Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Shine" at "28/09/2015 - 14:42":

Hi Mark S

I read your paragraph 5 as being a suggested alternative to clause 24.

Regarding how much of my loans I would prefer to have converted to repayment, I would prefer neither – clause 24 would do me less harm.

I have not received a reply from Upad. Their calculator is unchanged. If you click on the 20% rate of tax it tells you that you will pay no extra tax from 2020, no matter how high the interest is (their maximum is £50,000).

I have not received a reply from the NLA either, but they have made their erroneous spreadsheet disappear. When you click on the link you just get to the instructions, not the spreadsheet.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "28/09/2015 - 14:21":

Could he not just mean we wont be able to claim the costs of repairs ! or maybe only a percentage. That would stop repairs in its tracks.

May be it will be similar to what they are trying to do with interest costs now.

Ive had an idea and was wondering what would happen if:
The Residential Landlords Association & the National Landlords Association told the government now- that should this tenant tax be passed, then they would be "recommending" to their 100,000 members that they should increase rents by 30% over the next four years- in line with the introduction of the tax?
I guess the Conservatives would think this tax is backfiring .

Reply to the comment left by "KATHY MILLER" at "28/09/2015 - 19:57":

Hi Kathy

No, I think it’s just a combination of ignorance and a desire to attack landlords in general. He seems to think that the Wear and Tear allowance is given for repairs, and that in spite of getting an allowance some landlords do not carry out necessary repairs. It is nonsense of course, but he got a round of applause for his baseless slur.

Reply to the comment left by "billy bob" at "28/09/2015 - 20:00":

Not sure they would,they would still be saving on the interest relief given.
They gave the council the powers to tax people to the hilt when they cut their budgets. So they have no problem with letting Joe public pay.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "28/09/2015 - 18:21":

Appalled, I think we may have to agree to disagree on this particular one only :-). My suggested alternative was mainly in point 3. My point 5 was related to financial stability *IF* after consultation with BoE / independent expertise etc etc as I wrote.

As you say, personally I would also prefer neither as well. But I think we have to be realistic, even if HMT are not wishing to do that themselves with this politically motivated tax grab.

You say that Clause 24 would do you less harm. If you would be negatively affected more by (1) converting a small proportion of *your* mortgage to repayment basis rather than by (2) the Clause 24 tax grab on (non incorporated and encumbered) private landlords, then are you saying that Clause 24 won’t affect you much personally?

Clause 24 could actually increase the risk to financial stability in the short term as I think Ros also pointed out recently.

If you read John McDonnell's comments in article below, he is clearly stating that, he will take away Billions £'s Tax break away for repairs from Landlords when repairs are not actually being carried out.

So, if you read between the lines, he is saying that, Landlords claim these costs but these are never incurred by them. What a load of B*****KS"...as all repairs have to be backed up by receipts.

I think we are having a honeymooon bonanza with Tories Government, if these numpties come in we ourselves will end up becoming homeless let alone our tenants.

http://www.ft.com/fastft/398221/labour-targets-multi-nationals-buy-let-landlords

John McDonnell's above article, copied and pasted, in case, you can't open it:

A Labour government would crack down on multi-national companies such as Starbucks and Google, which have courted controversy in the past about the amount of tax that they pay in the UK, John McDonnell, shadow chancellor has said.

Speaking at the Labour party conference on Monday, Mr McDonnell also said buy-to-let landlords would be a target as he spelled out how his party would reduce the UK's deficit, write Nathalie Thomas and Katie Martin.

Mr McDonnell sought to dispel suggestions that by being "anti-austerity", a Labour government wouldn't try to reduce the UK's debt burden.

He said:

Deficit reduction is important, but we are rejecting austerity as the way to do it.

He said a Labour government would tackle the deficit but "not on the backs of the middle and low earners". Instead he said Labour would force multi-national companies (naming Starbucks, Amazon, Vodafone and Google) "to pay their share of taxes".

"There will be cuts to the corporate welfare system that has grown up, there will be cuts to the subsidies paid to companies that take the money and fail to deliver the jobs," he said.

Labour would also introduce cuts to the "billion pound tax breaks given to buy-to-let landlords for repairing their homes when they do not undertake the repairs".

Announcing a new economic advisory panel, to advise Labour on the implementation of its economic strategy, the shadow chancellor said:

We need to prove to the British public that we can run the economy better than the current elite.

We will test and test and test again to prove that our policies are affordable.

The committee will include the French economist and author Thomas Piketty and Nobel prize-winner, Joseph Stiglitz.

Mr McDonnell confirmed that Labour would review the mandate of the Bank of England. He said:

We will guarantee the independence of the Bank of England but it's time to open the debate on the Bank's mandate that was set 18 years ago. The mandate focuses on inflation, and even then it regularly fails to meet it.

Adding metrics on growth, employment and earnings to the bank's mandate may be suitable, he said.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Shine" at "28/09/2015 - 21:17":

Yes ,clause 24 will not affect me much financially. I am in this campaign to try to prevent it causing another price crash. I am still waiting for prices in my area to recover sufficiently from the last one so that I can sell my properties, pay all my debts and taxes, and finally retire.

Reply to the comment left by "billy bob" at "28/09/2015 - 20:00":

Great point!!

I wrote to the NLA and RLA asking them to suspend sending me junk e-mails asking me to join this or that course or buy this or that ..UNTIL... they stand up and do what they should do as the Landlord Associations they proclaim themselves to be.

If Tenant Tax goes through I won't have the money for their membership and they will close down before I do, as for us landlords even in good times, they are at best a fringe luxury and in reality a nuisance. NOW is their moment.....

I told them their in-action and slowness is both declaring themselves and demonstrating that by their impotence they are "utterly irrelevant" to landlords, tenants and government alike when it matters. I said, they should organise things, make a strong stand against the Tenant Tax, meet with ministers challenge then government in the press and be on the Television - BE OUR ADVOCATES - "make a difference or shut down! "Now is your time NLA RLA to show landlords, tenants and government you are the strong unification and voice of the PRS. And, you'd think that one of them should be rubbing their hands at the chance to shut the other down and claim glory by stopping the Tenant Tax.

They should be fighting for their lives as they will be the first Landlord expense to go! .....Unless they think fast and run a course on "how to make people homeless" or how to "become an accredited bankrupt"