Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
The Masked Tulip

Landlord Zone Forums And Possible 40% Cgt

Recommended Posts

Hang about.

Have I missed something? Aren't BTL/Landlordism a business anyway, and therefore will be exempt from this CGT change??

No residential property would not be exempt as generally not considered business asset.

If its held by a company the company suffers CT at 28% AND gets benefit of indexation though. Then need to take money out of company and get hit income tax on dividends.... can sell the shares though with only 0.5% stamp duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the hell do you manage to end up with a portfolio that has halved in value over the last 2 years? I mean prices have dropped but you couldn't do that if you tried! Did he set fire to his portfolio or something? Even if he did buy 10 years ago it sounds like he soon won't have any capital gains to pay tax on anyway.

He must have leveraged it. He used his inheritance for deposits, and mortgaged the rest. I am sure he thought he was "investing", but in effect he borrowed to gamble that properties would go up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They assume everyone else is as morally bankrupt as they are to see no problem with sitting on dozens of empty properties while the values go up.

... and no problem with someone like my OH having to pay 40% tax for working 70 hours a week, whilst they get to pay 18% on money they 'earn' whilst doing the best part of FA. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He must have leveraged it. He used his inheritance for deposits, and mortgaged the rest. I am sure he thought he was "investing", but in effect he borrowed to gamble that properties would go up.

And I wonder who they will blame when they are all repossesed?

Seriously, how our previous Government allowed such greed and speculation to go ahead unchecked is a crime. Investing in something productive is one thing, borrowing to invest in housing should never have been allowed it was always going to end in tears and I am afraid the sympathy will be lacking not just among the regulars here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and no problem with someone like my OH having to pay 40% tax for working 70 hours a week, whilst they get to pay 18% on money they 'earn' whilst doing the best part of FA. :angry:

+ 1

Very well put mitchbux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I wonder who they will blame when they are all repossesed?

Seriously, how our previous Government allowed such greed and speculation to go ahead unchecked is a crime. Investing in something productive is one thing, borrowing to invest in housing should never have been allowed it was always going to end in tears and I am afraid the sympathy will be lacking not just among the regulars here.

I do get the impression that they are no so keen to blame themselves and greed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

done - MP emailed and CGT praised, on the proviso that it WOULD be on buy to let properties as it doesn't appear to have been set in stone that they won't be exempt?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He must have leveraged it. He used his inheritance for deposits, and mortgaged the rest. I am sure he thought he was "investing", but in effect he borrowed to gamble that properties would go up.

That's probably it. However I thought that when people talked about the "value of their portfolio" they conveniently left out the debt associated with it. It seems like he's saying the value of all the property he owns has halved over the last two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and no problem with someone like my OH having to pay 40% tax for working 70 hours a week, whilst they get to pay 18% on money they 'earn' whilst doing the best part of FA. :angry:

To be fair to the system as it is he doesn't pay 40% on all of it does he? And whilst I am sure he is as hard working as anyone the 70 hours has nothing to do with the tax levels.

You are right though it is immoral to earn so much for so little labour..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I wonder who they will blame when they are all repossesed?

Seriously, how our previous Government allowed such greed and speculation to go ahead unchecked is a crime. Investing in something productive is one thing, borrowing to invest in housing should never have been allowed it was always going to end in tears and I am afraid the sympathy will be lacking not just among the regulars here.

As much as I detest the last Labour government of 13 years, BTL was introduced in the last years of the Conservative government (mid 90's). Admittedly, Labour could have scrapped it still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to the system as it is he doesn't pay 40% on all of it does he? And whilst I am sure he is as hard working as anyone the 70 hours has nothing to do with the tax levels.

And still remaining entirely fair to the system - It is taxing people for creating wealth at a higher rate than it taxes those who transfer it using monopoly. A system which makes no economic sense at all and destroys productive incentive.

You are right though it is immoral to earn so much for so little labour..

It isn't the amount of labour, it is fact that the owner didn't earn (create) it with his actions no matter how easy they were.

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the rush to sell?

Surely they didn't buy them simply to sell them later?

Why not just rent them out and continue to make $MILLIONS?

It's not that they were speculating with spare money was it?

Ha...I wonder how 'time to raise the rents' is doing....lower prices=lower yields=lower rents......should off-set some of this coming onslaught austerity. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about not robbing from the enterprising. I started with nothing like any other working class person. Now I own a few properties due to wise investment.

That doesn't make me rich.

Bought them tatty & cheap & did them up. The so called 'poor' could do exactly the same any time if they choose, unless they have some genuine disability.

like someone else coming along and hoovering up all the houses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of them claims to be enterprising simply for managing to grab control of some assets? I can't even stand to use the word "investing" for them. You can invest in a building firm that actually builds houses, that's the sort of thing I always thought "investment" was supposed to be about. Perhaps that's why I'm not rich (or perhaps it's why I'm not in debt).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies if this is where this thread started - but just seen this on another forum:

“Someone who owns various houses through a property company showed me an email he has received from them. They are asking for clients who are willing to be interviewed by the Daily Mail about their concerns over the proposed rise in Capital Gains Tax. They are particularly interested in finding a lady who has one property that she hopes to sell in order to fund her pension.

So there you go- a heart rending tale of a middle aged woman who is worried about her pension- next week’s news today.”

http://fountain.blogspot.com/2010/05/inside-sausage-factory.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is (should be) a big difference between an investment that profits because it aids in the creation of wealth (a productive investment) and an 'investment' which profits because it simply corals / encloses / transfers wealth out of other people's hands. One type of investment is economically helpful and reduces scarcity while the other simply inflicts costs. With the present tax system, most of the profits made in real estate are due to corralling / transferring wealth rather than adding anything. It's very destructive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are making a profit on our BTLs of £190K a year, so unless interest rates go up to 15% or something, we are not planning to sell any! I hope interest rates stay low for another couple of years, because by then we'll have paid off so much of the mortgages that we won't care so much what happens after that.

You only have to pay CGT on the actual profit, so if people have lost money due to prices falling, they won't have any CGT to pay, will they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how the landlord scumster quoted in the OP gasps about what taxing idle speculators might do for the housing shortage. What's he going to do - torch his 'portfolio'?

If a mass sell off forces down property prices that'll just mean more people can afford a home and the ConDems can boast about how much they did for FTBS and home ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, big if, this 40% CGT comes I expect to see sellers and EAs across the land raise the asking prices by ludicrous levels - more ludicrous than now - in an attempt to maintain their greed... I mean, profit.

I also expect the BBC to glibly report it as a done deal that house prices are shooting up 40% per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the rush to sell?

Surely they didn't buy them simply to sell them later?

Why not just rent them out and continue to make $MILLIONS?

It's not that they were speculating with spare money was it?

But of course. If they are real landlords, not the so-called 'investment landlords' (as the Wilsons describe themselves), then they would want to continue letting as a remunerative service to tenants. And such 'real' LLs are alright in my book, like my own landlord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But of course. If they are real landlords, not the so-called 'investment landlords' (as the Wilsons describe themselves), then they would want to continue letting as a remunerative service to tenants. And such 'real' LLs are alright in my book, like my own landlord.

You are easily pleased

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I detest the last Labour government of 13 years, BTL was introduced in the last years of the Conservative government (mid 90's). Admittedly, Labour could have scrapped it still.

Yes, sorry oversight on my part. But you would have thought that after 13 years a 'Socialist' government might have actually got around to adopting some socialist policies to help the working people. Building a few council houses and reforming the tennency laws would have been the minimum I would have expected rather tahn throwing their weight behind a potentially flawed Tory policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.