Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Lisa Stux" at "08/09/2015 - 16:50":

I would be careful in shouting it too much until more research is done into the author and the organisation. Hanging your hat on something John Perry said in a CIH 2012 review without finding out what has been written since is dangerous. For example, the guardian article refers to the CIH UK Housing Review 2012. However the same report for 2015 (co authored by the author of the Guardian article) appears to trot out the ftb vs btl line. A briefing paper outlining the report states:

"One consequence of tighter mortgage market regulation is expanded, unregulated, buy to let lending. Though this has funded only about a third of the growing PRS, it has intensified competition between landlords and FTBs not least because landlords can much more easily get interest-only mortgages.The overall private market is still in recovery mode and as the Review shows it receives very significant subsidy"

I am not sure what constitutes "significant subsidy" for the "overall private market" (I guess this is reserved for the full report, which costs GBP45). The briefing paper can be found at http://www.cih.org/resources/PDF/Policy%20free%20download%20pdfs/UKHR%20Briefing%202015.pdf

As an aside, I think a low CGT on PPR (say 1-2%) will yield a huge tax haul, as owners will be forced to ask for receipts to enable them to deduct development/improvement/maintenance costs against CGT. I am sure the cash-in-hand business would literally dry up over night......

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "08/09/2015 - 16:30":

That's a good article Ros.....but you would have to ask the question....what would happen if CGT relief was removed for owner occupiers? They simply would not be able to trade up and the housing market would grind to a halt. For owner occupiers a home is a home....and not an investment.

Reply to the comment left by "James Tallis" at "08/09/2015 - 19:02":

You don't really believe that do you?

It have read many times that the vast majority owner-occupiers treat their homes like RTM's and that tax free capital appreciation is a God given right. Whenever they need a extra cash to bail out their personal finances they just extend their mortgages. Eventually they can borrow no more so they sell up, cash in on the capital growth CGT free and downsize. If they are smart this coincides with early retirement.
.

Reply to the comment left by "James Tallis" at "08/09/2015 - 19:29":

Of course.....its open to abuse....particular by those who are in the latter half of their lives....but imagine a young family living in a 2 bed flat.....needing to up size to a small house .....how would that be possible if they lost say 20% of their equity on a sale? Where will the extra money come from needed for the purchase of the larger house?

Reply to the comment left by "James Tallis" at "08/09/2015 - 19:30":

But they wouldn't lose 20% of their equity, just 20% of the fictitious profit caused by the tax fuelled housing bubble you are trying to burst. Have I misunderstood your ambitions at all with this statement or merely touched a raw nerve?

Surely you can't have it both ways?

EDITED - TEXT ADDED

Was I wrong when I thought the mission of you and your HPC buddies was that all tenants (including yourself) speak for Generation Rent in terms of wanting to talk up a house price crash? If so, isn't your/their dream of home ownership somewhat hypocritical?
.

I don't trust the government they are saying BTL is causing the housing problem and stopping the FTB . If they get this in they will probably then go after the homeowner because they are intent on milking all of us dry.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "08/09/2015 - 19:35":

Yes, Mark, It's just sour grapes and the politics of envy. They want prices to drop massively so that they can pick up a bargain which will then increase in value. So to criticise people who have already managed to do this is completely hypocritical.

The simple fact is the government just wont accept that BTL is a business. With little or no protection from the law.

Tenants don't pay rent when we still have to pay mortgage. The cost of court action is ridiculous and just increased. the time and delays imagine no rent for 10 months you have had to pay the mortgage and the government says now pay tax on you loss as if it was profit.

Tenants leave the place damaged yet courts do nothing, Do this in a hotel or shop you are a criminal. Obviously I am not talking about fair wear and tear but deliberate damage.

FTB would not buy what landlords would. Why is the whole of the UK being penalised for the London and south property boom. Anyone who can buy in London can buy lots of property in the rest of the UK.

The attractiveness of BTL is really becoming nil and void.

Reply to the comment left by "KATHY MILLER" at "08/09/2015 - 19:44":

Kathy, they will never do that as it would be political suicide. For the same reason they are unlikely to target my hypothetical identical twin (the incorporated one) with an identical business. They would find it very hard to target my twin bro without attacking the incorporated institutions at the same time.

We are currently looking to move house/upsize due to family, but are struggling a little as finding that the competition from owner occupiers many of them from the generation before mine (baby boomers) are willing to pay ‘whatever’ for a house. I suspect this is partly due to the very low cost residential mortgages available for those that require one and most OO’s are very emotional with their house buying decisions (ie ‘just got to have it’ no matter what).

BTW during my meeting with my MP (a Treasury minister) although it ended with having to agree to disagree, I did note during that meeting that the reason for phasing it in over 4 years did appear to change from (1) to allow LLs to adapt their plans to (2) to give the govt time to consult with experts and alter the policy if required…

Reply to the comment left by "Neil Robb" at "08/09/2015 - 20:32":

Point of order Neil

the guvmunt very much DO accept that BTL is a business - buying and renting residential property, look at any incorporated biz to verify.

What they dont accept is that a St/Ptnship running the exact same model is a business, that is an investment, to date this preposturous notion with no reasoning supplied.

As both models are identical activity, other than tax treatment, i think the government need to demonstrate how and why this ridiculous discrimination has been proposed. Surely a legal challenge has to be made?