It hasn’t even been applied yet.
It won’t be until 2020.
Yes, you’re reading that link right.
This ….person, has SEVENTY-FIVE properties, and is completely convinced that he has no impact on the market whatsoever, he’s just a small-time investor and this taxation (closing of a loophole) is morally wrong.
Property isn’t a pension.
I’ll repeat it for the cheap seats.
A property is NOT a pension.
Torquay landlord Graham Chilvers owns 75 properties. None of them, he says, could have been bought by first-time buyers – because in every case he either built or restored them himself.
Sounds like a cartoon character.
I’m fairly certain younger people are better at DIY and restoration, actually. Stronger at least.
It’s like saying “nobody else could have won this lottery because I guessed the numbers” – the solipsism.
Landlords argue that not only will the change force them to evict tenants and sell properties en masse, but that it will also prevent the building and development of new homes – hindering the Government’s objective to increase housing supply.
Why? They could never afford them in the first place.
Inversion of supply-demand law. More properties on the market = less, somehow.
“The Government justifies its attack on buy-to-let by saying landlords have an unfair advantage over people wanting to buy their own homes,” Mr Chilvers said. “But no homebuyer was competing with me on any of these properties.”
Many of his other properties were also once hotels or care homes, while some he built from scratch.
And he cuts Victorian houses into flats.
What a helpful guy.
So many couples must be cheered living in a 2-bedroom apartment, unable to have more children because it’ll make him more money.
He reckons his portfolio is worth £6.4m, against which there is a modest £2.4m borrowing.
Ah, so he can’t actually afford it.
Rental income totals £330,000 per year. The cost of mortgage interest is £80,000 with maintenance, insurance and other expenses coming in at £100,000 to £120,000.
That gives a taxable annual profit of between £130,000 and £150,000.
His tax bill today is around £50,000. When the new taxes are fully applied he will pay an extra 32pc in tax, with his bill rising to almost £70,000.
He would then be paying a tax rate of 44pc.
It’s a job.
That’s about the right level.
One of Mr Chilvers’ biggest anxieties is the way the proposed tax will bite when interest rates rise. Because of the perverse way in which the tax operates, landlords will actually pay more tax when their mortgage costs go up – even though this will result in their having less gross profit.
You mean, quickly remedying the people who monopolized the market and can’t really afford to be there without taxpayer ignorance?
“Not only will this tax prevent me from undertaking further development, but it poses real risks to my business just at a time that interest rates could rise,” said Mr Chilvers.
You took on that risk.
The taxpayer shouldn’t bail you out.
Other full-time landlords share Mr Chilvers’ view that mainstream homeowners are not competing for the same properties as landlords.
All property ON A MARKET is competed for.
YOU ARE WRONG.
There isn’t a single attempt at intellectual honesty here, is there?
Fuck Baby Boomers.
Like many professional landlords she is not altering her strategy until more detail about the new tax regime emerges. This is expected within weeks as part of the Finance Act.
These people are morons.
She said future options included selling some of the properties in order to pay down the mortgages on others.
You mean, releasing the houses you can’t afford and bought in greed on credit?
…“The whole point of this was to provide an income to live off.”
See above. Cheap seat.
They imagine themselves to be like serf lords over Millennials. Wankers.
The only buy-to-let investors who will not be hit are the very wealthy who buy property in cash and who don’t need a mortgage.
Aka people who can afford the investment. The way it should be.
In other words, tax will be applied to the rent received – rather than what is left of the rent after the mortgage interest has been paid.
Closing a loophole.
They end with a tedious example where the landlord makes zero profit. As if that’s immoral or the end of the world. No, you choose to take a risk and breaking even is a blessing. You aren’t legally obliged to make money. Especially from cornering a market you could only enter because of when you were born.