The economy and the autumn statement

Crashy_Time

BarryBlue wrote: »

Not a charity at all, but neither am I an exploiter. Many landlords will tell you that it pays to be competitive and keep tenants for longer, rather than price at the top of the market and risk voids. A good managing agent will advise on a suitable rent within a margin, and will get you good, reliable tenants. It depends where in the market your properties are.

I haven't done any sums yet, and will probably leave that to others. But this tax (or any) on landlords can only be paid for ultimately by tenants, so it helps nobody. I have no problem with CGT on sold properties, however. None of my properties are mortgaged, which also helps.

Already hearing about 20%+ rent reductions being negotiated with landlords in Aberdeen, so it looks like when the work goes it is the landlord who pays, tax or no tax? Can`t think of many wealthier (until recently) areas in the UK than Aberdeen and the N East of Scotland (except London) My bet is that in most parts of the UK landlords will suck up the tax hike, or try to sell up their properties.

cells

HENRY78 wrote: »

I think Private landlords are the scum of the earth for a variety of reasons as partially stated in my posts above. There are solutions. But the government would have to be very drastic.


Tell me if BTL landlords didn't exist what value and service do you provide that the public would miss?
What jobs and wealth do you create?


BTL didn't really exist pre 1997. 75% of homes were OO now that has dropped down to 60% and will drop further and further every year the way things are going. Only 4 countries in the whole of Europe have a lower OO rate than we do! and these countries have a very different rental culture to what we have eg Germany.


The system is broken. Landlords are a lot to blame, would you agree?

You only say private landlords are the scum of the earth so you think public landlords are fantastic?

What about a council flat is much better than a private rental flat?

Crashy_Time

cells wrote: »

You only say private landlords are the scum of the earth so you think public landlords are fantastic?

What about a council flat is much better than a private rental flat?

You could ask what about a massive debt to "own" a rabbit hutch in London is better than either of those? (yeah, yeah you own it in the end, after about 40 years when you get the debt paid off)

mystic_trev

vivatifosi wrote: »

I thought that this thread was about the Autumn statement and the economy, not whether BTL is evil.

#cantfindtherightthread
#confused

It'll probably end up in DT like my thread did :mad:

BarryBlue

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Already hearing about 20%+ rent reductions being negotiated with landlords in Aberdeen, so it looks like when the work goes it is the landlord who pays, tax or no tax? Can`t think of many wealthier (until recently) areas in the UK than Aberdeen and the N East of Scotland (except London) My bet is that in most parts of the UK landlords will suck up the tax hike, or try to sell up their properties.

There are some sectors where there is always a demand for good quality rental property. For instance, around a hospital there are medical professionals who may be only in the area for a couple of years so you can target your market. And, of course, it's about location. Mine are in reasonably affluent areas.

Fortunately I don't live in Aberdeen.;) I do take your point though.

Crashy_Time

BarryBlue wrote: »

There are some sectors where there is always a demand for good quality rental property. For instance, around a hospital there are medical professionals who may be only in the area for a couple of years so you can target your market. And, of course, it's about location. Mine are in reasonably affluent areas.

Fortunately I don't live in Aberdeen.;) I do take your point though.

Fair points, I know an area in Edinburgh where rents jumped massively when a new hospital complex got built nearby, area wouldn`t have been on anyone`s top rental locations before then though. The point you made earlier about BTL landlords providing property that suit certain tenants needs is a fair one as well, nearly all my landlords have been brilliant, one guy even came to a new flat I had after I left his and handed over a tenner for the tenner I left in the electric meter!
However I do want to see the system where any ordinary Joe thinks that a BTL or two is his entitlement, like a new motor or holiday every year or so, dismantled, and it looks like Mr Osborne has now started that process, but good luck to anyone who can buy and run rental flats on sensible leverage or bought outright and provide a service that people want. It isn`t them so much I have a problem with it is the people who gloat about HPI and how many properties they own, and "property earning more than me" etc. etc. that bother me, in many cases these people were just victims of the bankers.

Jason74

cells wrote: »

You only say private landlords are the scum of the earth so you think public landlords are fantastic?

What about a council flat is much better than a private rental flat?

Regulated lower rents and security of tenure for starters.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

Regulated lower rents and security of tenure for starters.

indeed, for the lucky few, subsidised rents irrespective of income and having the property of life irrespective of need, is indeed a benefit that is paid for by people who have neither.

better to build more houses for people who work and provide useful activities for society

cells

Jason74 wrote: »

Regulated lower rents and security of tenure for starters.

yes social does offer more security but a lot of private landlords never kick paying tenants out.

lower rents is a difficult point to try and make, no landlord forces tenants to pay x the tenants themselves bid against each other and pay x. if house building were higher rents would be lower

on the private landlords plus side is

much higher taxes paid (councils HA dont make a profit and dont pay tax)

often a different market which the councils simply do not cater for (furnished lets. short term lets. HMOs)

higher occupancy rates which utilities a limited resources more efficiently

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

indeed, for the lucky few, subsidised rents irrespective of income and having the property of life irrespective of need, is indeed a benefit that is paid for by people who have neither.

better to build more houses for people who work and provide useful activities for society

it is also not always the case. I know one landlord who owns over 30 properties outright and as its in a cheap area I reckon he averages just £550pm for each one. He is also a higher rate tax payer (has other income too) so of that £550pm, £220pm goes as income tax. The cost of those properties (if they were let to a poor family in receipt of HB which some are) are thus £330pm which must be about where social rents are if not below social rents.

he will also end up with a substantial capital gains tax when he does sell which he will have to at some stage if for no other reason than death. So the cost will be even lower than £330pm