Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged

[Dyson Fury]

This must be more authoritative.  Primary reference, as any self-respecting academic landlord would know:

Quote

Guidance

Tax credits: working out income

Calculating income for tax credits claims or renewals.

.....

Property income

Include income from property in the UK that you own or rent. This could include:

• profit from renting or leasing out land and property (if your rental property made a loss, you can use working sheet TC825 to help you work out what to enter)

• Rent-a-Room Scheme income above £7,500 or £3,750 if you’re a joint owner

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tax-credits-working-out-income

 

[Ah-so]

5 hours ago, Diver Dan said:

If you have a garage full of classic Ferraris, it doesn't affect the price of Fiat Pandas.

If you have a cellar full of vintage wines and malt whiskies, it doesn't affect the price of Jacob's Creek or Famous Grouse.

If you have a wall covered in original Rembrandts, Monets, Picassos and Warhols, it doesn't affect the price of IKEA art prints.

But if you hoard a 'portfolio' of homes using interest only mortgages and tax reliefs that aren't available to owner occupierd, you affect the price of other homes on the market.

Section 24 levels the playing field and it won't be repealed any time soon no matter how much money you waste on billboards.

I saw this post on the Just Giving page - Mark Alexander really didn't like it.

[Neverwhere]

1 hour ago, CunningPlan said:

Found it.

https://www.litrg.org.uk/tax-guides/tax-credits-and-benefits/tax-credits/what-counts-income-tax-credits

That appears to be correct:

Quote

The Tax Credits (Definition and Calculation of Income) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Amendment of the Tax Credits (Definition and Calculation of Income) Regulations 2002

5.  In regulation 11 (property income) after paragraph (2)(1) insert—

“(2A) In calculating property income, the restrictions in section 272A of ITTOIA (restricting deductions for finance costs related to residential property)(2) and section 399A of ITA (property partnerships: restriction of relief for investment loan interest)(3) shall be disregarded.”.

 

(1) Paragraph 2 was inserted by regulation 15 of S.I. 2006/766.

(2) 2005 c. 5. Section 272A was inserted by section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015 (c. 33). “ITTOIA” is defined in regulation 2 of the principal Regulations as meaning the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005. The definition was inserted by regulation 7 of S.I. 2006/766.

(3) 2007 c. 3. Section 399A was inserted by section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015. “ITA” is defined in regulation 2 of the principal Regulations as meaning the Income Tax Act 2007 (c. 3). The definition was inserted by regulation 3 of S.I. 2007/1305.

The Government webpage that LITRG links to does have this to say though, so it might just be tax credits:

Quote

Changes to tax relief for residential landlords

Other implications of the restriction

These reforms mean that the way taxable income is calculated will change and that may have other implications for some. For example, if you or your partner receive Child Benefit and your income is over £50,000 the High Income Child Benefit Charge may apply.

 

[CunningPlan]

13 minutes ago, Neverwhere said:

That appears to be correct:

The Government webpage that LITRG links to does have this to say though, so it might just be tax credits:

 

Agreed. It can affect child benefit but not child or working family tax credits

Which is a disgrace.

[Neverwhere]

4 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

Agreed. It can affect child benefit but not child or working family tax credits

Which is a disgrace.

It's pretty bonkers.

[Bland Unsight]

5 minutes ago, Neverwhere said:

It's pretty bonkers.

Entrepreneurial genius in action.

[Dyson Fury]

16 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

Agreed. It can affect child benefit but not child or working family tax credits

Which is a disgrace.

Having now read the reference I posted, instead of just citing it (standard academic practice!) I see it is completely unclear: referring first to "income from property" and then immediately afterwards "profit from renting". 

According to

https://revenuebenefits.org.uk/tax-credits/guidance/how-do-tax-credits-work/what-is-income/property-income/

Quote

Changes to the tax system for landlords of residential properties mean that from 6 April 2017 tax relief for finance costs such as mortgage interest will be restricted to the basic rate of Income Tax. This is being phased in gradually over four years.

Once the rules are fully in place, instead of deducting finance costs as an allowable expense when working out property income profit/loss, there will be a tax reduction which, for most low income people will mean they will receive basic rate tax relief on the finance costs as the reduction However, tax credit claimants are protected from the unintended consequences that flow from the new rules so that, in calculating property income, the restrictions in section 272A of ITTOIA (restricting deductions for finance costs related to residential property) and section 399A of ITA (property partnerships: restriction of relief for investment loan interest) are disregarded.

That is a disgrace.  The consequences were not "unintended" at all, but part of the design of Section 24.  The interaction with the tax band rules is completely inconsistent; someone raised into the higher or additional rate tax band on one hand could still be eligible for tax credits on the other. 

I suggest that Mr Hammond and his staff at the Treasury might be interested to receive some correspondence about this.  They're always conscious of the need to raise additional revenue, and always on the look-out for anomalous tax loopholes that need to be closed.

[Neverwhere]

1 minute ago, Beary McBearface said:

Entrepreneurial genius in action.

[Neverwhere]

3 minutes ago, Dyson Fury said:

I suggest that Mr Hammond and his staff at the Treasury might be interested to receive some correspondence about this.  They're always conscious of the need to raise additional revenue, and always on the look-out for anomalous tax loopholes that need to be closed.

It's not a loophole, it's an intentional exemption introduced into legislation by Hammond's Treasury in March 2017.

[Si1]

35 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

Agreed. It can affect child benefit but not child or working family tax credits

Which is a disgrace.

Tax credits are being phased out for universal credit over the coming years.

[Diver Dan]

1 hour ago, Ah-so said:

I saw this post on the Just Giving page - Mark Alexander really didn't like it.

As someone who has had to pick himself up off the floor, dust himself down and start again a number of times, change can be scary but eventually you'll find you've become a stronger person for it. The going was good with BTL for many years and now it's starting not to be. BTL landlords need to learn to improvise, adapt and overcome, ideally by cashing out and trying something new.

In other news, I went and bought some shares in the JC Decaux corporation, so in a way I've donated a negative amount to this campaign.

[longgone]

1 hour ago, TonyJ said:

What we have been saying here seems to be starting to go mainstream.

LL`s underestimate the amount of scathing hate around for them. They really believe a lack of landlords will lead to homelessness. 

where do they think these houses go once sold up, in the crusher ?

 

[mrtickle]

1 hour ago, Ah-so said:

I saw this post on the Just Giving page - Mark Alexander really didn't like it.

Yes, come on folks, let's have a lot more LIKES for Brendan please and comments that Mark really won't like.

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/section-24-billboard

 

[mrtickle]

39 minutes ago, Neverwhere said:

It's not a loophole, it's an intentional exemption introduced into legislation by Hammond's Treasury in March 2017.

I don't remember this being discussed at the time

So they specifically changed the rules (as intended, in 2015) which would have taken Child Benefit and Tax Credits away from this cretins. And they botched the change by keeping the intention that they lose Child Benefit, but u-turning on the intention that they lose Tax Credits, such that now they won't? The fact that this uses 118's often-repeated "unintended" word is worrying.

I thought there were lots of clever people in the Treasury, many who will have been involved in the careful sculpting of the original precision artwork which was the original policy. Surely they would still be around to explain what was intended, even if it's internally.

 

 

[Neverwhere]

3 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

I don't remember this being discussed at the time

So they specifically changed the rules (as intended, in 2015)

That's what it looks like to me, but as Si1 points out tax credits are supposed to be being phased out for universal credit, so it could end up being a very temporary reprieve.

Conceivably it might be intended to minimise the need to reassess tax credit claimants before switching them over to UC?

[mrtickle]

19 minutes ago, Neverwhere said:

That's what it looks like to me, but as Si1 points out tax credits are supposed to be being phased out for universal credit, so it could end up being a very temporary reprieve.

Conceivably it might be intended to minimise the need to reassess tax credit claimants before switching them over to UC?

My problem is that the original full implementation date for UC was 2013 ! It slips and slips, and there are often calls for it to be "paused" etc. Recently it was talk like "well the intention was that people would be better off under UC, they aren't going to be, so we should stop the whole system and stay as we are". 

In fact there was another question in PMQs today.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-05-02/debates/7966615E-C546-44F8-9ACD-AE7D57519DF4/Engagements

Quote

Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)

Q2. Evidence of the inhumane and cruel impact of the Government’s flagship universal credit policy is clear for all to see. Its impact has been devastating, and the Prime Minister can no longer bury their head in the sand as they have done with the Windrush scandal. Therefore, will the Prime Minister get a grip and take action to protect families from being forced further into crisis; or does the Prime Minister simply believe that the damage being done to the poorest and most vulnerable in our communities is a price worth paying?

Just look at that vague and emotive language. What are they talking about? The rules are very clear: No-one moving to UC gets less money. They have transitional extra bumper bonus protection payments which guarantee this.

(I think this is a disgrace, because it means that UC won't save money for years and years: all those families with 3,4,5,6 children on Tax Credits get the FULL WHACK Tax Credits payments, including the 3rd/4th/5th child payments when they move to UC, for years and years).

However another glimmer of hope. Currently, people who migrate to UC keep their higher amount of money - if the UC amount would have been lower - until they have a "change in circumstances". But when that happens, BANG their "transitional protection" payments are wiped away.

What if being a landlord counted as a "change in circumstances"?

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by mrtickle

[Neverwhere]

6 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

However another glimmer of hope. Currently, people who migrate to UC keep their higher amount of money - if the UC amount would have been lower - until they have a "change in circumstances". But when that happens, BANG their "transitional protection" payments are wiped away.

What if being a landlord counted as a "change in circumstances"?

AIUI rental property equity is likely to exclude most landlords from being entitled to UC, and so I think the below rule would apply:

Quote

According to the DWP briefing note, where a claimant’s UC award reduced to Nil, their transitional protection will be removed at the set single taper rate (currently 63%). This is to ensure claimants do not experience a cliff edge by losing their transitional protection once they are no longer entitled to UC.

(Source)

[oatbake]

If you have another look at the billboard, it actually comes across, at first glance, as a pro tenants' rights poster...

"HUGE RENT HIKES : EVICTION OF NO FAULT TENANTS: REDUCED STANDARD OF PRIVATE RENTED ACCOMODATION"

For me, this is the most prominent bit. And you know what they say about the best adverts being the ones you don't notice, I think that is what most people will take away from this poster.

It sounds like something Shelter would come out with FFS!!! ?

One interpretation is that "rent" is the tax that is imposed on the poorest in society.

Best case scenario for landlords: tenants quickly lose interest once it becomes clear that this is an obscure change to taxation for landlords. Some other landlords might bother to read up on it, then promptly soil themselves, then pay a visit to an estate agent at the soonest available opportunity...

Worst case scenario for landlords: the masses start to realise how much they're being shafted by BTL landlords and start demanding further concessions (why should they get any tax relief?!?)

Really, I am not sure this billboard could have been more effective as anti-landlord propaganda if they'd tried. A thing of beauty. 

 

 

[longgone]

30 minutes ago, oatbake said:

 

One interpretation is that "rent" is the tax that is imposed on the poorest in society.

 

 

 

Indeed it has too much information in an unclear form. i think the vandalized version is the no frills short and concise version it does seem to get to the point far quicker.

although i do agree it does imply renters are the poorest in society bit of an own goal. 

[Tapori]

10 hours ago, Beary McBearface said:

Entrepreneurial genius in action.

[Dyson Fury]

19 hours ago, TonyJ said:

I clicked on the link.

And yes, I can see the home solutions billboard. Ironic they are together. Or more than a coincidence?

It's not a coincidence at all!

https://www.property118.com/funding-more-billboards/

Quote

The billboard that Property118 member David Heard paid for out of his own pocket

http://www.homesolutions.me.uk/

Quote

Home Solutions (Portsmouth) Limited. Reg in England. 07597142

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07597142/officers

[Paul77]

18 minutes ago, Dyson Fury said:

It's not a coincidence at all!

https://www.property118.com/funding-more-billboards/

 

It is sooo tempting to troll these guys...

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, TonyJ said:

The devious little *******. Or maybe he just got buy one, get one free on the location 

Look at the tiny little 'To advertise here, call......' sign between the 2 billboards, in the 2nd photo.

Think it's got the 'Home Solutions' logo on it as well. It looks like 'Home Solutions' actually owns the land, or at least the right to sell advertising on it.

[TJHooker]

23 minutes ago, Paul77 said:

It is sooo tempting to troll these guys...

How would you be able to tell the difference, the utter nonsense idea of putting up a billboard in some crap area of Pompey so seemingly wealthy landlords can continue getting tax breaks that owner occupiers can't get is trolling in itself.

I continue to despair at the insanity of people in this country, what the **** has happened to people are they really so thick to have no self awareness at all.

[Guest]

Is it possible that David Heard is starting a BTB (Buy to Billboard) business, funded by BTLers on JustGiving? From his photo, the first billboard looks as though it may well be on his land?

From https://www.property118.com/funding-more-billboards/

Quote

David Heard has very kindly agreed to coordinate the project and Neil Patterson (Managing Director of Property118 Limited) will be the trustee for the funds raised. David has also agreed for us to use his billboard design, which will save money.

As this was David’s initiative, we will leave it entirely to his discretion where the billboards are placed. The one exception to that is if a person donates £500 or more, in which case they can decide on the placement of the next billboard.

 

Quote

The printing and pasting costs circa £300 and the board rental costs circa £100 a week (dependent on the location of the board of course). Therefore, assuming two months of rental each board costs circa £500 a month. This gets cheaper the longer the rental continues, but weathering does require the board to be re-printed and re-pasted and some point, typically 6 to 12 months.

It appears (and I could be wrong - I'm just going on David's photos & 118 statements) that David may have a nice little earner?