Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged

[Lavalas]

At least he didn't peddle of the tenant tax guff.

What's the answer to too much debt though. Even more debt, of course.

[mrtickle]

5 hours ago, crow said:

Seen this said a couple of times, but the tax bill in Jan 18 will still be at 100% mortgage allowance, the 25%  reduction won't hit until the tax bill in Jan 31st 2019

Yes, as I covered in this post

Let's try to get a timetable that we can update. It's been a long wait already...

1st (almost) Year - Summer Budget 2015 until April 2016.

2nd year - April 2016 - April 2017. 100%/0%. Bill lands in Jan 2018.

3rd year - April 2017 - April 2018. 75%/25%. Bill doesn't land until Jan 2019.
Also: From Dec 2017 CGT has to be paid within 30 days, instead of 18 months.

4th year - April 2018 - April 2019. 50%/50%. Bill doesn't land until Jan 2020. But: move to electronic and quarterly tax settlements if pay NIC class 4 and turnover is above the VAT threshold. So - bill much earlier?

5th year - April 2019 - April 2020. 25%/75%. Bill doesn't land until Jan 2021. But: move to electronic and quarterly tax settlements if pay NIC class 4 and turnover is below the VAT threshold. So - bill much earlier?

6th year - April 2020 - April 2021. The first year of full implementation of the new rules. Bill doesn't land until Jan 2022.
Summer Budget 2015 -> 2021 = five and a half years.
 

[Muddlehead]

On ‎31‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 0:21 AM, Bland Unsight said:

What evidence do you have that anybody active on the forum thought that section 24 would "deliver a meaningful fall in house prices" before it was even introduced?

I just had a look at A Goodbye as I thought I remembered comments about early price falls. This is the strongest statement I could find:

"After a shade over two months he delivers a Summer Budget on 8th July 2015, D-BTL day, to the cognescenti, in which he puts a stake straight through the heart of the HLPI, announcing that they’ll be history by 2020 latest, (I don’t think they’ll make it past Summer 2016, though that may be unduly optimistic"

[Tapori]

Please can someone record this segment 

BBC Breakfast

07:10-07:14

BTL Landlord shilling for Landlords and stumbling to justify the insanity.

 

[Lavalas]

29 minutes ago, Tapori said:

Please can someone record this segment 

BBC Breakfast

07:10-07:14

BTL Landlord shilling for Landlords and stumbling to justify the insanity.

 

Just watched it back as programme still live on iPlayer. Thanks for precise timings.

Why are they even bothering with crappy slots on TV like this. The tax kicks in next Thursday. If the resulting rent rises are going to be so catastrophic then all they need to do now is let things play out and wait for it to be repealed. Of course, we know they're still whining because the sum of their argument is actually 'we don't want to pay this tax' whilst even a jobbing breakfast TV presenter who has had approximately 1.4 seconds to assess their claims is capable of pushing back that this 'tax' actually seems quite fair.

There will be a load more of this rubbish in the media next week as the Tenant Tax waste more cash on that PR company.

[Tapori]

The kicker was:

"Well I know thats what the Treasury says (About BTL outbidding FTBuyers and driving prices up and unfair Tax Allowances for BTL vs FTB) but..."

We need to get a counter organisation to beat these guys

Shelter?

[Beggar Thy Children]

Setting aside the wonderful show of delusion from Imran, here's a prime example from the 'Axe The Tenant Tax' facebook page of the denial that it has been suggested a large number of LLs will undergo until reality intrudes sometime between now and 2020.

Brings to mind this:

Max = George Osborne

Punk = BTLer

Car = portfolio

Petrol = debt

Lighter = S24

Hacksaw = Sell Now Sell Everything

 

 

[Bland Unsight]

7 hours ago, Muddlehead said:

I just had a look at A Goodbye as I thought I remembered comments about early price falls. This is the strongest statement I could find:

"After a shade over two months he delivers a Summer Budget on 8th July 2015, D-BTL day, to the cognescenti, in which he puts a stake straight through the heart of the HLPI, announcing that they’ll be history by 2020 latest, (I don’t think they’ll make it past Summer 2016, though that may be unduly optimistic"

TL;DR version: 

• selective quotation directed at the author - are you sure that's wise?
• the section you're quoting is explaining why the PovertyLater [email protected] are ******ed even if prices don't fall, it has exactly nothing to do with "early price falls"
• the central argument on prices in the book is that when hundreds of thousands of BTLers start selling to MMR constrained first time buyers, a price adjustment looks likely

/TL;DR

Here's the quote in context and with the clipped caveat restored (emphasis added).

Quote

The esteemed Mr Thomas is thus, prior to the election, alert to the political risks associated with bidding people out of the houses they’d like to buy with a gambling stake furnished by a bank. However, and this is where our story hots up a little, having been returned to Downing Street after the Electinon, and now Chancellor of a Tory majority government, Osborne wastes no time. After a shade over two months he delivers a Summer Budget on 8th July 2015, D-BTL day, to the cognescenti, in which he puts a stake straight through the heart of the HLPI, announcing that they’ll be history by 2020 latest, (I don’t think they’ll make it past Summer 2016, though that may be unduly optimistic – we’ll see how quickly the Bank of England strangle the flow of new lending into the buy-to-let sector; that is now the only game in town, in my assessment). Hence it is to the mechanics of that tax change and how its effects are felt by the HLPI that we now turn.

Source

The strangling of the lending - which was in no way inevitable in August 2015 when I wrote those words - was anticipated because of the signals coming from the Bank of England (via things like the legendary buy-to-let box in the April 2015 Trends in Lending).

With the benefit of hindsight we can see that I was unduly optimistic about the timings on the tightening of lending to leveraged portfolio landlords - I suggested I might be. The Bank began consulting on throttling the lending in March 2016 and announced the final form of the noose in September 2016 (PRA SS13/16). The SS13/16 rules on landlords with buy-to-let mortgages on four or more properties don't come in until 30 September 2017.

I'm still good with the call that the Poverty Later portfolio guys are royally f**ked with the chessboard pieces that are already in place and that you don't need house price falls to bankrupt them by 2020.

The heart of the argument here is that if you have rising prices, falling mortgage rates and easy lending then leveraged portfolio landlords can cover actual losses (on the income versus expenses side of things) by refinancing and extract capital gains. However, if you're prevented from refinancing and extracting capital gains then they have to pay all their expenses out of the rent. Section 24 makes that impossible for the leveraged portfolio landlords, so if the Bank of England also cut off their financing, they are history. You don't need falling prices for these guys to be totally f**ked. They'll still be ******ed if prices are rising.

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Bland Unsight

[oatbake]

https://www.property118.com/budget-2015-landlords-reactions/76164/comment-page-960/#comment-89150

Quote

 

Now that it has been passed into law and will kick in in a few days, I think we need to accept that this irresponsible tax will be implemented in full. Question is, what to do next?

Do we sell up? Or significantly reduce leverage? Or take the pain and hope that a more enlightened Chancellor reverses this tax?

Given that once taxes have started, they are rarely removed, it would need to be one of the former. If you have a steady nerve, you could hope for a reversal, but this will not be because a Chancellor likes landlords, but only because of some catastrophe. And remember, Chancellors can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

I am going for a mixture of the first two, sell one property and pay off a large chunk of the mortgage on the other.

 

 

So, not raising rents after all then ;-)

Time to pay up suckers!!!

Wonder if this will be the start of the avalanche! Once the BTLs are empty and ready for sale, I can't see the average BTLer, especially the portfolio types, being in any position to "kite fly" with the price. They will need a quick sale, and the cuts in price will need to be decisive. Once the panic starts to spread, it's going to be brutal... 

I'm felt myself starting to feel sorry for some of them but then I remembered all the times I have been screwed over with deposits etc (pre-DPS). And the likes of Fergus and Judith. And the entitlement of the P118 gang.

This is going to be beautiful.  

[Venger]

33 minutes ago, oatbake said:

I'm felt myself starting to feel sorry for some of them but then I remembered all the times I have been screwed over with deposits etc (pre-DPS). And the likes of Fergus and Judith. And the entitlement of the P118 gang.

This is going to be beautiful.  

 

You turned it around for me at the end....

.... too many times there has been 'feeling sorry' for 'imminent' demise of the BTLers... against double-down and doubled-down.

And the outcomes could be beautiful.... if toward homeownership at lower prices.   Rather than hard-working tenants, including for warehouse working young men with families, currently priced out and renting off some old geezer with 150 properties.

Quote

 

He gazed into the alien eyes.  And saw nothing. No pity, no compassion, no spirit of kindness or sorrow...

...And suddenly, for the first time in his life, he understood what it was for the condemned
to look into his eyes.

-Player of Games

 

 

Quote

 

Neverwhere: It's more like saying you feel sorry for someone who has taken risky financial decisions and bid up the price of housing and is currently enjoying that position and might - but will not necessarily - suffer for it in the future, whilst totally failing to mention all of the people who their actions have helped to price out and who are actually suffering as a result now.

The two are intrinsically interlinked.

 

 

On 12/11/2016 at 1:13 AM, Nabby81 said:

Well they want pity then they appear in articles like this and show their figures and expect people to feel sorry for them ...2.4mil worth of property on a 34k salary 

 

[dugsbody]

1 hour ago, oatbake said:

https://www.property118.com/budget-2015-landlords-reactions/76164/comment-page-960/#comment-89150

So, not raising rents after all then ;-)

On the same thread, Jim S still seems to have the belief that houses will be demolished if landlords have to sell up because he's sticking with his "awful lot of misery" theory of homelessness. Hint Jim, you didn't create a single home, and you certainly won't destroy them when you sell. They'll still exist and someone will live in them.

https://www.property118.com/budget-2015-landlords-reactions/76164/comment-page-960/#comment-89146

[Darby Ram]

There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the "my rents are below market rents"-school of landlording in the BTL of this Guardian article.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/01/mortgage-tax-relief-cut-doesnt-add-up-buy-to-let-landlords

Since almost every landlord on the internet is charging below market rate, they must collectively be charging...market rate. But, anyway, it's a proper bloodbath down there.

[Venger]

18 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

.....sticking with his "awful lot of misery" theory of homelessness. 

https://www.property118.com/budget-2015-landlords-reactions/76164/comment-page-960/#comment-89146

 

Looked again at that post...

Quote

1/04/2017 at 11:51

Just thought I would show some correspondence from my MP Ann Coffey for Stockport Cheshire who clearly has no interest in Section 24

.......

1) If you could please answer my original question, where does Ann Coffey stand with regards to Section 24 Mortgage interest relief restriction?
a. Does Ann agree with it or disagree?
b. Did she have any part in voting for it?
2) Would Ann be will to ask Parliament the question as whether Section 24 is a broken manifesto promise? And while I’m at it isn’t increasing Insurance premium tax also a broken manifesto promise?

You will have to forgive my etiquette about political procedures, I have very little understanding about how it all works as I was never educated to this level, I never got involved in Politics at all until theft was introduced by the Government under the name of Section 24. I didn’t even know that you could get your MP to challenge issues you face. I still don’t know what duties they can perform for me. I keep reading that they work for you, but what does that mean?

Your response on her behalf would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

On 3/21/2017 at 3:15 PM, Venger said:

Until Section24 most BTLers never had to think political.   In the weeks following announcement of Section 24, many of the BTLers were bragging about how they never followed politics.  That they stay out of politics and wanted politics to leave them alone.   Some HPCers pointed out that was one reason the BTLers had totally underestimated a political risk to their positions in BTL and 'Generation Rent Forever' thinking, with move of Section24.

Admire the BTLers organisation with campaigns and letter writing?   2 years of it and no turn at all on Section24.  The BTLers are up against the same 'don't want to know' as renters were up against in foreverHPI against the tilt of HPIers/BTLers.

 

On 3/19/2016 at 7:55 PM, Neverwhere said:

 

On 3/19/2016 at 7:31 PM, Venger said:

Elsewhere, not on forum, I've pointed out how there has been a run of posts from different BTLers on the BTL forums, with them irate about the changes, and so many of these types of posts appearing on their different threads... "I was never interested in politics before C.24." often continuing in this way... 'but now I'm going to do everything possible to try and thwart Osborne becoming PM in future - there's millions of landlords and we can stop him.'

I think where I've posted on it previously it was probably to outline the fundamental hubris: not only in the belief that they can significantly affect politics now, having no grounding in it, but in the misplaced notion that they could ignore it in the first place.

They've been messing around with the fundamental living conditions and quality of life of an entire generation, and doing so via interest-only lending that has recently contributed to the biggest financial crisis in living memory, and yet they've apparently assumed that they could be so relaxed about the political risk that they needn't even cultivate an interest?

Pure ego. They advertise their arrogance and conceit as if it is some kind of defense for their actions, rather than that which is rendering them foolhardy and obtuse.

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Venger

[mrtickle]

7 minutes ago, Darby Ram said:

There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the "my rents are below market rents"-school of landlording in the BTL of this Guardian article.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/01/mortgage-tax-relief-cut-doesnt-add-up-buy-to-let-landlords

Since almost every landlord on the internet is charging below market rate, they must collectively be charging...market rate. But, anyway, it's a proper bloodbath down there.

Great comments on that page, too:

 

Quote

jack79  -> debbiera 

Do you seriously believe that cash rich landlords will buy up all the btls? Even if they did would you regard that as being fair, ie. Property investment becoming a preserve of the rich only?

The funniest thing about Section 24 is that leveraged landlords feel the need to explain the implications to people as if they were bad, when the implications were known about when the policy was drawn up, known about when the policy was made law, and known about when landlords were writing enraged letters to their MPs. And the implications of Section 24 are good.

Once again, with feeling, it is very, very good that dangerously innumerate people are denied access to leverage to fuel their investments. No, you are right, cash-rich landlords won't buy up all the BTLs. And, do you know why? Because the maths on your investment don't make sense. The dumb money pushed the yields down so far that owner-occupiers and non-leveraged landlords were squeezed out. But when the dumb money is pushed out, the PRS can return to sanity.

The party for leveraged landlords is over. The Bank of England want you gone. The Conservative Party want you gone. Renters want you gone. Homeowners with children want you gone. No one - no one - is going to stand up for you.

If you want to talk fairness for tenants, then ask your politicians to improve renter's rights. Crocodile tears because a tax change went against you is hypocrisy.

 

[Bland Unsight]

29 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

Great comments on that page, too:

Generally try to avoid posting from the phone but that jack79 comment is the most beautiful piece of work since Miles Shitside on the MoneyWeek article. Nice f**king work.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Bland Unsight

[Venger]

Quote

 

He is also selling another of his higher-end properties, though the tenants living in it aren’t moving out for a couple of months because they recently had a baby.

They and the older couple won’t be the only people affected by the changes – industry surveys suggest a fair number of landlords have already started offloading properties, or are thinking of doing so.

... In December Kate Barker, an influential economist....“I would be uneasy if it has the unintended consequence of meaning that these families … who have been living in a house for some time and paying their rent and everything, are then forced to move because the buy-to-let landlord no longer finds the yield acceptable, or cannot afford it,” she said. “That effect on stock does worry me more, not so much because of the landlords, but because of the impact on the tenants down the line.”

 

Couple of months.... basically S21?

Well you should have done something way back to campaignn for improvement tenant side security of tenure.  

Many of us are used to it already.   Quit with the human-shielding it.  

Back in 2015 one HPCer got S21'd on long-term rental because LL wanted to move his daughter and her family in.  Other times because tenant has asked for repairs.  And from time-to-time when one BTLer has sold up.

It has always been the case.... insecurity of tenure under most ASTs.

One BTLer against Section24 claimed it was not right for tenants to have more security of tenure because he never knew when he would want to cash in his investment.   Investment.   

Quote

 

Neverwhere

~BTL made things much worse for all of those tenants. Their lives are insecure so that you can hold investments.

~In your gift to not contribute to creating the damage in the first place. But you chose otherwise.

~You exploited that for personal profit. No one made you do it. You own the consequences.

~The lives of tenants have already been disrupted & damaged by the advantages given to BTL landlords over them.

~Hand-waving over disruption to lives that are insecure precisely because of BTL is faux compassion, faux morality

~False characterisation of the cause of the problem. The cause is BTL. Disruption is already present & ongoing.

~BTLers who failed to consider the political risk of pricing a generation out of homeownership should blame 
their own hubris.

 

 

[lastlaugh]

25 minutes ago, Bland Unsight said:

Generally try to avoid posting from the phone but that jack79 comment is the most beautiful piece of work since Miles Shitside on the MoneyWeek article. Nice f**king work.

Yep, that jack79 prose is familiar. ?

 

[Ah-so]

11 hours ago, Darby Ram said:

There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the "my rents are below market rents"-school of landlording in the BTL of this Guardian article.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/01/mortgage-tax-relief-cut-doesnt-add-up-buy-to-let-landlords

Since almost every landlord on the internet is charging below market rate, they must collectively be charging...market rate. But, anyway, it's a proper bloodbath down there.

What a great discussion. The gloves are off below the line. The landlords are taking a good punching. 

[Bland Unsight]

1 hour ago, Ah-so said:

What a great discussion. The gloves are off below the line. The landlords are taking a good punching. 

The boy Price is on there keeping it real.

Here's a gem from him on PovertyLater

Quote

How do you deal with section 24 tax if it will result in more than 100% tax on profit? Tax on profit is a legitimate business expense, tax on turnover is nonsense.

"Tax on profit is a legitimate business expense". Let that sink in. Revel in the idiocy. Savour it.

Conventionally INCOME - EXPENSES = PROFITS and then PROFITS - TAX = PROFITS AFTER TAX

I accept that these poor dears are getting a bit confused with all the GAAP crap they like to spout and it's understandable for them to seek to contest the government's determination that their mortgage interest is not an allowable expense for the purposes of calculating their profit chargeable to tax.

However, stating that "tax on profits is a legitimate business expense" shows that you don't understand even the most elementary accounting concepts. 

 

[mrtickle]

I like this one too

Quote

SonnDogg 

4h ago

23

Personally, I'd like to thank the 'Tenant Tax' campaign for crowdfunding to pay their PR firm Westbourne Communications who secured this article.

In a very rare moment of landlord selflessness they are helping to raise awareness of this wonderful legislation, thus ensuring that any over leveraged landlords still not 'wise' to the implications will be hastened towards the door.

Your efforts are much appreciated by me (who wants rid of you), every commenter on this article (who all want rid of you), society as a whole (which needs to get rid of you) and the government (who want rid of you too).

THANK YOU

 

[Bland Unsight]

Just looking through the replies on my Guardian CiF account (which I only ever use when these awesome PovertyLater vs HPC cage fights crop up) and realised that I missed a reply from the boy Pricey last time around!

Let me think about that for a moment...

 

 

Edited April 2, 2017 by Bland Unsight

[mrtickle]

 

[hi5lo5]

LOL. Hilarious

[mrtickle]

Quote

jack79  Deltic21 

6h ago

12

Deltic, I work for Basildon Council and can tell you that we purchased those portakabins exclusively to house newly bankrupted BTL landlords. We expect them to be cashflow positive by 2020 simply by charging former tenants £1 to pelt the newly indigent inhabitants with turnips, eggs and so on.

[hi5lo5]

Did someone mentioned about BTLers crying foul for mortgage mis selling? Here it comes.

https://www.property118.com/mortgage-express-or-mortgage-distress/43258/comment-page-6/#comment-88706

On another note.

Just spent 16 mins precisely watching the video of "Axe the tenant tax"  awareness week campaign. Ironically had 3 mentions of "tenants" and repeated plea to reach out to the  1.4m+ LL's to help protect them from going bankrupt. Also, citing about the failed Irish attempts.

Even a person with pea sized brain will think this is not about "TENANTS" and ALL about "GREEDY SCUMS who doesn't want to give up the houses which they don't own and have their lifestyle funded by hard working tenants"