This could be a monster boom ...

lisyloo

The tax changes were clumsy* tax grab and little, if anything, to do with the government's opinion on BTL.

We don't actually know what the reasons behind it were.
It could have been to do with fairness, the housing bubble, tax grab or for people's own good.
Unless you have the ear of George or David then your opinion is just that.
It's interesting and a perfectly valid point of view but your don't KNOW anymore than anyone else does (unless you're really George Osborne).

mwpt

Not sure clumsy is even a valid opinion. If it generates more tax (likely) and slightly suppresses btl bids on prices (likely) then it's good. Btl has no positive correlation with increasing housing supply so they can't claim some moral value in the industry. Every single last btl'er is in it for the personal gain, which is fine, but should not be surprised that they are easy targets in a country with need of more tax revenues. Clumsy?

wotsthat

If the government think BTL is so bad isn't anyone a bit surprised they didn't mention it and instead introduced an obscure tax that won't be fully implemented until 2020?

lisyloo

I don't agree with your conclusion that something is perceived as bad, just because it's taxed. Not sure where obscure comes from either.

Anyway I still took the point to be that things can happen out of left field that are a gamechanger that can't be easily predicted.
It doesn't matter whether they are right/wrong/good/bad/obscure - they can happen.
Who'd have predicted leadership victory for Corbyn?

Wish I'd put a tenner on it.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

If the government think BTL is so bad isn't anyone a bit surprised they didn't mention it and instead introduced an obscure tax that won't be fully implemented until 2020?

Why are you looking for an angle over the simplest explanation? We have a deficit, we need more tax revenues, btl is an easy target. Same goes for the dividend tax relief changes. What has clumsy got to do with anything?

wotsthat

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't agree with your conclusion that something is perceived as bad, just because it's taxed. Not sure where obscure comes from either.

Both Jason and MW referred, directly and indirectly, about the greed of BTL owners and the social benefits of less BTL owners. I took a wild guess they thought BTL was bad even if you don't.

Obscure means this change affects only a certain sub group of BTL owners who have ample time to prepare thus ensuring tax raised is close to zero.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

Both Jason and MW referred, directly and indirectly, about the greed of BTL owners and the social benefits of less BTL owners. I took a wild guess they thought BTL was bad even if you don't.

Obscure means this change affects only a certain sub group of BTL owners who have ample time to prepare thus ensuring tax raised is close to zero.

Nothing wrong with greed. And I don't have anything against BTL in general. The nation needs landlords of some sort, always will. But if this tax dampens BTL from out bidding OO, raises some additional revenue, and does it without incurring ire outside of the small subset you mention, then the tax is not clumsy.

padington

wotsthat wrote: »

If the government think BTL is so bad isn't anyone a bit surprised they didn't mention it and instead introduced an obscure tax that won't be fully implemented until 2020?

They haven't even introduced it yet, they said only that they plan to introduce it as its yet to be ratified.

Pedantic I know but possibly relevant.

uncreative

Conrad wrote: »

Bare in mind many LL's have had / do have pensions and ISA's, me included, but actually I found the thought of relying on 'bits of paper' in retirement too much to stomach. Imagine a truly long and deep recession / technical meltdown (induced by a solar flare for example), Spanish flu pandemic, those bits of paper shares in BT or whatever could become worthless whereas real people will always need shelter. I could envisage a pension fund in extremis vastly cutting back the incomes paid out saying it's for the good of the fund as a whole. American Banks and others went pop last time, imagine a depression twice as bad where it all went wrong.


Even back in grim medieval times people still found the rent. It's so much more real than the floating notional value of bits of paper.

These are wise words of wisdom. Land - the only thing God isn't making anymore. I also have a pension, some unit trusts and some risky aim shares (that have planked!) and some BTLs. I dont get calls at 4am about a leaky sink mind.

Generali

padington wrote: »

There'll be a new saying soon .. 'When the rest of the world catches a cold, so will America'.

.... and then we'll see a whole new world of 'quantative sneezing'. ©

Snappy phrase and I like it.

The US has such a strong domestic economy, especially now that it is producing a lot of its own oil, that it should do just fine. Don't forget that international trade isn't a one-way street: exports getting more expensive means imports are getting less so. That's great news for manufacturers that are bringing in commodities or part-finished goods for resale.

Also, plenty of US exports are either essentials (corn and wheat) or marketed by companies in such a way that they have been accepted as such (Coke and Apple).