Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
or in excess of

Btl Snapping Up Ftb Properties

Recommended Posts

Rates have been driven down partly by the growing number of people renting city properties, while lenders are slashing rates to attract new customers

Sounds like the banks are short of customers in this buying frenzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am convinced the UK needs Help To Let. This would encourage 'buy to letters' into buying new builds with just a 5% deposit to rent out.

The result would be a massive increase in the supply of property - this is what happened in Ireland during the boom and resulted in hundreds of Ghost Estates built for investors.

Edited by Gone to Ireland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am convinced the UK needs Help To Let. This would encourage 'buy to letters' into buying new builds with just a 5% deposit to rent out.

The result would be a massive increase in the supply of property - this is what happened in Ireland during the boom and resulted in hundreds of Ghost Estates built for investors.

LOL, .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is not paeticularly relevant to the story and it is debatable whether it is a tax break -it is a consistent treatment of tax on investments or businesses. BTL investors also get charged CGT on sale proceeds unlike owner occupiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is not paeticularly relevant to the story and it is debatable whether it is a tax break -it is a consistent treatment of tax on investments or businesses. BTL investors also get charged CGT on sale proceeds unlike owner occupiers.

It is very relevant...BTL gets to lever its capital on GROSS income...while the OO gets to lever on its NETT income..and has to have a provable income in the first place...the BTL just has to show the rent he might achieve...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is, in a way, good news, because a BTL investor only has one vote so the political incentive to inflate the housing bubble will reduce.

Its one vote that has massive weight however :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One vote is one vote in an election.

Its not decided by votes, its decided by money. Our democracy was hijacked long ago. Your only vote now is once or twice a week for The Voice, or Celebrity Big Brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is not paeticularly relevant to the story and it is debatable whether it is a tax break -it is a consistent treatment of tax on investments or businesses. BTL investors also get charged CGT on sale proceeds unlike owner occupiers.

Allowing a 100 percent deduction for all interest payments is a tax break that many other countries have abolished setting a maximum debt to equity rAtio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted in NI forum.

Steven Noakes from CML wants more tax breaks for landlords (coz they just don't have enough as it is)

http://www.mortgages...2005629.article

Of course he does...he wants zero criteria for BTL, then his lenders can lend to anyone at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The houses in the road I used to live in was in the main purchased by 1st time buyers, who took pride in their properties, clean tidy with well cared for front gardens.....now most of them have been purchased by investors to rent out.....the homes look more scruffy, unkempt and undesirable.......just saying, very rarely do these properties come back onto the market and when they do they are sold with tenants insitu.........reminds me of the 'people in Germany don't buy thread', except these tenants don't have the same protections as the German tenants. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allowing a 100 percent deduction for all interest payments is a tax break that many other countries have abolished setting a maximum debt to equity rAtio

If you want BTL investors to be treated consistently with owner-occupiers you would need to tax owner-occupiers on the income they receive from the asset (the imputed rent), and then allow both to set interest payments against the income.

As it stands the tax system is in fact skewed substantially in favour of owner-occupiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want BTL investors to be treated consistently with owner-occupiers you would need to tax owner-occupiers on the income they receive from the asset (the imputed rent), and then allow both to set interest payments against the income.

As it stands the tax system is in fact skewed substantially in favour of owner-occupiers.

Of course, imputed rent is 100% BS....its the same as saying there is imputed rent on buying a car as opposed to hiring one.

Or how about imputed food costs, and lets count a person on a diet as having received a taxable benefit based on what he is not eating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, imputed rent is 100% BS....its the same as saying there is imputed rent on buying a car as opposed to hiring one.

Or how about imputed food costs, and lets count a person on a diet as having received a taxable benefit based on what he is not eating.

Hi Bloo Loo,

I'd agree with you on food. Otherwise you're wrong. There is an imputed income from owning a car. Imputation is about attributing a notional income to assets which are used by their owner. A car certainly produces an imputed income, or there'd be no point in buying one. Thankfully our tax system long ago gave up trying to tax imputed income. But in doing so it gives a big tax advantage to those who own their own house or car compared to those who rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bloo Loo,

I'd agree with you on food. Otherwise you're wrong. There is an imputed income from owning a car. Imputation is about attributing a notional income to assets which are used by their owner. A car certainly produces an imputed income, or there'd be no point in buying one. Thankfully our tax system long ago gave up trying to tax imputed income. But in doing so it gives a big tax advantage to those who own their own house or car compared to those who rent.

I agree with your logic, but I think it is nonsense to even think of it as an income...id say, it was an efficiency.

Following the logic into manufacturing they would be taxing a Fork lift in a warehouse where they were using 10 men...In effect, the purchase of the Fork lift could initially make more profit for the organisation, and that is taxed, but competition would soon mean that to stay in the market, all would need a Forklift...so the price would fall as would the profit.

The opposite is true for a house...Inputed income does not disappear with efficiency and competition over time, as there is none to be had. It therefore makes it a nonsense to include it in the GDP of the nation...but it is good to have an ever rising element for political purposes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your logic, but I think it is nonsense to even think of it as an income...id say, it was an efficiency.

Following the logic into manufacturing they would be taxing a Fork lift in a warehouse where they were using 10 men...In effect, the purchase of the Fork lift could initially make more profit for the organisation, and that is taxed, but competition would soon mean that to stay in the market, all would need a Forklift...so the price would fall as would the profit.

The opposite is true for a house...Inputed income does not disappear with efficiency and competition over time, as there is none to be had. It therefore makes it a nonsense to include it in the GDP of the nation...but it is good to have an ever rising element for political purposes

Hi again Bloo Loo,

Just because it's not cash does not mean it's not an income (which is in principle taxable - see company cars for example).

The forklift truck is not a good example to support your argument. The income it generates *is* taxable. There's no need to ascribe a notional imputed income to it because it produces an actual income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again Bloo Loo,

Just because it's not cash does not mean it's not an income (which is in principle taxable - see company cars for example).

The forklift truck is not a good example to support your argument. The income it generates *is* taxable. There's no need to ascribe a notional imputed income to it because it produces an actual income.

You can make a case for a non thing by saying it exists, therefore it does. Thats ripe for fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can make a case for a non thing by saying it exists, therefore it does. Thats ripe for fraud.

Hi Bloo Loo,

I don't actually understand your reply! And this is getting a bit like discussing evolution with a creationist. There is no dissent among economists that property produces imputed rent. If it suits you to take a "creationist" approach and ignore the facts and the consensus then I can't be of much further assistance.

If you are interested then look back at the old UK Schedule A, abolished in (I think) 1963. We did used to tax imputed rent at one time, and give owner-occupiers tax relief on their mortgage interest. The tax was abolished, but the relief (on something that wasn't taxed) lived on in the form of MIRAS for 30 more years.

You might be interested in some links too.

Institute for Fiscal Studies

http://www.ifs.org.uk/fs/articles/callan_nov92.pdf

which starts:

Economists have often pointed to the exclusion of

imputed income from owner-occupation from the income tax base as a major

distortion. As a result, a tax on the imputed income of owner-occupiers has been

one of the perennial suggestions for ‘root-and-branch’ reform of the tax

treatment of housing.

They already do it in Spain, much to the annoyance of British investors:

http://www.njtaccountancy.co.uk/spain/property-imputed-income-tax/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bloo Loo,

I don't actually understand your reply! And this is getting a bit like discussing evolution with a creationist. There is no dissent among economists that property produces imputed rent. If it suits you to take a "creationist" approach and ignore the facts and the consensus then I can't be of much further assistance.

If you are interested then look back at the old UK Schedule A, abolished in (I think) 1963. We did used to tax imputed rent at one time, and give owner-occupiers tax relief on their mortgage interest. The tax was abolished, but the relief (on something that wasn't taxed) lived on in the form of MIRAS for 30 more years.

You might be interested in some links too.

Institute for Fiscal Studies

http://www.ifs.org.u...allan_nov92.pdf

which starts:

They already do it in Spain, much to the annoyance of British investors:

http://www.njtaccoun...ted-income-tax/

Thanks for your patience...I understand exactly what imputed rent is...it is nothing, a figment for the purpose of raising taxes...ie..You have bought a house, and we used to tax you on the money you save through not paying rent...Today however, as most voters are home owners, its a bad move politically taxing people on money they never earned. Yes, it was great in the old days as a tax on the rich, but that doesnt apply anymore.

Instead though, we will tell you how much richer and wealthier we all are by including this non income in the GDP figures, cos this is money you can spend as a homeowner and not as a renter....I can assure you that this excess money isnt double counted when it is actually spent in the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your patience...I understand exactly what imputed rent is...it is nothing, a figment for the purpose of raising taxes...ie..You have bought a house, and we used to tax you on the money you save through not paying rent...Today however, as most voters are home owners, its a bad move politically taxing people on money they never earned. Yes, it was great in the old days as a tax on the rich, but that doesnt apply anymore.

Instead though, we will tell you how much richer and wealthier we all are by including this non income in the GDP figures, cos this is money you can spend as a homeowner and not as a renter....I can assure you that this excess money isnt double counted when it is actually spent in the economy.

Perhaps that's why Osborne's deficits are so high? He's spending the taxable income from car and house ownership too! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top story in Manchester Evening News, Business section.

Keep giving me the feel sorry for 'ordinary people' who lose value in their homes routine. Prices may have to double again before some HPCers toughen up, and realise it's a market where people choose to make decisions, right or wrong.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/sequre-property-investment-course-smash-6688541

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.