If Labour manage to get their act into gear by 2020, an Osborne lead Tory party will have a fight on it's hands to stay in office. He's wound up a lot of natural Conservative voters.
This policy is very simple:
1. BTL-buyers will have to pay 3% more tax. All other things being equal, they will reduce their bids by 3%, which will reduce the price that owner-occupiers have to pay to compete with the BTL segment.
2. The exemption for more than 15 properties is because the government is trying to persuade the insurance companies to get involved in the private rental sector by building specific rental developments. Putting up their taxes will not help this. So it's not about "helping out his chums". It's all about reducing house prices and reducing rents.
Surely a good thing?
It's one of the better ideas in the statement but it's a long way from what is needed.
The ideal solution is to introduce a rental tax to which certain organisations would be exempt with a stated intention to build it up, bit by bit to at least the level of VAT. A slow movement over 10 years would push property from BTL into Owner-Occupation.
Although people already pay income tax on rental income, and the changes to the W&T allowance and the mortgage interest relief are designed to reduce the return on investment
A plumber pays income tax on their income after having to charge VAT on his labour. One of the reasons BTL is such an effective revenue generator is that it is completely absent to one aspect of the tax system.
The core problem with BTL is that it is a social harm in a country where home ownership has been prioritised for 30 years. It creates distortions in the market and solves absolutely no market failure, Without BTL, the purchase price of property would depend on the amount of disposable income available for rents. With BTL, the profitability of the sector leaves BTL as the primary driver of property prices (outside London which has its own issues).
It certainly shouldn't be clamped down on in one bite, that would be a pretty hard shock for the economy to deal with. But a slow correction by applying a Rental tax would gradually reduce the impact that BTL has on the market.
I just don't believe this, Dair. Evidence?
BTL is not a significant proportion of the market in most places.
"Oxford University in 'race row' over 'problematic' 1920s ball
Critics have wondered why the colleges are commemorating 'an era of history steeped in racism
Colleges at the University of Oxford have been drawn into a 'race row' after advertising New Orleans and 1920s-themed balls, to be held in May 2016. Students have claimed that the balls may cause offence to female and ethnic minority students.'
Mr. Llama, afraid not. I only ever bet with firms, not people I know.
I agree it's unlikely, but far from impossible.
Fair enough and a sound policy. The offer of dinner at the Brazilian Place still stands though.
P.S. Don't know if I missed your reply yesterday, but to repeat the question how many hours did you put into Fallout4 before you completed the main quest?
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
On topic, we are facing a surprising number of possible by-elections considering we are so early in the Parliament. The following seem in play:
Scandal Orkney & Shetland (Lib Dem held) Glasgow East (SNP held) Edinburgh West (SNP held) St Helens South & Whiston (Labour held)
We may yet get fallout from the Conservative party sex scandal as well.
New job Tooting (Labour held) Richmond Park (Conservative held)
These, obviously, are in the alternative (but see below).
To these we might also add:
Sheffield Hallam (Lib Dem held) Doncaster North (Labour held)
Neither incumbent obviously has anything to hang around for at present so if they get a new job presumably they'll be off.
Principled disagreement Richmond Park (Conservative held) One or more Labour seats. Barrow & Furness is a prime candidate, given the personal commitments that John Woodcock gave to his electorate with reference to Trident:
Anno domini It's tasteless to speculate about ill health or death so I won't. Some older MPs may wish to retire early in any case. Coventry North West has to be a prime candidate, given the public speculation this year:
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
Mr O hasn't given them any more pricing power than they had before.
True but many landlords keep rents at close to the original level. Why increase rent if you risk a 1-2 month period empty while you wait for it to be relet.
If Labour manage to get their act into gear by 2020, an Osborne lead Tory party will have a fight on it's hands to stay in office. He's wound up a lot of natural Conservative voters.
This policy is very simple:
1. BTL-buyers will have to pay 3% more tax. All other things being equal, they will reduce their bids by 3%, which will reduce the price that owner-occupiers have to pay to compete with the BTL segment.
2. The exemption for more than 15 properties is because the government is trying to persuade the insurance companies to get involved in the private rental sector by building specific rental developments. Putting up their taxes will not help this. So it's not about "helping out his chums". It's all about reducing house prices and reducing rents.
Surely a good thing?
3% extra stamp duty on purchase represents an up front levy of 6 months rent on property purchase on normal lets in most places, assuming a yield of 6%.
How will this reduce rents?
I'd say Osbo is trying to force more BTLs to sell up to force more properties onto the market while the supply of newbuild ramps up.
This will force LLs who thought they had until 2020 to move their portfolios into a company to pay 3% of the value of their portfolio in tax, or complete the operation by April 2016.
It seems that corporates can't currently compete within the PRS on anything other than huge portfolios. This will force rents up, not down.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
On ISIS, I've heard a lot of opposition coming from people saying that if we bomb them then we will get reprisal attacks, so we shouldn't bomb them. Wouldn't that basically be saying that they've won? They have cowed us into such a state that we are so afraid of their terrorism that we won't take the fight to them.
I have some reservations about attacks in Syria, these 70,000 FSA fighters for one, but fear of revenge attacks or reprisals from ISIS shouldn't even be considered as one of them. We cannot allow fear of being attacked by terrorists to have any influence on our foreign policy.
We would all be speaking German if we had taken that attitude in the 1940's.
I agree completely with this. Hiding under the table in such circumstances only allows Daesh the time to better prepare itself for when it chooses to strike and whilst it lives that's what it will do whenever it can. There is much talk about defeating Deash. Daesh and all who serve it must be destroyed.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? snip
For a minute I thought you were talking about whining bankers.
Yes, stuff the oldies and many with a pension that successive Chancellors have screwed over, and help Osborne's property spiv chums gets richer.
I'm neither old, nor a BTL'er, but I can see him losing the Tories a lot of their traditional voters over this and the changes to Contractors taxation. If Corbyn goes, Labour have every chance in 2020.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
In fairness they would say that, wouldn't they? The poor dears who haven't put up rents due to the kindness of their hearts and will now have to do so thanks to nasty Osborne. The fact is that there is a market value for properties in each area and those who dramatically hike their rents above market value will find they end up with vacancies.
It is a source of shame that the current student body of Oxford University is so incapable of rational thought that this sort of campaign ever got off the ground.
We cannot change our past. But we can learn from it.
However these student radicals seem completely unwilling to listen or learn. They want to impose a world view that ignores the realities that the rest of us have to deal with.
It saddens me enormously
It's not really " the current student body of Oxford University " is it?
When you see some of the other regressive thinking going on here, it is clear that this SJW mentality has spread far and wide round the dreaming spires.
Whether it is part of the no-platforming of speakers with whom a vocal minority disapprove or campaigns such as Rhodes must fall, it is scary to see how blinkered so many of the students here actually are.
I was there until a year and a half ago too, I would not say that ideas like "Rhodes Must Fall" are widespread. The more extreme the idea, the fewer adherents.
Sure, the majority are what other people might call "politically correct", but the vast majority do not talk of safe spaces, trigger warnings, or anything else. They are, like most students, far too busy.
Quite - when I left (8 years ago) the people most loudly involved in such ridiculous protests/handwringing were those:
a) not smart enough to realise that buckling down would give them a good degree an enviable advantage in life b) not interesting enough to direct their interests/appetites to sports/passions/friends to give them contacts providing an even more enviable advantage in life
I am OK with young people saying silly things but not when they are doing so on my money. As you rightly point out Oxbridge students are privileged beyond normal mortals, the humble mortals who pay for their fantastic start in life but experience none of the benefits themselves. Fair go, let us fund OXbridge at the same level and on the same basis as we do other universities.
"These are cruel and unusual times for many Labour MPs. Some of us still recall that even the worst day in government is better than the best day in opposition. But these memories are fading. There is anger in the Labour party and, without focus and purpose, that anger will become destructive."
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
In fairness they would say that, wouldn't they? The poor dears who haven't put up rents due to the kindness of their hearts and will now have to do so thanks to nasty Osborne. The fact is that there is a market value for properties in each area and those who dramatically hike their rents above market value will find they end up with vacancies.
Did you read the thread? That's quite a patronising response.
I'm not sure that "poor dears" is an appropriate description for people who treat tenants as human beings rather than money machines.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
In fairness they would say that, wouldn't they? The poor dears who haven't put up rents due to the kindness of their hearts and will now have to do so thanks to nasty Osborne. The fact is that there is a market value for properties in each area and those who dramatically hike their rents above market value will find they end up with vacancies.
Did you read the thread? That's quite a patronising response.
I'm not sure that "poor dears" is an appropriate description for people who treat tenants as human beings rather than money machines.
Indeed. Try getting SpivCo to cut some slack when you can't pay the rent on time.
'Can't make the payment until Thursday? Oh dear, there's a penalty'
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
BTL has a role to play, because there are people who don't want to rent for whatever reason.
But it has expanded out of all proportion to that role, based on cheap borrowing, a perception that property is a one way bet and favourable tax treatment, as well as a lack of alternative investments.
Tax treatment is being addressed; cheap borrowing will come to an end at some point; and hopefully people will learn to appreciate that property should be for living in, not an investment class.
Osborne is pressing the sector with a ratchet like approach to try and reduce overall house prices (which seems to be working, at least in my segment of the market. Grmpf).
* Disclosure: one of my family companies is involved in develop-to-let, but we don't like residential BTL as a segment.
On ISIS, I've heard a lot of opposition coming from people saying that if we bomb them then we will get reprisal attacks, so we shouldn't bomb them. Wouldn't that basically be saying that they've won? They have cowed us into such a state that we are so afraid of their terrorism that we won't take the fight to them.
I have some reservations about attacks in Syria, these 70,000 FSA fighters for one, but fear of revenge attacks or reprisals from ISIS shouldn't even be considered as one of them. We cannot allow fear of being attacked by terrorists to have any influence on our foreign policy.
We would all be speaking German if we had taken that attitude in the 1940's.
I agree completely with this. Hiding under the table in such circumstances only allows Daesh the time to better prepare itself for when it chooses to strike and whilst it lives that's what it will do whenever it can. There is much talk about defeating Deash. Daesh and all who serve it must be destroyed.
And the longer we wait, the harder the job will be. Had IS been struck when it first announced itself rather than simply being pooh-poohed and laughed at we would not now be facing the difficulties we now face. Even if all IS territory were recaptured tomorrow and their leaders and followers killed, we would still have the displacement and murders of the people IS targeted, the loss of monuments, the radicalisation of youngsters within our own countries and all the consequences of these tragedies to live with. Better not give them more time to add to the misery.
I understand and share Mr Llama's concerns. Where I part company, perhaps, is that I think this is a job worth doing and therefore worth doing well, even in the face of inevitable setbacks, revenge attacks by IS, tiredness with the whole ghastly imbroglio etc. Whether our politicians have the steel and determination to see this through and keep us onside is another matter.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
In fairness they would say that, wouldn't they? The poor dears who haven't put up rents due to the kindness of their hearts and will now have to do so thanks to nasty Osborne. The fact is that there is a market value for properties in each area and those who dramatically hike their rents above market value will find they end up with vacancies.
Did you read the thread? That's quite a patronising response.
I'm not sure that "poor dears" is an appropriate description for people who treat tenants as human beings rather than money machines.
To very unfairly and inaccurately summise, it seems to me that a vast number of "the rich" (Landlords) let out to the poor (Tenants on HB) which dwindles the pool for the "middle" (Prospective O.Os) ^_~
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
If Labour manage to get their act into gear by 2020, an Osborne lead Tory party will have a fight on it's hands to stay in office. He's wound up a lot of natural Conservative voters.
This policy is very simple:
1. BTL-buyers will have to pay 3% more tax. All other things being equal, they will reduce their bids by 3%, which will reduce the price that owner-occupiers have to pay to compete with the BTL segment.
2. The exemption for more than 15 properties is because the government is trying to persuade the insurance companies to get involved in the private rental sector by building specific rental developments. Putting up their taxes will not help this. So it's not about "helping out his chums". It's all about reducing house prices and reducing rents.
Surely a good thing?
3% extra stamp duty on purchase represents an up front levy of 6 months rent on property purchase on normal lets in most places, assuming a yield of 6%.
How will this reduce rents?
I'd say Osbo is trying to force more BTLs to sell up to force more properties onto the market while the supply of newbuild ramps up.
This will force LLs who thought they had until 2020 to move their portfolios into a company to pay 3% of the value of their portfolio in tax, or complete the operation by April 2016.
It seems that corporates can't currently compete within the PRS on anything other than huge portfolios. This will force rents up, not down.
Increasing supply will reduce rents. And that will reduce landlords pricing power.
In practice what should happen - and most likely will happen - is that BTL buyers will offer 97% of current asking prices. Which means that O/O will become more competitive.
On ISIS, I've heard a lot of opposition coming from people saying that if we bomb them then we will get reprisal attacks, so we shouldn't bomb them. Wouldn't that basically be saying that they've won? They have cowed us into such a state that we are so afraid of their terrorism that we won't take the fight to them.
I have some reservations about attacks in Syria, these 70,000 FSA fighters for one, but fear of revenge attacks or reprisals from ISIS shouldn't even be considered as one of them. We cannot allow fear of being attacked by terrorists to have any influence on our foreign policy.
Surely it's all a matter of cost-benefit.
If ISIS had a nuclear bomb in London, and threatened to detonate it if we bombed them in Syria, then would you really be so sanguine?
If ISIS had a nuclear bomb in London thy would not be so stupid to tell anyone.
They would just detonate it...
I would suggest in a barge (or similar) sailing up the Thames near the HOC..
"Oxford University in 'race row' over 'problematic' 1920s ball
Critics have wondered why the colleges are commemorating 'an era of history steeped in racism
Colleges at the University of Oxford have been drawn into a 'race row' after advertising New Orleans and 1920s-themed balls, to be held in May 2016. Students have claimed that the balls may cause offence to female and ethnic minority students.'
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? snip
For a minute I thought you were talking about whining bankers.
Yes, stuff the oldies and many with a pension that successive Chancellors have screwed over, and help Osborne's property spiv chums gets richer.
I'm neither old, nor a BTL'er, but I can see him losing the Tories a lot of their traditional voters over this and the changes to Contractors taxation. If Corbyn goes, Labour have every chance in 2020.
You are absolutely underestimating how popular these policies are in the 25-40 year old age bracket. These parasites have nowhere else to go anyway, Labour would be going even further with bigger taxes on housing and the Lib Dems are irrelevant. Also, there are a lot more people who want to buy a home than there are landlords, even that article has a less than a hundred people representing over a thousand properties, a thousand new owner occupiers vs a less than a hundred landlords. The political calculation is pretty clear.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
In fairness they would say that, wouldn't they? The poor dears who haven't put up rents due to the kindness of their hearts and will now have to do so thanks to nasty Osborne. The fact is that there is a market value for properties in each area and those who dramatically hike their rents above market value will find they end up with vacancies.
Did you read the thread? That's quite a patronising response.
I'm not sure that "poor dears" is an appropriate description for people who treat tenants as human beings rather than money machines.
Indeed. Try getting SpivCo to cut some slack when you can't pay the rent on time.
'Can't make the payment until Thursday? Oh dear, there's a penalty'
Let me repeat my question. Did you read the thread?
You'll find a lot on there that do precisely that, but will no longer have leeway to do so.
For the record, PRS rents have been rising at slower than inflation for well over a decade.
Interesting stuff about feelings of ordinary voters when Labour come a calling
“We were out leafleting on tax credits in rock solid Labour areas, and people were handing us the leaflets back. I’ve never seen a reaction like it before,” said one backbencher.
You should have listened to Southam.
I guess this backbencher had never been to Scotland.
If this sort of story is true, UKIP have already won Oldham West and Royton.
I was going to say that what happened in Scotland was different, with the SNP having polled so well in 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2014 (Euros), not even counting the referendum. However, I'm not sure that's entirely true. There have been straws in the wind as to UKIP's performance over the last few years and while it's not on the scale of the defection to the SNP (yet), that defection has occurred over ten years or more, in stages. In fact, it was the general election in 2010 that was the exception, not the rule.
UKIP are nowhere near as far down the line against Labour than the SNP are but they are travelling the same road, or at least a parallel one.
What the SNP also did was to become much more left wing in its language and positioning (if not its actual deeds). That is a challenge for UKIP if they are to move beyond being a party of protest in Labour heartlands.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
"Author Diane Wei Liang is the daughter of Chinese intellectuals who spent time in Chinese labour camps under Chairman Mao's regime. She told the Today programme that it was chilling to hear John McDonnell quoting from the Little Red Book."
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
In fairness they would say that, wouldn't they? The poor dears who haven't put up rents due to the kindness of their hearts and will now have to do so thanks to nasty Osborne. The fact is that there is a market value for properties in each area and those who dramatically hike their rents above market value will find they end up with vacancies.
Did you read the thread? That's quite a patronising response.
I'm not sure that "poor dears" is an appropriate description for people who treat tenants as human beings rather than money machines.
Indeed. Try getting SpivCo to cut some slack when you can't pay the rent on time.
'Can't make the payment until Thursday? Oh dear, there's a penalty'
Let me repeat my question. Did you read the thread?
You'll find a lot on there that do precisely that, but will no longer have leeway to do so.
For the record, PRS rents have been rising at slower than inflation for well over a decade.
Eh? I'm agreeing with you about the small landlord versus the faceless property monsters.
Having seen large property co's in full flow, I know who the real baddies are...
Mr. Llama, 40-50 in total. I'd guess about half was on the main quest, maybe a little less.
Wow! As few hours as that. Gosh, gadzooks and gramercy! 25 maybe thirty hours to "finish" the game - that strikes me as dreadful value. Dammit it is nearly £2 per hour. What replay value do think it has?
As a Comparison my first play-through of Skyrim took about 600 hours (and I have had two more goes at it - one on a heavily modified version four years(?) after the original and which was perhaps the most fun and took almost as long). Elite Dangerous soaked up about 1000 hours of my time before I grew bored with it, though there was still lots left to do (entertaiment cost less than 5p per hour).
On ISIS, I've heard a lot of opposition coming from people saying that if we bomb them then we will get reprisal attacks, so we shouldn't bomb them. Wouldn't that basically be saying that they've won? They have cowed us into such a state that we are so afraid of their terrorism that we won't take the fight to them.
I have some reservations about attacks in Syria, these 70,000 FSA fighters for one, but fear of revenge attacks or reprisals from ISIS shouldn't even be considered as one of them. We cannot allow fear of being attacked by terrorists to have any influence on our foreign policy.
Surely it's all a matter of cost-benefit.
If ISIS had a nuclear bomb in London, and threatened to detonate it if we bombed them in Syria, then would you really be so sanguine?
I think "they'll do it anyway" might come into the equation and if the threat worked once what would they demand next?
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
OK. So my son, who co-rents a property as student, where would he live if there were no private landlords?
If Labour manage to get their act into gear by 2020, an Osborne lead Tory party will have a fight on it's hands to stay in office. He's wound up a lot of natural Conservative voters.
This policy is very simple:
1. BTL-buyers will have to pay 3% more tax. All other things being equal, they will reduce their bids by 3%, which will reduce the price that owner-occupiers have to pay to compete with the BTL segment.
2. The exemption for more than 15 properties is because the government is trying to persuade the insurance companies to get involved in the private rental sector by building specific rental developments. Putting up their taxes will not help this. So it's not about "helping out his chums". It's all about reducing house prices and reducing rents.
Surely a good thing?
3% extra stamp duty on purchase represents an up front levy of 6 months rent on property purchase on normal lets in most places, assuming a yield of 6%.
How will this reduce rents?
I'd say Osbo is trying to force more BTLs to sell up to force more properties onto the market while the supply of newbuild ramps up.
This will force LLs who thought they had until 2020 to move their portfolios into a company to pay 3% of the value of their portfolio in tax, or complete the operation by April 2016.
It seems that corporates can't currently compete within the PRS on anything other than huge portfolios. This will force rents up, not down.
Increasing supply will reduce rents. And that will reduce landlords pricing power.
In practice what should happen - and most likely will happen - is that BTL buyers will offer 97% of current asking prices. Which means that O/O will become more competitive.
Hmmm.
1 - Corporates are higher cost operators. How will introducing higher costs into a market reduce rents?
2 - Forcing smaller LLs out of the market will reduce supply, not increase it, if - as Osbo wants - the stock goes to O/O not rental. Corporates will not take on older housing stock as it will not be efficient for the model.
3 - You are assuming a functional market. That is not what we have.
Should note that London may be exceptional here, since the London rental market is about income from buy-and-hold for generations or capital gain, not mainly income from rent.
"Author Diane Wei Liang is the daughter of Chinese intellectuals who spent time in Chinese labour camps under Chairman Mao's regime. She told the Today programme that it was chilling to hear John McDonnell quoting from the Little Red Book."
Comments about Syria here rather miss the point. The point isn't whether it is advisable or right to bomb ISIS (to which broadly speaking I think it is right and it isn't catastrophically inadvisable - but I respect other's views). It is about whether to bomb ISIS as part of the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabian, Qatari, French faction. They are two totally different things. It raises the following points. -Does this coalition really want to get rid of ISIS or use them as a pretext to unseat Assad? -What about other Islamist rebel groups such as Al Nusra who are just as unacceptable, will this just help them? -Who are the ground forces of this attack who will hold territory against ISIS?
"Oxford University in 'race row' over 'problematic' 1920s ball
Critics have wondered why the colleges are commemorating 'an era of history steeped in racism
Colleges at the University of Oxford have been drawn into a 'race row' after advertising New Orleans and 1920s-themed balls, to be held in May 2016. Students have claimed that the balls may cause offence to female and ethnic minority students.'
"Oxford University in 'race row' over 'problematic' 1920s ball
Critics have wondered why the colleges are commemorating 'an era of history steeped in racism
Colleges at the University of Oxford have been drawn into a 'race row' after advertising New Orleans and 1920s-themed balls, to be held in May 2016. Students have claimed that the balls may cause offence to female and ethnic minority students.'
"Oxford University in 'race row' over 'problematic' 1920s ball
Critics have wondered why the colleges are commemorating 'an era of history steeped in racism
Colleges at the University of Oxford have been drawn into a 'race row' after advertising New Orleans and 1920s-themed balls, to be held in May 2016. Students have claimed that the balls may cause offence to female and ethnic minority students.'
Just give it 10 years and the same tossers will be bloody MPs, quango chiefs, etc. The thing is the group who are supposed to be offended by this stuff rarely are, it is always one or two tossers who are "offended" for a whole group.
By the logic of people complaining, basically you can't have a ball for any period in history, because at some point in that history there has been somebody who has been down trodden and irrationally treated.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
Hmm, sounds like you're describing many in the financial services industry.
I see someone, the Head of Deutsche, is beginning to 'get it'.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
In fairness they would say that, wouldn't they? The poor dears who haven't put up rents due to the kindness of their hearts and will now have to do so thanks to nasty Osborne. The fact is that there is a market value for properties in each area and those who dramatically hike their rents above market value will find they end up with vacancies.
Did you read the thread? That's quite a patronising response.
I'm not sure that "poor dears" is an appropriate description for people who treat tenants as human beings rather than money machines.
Indeed. Try getting SpivCo to cut some slack when you can't pay the rent on time.
'Can't make the payment until Thursday? Oh dear, there's a penalty'
Let me repeat my question. Did you read the thread?
You'll find a lot on there that do precisely that, but will no longer have leeway to do so.
For the record, PRS rents have been rising at slower than inflation for well over a decade.
Eh? I'm agreeing with you about the small landlord versus the faceless property monsters.
Having seen large property co's in full flow, I know who the real baddies are...
I have read the thread. In the introduction it says "This article will be shared in Google News and on Social Media in the hope that Press and other National and Media will pick up on the realities of renting. Hopefully, we will gather overwhelming evidence that landlords have NOT generally increased rents during a tenancy but feel they will be forced to do so in future."
So effectively they are looking for something they can use for PR purposes, which makes me very sceptical.
The idea that corporate=bad, private=good is ridiculous. I have been round plenty of bad properties owned by private landlords. For example, in one case the BTLs had converted the lounge into another bedroom as they said they needed to do that to pay the mortgage. In another case I saw an HMO with holes in the carpet and worse
Interesting stuff about feelings of ordinary voters when Labour come a calling
“We were out leafleting on tax credits in rock solid Labour areas, and people were handing us the leaflets back. I’ve never seen a reaction like it before,” said one backbencher.
You should have listened to Southam.
I guess this backbencher had never been to Scotland.
If this sort of story is true, UKIP have already won Oldham West and Royton.
I was going to say that what happened in Scotland was different, with the SNP having polled so well in 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2014 (Euros), not even counting the referendum. However, I'm not sure that's entirely true. There have been straws in the wind as to UKIP's performance over the last few years and while it's not on the scale of the defection to the SNP (yet), that defection has occurred over ten years or more, in stages. In fact, it was the general election in 2010 that was the exception, not the rule.
UKIP are nowhere near as far down the line against Labour than the SNP are but they are travelling the same road, or at least a parallel one.
What the SNP also did was to become much more left wing in its language and positioning (if not its actual deeds). That is a challenge for UKIP if they are to move beyond being a party of protest in Labour heartlands.
If UKIP want true electoral success and to kill off labour, they have to become a populist party on all issues, not just immigration and Europe. That would mean also doing the protectionist and unionist (of old) economic policies - i.e. become what Labour was in the 60s and 70s before foot.
In my view, UKIP have no room for breakthrough in a FPTP system if they keep on the right on all issues. A mix of populist, libertarian, social conservatism and protectionism would, in my view, be their best bet.
Just for the record, that would not get me voting for them, and would leave the minorities and loony left vote to Labour still.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
OK. So my son, who co-rents a property as student, where would he live if there were no private landlords?
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
OK. So my son, who co-rents a property as student, where would he live if there were no private landlords?
He'll be forced to rent from SpivCo, and no doubt be on the receiving end of uplifted bills for every conceivable extra.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
OK. So my son, who co-rents a property as student, where would he live if there were no private landlords?
"Oxford University in 'race row' over 'problematic' 1920s ball
Critics have wondered why the colleges are commemorating 'an era of history steeped in racism
Colleges at the University of Oxford have been drawn into a 'race row' after advertising New Orleans and 1920s-themed balls, to be held in May 2016. Students have claimed that the balls may cause offence to female and ethnic minority students.'
Just give it 10 years and the same tossers will be bloody MPs, quango chiefs, etc. The thing is the group who are supposed to be offended by this stuff rarely are, it is always one or two tossers who are "offended" for a whole group.
Where this ends is writing off any history before c.1965 (perhaps later) on the basis it is non-inclusive.
History isn't that black & white (pun intended)
Where are the Conservative MPs publicly speaking out against this nonsense?
* Disclosure: one of my family companies is involved in develop-to-let, but we don't like residential BTL as a segment.
Develop to let is the way ahead
Lots of people doing it, unfortunately, but we* have been working pretty hard on a former commercial unit in Richmond (borders) to improve the commercial tenants (done) and to develop office space into resident (Phase 1 done, Phase 2 underway, Phase 3 to come).
Now running at a 11% cash yield on our investment with some more upside to come.
* By which I mean my sister. I don't do any actual work. Obviously.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
Hmm, sounds like you're describing many in the financial services industry.
I see someone, the Head of Deutsche, is beginning to 'get it'.
Capital needs its returns just as labour does. What seems to have been out of whack for a couple of decades or more now is the relative return, with capital doing better than labour. One suggestion has been that the absorption of Asian labour into global markets has been behind this, and now that that workforce is pretty much absorbed, we shall see a rebalancing of relative returns in favour of labour.
I hope so, even as a conservative on economic issues.
If Labour manage to get their act into gear by 2020, an Osborne lead Tory party will have a fight on it's hands to stay in office. He's wound up a lot of natural Conservative voters.
This policy is very simple:
1. BTL-buyers will have to pay 3% more tax. All other things being equal, they will reduce their bids by 3%, which will reduce the price that owner-occupiers have to pay to compete with the BTL segment.
2. The exemption for more than 15 properties is because the government is trying to persuade the insurance companies to get involved in the private rental sector by building specific rental developments. Putting up their taxes will not help this. So it's not about "helping out his chums". It's all about reducing house prices and reducing rents.
Surely a good thing?
3% extra stamp duty on purchase represents an up front levy of 6 months rent on property purchase on normal lets in most places, assuming a yield of 6%.
How will this reduce rents?
I'd say Osbo is trying to force more BTLs to sell up to force more properties onto the market while the supply of newbuild ramps up.
This will force LLs who thought they had until 2020 to move their portfolios into a company to pay 3% of the value of their portfolio in tax, or complete the operation by April 2016.
It seems that corporates can't currently compete within the PRS on anything other than huge portfolios. This will force rents up, not down.
Increasing supply will reduce rents. And that will reduce landlords pricing power.
In practice what should happen - and most likely will happen - is that BTL buyers will offer 97% of current asking prices. Which means that O/O will become more competitive.
Exactly. This measure is in practical terms a "tax" on people selling a property....
"Oxford University in 'race row' over 'problematic' 1920s ball
Critics have wondered why the colleges are commemorating 'an era of history steeped in racism
Colleges at the University of Oxford have been drawn into a 'race row' after advertising New Orleans and 1920s-themed balls, to be held in May 2016. Students have claimed that the balls may cause offence to female and ethnic minority students.'
Just give it 10 years and the same tossers will be bloody MPs, quango chiefs, etc. The thing is the group who are supposed to be offended by this stuff rarely are, it is always one or two tossers who are "offended" for a whole group.
Where this ends is writing off any history before c.1965 (perhaps later) on the basis it is non-inclusive.
History isn't that black & white (pun intended)
Where are the Conservative MPs publicly speaking out against this nonsense?
By the same idiotic logic taken to its ultimate conclusion, basically you can't have any themed ball, because there is somebody somewhere related to that theme will be getting discriminated / rough deal.
No Disney themed balls, because Disney performers get a rough deal?
The young women's argument (and for a law student) is totally flawed. She claimed women were absent from Oxford in the 1920's (not that that has anything to do with New Orleans), but..
"The first women’s colleges were founded in the nineteenth century, and women became full members of the University in 1920. "
And the lack of "people of colour", might have something to do with the demographic makeup of the UK then.
In fairness to landlords, I would divide the private landlords into 2 categories:
1) Accidental landlords - who end up with a spare property. They mostly want to see the mortgage paid and someone who won't wreck the place 2) Serial BTL-ers - these are the ones who are more likely to be unscrupulous or to have sub-standard properties.
Increasing supply will reduce rents. And that will reduce landlords pricing power.
In practice what should happen - and most likely will happen - is that BTL buyers will offer 97% of current asking prices. Which means that O/O will become more competitive.
Hmmm.
1 - Corporates are higher cost operators. How will introducing higher costs into a market reduce rents?
2 - Forcing smaller LLs out of the market will reduce supply, not increase it, if - as Osbo wants - the stock goes to O/O not rental. Corporates will not take on older housing stock as it will not be efficient for the model.
3 - You are assuming a functional market. That is not what we have.
Should note that London may be exceptional here, since the London rental market is about income from buy-and-hold for generations or capital gain, not mainly income from rent.
1. Because the idea is they will be building new units, so increasing supply. They are looking for long-term returns to match their longevity risk.
2. They are not forcing smaller LLs out of the market, but they are encouraging them to reduce prices. Yes, on the margin, that will mean the proportion of O/O stock will increase which, together with reducing housing prices, is the objective
3. The stamp duty changes at the top end of the market have seen a decline in prices as the market has adjusted over 6-12 months. I'd expect it will also occur in other parts of the market - what we see is that asking prices are high, but are reduced when they don't sell and then transactions happen quite quickly at the reduced levels
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
Do you have a private pension? If so, your pension fund is almost certainly are investing part of that money in property, and collecting rent from its tenants. Does that make you a proxy parasite?
Why might an MP have to stand down for an "innocuous personal reason"?
I have been wondering the same ever since this header went up!
If the suggestions about it being Manchester Gorton are true, then that would make sense but there is no way I am suggesting why. You may try a Google search and think about some extra terms to use...
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
Your logic would hold just as well for owning shares.
Why do you think that property management involves no work?
In fairness to landlords, I would divide the private landlords into 2 categories:
1) Accidental landlords - who end up with a spare property. They mostly want to see the mortgage paid and someone who won't wreck the place 2) Serial BTL-ers - these are the ones who are more likely to be unscrupulous or to have sub-standard properties.
Somehow you're avoiding -
3) BTL'ers with one or two properties let in good condition, that they would like to keep that way, rented at favourable rates. They're scrupulous and fair.
Why might an MP have to stand down for an "innocuous personal reason"?
I have been wondering the same ever since this header went up!
Illness? Family need?
As opposed to "personal reason" = "sex scandal".
An illness that ends your ability to do a job hardly fits my definition of "innocuous"....
Just bored with politics maybe? In which case, Labour can expect 100 by-elections for "innocuous" reasons...
I think they meant innocuous = non-scandalous
Sure you could be an MP if you had terminal cancer. But I could forgive someone wanting to resign and spend the last 12 months of their life doing something else.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
In fairness they would say that, wouldn't they? The poor dears who haven't put up rents due to the kindness of their hearts and will now have to do so thanks to nasty Osborne. The fact is that there is a market value for properties in each area and those who dramatically hike their rents above market value will find they end up with vacancies.
Did you read the thread? That's quite a patronising response.
I'm not sure that "poor dears" is an appropriate description for people who treat tenants as human beings rather than money machines.
To very unfairly and inaccurately summise, it seems to me that a vast number of "the rich" (Landlords) let out to the poor (Tenants on HB) which dwindles the pool for the "middle" (Prospective O.Os) ^_~
Buy to Let is a great example of how the Boomers have pulled the ladder up behind them. The distortions it causes to the Owner Occupier market seem to have absolutely no benefit whatsoever for the majority of working age people (although, even those Boomers who have not dabbled in BTL will had made a killing on house price inflation that BTL has helped stoke).
Should McDonnell need a comrade to help fight his corner, Mr S suspects he could do worse than to give Diane Abbott a call. In 2008 during an appearance on This Week, Abbott found herself fighting the communist leader’s corner during a discussion on dictators with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo:
DA: I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than wrong. We can’t say that about the Nazis MP: What? AN: Remind me what the good was… DA: Well, it’s funny I just had this debate with my son… AN: Mao killed tens of millions of people. MP: Just tell me what was the good thing that he did that made up for the 60 million people he murdered? DA: He led his country from feudalism, he helped to defeat the Japanese, and he left his country on the verge of the great economic success they are having now. MP: You call Stalin the greatest [in terms of despotism] ever dictator. In terms of mass murder he isn’t on the same page as Mao, that Diane apparently supports.
Crikey, I have just finished reading Cameron's 36 page paper which apparently has been to justify the UK getting even deeper involved in the ME mess and setting ot the strategy by which ISISL/ISIL will be defeated. I have to say I am less than impressed, and I was really quite hopeful that when it came down to it HMG would come up with a viable plan for war.
Any MP who as a result of reading that collection of platitudes and wishful thinking still votes for bombing in Syria needs her/her head read.
If Labour manage to get their act into gear by 2020, an Osborne lead Tory party will have a fight on it's hands to stay in office. He's wound up a lot of natural Conservative voters.
This policy is very simple:
1. BTL-buyers will have to pay 3% more tax. All other things being equal, they will reduce their bids by 3%, which will reduce the price that owner-occupiers have to pay to compete with the BTL segment.
2. The exemption for more than 15 properties is because the government is trying to persuade the insurance companies to get involved in the private rental sector by building specific rental developments. Putting up their taxes will not help this. So it's not about "helping out his chums". It's all about reducing house prices and reducing rents.
Surely a good thing?
3% extra stamp duty on purchase represents an up front levy of 6 months rent on property purchase on normal lets in most places, assuming a yield of 6%.
How will this reduce rents?
I'd say Osbo is trying to force more BTLs to sell up to force more properties onto the market while the supply of newbuild ramps up.
This will force LLs who thought they had until 2020 to move their portfolios into a company to pay 3% of the value of their portfolio in tax, or complete the operation by April 2016.
It seems that corporates can't currently compete within the PRS on anything other than huge portfolios. This will force rents up, not down.
Increasing supply will reduce rents. And that will reduce landlords pricing power.
In practice what should happen - and most likely will happen - is that BTL buyers will offer 97% of current asking prices. Which means that O/O will become more competitive.
Or BTLers who already lie (such as with undeclared income from the sector) will lie about the property being BTL, claiming to be OO instead and simply ignore the change.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
And are predominantly Boomers already parasitically claiming pensions and entitlements they never actually paid for under the NI/State Pension Ponzi Scheme.
Crikey, I have just finished reading Cameron's 36 page paper which apparently has been to justify the UK getting even deeper involved in the ME mess and setting ot the strategy by which ISISL/ISIL will be defeated. I have to say I am less than impressed, and I was really quite hopeful that when it came down to it HMG would come up with a viable plan for war.
Any MP who as a result of reading that collection of platitudes and wishful thinking still votes for bombing in Syria needs her/her head read.
Will we be acquiescing with Assad ?
He looks the only viable non nutcase (ISIL/Al Nusra) game in town in Syria to me still (FSA far too weak)
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
I am not a parasite by your definition so feel entitled to opine that you seem be a fan of Corbynomics.
Should McDonnell need a comrade to help fight his corner, Mr S suspects he could do worse than to give Diane Abbott a call. In 2008 during an appearance on This Week, Abbott found herself fighting the communist leader’s corner during a discussion on dictators with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo:
DA: I suppose that some people would judge that on balance Mao did more good than wrong. We can’t say that about the Nazis MP: What? AN: Remind me what the good was… DA: Well, it’s funny I just had this debate with my son… AN: Mao killed tens of millions of people. MP: Just tell me what was the good thing that he did that made up for the 60 million people he murdered? DA: He led his country from feudalism, he helped to defeat the Japanese, and he left his country on the verge of the great economic success they are having now. MP: You call Stalin the greatest [in terms of despotism] ever dictator. In terms of mass murder he isn’t on the same page as Mao, that Diane apparently supports.
Well you know Hilter built the autobahns... maybe that balances out the holocaust after all.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
Hmm, sounds like you're describing many in the financial services industry.
I see someone, the Head of Deutsche, is beginning to 'get it'.
He gave that interview a few days ago and I posted it here yesterday. He's not the first person to be saying this within the industry. He's a good man, though (a) he has one hell of a hospital pass, with DB; and (b) I should declare an interest as I know and have worked with him.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
And are predominantly Boomers already parasitically claiming pensions and entitlements they never actually paid for under the NI/State Pension Ponzi Scheme.
If Labour manage to get their act into gear by 2020, an Osborne lead Tory party will have a fight on it's hands to stay in office. He's wound up a lot of natural Conservative voters.
This policy is very simple:
1. BTL-buyers will have to pay 3% more tax. All other things being equal, they will reduce their bids by 3%, which will reduce the price that owner-occupiers have to pay to compete with the BTL segment.
2. The exemption for more than 15 properties is because the government is trying to persuade the insurance companies to get involved in the private rental sector by building specific rental developments. Putting up their taxes will not help this. So it's not about "helping out his chums". It's all about reducing house prices and reducing rents.
Surely a good thing?
3% extra stamp duty on purchase represents an up front levy of 6 months rent on property purchase on normal lets in most places, assuming a yield of 6%.
How will this reduce rents?
I'd say Osbo is trying to force more BTLs to sell up to force more properties onto the market while the supply of newbuild ramps up.
This will force LLs who thought they had until 2020 to move their portfolios into a company to pay 3% of the value of their portfolio in tax, or complete the operation by April 2016.
It seems that corporates can't currently compete within the PRS on anything other than huge portfolios. This will force rents up, not down.
Increasing supply will reduce rents. And that will reduce landlords pricing power.
In practice what should happen - and most likely will happen - is that BTL buyers will offer 97% of current asking prices. Which means that O/O will become more competitive.
Or BTLers who already lie (such as with undeclared income from the sector) will lie about the property being BTL, claiming to be OO instead and simply ignore the change.
Solicitors pay the tax. If they don't check whether their clients are O/O already or not then they will be failing their KYC obligations
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
OK. So my son, who co-rents a property as student, where would he live if there were no private landlords?
The university?
Universities do not provide accommodation for rent beyond year 1. Now if you are going to suggest the taxpayer hands over to universities several billions of pounds so that they can buy the estate needed to house all their students, then say so.
Crikey, I have just finished reading Cameron's 36 page paper which apparently has been to justify the UK getting even deeper involved in the ME mess and setting ot the strategy by which ISISL/ISIL will be defeated. I have to say I am less than impressed, and I was really quite hopeful that when it came down to it HMG would come up with a viable plan for war.
Any MP who as a result of reading that collection of platitudes and wishful thinking still votes for bombing in Syria needs her/her head read.
As an ex-military man (I assume - I hope I am not doing you an injustice) what would you have liked to have seen?
Mr. Slackbladder, a few years ago Ecclestone said Hitler knew how to get things done, or words to that effect.
The thing is, there's the air that Ecclestone is just taking the piss to distract from other areas. Corbyn and McDonnell come across as the kind of buffoons who actually read the little red book for inspiration.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
In fairness they would say that, wouldn't they? The poor dears who haven't put up rents due to the kindness of their hearts and will now have to do so thanks to nasty Osborne. The fact is that there is a market value for properties in each area and those who dramatically hike their rents above market value will find they end up with vacancies.
Did you read the thread? That's quite a patronising response.
I'm not sure that "poor dears" is an appropriate description for people who treat tenants as human beings rather than money machines.
To very unfairly and inaccurately summise, it seems to me that a vast number of "the rich" (Landlords) let out to the poor (Tenants on HB) which dwindles the pool for the "middle" (Prospective O.Os) ^_~
Buy to Let is a great example of how the Boomers have pulled the ladder up behind them. The distortions it causes to the Owner Occupier market seem to have absolutely no benefit whatsoever for the majority of working age people (although, even those Boomers who have not dabbled in BTL will had made a killing on house price inflation that BTL has helped stoke).
Exactly. I am 37 and my partner 40. We both earn a lot more than the national average. We currently rent a 2 bed apartment in Maidenhead. Even with a reasonable deposit, we couldn't afford to buy a similar flat at 3x earnings (probably we could at 4x)
If you go back 20-30 years and looked at house prices then and our comparative earnings, we wouldn't have had a problem.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
Hmm, sounds like you're describing many in the financial services industry.
I see someone, the Head of Deutsche, is beginning to 'get it'.
He gave that interview a few days ago and I posted it here yesterday. He's not the first person to be saying this within the industry. He's a good man, though (a) he has one hell of a hospital pass, with DB; and (b) I should declare an interest as I know and have worked with him.
He had such a cushty role at Temasek, I don't know why he took it on, to be honest.
There is an interesting thread over on Property 118 explaining why a lot of LLs who don't put rents up during a tenancy are about to start doing so, thanks to Mr O.
Responses from 50+ LLs representing 1000+ properties.
So a bunch of parasites are bitching about how hard it all is living on other people's money? Pull the other one, we need to tax BTL out of existence.
I'd be interested to hear a justification for the "bunch of parasites" comment.
Anyone who "invests" in existing property is a parasite. The capital is flowing from people who work and earn money to people who sit on property and cash. It is parasitical.
OK. So my son, who co-rents a property as student, where would he live if there were no private landlords?
The university?
Universities do not provide accommodation for rent beyond year 1. Now if you are going to suggest the taxpayer hands over to universities several billions of pounds so that they can buy the estate needed to house all their students, then say so.
In many university towns there are now large numbers of privately owned purpose built student accomodation opporunities. It's been an enormous grown market.
The Telegraph understands Jeremy Corbyn made clear to his shadow ministers that he opposes military action and remains “very concerned” about the impact of bombing...
Fifteen of 20 people who spoke out during the closed-doors meeting supported David Cameron, proposals, according to a shadow cabinet minister – a read out confirmed by a second attendee.
Mr. Llama, what if an MP supports involvement but for their own reasons, rather than being swayed by the paper?
Miss Plato, some say Abbott's on the front bench to make Corbyn look good.
Alas, it's not working.
Mr. Dancer, every MP will, as always, vote as their conscience dictates. However, if any of them are persuaded by that load of drivel then all I can say is that they need psychiatric help.
Or BTLers who already lie (such as with undeclared income from the sector) will lie about the property being BTL, claiming to be OO instead and simply ignore the change.
Solicitors pay the tax. If they don't check whether their clients are O/O already or not then they will be failing their KYC obligations
And how are solicitors going to check.
They are going to say "Do you own another property in which you are primarily resident?" to which the Liar will say "No".
And there is no way for the solicitor to confirm whether or not this is true.
The Land Registry does not record even DoB data, let alone NI Number which might allow a proper check to be done.
Crikey, I have just finished reading Cameron's 36 page paper which apparently has been to justify the UK getting even deeper involved in the ME mess and setting ot the strategy by which ISISL/ISIL will be defeated. I have to say I am less than impressed, and I was really quite hopeful that when it came down to it HMG would come up with a viable plan for war.
Any MP who as a result of reading that collection of platitudes and wishful thinking still votes for bombing in Syria needs her/her head read.
Will we be acquiescing with Assad ?
He looks the only viable non nutcase (ISIL/Al Nusra) game in town in Syria to me still (FSA far too weak)
Except Assad is a nutcase. You know, the sort of nutcase who uses chemical weapons against his own populations, and things like this:
If we choose to side with Assad, we should do it with open eyes to his regime's crimes. We should not excuse him just because it is momentarily useful. After all, that hasn't worked too well in the past, has it?
In fairness to landlords, I would divide the private landlords into 2 categories:
1) Accidental landlords - who end up with a spare property. They mostly want to see the mortgage paid and someone who won't wreck the place 2) Serial BTL-ers - these are the ones who are more likely to be unscrupulous or to have sub-standard properties.
Somehow you're avoiding -
3) BTL'ers with one or two properties let in good condition, that they would like to keep that way, rented at favourable rates. They're scrupulous and fair.
These are probably the majority of landlords.
Correct. I also doubt that 'serial' BTLers are unscrupulous either. The plain fact is there are a lot of them these days and they are unbalancing the market. And sine they are making money then they are open for taxation. Its a shame but its a fact of life.
Comments
I agree it's unlikely, but far from impossible.
BTL is not a significant proportion of the market in most places.
Zac Goldsmith says Sadiq Khan's position on Heathrow is "about as authentic as Donald Trump's hair"
P.S. Don't know if I missed your reply yesterday, but to repeat the question how many hours did you put into Fallout4 before you completed the main quest?
Scandal
Orkney & Shetland (Lib Dem held)
Glasgow East (SNP held)
Edinburgh West (SNP held)
St Helens South & Whiston (Labour held)
We may yet get fallout from the Conservative party sex scandal as well.
New job
Tooting (Labour held)
Richmond Park (Conservative held)
These, obviously, are in the alternative (but see below).
To these we might also add:
Sheffield Hallam (Lib Dem held)
Doncaster North (Labour held)
Neither incumbent obviously has anything to hang around for at present so if they get a new job presumably they'll be off.
Principled disagreement
Richmond Park (Conservative held)
One or more Labour seats. Barrow & Furness is a prime candidate, given the personal commitments that John Woodcock gave to his electorate with reference to Trident:
http://labourlist.org/2015/04/john-woodcock-says-he-will-quit-as-mp-if-labour-dont-support-full-trident-renewal/
Anno domini
It's tasteless to speculate about ill health or death so I won't.
Some older MPs may wish to retire early in any case.
Coventry North West has to be a prime candidate, given the public speculation this year:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-mp-geoffrey-robinson-set-8925898
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/29/labour-mp-geoffrey-robinson-not-quitting-ed-miliband-strategy-director
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/mp-geoffrey-robinson-hits-back-9272607
How will this reduce rents?
I'd say Osbo is trying to force more BTLs to sell up to force more properties onto the market while the supply of newbuild ramps up.
This will force LLs who thought they had until 2020 to move their portfolios into a company to pay 3% of the value of their portfolio in tax, or complete the operation by April 2016.
It seems that corporates can't currently compete within the PRS on anything other than huge portfolios. This will force rents up, not down.
Yes, stuff the oldies and many with a pension that successive Chancellors have screwed over, and help Osborne's property spiv chums gets richer.
I'm neither old, nor a BTL'er, but I can see him losing the Tories a lot of their traditional voters over this and the changes to Contractors taxation. If Corbyn goes, Labour have every chance in 2020.
"These are cruel and unusual times for many Labour MPs. Some of us still recall that even the worst day in government is better than the best day in opposition. But these memories are fading. There is anger in the Labour party and, without focus and purpose, that anger will become destructive."
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opinions/cruel-and-unusual-times-for-labour
I'm not sure that "poor dears" is an appropriate description for people who treat tenants as human beings rather than money machines.
'Can't make the payment until Thursday? Oh dear, there's a penalty'
But it has expanded out of all proportion to that role, based on cheap borrowing, a perception that property is a one way bet and favourable tax treatment, as well as a lack of alternative investments.
Tax treatment is being addressed; cheap borrowing will come to an end at some point; and hopefully people will learn to appreciate that property should be for living in, not an investment class.
Osborne is pressing the sector with a ratchet like approach to try and reduce overall house prices (which seems to be working, at least in my segment of the market. Grmpf).
* Disclosure: one of my family companies is involved in develop-to-let, but we don't like residential BTL as a segment.
I understand and share Mr Llama's concerns. Where I part company, perhaps, is that I think this is a job worth doing and therefore worth doing well, even in the face of inevitable setbacks, revenge attacks by IS, tiredness with the whole ghastly imbroglio etc. Whether our politicians have the steel and determination to see this through and keep us onside is another matter.
In practice what should happen - and most likely will happen - is that BTL buyers will offer 97% of current asking prices. Which means that O/O will become more competitive.
They would just detonate it...
I would suggest in a barge (or similar) sailing up the Thames near the HOC..
Preferably during PMQs..
You'll find a lot on there that do precisely that, but will no longer have leeway to do so.
For the record, PRS rents have been rising at slower than inflation for well over a decade.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34931128
Having seen large property co's in full flow, I know who the real baddies are...
As a Comparison my first play-through of Skyrim took about 600 hours (and I have had two more goes at it - one on a heavily modified version four years(?) after the original and which was perhaps the most fun and took almost as long). Elite Dangerous soaked up about 1000 hours of my time before I grew bored with it, though there was still lots left to do (entertaiment cost less than 5p per hour).
1 - Corporates are higher cost operators. How will introducing higher costs into a market reduce rents?
2 - Forcing smaller LLs out of the market will reduce supply, not increase it, if - as Osbo wants - the stock goes to O/O not rental. Corporates will not take on older housing stock as it will not be efficient for the model.
3 - You are assuming a functional market. That is not what we have.
Should note that London may be exceptional here, since the London rental market is about income from buy-and-hold for generations or capital gain, not mainly income from rent.
-Does this coalition really want to get rid of ISIS or use them as a pretext to unseat Assad?
-What about other Islamist rebel groups such as Al Nusra who are just as unacceptable, will this just help them?
-Who are the ground forces of this attack who will hold territory against ISIS?
With side-quests, the game has a reported 400 hours of content, which I can readily believe.
Also, the length of the main quest is (I believe) variable.
Dr. Prasannan, ah, that's right. They scheduled it for the same time as Homeland. And Downton Abbey. Muppets.
Mr. Cide, silence, capitalist pigdog! Chairman Corbyn will usher in a Golden Age of Maoist purity!
By the logic of people complaining, basically you can't have a ball for any period in history, because at some point in that history there has been somebody who has been down trodden and irrationally treated.
I see someone, the Head of Deutsche, is beginning to 'get it'.
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/deutsche-bank-boss-john-cryan-bankers-are-paid-too-much-a3121931.html
So effectively they are looking for something they can use for PR purposes, which makes me very sceptical.
The idea that corporate=bad, private=good is ridiculous. I have been round plenty of bad properties owned by private landlords. For example, in one case the BTLs had converted the lounge into another bedroom as they said they needed to do that to pay the mortgage. In another case I saw an HMO with holes in the carpet and worse
In my view, UKIP have no room for breakthrough in a FPTP system if they keep on the right on all issues. A mix of populist, libertarian, social conservatism and protectionism would, in my view, be their best bet.
Just for the record, that would not get me voting for them, and would leave the minorities and loony left vote to Labour still.
Is there actually a problem?
History isn't that black & white (pun intended)
Where are the Conservative MPs publicly speaking out against this nonsense?
Now running at a 11% cash yield on our investment with some more upside to come.
* By which I mean my sister. I don't do any actual work. Obviously.
I hope so, even as a conservative on economic issues.
As opposed to "personal reason" = "sex scandal".
No Disney themed balls, because Disney performers get a rough deal?
The young women's argument (and for a law student) is totally flawed. She claimed women were absent from Oxford in the 1920's (not that that has anything to do with New Orleans), but..
"The first women’s colleges were founded in the nineteenth century, and women became full members of the University in 1920. "
And the lack of "people of colour", might have something to do with the demographic makeup of the UK then.
1) Accidental landlords - who end up with a spare property. They mostly want to see the mortgage paid and someone who won't wreck the place
2) Serial BTL-ers - these are the ones who are more likely to be unscrupulous or to have sub-standard properties.
Just bored with politics maybe? In which case, Labour can expect 100 by-elections for "innocuous" reasons...
2. They are not forcing smaller LLs out of the market, but they are encouraging them to reduce prices. Yes, on the margin, that will mean the proportion of O/O stock will increase which, together with reducing housing prices, is the objective
3. The stamp duty changes at the top end of the market have seen a decline in prices as the market has adjusted over 6-12 months. I'd expect it will also occur in other parts of the market - what we see is that asking prices are high, but are reduced when they don't sell and then transactions happen quite quickly at the reduced levels
Why do you think that property management involves no work?
3) BTL'ers with one or two properties let in good condition, that they would like to keep that way, rented at favourable rates. They're scrupulous and fair.
These are probably the majority of landlords.
Sure you could be an MP if you had terminal cancer. But I could forgive someone wanting to resign and spend the last 12 months of their life doing something else.
Meet Bilal Erdogan, than man who funds ISIS.
Remind me again why we're with the baddies?
I wouldn't go so far as Max, but I'd agree with Charles - a home should be a home primarily, not an investment
Any MP who as a result of reading that collection of platitudes and wishful thinking still votes for bombing in Syria needs her/her head read.
Miss Plato, some say Abbott's on the front bench to make Corbyn look good.
Alas, it's not working.
He looks the only viable non nutcase (ISIL/Al Nusra) game in town in Syria to me still (FSA far too weak)
I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my question from last night that I wrote on a previous thread.
The thing is, there's the air that Ecclestone is just taking the piss to distract from other areas. Corbyn and McDonnell come across as the kind of buffoons who actually read the little red book for inspiration.
If you go back 20-30 years and looked at house prices then and our comparative earnings, we wouldn't have had a problem.
They are going to say "Do you own another property in which you are primarily resident?" to which the Liar will say "No".
And there is no way for the solicitor to confirm whether or not this is true.
The Land Registry does not record even DoB data, let alone NI Number which might allow a proper check to be done.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/11/images-syrian-torture-shock-new-yorkers-united-nations
If we choose to side with Assad, we should do it with open eyes to his regime's crimes. We should not excuse him just because it is momentarily useful. After all, that hasn't worked too well in the past, has it?
I am no expert, but it seems v different to bombing Germany in WW2 in that respect.
But as you asked nicely:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/11/25/alex-salmond-tells-the-commons-about-this-mornings-pb-osborne-betting-tip/