New taxes on BTLs - hill of beans?

Crashy_Time

Typhoon2000 wrote: »

This tax is nothing about shutting down BTL. People are going to need to rent and there needs to be landlords with property to let to them. This is just a revenue raising tax like any other.
As with any other bussiness, landlords will gradually pass on their costs to the customers. So tenents will foot the bill in the end.

There have been landlords for centuries though, what are you talking about?

booksurr

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Unless the changes push them into the higher bracket?

you asked for simple terms. My original posts #30 & #31 covered the full details

kinger101

Typhoon2000 wrote: »

This tax is nothing about shutting down BTL. People are going to need to rent and there needs to be landlords with property to let to them. This is just a revenue raising tax like any other.
As with any other bussiness, landlords will gradually pass on their costs to the customers. So tenents will foot the bill in the end.

Exactly. It was a work of genius by the previous Chancellor.

Lots of now unprofitable BTLs sold (probably to other landlords not requiring finance). CGT and SDLT (new +3%) event triggered.

Private rental stock now less leveraged meaning more taxable profit in the hands of landlords, rather than banks (whom are good at moving profits overseas through transfer pricing).

More money coming in taxes. Illusion that this is helping FTB.

booksurr

Crashy_Time wrote: »

You could turn that round and say How many now struggling/panicking BTL`ers paid attention to internet crashers?
:rotfl:

show me a crasher who has made their fortune from short selling based on their own predictions and I will regard them as wise enough to listen to, otherwise they are just a soothsayer pretending to read their tea leaves

tim123456789

booksurr wrote: »

calling it a credit is much closer than calling it an expense, however this debate is essentially over semantics

The problem with the PP calling it a tax credit was that he followed it with "the government wants to reduce these"


and that confuses it with Working Tax Credits that the government does want to reduce.


But there is no political connection between these two credits at all.

Crashy_Time

booksurr wrote: »

you asked for simple terms. My original posts #30 & #31 covered the full details

Yes, for the BTL`ers reading So we are agreed that it is less profit for landlords after the changes plus some lower rate taxpayers pushed into the higher rate bracket by the changes?

Crashy_Time

booksurr wrote: »

show me a crasher who has made their fortune from short selling based on their own predictions and I will regard them as wise enough to listen to, otherwise they are just a soothsayer pretending to read their tea leaves

Show me a BTL`er who will make their fortune after these tax changes come in............:T

Crashy_Time

kinger101 wrote: »

Exactly. It was a work of genius by the previous Chancellor.

Lots of now unprofitable BTLs sold (probably to other landlords not requiring finance). CGT and SDLT (new +3%) event triggered.

Private rental stock now less leveraged meaning more taxable profit in the hands of landlords, rather than banks (whom are good at moving profits overseas through transfer pricing).

More money coming in taxes. Illusion that this is helping FTB.

Nice fantasy...until Hard Brexit happens and Trump raises rates, good luck with the tax raising/rent raising then......:rotfl:


The reality is that a lot of basic flats/houses will hit the market at knock down prices, and banks will make some profit on higher rates and fresh mortgage lending. People who OWN tend to vote Tory, not people who rent, the voter numbers no longer stack up in favour of landlords, and you can tax an owner just as easy as a landlord.

kinger101

tim123456789 wrote: »

The problem with the PP calling it a tax credit was that he followed it with "the government wants to reduce these"


and that confuses it with Working Tax Credits that the government does want to reduce.


But there is no political connection between these two credits at all.

Yes. It gets confusing when one describes two entirely different things as tax credits. But the one invented by Brown is a complete misnomer as it's just a state benefit.

The other was originally a deduction in calculating taxable profit, but the real stinker now as Booksuur outlined is that as well as being partially disallowed, applying it below the line in which taxable income is calculated will now push some people who'd have originally been basic rate into higher rate. Not likely to be a problem in this scenario as a modest pension contribution would push it back into BR. Although we can't know that the regime would be when they retire, on current rules, one can get an effective rate of 15% if they take a 25% lump sum tax free and the remainder is taxed at basic rate.

kinger101

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Nice fantasy...until Hard Brexit happens and Trump raises rates, good luck with the tax raising/rent raising then......:rotfl:


The reality is that a lot of basic flats/houses will hit the market at knock down prices, and banks will make some profit on higher rates and fresh mortgage lending. People who OWN tend to vote Tory, not people who rent, the voter numbers no longer stack up in favour of landlords, and you can tax an owner just as easy as a landlord.

Incoherent. For one, interest rates on residential mortgages are lower. Second, taxes on residential owners are lower than landlords (normally regular SDLT, PPR CGT exemption). Third, Labour government.......:rotfl: