SoftLandingUK Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Gordon Brown becomes prime minister. He wants to show everyone he is own man and starts to work on radical policies. That means responding to the house price crisis in an innovative, imaginative way and bring prices back to pre 90 levels Does he (A) Introduce an annual tax on BTLs Unoccupied 2% of the value Occupied 1% of the value ( Push up interest rates to 10% © Put housebuying under state control where a government surveyor values a property for sale and submits a "fair" valuation not taking in account past valuations Discuss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 why so complicated? just outlaw mortgage loans that are >80% LTV so someone needs a 20% deposit to buy a property, no more boom and bust in the property market simple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoftLandingUK Posted May 12, 2007 Author Share Posted May 12, 2007 why so complicated?just outlaw mortgage loans that are >80% LTV so someone needs a 20% deposit to buy a property, no more boom and bust in the property market simple I would personally go for A and C as they are the ones that hold the key so if they offload their properties and have them revalued then they should come back on the market at a more affordable level for FTBs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ah-so Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 All are absurdly poor ideas and would mean the state sticking its nose into things that did not concern it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy2Times Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 All are absurdly poor ideas and would mean the state sticking its nose into things that did not concern it. The state has a responsibility to its citizens, in the form of housing, health and job security and general well being, how can all of this be achieved by not sticking its nose in somewhere, are you suggesting National Insurance and Taxes be scrapped as you clearly believe this is state intervention into restricting your personal spending power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Just make BTL liable for the entire council tax,whether tenanted or not.Simple!! The meer mention of something like that will have the rabble scarpering for the exits in double-quick time. hey presto,affordable housing again!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the end is a bit nigher Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 remove btl tax breaks and out it on par with buying shares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compounded Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 By chance or design the government is beginning to discourage BTL by increasing regulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svag Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Ban ownership of more than two properties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Just make BTL liable for the entire council tax,whether tenanted or not.Simple!!The meer mention of something like that will have the rabble scarpering for the exits in double-quick time. hey presto,affordable housing again!!! would just be passed onto tenants via rent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peemac Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Scrap shorthold assured tanancies and introduce long-term assured tennancies, whereby unless a tennant didn't pay their rent they could not be evicted. Simple, effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Gloom Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Just make BTL liable for the entire council tax,whether tenanted or not.Simple!!The meer mention of something like that will have the rabble scarpering for the exits in double-quick time. hey presto,affordable housing again!!! And add a community subsidy tax, due to missing out on the money being invested in local shops/aminities. Suddenly no deprived areas caused by second home owners and affordable homes. Even simplier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnG Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 The state has a responsibility to its citizens, in the form of housing, health and job security and general well being, Aw, bless. You still a teenager, then? I bet you still believe in 'fairness', too, don't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnG Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Scrap shorthold assured tanancies and introduce long-term assured tennancies, whereby unless a tennant didn't pay their rent they could not be evicted.Simple, effective. Yep. Remove almost all rentable property from the market. Everybody would be forced to buy, whether or not that would suit their individual circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnG Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 remove btl tax breaks and out it on par with buying shares That's how it works now, FFS. Profits are taxed. Profits are distributed as dividends. Losses are carried forward. BTL makes a profit, profit is taxed, balance goes to landlord. BTL makes a loss, landlord subsidises out of his own income and carries the loss forward (no immediate relief on loss). So there you go, arguing for the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Yep. Remove almost all rentable property from the market. Everybody would be forced to buy, whether or not that would suit their individual circumstances. What the hell are you on about? Explain please? How would the abolition of Assured Shorthold Tenancies remove rentable property from the market. Renting worked reasonably well up until 1988 (as an ex Tory - that legislation was the worst policy ever). Introduce long term Assured Tenancies and that will sort out the wheat (long term professional landlord) from the chaff (quick fast buck BTL to$$er) It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnG Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 (edited) What the hell are you on about? Explain please? How would the abolition of Assured Shorthold Tenancies remove rentable property from the market. Renting worked reasonably well up until 1988 (as an ex Tory - that legislation was the worst policy ever). Introduce long term Assured Tenancies and that will sort out the wheat (long term professional landlord) from the chaff (quick fast buck BTL to$$er) It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Well, your last sentence was correct. There was very little private rented accommodation in 1988 because of the draconian 'tenant centric' Assured Tenancy rules. Professional landlords are business people (I've been in this business for over 10 years). If you feck their business model they will move into other ventures. Certainly if ASTs were removed I would liquidate my portfolio as tenancies end. That would be a real pi55er for local renters because I am a particularly good landlord ('below market' rents, repairs attended to immediately, pragmatic and sympathetic approach when tenants have difficulties, etc. etc.). FWIW, I am also a tenant. I rent a modest house near where I work (120 miles from home), so removing ASTs would force me to use expensive hotels or grotty B&Bs. My eldest daughter also rents on an AST basis with her partner. They have a 3 month old baby, and AST has given them the flexibility to choose a modest home for themselves, shortly to be uptraded for a larger place to accommodate the new family. I have a balanced view of the AST market. How about you? [edit for typos] Edited May 12, 2007 by JohnG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC2 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Assured tenancies seem to work pretty well in many continental countries, such as Germany and Switzerland. I'm not sure what, if anything, there is about the UK that might prevent them being a market-stabilising factor here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svag Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Well, your last sentence was correct.There was very little private rented accommodation in 1988 because of the draconian 'tenant centric' Assured Tenancy rules. Professional landlords are business people (I've been in this business for over 10 years). If you feck their business model they will move into other ventures. Certainly if ASTs were removed I would liquidate my portfolio as tenancies end. That would be a real pi55er for local renters because I am a particularly good landlord ('below market' rents, repairs attended to immediately, pragmatic and sympathetic approach when tenants have difficulties, etc. etc.). FWIW, I am also a tenant. I rent a modest house near where I work (120 miles from home), so removing ASTs would force me to use expensive hotels or grotty B&Bs. My eldest daughter also rents on an AST basis with her partner. They have a 3 month old baby, and AST has given them the flexibility to choose a modest home for themselves, shortly to be uptraded for a larger place to accommodate the new family. I have a balanced view of the AST market. How about you? [edit for typos] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paolo88888 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 I have a balanced view of the AST market. How about you?[edit for typos] Well said JohnG. Diminishing BTL will not help with house prices because although it may increase supply it equally increases demand, because each tenant thrown out becomes one more house buyer. The more that renting becomes a respected way of living for people of all walks of life, the more choice we have and the less of an issue that house prices become. There are many people on this site who express tha joys of renting, both in terms of being cheaper and more convenient. These are people who really do believe in HPC and are glad that the landlord is prepared to take the risk of it. The people on this site who complain about BTL are really people who are frantic about missing out on the HPI and want to buy to get a peice of the action. So come on, be honest with yourselves. If you believe in HPC, rent and give thanks for BTL. If you believe in HPI, take out a large mortgage and get down to the Estate Agents. I am thinking JohnG that you miss out on the Capital Gains Tax exemption because you own but dont live it it? If so, that is not fair and it would be better if the CGT exemption applied to your "main property" rather than your "main home". Suppose two families who owned their own homes, decided to swap and live in each others? That is perfectly reasonable but at present they would both lose their CGT exemptions although they are not changing what they take from/give back to the state at all. In fact, they may be helping the community if they are both moving closer to work and saving congestion/greenhouse gas emissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svag Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Well said JohnG. Diminishing BTL will not help with house prices because although it may increase supply it equally increases demand, because each tenant thrown out becomes one more house buyer. The more that renting becomes a respected way of living for people of all walks of life, the more choice we have and the less of an issue that house prices become. There are many people on this site who express tha joys of renting, both in terms of being cheaper and more convenient. These are people who really do believe in HPC and are glad that the landlord is prepared to take the risk of it. The people on this site who complain about BTL are really people who are frantic about missing out on the HPI and want to buy to get a peice of the action. So come on, be honest with yourselves. If you believe in HPC, rent and give thanks for BTL. If you believe in HPI, take out a large mortgage and get down to the Estate Agents.I am thinking JohnG that you miss out on the Capital Gains Tax exemption because you own but dont live it it? If so, that is not fair and it would be better if the CGT exemption applied to your "main property" rather than your "main home". Suppose two families who owned their own homes, decided to swap and live in each others? That is perfectly reasonable but at present they would both lose their CGT exemptions although they are not changing what they take from/give back to the state at all. In fact, they may be helping the community if they are both moving closer to work and saving congestion/greenhouse gas emissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bomberbrown Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 1. Certainly if ASTs were removed I would liquidate my portfolio as tenancies end. 2. I have a balanced view of the AST market. How about you? 1. Portfolio, are you an artist or a photographer? If you are on about your BTL properties, then yes, liquidate them, I and undoubtedly your tenants couldn't give a toss. 2. Balanced or biased? I grant you, Assured Tenancy's are not ideal for landlords and are obviously stacked in favour of the tenant. How about we meet in the middle ground and say all AST's have a default tenancy agreement of 5 years minimum with a minimum 6 month tenure and a 2 month notice thereafter by the tenant? What do you say to that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairies Wear Boots Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Won't HPI take care of the BTL market? If house prices keep going up and up and rents don't, then BTLer's won't be able buy a place and rent it out at a profit. Already some BTLers are people are 'covering mortgage shortfalls' with their own money, happy with their capital gains. Not many people here think that a great investment strategy, and they'll have to sell to realise any profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoftLandingUK Posted May 12, 2007 Author Share Posted May 12, 2007 Won't HPI take care of the BTL market? If house prices keep going up and up and rents don't, then BTLer's won't be able buy a place and rent it out at a profit. Already some BTLers are people are 'covering mortgage shortfalls' with their own money, happy with their capital gains. Not many people here think that a great investment strategy, and they'll have to sell to realise any profit. Brown is not stupid. Right lets see. Lets make it really easy to make money on houses with a little help from my friends in the bank - buy-to-let really takes off Right lets see we have already creamed some stamp duty of them. But hey lets lull them into a false sense of security. Give them relief on interest payments. Oh thanks you Mr Brown you are so charitable. Anyone remember MIRAS. But we can get them later with capital gains. All you BTLers out there all these new regulations will mean that yours is just another regulated product with all the taxes. Whos to say there will not be a HIP for rented houses in the future You making money? How dare you? Gordy wants some of it!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IP Newcomer Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 Well said JohnG. Diminishing BTL will not help with house prices because although it may increase supply it equally increases demand, because each tenant thrown out becomes one more house buyer. Or move back in with their parents, or become a lodger. It's not a zero sum game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.