Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

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

Mark,

The 'credible reason' is in the history of taxation.

Long, long ago owner-occupiers used to be taxed on 'imputed rent', that is the rent that their property would achieve if it were let to others.
Along side this was the understanding (aka GAAP) that mortgage interest was a cost in producing that imputed rent and was deductible from imputed rent before tax was calculated, JUST as in any other business. At this point there was a level playing field.

Then tax on imputed rent was removed but the mortgage-interest relief was retained (I cannot remember when, but I believe sometime in the 1950s or 1960s). This tilted the playing field in favour of owner-occupiers.

In the 1990s mortgage interest relief for owner-occupiers was removed. This levelled the playing field again.

S24 removes mortgage interest relief from calculations of taxable profits for individual landlords then gives back some relief. This tilts the playing field toward owner-occupiers (and toward corporations).

The reason that corporations are unaffected is that they have a flat-rate of tax and individuals don't, so it is a quirk of the income tax structure that makes S24 iniquitous.

Reply to the comment left by "Michael Barnes" at "18/11/2016 - 11:48":

The "quirk" wouldn't affect anyone adversely if expenses were allowed at the same rate as the tax was paid, as it is for Ltd Cos and is for every other type of business, I'd rather pay NI on my profits (like other types of business), even though I am a standard rate tax payer, than see costs taxed as income or tax on turnover.

Reply to the comment left by "adam prospect" at "17/11/2016 - 18:14":

I don’t see any denial in that waffle of the suggestion that you are in favour of S 24 so I take it as a vote for other landlords to be bankrupted.

Reply to the comment left by "S.E. Landlord" at "18/11/2016 - 11:36":

I found the post you referred to on page 917. A link would have helped:

“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.”

This, along with your repeated claim that interest should not be deductible, indicates that you are in favour of S24, and the bankruptcy of other landlords.

very interesting comments i have been reading, I hope S24 gets abolished or my business I built over the course of 10 years will be decimated.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "18/11/2016 - 18:35":

You seem like an accountant, you are very much in detail which is what we need with current government.

You're going to love the below open letter from Steve Bolton to Phillip Hammond & George Osborne.
PLEASE READ, COMMENT AND SHARE...

"An alternative Autumn Statement message for Philip Hammond, from a 'SPECIAL' friend!
And a personal letter to George Osborne to boot….

THIS ENORMOUS MISTAKE BY GEORGE OSBORNE
WILL COST THE UK GOVERNMENT BILLIONS AND
LOSE YOUR MPS MILLIONS OF VOTERS...

Dear Phil (is it OK to call you Phil? I write to you so much these days, I feel like we have a special relationship, don't you?)

Sorry about the scary headline, but I know you're a busy man with a VIP job these days (congrats again BTW!). I thought I'd better try to get your attention. What's more, the Autumn statement is less than one week away (exciting isn't it!). So you must be extra extra busy!
Rather than send you yet more messages Phil, I thought I'd send you a copy of letter I will be sending off to George Osborne. It's much more light-hearted than the ones I normally send you, so I'm hoping it'll cheer you up over the weekend. You must be so busy, I can't imagine! Anyway, here's my letter to George...

19th November 2016
George Osborne
Former Chancellor of the Exchequer
Small cupboard under the stairs in Parliament
Westminsterish
London

Dear George,

Unlike all my other messages, I've decided that we both need a bit of light relief. That's partly because it's the weekend, but also because I'm sure you've seen lots and lots of letters from landlords like me who, back in the day (IE pre summer 2015) used to be conservative voters. Oh my, doesn't time fly when you carry out a shock and awe campaign against landlords like me! Well it does for me and my landlord chums anyway!

Yet again George, I'm writing to you about my least favourite subject, YES, you guessed it (drum roll not needed)..... the TENANT TAX! AKA Section 24 of the Infamous Finance Act (number 2 - because one wasn't good enough for you) 2015!

I read two articles on the BBC news website over the last two days, which led me to write to you again.

The first article was about how local councils have spent £3.5 BILLION on housing people who would otherwise be homeless, in temporary accommodation – like B&Bs, travel lodges and even in some cases, caravan parks.

The other article was about how 900,000 more people now have to commute for a MINIMUM of two hours every day, because the cost of renting and owning property is too high and wages have not kept pace with these changes.

Serious stuff hey George!

But rather than have a go at you again, I thought I’d try to throw in a few jokes for you and my pals. So let’s get on with it….

Firstly, did you know that house prices have risen 8.4% over the last year? What's weird though, is that buy to let mortgage lending is down 24%! Not only that, but around 50% of this lending is for remortgages. So all of us evil landlords (which includes more than 30% of Conservative MPs BTW) are not the cause of house price increases. I'm mean I knew that, but you and your whipper-snapper colleagues at the Treasury don't sadly.

There's compelling evidence that buy to let is not responsible for the increase in house prices.
It makes only a marginal difference. To coin a popular political phrase from the other side of the pond: "It's the lack of supply, stupid."

I'm not calling you stupid BTW George. Other words spring to mind, but never stupid! It's far too lame.

So in summary on my first point, house price inflation is driven by lack of supply and not landlords. Who knew!

My second point is that rents are rising faster than the cost of living George. However, all rental indexes give a false impression because of two other factors you probably don't know about and/or don't care about...

FACTOR NUMBER ONE
Huge numbers of people have and are continuing to move into shared accommodation so they can pay less rent, thereby depressing the rental inflation figures.

Actual real data (yes it can be found if the Treasury would care to look in the right places for it) from SpareRoom (they help 250,000 people find rooms p/a to rent BTW) shows that the fastest growing group who are now sharing accommodation are, get this George, the OVER 40's!!!!

You can just hear the family conversations....
CHILD: "Mum, why can't we have a bedroom in our shared house that is as big as granddad’s bedroom in his shared house?"
MUM: "Well Sally, that's because Granddad is 60 and he's had a lot more time to save up and earn more money than us, so he can afford a slightly bigger bedroom in his shared house."
CHILD: "But mum, that's not fair, when I grow up, I'll never be able to afford a bedroom as big as you've got now, let alone one as big as granddads! In fact I might never even be able to afford anywhere to rent at all!"
MUM: "I know sweetheart, that's because back in 2015 a man called George Osborne decided it would be easy to blame landlords and force them out of business, instead of finding ways to build lots more houses."
CHILD: "I hate George Osborne!"
MUM: "I know darling. Everyone does."

It might be funny if it weren't true George. But because it true it is very depressing, don't you think? And I’m not referring to the bit where everyone hates you. That bit's a given!

What's next for the UK, an explosion in 'Trailer Parks' like we see all over the USA, where mobile home communities are the norm? My religious friend would say, "heaven help us".
But I'm a bit more practical, so I say "Hammond help us!" And I hope Phil will!

Let's get onto factor...
NUMBER TWO
The BBC article below tells us that 900,000 more people in the U.K. now have a daily commute of 2 hours or more, compared to 2010.

Yet more evidence that both rents and house prices are out of reach for a very fast growing number of people who have to live and rent further and further away from where they work.
This means greater costs, more stress and less family and leisure time. That's 60 eight hour working days a YEAR for 3.7 million people in the U.K. And that's more than 12% of the working population! So this applies to more than 1 in 10 people! And just think of the pressure and costs this puts on the transport infrastructure!

I bet that wasn't part of their career plans and future dreams when they were at school! I wonder how long your commute to work is George? I bet you miss those swanky cars and drivers now you've lost the top job, don't you? I doubt the single mum in the recent BBC video, who is living with her kids in a small room in temporary accommodation doesn't feel too bad for you though. By the way, her private landlord sold her flat, which is why she had to be evicted and has lost her home. But stories like this are just the tip of the iceberg, as we all know.

In the BBC article below, Frances O'Grady of the Trades Union Congress, which published the figures, called on employers to do more to prevent "excessive" journeys. Ms O'Grady blamed stagnant wages for bulging commuting times, paired with high house prices and rental costs.
I say good luck Ms O'Grady! But what she could do that is far more practical and realistic, is call on the government to stop increasing taxes to providers of rental property, which is forcing them to pass on as much of the costs as the market will bear, or selling up, thereby reducing supply.

And on this last point George, did you hear the latest wisdom coming out from your young chums at the Treasury? Last week, in a letter to one of our very hard-working and committed volunteers, Gareth Wilson, this is what they said... "Most of the costs will usually be absorbed by the landlord due to rent prices largely being set by supply and demand."

Seriously George! Did you employ the fool that wrote that letter? Have they ever spoken to a landlord? Have they ever done any real world research? Obviously not because if they did, they would realise that the VAST majority of landlords don't put up rents every year.
It’s very easy to extrapolate and manipulate data in pivot tables using Excel in an office, but guess what, the answers it keeps spitting out are very badly wrong. Real world data and experience trumps GCSE level supply and demand economics every time!

But should we expect more from the Treasury when these are some of the facts about this government department...
It is the government department with the lowest average age of all government departments.
It is dominated by junior civil servants who, on average, move jobs every two years and have no collective memory.
In one of the Treasury's own reviews of itself, it identified "youthfulness, short job tenure, high turnover, poor pay levels and lack of expertise" as some of its problems.
It appears that the best and the brightest move on and use the Treasury as a nice badge on their CV's.
And to cap it off, your mate (not!) Iain Duncan Smith (former work and pensions secretary) said...
"The Treasury is the WORST THING WE HAVE IN BRITAIN"

Let's just stop for a second.
He didn't say the worst thing in government.
He said the worst thing in BRITAIN!
If I think of the worst thing I can in Britain George, I come up with a serial killer...
And Iain thinks that the Treasury is worse than a serial killer!
What a sobering thought!!!

So, for your benefit and your very 'youthful' pals who are full of ‘youthfulness’ at the Treasury, here is the reality of the situation about rent increases. I’ve put it so simply that even a twenty-something Geography student (like the one who gave you the idea about the Tenant Tax) could understand it....

The reality is that the norm in the world of landlords is to leave rents as they are for several years for decent tenants.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

‘Prove it’ I hear you shout in your Harry Potteresque cupboard-like office under the stairs!
OK then, wrap your ears around this….

Most landlords don't want to lose good tenants by putting up the rents frequently, because time, risks and costs are at stake. However, if they do, the average tenant needs to find just over £2,000 by way of moving costs (source SpareRoom - with their 4.4 million registered users), so when rents do go up, they usually try to find a way to pay them. And if they can't, guess what they do - they go to their local council and need to be put into temporary accommodation (but more on that one again shortly)
Simples init?

The commercial reality George, is that the rent to expenses ratio worked for the landlord (and the mortgage lender) when they bought the property. And therefore there is no compelling reason or need to put up rents all the time.

Unless of course some not-so-bright spark thought it would make sense to tax landlords to oblivion and that they wouldn't put up rents or sell-up to compensate?
Really, who would implement such a dumb-ass idea????

Remember that budgetey thing we have every year George? Usually in March?
You know, the one with that old red briefcase - where you had to tense your pecs before doing a few frontal and side lat raises with the case and posing for the paparazzi? I bet your personal fitness trainer had to work with you for a few months before budget day so that you could hold that pose every year didn’t they? Go on, admit it, or I’ll have to ask your former pre-Brexit bessie-mate Dave…

Anyway, remember when you put up the costs of ‘fuel, fags and booze’ in the budget - guess what happened right afterwards....
Give that man a prize!!!
YES, the cost of, wait for it.... ‘fuel, fags and booze’ went up immediately afterwards by about the same amount!
What a shocker hey!

And yet the Treasury thinks that supply and demand controls everything and there are no other factors to consider!

Maybe, just maybe, there could be other forces at work that do actually defy the concepts taught in a GCSE economics class. People can and do pay more for fuel, fags and booze George, post budget every year. And so they will with rents. Will rents double like they did in Ireland over three years when they did their version of the Tenant Tax? Probably not - but trust me, they will rise fast over the coming months and years - to a level that will 'make tenants squeal.' One of your favourite phrases in relation to Landlords I’m led to believe?

But get this George, yet another recent gem written to us from the Teenagers at the Treasury... They told us that the Irish example was not comparable to the UK!!
For once they were right! But don't get your hopes up Georgey, the infants were correct, but for the wrong reasons! Here's why (aside from the fact they have a nicer accents than you or I, over on the Emerald Isle).

In Ireland, their Tenant Tax was called Section 23. BTW - Great to see the kids at kindergarten grasping their 1 times table and calling our one Section 24! Repeat after me "21, 22, 23 and what's next kids... yes, 24!" Gold star for George and David, sitting together at the back of the class!

The Irish version of the tax, unlike ours, was not retrospective. That's a big deal. It didn't affect anyone who owned property in the past, but ours does. And yet, even though ours is much much worse, the Irish rents went up by 50% in just 3 years.

Now that level of rent increase, even though we tracked down data that supported it, didn't pass the sniff test for me. So, being the curious and persistent chap you know I am George, I got one of my team, Charlie, to track down patient zero. I.E. the man who invented the tax in Ireland. Nice chap. His name is Peter Bacon. Author of the Bacon report. We had a good long chat on the phone. Sadly we couldn't afford to get him to work for us, but in our chat he confirmed that A) their tax was not retrospective or retroactive and B) rents did in fact increase by 50% in three years, which is why they scrapped it. It was an unforeseen unintended consequence.

Ironically, the Irish did the same experiment again in 2010 and just last month, they have decided to phase it out. Funny that theirs will be tapering down to zero, while your little baby, Section 24, will be tapering up isn't it? Your old Treasury chums forgot to mention this also in their recent letter to us. Such foolishness! Did they really think they can get that sort of thing past us unchallenged???

Have you ever seen the movie 'Alien' George? You know, the old one with Sigorney Weaver. Where those aliens implant themselves in the chests of their human hosts? They have a gestation period, before they violently explode out of their hosts lungs and smash their way out through the rib cage. Obviously they kill off the host in the process and make a right old mess. It looks rather painful too.

Well that’s how I visualize Section 24 George. You've created and planted this Alien thing called Section 24 deep inside the housing sector. And right now it's now growing and biding it's time. It's rumbling away in the chest with only a relatively small number of people like me and my mates noticing. The masses are oblivious at this stage. But my oh my! Won't they be in for a shock in 2017 and beyond!

What I have not been able to understand is why you planted a ticking alien time bomb like Section 24 but set the timer to explode with increasingly destructive powers in the years leading up to a general election?

All mortgaged landlords will hate you and the Conservatives for it when it is time to vote. Remember your fictional 1 in 5 landlords being affected, which we all know is seriously downplayed, well even taking that figure, that's still around 400,000 conservative voters that you've taxed more.

And even more foolishly George, that's around 2 million (mostly Labour-voting) tenants who will be paying more rent or have fewer places to live.

Whilst you might think Corbynski can't become PM, I wouldn’t back your track-record….
I think you might have got it wrong on Brexit?
Did you? Let me think…. Oh yes, you did didn't you! So badly in fact you lost your job!
Yes, we know that you told Dave not to let the peasants vote!
It’s frustrating when people don't listen to your opinions isn't it?
The irony of that last sentence is certainly not lost on me.
What about Trump for President George? Oops - Wrong again!

Did someone say surprises come in threes? Corbynski for PM?
Well you've increased his chances of success greatly. You know why? Well those unloving landlord bashers at Shelter and Generation Rent have done the research and consistently housing is one of the most important swing vote topics for voters, especially those pesky millennials. Don't kids grow up fast these days George? And in three years’ time, they'll be even older and lots more of them can vote.

You know what as well, they know how to use #SocialMedia. And what a game changer that is for communication. There are a lot of angry young people out there and the People’s Republic of Corbynski has shown that they know how to mobilise them.

As an aside, don’t you think old Jeremy looks a bit like Jesus? Maybe he's the messiah and it's the second coming? Not sure I fancy young Teresa Thatcher's chances against the son of God! Do you?

Remember that song “I get knocked down, but I get up again?” Well that has to be Corbynski’s theme tune from now on surely? The man is tougher than a world-championship winning conker! He kinda reminds me of one a bit too, visually I mean. I wouldn’t bet against him at this point, especially as you’ve planted an alien time-bomb designed specifically to destroy conservative voters and cost far more money than it generates.

I’ve no idea why some people referred to you as a master political strategist, I honestly don’t George.

Sometimes I watch the TV show Dragon’s Den but I nod off and start dreaming about you coming up the stairs with your little red budgety briefcase. You start your pitch to the Dragons and talk about ‘levelling the playing field’ and throw out some BS about ‘caring about first time buyers’.

And then you build up to your grand finale – you open the case and there it is, your creation called Section 24.

Peter Jones and Theo grill you on the numbers and you say that it will generate £1 billion in extra income. Their palms get sweaty and they start to salivate. You can see they are keen on your baby and you can almost touch the money.

But then it all goes horribly wrong!

Duncan ‘the miserable b’stard’ Banantyne asks you about the costs associated with generating the £1 billion? He says in his deep Scottish brawl ‘what’s the point in making £1 billion laddie, if it costs you £2 billion, you fool!”

And you are speechless.

You have totally forgotten to consider the costs and unintended consequences.

You try to rally but Banantyne knocks you out cold when he brings up the £3.5 billion spent on temporary accommodation by local councils.

Game, set and match! Osborne and Section 24 are dead and everyone is celebrating.
But then I wake up and the reality hits me hard. And I remember that Section 24 is alive and growing closer by the day. And that the £3.5 billion is a very real figure, gained via a Freedom of Information request by the BBC. And I also remember that Peterborough council spent well over £1 million last year on putting people up in Travel Lodges!

I propose that we change that age old saying from "home is where the heart is" to "home is where the number of your room is on the door and you have a shitty iron and small kettle in your wardrobe!"
or
“home is where the Travel Lodge is”.
Which do you prefer George?

Isn’t it great to know that our council tax money goes where it's needed most isn’t it? Time to buy Travel Lodge shares maybe???? Or maybe you have already and that’s your angle? Cunning boy!

Anyway, let’s get back to the £3.5 billion. Does that not count in your numbers because it doesn't come out of central government’s coffers? Or did you not know that the figure was so high George? I reckon it was the former.

Which means that, in simple terms, you knowingly robbed Peter(borough) to pay Paul!
Haha – did you see what I did there? I couldn't resist it, sorry! I do have to make myself laugh sometimes (in between the tears of despair I shed because of the devastation you've have caused).

I just have a few points left to make George and then you can get back to writing your book – “The Age of Unreason”, I think you are calling it?

Sorry but am I the only person that has told you there is massive irony in your choice of book title? Seriously? You are the man who has put forward the most ‘unreasonable’ tax policies in my lifetime and you have the front and audacity to write a book, which I imagine implies that you have the first clue about ‘reason’ and ‘reasonableness’!

Please let me know who has foolishly chosen to publish your book and I will ensure that I never buy any books that they publish ever again. And I will recommend that my friends do the same thing.

So in closing, I want to say that home is where the heart is and it should be every persons’ right to have access to a safe, warm and well-maintained home. Bad landlords should be given extremely harsh penalties. Send them to jail if needs be, to make the point that bad practices are not acceptable.

It’s not rocket science is it? In fact any decent parent figures this out pretty quickly with their kids. Let them get away doing bad things and they will keep doing them. We don’t need to set up a Quango led by Sherlock Holmes to sort this one out surely? And yet last year I was devastated to see much stronger legislation fail in Parliament, which would have acted as a strong deterrent to the small minority of bad landlords that are out there.

Name and shame them, punish them, huge fines, ban them from the sector or lock them up.
Why the majority of the media and divisive organisations like Shelter (who don’t provide one single bed space to anyone) continue to bash landlords is beyond me.

While I am on the subject of Shelter, I contacted them earlier this year, to see if we could work with them or together George. The response I got was a clear no because they told me:
“Our number one campaign goal is to promote the fact that we believe that profit from renting property should be zero or minimal.”

Sometimes I truly despair at the lack of intelligence that exists within organisations. So let’s get this straight…There are about 2 million private rented sector landlords who own millions of properties and give real ‘shelter’ to millions more tenants.

So that must mean that Shelter do not understand the concept of interest rates?
Which can (and will in coming years) make a big dent in the viability of typical buy to let property?

So Shelter, if people own property and make no profit, and then their costs rise, what do you expect them to do? Keep running at a loss?

No. Guess what, they will either increase rents as much as they can or they will sell up.
I accept that some landlords have over-leveraged but both governments and banks not only allowed this, but they encouraged it for more than a decade. We can’t turn back time so we have to deal with the reality of the legacy situation we find ourselves with now.

The new affordability measures we are now seeing are good plans but putting them forward now, in 2016?
Again, seriously?
Talk about the horse bolting? It’s been around the track ten times already and now you want to put a saddle on it. Absolutely clueless!
And the Bank of England and the PRA are driving these measures.
Too little too late and combined with the tax assault, they have not got a clue.

I spoke to the Bank of England earlier this year by the way. Nice people. But no clue about how the housing market functions. Happy to help educate anyone who wants to understand the reality and listen to sound solutions.

Me and my friends have many viable ideas – you or Phil or the BoE just need to ask.
In closing George, here is my prediction….

I am certain that your misguided policies, especially Section 24, will ultimately fail.
Our job is to accelerate that process before it causes untold damage to a housing sector that all of our supporters and I care deeply and passionately about.

I am very proud of the 5,000 shared homes that my Partners and I have created and in our own small way, we are doing what we can to try to help fix the housing crisis.

I know thousands of other landlords and they are almost all decent, hard-working, caring and professional people who don’t just do it for the money, but because they know that providing people with a good home is providing a valuable service to society. It is one of our basic human needs. And yet we get vilified daily and punished by government for providing it.
The landlords I know care about their tenants, their properties and the housing market.

You and your policies are destroying their lives and the lives of their tenants.

Life and business is tough most of the time for most people. And politicians like you who live in ivory towers and are out of touch with the real world cause untold damage.

Kids suffer, parents suffer, families suffer and people struggle to make ends meet. Housing costs are the highest costs that people have to fork out for each week and month and you have tinkered with things you that don’t understand and the impact will be felt by millions of people for decades to come.

We will keep fighting the great fight and if, as we expect, there is no good news for us in Phil’s autumn statement next Wednesday, we will be releasing the details of version 2.0 of the Axe the Tenant Tax campaign.

The phoenix is rising from the flames of the Judicial Review ashes and it is bigger and better than before. As the judge said to us in court last month…
“The government is right in law, but that does not mean that they are right economically, socially or morally.”

Never doubt George that a small group of committed individuals can’t make massive changes, because it is the only thing that ever has.

I for one will not rest until Section 24 is axed. And there is a growing army beside me, including a very fast growing number of MPs and powerful organisations.
Watch this space George.

I don’t expect or care for a reply. My aim in writing this was to raise more awareness, give some hope and humour to our supporters and maybe, just maybe, convince a few more MPs that our cause is just and to get in touch with us to show their support. After all, over 30% are likely to be affected by this personally.

And Philip Hammond – if you are listening and want to meet or chat – you can find me here info@tenanttax.co.uk

I look forward to seeing your proposed rebirth into the political arena over the coming years George. You can take assurances from me and our supporters that we will do everything in our power to make sure that you never again hold a position of power where you can cause the kind of damage and destruction that you have done over the last 12 months.

Let me end on friendly terms - good luck with the book George.
Steve Bolton
Co-Founder - Axe the Tenant Tax
Founder and Chairman - Platinum Property Partners

PS Top tip – change the title of your book or if you decide to keep the title ‘The age of unreason’ I suggest you cover the political period from July 2015 to April 2016 and focus on your taxation policies!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38026625"

Reply to the comment left by "Gareth Wilson" at "19/11/2016 - 13:57":

As Winston S Churchill said....

“This paper, by its very length, defends itself from ever being read.”

i read it !

Reply to the comment left by "Michael Barnes" at "18/11/2016 - 11:48":

Michael.

If we as a country recognise being a landlord is as running a business then all landlords of all tenures should be allowed to offset finance costs. At present that recognition is not law or tax status or even the majority view.

if we as country decide that finance costs for homes are not allowed as an off-setable cost as they are not for homeowner occupiers, then NO landlords should be able to offset their finance costs.

Under our nations current position on landlords... the only credible reason to allow any landlord to be able to offset their finance costs is because: To not allow landlords to offset their finance costs will create a chaos and havoc, the like of which we have not seen as a housing crises in this country. The havoc will be irreversible and irreparable and will manifest as homelessness and rents that are 50+% higher than now. That said rents will then properly reflect the disallowance of finance costs relief as an equal footing between tenants and owner occupiers.

The only defence to Tenant tax for a landlord is bankruptcy or to put up rents to fill the void left by the removal of finance costs relief. It is not the landlord that benefits or has benefited from the finance costs relief... is the tenant that has benefited by way of artificially low rents.

It is the government's job to set the policy and we landlords can work to change that policy / law but at present, my money is on it not being changed by landlords. If that could happen it would have happened already. It is, can and will only be changed by chaos and tenant uprisings. Fear will change this and it is between the government and the tenant as to who fears the most and who blinks first.

Step away from the emotion, history, and gut feel for a moment and image you are just a regular joe homeowner who is a PAYE employee who sees landlords as making money from something they don't get "finance costs relief on a domestic property".... Logically you would think.... why should a tenant live in a house for which they have put no capital at risk and yet that house has a mortgage and that mortgage has finance costs relief when I as a home owner also with a mortgage but with capital invested by way of deposit, can't have that same relief? Joe public must be thinking "Arn't tenants unfairly benefitting form the finance costs relief that I, an owner occupier, cant? and how is that fair?"

For me, all 4 2015 changes to landlords taxes are 100% Tenant Taxes for that reason. If the tenant wants or has to rent they can rent from me. My rent is and has always been and will continue to be, priced as a calculation of my costs plus a profit i want to make. My costs are decided by a number of things outside of my control and now it seems finance cost, price to buy, wear and tare and CGT are rising cost in my business. Thats is all that these changes are to all of us landlords as a matter of fact ......just a rising cost that we must pass on to the consumer... the tenant!

For the above reasons I have always advocated "put up your rents" and try to change the law but be realistic and accept that you may not change the law so you MUST change the rents.

Back to fear.... The fear here is between the tenant and the government where one will have to blink first! The vast majority of our nation will never like landlords. and never agree for us to have a relief they don't get. Even as i know the landlord brand must change, reality is that i do business to feed my family, not to be liked by the general public.