Reply to: Why do they still subsidise Buy To Let?

[d000hg]

For most, BTL isn't a business.

Really? How are you defining a business?

[BlasterBates]

If you were to prevent private people from owning their own property and offsetting mortgages they will simply invest in property companies that take loans out and rent the property out. So you will have the same thing, people have some money and they want to invest, they will invest it. Changing the law to prevent a company only taking out loans out for anything but property or buildings is not going to work. How would a company or companies finance, office blocks, factory, a shopping center or a hotel?

..and if you were to only allow commercial property via loans, with one stroke the rental market would be dead (or as near as dammit), apart from rooms in private houses.

The result of this would be high rents.

If house prices are to come down the best way to achieve this is to build more houses. That´s what pushes the price of houses up.

[GB9]

Most businesses use some sort of capital to finance their needs.

For most, BTL isn't a business.

Anyway, focus on the bigger picture. Where did the money go? To inflate property prices and the subsequent buy lend and buy frenzy. About time that the people who benefited from that paid up.

Honestly, some of you guys need to spend some time working in the right financial companies to understand what really happened before you post nonsense.

Also interesting to see that some don't actually regard contracting as a business. I assume they have handed themselves into HMRC and are taking a good one from behind?!?!

[Sockpuppet]

Ok, we are short of money. Yet the main group of people who made money from the boom i.e. property owners between 2000 and 2008, haven't been made to pay.

BTL in particular is given a massive backhander in being able to offset mortgage interest against income. The theory behind this is that it is a business.

Firstly, how can you describe buying one or two BTLs with someone else's money and renting it out as a business? Compare that to many of us who have to find work, turn up at a client's site and do a full day's work, and then may have a period of no income whilst finding the next work. One seems more like a business than the other, except Hector disagrees. For most, BTL is nothing more than an investment. How many times have you heard the term 'investment property' rather than 'business property'.

Most businesses use some sort of capital to finance their needs.
Most landlords will have periods when the property is vacant.

Also you're forgetting that returns are what is wanted here. While putting a 10% tax on rents would stop a few landlords, most would just put the rent up 10% to accomidate. As this would be an across the board increase you would end up paying more as a renter.

FWIW I don't mind people who made lots of money from the housing boom, more power to them.

[d000hg]

Nice fail!

I presume you just copied the URL of your search which we can't see.

Those bloody URLs again!

[northernladuk]

Examples_here

Nice fail!

I presume you just copied the URL of your search which we can't see.

[MarillionFan]

Crappy bit of trolling this. Anyone show him how it is really done?

Examples_here

[northernladuk]

Crappy bit of trolling this. Anyone show him how it is really done?

[eek]

Well I've flushed out the BTLers.

BTL for most people isn't a business, its an investment. In fact I know a couple of people who during the boom were in no rush to get tenants as they were awkward and made a mess of a newly refurbished pad.

And because in the vast majority of cases BTL isn't a real business, but an investment, you shouldn't be allowed to offset costs, including interest, against income. You can't do it with any other investment I can readily think of (well, a couple specialist ones).

As fort CGT, I was talking about having it on primary residences as well as BTL. I've lost track of the number of people I know who are sitting on healthy property 'profit' for having done nothing, yet at the same time blame others (mainly bankers) for all today's problems.

My overall point is, how can the government / HMRC claim contractors (the vast majority) aren't real businesses when someone who borrows some money to buy a property and rent it out, is. That's the joke.

The House Price Crash website is ->

[MarillionFan]

Contracting for most people isn't a business, it's the most tax-efficient way to work as a contractor/freelancer. They do it because going direct is not only less tax efficient, it is often impossible.

Are you just jealous you don't own a BTL or something?

He's been hit by the stupid brick.

[d000hg]

BTL for most people isn't a business, its an investment.

Contracting for most people isn't a business, it's the most tax-efficient way to work as a contractor/freelancer. They do it because going direct is not only less tax efficient, it is often impossible.

Are you just jealous you don't own a BTL or something?

[Sysman]

Are you suggesting that every one that is stuck in rental accommodation really wanted to buy a house instead, but now can't just because of a market distortion?

For someone who wants to be mobile, renting can be a far better proposition than buying.

That is particularly true when the housing market is in the doldrums and you just need to relocate and concentrate on your next business or career objective.

[rd409]

Well I've flushed out the BTLers.

BTL for most people isn't a business, its an investment. In fact I know a couple of people who during the boom were in no rush to get tenants as they were awkward and made a mess of a newly refurbished pad.

And because in the vast majority of cases BTL isn't a real business, but an investment, you shouldn't be allowed to offset costs, including interest, against income. You can't do it with any other investment I can readily think of (well, a couple specialist ones).

As fort CGT, I was talking about having it on primary residences as well as BTL. I've lost track of the number of people I know who are sitting on healthy property 'profit' for having done nothing, yet at the same time blame others (mainly bankers) for all today's problems.

My overall point is, how can the government / HMRC claim contractors (the vast majority) aren't real businesses when someone who borrows some money to buy a property and rent it out, is. That's the joke.

Generally an IT contractor has got nothing to lose. If the project goes bust, all s/he has to do is find another one.

Whereas, the price of property may well go up or down; the rents may follow the same path, but the amount owed by the business never follows the market trend. The amount of outstanding debts can make your other properties at risk as well, unlike standard IT contracts.

HTH.

[GB9]

BTL a business? My arse.

Well I've flushed out the BTLers.

BTL for most people isn't a business, its an investment. In fact I know a couple of people who during the boom were in no rush to get tenants as they were awkward and made a mess of a newly refurbished pad.

And because in the vast majority of cases BTL isn't a real business, but an investment, you shouldn't be allowed to offset costs, including interest, against income. You can't do it with any other investment I can readily think of (well, a couple specialist ones).

As fort CGT, I was talking about having it on primary residences as well as BTL. I've lost track of the number of people I know who are sitting on healthy property 'profit' for having done nothing, yet at the same time blame others (mainly bankers) for all today's problems.

My overall point is, how can the government / HMRC claim contractors (the vast majority) aren't real businesses when someone who borrows some money to buy a property and rent it out, is. That's the joke.

[d000hg]

Firstly, how can you describe buying one or two BTLs with someone else's money and renting it out as a business?

Because many businesses use credit and in fact rely on it to survive?

Buying a property and letting it out is more a 'true' business than being a contractor...