Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
SarahBell

Btl Sobbing Starts

Recommended Posts

Calls for ‪#‎Stampduty‬ to be halved for residential sales & ‪#‎BuyToLet‬ 3% to be abolished.

All rates of Stamp Duty should be halved immediately and then scrapped altogether, while the 3% surcharge on buy-to-let properties and second homes should be ditched without delay.

The calls come from the influential TaxPayers’ Alliance, which is also demanding that the Government immediately bin its forthcoming cap on the amount of mortgage relief landlords can set against tax.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance this morning issued a report which pulls no punches, describing recent tweaks to the tax system as “gimmicky”.

The Alliance said that the Government must undertake “real reform” to solve the housing crisis.

It tore into previous administrations for “tinkering around the edges”, which had only worsened the situation and driven up prices.

It said that taxing landlords was in reality taxing tenants, because rents would rise.

In calling for first the halving and then the abolition of all Stamp Duty Land Tax, it described this as an “unfair tax which stops people from buying their own home, settling down with a family, moving for work or downsizing. It makes the dream of home ownership ever more distant for millions of families.”

It added: “Stamp Duty is a disastrous and unfair tax which leads to the misallocation of housing stock and leads to lower incomes and higher unemployment than necessary. It doesn’t even raise much revenue, once dynamic effects are fully accounted for.”

In other parts of today’s hard-hitting report, the Alliance criticises local authority landlord licensing schemes as hitting tenants in the pocket.

It is also calling for the “urgent” liberalisation of planning, including the declassification of some Green Belt. It says that declassifying 5% of Green Belt around London would allow it to expand by almost a sixth.

Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “For decades, politicians have failed to tackle the root causes of the housing crisis: a chronic lack of supply.

“What’s more, Stamp Duty is still punitively high, and gimmicky tweaks to the tax system will ultimately end up penalising tenants and increasing rents.

“The new Chancellor should now seize the opportunity to drastically simplify and reduce property taxes, while removing planning restrictions which prevent huge swathes of land from being built on for no good reason at all.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Alliance said that the Government must undertake “real reform” to solve the housing crisis.

Ahhh...

Ban BTL

Stop HTB

Stop FLS

Raise IRs

Stop RTB

Stop Immigtation

Remove Housing Benefit LandLord Subsidy

Solved.

It's that simple./

Edited by TheCountOfNowhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh...

Ban BTL

Stop HTB

Stop FLS

Raise IRs

Stop RTB

Stop Immigtation

Remove Housing Benefit LandLord Subsidy

Solved.

It's that simple./

I wouldn't ban BTL, just the subsidies that make it viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which bit of "your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments on a mortgage or loan secured on it", do the BTL brigade not understand??? Being a landlord is not a risk free investment & anyone not understanding the risk they've chosen to run doesn't warrant sympathy if it goes wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're just showing their true colours.

Renter-saver side has so many VI pushing at them from all directions.

You can't expect anything else in the realm of hpi lovers.

We have some wide-minded supporters who can see the damange from a societally destructive housing financialisation bubble.

Most importantly of all, I think wider financial system, economy and treasury needs the hpc rebalance - way over the 'core-voters'.

Link to Sarah's article

The calls come from the influential TaxPayers’ Alliance, which is also demanding that the Government immediately bin its forthcoming cap on the amount of mortgage relief landlords can set against tax.....It said that taxing landlords was in reality taxing tenants, because rents would rise.

http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/ministers-urged-to-abolish-disastrous-stamp-duty-to-help-solve-housing-crisis/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't ban BTL, just the subsidies that make it viable.

I'm 50/50 on it. We need social housing. We dont need housing for profit ( via the tax payers ). BTL is how we've got to this extreme madness now, so banning it would collapse the bubble over night

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't ban BTL, just the subsidies that make it viable.

It's tilting that way, with changes (S24/BTL surcharge on BTLers and second home buyers). Perhaps some BTLers first have a HPC to experience, and to say hello to LPA Receivers if they can't pay their liabilities, and their own fancy homes to bring to market. (One guy on BTL forum bought a house in 2014 for £2.24m, and he's furious about Section 24 - I see another BTLer trying to sell his home for £700K.)

All I hear from HPI/BTL VI is to u-turn on those changes, and to build more homes.

Left in position, without S24, higher stamp duty on BTLers, to shake them out and stop them buying.... land and those newbuilds would be more expensive. And I don't want a newbuild from one of the major favoured developers.

Jonathan Isaby was talking some sense in 2015... but now this turn of events.

October 20, 2015

The housing market is also rigged in favour of older generations. For years it was the British who were obsessed with home ownership while our continental cousins were content with renting, but now home ownership in France is higher than in the UK. Nearly three quarters of pensioners are home owners, but with the average house price now standing at £284,000 and barriers to home ownership being voraciously defended by anti-housebuilding lobbyists like the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the intergenerational equilibrium is getting even more out of kilter. Meanwhile, taxpayers fork out ever larger sums for housing benefit as rents explode.

..The social contract between generations that Edmund Burke so eruditely articulated more than 200 years ago is fundamentally broken. With home ownership out of reach for so many youngsters and taxpayers spending £36 billion a year to service the government’s £1.5 trillion debt pile, it’s time that ministers faced up to genuinely tough decisions.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/10/jonathan-isaby-making-the-old-even-better-off-at-the-expense-of-the-young-is-morally-bankrupt.html

They've made tough decisions. I like them. S24 and stamp duty surcharge.

Oh great.. wider MSM picked up on this TA 'unfair' / renters-pay more / slash stamp duty.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3706145/Call-slash-stamp-duty-rates-amid-concerns-rent-rises.html

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 50/50 on it. We need social housing. We dont need housing for profit ( via the tax payers ). BTL is how we've got to this extreme madness now, so banning it would collapse the bubble over night

It depends how you define BTL. Landlords have been in business for ever but leveraged BTL (a sort of time-share on steroids) started in the early 90s. It would have died in 2008, but was bailed out by interest rate cuts and continues to be propped up at the expense of those who didn't invest in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 50/50 on it. We need social housing. We dont need housing for profit ( via the tax payers ). BTL is how we've got to this extreme madness now, so banning it would collapse the bubble over night

I would like to see BTL via leverage banned. So only properties owned in full by the landlord can be rented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would ban buy-to-let mortgages on existing property to stop it being "snapped up" (see sig).

Direct landlord credit towards new build which eventually adds to the stock of homeowner homes as the first landlords sell on.

Theres not need to ban anything.

Loans just need to be priced correctly.

IO mortgage should require the bank to retain 100% of the equity. This will increase the cost of an IO loan to ~10% at the mo.

BTL mortgages need to be charged at business rates too, to reflect the extra risk involved over OO. A premium of 4% above individual is about correct.

IMHO a high LTV IO BTL should be charged at somewhere between 8%-13% at the mo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would ban buy-to-let mortgages on existing property to stop it being "snapped up" (see sig).

Direct landlord credit towards new build which eventually adds to the stock of homeowner homes as the first landlords sell on.

I would ban financialisation of housing altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres not need to ban anything.

Loans just need to be priced correctly.

IO mortgage should require the bank to retain 100% of the equity. This will increase the cost of an IO loan to ~10% at the mo.

BTL mortgages need to be charged at business rates too, to reflect the extra risk involved over OO. A premium of 4% above individual is about correct.

IMHO a high LTV IO BTL should be charged at somewhere between 8%-13% at the mo.

8-13% are you mental? That could double rents in many cases, do you want my tenants to suffer more than they already have done? That would mean only rich young professionals would be able to afford my rents. Fine no skin off my nose they'll probably keep the place tidier than my current crop, although they might be a bit pickier about the boilers and what have you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8-13% are you mental? That could double rents in many cases, do you want my tenants to suffer more than they already have done? That would mean only rich young professionals would be able to afford my rents. Fine no skin off my nose they'll probably keep the place tidier than my current crop, although they might be a bit pickier about the boilers and what have you.

Sometimes, when the morning caffeine has not fully kicked in, I forget your posting as 'satire as art' .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which bit of "your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments on a mortgage or loan secured on it", do the BTL brigade not understand??? Being a landlord is not a risk free investment & anyone not understanding the risk they've chosen to run doesn't warrant sympathy if it goes wrong.

The bit where its their mortgage free home at risk when the interest only mortgages on their BTL slumvilles start exceeding the value of their "empire".

If the TA are arguing for the removal of the cap on interest rate relief I think we can argue for an even simpler solution - no relief at all on loans on residential properties.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8-13% are you mental? That could double rents in many cases, do you want my tenants to suffer more than they already have done? That would mean only rich young professionals would be able to afford my rents. Fine no skin off my nose they'll probably keep the place tidier than my current crop, although they might be a bit pickier about the boilers and what have you.

Have you considered targeting Eastern Europeans?

Just don't (allegedly) touch them inappropriately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bit where its their mortgage free home at risk when the interest only mortgages on their BTL slumvilles start exceeding the value of their "empire".

If the TA are arguing for the removal of the cap on interest rate relief I think we can argue for an even simpler solution - no relief at all on loans on residential properties.....

Exactly.

The TA simply don't seem the appreciate the distortion caused to the housing market by allowing one set of participants (BTL) a massive tax advantage over another set - people buying houses to actually live in. This is the grotesque unfairness which would be solved at a swipe if all MITR was removed from residential properties. The appeal of leveraged BTL would vanish and the inflationary effect that demand has had on the market would cease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly before the regs changed in the 90's if you wanted a second mortgage for residential property, the loan had to be secured on your primary dwelling and you had to prove that the debt could be serviced from genuine earnings (ie. not potential rental income).

I think a return to those sort of lending standards would decimate BTL and be a lot healthier for the banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8-13% are you mental? That could double rents in many cases, do you want my tenants to suffer more than they already have done? That would mean only rich young professionals would be able to afford my rents. Fine no skin off my nose they'll probably keep the place tidier than my current crop, although they might be a bit pickier about the boilers and what have you.

The prices of said houses would fall by 50-80%, then the renters could afford to buy their own home, cut out the middle man. Overstretched landlords will go bankrupt, what's not to like?

Edited by Fatmanfilms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BTLers have already doubled-down into it, with their 20%/25% deposits, MEW and MEW, moar and moar houses.

S24 and 3% SDLT surcharge threatens a real HPC on them, and their own homes to bring to market to make their lenders whole, or/and the tax-man on

BTL has been pulling in the greedy idiot money last few years.

If anyone here is a wannabee BTLer for the future, then I welcome S24, 3% BTLer surcharge, ever increasing regulation and licensing. Let's have a HPC to knock it out of existing BTLers and wannabees.

I agree with this - however the greedy and stupid average btl landlord might not have the stomach, and they will cling on.

I know a bloke who has 'worked up to' 12 btls (avg 200k) in addition to main house. He's been buying right uptil now - 25% down on each, interest only. Remortgaging older ones and main home (also io, also about 25% equity) *constantly*.

Right now this chap has an approx paper value of 700k equity, 2.1 mil debt. 2.8 mil exposure.

If he sells now, he can clear his main house, keep a rental outright and have change for a porsche. He has absolute faith though. Of course a 25% drop wipes him out entirely. Main home gone too. And we will get that and more. His greed was unbelieveable, so if he goes to the wall, cry me a river.

BTLer
Wiki Dictionary 2515


Historians are still divided about the meaning of this term.
Early use suggests that they were a group of Landlords, but the term rapidly became a term of abuse, and after the Marxist revolution under Corby of 2023 where many people labelled BTLers were executed or jailed, it was used as an expletive.
Pascoe, 2490 suggested that it meant 'Borrow to Lend' but he was disputed by Enger and also Volytager
The real meaning remains obscure.

They think, honestly I kid you not that they were providing homes for people.
They had no idea that they were stealing young peoples futures.
GREED clouded their eyes.

Now, they have to join the anti smoking counsellors, the gun shops, the video shops, the petrol station owners. the horse riding harness makers, the sedan chair makers etc. etc. etc.
The World has moved on.
P.s I don't feel sorry for them, I hate them with a visceral, gut burning hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't ban BTL, just the subsidies that make it viable.

I'm another one agreeing with this. With those subsidies removed there will still be some landlords around, and that's fine. There's a genuine market for rental properties (e.g. if I wasn't staying somewhere for long I'd probably rent even if the housing market was sane), it's just buried under all the spivvery. Eliminating the latter is what's needed, not completely wiping out BTL. I don't agree with someone else's suggestion of limiting it to new builds. If I want to rent I'd rather have more choice than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BTLers have already doubled-down into it, with their 20%/25% deposits, MEW and MEW, moar and moar houses.

S24 and 3% SDLT surcharge threatens a real HPC on them, and their own homes to bring to market to make their lenders whole, or/and the tax-man on

BTL has been pulling in the greedy idiot money last few years.

If anyone here is a wannabee BTLer for the future, then I welcome S24, 3% BTLer surcharge, ever increasing regulation and licensing. Let's have a HPC to knock it out of existing BTLers and wannabees.

There we have to disagree... S24 doesn't go far enough but I dislike the 3% surcharge..... - I don't like things that distort a market so no interest relief on property loans and no 3% BTLer surcharge... I personally would abolish both at the same time sometime in 2018 (look we've knocked this off but come 2023 you will see why)..

Edited by eek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   94 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.