Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

I think the NLA & RLA should act like a trade union and recommend their members increase rents by 30% over the next 4 years.
This TAX would then become highly political -the news papers would start writing, and perhaps George Osborne could take a run and jump!

Just chased my MPs office (he's is away on "private business"), they are awaiting a reply from the Chancellor (probably a minion I doubt GO will actually reply). But they don't expect anything back until the end of this month, the earliest I can get a meeting is 6th November, which I've booked.

By then it going to be too late to do anything as the Finance Bill will have progressed too far.

Talk about being 'kicked down the street' and into the the long grass.

Would any MP who is thinking of standing against GO for the leadership of the party like to him to get rather a lot of egg on his faced? or do you think they'd rather let him dig the hole and end up him burying himself?

Is anyone an elector in the constituency of Boris or Theresa May?

Reply to the comment left by "Barry Fitzpatrick" at "05/10/2015 - 16:01":

I will be in a couple of months.......Teresa May will be my MP....I've already written to her in the capacity of landlord but not as a constituent....

With interest rates going to increase over the next 4 years important to get substantial increases of 10% to 15% every years .
The tax is ever greater as interest rates increase and this larger cost not deduct able as an expense

Reply to the comment left by "Barry Fitzpatrick" at "05/10/2015 - 15:58":

Barry, if you are able to get to the Palace of Westminster then go and Lobby your MP. As I have posted before it is considered extremely rude to ignore a constituent waiting in the lobby.
As an additional plus you get fast tracked into the Lobby ahead of the tourists.

Reply to the comment left by "Ros ." at "05/10/2015 - 15:17":

Ros we must all do something similar irrespective of whether we are directly affected by the new tax for I believe we are all indirectly affected.

Reply to the comment left by "Ed Duncan" at "05/10/2015 - 16:22":

@Ed

Can I correct you on this common misunderstanding. Your tax will go down if your interest charges/rates go up. but your actual profits will fall faster, so that your effective rate of tax will shoot up (although it's a higher effective rate of tax, it is on a much smaller actual profit). Please see my explanation on page 485 at 10:27 5/10/2015 and the two screenshots of the spreadsheet. at 3% and then 5% interest rates.

As we know… according to one of the sentences that HMT & HMRC keep sending out to everyone: there are 1.6m BTL mortgages in the UK with a total PRS of 4.4m households in England. This is slightly misleading as (1) they are using UK for one and England for the other in the same sentence and (2) they have not defined ‘household’. For example in the PRS 4 unrelated sharers in a rented property even on the same AST would technically be 4 ‘households’.

Anyway as a rough guide let’s suppose there are 5m separate rental properties in the UK as some other reports on the internet seem to guestimate, that would mean that encumbered properties account for 32% of the PRS (1.6m/5m * 100%).

As many private LLs own more than one rental property, the maths of this indicate that it could actually be the majority of properties with BTL mortgages that will be affected.

I think that GO, DG and crew have presented the information in a way that it can be confusing and misinterpreted. In a way I actually hope the reason for that is mainly incompetency. Because the alternative is more concerning and devious (manipulation of the facts to create the environment for ‘Tesco-isation’ of the PRS for their institutional buddies who want ‘in’).

It’s definitely time for the govt to hold their hands up and start being honest about their primary reasons for Clause 24.

The overwhelming case for new public housing
John Healey MP, John Perry

09 April 2015

3. To secure value-for-money from public spending

Public spending on social homes pays for itself. Every £1 invested in social housing pays back £1.18 into the public purse over 30 years because of lower housing benefit payments.

Despite the deepest cuts to housing benefit ever in this parliament, spending on housing benefit has risen by £2.5bn and is set to rise in real terms in every year of the next parliament, in part because social rents have been hiked to ‘affordable rents’ (according to Autumn Statement outturn figures). Cutting back on investment in social housing and raising rents is a false economy for the taxpayer: savings made in one department only push up costs in another. The policy switch away from traditional social rent to ‘affordable rent’ in this parliament alone will add £5.4bn to the housing benefit bill over 30 years.