Not a time to be a buy-to-let landlord

mwpt

cells wrote: »

final consumption is not a business.
small time BTL was an easy target hence why they did not put the rules on companies which can still deduct costs of interest

You're very single minded. I'll give you that.

Generali

cells wrote: »

final consumption is not a business.
small time BTL was an easy target hence why they did not put the rules on companies which can still deduct costs of interest

To amplify your point, businesses get to charge all their expenses against income and pay tax on the net figure. If my work buys me a plane ticket to fly to England on business or buys me dinner because I'm working late then they get to pay that out of untaxed revenues whereas I have to pay for it out of taxed income.

lush_walrus

Electrum wrote: »

My own children are only a few years away from when they will be establishing careers and starting families and I want to see a serious reduction in BTL vulture culture before then. I have not raised them to work their butts off so idle landlords don't have to.

Why do you think that you, as a speculator and an investor, deserve special treatment - or even equal treatment. What do you bring to the party?

Wanting and getting are two very different things. I'm afraid you will not find a massive difference in prices anytime soon, at least not in the south. I know plenty of landlords - none of which are overly bothered by the changes. Can you imagine why that would that be?

Guess who will really be paying for the additional costs the government are putting onto landlords - tenants.

If additional costs in whatever form come into any industry the industry adjusts. Landlords will not suddenly disappear so that all flats and houses are owned by the occupier, in the same way an increase in the cost of manufacture of bread doesn't mean all bread producers disappear - bread will still be made just more expensive than before.

Why be so bitter about BTL landlords? Landlords have always existed in one form or other, that whole era of BTL mortgages levelled the playing fields where anyone could become a landlord. You could have been one too rather than be so upset as you appear to be..

getmore4less

All that is needed is a restructuring through exempt business.

Pool resources create a wrapper.

Might need some lender cooperation

Umbrella do this for employment and it is relatively cheap.

There will be enough in the tax pot to make something viable.

Blacklight

moneyweek lol

Generali

Blacklight wrote: »

moneyweek lol

Moneyweak.

Thrugelmir

lush_walrus wrote: »

Guess who will really be paying for the additional costs the government are putting onto landlords - tenants.

Tenants will respond by sharing the property with others. Cuts both ways.

Graham_Devon

lush_walrus wrote: »

Guess who will really be paying for the additional costs the government are putting onto landlords - tenants.

If additional costs in whatever form come into any industry the industry adjusts. Landlords will not suddenly disappear so that all flats and houses are owned by the occupier, in the same way an increase in the cost of manufacture of bread doesn't mean all bread producers disappear - bread will still be made just more expensive than before.

As I keep saying, if it's so easy to charge more in rent, why are BTL's not doing it already?

As for your bread analogy, you may have noticed that many food products, including bread were quite innovative in how they continue to sell their products and maintain their profits as a result of price rises.

Bread for example suddenly started turning up as "half loaves", but at 75% of the price of the normal loaf. You won't find any half loaf that's half the price of the full size loaf. This is how they maintain profits.

Many food products reduced in size while staying the same price.

The inability for food manufacturers to simply increase prices is well documented.... so it's not all that great an example of where people will just "pay", as they didn't, and don't.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I keep saying, if it's so easy to charge more in rent, why are BTL's not doing it already?

Tenants set the clearing price not landlords, there would be landlords willing to rent out at 50% below current rents the reason they don't is that tenants outbid each other and you get rents going up

http://homelet.co.uk/homelet-rental-index

Maybe the reason why some people think landlords don't get higher rents is because a lot of landlords don't increase rents for sitting tenants as they feel its bad form or maybe are they embarrassed to ask for it.

lush_walrus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Tenants will respond by sharing the property with others. Cuts both ways.

Some may, some already do - young, students, many Eastern Europeans do.

That's not a real issue Landlords watch markets and respond by jumping on the band wagon and splitting their properties down into rooms to let. The number of flats / houses to let reduce. Those unwilling to share end up paying through the roof for a full flat or house as demand is higher than supply and on it goes.

Only real looser in that scenario is the renter - just look at any university heavy town / city.

Easily the last twenty years have been the same conversations about rent being too high, I've been on these forums for ten and over and over house prices and rental prices are discussed and over and over they rise. I know a lot about the south east and London, perhaps it's different in northern areas I don't know.

Maybe you are right this time, but personally I'm backing there won't be a mass exodus of landlords any time soon. A civil war would do it, not much else in my opinion.