Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Monty Drawbridge " at "25/02/2016 - 09:54":

Sorry, Monty. This is untenable. Everyone knows there is a finite supply of hot cross buns.

let's continue the analogy, I like it

many mass produced hot cross buns will contain a lot of cheap and nasty ingredients and really will not taste very nice

a proper hot cross bun made with care by a skilled, practiced baker, using high quality ingredients is always going to be better

a good hot cross bun would be a glimmer of delight to anyone living in an L&G build to rent hutch

As a Gregg's shareholder, I completely agree with the Right Honourable Gentleman's suggestion that all small, independent bakeries lace their hot-crossed buns with cantarela, and fully support the measure to stop such poisoners from offsetting the cost of flour against tax.

L&G is opening a factory to build its BTR stock in Yorkshire.

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/14301300.__55_million_flat_pack_house_factory_to_create_up_to_500_jobs_in_North_Yorkshire/

Ros,

I was one of those junior doctors in the late 70's early 80's. It was far worse then. We worked our scheduled week and then got 1/3 time for overtime and worked in excess of 100 hrs per week. Over 30 years I watched the merry go round going round. As a G.P. we had serial contracts imposed after improper consultation regardless of our protestations. I recall writing to Maggie & Ken Clarke (Health Minister at the time) in the early 90's to no avail. Kenneth Clarke is my M.P. for my Nottingham residence. I have had reason to write to him and consult with him on B.T.L. issues since. He had no compassion and even less comprehension.

I back the junior Doctors. I have experienced the accrued detriment of overworking. I back clause 24. I chose to retire early from doctoring for personal and family reasons and now my alternative pension provisions are being stolen. The similarities are obvious and in my case a double whammy. Well done for spotting this analogy which is highly significant. These public school boys have an aversion to doing their homework, and because of their powerful positions, creating consequent havoc that affects peoples livelihoods.

P.S. that should read I do NOT back clause 24 whoops! I have financially backed the Judicial Review.

Chris.

Reply to the comment left by "Jon Pipllman" at "25/02/2016 - 14:15":

Hmm. When our local council some years ago backed an estate of modular houses (Swedish - yes, they really were from Ikea) everyone was very impressed. Unfortunately it was almost impossible to get a mortgage on them as they were of non-traditional construction. Also , they were much more expensive than an equivalent size old house.

On another point my partner and I own double digit properties in various shares. We started in 2005, expected values to double in 10 years but of course they have not.

Our properties are widely spread in geographical terms and so we incur full management fees on most. We have run at a loss. Initially this was significant as we refurbished and finally we approach a more break even position. Our accrued losses are significant and we had hoped to rely on their carry forward capacity to offset future rental income to see us through a good few years.

Our accountants have crunched some numbers and these carry forward losses appear to be extinguished far sooner than we had anticipated. At present I am told it is to do with the way the calculations are made consequent upon clause 24. They have been slow to grasp the nettle.

If what they say is true then there may be another deceit here to stealth tax previous carry forward losses. Have any of the mathematicians on this site looked at this.

I am making further enquiries but if my suspicions are to be confirmed then this may be something the Judicial Review Team should be alerted to.

This is an extract from a blog written by a Bank of England staff member, once more putting paid to the stupid and counterintuitive myth that landlords 'bid up' prices:

'The media often contain stories of BTL investors pricing other buyers out of the market. It is expected that additional demand from a group of buyers such as BTL investors will raise price on aggregate, although this general effect is difficult to isolate in practice. It is less clear whether a direct effect is also at work: are BTL investors willing to pay more for the same properties?

To investigate this question, I compare properties bought by BTL investors with properties bought by other purchasers, keeping all the observed features (such as number of bedrooms or postcode) constant. Crucially, I can further restrict my analysis to properties that had the same advertised price, but are sold to different types of buyers, one of whom is a BTL investor.

It turns out that BTL investors spend on average less than other buyers for equivalent properties: the baseline estimate shows a statistically significant 1% discount. Or, put differently, other buyers spend 1% more than BTL investors for the same properties.'

http://bankunderground.co.uk/2015/07/21/five-facts-about-buy-to-let/

Compare this comment by Vince Cable, who like the ignorant Siobhain McDonagh thinks C24 doesn't go far enough:

'LibDem Cable said that the property market is unaffordable to most people in the country, with price rises fuelled by buy-to-let activity and lack of supply.'

http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/next-housing-market-crash-is-around-the-corner-warns-vince-cable/

The comments under this article are quite interesting, showing how little Cable knows.

Reply to the comment left by "Chris Novice Shark Bait" at "25/02/2016 - 14:58":

Im in exactly the same position Chris. I agree with you.
If now I show say £10k profit that is erased by the accrued losses moving forward. My new tax based on the hypothetical 'income' in Clause 24 will mean say £25k tax thereby eating up the losses quicker.
I dont think for one minute these scenarios were thought out.

Yes make sure the Judicial Review team are aware of this.