Baby Boomers screech about property monopoly tax

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.

Evict? No.
Sell? Yes.
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.”

staring angry glare really omfg no stop dorian gray

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.
You lost.
The taxpayer shouldn’t bail you out.

I describe you, you hate me. Really, you hate yourself and everyone knows it.

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.
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.

don draper crying baby wah wah wah

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.

3 responses to “Baby Boomers screech about property monopoly tax

  1. It is really odd to read your comments about my life. You’re so passionate, but so wrong. I have spent 30 years working physically hard and long hours as a Landlord. Every life problem a tenets has, always beats on the Landlords’ door. MOT failed, Suicides, Natural Deaths, divorces, fires, and people running off owe money, street fights and threats from/with drug dealers and pimps trying to move in and take over. It is business requiring broad shoulders, patience and high people skills. I guess I could have spent much the same time and effort buying the odd hotel or old people’s home, then somehow, if I had made a success of it I would be a hero, but if you make a success of the Landlord business, you’re a villain. Although not one of my tenants would agree with that. It shocks me that when my father was in an old people’s home, he had a small room with a toilet. Carers that kept an eye on him were on minimum wage. It cost £550 a week for this. That about £450 a week more than I would change for that room and again I am considered the villain. I don’t get it!!
    I was once a struggling first time buyer. I bought a little badly rundown two bed house with my “to be” wife and we work day on night on it. I would hate the idea that I would have had to have competed with an “investor” for the property and I fully support any measure that stops “Amateur” Landlords owning a few would be first time buyers homes purely as an investment. This new tax should loaded against first time buyers properties to stop rich “Dentists” types hoovering them up.
    I am a working Landlord. All the properties I have brought have been large, no first time buyers potential homes. Some empty, so with squatters. Most, when you walked out of them you wiped your feet clean and de-fleaed yourself. I renovated them and turned them around to provide respectable homes for people. The houses I own, I personally built. They didn’t and wouldn’t exist without me. They are professionally managed and maintained 24/365. I provide quality accommodation from studios up to 3 bed house. The rent is the normal market. My target is people that are working, sensible and responsible. If you want your flat well maintained. If you want a landlord how will evict the tenants above you because they think playing drums at 3am is “Cool” I am that Landlord. As a result I have a 99.3% occupancy rate. That is tenants voting with their feet.
    You say that property is not a pension. If I had worked for British Gas for 30 years they would pay me a trouble free pension. Are you saying, I am not at least equal to a clerk in the gas board? I get called out at 2am when there is a problem.
    If I could go back in time I would have put all that time and effort in a different direction. I would have been a property developer. Building and renovating to sell. Simple clean and tidy. I would be richer and I would not have to had have dealt with so much of other peoples life problems beating on my door.
    The Landlords that I don’t like are the professional who buys a couple of house as a pension. They are not working at it, giving anything or creating anything. There are some tenants who are so selfish that just don’t know how live in a decent home and respect their neighbours or meet their liabilities, who is going to house them, “Slum Landlords, maybe?” Many Landlords are decent, important member of our society

    • Ok I allowed this comment you seem decent. But so far landlords have actually been getting tax breaks for a long time, and considering the bubble of the UK property market both at home and internationally, the bump in tax is actually more of a correction. That’s what I was getting at.

      • Hi Graham Chilvers AGAIN (a Landlord)! So we are clear. Under the new rules a landlord can claim 20% of the cost of the mortgage against tax. I believe, where a person buys a property that by its size and cost would be attractive to a first-time buyer, there should be NO mortgage tax allowance at all. That’s right NONE! If you buy a house as a pension and thereby possibly make tenants out of the people that might have brought it if you hadn’t, you shouldn’t get tax relief on it. The Landlord shouldn’t have any tax advantage.
        Where a Landlord, owns and runs rental property that he has either built from the mud up, or properties by their size, nature or cost are simply not potential first-time buyer homes. If he is in no way, interfering or competing with the ambitions of a first-time buyer. He should be taxed in the same way as an Hotel, Hostel or Old people’s home.

        As in my statement to the House of Lords, this demarcation between potential first-time buyer’s homes and legitimate rental properties could easily be defined. For example. No Tax relief on properties that have two or less bedrooms and are below tax band “D” This would steer investment up and away from those first-time buyers properties

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s