How much is your hoose

[Jimmy85]

4 hours ago, throbber said:

I never had you down as a Tory Chris.

 

Are you kidding? He's one of the most blatant on P&B. 

[resk]

5 hours ago, ICTChris said:

The Scottish and Westminster governments have both put in place a tax on buy to let homes, not sure if it's in place yet though.

 

Aye, the Additional Dwelling Supplement came into force in April 2016 and means that anyone buying a property that already owns one has to pay 3% of the sale value, providing that sale value is over 40k.  

There's another piece of legislation that can be perceived as a crackdown on landlords and I believe it starts to take effect this tax year - basically a reduction in the tax relief on rental income that can be claimed for the interest part of a buy to let mortgage.  

Rental income is subject to income tax in exactly the same way that employment income is.  It's surprising how many people don't know that and how many landlords just choose not to declare their income to HMRC.  Anyone in any kind of dispute with their landlord might want to think about a cheeky enquiry as to whether or not they are declaring their income to the taxman - you may well find that your landlord shites it and gives you what you want.  

 

 

[chomp my root]

32 minutes ago, Rowan said:

I rent my flat. When my marriage ended it was difficult to try and get someone who would take tenants who are DSS. Thankfully this one came on and I emailed the couple explaining I wasn't junkie/alchie/scum bag. 

 

I remain on rhe mortgage of what was the marital home and he has another yr to sort it or I force the sake. It's 3 bed end Terrance and maybe worth £105k. On the edge of ferguslie park!

Hope you get things sorted, I trust my letting agents on which DSS we'd have, saying that, its only the one as the old flat is in fairly central Edinburgh (Dalry) so no shortage of non DSS (not that it would be a deal breaker, again, I trust the letting agent). We also don't have an issue with pets, we're pet owners ourselves so get it. Anyone who lets can't assume that there won't be issues, they happen from time to time and its not just DSS (although I've had more issues with DSS than non DSS). 

8 minutes ago, resk said:

Aye, the Additional Dwelling Supplement came into force in April 2016 and means that anyone buying a property that already owns one has to pay 3% of the sale value, providing that sale value is over 40k.  

There's another piece of legislation that can be perceived as a crackdown on landlords and I believe it starts to take effect this tax year - basically a reduction in the tax relief on rental income that can be claimed for the interest part of a buy to let mortgage.  

Rental income is subject to income tax in exactly the same way that employment income is.  It's surprising how many people don't know that and how many landlords just choose not to declare their income to HMRC.  Anyone in any kind of dispute with their landlord might want to think about a cheeky enquiry as to whether or not they are declaring their income to the taxman - you may well find that your landlord shites it and gives you what you want.  

 

 

I've been straight on the tax from the start (nearly), I had a short while of letting to a mate for buttons (covering the mortgage) but when he decided to stay we started doing it properly, I'm a big jessie with stuff like that to be honest. Good advice about using the potential tax issues against landlords though, I suppose it could backfire as well. 

[The_Kincardine]

45 minutes ago, Jimmy85 said:

 

Are you kidding? He's one of the most blatant on P&B. 

Whenever has voting Tory been worthy of being called 'blatant'?  Isn't it simply a comment-free voting choice?

[Dindeleux]

Whenever has voting Tory been worthy of being called 'blatant'?  Isn't it simply a comment-free voting choice?

Pie and Bovril would be a very boring place if we followed this line of thinking as almost everything in life could be classed as "comment-free".

[hk blues]

The reason property prices continue to rise us because there is a demand - enough people can afford the asking prices. Once people stop being able to afford the asking prices they will stabilise/drop. Supply and Demand economics at play.

[hk blues]

Then again, as more and more people are unable to afford to buy, the only option will be to rent...creating a demand for rental properties...creating opportunity for landlords to buy more properties!

 

 

[hk blues]

Double Post!

[coprolite]

The reason property prices continue to rise us because there is a demand - enough people can afford the asking prices. Once people stop being able to afford the asking prices they will stabilise/drop. Supply and Demand economics at play.

Demand for homes is fairly price- inelastic. Increased prices generally won't reduce demand by much.

The mechanism that prices stabilise in standard equilibrium models is by increasing supply at a given price level. The housing market isn't responsive enough to price signals for this to work properly.

The current system allows anyone who starts life with access to modest capital to accrete additional capital, partly through access to lower cost debts (mortgages) which they can use to purchase income producing assets.

The current tax changes go some way to reducing the profit (capital accretion). These changes don't apply to companies, so if you have a couple of properties the effects can be mitigated by incorporating.

These changes are supposed to make buying to let less attractive and reduce house prices as a result. i suspect that they'll just make smaller landlords sell to bigger ones.

Finally, the government subsidises these private profits, particularly in the South East, through housing benefit. it would be far more efficient to build council houses, but not ideologically ok.

If you have earned enough through hard work to become a petty capitalist, well done to you and kudosvfor playing the game well. However, this game isn't for the likes of you and will continue to be rigged in favour of proper landowners.

[Granny Danger]

I looked at buy-to-let a couple of years back and decided it wasn't for me.

During this I visited a handful of properties that an agent was already managing where the owners wanted to sell.  It was not an edifying experience.

 

[pandarilla]

Also - being a landlord should be taxed punitively. Part of the function of a taxation system is to promote economically useful activity and funnel investment towards productive sectors that can create real value - property speculation isn't that and it keeps people in the precarious private rented sector for no other reason than too many people are too busy making money out of them to change it.

Excellent point, which sums up my overall feelings on buy to let landlords.

Property speculation is playing the grubby wee game.

[invergowrie arab]

5 hours ago, hk blues said:

The reason property prices continue to rise us because there is a demand - enough people can afford the asking prices. Once people stop being able to afford the asking prices they will stabilise/drop. Supply and Demand economics at play.

The thing with glibly describing supply and demand as some organic process that will even itself out is that that it is only socially acceptable if all, or most, have equal buying power or that a third party - the state, can step in to equalise that buying power.

Or, alternatively when demand can drop.

If 10 people can afford 10 houses at 10% above market rate, 10 people can afford 90 houses at 10% above market rate and 80 people can not afford houses above the current market rate then the market rate will rise 10% to the detriment of 80 people.

Furthermore is 5 of the people described above can afford all the houses at a 25% jump that's what will happen.

Housing can never not be in demand.

There is more or less equal economic power throughout society to buy oranges. If it becomes unaffordable for some they can leave the orange market. Orange spivs could buy all the oranges but there is a finite amount they can use personally.

With housing as long as you can finance the outlay the amount you can hoard is infinite.

If people want to choose to enter into a private rental agreement with someone else fire on. There is no way the state should be paying private landlords. A fair solution would be 90% tax on rental income from housing benefit, allowing the property holder 10% to upkeep the the property whilst enjoying the growth of the capital value of the property.

[invergowrie arab]

Oh and rent controls

This is housing FFS a fundamental human right. Imagine taking this free market approach with water or midwifery.

[hk blues]

I live in a council-built flat which a previous tenant bought under Right To Buy then gifted to his son (tax free I think) so that the son who is the same age as me can pay his mortgage with my wages. A similar house came on the market on my street recently and I worked out that it would literally be cheaper monthly to buy the place but I'm shafted because I don't have savings for a deposit. Seems a pretty blatant market failure that having less money means I have to pay more on housing than if I had more money, while this other guy gets an appreciating, state-built asset and a regular income source free of charge. Capitalism is shite when you've no capital.

Also - being a landlord should be taxed punitively. Part of the function of a taxation system is to promote economically useful activity and funnel investment towards productive sectors that can create real value - property speculation isn't that and it keeps people in the precarious private rented sector for no other reason than too many people are too busy making money out of them to change it.

I'm not a landlord...never have been... but are landlords necessarily speculators, or are they merely looking for investment income that beats some of the alternatives they might be looking at?

If I was in that game, it would be for the rental income rather than any capital appreciation of the property.

Sent from my LG-D724 using Pie and Bovril mobile app

[hk blues]

The thing with glibly describing supply and demand as some organic process that will even itself out is that that it is only socially acceptable if all, or most, have equal buying power or that a third party - the state, can step in to equalise that buying power.
Or, alternatively when demand can drop.
If 10 people can afford 10 houses at 10% above market rate, 10 people can afford 90 houses at 10% above market rate and 80 people can not afford houses above the current market rate then the market rate will rise 10% to the detriment of 80 people.
Furthermore is 5 of the people described above can afford all the houses at a 25% jump that's what will happen.
Housing can never not be in demand.
There is more or less equal economic power throughout society to buy oranges. If it becomes unaffordable for some they can leave the orange market. Orange spivs could buy all the oranges but there is a finite amount they can use personally.
With housing as long as you can finance the outlay the amount you can hoard is infinite.
If people want to choose to enter into a private rental agreement with someone else fire on. There is no way the state should be paying private landlords. A fair solution would be 90% tax on rental income from housing benefit, allowing the property holder 10% to upkeep the the property whilst enjoying the growth of the capital value of the property.

I did add a follow-up post when I realised i hadn't really covered the bases with the quoted post.

[Ross.]

3 minutes ago, hk blues said:

I'm not a landlord...never have been... but are landlords necessarily speculators, or are they merely looking for investment income that beats some of the alternatives they might be looking at?

If I was in that game, it would be for the rental income rather than any capital appreciation of the property.

Sent from my LG-D724 using Pie and Bovril mobile app

For me it was mostly a case of buying something I could fall back on when I inevitably f**k up over here and get sent home. The rental income makes absolutely zero difference to my quality of life. If, in 25 years someone else has paid off my mortgage, then I will be delighted at the windfall that ensues when I punt it.

Having bought one under those circumstances, I could be tempted to do something similar but on a larger scale. Again, the level I am looking at the income would make little difference to me but when added to the first I would really need to look at the consequences from a tax point of view, both here and in the UK. That part of it is the only thing putting me off.

[Sergeant Wilson]

34 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

I live in a council-built flat which a previous tenant bought under Right To Buy then gifted to his son (tax free I think) so that the son who is the same age as me can pay his mortgage with my wages. A similar house came on the market on my street recently and I worked out that it would literally be cheaper monthly to buy the place but I'm shafted because I don't have savings for a deposit. Seems a pretty blatant market failure that having less money means I have to pay more on housing than if I had more money, while this other guy gets an appreciating, state-built asset and a regular income source free of charge. Capitalism is shite when you've no capital.
 

Life is shite, then you die. I'm sorry I can't offer you anything more encouraging.

[throbber]

Oh and rent controls
This is housing FFS a fundamental human right. Imagine taking this free market approach with water or midwifery.

Water is privatised in England.

[invergowrie arab]

21 minutes ago, hk blues said:

I did add a follow-up post when I realised i hadn't really covered the bases with the quoted post.

You did but I have never let the fact a moment has passed from letting me get my tuppence in 

[invergowrie arab]

15 minutes ago, throbber said:

 

Water is privatised in England.

 

Regulated privatised industries, whilst still wholly shite, are not the same as the free market.