Landlords' Lament, the end of Section 21

Herzlos

phillw wrote: »

There is a brain drain coming & student loans are repayable even if you pay tax in another country.

But I don't think there's any way to enforce it or check what someone is earning. I'm sure something could be done anyway for outward migrants within x years of completing a 'free' degree.

zagubov

AFAIK, most other countries won't grant citizenship to people with massive foreign debts. You'd potentially be a drain on their economy.

That's why the fees payback system is framed as a loan and not a tax.

We've adopted many right-wing American economic attitudes which penalise the workforce.

We've decided to not adopt the American taxation system where they still tax you when you earn money abroad, which is something that might penalise the wealthy and those wishing to pay less back to society.

Arklight

zagubov wrote: »

AFAIK, most other countries won't grant citizenship to people with massive foreign debts. You'd potentially be a drain on their economy.

That's why the fees payback system is framed as a loan and not a tax.

We've adopted many right-wing American economic attitudes which penalise the workforce.

We've decided to not adopt the American taxation system where they still tax you when you earn money abroad, which is something that might penalise the wealthy and those wishing to pay less back to society.

To be fair, actually properly wealthy overseas Americans fiddle their way out of their tax obligations the same as all the other rich people. The people it affects is as ever, the middle and lower earners.

I once taught English in Japan and I remember all the US teachers panicking as the IRS deadline approached and they had to report on their salaries and other outgoings, many wrapped up into consolidated bills sent by the local wards that they couldn't even read to report on.

Nobody was earning moire than about 21,000 US so I don't know if they had to actually pay additional tax. They sure worried about it though.

AnotherJoe

AG47 wrote: »

There is an excess of properties and an excess of tenants but a shortage of people wanting to be landlords.

Judging by the posts on here that crop up every day there must be hordes of numerically challenged people looking to become LL's so i very much doubt there is a shortage.

There will probably be an excess of disillusioned ex landlords in a few years time though.

triathlon

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Judging by the posts on here that crop up every day there must be hordes of numerically challenged people looking to become LL's so i very much doubt there is a shortage.

There will probably be an excess of disillusioned ex landlords in a few years time though.

And plus very few people in everyday life see a LL go under, in fact the opposite, when you see them all having very successful lives you want some of that action as well. There is a long line of potential LL's aching to get into this game, sorry doom mongers

chucknorris

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Judging by the posts on here that crop up every day there must be hordes of numerically challenged people looking to become LL's so i very much doubt there is a shortage.

There will probably be an excess of disillusioned ex landlords in a few years time though.

Although I now much prefer equities to property, if I was younger (property is a long term investment) AND there was no investment property in my portfolio, I would definitely buy at least one investment property for portfolio diversity. In those circumstances I would much rather directly own an investment property rather than invest in a REIT (or similar). I will retain at least one investment property for about 10 years of my retirement years, for the same reason. Although that is different, because I have significant CGT to pay, and holding the investment means that the CGT that I would have to pay, is still providing a return while the property is retained.

BobQ

Arklight wrote: »

Spare a thought for landlords this week, who may have to do more than hammer out a poorly formatted template letter from WH Smiths and toss it into a post box, to evict their tenants.

The Tories have finally buckled, after far too long, to pressure to implement this Labour policy. They may have also realised finally that private tenants don't generally vote Tory, and as there are 11 million private renters locked out of the housing market to pay for pensioners lack of pensions, that's a lot of lost votes.



https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/15/short-notice-evictions-face-axe-in-tenant-rights-victory

As someone who has rented in the past in Britain's miserable private rental market I hope this is actually enforceable. Landlords now have to give a reason why they are issuing a notice to quit, but it's far from clear whether this reason will ever be checked up on, and this is still a far cry from the security of tenure renters need.

Renters are well used to being forced out for owning a pet, having a child, asking for repairs, having a relative move in, or anything else that indicates they may be a human being attempting to live in a home, rather than an investment vehicle for a Buy To Let landlord's geared property portfolio underwritten by a faceless bank.

The next, very overdue, legislation that must come in to fix the England and Wales' Wild West rental market is a prohibition on the extortionate bogus fees letting agents charge for attempting to reserve a property. This is often the first experience of the giant middle finger that the private rental market offers tenants when they emerge blinking from Rightmove into an industry that sees them as little more than inconvenient pound signs to be shaken down.

A bad day for uncaring, greedy and uncaring landlords yes. But not all landlords are like that.

chucknorris

Herzlos wrote: »

But they essentially do already, just with more administration overhead. Those who are paying reasonable tax will pay off the loan in short order, whilst those who never pay have it written off at the taxpayers expense. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just make it free at point of education on the basis that degrees should generate higher salaries and more tax?

By all means increase the entry standards as a way to keep numbers down.

I know, and they also pay when employers pay the fees for their part time degree students, and claim it as an expense against their corporation tax (as a certain amount of tax has to be levied).

westernpromise

@ michaels
"Q2 If the supply of rental properties is reduced whilst demand remains the same will rents rise or fall?"

Here's the answer to your second question:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/renting/london-rents-record-highs-bright-spots-buy-to-let-investors/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

This week Rightmove reported an 8.2 per cent annual increase in asking rents in London, the highest rise ever recorded...These soaring rents are being fuelled by high demand and low supply of homes in the capital, exacerbated by tighter regulations and higher taxes for landlords, leading many to pull out of the market. As a result, the number of properties available to rent in the capital is down by 33 per cent compared with two years ago

westernpromise

Jackmydad wrote: »

Majority of households in the England own their own home. 63% according to this.
https://fullfact.org/economy/do-most-people-own-one-house/

We need some social housing, but the reality is that it's expensive to build and run, so governments are glad to have private landlords.

Also remember that the idea that the rental market is all lower end is very much mistaken. There is everything from one bed flats in inexpensive areas to manor houses in the home counties in the rental sector.

Don't confuse the poor chap with facts. He just hates people more prosperous than himself and wants them made poorer, even if this doesn't make him richer.