Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
mattyboy1973

'green Tax' To Hit Landlords With £5,000 Bill On Buy-To-Let Homes

Recommended Posts

Until recently they could apply for loans from the Green Deal scheme for improvements, which are then repaid by tenants who benefit from lower bills. But the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is proposing owners provide the money."

What a difference a new Chancellor makes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the way that a legal requirement for landlords to provide habitable accommodation is described in this article as a 'stealth tax'. Good grief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a time of austerity when we are cutting disabled benefits and elderly social care why do landlords expect the taxpayer to fund improvements to their home which will make them more energy efficient and save them and their tenants money over time.

It's not a stealth tax but a cut in a taxpayer handout which should never have been given in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a time of austerity when we are cutting disabled benefits and elderly social care why do landlords expect the taxpayer to fund improvements to their home which will make them more energy efficient and save them and their tenants money over time.

It's not a stealth tax but a cut in a taxpayer handout which should never have been given in the first place.

Oh I dunno. Probably seemed reasonable in the local pub in Whitney a few years ago when the hard working locals who did the right thing and inherited million pound homes couldn't afford to renovate them to rent them out to plebs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#Greentenanttax

#Justraisetherents

#Innit

Strangely that's exactly what the spokesfool of the Residential Lettings Association said in the article (rents would have to increase).. Just shows that they don't know how markets work..

The more interesting bit of the article is probably

The Department has suggested landlords can meet the costs by borrowing more.

In a presentation it states: “Data suggests around 60 per cent of privately rented properties are currently owned outright. So we assume that these landlords will have a significant amount of equity against which they might borrow.”

It claims the overall impact on rent levels will be “minimal” as relatively few homes will be hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a time of austerity when we are cutting disabled benefits and elderly social care why do landlords expect the taxpayer to fund improvements to their home which will make them more energy efficient and save them and their tenants money over time.

It's not a stealth tax but a cut in a taxpayer handout which should never have been given in the first place.

You mean austerity where government spending goes up year on year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard Jones, policy adviser at the Residential Landlords Association, said: “Unless they make funding available, landlords will be forced to pass these costs on to tenants in the form of higher rents.

Their standard response.

Tenant tax II :lol:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote from article: "The move will affect 330,000 buy-to-let landlords who own homes that are less energy efficient, often from the Victorian and Edwardian eras."

.....and still living in those less democratic eras by the sound of their sh**y self-entitled for doing nothing in return attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard Jones, policy adviser at the Residential Landlords Association, said: “Unless they make funding available, landlords will be forced to pass these costs on to tenants in the form of higher rents.

Spent a while trying to find billybong's post below... (although a few hpcers may worry that employers would be okay with that, in realm of hpi and if scheme is against hpc.)

The tenants will just pass the extra costs onto their employers.

Hahaha, really made me laugh, +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote from article: "The move will affect 330,000 buy-to-let landlords who own homes that are less energy efficient, often from the Victorian and Edwardian eras."

.....and still living in those less democratic eras by the sound of their sh**y self-entitled for doing nothing in return attitude.

Yep - sums it up totally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spent a while trying to find billybong's post below... (although a few hpcers may worry that employers would be okay with that, in realm of hpi and if scheme is against hpc.)

That's one of my favourite posts too. Sums up so much, so elegantly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their employers will be forced to do the only thing they can, and make the consumers pay. Who in turn will force their employers to pay higher wages. In no time BOE will be forced to raise interest rates which will again hurt the precious BTLers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good example of why the government needs to keep turning the screw on BTL:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/jessica-investigates/hsbc-caused-stamp-duty-rise/

Shows what a paper the DT has become when it publishes this as a sad story, can't believe he got compensated.

He's a spitting image of Rolf Harris, and judging by his actions has the same contempt for the young as Rolf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EPC energy rating system is severely flawed, it marks down properties that have electric heating even though government and EU policy wants to ban burning gas for "green" reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's really no excuse for BTLers, there have been generous grants available for these upgrades for years.

This change correctly punishes lazy landlords.

(Emphasis added to above quote.)

Fate: "Young landlord, you have been lazy. You should have taken advantage of the generous taxation incentives pushing you towards making energy efficiency improvements!"

Landlord: "Heaven forfend I be judged lazy when in reality I was merely being prudent and pursuing evidence based policies! I was waiting for clearer evidence of climate change and hoping for even more generous tax incentives. If you want me to pull my finger out of my @rse, I demand incentives. Absent incentives so generous that my eyes ejaculate, I'll most likely keep my finger in my @rse"

Fate: "Are you sure?"

Landlord: "Yup."

[Time passes]

Fate: "OK, so the generous deal is off the table and you're going to be forced to make the improvements, paying upfront out of your own pocket"

Landlord: "It's a stealth tax! It's just going to be passed on to the tenant"

Fate: "But it only affects 330,000 of the 5,000,000 properties in the PRS. What makes you so sure you can pass it on?"

[Short but still fairly awkward pause]

Fate: "Why have you put your fingers in your ears?"

Landlord: "Not listening, not listening, not listening..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a take on things.

As I argued in the shobolerant, buy-to-let is novel. It is twenty years old. The whole industry is childish and stupid and is populated with shark-jumping cretins who are, when all is said and done, as analysts, childish and stupid.

Here on HPC, the wig satirised the line about putting the rents up, but like all good satire, it is comfortably ahead of its intended victim.

The claim that they will put the rents up might be considered as a case of 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf', except that in this case the boy posted on facebook in July 2015 that he would be crying "Wolf!" later, then hired a sky-writing plane to write "Wolf!" whilst all the while mopping up a puddle of their own stupid tears with a teacloth saying, "There is no wolf, it's a fairly efficient market which has already discovered a market price."

The whole thing is bullsh!t and the RLA are making fools of themselves. Only a tiny fraction of BTL landlords are adversely affected by these changes, and they'll eat their losses or sell up (or both).

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.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   90 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    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.