Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
crash2006

Should Landlords/ Property Owners Be Forced To Pay Council Tax

Recommended Posts

should landlords/ property owners be forced to pay council tax

Not this idiocity again, if you increase the costs to the supplier almost all of the time they will pass such costs onto the consumer. Thus you force the LL to pay council taxes? Boom rent goes up £1200 or whatever it happens to be EVERYWHERE meaning there is no real difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it, if you own a property regardless of whether you rent it, don't you have to be pay council tax? Honestly someone set me straight because I think I might need to be getting some council tax back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not this idiocity again, if you increase the costs to the supplier almost all of the time they will pass such costs onto the consumer. Thus you force the LL to pay council taxes? Boom rent goes up £1200 or whatever it happens to be EVERYWHERE meaning there is no real difference.

They can only put up the rent so much, it'll force rents house prices to drop as demand drops for rented homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not this idiocity again, if you increase the costs to the supplier almost all of the time they will pass such costs onto the consumer. Thus you force the LL to pay council taxes? Boom rent goes up £1200 or whatever it happens to be EVERYWHERE meaning there is no real difference.

I agree, and what would happen to the single person discount?

Singletons may end up paying more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it, if you own a property regardless of whether you rent it, don't you have to be pay council tax? Honestly someone set me straight because I think I might need to be getting some council tax back.

The person living in the property has to, you can owe it yet the person ie sister etc.. living in it pays the CC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, and what would happen to the single person discount?

Singletons may end up paying more?

Prices would drop in the long term, as the demand drops, everyone would be better of, the landlord can't only pass on so much of the tax the rest would be paid paid by landlord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont think it would reduce rents, but surely having the payment roll over immediately and come from the same person would make things easier from a logistical POV.

Probably why they dont do it. More non-jobs for public sector dossers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

void periods and the like would mean that rentals would increase by CT + %age of void average for the property in question.

therefore in a lot of cases the 'passed on' amount would in fact be more than the CT that the tenant would've been charged.

you may be right in that demand would drop, but then you'd have to assume there are other options (like buying :huh: ), housesharing or packing it all in and letting nanny take care of you. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can only put up the rent so much, it'll force rents house prices to drop as demand drops for rented homes.

But council tax is applied to ALL rental properties, therefore if you move somewhere else you still have to pay it. Therefore rents will go up across the board to cover the council tax. Its like VAT, if it wasn't forced and applied to everybody then we might see rents fall.

You also have to think of other options.... i.e. those who are renting now not everybody has an alternative option. Like buying or moving back to their parents. So the rolling over of costs to another party mean they get charged more across the board and are thus worse off.

Edited by ken_ichikawa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The value of a property wouldn't be nearly as high if it wasn't for the provision of roads, pavements, street lights, policing, fire service, refuse collection, etc., etc.. It's only reasonable that the beneficiary of that enhanced property value should pay a share of the cost of those services. Afterall, typically 80% of all Local Authority spending is funded from general taxation. Council Tax only raises around 20%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...if you increase the costs to the supplier almost all of the time they will pass such costs onto the consumer. Thus you force the LL to pay council taxes? Boom rent goes up £1200 or whatever it happens to be EVERYWHERE meaning there is no real difference.

Back in 1990 when rates were replaced by the Poll Tax, my supplier of accommodation didn't pass that reduction in costs onto me.

Edited by CrashConnoisseur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But council tax is applied to ALL rental properties, therefore if you move somewhere else you still have to pay it. Therefore rents will go up across the board to cover the council tax. Its like VAT, if it wasn't forced and applied to everybody then we might see rents fall.

You also have to think of other options.... i.e. those who are renting now not everybody has an alternative option. Like buying or moving back to their parents. So the rolling over of costs to another party mean they get charged more across the board and are thus worse off.

Rents will only go up by a bit if that, landlords that only rent HB would be hit, its almost the same as land tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for it, 2nd homes should incur an expense. It forces people to lower rents, as they need to cover the council tax and attract tenants that bit more quickly. It also is a deterrent against multiple home ownership, it benefits the people whom own one home.

Ideally the first home should attract a reduced rate of council tax, and 2nd, 3rd, 4th homes, higher rates. Large landlords should contribute to the communities they extract rent from. If the homes are empty and they contribute to the local amenities regardless they have incentive to lower rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for it, 2nd homes should incur an expense. It forces people to lower rents, as they need to cover the council tax and attract tenants that bit more quickly. It also is a deterrent against multiple home ownership, it benefits the people whom own one home.

Ideally the first home should attract a reduced rate of council tax, and 2nd, 3rd, 4th homes, higher rates. Large landlords should contribute to the communities they extract rent from. If the homes are empty and they contribute to the local amenities regardless they have incentive to lower rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rents will only go up by a bit if that, landlords that only rent HB would be hit, its almost the same as land tax.

hmmm i see what you are getting at here, scummer landlords with scummer tennants take the ct hit instead of the taxpayer.

tbf i voted yes and no, and looking at it now i still think the same but it'd be yes(ll's should pay), no it won't reduce rental prices (private ll's will up their rents), but it will reduce hp's (hb ll's will moan and moan before being forced to sell).

Edited by bendybogle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for it, 2nd homes should incur an expense. It forces people to lower rents, as they need to cover the council tax and attract tenants that bit more quickly. It also is a deterrent against multiple home ownership, it benefits the people whom own one home.

I'm sorry but did the VAT increase lower prices?

It won't as said the additional cost will just be passed on and those without the option for an alternative will just have to pay up the additional amount. The only difference is how many hands it has to pass through first. The pound of flesh still needs to be paid for.

I.e. if you rent is say £5000 a year. You now pay £5000 rent and £1500 council tax £6500... yeah? So the landlord has to pay the council tax..... so your rent goes up to £6500 and your council tax goes to £0. you are no better off.

Since this is an extra cost applied accross the board ALL landlords will pass on the costs. Much like corporates pass on corporation tax costs. AND also LLs are often leveraged so badly they can't charge less than X amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but did the VAT increase lower prices?

It won't as said the additional cost will just be passed on and those without the option for an alternative will just have to pay up the additional amount. The only difference is how many hands it has to pass through first. The pound of flesh still needs to be paid for.

I.e. if you rent is say £5000 a year. You now pay £5000 rent and £1500 council tax £6500... yeah? So the landlord has to pay the council tax..... so your rent goes up to £6500 and your council tax goes to £0. you are no better off.

Since this is an extra cost applied accross the board ALL landlords will pass on the costs. Much like corporates pass on corporation tax costs. AND also LLs are often leveraged so badly they can't charge less than X amount.

They can only pass part of the costs, once its passes the affordable line people will not beable to rent and prices will drop, it would force BTL owners to leave the market as the profits would be lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can only pass part of the costs, once its passes the affordable line people will not be able to rent and prices will drop, it would force BTL owners to leave the market as the profits would be lower.

Unless they demand higher wages which causes inflation, sort of like the 1970s and 1990s.

But this won't happen there is no worker bargaining power.

You also forget one massive problem, the printing press. The government have shown they are perfectly willing to torch the prudent. Who says they won't do it again to bail out the foolish BTLers again and again?

And anyway before the tenant was paying £6500 after he was paying £6500, thus it is completely affordable and quite obviously affordable for the LL to pass on the costs.

Edited by ken_ichikawa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can only put up the rent so much, it'll force rents house prices to drop as demand drops for rented homes.

They can put the rent up the same amount as the renter gains by not having to paying CT or are you saying the renter and the owner pay CT? I don't see why the amount of people wanting to rent homes would drop so I'm not sure why demand would drop, if anything the BTL lot might try to move on there investments as they would be losing money selling the houses to peolple wanting to buy thus reducing the amount of property available to rent - might increase rents!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but did the VAT increase lower prices?

It won't as said the additional cost will just be passed on and those without the option for an alternative will just have to pay up the additional amount. The only difference is how many hands it has to pass through first. The pound of flesh still needs to be paid for.

I.e. if you rent is say £5000 a year. You now pay £5000 rent and £1500 council tax £6500... yeah? So the landlord has to pay the council tax..... so your rent goes up to £6500 and your council tax goes to £0. you are no better off.

Since this is an extra cost applied accross the board ALL landlords will pass on the costs. Much like corporates pass on corporation tax costs. AND also LLs are often leveraged so badly they can't charge less than X amount.

If he sets his rent too high, he is forced to pay the council tax out of his own pocket. If he does not rent out the home, he incurs additional expense. He must keep his rent low, or pay the 2nd home tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents..

I think the owner should pay, simply because council tax is our version of property tax, and I believe the tax should apply to the registered owner of the property as long as he holds it.

I also don't think there should be concessions for unoccupied periods. This would make it much easier to administer and a lot harder to avoid paying.

I don't think it would change rental prices significantly for the reasons listed, however, without the concession for unoccupied periods landlords would be less willing to leave properties empty and prices would be dropped more quickly to avoid the extra tax incurred.

This would benefit everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can put the rent up the same amount as the renter gains by not having to paying CT or are you saying the renter and the owner pay CT? I don't see why the amount of people wanting to rent homes would drop so I'm not sure why demand would drop, if anything the BTL lot might try to move on there investments as they would be losing money selling the houses to peolple wanting to buy thus reducing the amount of property available to rent - might increase rents!

Rents can only go up a certain amount, most BTL need to pay a mortgage so they will need to rent at a certain rate, the longer they dont rent the greater the chance of defaulting on the mortgage.It'll get to a point were it no longer a good investment in renting out a home if you have mortgage.

Edited by crash2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he sets his rent too high, he is forced to pay the council tax out of his own pocket. If he does not rent out the home, he incurs additional expense. He must keep his rent low, or pay the 2nd home tax.

That might be the theory but ultimately it would be passed onto the tenant all costs ultimately are. Or in your case with multiple properties potentially write it off as a tax deductable expense. I don't specialise in Sch A income or whatever its called but I've seen many tax returns where there are voids and the LL pays council tax. Quite often they just set it off as a business expense. Against occupied properties.

Meaning you get to tax the LL one way but he gets it back another way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Landlords could put the rent up to cover the tax, however, the tax would act as a downward pressure on rents as the landlord would have to pay it whether there is a tenant or not... thus giving them an incentive to get a tenant to provide an income so they can pay the tax.

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.

  • 312 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.