Wednesday, May 28, 2008
BTL = Buy To Leave?
Contractor UK: Buy-to-let investors could be fined
Opps. Looks like MPs have taken a dislike to the BTL market as well.
Posted by dude @ 04:11 PM (1162 views) Add Comment
16 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. Rental John said...
While I am not a big fan of BTL'ers - surely it is their investment, their property, if they do not wish to rent it out that is their loss but also their choice. What will identify a vacant BTL property to the local council? Will owners have to declare if they are BTL'ers and their property is vacant? Sounds a minefield to me.
What is the BTL'er is an MP - whoops.
What a load of bull excrament!
2. Dbc Reed said...
They might take the next step and punish people who buy land and then don't build on it while they watch it appreciate in value for zero effort on their part. Land Value Tax would do the trick.
3. mken said...
Hardly a minefield
Properties are taxed at their rental value
regardless of occupancy in many European countries.
This keeps the properties in better condition
and discourages speculation and over building and
keeps rents down.
4. uncle tom said...
Empty properties create social problems; at best, overgrown gardens, at worst, drug squats.
My solution is simple - any property that is either a) not someone's primary residence, or b) in a state of neglect, for a period exceeding 6 months, should be subject to 200% council tax (or alternatively, deemed to be a business investment and subject to a special business rate at a punitive level)
5. dude said...
@uncle tom
What a cool idea. That'll get rid of many second homes as well. Winner!
Uncle Tom for Parliament -- you'll get my vote. :-)
6. letthemfall said...
This is a clear case of the social good outweighing the freedom of the speculator to make money while contributing nothing of value to the economy. The obvious way to deal with this is through the tax system, the misapplication of which to housing has caused many of the problems we have seen in the last 40 years.
7. it_is_going_with_a_bang said...
Currently I believe there is a 6 month window when council tax doesnt need to be collected if a property is empty in any 1 year.
That should be abolished immediately.
8. scandinavian pessimist said...
To be honest I dont think punitive measures are necessary (although I certainly don't oppose them...) since buy-to-leave only makes sense when house prices go up anyway.
9. montesquieu said...
Cry-to-let?
10. Orwell said...
Maybe a simple return to more secure occupancy than 6 months? The Rent Act 1977 was actually a professionally drafted and competent piece of legislation after the film 'Cathy Come Home' prompted it.
Should a tenant be paying rent for longer than a short introductory period then they should get the right to stay and have protected tenure. Simple. This would also appeal to the left of the Labour party and those renting. What a political win to bring such in....
Oh and by the way it was never impossible to remove a secure tenant as the scaremongers and rightwingers would have it. It could always be resolved tha tthe tenant would leave for a settlement fee.
11. bilko said...
Typical politicians trying to treat the symptoms and never the cause. If a tax had been applied to the purchase of second homes in the first place it would've helped to stop speculators from entering the market. But then most of the Labour Party, Tory Party and all their cronies wouldn't have implemented something that would affect themselves.
12. Eastleighfan said...
Having a dwelling lie empty ,when there are homeless people in this country , is on a par with holding food supplies while people are starving .
I like "Miken"s idea of taxing a property at it's rental value , whether it be occupied or not .
Anything that puts the skids under private landlords , and helps housing become cheaer has to be a good idea !!!
13. bidin'matime said...
You’ve got to smile, though, haven’t you – just as the market is telling ‘investors’ that the only way they are going to see a return is to let their properties, the Government wastes public time and money debating how to make them do just that. If they had done this five years ago, when it was needed, then I’d have backed it, but now is just too late and pointless.
14. titaniccaptain said...
As Rental john said
15. mark wadsworth said...
What you are all alluding to, whether you realise it or not, is Land Value Tax.
16. Seenitallbefore said...
mken
I would have thought that a tax based on the property's rental value would in some caese encourage the landlord NOT to maintain the property as the better condition it is the more tax he will have to pay.
Also the more tax he has to pay the more rent he will charge to cover his costs
If it discourages over building then this too will increase rents
so I dont believe your analysis