[timebandit]

Thanks to 'Priced out' on Twitter for the story. Don't you just love this cr*p

Budget 2012: Government to offer tax breaks on property deals to draw money into buy-to-let sector

Quote

George Osborne, the Chancellor, is expected to confirm in the Budget this week that the Government will significantly loosen the regulations for Real Estate Investment Trusts, which do not pay capital gains tax on property.

You could try and send Grant a message on his twitter page.

[Pent Up]

I've already forwarded your tweet. Not that it will do any good I'm afraid.

[jonb]

timebandit, on 18 March 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Thanks to 'Priced out' on Twitter for the story. Don't you just love this cr*p

Budget 2012: Government to offer tax breaks on property deals to draw money into buy-to-let sector




You could try and send Grant a message on his twitter page.

It just puts them on a level playing field with small landlords in terms of tax. Personally, I would rather rent from a professionally run REIT than an individual with one or two properties like we have at the moment.

[timebandit]

Pent Up, on 18 March 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

I've already forwarded your tweet. Not that it will do any good I'm afraid.

Thank you Pent up, it's good to see you on twitter, we could do with a few more HPCers.

[porca misèria]

Bringing REITs into residential property could actually make a lot of sense. A big company will employ professionals to run their properties, and can be better regulated than $random-wannabe. It has no excuse to want a tenant out under a section 21 or similar, so REITs as landlords would have no problem with losing section 21 and having to give much longer notice - e.g. a full year - to get tenants out. In other words, it offers the prospect of professionally-run tenancies with much more security.

That's the optimistic view. No guarantees it'll work out like that!

Oh, and since REITs are publicly listed companies, we're all free to buy their shares and thus buy into property ownership. So wecan get that foot on the property ladder without binding ourselves to a house when, for example, we anticipate moving.

[24gray24]

Why should rich landlords be exempt from tax?

It should be a higher rate than working for a living, not less.

[richc]

timebandit, on 18 March 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Thanks to 'Priced out' on Twitter for the story. Don't you just love this cr*p

Budget 2012: Government to offer tax breaks on property deals to draw money into buy-to-let sector




You could try and send Grant a message on his twitter page.

Half of the problem with BTL is that the landlords are all amateur morons (or at least the ones I've had contact with). REITs in the US have created a much more professional, stable rental sector where rents are lower and security of tenure is higher. This move, if true, would help a lot in the UK.

This post has been edited by RichC: 18 March 2012 - 10:09 PM

[richc]

24gray24, on 18 March 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

Why should rich landlords be exempt from tax?

It should be a higher rate than working for a living, not less.

REITs are not exempt from tax. In the US at least, the structure removes the double taxation of having the income taxed first as corporate tax and then again as ordinary income to the owners of the shares in the REIT. Without the REIT structure, it makes very little sense for professional organizations to become residential landlords.

[markyh]

timebandit, on 18 March 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Thanks to 'Priced out' on Twitter for the story. Don't you just love this cr*p

Budget 2012: Government to offer tax breaks on property deals to draw money into buy-to-let sector




You could try and send Grant a message on his twitter page.

This is no good. What they need to do is what labour planned to do around 2005 and let individuals hold residential property in their SIPP. Have made some nice gains in my SIPP on shares / gold in the last 2 years and it would be great if 2 bed houses in nice areas dropped back to £100k mark and I could buy one for cash with the money in my SIPP then rent it out for £500+ a month, adding the rental profit back into the SIPP.

There are probably 1000's of personal pension holders in their mid 40's with pots around £100k+ who would love nothing more than to transfer them to a SIPP and buy a house for cash within it it prices dropped enough?

M

[AndyAndy]

markyh, on 18 March 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

This is no good. What they need to do is what labour planned to do around 2005 and let individuals hold residential property in their SIPP. Have made some nice gains in my SIPP on shares / gold in the last 2 years and it would be great if 2 bed houses in nice areas dropped back to £100k mark and I could buy one for cash with the money in my SIPP then rent it out for £500+ a month, adding the rental profit back into the SIPP.

There are probably 1000's of personal pension holders in their mid 40's with pots around £100k+ who would love nothing more than to transfer them to a SIPP and buy a house for cash within it it prices dropped enough?

M

It is widely accepted in most countries that making residential property investment work economically for corporate investors raises the availability and quality of rented housing stock creating a stable high quality rental market that can compete with home ownership rather than being a poor relation. The economics of residential property investment sit poorly with the UK corporation tax system. REITs do not ultimately give a tax break to companies over private investors. They do put corporates on a level playing field with private individal investment in rented property. Its a good thing and should be applauded. I understand all parties would adopt residential REIT rules - the original commercial REIT rules were insufficient to enable residential REITs to be viable and so are being amended.

I would not want to rent off an individual long term - its too unstable - what if you get run over - what happens to my idea of living in the house for a few years then. I would consider renting from a large investment company that is not reliant in the whims (or indeed road safety) of one individual.

[porca misèria]

markyh, on 18 March 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

This is no good. What they need to do is what labour planned to do around 2005 and let individuals hold residential property in their SIPP.

For me personally, that would be a huge advantage, as I have enough in my SIPP to buy quite a nice house, tax free.

At a time of bubble, as in 2005, it would've been disastrous, as it would've poured in a tsunami of new money, pushing house prices up and starving the productive economy of investment.

Right now it would be less catastrophic than in 2005, but still very dangerous, and for the same reasons.

Much safer just to buy shares in a REIT in your SIPP. I expect I'll buy some myself some at some point.

[(Blizzard)]

AndyAndy, on 18 March 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

It is widely accepted in most countries...

..but wrong. The economy cannot ever be efficient until landlords pay for the services they receive.


The conservative party, party of business enterprise work families rent seeking.

This post has been edited by (Blizzard): 18 March 2012 - 11:11 PM

[AndyAndy]

markyh, on 18 March 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

This is no good. What they need to do is what labour planned to do around 2005 and let individuals hold residential property in their SIPP. Have made some nice gains in my SIPP on shares / gold in the last 2 years and it would be great if 2 bed houses in nice areas dropped back to £100k mark and I could buy one for cash with the money in my SIPP then rent it out for £500+ a month, adding the rental profit back into the SIPP.

There are probably 1000's of personal pension holders in their mid 40's with pots around £100k+ who would love nothing more than to transfer them to a SIPP and buy a house for cash within it it prices dropped enough?

M

PS If you want to invest in residential property your SIPP can invest in a REIT - you spread your property portfolio risk around a large number of houses.rather than getting lucky or unlucky with just one.

[AndyAndy]

(Blizzard), on 18 March 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

..but wrong. The economy cannot ever be efficient until landlords pay for the services they receive.


The conservative party, party of business enterprise work families rent seeking.

I'm sorry if you are going to reply to me you are going to have to put up some sort of properly constructed reasoned argument. Not some random sentance and what appears to be a dig at the conservatives; although in itself your second paragraph is so obtuse as to render it useless. I'm a floating voter by the way.

[markyh]

AndyAndy, on 18 March 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

I would not want to rent off an individual long term - its too unstable - what if you get run over - what happens to my idea of living in the house for a few years then. I would consider renting from a large investment company that is not reliant in the whims (or indeed road safety) of one individual.

Thinking about it If they allowed Residential property into a SIPP I could use the six figure funds locked in my SIPP to clear the mortgage on our family home and then the family can live mortgage free and I could put the vAlue of the monthly interest and capitial payments into the SIPP to invest in equities rather than give the interest to a bank.

That would be cool, having your family home in the SIPP, as long as you where sorted and didn't need to move! I wonder how many overstreatched peak buyers actually have enough pension savings to clear their mortgage, stop being repossed and secure their family home if this was allowed?

M