special snowflakes.

mwpt

cells wrote: »

The tax change for interest was stupid that you cant see that is your failure. Do you not see how stupid it is to tax one type of renting bricks differently to the rest.

No. I see that this storm will go away once the whingers have accepted it and then it will become the norm. The norm is just the norm, there is nothing sacred about the amount of tax relief on interest you can claim, there is no fundamental law of nature that states what you're entitled to. You get what you get and you make a business that works around that. If your business does not work, sell up, accept your risks didn't pay off and move on. Someone else will make it work.

Or, cry about it and start crowd funding campaigns to raise money for legal challenges and use tenants as human shields. That could work too :cool:

chucknorris

mwpt wrote: »

Not so. The law is the law, made for the common good. Perhaps you disagree with it but there are exceptions and special punitive measures for a lot of things. Why do tobacco companies pay something like 86% (quick google) tax rate on their products?


I'm just pointing out the obvious. If someone gambles using high leverage for a long period of time, the likelihood they will come unstuck is high. You have not followed that model and haven't continued to expand your portfolio at high leverage, so you'll be safe.

They don't pay 86% tax, not in the same way as other companies pay their corporation tax! Yes the total tax take on tobacco is something like 86%, but that is not the same as the tobacco companies paying 86% corporation tax. Most of it is excise duty that in reality the consumer pays. You can't argue that if that if the excise duty was not imposed that they would sell tobacco for the same price (and achieve higher profits), because they do sell those same products much cheaper in countries were that excise duty is not imposed to the same extent by the Gov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise

An excise is considered an indirect tax, meaning that the producer or seller who pays the tax to the government is expected to try to recover or shift the tax by raising the price paid by the buyer.

Although we have significant mortgages, our non property assets are about 3 times the value of our mortgages, so we are not actually net borrowers.

mwpt

chucknorris wrote: »

They don't pay 86% tax, not in the same way as other companies pay their corporation tax! Yes the total tax take on tobacco is something like 86%, but that is not the same as the tobacco companies paying 86% corporation tax. Most of it is excise duty that in reality the consumer pays. You can't argue that if that if the excise duty was not imposed that they would sell tobacco for the same price (and achieve higher profits), because they do sell those same products much cheaper in countries were that excise duty is not imposed to the same extent by the Gov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise

An excise is considered an indirect tax, meaning that the producer or seller who pays the tax to the government is expected to try to recover or shift the tax by raising the price paid by the buyer.

Although we have significant mortgages, our non property assets are about 3 times the value of our mortgages, so we are not actually net borrowers.

Thank you for the additional information about tobacco excise duty. I am glad for you that you will weather the upcoming changes without too much issue.

I'm told that not all that many landlords will be unduly impacted so it might just be a very vocal minority who were relatively late to the game and/or very highly leveraged who are making the most noise. Oh well, they can always sell up.

System

wotsthat wrote: »

Don't be coy. I'm sure you could suggest a % LTV that you consider over leveraged.

By your definition above very few landlords are over leveraged because not many are going to be going under.

I have "over leveraged" in the same bucket as "sheeple", "VIs" and "spiv". Words that don't mean anything except fitting in with an internet circlejerk.

Edit: "perma-prop bulls" is a good one too.