Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

PovertyLater readers have been treated to another top quality "article"; Landlords selling rental properties fuels £5.5bn CGT bonanza. As long-standing readers of this thread will know the PovertyLater website is the beating heart of the internet. Industry analysts suggest that the top three most visited sites on the internet are (in descending order) google, people entering "google" into the bing search box and in third place, obvs, PovertyLater.

Given the sheer volume of traffic on the PovertyLater forum it's no surprise that the comments on the article run to hundreds of pages - oh hang, on - actually there are only two in four days (must be a glitch on the page?).

The pressure that comes from knowing that your thoughts will reach every corner of the globe is clearly affecting some of the PovertyLater members, causing them to imagine things that might not correspond to reality.

image.png.12ebe4616443881ffae052203ae9520c.png

What puzzles me is how this golden goose business is supposed to work. Before the introduction of section 24 the high leverage portfolio landlords over at PovertyLater paid very little income tax (relative to the extent of their gross rental income) because their profits were  modest. Even "Monty Bodkin" knows this much - and he said as much when commenting on a different PovertyLater article:

image.png.79df13a9409c6331e89dab867c0e16d1.png

Further, we know that the high leverage portfolio landlords don't pay any CGT because they are seeking to grow portfolios of property - so they are not selling. The extent to which any have paid CGT in order to incorporate is a consequence of section 24.

Hence, to the best of my understanding, we don't have a goose laying golden eggs which is subsequently killed. We have something that is busily acquiring property (using debt) but paying no tax. Then, consequent to section 24 it starts selling (or transferring holdings into a corporate wrapper), thus paying CGT, or, if it has the yields and low enough leverage, it continues to hold but pays much, much more income tax.

The concept of dead gold egg laying geese has no relevance here; we need a new fable about the pig that turned into bacon.

(I'm figuring that "numbskull anarchists" might also be "anti-capitalist" but I think Monty might be over-looking some important subtleties if he believes that taking a dim view of morons being granted 25 buy-to-let mortgages represents an "anti-capitalist" stance. Personally, I don't think that you're going to be able to un-invent banking, but banking will evolve. Implicitly state-back deposit insurance is now taken for granted but there's nothing inevitable about it. On a related note in 1996 banks decided that unlimited numbers of interest-only buy-to-let mortgages  extended to cretins represented good business for banks. That was innovation. In 2017 the Bank of England made it clear that they saw matters differently. If Mr Bodkin wants to stretch the definition of "anti-capitalist" to include the Bank of England then he's welcome to do so but I suspect that the elasticity of the terminology will not allow it to both stretch so far and retain any semblance of meaning.)

 

Edited by Beary McBearface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1
HOLA442
2 hours ago, Beary McBearface said:

PovertyLater readers have been treated to another top quality "article"; Landlords selling rental properties fuels £5.5bn CGT bonanza. As long-standing readers of this thread will know the PovertyLater website is the beating heart of the internet. Industry analysts suggest that the top three most visited sites on the internet are (in descending order) google, people entering "google" into the bing search box and in third place, obvs, PovertyLater.

Given the sheer volume of traffic on the PovertyLater forum it's no surprise that the comments on the article run to hundreds of pages - oh hang, on - actually there are only two in four days (must be a glitch on the page?).

The pressure that comes from knowing that your thoughts will reach every corner of the globe is clearly affecting some of the PovertyLater members, causing them to imagine things that might not correspond to reality.

image.png.12ebe4616443881ffae052203ae9520c.png

What puzzles me is how this golden goose business is supposed to work. Before the introduction of section 24 the high leverage portfolio landlords over at PovertyLater paid very little income tax (relative to the extent of their gross rental income) because their profits were  modest. Even "Monty Bodkin" knows this much - and he said as much when commenting on a different PovertyLater article:

image.png.79df13a9409c6331e89dab867c0e16d1.png

Further, we know that the high leverage portfolio landlords don't pay any CGT because they are seeking to grow portfolios of property - so they are not selling. The extent to which any have paid CGT in order to incorporate is a consequence of section 24.

Hence, to the best of my understanding, we don't have a goose laying golden eggs which is subsequently killed. We have something that is busily acquiring property (using debt) but paying no tax. Then, consequent to section 24 it starts selling (or transferring holdings into a corporate wrapper), thus paying CGT, or, if it has the yields and low enough leverage, it continues to hold but pays much, much more income tax.

The concept of dead gold egg laying geese has no relevance here; we need a new fable about the pig that turned into bacon.

(I'm figuring that "numbskull anarchists" might also be "anti-capitalist" but I think Monty might be over-looking some important subtleties if he believes that taking a dim view of morons being granted 25 buy-to-let mortgages represents an "anti-capitalist" stance. Personally, I don't think that you're going to be able to un-invent banking, but banking will evolve. Implicitly state-back deposit insurance is now taken for granted but there's nothing inevitable about it. On a related note in 1996 banks decided that unlimited numbers of interest-only buy-to-let mortgages  extended to cretins represented good business for banks. That was innovation. In 2017 the Bank of England made it clear that they saw matters differently. If Mr Bodkin wants to stretch the definition of "anti-capitalist" to include the Bank of England then he's welcome to do so but I suspect that the elasticity of the terminology will not allow it to both stretch so far and retain any semblance of meaning.)

 

Mass buy-to-let seems more like a neo-feudal society, particularly given that you have a whole new class of people who will never be able to buy. However I have had enough of discussing economic systems for one weekend so will not explore this thought any further. 

I saw that post and it says so much about those that inhabit that site. They see themselves as the goose laying the golden egg for society rather than greedy get rich quick spivs who exploit others.

He thinks that he lays gold and Ros has declared herself an expert on the rental market, when alm she has done is write a pseudo academic report.

They think they are amazing and not chancers who got a bit lucky when interest rates were slashed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
1 hour ago, Ah-so said:

They think they are amazing and not chancers who got a bit lucky when interest rates were slashed. 

Moral hazard. They’ve forgotten the bit where we all bailed-out their failed ‘industry’.  

1. Collect massive ongoing handout.

2. Ignore source of massive handout.  

3. Claim you are a wizard that can shit money.

4. Act confused by reaction of people who gave handout. 

Edited by BuyToLeech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

Monty is at it again.

He is a winner and those who inhabit this site are "losers". He does not define loser but clearly it is a failure to leverage up to the hilt and buy a load of shit houses that marks one out as a winner. 

I own a house and could have got into BTL but I just don't see it as morally acceptable. That makes me more of a winner. 

Monty Bodkin

17 hours ago
 

Reply to the comment left by H B at 24/02/2018 - 18:46
They are idiots who spend their lives in jealousy

I just find it all very sad.
There are winners and losers in life.
I won't begrudge them their crash when/if it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
5
HOLA446
6
HOLA447
On 24/02/2018 at 2:16 PM, Beary McBearface said:

The motivation behind the 1988 Housing Act had absolutely nothing to do with relieving a "housing shortage". Bosher is totally wrong. It was all about removing rent controls from the private sector and allowing rents to rise.

Regarding Bosher and rents - this analysis from the Generation Rent lobby group is interesting

Quote

 High rent does not appear to drive evictions, but rather the reverse — evictions drive rental price inflation. Evictions therefore do damage not only to tenants’ livelihoods, but also to the sustainability of the
housing market more broadly. 

Source: Generation Rent, Causes & Consequences of Evictions in Britain, October 2016

Picked up via Twitter

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

image.png

Again another idiot.

Youll be hammered by S24 if your earned and rental income puts you well into HRT band.

Someome on the mean income  with 2-3 IO BTL will probably find themselves in that position.

There's also the 'mumsnet hell' - a LL with claiming tax credits, which can be quite substantial (see tax credit sad face) [yeah , i know people on benefits borrowing several 100k - but thats Gordon Brown for you...] , renatal income whacking the tax credit income limit which is the high 20ks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449
On 25/02/2018 at 2:51 PM, Ah-so said:

Mass buy-to-let seems more like a neo-feudal society, particularly given that you have a whole new class of people who will never be able to buy. However I have had enough of discussing economic systems for one weekend so will not explore this thought any further. 

I saw that post and it says so much about those that inhabit that site. They see themselves as the goose laying the golden egg for society rather than greedy get rich quick spivs who exploit others.

He thinks that he lays gold and Ros has declared herself an expert on the rental market, when alm she has done is write a pseudo academic report.

They think they are amazing and not chancers who got a bit lucky when interest rates were slashed. 

Im not 100% who the neo-feud is - tenant, LL or  IO BTL bank.

At the mo. the idoit leverage LL is lording it. Change some numbers and the LL will be in with the pigs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410
6 hours ago, spyguy said:

Im not 100% who the neo-feud is - tenant, LL or  IO BTL bank.

At the mo. the idoit leverage LL is lording it. Change some numbers and the LL will be in with the pigs.

Another thought - throw in the return of the leasehold - itself a legacy of feudalism - something which is exerting ever-greater control over the leaseholder and you do get a picture of neo-feudalism building up..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411
On 28/02/2018 at 1:44 PM, Ah-so said:

Another thought - throw in the return of the leasehold - itself a legacy of feudalism - something which is exerting ever-greater control over the leaseholder and you do get a picture of neo-feudalism building up..

This seems quite damaging to capitalism on two fronts: as well as being a direct drag on the productive economy, the neo-feudalists' tendency to pretend that they are engaged in capitalism (as with Mr Bodkin above) also undermines support for capitalism by laying the negative impacts of feudalism at capitalism's door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

Ooh, what fun - one of the evicted tenants, Ava Payne, from the BBC programme has signed up to 118 and is engaging with the mighty Bosh...

Quote

 

p118_placeholder-block3.png

@AvaFosterCarer

2 days ago
 

Response to Dr Rosalind Beck
Having read your article I would like to fill in some of the explanation and answer some of the missing questions. There is no rat to be smelt here. Similar to Landlord in Action I was filmed for several hours. This was reduced to less than 5 minutes viewing time and you have only given my issue half a dozen sentences. It is never going to be possible to give a truly balanced view in a 30 minute programme. I personally have to thank Panorama for airing part of my story.

This article gives more detail https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/cruel-catch-22-foster-carer-11836495 #TheresaMay4Ava

Correction @bbcPanorama I have been served with two section 21 notices and evicted once.

I lived in the first rental property for 7 years with no problem and never missed a rent payment. I also received my deposit back in full when I left. My landlord wanted to sell, so I had to go and I did. I see this as a “No fault, on the part of the tenant – Good reason on the side of the landlord” type of notice.

However, when I commenced the second tenancy on 27 February 2016 I asked for an electricity certificate or report to meet the Fostering Service’s health and safety requirement. There then followed months of conversations between the agent, landlord and myself. They eventually confirmed that they did not have one and did not need one. It is not required by law for a single family home (only HMOs). I was caught in the middle and tried to commission the EIC report but electricians were unwilling to come out. I finally got it carried out on 23 December 2016 – overall condition was unsatisfactory and work needed to be done. I emailed a copy to the landlord on the same day and on 2 January was sent an email to quit on 26 February 2017, the reason given as ‘he wanted to sell the house’. Another No fault – Good reason case? You can do the maths. I asked for more time as my son was in his final year at school getting ready for exams and this was refused. The landlord also refused to do the remedial work until environmental health wrote to them.

I had not been able to foster all the time I was in the property because it was deemed to be unsafe. My depleted revenue meant I could no longer afford the private rental cost of a property of a suitable size without help. The lack of security in private rental came into sharp focus and I went to the council. My reason for doing this was based on Communities and Local Government guidance 4.31 that a quota of properties be set aside for foster carers. As noted by Paul Shamplina of Landlord Action it was the council who insisted that I remain in the property until evicted, although I contacted them weekly asking why they could not act sooner.

During my property search I have come across landlords who will not consider me as a tenant because I am a foster carer. While here I would be interested to find out the real reason why that is and if there is any evidence to suggest we are worse tenants than everyone else. Anyone who has gone through the 'Form F' fostering assessment process is vetted to the nth degree, on our social, personal and financial status. In addition, our homes are expected to be of a higher standard. Landlords should be reassured that our/their premises are inspected roughly every 6 weeks by social workers and we would not be allowed to continue fostering if they were not in a good condition.

The council is still in the process of deregistering me #14DaysToGo, due to lack of suitable accommodation, but that can be stopped if I find somewhere. The council says I will have to remain in temporary accommodation for approximately 4 years before I am offered social housing. Since Theresa May mentioned me in parliament they are working with me to find private rented accommodation and have offered to help with the deposit, advance rent and moving costs. So notwithstanding my reservations, if there are any foster friendly landlords out there I would love to hear from you ASAP.
#AvaProudToFoster seeking landlord #ProudToSupportFostering

 

Throughout Mark Alexander pops up to say idiot things like:

Quote

So, did you have permission to run a foster care business from the property from your landlord?

...despite it being mentioned several times already that foster care is not a business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413
2 hours ago, Ah-so said:

Ooh, what fun - one of the evicted tenants, Ava Payne, from the BBC programme has signed up to 118 and is engaging with the mighty Bosh...

Goodness me.

Quote

Dr Rosalind Beck A day ago
Reply to the comment left by Ava Payne at 01/03/2018 - 02:09
Thank you Ava, for explaining more about what happened, from your viewpoint. Unfortunately, this only increases the extent to which we have your perspective on this, with the landlords' versions of events and perspectives completely missing. I have had many rogue tenants for example, who left owing me thousands of pounds and having left the houses a state, but if you asked them what had happened, they would make up something about me being terrible and say they 'always paid their rent on time.'

Translation: Thank you for explaining yourself to the 11 readers of the PovertyLater forum (and the three dozen HPC 'stalkers') but can't you see how that is just adding to the bias? As the situation was already biased, in order to not increase the bias you need to include 51 words of witless pro-leveraged landord propaganda for every 49 words about the impacts on the child you were caring for which flowed from the state's bizarre desire to see them avoid being electrocuted by the shower. I realise that you may not be au courant with with latest line in dumb as shit pro-leveraged idiot on-line idiocy but fortunately for you I, the Bosh, have written screeds of it; a million worthless words and counting. Just post some of my impotent foaming into your post to balance your pro-tenant anti-landlord bias and the job's a good 'un. Love and kisses, The Bosh.

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414

Busta's cards are on the table:

Quote

Mark Alexander
Registered: Monday 17th January 2011

Location: Online - founder of Property118.com

Number of comments left in all time: 10473

7 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at 02/03/2018 - 14:11
You have made a very good point there Ros.

When my Social Worker / Foster Carer tenant eventually moves out of her home it will be sold. There was a time where I would have happily kept it forever, but the amount of anti-landlord sentiment and financial disincentive of late has resulted in me having decided to exit the market as and when my properties are vacated. As that particular property is a three, bed red brick semi, the rental yield based on current values is particularly poor, hence it is likely to vanish from the rental market forever as a result of being sold to "one of the few" owner occupiers who has the means to buy it.

Why one of the few needs to go in quotations marks is a bit of a mystery to me. Thoughts?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, living in Malta sucks balls and he can't come home till he's divested and escaped the CGT/section 24 shit creek he'd paddled himself into with 50 crap houses on tick.

1527.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415

You're right Ah so, that thread is a treat.

Quote

Dr Rosalind Beck 2 hours ago
Even Shelter admits that it takes an average of 7-8 months for the full eviction process for a private tenant using Section 21:

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/eviction/how_long_a_section_21_eviction_takes

I would estimate that a lot of the £9 billion in arrears and damages suffered by landlords each year is accumulated at this point, when many tenants are enjoying a rent-free stay - encouraged by the so-called charities and the council to stay put - and in some cases even deliberately trashing the houses.

We had all of this to put up with, even before the Government's war on landlords and whilst it has been very difficult for landlords having to deal with this onslaught, the powers that be and others who like to attack us have no understanding of the symbiotic relationship between landlords and tenants. Tax and regulate us into oblivion and it will have zero effect on our tenants? I don't think so.

I think that this represents a diminution of the Bosh's self-esteem. Once upon a time she was a saviour, bravely providing housing to the needy, now we're at symbiosis. Just one tiny step more and the over-leveraged cretins can see themselves as others see them.

25013223_196009204298744_669239008039010

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
16
HOLA4417
9 hours ago, Lavalas said:

I don’t really think I should post what I think about Bosha & Busta after reading that thread. These are not good people.

I think you should post what you think about two fictional DEBTjunkie cockroaches, these are not people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418
1 hour ago, thewig said:

I think you should post what you think about two fictional DEBTjunkie cockroaches, these are not people.

Dr Cockroach to you, sonny.

Ive just finished Booshes comparative assesment of modern economists. I think theres a new Phd bubbling up:

Keynes - 5 inches.

Keen - 4 inches.

Thale  - 7 inches.

Edited by spyguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419
11 hours ago, Beary McBearface said:

the symbiotic relationship between landlords and tenants.

She is using the word correctly: a long time ago, "symbiosis" only meant "a mutually beneficial relationship". Now it also includes parasitism. She's either forty years out of date, or it's parapraxis.

[Sorry, can't do doubly embedded quotes properly]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
20
HOLA4421
1 hour ago, Toast said:

She is using the word correctly: a long time ago, "symbiosis" only meant "a mutually beneficial relationship". Now it also includes parasitism. She's either forty years out of date, or it's parapraxis.

[Sorry, can't do doubly embedded quotes properly]

That's consistent with the idea that they are gradually coming to their senses and reaching to a fuller understanding of their role in thinks as quislings for all the now defunct crap banks that wrote their mortgages. Give it another couple of years and she'll be churning out thousands of words about her right to be a parasite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

Trainwreck is a cockroach on the edge imo. Her deluded sense of self importance probably tops even that clown who scuttled off to Malta to relax but has visibly aged ten years in eighteen months.

these vermin will eat themselves up from the inside with their own cognitive dissonance as they try to square the circle of misunderstood philanthropist to universally despised parasite.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423
31 minutes ago, Beary McBearface said:

That's consistent with the idea that they are gradually coming to their senses and reaching to a fuller understanding of their role in thinks as quislings for all the now defunct crap banks that wrote their mortgages. Give it another couple of years and she'll be churning out thousands of words about her right to be a parasite.

That's very true! I'm looking forward to reading those essays here (or at least having someone else read them for me, and picking up the choice quotes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
36 minutes ago, Beary McBearface said:

That's consistent with the idea that they are gradually coming to their senses and reaching to a fuller understanding of their role in thinks as quislings for all the now defunct crap banks that wrote their mortgages. Give it another couple of years and she'll be churning out thousands of words about her right to be a parasite.

Quislings a traitor.

Bosh and buster are the dumbest money in the house, the patsy, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425
12 minutes ago, thewig said:

Trainwreck is a cockroach on the edge imo. Her deluded sense of self importance probably tops even that clown who scuttled off to Malta to relax but has visibly aged ten years in eighteen months.

these vermin will eat themselves up from the inside with their own cognitive dissonance as they try to square the circle of misunderstood philanthropist to universally despised parasite.

 

Because moving to Malta wont change the outcome - hes bust.

Sure, he might have some equity but the s24 tax will kill him.

Then hmrc will clasdify him as a tax evader.

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