We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
BTL: Political Risk
Comments
-
its such a stupid thing to do, just arbitrarily define one cost is no longer a cost and muddy the water with nonsense like finance cost relief...0
-
its such a stupid thing to do, just arbitrarily define one cost is no longer a cost and muddy the water with nonsense like finance cost relief...
I agree, but I don't think the decision was based on numerical or tax logic, it was based on political logic, which adds another dimension to the reasoning. As far as I am concerned it is 'spilt milk'.Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
chucknorris wrote: »I agree, but I don't think the decision was based on numerical or tax logic, it was based on political logic, which adds another dimension to the reasoning. As far as I am concerned it is 'spilt milk'.
Its not spilt milk, that would be the wear and tear and the additional stamp duty.
The interest as not a cost but some weird idea of it being half tax rebate is just plain stupid.0 -
Its not spilt milk, that would be the wear and tear and the additional stamp duty.
The interest as not a cost but some weird idea of it being half tax rebate is just plain stupid.
As I said, I agree, but I meant as far as I am concerned it is over, and I have moved on from the disappointment and no point in crying over spilt milk (I'm not insinuating that you are crying about it)Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
Its not spilt milk, that would be the wear and tear and the additional stamp duty.
The interest as not a cost but some weird idea of it being half tax rebate is just plain stupid.
It is only stupid to leveraged landlords. Others don't really care. Tax as a concept is arbitrary, decided by a government for the benefit of some and detriment of others.
If I were a highly leveraged BTL landlord who has a business plan so screwed by this change in tax relief, I'be much more concerned how I'd be utterly !!!!ed if interest rates rose by a few percent and property prices dropped by a 10-20%.0 -
It is only stupid to leveraged landlords. Others don't really care. Tax as a concept is arbitrary, decided by a government for the benefit of some and detriment of others.
If I were a highly leveraged BTL landlord who has a business plan so screwed by this change in tax relief,
it is a stupid tax because it makes no sense, why would you think it makes sense for companies to have interest as a cost but not sole traders and only if the interest is on residential property.
You like it as it hurts a group you are not fond of, not because its a tax that makes sense.I'be much more concerned how I'd be utterly !!!!ed if interest rates rose by a few percent and property prices dropped by a 10-20%.
all investors in anything take a view of the risks and rewards.
There is a risk that prices could fall and BTL investors could lose a lot of capital. On the other side of the coin there is the possibility that prices instead of falling 20% could rise 20%.
personally I would advise you not to count your chickens before they are hatched. Prices could well go up 20% over the next 5 years rather than crash by 20%0 -
it is a stupid tax because it makes no sense, why would you think it makes sense for companies to have interest as a cost but not sole traders and only if the interest is on residential property.
Because for the people that are effected it's a tax loophole. Amateur landlords will hardly be inconvenienced.0 -
it is a stupid tax because it makes no sense, why would you think it makes sense for companies to have interest as a cost but not sole traders and only if the interest is on residential property.
You like it as it hurts a group you are not fond of, not because its a tax that makes sense.
Anything that reduces BTL landlords ability to outcompete OOs is good with me, yes. You don't like it because it affects a group you're fond with.
Why don't landlords just incorporate if it's better? Seems like you have an obvious solution to the problem of this tax.all investors in anything take a view of the risks and rewards.
There is a risk that prices could fall and BTL investors could lose a lot of capital. On the other side of the coin there is the possibility that prices instead of falling 20% could rise 20%.
personally I would advise you not to count your chickens before they are hatched. Prices could well go up 20% over the next 5 years rather than crash by 20%
Houses will probably continue to go up.
My point was that high leveraged landlords will be more screwed by rate rises than this tax. Are they going to create a petition or threaten to evict tenants if rates start to rise?0 -
Anything that reduces BTL landlords ability to outcompete OOs is good with me, yes. You don't like it because it affects a group you're fond with.
Why don't landlords just incorporate if it's better? Seems like you have an obvious solution to the problem of this tax.
Houses will probably continue to go up.
My point was that high leveraged landlords will be more screwed by rate rises than this tax. Are they going to create a petition or threaten to evict tenants if rates start to rise?
its a dumb tax there is no arguing its a smart tax
Landlords with mortgages will indeed have to pay a lot more tax and over the years as the company mortgage market develops and gets more competitive I suspect there will be a shift to owning homes within companies. Long term that will be worse for the public as companies pay 18% corp tax as opposed to 40/45% income tax and as companies get indexation relief and more likely as companies hold on indefinitely to property while your hated human landlords can only hold on so long.
oh and you have this the wrong way around, you need a removal of mortgage rationing so people with little to no capital can compete with people who do have capital. If you restrict mortgages for landlords all that will happen is landlords who buy with equity will step in rather than landlords who buy with debt. Already more than 75% of the growth in the rental stock is outside of BTL-Mortgage-Purchases0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards