Bland Unsight Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Underwaterworld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Les Misérables Edited July 28, 2015 by thecrashingisles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Do you honestly think BTLers would read any sensible posts from us? They are listening to Mark et al - false promises are what they thrive on. Let us just enjoy this thread and not try to proselytise. They will come looking when all the petitions are rejected and the MSM changes its tune. Till then the fun is all ours and the penalties all theirs. There's plenty of space for both approaches on the forum, and in fact, on this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Bowman Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) You want the moon a bloody stick you do! This is hpc. If a thread stays on topic for more than ten consecutive posts most of get nosebleeds. ??? I haven't subverted a thread to make it about cars for months....... now got a new Guiletta because I liked the old one tct gearbox with diesel really quite fun but the the Guilla is coming out next year rear wheel drive like a proper sports saloon Edited July 28, 2015 by Greg Bowman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Back to business. This is a bit wild, even for me, in full tin foil hat mode, but I don't know the answer. When you take out a BTL mortgage, do they ask you what the original sales price was and is that information part of the customer file? Clearly, if you ignore the CGT issue when assessing the risk in the loan you wouldn't care. However, spinning off pipplman's post here, in the case of insolvency HMRC gets first dibs on the sales proceeds. Hence if there is a CGT charge due which is going to be material, say 15% of the sales proceeds, then the bank doesn't really have the equity cushion it thinks it has, by virtue of the borrowers equity, because as we've argued above, most or all of that equity belongs to HMRC. Is it possible that the banks are ignoring this risk when allocating mortgage rates to loans? If they are, then shouldn't they jack rates to reflect that risk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 There's plenty of space for both approaches on the forum, and in fact, on this thread. Indeed, and it makes the gloating realisation much more profound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Bunny Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 The HPCers Strike Back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Indeed, and it makes the gloating realisation much more profound. Exactly - we can share a joke about how f**ked they are, then do a little more work on working out how f**ked they are and then do some work trying to explain to them how f**ked they are, think about how to get the message of the f**kedness out more generally, and then get back to joking about how f**ked they are. It's all good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Bunny Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Gone with the Tax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Back to business. This is a bit wild, even for me, in full tin foil hat mode, but I don't know the answer. When you take out a BTL mortgage, do they ask you what the original sales price was and is that information part of the customer file? Clearly, if you ignore the CGT issue when assessing the risk in the loan you wouldn't care. However, spinning off pipplman's post here, in the case of insolvency HMRC gets first dibs on the sales proceeds. Hence if there is a CGT charge due which is going to be material, say 15% of the sales proceeds, then the bank doesn't really have the equity cushion it thinks it has, by virtue of the borrowers equity, because as we've argued above, most or all of that equity belongs to HMRC. Is it possible that the banks are ignoring this risk when allocating mortgage rates to loans? If they are, then shouldn't they jack rates to reflect that risk? It does look like that. If I was a bank lending to a BuyToLooser I would want a LTV about 50%, thus leaving 28% for any CGT that might be due, and 22% as the actual deposit.... If you don't have it. Then you must pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Bunny Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Journey to the Centre of the Bankruptcy Court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choochoo Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Limited Companies are going to be hit just as hard from next year, also potentially losing the ability to offset costs against pre tax profit. If all the proposed changes go through, I'll be looking at 1k more per month in tax. I'd imagine the country needs small businesses a lot more than spiv landlords, hopefully the govt feel the same! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Bunny Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Apocalypse Now Needs nothing altered! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Bunny Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Limited Companies are going to be hit just as hard from next year, also potentially losing the ability to offset costs against pre tax profit. If all the proposed changes go through, I'll be looking at 1k more per month in tax. I'd imagine the country needs small businesses a lot more than spiv landlords, hopefully the govt feel the same! How that much? I make it c £8k pa per couple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 It does look like that. If I was a bank lending to a BuyToLooser I would want a LTV about 50%, thus leaving 28% for any CGT that might be due, and 22% as the actual deposit.... If you don't have it. Then you must pay for it. The way I figure it, it's irrelevant (from the banks perspective) provided the borrower is a small time Charlie, with one or two properties. The bank has the equity in the BTLers own home. However in the case of lending to moar-rooned herberts with big portfolios and high leverage, it's a massive problem. Many of these chancers post as if they have loans with a number of different banks. Surely these King Spivs should be paying much higher rates to reflect the fact that there is in fact no equity in the portfolio, once the CGT due is considered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Limited Companies are going to be hit just as hard from next year, also potentially losing the ability to offset costs against pre tax profit. If all the proposed changes go through, I'll be looking at 1k more per month in tax. I'd imagine the country needs small businesses a lot more than spiv landlords, hopefully the govt feel the same! Hopefully the money that was stuffed into BTL will now get put into your business, and all will be well in this world.... I wouldn't hold my breath, but fingers crossed. Hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Also we need some more songs, we could do the jukebox musical trick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 The HPCers Strike Back I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 The way I figure it, it's irrelevant (from the banks perspective) provided the borrower is a small time Charlie, with one or two properties. The bank has the equity in the BTLers own home. However in the case of lending to moar-rooned herberts with big portfolios and high leverage, it's a massive problem. Many of these chancers post as if they have loans with a number of different banks. Surely these King Spivs should be paying much higher rates to reflect the fact that there is in fact no equity in the portfolio, once the CGT due is considered? I agree. I mean, what have the Wilsons been living on if they are running a tax neutral BTL empire? Not the rent.... Don't say it... The value of their housing stock!!!!!!! BTL = Borrowing To Live. You have to pay extra for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipllman Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 they are hunting some poor guy down now for daring to start a petition without checking with them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Slip sliding away, slip sliding away You know the nearer your liquidation, the more you're slip sliding away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choochoo Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I live in Scotland but tend to work around London, commuting up and down. If I can't expenses from pre-tax profits I'll potentially pay 40% tax on circa 25k = 10k There's also an extra 7.5% on dividends, that's another 3-4K. Nightmare!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I live in Scotland but tend to work around London, commuting up and down. If I can't expenses from pre-tax profits I'll potentially pay 40% tax on circa 25k = 10k There's also an extra 7.5% on dividends, that's another 3-4K. Nightmare!!! You might as well be working for the government, for peanuts.... Oh you are! Joking aside, Hopefully it will change in the next 5 years. Labour left a massive pile of s**t to clear up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Bunny Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) So, agreed re the £3-4k pa (x2 for H&W directors) but why couldn't you continue to charge travelling costs? Edited July 28, 2015 by Killer Bunny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.