Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "18/08/2015 - 23:39":

Yes, you'd think they'd give us accolades for coming up with practical solutions and making them into realities. Landlords refurbish houses to let to tenants. That is already a service; that house would not have been habitable if not for landlords. It's not as though councils have been buying them and doing them up to a liveable standard, yet there has been a shortage of affordable social houses since I can remember. Now we're expected to fund the deficit literally.

Photographer from The Telegraph has just left. Hope they write a decent story on the landlords' plight. I smiled a lot - though not really in the mood for smiling, but it's supposed to be an uplifting story to turn the tide of unpopularity. A picture of me crying into a begging bowl may have been more apt; get the public used to seeing such images in a few years time.

No, that was a bit negative. Sorry, guys!

Look, it hasn't gone through yet. Let's hope that people realise that a taxing system that leaves a person in dire debt will not work.

We have other ways open to us - mass demonstrations etc. Camp outside number 11 (is that where Osborne lives?). I have spare sleeping bags.

Reply to the comment left by "Neil Allen" at "19/08/2015 - 09:41":

Thanks for that Neil. It was really helpful and I've incorporated it into my submission. Any other takers for finding out about Japan and Canada? (I wouldn't ask, it's just that I'm a bit rushed off my feet).

Reply to the comment left by "Connie Cheuk" at "19/08/2015 - 12:14":

Well done Connie. As you say, fingers crossed for a good story now - and we can then build on that, by getting other journalists to start writing the truth.

I have today, spoken to couple of friends, who had heard of tax change but did not have a clue how this new legislation will have impact on their situation.

One of them stated, that, "Oh I'll be okay as I am under basic rate threshold"

I then told him that, his gross rental income will be considered as his income which will consequently push him into higher threshold"

He was left shell-shocked and could not believe as how he had missed this change.

The moral of story is how some 2 million landlords are sitting in comfort under false pretences when Chancellor has fleeced them during day light.

As someone has suggested we have to do some awareness campaigning to let people know, how their lives are to be ruined by this change.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "19/08/2015 - 13:01":

This link provides the answer for Canada - which is that interest, and a lot of other expenses, are deductible.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/rntl/bt/rprt/xpns/ln8710-eng.html

Used to live there and having a buy-to-let portfolio was quite popular.

Reply to the comment left by "Trendo " at "18/08/2015 - 23:35":

Hi Trendo

I thought you were referring to the incredible amount of tax payable on zero real profit in your post yesterday, which is what I replied to. Still, it kippered the red herring!

Following your post of today, I have looked again at the statistics from Megan Shaw.

She wrote: “The government expects around 94% of landlords who will have to pay more tax will have a taxable of income over £35,000. Of the 6% with taxable income under £35,000 and who have to pay more tax, they have an average (pre-tax) rental income of £64,380 and own on average 6 properties.”

These statistics must be derived from current figures. So they claim that 94% of landlords who currently pay a higher rate of tax, have over £35,000 in other, non-rental income.

I will be affected, and I certainly do not have other income of over £35,000. How many others reading this also do not?

My non-rental income is less than half of that amount. Therefore I am in the other 6%, a group whose average (pre-tax) rental income is “£64,380 from 6 properties”. This is £10,730 a year, or £894 a month.

If she means rents received, the figure is irrelevant. It is what we have left after we have paid our bills that matters, not what we receive.

The use of the word “pre-tax” implies rental profit, because the term is only used in connection with profit. If profit is what she meant, then £10,730 per property is incredible.

If it is each owner’s share of profit per property, then it becomes even more incredible. And it is the income per person that matters, not per property.

I would guess that even those who will be affected to a tiny degree (because they pay little interest) have been included in the calculation of this statistic, in order to inflate our apparent wealth.

And I wonder what the significance of £35,000 is.

Reply to the comment left by "Nigel Hart" at "19/08/2015 - 13:30":

Thanks Nigel. That is so helpful. I will now incorporate it into my submission. If anyone else is willing to find me the Japan situation that would be much appreciated. Thanks again. We have some pretty good submissions which show the lunacy, unfairness etc of the proposal - and they are going to be circulated among the members of the Public Committee discussing the Finance Bill. It's only if they don't actually read them that they won't be convinced.

Well done Ros. Good work.

Whether they go ahead with this proposal or not, I'm out of this game, it far to precarious and too much of an easy target politically.

Awesome job Connie. You are shining star..I admire your determination to fight against travesty of justice.