Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by "Simon Hall" at "16/11/2016 - 21:58":

Simon. I could not disagree with you more. Not only should politicians have a fundamental role to play in the housing market. I would argue it is their raison d'être. The first obligation is to the Nations Security the second is to facilitating the ability of civilisation to live & exist in the nation. Where they have no role as in international trade affairs or genetically engineering housing tenure types. The Bank of England are the least well placed organisation in the country, to in anyway influence or shape the private rented sector. Their obligations are fiscal where as a government's obligations are social. Were I prime minister I would decree that we will build X number of houses & will create Y number if homes. I would challenge every MP in the house the fund that programme, I would defy local authorities to tamper or hinder with my Planning objectives and I would make it mandatory that the Bank of England's governor create and maintain a stable fundamental economic platform for my housing agenda to succeed - at the expense of much else if needs be. If you start from worrying about whether housing will work rather than understanding you don't get to keep your job unless it works, you will get regulatory stalemate rather than progressive housing growth.

It cannot be beyond the wit of man to set a vision for the future of our country's housing, whereby, it would be political suicide or social sacrilege to try to undo it or not to fully engage in the Nation's first & fundamental objective of Citizenship - to house our nation.

There isn't a credible argument as to why a landlord, incorporated or otherwise, should retain their right to offset their finance costs when no other home is financed that way. However what we need to FULLY understand is that when you increase the landlord's cost, you increase the rent. The fundamental problem here is that the government seems to assume that landlords have bottomless pockets from which to pay a set of political unproductive taxes.

I don't fundamentally have a problem with the removal of finance cost relief providing as a country we understand that will make renting vastly more expensive & absent a corrective plan, will create massive homelessness. I question whether it is good governance to seek to gather in a few extra pounds at the Treasury at the expense of the least able to pay.

In a capitalist system where a housing objective is clear and understood I would argue you would incentivise those in society that are not risk averse and have a proven penchant for investment in housing to double their efforts! I would give people willing to invest in housing free cars and free food and free schooling and a knighthood and an MBA at al in return for them risking their wealth to provide housing for others.

The BOE need to back the **** off!

Reply to the comment left by "Markb " at "16/11/2016 - 22:47":

Hi Markb

You claim that “There isn’t a credible argument as to why a landlord, incorporated or otherwise, should retain their right to offset their finance costs” ? Why do you think that Generally Accepted Accounting Principles should stop applying to individual landlords?

As the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales stated:
“It is a long established principle of taxation that expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business are deductible when calculating the taxable profit.”
“Denying a business tax relief on expenses wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business is not fair and reasonable.’
‘We can think of no other business where the cost of funding the capital of the business is
not tax allowable.’
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmpublic/finance/memo/fb80c.pdf

If “when no other home is financed that way” refers to owner-occupiers, you have fallen for Osborne’s false comparison. Owner-occupiers are not running a business that generates taxable profits.

If you are a landlord who will be affected by S 24, please do not undermine the rest of us by regurgitating Osborne’s sophistry.

Mark can you explain to me the reasons why you agree with not being able to off set finance costs please ? Bearing in mind every business is allowed to off set them and would't be able to thrive and grow otherwise would be Interested in your rationale behind this.

I also hate the term 'relief ' is is misleading and wrong my 100k per year is a COST to fund my portfolio and allowed me to continue to build my portfolio and how it is a cost to the taxpayer irritates me to the core has the taxpayer paid my mortgages for the last 14 years ? And the government get there slice from the lender. It is costing the tax payer zero and I am actually saving local councils money by providing high quatlity housing to people who will never own a home and the council cannot house. Mark you are way off the mark and I sense that you are writing to provoke a reaction as there is no justification for taxing business costs end of story

It's now hitting the auction houses all to predictable

https://www.propertyinvestortoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2016/11/fewer-properties-sold-under-the-hammer-as-market-continues-to-cool

If a business is funded by share capital tax is paid before profits are distributed, why should funding via loans be treated differently? There is an argument that both should be treated in the same way, so either dividends are paid from gross profit or loan interest should not be tax deductible. There is a further argument that tax relief should not be allowed on a loan on an appreciating asset as it can be considered an investment.

So you agree with section 24 then ?

Reply to the comment left by "NW Landlord" at "17/11/2016 - 09:01":

I cannot see why the tax treatment of funding of share capital should be different to the tax treatment of loans.

You didn't answer my question ? Buy to let is a business but shares are not involved so u can't compare, every other business which are not floated are allowed finance costs as expenses I don't really understand the taxing of companies on the stock market but I don't see how u can compare when buy to let businesses in the main are privately owned let's agree to disagree but could u answer my question do u agree with s24 ?

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "17/11/2016 - 00:48":

AL I concur with everything you have stated.

Reply to the comment left by "NW Landlord" at "17/11/2016 - 09:32":

Do I agree with something that increases cost, no. Do I understand why it has been introduced, yes.

In many areas BTL is an investment for capital growth with a very low yield, add mortgage interest being treated as an expense it produces very little tax on the rental income, on that basis I can appreciate why it should be treated as an investment and not a business.