Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Manchester Landlord" at "03/10/2015 - 17:50":

and the right - those with no mortgages (prime Tory voters) are not affected

Reply to the comment left by "Steven O'Neill" at "03/10/2015 - 16:10":

In response to your 'I can’t see that most property is unencumbered myself would like to see the stats':

The below sentence has been copied word for word in MPs response letters (and Megan Shaw @ HMRC is also using it) although it does seem a little strange for them to mix stats for UK and England in what TPTB obviously deem a v important sentence.

'The government does not expect this to have a large impact on either house prices or rent levels due to the small overall proportion of the housing market affected (there are 1.6m buy to let mortgages outstanding in the UK overall, out of a total private rented sector of 4.4m households and total housing stock of 22.6m households in England).'

GO may have got it right :
In a time of such low interest rates change the tax on buy to let . This will put rents up by 30% over next 2 or 3 years . This for the economy is like an interest rate hike especially as lower earning tenants income is 100% disposable , this will keep inflation in check and rest of county ( Tory voters) feel wealthier as their home mortages unaffected

The plan is simple . If interest rates where at a normal level say 4% base , we would all be charging higher rents to pay the bankers
Put rents up now and constantly until 2020 to pay the tax man

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Shine" at "03/10/2015 - 18:57":

If so few are affected why are they bothering with clause 24? They have no idea of any figures or the likely impact, its all guesswork. George Osborne should be dismissed for incompetence.

Reply to the comment left by "Puzzler " at "03/10/2015 - 18:49":

Exactly puzzler... I am a prime target for the Tory party and I suspect many on this forum. I was traditionally labour, but moved to the Tories because I felt they better represented my values - self reliance, less interference in the economy, and pro business. I'm finished with th now. They have failed me and many others.

They are all the same public school boys with no common sense and business experience I don't bother with any of them. I have been brought up voting Tory but they have constantly attacked me and my business from all angles not only the farcical landlord / tenant tax but no relief for empty houses universal credit no direct payment of housing benefit endless regulation including expecting us to be customs and boarder patrol endless red tape the list goes on and on gunna start cashing my chips in me

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "03/10/2015 - 19:50":

Yes, David. It's 'only' going to affect 1 in 5, it's a tiny issue, it's not worth any of you even thinking about it - but hold on, there's no way we're doing a u-turn on this, no way at all - because in fact, somehow, even though it's really trivial and not worth worrying your pretty head about it, it's mega-important!

Reply to the comment left by "David Price" at "03/10/2015 - 19:50":

David I suspect there is no one answer to the question 'why', that you and others have commented on today. The answer is certainly NOT along the lines of 'it's a fair and very clever move that GO is doing purely for us' as the (non-incorporated & encumbered only) landlord haters profess it is.

The real answer may include a mixture of:
- Incompetence as you say, as well as naivety and misunderstanding of the PRS. My MP, one of the main promoters of Clause 24 and the rest of the finance bill, definitely did NOT come across as one of the sharpest tools in the box when I met him.
- Political gain. The time is right to *get away with it* given that they must have known that other political parties are likely to have been even more brutal and illogical if they had been in power.
- Personal gain. Institutional landlords and any party donors / pals who are landlords are likely to be incorporated so will actually indirectly benefit from Clause 24.
- The tax grab element. HMT need funds v soon to reduce the deficit, so have gone after the easiest target although dealing with the unintended consequences of Clause 24 may actually end up costing the govt a whole lot more.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Brown" at "03/10/2015 - 14:18":

I was surprised it was Kate Barker as in the past all reports I have seen from her as been about how to get more houses built.