19 year mortgage 8itch Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 It'll be fine. They just need to aim for the bushes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 It'll be fine. They just need to aim for the bushes Nailed it. Virtuoso reference to an obscure but genius cinema moment. Subversion abounds. I wonder whether your mastery of satire extends beyond the reach of the forum's rouged-up nocturnal big-head? I reckon I should say that it does and then if six months later there is some evidence that it does I get to call anyone who saw things differently names. Works for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Nailed it. Virtuoso reference to an obscure but genius cinema moment. Subversion abounds. I wonder whether your mastery of satire extends beyond the reach of the forum's rouged-up nocturnal big-head? I reckon I should say that it does and then if six months later there is some evidence that it does I get to call anyone who saw things differently names. Works for me. Eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonSays Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Here Mr Shine, try my sunglasses, It is rather like that! Such an overly long fight scene.. eventually he gets to see things for what they are. Very appropriate. Its quite an act of charity to offer the sunglasses to begin with. Not very grateful are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavalas Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Never one to shy away from flaunting her stupidity, here's more from Shirleyann(n) Haig... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/our-17-propertieswill-lose-16000per-year/ Too much ridiculousness to know where to begin really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sPinwheel Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Never one to shy away from flaunting her stupidity, here's more from Shirleyann(n) Haig... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/our-17-propertieswill-lose-16000per-year/ Too much ridiculousness to know where to begin really. Mrs Haig said: I thought I was helping people with this business, but Ive ruined my own life by taking a decision which I thought would be good. And then the Government decided landlords were the devil. She thought wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Never one to shy away from flaunting her stupidity, here's more from Shirleyann(n) Haig... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/our-17-propertieswill-lose-16000per-year/ Too much ridiculousness to know where to begin really. you'd think the Tele would know to stop by now, eh? The article is a perfect advert for the changes as it exposes the rank stupidity of those who have charged themselves with the weighty responsibility of providing housing for others. Their 'strategy' is based on a reverance of maximal debt, and a basic ignorance of the consequences of their actions. To make matters worse, the family are immediately going to be hit by the stamp duty tax hike when it comes in at the start of April, as they are currently renting their own home – and are wanting to buy. Because they already own property, they will have to pay the 3pc stamp duty surcharge. Mrs Haig said: “I’ve changed jobs so it’s been hard to get a mortgage. I’ve got the kids in school and I’m ready to buy now – but it’s going to be a struggle to get it through before April 1. “One day late and I’ll have a tax bill of £11,000. We can’t afford that so we’d have to pull out. We could be left homeless if someone else wants to buy it.” Like a BTLer, maybe? Sell them all, you idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavalas Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Enjoyed reading about Jonathan Grant too. He was hoping to 'buy a block up north but probably won't bother now'. He's also hoping Osborne will change his mind about all this if he wants to be prime minister as he'll need Landlord votes. Loves a good bit of hope, does Jonathan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 you'd think the Tele would know to stop by now, eh? The article is a perfect advert for the changes as it exposes the rank stupidity of those who have charged themselves with the weighty responsibility of providing housing for others. Their 'strategy' is based on a reverance of maximal debt, and a basic ignorance of the consequences of their actions. Like a BTLer, maybe? Sell them all, you idiots. When 11k can destroy you...you shouldn't be buying anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wish I could afford one Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Never one to shy away from flaunting her stupidity, here's more from Shirleyann(n) Haig... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/our-17-propertieswill-lose-16000per-year/ Too much ridiculousness to know where to begin really. Not a very good investment if the best she can do in the current environment is break even. Surely she also hasn't made the school girl error of not diversifying her investments... I have industrial and commercial property in my portfolio but it also only forms 10% of my wealth and is spread over the UK and a number or European countries. I also grafted up to buy it rather than just fill out a mortgage application and expect untold wealth to appear for doing 2/3's of f*ck all. Maybe that's why I'm not in financial difficulties right now. £80,000 in debt payments per year, just for the BTL's I couldn't sleep at night and I have £900k of diversified wealth around me as I type. Sheesh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nome Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 It's like watching Zulu... they just keep on coming over the hill regardless of the consequences. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5433622 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wish I could afford one Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 you'd think the Tele would know to stop by now, eh? The article is a perfect advert for the changes as it exposes the rank stupidity of those who have charged themselves with the weighty responsibility of providing housing for others. Their 'strategy' is based on a reverance of maximal debt, and a basic ignorance of the consequences of their actions. Like a BTLer, maybe? Sell them all, you idiots. Why would she be left homeless? Surely she didn't take on £80,000 per annum of debt repayments, in a low interest rate environment, without significant personal skills that could turn a high salary, if for example interest rates rose or policy changed. Oh, she did... Free hint on how to avoid homelessness: 1. Get a job 2. Rent from a landlord 'who just wants to help people' It's worked ok for me up until now. What you don't want to work and instead want to just live off the back of others graft... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wish I could afford one Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I also love it how when they get it wrong they also just play victim. "I thought I was helping people with this business". "We take on vulnerable, high risk, homeless, people who can’t get into social housing. We do not exceed the housing benefit allowance. If people’s circumstances change, we drop the rent." I don't buy it for one second. You did what you did because you thought taking on Housing Benefit tenants would lead to the Life of Riley. I'll freely admit I've made plenty of investment mistakes. Every time I do I pick myself up, understand what I did wrong, learn from it and plough on. I've never once gone to the newspapers as I don't see how complaining about it is going to make any difference to my plight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giesahoose Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Never one to shy away from flaunting her stupidity, here's more from Shirleyann(n) Haig... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/our-17-propertieswill-lose-16000per-year/ Too much ridiculousness to know where to begin really. My favourite example is this article is the theoretical person on 58k who has 380k lying about to use as a deposit on 4 btl properties. Ha ha ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I guess that far from being embarrassed by articles like this, Mr Osborne, the Treasury and the BoE are delighted. They have seen greedy idiots still rushing in to buy, so there is nothing like having the Telegraph publish a series of AWFULL WARNINGS to the fools. Just like when they used to hang people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckin2up2down Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Problem is they aren't really entrepreneurs, financialization deluded them into think that they were. In reality they were just the banks marks, their protestations signal their realisation of that fact. Agreed. But they still do think they are some kind of business geniuses. Fair play to them, up until now it has all worked out. I just pray that it does turn on them. Most haven't just stooped after making a bit and diversified their assets (like any sensible investor would) they've just piled back in on BTL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jiltedjen Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Only a few very clever people make good money out of markets, some morons get lucky. Due to the popularity of buy to let and the crazy lending, it's safe to say very few of those involved are the clever kind, even less will be the lucky kind. The majority are basically gamblers, it's ok to get lucky once and stop. But these morons just pile in more and more. These people we keep going until they loose everything and their own home. Of course some of the moron majority will think they are in the clever group (maybe even reading HPC) and maybe they will think to sell. By which time it will be too late allready as the rest of the morons think the same. it's just speculation on an epic scale. it's morally wrong and greedy. and the morons will get burnt. They have bailed the banks out with their own home equity and politely lined themselves up to take the fall for all of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldbug9999 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 He's also hoping Osborne will change his mind about all this if he wants to be prime minister as he'll need Landlord votes. Specifically omitting property from the CGT reductions in the budget was surely the clearest possible signal that osbourne could give that he doesnt care about the landlord vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MississippiJohnHurt Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 "He hopes that political ambition might prompt an about-turn by George Osborne, who will need the votes of mainly Conservative landlord investors. I think he might change his mind if he wants to be Prime Minister, said Mr Grant " Think Mr Grant missed the part where George Osborne has actively decided that the youth vote was more important than the votes of a relatively small number of natural Tories who, in the current picture, have no alternative vote. Mr Grant needs to think of the net position if Osborne successfully annihilates the BTL to win a decent share of the youth vote: He will have taken votes from his only electoral rival, at the expense of losing some to nomark parties. Unless of course Mr Grant and his fabled band of Tory voting entrepreneurs want to vote for Corbyn or his successor. I'm not sure they will be keen to return to the halcyon days of BTL though. As I think Neverwhere said the other day, the BTLers great folly was to not even consider that politics matter, which is a very bad move when you are blithely f****** around with the living conditions of generations. Their wailing now is simply the realisation (mostly subconscious still) that they are now the quarry. But i think the fun will really start when the majority of them come to a conscious realisation that it will make good politics for any side wanting to be elected to do exactly the same as Osborne. That it's not just one man 'betraying' them or whatever absurd phrase is being used this week. It's simply good politics. I reckon that a widespread, conscious dawning will happen by the end of this year amongst the majority of BTL. The only question remaining is whether individuals are smart money or dumb. The smart will be leaving now, the dumb, Mr Grant evidently included, will still be thinking that Osborne has accidentally done something which has alienated his friendly core voters. And a bit like Venger, I will have zero sympathy for any of them. The greed, the abject self pity, the references the the Nazis, the underpants round the light fitting are all SO ready for a massive bonfire Chapeau, the Tories. And I don't say that every decade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavalas Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 It's always been apparent but this week I've been staggered by just how unreactive some of the buy to letters are for ones who claim to possess such business acumen. First the mad panic to incorporate despite months and months of clear warnings, now on 118 there's NW Landlord (who's a regular poster so can't have been unaware of the situation) writing a letter to the Telegraph to urge them to campaign against Clause 24. It's law ffs! You've said you might need to sell so crack on. What the hell are they still messing about writing letters for (and 'publishing' articles, which is Ros speak for posting on a forum). This character is writing his letter on behalf of 5 landlords who own 500 properties between them, one of which owns 350 and apparently still not incorporated. Mugs. Total mugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavalas Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Also, sorry, on my phone so can't quote the 'letter'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Never one to shy away from flaunting her stupidity, here's more from Shirleyann(n) Haig... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/our-17-propertieswill-lose-16000per-year/ Too much ridiculousness to know where to begin really. Shirleyann Haig has a large portfolio of buy-to-let properties which currently break even. After the Government’s changes she will be plunged into losses of around £16,000 per year, she reckons – unless she can sharply increase rents. At 39 the mother-of-two owns 17 buy-to-let properties on the council estate where she grew up, in Knowsley, Liverpool. All the properties are mortgaged at around 70pc of their price and they are jointly owned by her and her husband Matt, 37. [. . .] “We used every single penny of our savings, and we don’t make much money from the properties. Last year they broke even on paper. “It’s very different in the North to how it is in the South East: we can’t rely on the capital growth.” That sounds like a tax dodge pure and simple. It's certainly not a business. They seem to be intentionally generating no profit at all in order to pay no taxes at all (they could always sell up to 70% of the portfolio and generate a strong, unencumbered rental income). Actual businesses look to increase profits from the main activity of the business, not minimise them. Whatever they would have us believe that looks very much like a capital gains play - where else did that 30% of equity in the portfolio come from? - and therefore an investment and not a trade, and it should therefore attract no tax breaks at all in relation to finance costs, in line with other, more productive and socially beneficial, investments. It's also very clearly not serving any productive function for society and not increasing the supply of housing at all. Not one of their properties was built to satisfy their demand for people farming. Every single one appears to have been taken out of council use/owner occupation. Those properties already existed and were already capable of functioning perfectly well as housing for people without these middlemen attempting to skim off of the top and collect state subsidies in the form of housing benefit and highly favourable tax treatment. Brilliant article. Rams the greed, entitlement and poor financial planning home in spades. Very telling also that it does not appear to be open to public comment! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I read that letter from NW landlord. Staggering just how self centred he is. Calls GO, that 'Idiot in London' Blatant attack on me and my family.' POOR ME, ME, ME, ME, Cannot see how his greed has blighted the lives of so many. Just wants young, hard working families to give HIM their money. Burn in Hell you bastared Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmt Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 That sounds like a tax dodge pure and simple. It's certainly not a business. They seem to be intentionally generating no profit at all in order to pay no taxes at all (they could always sell up to 70% of the portfolio and generate a strong, unencumbered rental income). Actual businesses look to increase profits from the main activity of the business, not minimise them. Whatever they would have us believe that looks very much like a capital gains play - where else did that 30% of equity in the portfolio come from? - and therefore an investment and not a trade, and it should therefore attract no tax breaks at all in relation to finance costs, in line with other, more productive and socially beneficial, investments. It's also very clearly not serving any productive function for society and not increasing the supply of housing at all. Not one of their properties was built to satisfy their demand for people farming. Every single one appears to have been taken out of council use/owner occupation. Those properties already existed and were already capable of functioning perfectly well as housing for people without these middlemen attempting to skim off of the top and collect state subsidies in the form of housing benefit and highly favourable tax treatment. Brilliant article. Rams the greed, entitlement and poor financial planning home in spades. Very telling also that it does not appear to be open to public comment! A non-profit making socially useless enterprise that generates 80k per annum interest to a bank that created the loans out of nothing. These articles only serve to highlight what a massive scam and scandal buy to let really is and how the taxpayer is being gouged by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MississippiJohnHurt Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 A non-profit making socially useless enterprise that generates 80k per annum interest to a bank that created the loans out of nothing. These articles only serve to highlight what a massive scam and scandal buy to let really is and how the taxpayer is being gouged by it. Truesay Last few Tele articles have made me wonder if he has become Agent Dyson, HPC provocateur 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.