Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reports on Housing that may be of interest.

http://www.housingnet.co.uk/pdf/SHOUT_NFA_TPAS_Spending_Review_2015_submission.pdf

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7287/CBP-7287.pdf

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/49946/150903+LGA+Response+Tackling+rogue+landlords+and+improving+the+private+rental+sector/396d7e4e-ece5-427a-9fae-6b0c9298c75f

Ros, all I'm saying is it will be difficult to get anywhere with an argument if you can't categorically disprove the counter factual (or at least show the counter factual is less likely than the assertion). I'll let you get on with something that really matters now.

Reply to the comment left by "BTL INVESTOR SCOTLAND" at "07/09/2015 - 19:33":

Hi BTL. I just scanned the first report and noticed the final table on page 18 where they compare rents paid for tenants in social housing and rents paid in private housing. I'm no economist (as you know) but I think they've made a big boo-boo - it depends on whether housing associations are taxed on rental income received. If they're not and private landlords are, then the Exchequer would receive a portion of the private rents back in tax. Also, private landlords aren't subsidised, so what happens about costs? - am I getting this wrong?

Barry White makes some very relevant points that if thoughtfully discussed, strengthen ones understanding of ones own argument.

Barry, for the avoidance of doubt, your comments are very welcome and provide useful prompts for people to consider.

Reply to the comment left by "Phil Ashford" at "07/09/2015 - 20:25":

Maybe Phil, but that assumes we buy into the argument that this policy is all about preventing highly geared landlords crowding out FTB's. I'm far from convinced that's anything more than claptrap from spin Doctors who believe it's a vote winner due to all the noise that such a few people from the HPC forum create in comments on National Newspapers Online articles.

Government also pin these proposals on the BoE's concerns over highly leveraged BTL debt and that landlords will dump property if costs rise. However, this tax policy is more likely to be a catalyst of the BoE's concerns than the cure.

Could this simply be a way to raise tax revenue for The Treasury from what has proven to be a very soft target? Failure to fight back against the FCA and the banks over the BoI rate hike scam and the numbers of landlords who rolled over when selective licensing was introduced in their area has demonstrated just how much of a soft target landlords can be. Hopefully this campaign will prove otherwise. People can only be pushed so far.

The real problem here is that Government will not declare their true intentions. It is like being asked to wring the necks of a bucket of eels, for all we know this could be about finding easier ways to regulate and/or Tescoisation of the cottage industry that is currently the PRS.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Phil Ashford" at "07/09/2015 - 20:25":

'What i don’t believe I have seen with any of these refutations is categorical proof that the data and conclusions *aren’t* merely correlation; I have only seen the assertion of causality without much discussion of data quality and shortcomings, survivorship bias etc etc'

Do you find that sentence by Barry helpful, Phil?

I can see through it for the obfuscating gobbledygook that it is.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "07/09/2015 - 20:48":

Ros, agreed that this particular sentence would not win any prizes in a literary beauty parade, which is why I felt compelled to re-write it in my post to you at 19:43. Hope it's clearer.

@ Barry, Pplman etc:

Personally I do not have a problem with anyone sharing their POV as long as they are open to reason and capable of considering ALL angles (which can be 360 degrees), not just a carefully chosen particular angle or line of argument. I would appreciate it if the govt would also consider doing just that. I think some of you fellas mistakenly think GO is doing this all for you.

The problem with some of the HPC guys is that some of them also do not consider ALL angles. In fact some of the ‘original’ HPCers have even recently accused some of their own new breed of very aggressive HPCers (eg the ones who recently published online books or made youtube Hitler videos featuring Mark A and Ros) of going a step too far in their rejection of any other view that doesn’t conform to what they deem ‘groupthink’.. even on your very own HPC forum!

Why don’t you guys copy and paste ALL posts from here onto your website rather than picking and choosing what you think are the ‘best’ ones? In fact why don’t you guys simply have a permanent direct webfeed from here to there, so that some of your less ‘selective’ readers and guests @HPC can make up their own minds themselves? I imagine that Mark A would be only too happy to assist you with that.

I actually agree with you guys that a HPCrash or pause in real terms (as opposed to ‘nominal’ as you guys love to harp on abt) would be useful for many, but this non-incorporated LL only attack is NOT the most logical way and will not achieve what you dream of.

What I want is for the govt to have sensible debates on every subject matter with expert involvement BEFORE taking important decisions. Is that an unreasonable request? In fact I think the LVT (land value tax) that you guys talk about all the time on your site, would be infinitely more logical than this (non-incorporated LL only) BTL tax grab.

Please feel free to copy and paste this post in its entirety onto your HPC forum. Thanks in advance. Mark S

My latest post in reply to an HPC Troll on The Telegraph article who was spouting Generation rent stats. I'm quite proud of this one .....

Clearly you are incapable of comprehending that this taxation policy will solve none of the issues you have raised. It will merely suppress investment demand into BTL as an asset class and along with it the number of new build properties developed. The consequences of that will be less development of social housing because that is linked to new development in terms of planning.

Don't blame landlords, blame decades of failure on governments to address housing needs during population growth within an increasingly benefits dependent society of their own making.
.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "07/09/2015 - 19:24":

I just sent you someone via email.