Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Another myth that but to let is not a business totally span by the elite let them spend a day running a fair sized portfolio and they will change there mind. Section 24 will raise no tax in the end because people who will be hit hardest mainly portfolio landlords with mortgages will simply not be able to pay it or savvy ones will incorporate and pay less anyway there is not one justification for this tax end if story

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

Do I hear the sound of nerve being detected? There is a fine line between Anti-Landlord and Landlord basher and you sit quite comfortably right in the middle in the hope that, nobody will detect your Anti-Landlord notions.

“There isn’t a credible argument as to why a landlord, incorporated or otherwise, should retain their right to offset their finance costs”

No genuine landlord or indeed a landlord who is genuinely being affected with the effects of s24 will ever make such absurd statement which will cause him a self-destruction.

Few weeks ago, you claimed that Chancellor of Exchequer namely Philip Hammond responded to your letter in writing responding to each and every point you have raised. Let me just remind you that, Mr Hammond does not operate the policy of responding to constituents in writing as a friend of mine who at attended the meeting with Mr Hammond confirmed that, the Chancellor is indeed too cagey to commit to anything other than words "May Be"

In fact Mr Hammond's opening gambit at the outset of the meeting was "I like would to add that the views expressed in this meeting are informal and do not prejudice any decision government may make on any of future taxations"

Therefore your assertions that, he written directly to you responding each and every point with his signature are well and truly flawed. Anyone who believes that, you are a genuine Landlord or a Landlord who has been genuinely affected with the effect of s24 is indeed gullible.

I do not think anyone who is a genuine Landlord will be gullible enough to fall for your BS otherwise we would not have become Landlords in a first place.

I'd ask both NW and Appalled to reread fully my last post and if quoting it please do so in context and completely. As to pick parts you like is not to usefully quote what i have said.

I do apologise and appreciate that sometime what is said, is not what his heard. But my post is not provocative, or at least is not intended to be so - It is a sound post. Please read it again, pause and digest. it says that we can do what we want as a country just do whatever it is, being fully aware of the consequences...

Don't think i am saying I agree with the any of the Tenant Taxes, I don't ! I have said from the outset that we have 3 options as operating landlords. Incorporate and hope that incorporated landlords are not next, Go broke or put up rents. I, like many I guess, had a few months of sleepless nights and then realised that I could not worry my out of this fix and I could not incorporate my way out of this fix either. And so my epiphany and inner peace came in realising and accepting that i had to trade my way out and that meant put up rents to collect the Tenant Taxes.

be assured I am of course doing what i can to undo the legislation. My MP gets regular emails form me as does the Chancellor.... BUT.....I recall .....God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

Wisdom says being sad or moaning about Tenant Tax will make you ill.....Only when a treasury created anarchy is imminent or when the masses rise up will Tenants Taxes be undone.

Reply to the comment left by "Markb " at "17/11/2016 - 10:20":

There is no point in quoting your whole post when I have no comments on the rest of it.

Your suggestion that we have misunderstood - “sometime what is said, is not what his heard.” - is nonsense. We are dealing with the written word.

I quoted the entire offending sentence, but split it into two parts for comment.

I gave you a credible reason - GAAP - which apply to both individuals and companies, and asked you why you think that they should stop applying to individual landlords.

You have not replied to that question, yet you claim the post was sound. Just like a politician.

Reply to the comment left by "NW Landlord" at "17/11/2016 - 08:58":

The report clearly shows that the reason for fewer lots being sold is that fewer were offered for sale.

Reply to the comment left by "S.E. Landlord" at "17/11/2016 - 08:58":

“If a business is funded by share capital tax is paid before profits are distributed, why should funding via loans be treated differently?”

They are not treated differently. In both cases interest is deducted from receipts in calculating the profit, which is then taxed.

“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”

This is terribly confused. Dividends are a discretionary disposition of after-tax profit. Loan interest is a cost which is deducted from receipts in calculating pre-tax profit. They are completely different.

Dividends are paid to the owners of the company. Interest is paid to the lender.

I have never heard of the concept that dividends should be paid to the owners out of pre-tax profit. What exactly is the argument that you claim there is for this?

“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.”

This implies that borrowers should only be encouraged to buy assets that will depreciate. What is the argument for this?

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "17/11/2016 - 10:44":

what I said was

“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."

you chose to hear or chose to use just some of my words / sentence. You chose to use some of what you perceived as offending...

You say that I said:
“There isn’t a credible argument as to why a landlord, incorporated or otherwise, should retain their right to offset their finance costs”

Like SE Landlord…. do i agree with Tenant Tax - No! Do i understand the reasoning - Yes. Further, Do I agree with the reasoning - No. Is Tenant Tax in any way fair to tenants or is it right to change the game mid way through - No!

When we take the emotion out of it and look objectively at it; As a landlord, Tenant Tax is just an increase in workload and cost to collect Taxes for the Government - Like VAT if you like. It is for us landlords, just an increase cost that we must deal with by increasing rents / collecting the tax. If a landlord can afford to incorporate then do so I guess, but home owners / occupiers generally go not get the mortgage interest relief and so as I say “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.”

If like me we believe that being a landlord is a business and we should be able to trade as sole trader landlords and claim finance costs like other business do, then we need to have the law changed. As it stands, even if we don’t like it and argue against it, HMRC that say buying property is investment activity not business activity (forgive me if my wording is slightly wrong) the principal is however that changing BTL form investment to business activity will come though law change not moaning or being spiteful to me.

Do I think Tenant Taxes will kill the PRS ….NO not at all! Will it create homeless and a race to the bottom - Yes. Do I think private rented sector small landlords are a huge part of the answer to the nations housing problem - yes! Yes Yes! Do I think private landlords willing to put their money at risk for housing should get free food and cars and praise and MBAs for their future investment in property….. Hell yea! Do I think the BOE has a role to play as a handbrake in housing NO! The BOE and Carney should back the **** off!

Do I like being misquoted - I don’t really care at all as I know what I said and it is there for you if you chose to read it.

The word 'Twaddle' springs to mind

Reply to the comment left by "Markb " at "17/11/2016 - 11:26":

I did not misquote you. I commented on the second part of the offending sentence separately for clarity because there was a separate rebuttal for each part.

The sophistry of Osborne’s comparison of our interest deduction with the absence of MIRAS for owner-occupiers was exposed as nonsense shortly after the Budget statement in July last year. It comes as a surprise to read that someone who claims to be affected by S 24 is propagating this nonsense now.

The deduction of our interest is a GAAP. Again you have failed to say why you think GAAP should no longer apply to individual landlords.

You seem to be trying to undermine the whole basis of our campaign by repeating the sentence without attempting to justify it. I wonder what your motive is.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "17/11/2016 - 12:06":

AL his whole motive is to decimate individual landlords who he thinks should get dissolved with the effects of s24. Yet he fails to plead his own written assertions. True example of "sophistry"