The vicar making his tenants homeless because of tax changes...

westernpromise

He's being completely rational economically. In exchange for taking on the price risk of owning property and the credit risks of letting it, he was earning a small profit. That entire profit is set to be reduced to approximately nil by the retrospective tax change that is Clause 24. So as he's getting no profit, but still wears the risk, he has quite correctly decided to get rid of the risk by exiting.

This is precisely what many, many landlords have been warning would happen in consequence. Clause 24 is aimed at eliminating private unincorporated landlords. In this case it's succeeded, so those who cheered Clause 24 have got precisely what they wanted: the tenants will be evicted and the properties sold. Perhaps they'll be sold to FTBs,

You cannot, however, approve of a landlord selling his properties to FTBs while weeping crocodile tears for the tenants. The evictions are necessary to provide those lovely Bambi-eyed FTBs with a house; the tenants can go hang. If you want landlords to sell up to FTBs then you want these evictions too. The landlords don't, the tenants don't: the Clause 24 supporters do.

Of course he could perhaps have sold his properties to some rich bloke without any mortgage, which wouldn't have resulted in any evictions. But then there's be no FTB sales either. I'm guessing that if asked to pick between those two, the morality merchants posting to this thread would say Screw the tenants, gimme the property.

The vicar, meanwhile, is following the parable of the talents:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=ESV

marksoton

westernpromise wrote: »

I'm guessing that if asked to pick between those two, the morality merchants posting to this thread would say Screw the tenants, gimme the property.

I find this ironic given your own thread...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5451509

westernpromise

marksoton wrote: »

I find this ironic given your own thread...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5451509

I don't see the connection.

I'm not weeping crocodile tears for the poor widdle tenants who need to get chucked under the bus when landlords are forced to sell up so FTBs can buy.

Is there way for landlords to sell to FTBs without this happening?

marksoton

westernpromise wrote: »

I don't see the connection.

Therein lies our opposing views. If you can't see a £500k property gifted as being something of a lucky charm to not borderline on tax evasion on furniture i think we'll have to agree to disagree.....

AdrianC

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Is this thread about the hypocrisy of religion?

Not AFAIC.

The hypocrisy of an individual, perhaps. But I'm not extrapolating that in any way, since I don't generalise and stereotype like that. Do you?

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

See your post #12.

Yes, I know it was in reply to that post. I was hoping for a bit more detail into the thought process behind your reply, and the intended meaning of it.

AdrianC

westernpromise wrote: »

He's being completely rational economically.

Perhaps he is.

But that's not what the article's about, is it?
The article's about how philanthropic he is, letting these properties out at a reduced rent. But... Oh, no! The (substantial) profit may be reduced! Still there, but reduced. So... Nope, can't be having that, can we? Out they go! Even the taxpayer's contribution to the amply-stocked port cellar (read that first bio linked) may be under threat!

Thrugelmir

westernpromise wrote: »

He's being completely rational economically. In exchange for taking on the price risk of owning property and the credit risks of letting it, he was earning a small profit. That entire profit is set to be reduced to approximately nil by the retrospective tax change that is Clause 24. So as he's getting no profit, but still wears the risk, he has quite correctly decided to get rid of the risk by exiting.

Sounds marginal at best as a business venture. With 9 properties could very easily have ended in tears. Sounds like PR publicity for the 118 campaign. Which doesn't seem to be gaining much traction.

AdrianC

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Sounds marginal at best as a business venture. With 9 properties could very easily have ended in tears.

Like I said... He wants to get out before interest rates rise...

qwert_yuiop

booksurr wrote: »

it always amuses me the contrast between C of E clergy and catholic clergy given there "should" be an element of poverty about being clergy because why, after all, do they need riches on earth when their reward awaits in heaven.

yet strangely enough the C of E vicar expects to earned a "decent" wage so he can support his wife and their (numerous) children with earthly indulgences.

as you say Adrian, his protestations belie the fact he must already be a higher rate taxpayer so is far removed from "genuine" clergy IMHO

Seems he's a Baptist. And he's only got two children.

A clergyman with a property empire does seem a bit inappropriate, but I'm not going to cast the first stone - someone else has already done that.

westernpromise

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Sounds like PR publicity for the 118 campaign. Which doesn't seem to be gaining much traction.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that forcing landlords out of letting must of necessity force tenants out. This is evidence of the accuracy of that prediction.

I'm sure it' makes uncomfortable reading for those who cheered it on, but too bad.