Options
Osborne attacks landlords with 3% extra stamp duty
George Osborne has launched an attack on Middle England’s landlords with an extra 3 per cent surcharge on stamp duty charged on buy-to-let properties and second homes, critics declared.
He said: “Frankly, people buying a home to let should not be squeezing out families who can’t afford a home to buy.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/autumn-statement-osborne-attacks-landlords-with-3-extra-stamp-duty-a6748486.html
Good. It's a start.
He said: “Frankly, people buying a home to let should not be squeezing out families who can’t afford a home to buy.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/autumn-statement-osborne-attacks-landlords-with-3-extra-stamp-duty-a6748486.html
Good. It's a start.
0
Comments
It's ok, I'm a landlord and I'm happy to suffer this for the greater good.
I suppose by "greater good" you mean you can dump any and all cost increases onto your tenants who have little choice but to pay.
To those who think this is a good thing.
When there are shortages in any business area (renting in this case) any increase in taxation can be easily passed on to customers without inhibiting the demand.
Landlords know this, hence they are not concerned. They will have their tenants pay it.
So should stamp duty be cut for buy to let landlords then?
Is it good ? do you think less landlords will mean more affordable homes ? do you think this extra percentage will be used to help people in housing ? because if you do you will find that is far from true. You will find with less home grown landlords will mean more overseas investors buying up property and they are the ones who then redevelop and either sell on at high prices and a huge profit or rent them out at high prices.
What they should do is try and work with many good landlords to offer more affordable places to rent.
Well, this may come as a surprise to you but buy to let is a business. In order to make a reasonable return I have to be able to cover all my overheads. However, it is also a competitive market so if I charge too much my customers would go elsewhere so there is a balance.
The good news is that my tenants are very happy with the service I provide.
I think your logic might confuse them.
Jol praising Osborne?
My goodness, I need a glass of wine!
Won't most landlords just pass the cost on to their tenants?
An across the board cost increase applies to all in your area of business. It does not leave your tenants anywhere to go. You know this of course.
I wasn't criticising your business requirement to pass on costs, but your suggestion that you would absorb the cost. You won't absorb it because you simply don't have to.
But the increase will not apply to commercial property investors with more than 15 properties.
Tories looking after their rich friends again, while hammering people who downsize and buy a property to give them a retirement income.
As you have no idea what my costs are and how much I charge I'm not sure how you can know what I will or will not do.
However, I will feed you a little bit of info. My current tenants have just renewed in one of my properties and I reduced the rent. That is despite the cost of broadband going up and the fact I refurbished the bathroom.
I prefer trusted, reliable tenants.
You include broadband in the cost of rent? If I was in your position, I'd let the tenant choose which ISP and service level they wanted and get them to pay, or choose if they wanted it at all. Many people just use mobile phone internet as they get it in their monthly package.
I've been paying £5 a month for BT broadband since March. You need to play hardball with these companies.
As for Osborne, I give up with him. The man's a cretin.
This.
Although your last sentence is pie in the sky in practical terms. New builds will just be put up for sale at the current market rate ie 15-20 times annual salary. Massive house prices are the only thing keeping the UK economy afloat, and Osborne knows it.
In that particular property there is no options. It has cable but no phone line.
The broadband has been installed for a long time and I'm happy to maintain that service.
Either that or they have to replace all the council homes that have been sold off since 1979!
Of course. All the working poor on min wage have just seen all the benefit of the national living wage flushed down the toilet. You have to credit Osborne for his nerve. He's massively increasing costs on small companies with the NLW, getting a higher income tax take from the staff, and then taking all the extra NLW earnings of the working poor in higher rents, something which he will of course claim he's not repsonsible for.
Yes, but as BTL can be small margin returns, especially in times when underlying property value isnt growing, then it should hopefully put off people from purchasing BTL. One of the main factors in property prices dropping after 2008 crash was lack of demand, as soon as banks stopped giving out 10%+ mortgages to anyone who asked. So less BTL will reduce demand in the bottom end value properties. Not enough to make any significant difference though i imagine. Especially with the current housing shortage.
Another excellent Osborne decision borrowed from the previous Labour leader
It mayl put people off buying a buy to let in the first place, as it's going to cost several thousands of pounds more in stamp duty.
It also doesn't apply to large scale property firms.
Once they've introduced the process it will be simpler in the future to tinker with the rate, to get the balance right. The ideal being not to stop BTL, but to stop BTL from driving out first time buyers
The government and local authorities depend on private landlords to provide property for rental. If they want to deter people buying property to rent they can make the rule that developers can only sell to owner occupiers, or limit the number of properties someone can own.
All this will result in is landlords passing costs on to tennants. I have 2 rental properties, one I inherited, I am not a charity, I am providing for my retirement, and will pay tax till I die! If I need care I will be able to pay for it myself, so I don't need George Osborne or anyone else trying to demonize me for it.
My tenants move into a spotless home, which is well maintained and just below market value, that way I get good tennants, and they have a good deal from me.
But then you have to pay corporation tax.