An appropriate use of the Human Rights Act???????

[Octopus]

Read on....

Cherie Blair fires first shot in legal battle against Government's buy-to-let tax - Telegraph

What amuses me is that a Tory (George Osbourne) introduces a "leftie" policy and the ex Labour member complains ........ about the policy

 

[infinity]

I think the whole thing is a joke. Another example of the government taking from the small time investers. Why should they take more in tax than someone will earn from. Property they have invested in.
You work hard- your taxed hard. Then with the money you have been taxed on you buy a buy to let, you are then taxed again on that money so they earn more from it than you do!
The county is a joke. I can see why people sit around on their backsides all day and claim benefits, why bother working at all just to have it taken away all the time.

 

[Octopus]

I think this change to buy to let mortgages is correct. Tax relief on mortgages was withdrawn years ago, yet BTL owners get it?

the government should ban interest only mortgages and make BTL owners have repayment methods like the rest of us

 

[infinity]

Surely if you have a btl on a repayment you ail still pay tax on the interest part of the mortgage? Therefore still much worse off

 

[plugsandsparks]

Can they not simply sell the house to a new company they set up and re-mortgage, then they are in the same boat as corporations..??

 

[rolyberkin]

I think this change to buy to let mortgages is correct. Tax relief on mortgages was withdrawn years ago, yet BTL owners get it?

the government should ban interest only mortgages and make BTL owners have repayment methods like the rest of us

Sorry not quite right, this is not tax relief on a mortgage as was 'years ago' (MIRAS) but a change in allowable business expenditure, similar to you suddenly being told you will not be able to offset tools and legitimate business expenses against your income.

There is no difference between someone who invests in a house as a business to a sparky who has alternate business expenses? Buy to let mortgages have a higher standard mortgage interest rate than a standard homeowner mortgage so buy to let owners do not per se get a better deal than a standard homeowner.

Anyone can have an interest only mortgage (not just BTL owners) it is a standard type of mortgage which is paid off by another source of investment, such as an endowment policy, so BTL owners do have exactly the same repayment methods available as other mortgage owners.

I have a buy to let not to make money and get rich quick but due to the fact that a few years back I just couldn't sell my own house. I currently let it out to a single mum and her child and have not raised their rental payments in four years. I just about keep my head above water. I am now having to seriously consider selling it as I cannot afford to be charity and the raises in tax will have me running at a loss! My tenant will not be able to afford to buy the house and it will be sold to someone who can, fairly **** policy as far as I am concerned as through the direct result of this policy she will be told to get our of the house she has lived in for four years and is quite happy living in. I can see numerous landlords selling up and the only people who will be affected will be those who cannot afford to buy houses. This is nothing to do with home ownership it is simply just another stealth tax!

 

[rolyberkin]

Surely if you have a btl on a repayment you ail still pay tax on the interest part of the mortgage? Therefore still much worse off

On a BTL on a repayment you only get relief on the interest part of the monthly payment not the capital, most landlords will have an interest only mortgage and will rely on the increase in property price long term to make money.

 

[derek]

Well, they have to recoup the taxes they aren't getting from the multinational companies from somewhere. Easier for the government to go after small businesses and individuals when it comes to tax rises. Plus there will be some cushy directorships for various government ministers when they leave parliament.

 

[UNG]

Read on....

Cherie Blair fires first shot in legal battle against Government's buy-to-let tax - Telegraph

What amuses me is that a Tory (George Osbourne) introduces a "leftie" policy and the ex Labour member complains ........ about the policy

She is one of two lawyers mentioned who are acting on behalf of two landlords backed by a group of other landlords yes she and her husband own BTL property but I doubt this will effect them

I think this change to buy to let mortgages is correct. Tax relief on mortgages was withdrawn years ago, yet BTL owners get it?

the government should ban interest only mortgages and make BTL owners have repayment methods like the rest of us

Your comment indicates that you have not read the link you have posted

Can they not simply sell the house to a new company they set up and re-mortgage, then they are in the same boat as corporations..??

I was thinking that myself but then there is the corporate taxation to consider as to whether this is viable with a small number of properties

Sorry not quite right, this is not tax relief on a mortgage as was 'years ago' (MIRAS) but a change in allowable business expenditure, similar to you suddenly being told you will not be able to offset tools and legitimate business expenses against your income.

There is no difference between someone who invests in a house as a business to a sparky who has alternate business expenses? Buy to let mortgages have a higher standard mortgage interest rate than a standard homeowner mortgage so buy to let owners do not per se get a better deal than a standard homeowner.

Anyone can have an interest only mortgage (not just BTL owners) it is a standard type of mortgage which is paid off by another source of investment, such as an endowment policy, so BTL owners do have exactly the same repayment methods available as other mortgage owners.

I have a buy to let not to make money and get rich quick but due to the fact that a few years back I just couldn't sell my own house. I currently let it out to a single mum and her child and have not raised their rental payments in four years. I just about keep my head above water. I am now having to seriously consider selling it as I cannot afford to be charity and the raises in tax will have me running at a loss! My tenant will not be able to afford to buy the house and it will be sold to someone who can, fairly **** policy as far as I am concerned as through the direct result of this policy she will be told to get our of the house she has lived in for four years and is quite happy living in. I can see numerous landlords selling up and the only people who will be affected will be those who cannot afford to buy houses. This is nothing to do with home ownership it is simply just another stealth tax!

The taxation change could have wide ranging implications throughout the property market and cause a massive destabilisation of property prices which will impact those who don't invest in property but own their own house. If those looking to move find the value of their property has dropped this could stagnate the whole property industry

The other one not mentioned is the hit on purchase of a buy to let with the stamp duty surcharge adding another 3% to the expense of buying

For a number of years now BTL property investors with a few properties have taken this route for the long term as a pension investment rather than the usual pension schemes offered by the men in suits with their ridiculous management fees who have for many years plundered these pension investment schemes and Gordon Brown has also not helped with his hits on the pension pots during the Labour governments time in power

 

[Diddy]

Im torn on this. I have family in Canterbury, It is now more a university city than a tourism hotspot (although they still are a major tourism hotspot).
anyway in Canterbury during term time there are 40,000 students in the city. A huge percentage of ex council housing is now owned by BTL landlords who use these places as HMO - Subject to NO council tax. Same buyers get 1st dibs on most of the local houses of the "type" that meets the criteria. - Result property prices in that area are sky high for a "local" worker. These houses and their owners give zero back to the local economy and costs every council tax payer extra £££ on their bills to make up for the fact that so many thousand houses just don't "need" to pay for the services they happily share.
Then the tax relief on the interest part of the mortgage - Yes it's a hit that they are abandoning it - But I know a few property owners from Canterbury that who already make well over the mortgage repayments per month - My cousin is one. He bought his mothers house from his other siblings when she passed away. Here are the rough details
Property cost - £180k
Renovations - £10 k
He ended up with a mortgage of £140k - costs about £700 per month at the moment - He receives £1800 per month for 10 months per year. Not a bad return - AND its a repayment.
I do often wonder when I hear BTL landlords argue against more fee's ect (we all want to pay less to be fair) - But surely whatever type of mortgage you have at the end of the mortgage you will have a house bought and paid for by your tenants. Surely any cash one earns above the break even point must just be a brucie bonus so to speak ? Am i missing the point - Is it essential that prospective tenants not only pay the landlords mortgage but also pay them a nice bonus on top ?
Again I may well be missing the point by a mile.....At least they didn't bring in the other weeks members bill to enforce in law that landlords must supply housing fit for humans lol.

 

[Leesparkykent]

I have a BTL in Canterbury.

 

[rolyberkin]

I am up for the concept that all houses must have council tax applied irrespective of whether they are inhabited by students or not, this is just a p**s take.

I pay tax on the profit from my let at 40% I bet most landlords don't even declare it, this is where there needs to be a crack down! Unfortunately when you have to pay 40% of your profits and there is no tax relief on the interest payments it just aint worthwhile, mind you I may look to buy one in Canterbury!

 

[Diddy]

I have a BTL in Canterbury.

Hi cousin ? lol. A hell of a lot of people have BTL in Canterbury. Turning a 3 bed ex council into a 5+bed student digs is very popular...but you must know this already lol.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Hi cousin ? lol. A hell of a lot of people have BTL in Canterbury. Turning a 3 bed ex council into a 5+bed student digs is very popular...but you must know this already lol.

Haha..yeah I live about 20mins from Canterbury.

 

[Diddy]

I am up for the concept that all houses must have council tax applied irrespective of whether they are inhabited by students or not, this is just a p**s take.

I pay tax on the profit from my let at 40% I bet most landlords don't even declare it, this is where there needs to be a crack down! Unfortunately when you have to pay 40% of your profits and there is no tax relief on the interest payments it just aint worthwhile, mind you I may look to buy one in Canterbury!

Any that come on the canterbury local estate agents usually get "offered" to a certain few before being offered to the public. Another thing happening in Canterbury is that the council, due to huge local uprisings have now decided to enact some legislation that means any property that someone wants to convert to a HMO will need planning permission (think from jan this year) part of the planning thing is to ensure that hmo's don't number more than 10% of properties within a 100 meter range. Things are changing down there due to the pressure that all these students have placed on the council.....tough one because the students in their sheer numbers do obviously contribute to the economy.
Planning permission has already been given to a couple of 500 bed purpose built properties in a pfi style thing going on between the universities and a couple of large builders.....Still doesn't help the council though.

 

[Diddy]

Haha..yeah I live about 20mins from Canterbury.

Lived in Canterbury for 13 years between 1990 and 2003. Worked all over kent and the dreaded London while down there. channel tunnel boy to start with lol....weren't we all ha ha.

 

[UNG]

Im torn on this. I have family in Canterbury, It is now more a university city than a tourism hotspot (although they still are a major tourism hotspot).
anyway in Canterbury during term time there are 40,000 students in the city. A huge percentage of ex council housing is now owned by BTL landlords who use these places as HMO - Subject to NO council tax. Same buyers get 1st dibs on most of the local houses of the "type" that meets the criteria. - Result property prices in that area are sky high for a "local" worker. These houses and their owners give zero back to the local economy and costs every council tax payer extra £££ on their bills to make up for the fact that so many thousand houses just don't "need" to pay for the services they happily share.
Then the tax relief on the interest part of the mortgage - Yes it's a hit that they are abandoning it - But I know a few property owners from Canterbury that who already make well over the mortgage repayments per month - My cousin is one. He bought his mothers house from his other siblings when she passed away. Here are the rough details
Property cost - £180k
Renovations - £10 k
He ended up with a mortgage of £140k - costs about £700 per month at the moment - He receives £1800 per month for 10 months per year. Not a bad return - AND its a repayment.
I do often wonder when I hear BTL landlords argue against more fee's ect (we all want to pay less to be fair) - But surely whatever type of mortgage you have at the end of the mortgage you will have a house bought and paid for by your tenants. Surely any cash one earns above the break even point must just be a brucie bonus so to speak ? Am i missing the point - Is it essential that prospective tenants not only pay the landlords mortgage but also pay them a nice bonus on top ?
Again I may well be missing the point by a mile.....At least they didn't bring in the other weeks members bill to enforce in law that landlords must supply housing fit for humans lol.

I see your one of the blinkered ones that believes the only cost of a BTL is the mortgage, a little bit more research needed on your part I think

Any that come on the canterbury local estate agents usually get "offered" to a certain few before being offered to the public. Another thing happening in Canterbury is that the council, due to huge local uprisings have now decided to enact some legislation that means any property that someone wants to convert to a HMO will need planning permission (think from jan this year) part of the planning thing is to ensure that hmo's don't number more than 10% of properties within a 100 meter range. Things are changing down there due to the pressure that all these students have placed on the council.....tough one because the students in their sheer numbers do obviously contribute to the economy.
Planning permission has already been given to a couple of 500 bed purpose built properties in a pfi style thing going on between the universities and a couple of large builders.....Still doesn't help the council though.

A lot of the problem with HMO's is that every council throughout the country has different rules regarding licencing and a lot of HMO's are created to be under the room limit before a licence is needed therefore it can go on under the radar and swamp the local community.
I think all HMO's should be licenced if only to set a safe and livable standard as some I have seen are in a very poor condition and the landlords appear to have very little regard for their tenants welfare

 

[Gavin A]

I welcome pretty much anything that puts the brakes on the runaway btl market, which is almost entirely responsible for the vast increases in house prices over the last couple of decades, way ahead of rises in pay levels.

This graph shows the scale of the BTL problem, which is massively exacerbating the issue of low rates of house building.

It shows the ownership of new build properties built since 2000, with the vast majority going into BTL. 2.5 million new build properties gone as btl means 2.5 million less people able to buy their own properties, and 2.5 million more people who're therefore stuck as renters because ultimately the BTL market was driving prices way beyond the reach of those who ought to have been buying the properties.

This is obviously going to impact on those who've come into that market as landlords for whatever reason, but the current situation is completely unsustainable. We're now heading back towards Victorian levels of private rented housing which really isn't a positive thing for society.

I suspect Osbourne's not really realised what he's doing here, but I don't see that it's the government's role to maintain a situation that has created huge housing bubbles and a vast increase in the proportion of housing sold that's going into the private rented sector. Those affected should probably sell up, move on and be glad of the years of extra income they did get out of it.

I can see this potentially leading to the market being flooded with houses and prices crashing, which probably isn't great economically, but really would just be deflating the massive housing bubble and putting housing back on to the historic ratio of house prices to income.

 

[UNG]

I welcome pretty much anything that puts the brakes on the runaway btl market, which is almost entirely responsible for the vast increases in house prices over the last couple of decades, way ahead of rises in pay levels.

This graph shows the scale of the BTL problem, which is massively exacerbating the issue of low rates of house building.

It shows the ownership of new build properties built since 2000, with the vast majority going into BTL. 2.5 million new build properties gone as btl means 2.5 million less people able to buy their own properties, and 2.5 million more people who're therefore stuck as renters because ultimately the BTL market was driving prices way beyond the reach of those who ought to have been buying the properties.

This is obviously going to impact on those who've come into that market as landlords for whatever reason, but the current situation is completely unsustainable. We're now heading back towards Victorian levels of private rented housing which really isn't a positive thing for society.

I suspect Osbourne's not really realised what he's doing here, but I don't see that it's the government's role to maintain a situation that has created huge housing bubbles and a vast increase in the proportion of housing sold that's going into the private rented sector. Those affected should probably sell up, move on and be glad of the years of extra income they did get out of it.

I can see this potentially leading to the market being flooded with houses and prices crashing, which probably isn't great economically, but really would just be deflating the massive housing bubble and putting housing back on to the historic ratio of house prices to income.

I think you need to analyse your data a bit more before you post which appears a bit misinformed and misleading.
The legislation that is being challenged does not impact all the of the BTL investor market only the smaller investors yet your wide ranging facts do not highlight or detail this
As with all markets supply and demand is the big driver and the BTL market is no different to any other where speculation is involved, although house prices are not only driven by the BTL market there are other factors such as good schools, employment, access to public transport for commuting, people wanting second homes driving small investors out of the market ain't going to fix the problem of people needing some where to live
The house price to income graph IMO is meaningless unless you consider how the levels of disposable income have changed it is not uncommon now to find young people paying £40 - £50 a month on a must have latest mobile phone and needing their 2 weeks in the sun every year and if they have a car they are no doubt paying a small fortune for insurance which was not the case when I first started driving saving for a deposit is the last thing they are thinking about
Your comment
2.5 million new build properties gone as btl means 2.5 million less people able to buy their own properties, and 2.5 million more people who're therefore stuck as renters because ultimately the BTL market was driving prices way beyond the reach of those who ought to have been buying the properties.
Implies that all these properties where built by small investors and makes no reference to the types of property being built and whether they were suitable for or in areas where those people wanting to buy would buy, really just another case of poor stats distorting the reality

 

[sean_ork]

At least they didn't bring in the other weeks members bill to enforce in law that landlords must supply housing fit for humans lol.

Other than it costing landlords money, what were the arguments against this seemingly basic requirement ?