Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
7 minutes ago, Option5 said:

CGT is due on the difference between the original purchase price and the selling price, if they've MEWed the property they could end up with less in "profit" than the CGT bill.

This is why so many on parasite118 are bleating so loudly. The bankruptcy clock is ticking...

It was always a gamble to do what they did though and they deserve what's coming to them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1
HOLA442
13 hours ago, oatbake said:

Another example of extreme fuxwittery over on parasite118:

https://www.property118.com/buy-third-buy-let/

"I currently have 2 buy to let flats in Reading. Each brings in £9800 per annum. I have a total of £125000 mortgage lending on these and they have a value of £410000. I work earning £21,900 and have a pension of £18800. My wife earns £10300.

I am considering buying another flat in Newbury for £190,000. It has tenants paying £925 a month. I am thinking of increasing my current mortgages to £165,000 and using savings with a new mortgage of £130,000 to do this.

I am aware the rules are changing although do not fully understand them all."

Of course this does attitude does make him a lot more vulnerable to voids etc as he will go from £125K on 2 flats to £295K on 3 flats.  Also S24 will be more of a problem for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
1 hour ago, oatbake said:

This is why so many on parasite118 are bleating so loudly. The bankruptcy clock is ticking...

It was always a gamble to do what they did though and they deserve what's coming to them!

Equally interest is only tax deductible on the initial loan(s) so they shouldn't be claiming tax relief on the money they took out to lease a white Evoque. If the extracted money is used to purchase a second property then a different game starts which I will leave to a second post.

Now its possible the HMRC may seem not to care about such things but that is because HMRC have placed the responsibility on the tax payer to report and pay the correct amount of tax. The first HMRC will care about whether you've done things correctly or not (ignoring the S24 changes which mean they will start caring in January next year) is when the property is sold and your figures don't match HMRCs.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444
4
HOLA445
6 minutes ago, TonyJ said:

If he is that ignorant of his field, should the bank even be lending to him? Madness.

 

Banks treat BTL as a business transaction - therefore there is little duty of care placed on a bank to check if the borrower is competent. Given a fair bet of equity between all the BTL properties and his main home I reckon the bank will lend the money and just take everything when it all goes Pete Tong..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446
6
HOLA447
10 hours ago, Arpeggio said:

While someone else earning way more than him and merely wants to buy a house to live in has to put up with this BS and p**s their money on it when looking for accommodation or buy something that would be priced 3 times less in many other developed countries.

I hope reality put's these greedy little s*** in their place eventually. Other people earning £21,900 should be able to afford to buy a dwelling.

Is not just that.

My argument against IO BTL loans are they are not priced correctly.

I this case, you have someone with an income of40k (lets ignore wife). Theres not comment on how much other debt he's got.

Hes claims to have 125K of londs on 2 BTLs, which give an income of 18k, tax this, 12k.

And then wants to borrowanother 130k.

The risk involved is huge and needs to be priced in. These are commercial, non amortising (FFS!) loans. Think credit card leels or APR.

There's no way, in anything approaching a sane banking sysem that someone like this ought to be able to out bid a 20% down, 4x income borrower.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448
13 minutes ago, TonyJ said:

That's what they say.

I just cannot get my head round the naivety of some of these LLs. I look at them and wonder how they can be so naive. We seem to be able to see the steamroller, and we are not even in BTL, but many of them are oblivious, even as it is about to roll over them.

Err, sod the LLs, they are idiots.

The banks lending to them are bigger idiots and need to go under.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449
3 minutes ago, TonyJ said:

That's what they say.

I just cannot get my head round the naivety of some of these LLs. I look at them and wonder how they can be so naive. We seem to be able to see the steamroller, and we are not even in BTL, but many of them are oblivious, even as it is about to roll over them.

They are blind to the risk. They will have to suffer a downturn before they'll know what one looks like.

Humans naturally learn by using feedback, we make the choice first and if it’s a mistake, then (hopefully) learn from it, assuming of course we survive the mistake. First we experience pain and then we know what we need to stop doing to prevent that pain.

Self esteem is also a factor, they consider themselves to be successful so any failure is not considered as it may affect their perception of their social standing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410
16 minutes ago, TonyJ said:

That's what they say.

I just cannot get my head round the naivety of some of these LLs. I look at them and wonder how they can be so naive. We seem to be able to see the steamroller, and we are not even in BTL, but many of them are oblivious, even as it is about to roll over them.

Cognitive dissonance bruv. Powerful stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411
11 hours ago, Arpeggio said:

While someone else earning way more than him and merely wants to buy a house to live in has to put up with this BS and p**s their money on it when looking for accommodation or buy something that would be priced 3 times less in many other developed countries.

I hope reality put's these greedy little s*** in their place eventually. Other people earning £21,900 should be able to afford to buy a dwelling.

I think that what he is saying is that his income is at present

Salary              =21,900

Pension          =18,800

Rental income= 9,800

Total                =49,500

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412
On 21/03/2018 at 8:11 AM, Ah-so said:

The RLA is obviously paying a lot of money to have this filled in so that it can make a political point and lobby against S24.

Obviously those who fill it in will be more likely to know about the impact of S24 and want it reversed, so the survey will be of zero academic worth, but that will not stop it making the news with a dramatic headline, such as 'Homelessness will rise 20% because of a new tax on landlords'.

Luckily anyone can fill in this survey, not that I'd ever recommend trolling another website.

But if I did, I'm not sure if I'd want to underplay the impact of S24 (to reduce the risk of a political knee jerk response) or overplay (to scare more landlords into selling).

I'd probably do the former - it will be the opposite of the RLA's hoped for result. 

It's a risky manoeuvre for the RLA.  They certainly want to lobby the government.  But the RLA never seem to get the message that squeezing landlords and getting them to sell up is not collateral damage.  It's the aim of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413
13
HOLA4414
15 minutes ago, TonyJ said:

How long has the campaign been up and running (and getting nowhere)? You would have thought people would want to stop throwing good money after bad.

I suppose it began in earnest as soon as S24 was announced and a few ‘brains’ on 118 started to figure out the implications. They began with a petition to government which clocked up 60,000 of the required 100,000 before the six month period was up. 

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/104880

Then a couple of landlords formed Axe The Tenant Tax and crowd funded 30k to pay some lawyers (Cherie Blair, of all people) to obtain a judicial review that they never had any chance of winning. After failing to even send the application to the correct address they had their day in court where the judge predictably rejected their application before a proper hearing.

https://www.crowdpac.co.uk/campaigns/36/axe-the-tenant-tax

Then they carried on crowd funding to pay a PR firm who managed to secure a few articles in the telegraph or something that nobody paid any attention to.

Errrm, bizarrely Busta from 118 got some orange t-shirts printed for a massive ‘PR Stunt’.

Bosher Beck has written 1,806,763,645 words to anyone she can find an email address for.

That’s about it really. Now the Tenant Tax just posts a couple of story’s a week and they all agree with each other that it’s ‘absurd’ and that they told us all along what the consequences would be... which amounts to Landlords selling up. Those wise business heads apparently managed to predict that the exact thing the law intended to happen is happening whilst somehow badging it as an unintended consequence, despite what they actually predicted would happen (spiralling rents) hasn’t really happened at all.

They’re just idiots. They’re not even entertaining idiots anymore. I dislike S24 tapering so slowly as they just need to go now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
3 hours ago, TonyJ said:

LLs have now hoovered up 10% of the UK housing stock, which, if they were not forced to liquidate, would be more or less permanently removed from the market.

If LLs' preferential tax treatment was allowed to continue, I am sure the government realises they would eventually take their holdings ever closer to 100% of the UK housing stock, which would then be permanently removed from the market.

Of course the government wants to force leveraged LLs to relinquish their grip on the UK housing stock - it is completely their aim!

Not hovered, took out an IO loan.

AFAICT the majotiry of housing sales 2002 have been IO BTL buyers.

All these plaves bought on the stupidity of a bank allowing non amortising commercial loans at residential OO prices.

Its nuts, its riskym itll probably blow up he LL and bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
1 hour ago, TonyJ said:

I once got involved in a not too dissimilar protest campaign that went nowhere.  If the government has made up its mind and the campaign has little interest, sympathy or allies, protest campaigns are a waste of time, effort, anxiety and money. The wisest thing each could have done to save him/herself individually is, as soon as S24 was announced, to have stayed very quiet, and to have tried to find a bigger mug to buy their properties as quickly as possible.  Happily they have now left it too late for that option.

I think you would enjoy reading GBTATBTL.  Available somewhere in this parish.

Edited by lastlaugh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417
17
HOLA4418
10 minutes ago, Mancunian284 said:

DM advising caution when thinking about btl v pension.  Sentiment really is on the turn.

http://dailym.ai/2FXO5MT

IO BTL i s leverage lunacy.

The only advantage/bonus it had was temporary insanity of baks allowing loons to borrow severa l100k t take a massive leveraged punt.

That trick has gone. And the size of the punt has been much reduced, and he cost of the leverage increased.

A few of the coments are good:

' I agree but just like any business if you spend hundreds of thousands with hundreds of thousands in loans and getting a sub 5% return the risks are great. You have to ask yourself am I actually a property "investor" ie getting rent every month at a decent return or am i a property "speculator" buying something and then hoping to sell it for more later down the line. A smart speculator gets in there makes the money and then gets the hell out. With mortgages over 10/20/30 years god knows what will happen over that time so to speculate over that period of time and have a large loan and poor return seems crazy to me. I found in my loft an early 2000's "guide to being a landlord" in there it said "never buy a property with under 8% gross yield......the house for rent opposite me for 1200PCM was bought for £375K so less than 3.84% after costs.....its been unlet with the sign out for 2 months now as people struggle to pay £1,200pcm for a terraced house'

Each month void is 2 years 'profit'. 4 years 'profit' down the sh1tter so far.

 

Edited by spyguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419
19
HOLA4420
4 hours ago, spyguy said:

A few of the coments are good:

" I agree but just like any business if you spend hundreds of thousands with hundreds of thousands in loans and getting a sub 5% return the risks are great."

Put it like that and it is mad. Ad the word "property" and it has a special enchantment.

 

11 hours ago, TonyJ said:

I just cannot get my head round the naivety of some of these LLs. I look at them and wonder how they can be so naive. We seem to be able to see the steamroller, and we are not even in BTL, but many of them are oblivious, even as it is about to roll over them.

Intelligence would restrict greed to fewer avenues. BTL is like a fishing net for stupid greedy. Similar to how crime and stupidity can go hand in hand. Why do people post pics of themselves with goods they just stole on FaceBook lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421
5 hours ago, Mancunian284 said:

DM advising caution when thinking about btl v pension.  Sentiment really is on the turn.

http://dailym.ai/2FXO5MT

Thanks for the link. I see they've repeated the "wear and tear" lie again. From the article:

Quote

Wear and tear relief, where people could claim relief of 10 per cent of the rent on furnished rental properties whether they spent that amount or not, has been abolished.

100% False. It's still claimable, as the next sentence admits:

Quote

This is now limited to actual spending.

"limited to"! As if any allowance shouldn't be "limited to" the genuine cost.

They shouldn't even get actual spending. Why the hell should they get gifted taxpayer's money to maintain their properties?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
2 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

Thanks for the link. I see they've repeated the "wear and tear" lie again. From the article:

100% False. It's still claimable, as the next sentence admits:

"limited to"! As if any allowance shouldn't be "limited to" the genuine cost.

They shouldn't even get actual spending. Why the hell should they get gifted taxpayer's money to maintain their properties?

 

 

Because its seems impossible to get your typical BTLer to even do the basic amount of essential repair work as they need the money for their monthly Range Rover lease payment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423
24 minutes ago, Houdini said:

Because its seems impossible to get your typical BTLer to even do the basic amount of essential repair work as they need the money for their monthly Range Rover lease payment.

Tough. Make it part of the licence. Maintain it, or lose your licence to be allowed to rent it out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
24
HOLA4425
14 hours ago, mrtickle said:

Tough. Make it part of the licence. Maintain it, or lose your licence to be allowed to rent it out.

 

Remembering what private landlords were like prior to the BTL regulations believe me you don't want to implement that. 

Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information