Sign Up


By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions

Already a PT member? Log In

Sign Up

Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google


By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions

Already a PT member? Log In

Log In


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Forgot Password

To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.

Already a PT member? Log In

Don't have an account? Sign Up

  • Tax

    What rate of Income Tax would put you off ?

    Save hard for a deposit? What? By MEW'ing your home to get the first deposit, then other properties in your 'portfolio' as you go?

    landlords access MEW'd deposits which are tax free. Meanwhile a first time buyer has to actually save their deposit from post-tax income. Surely you must be able to see the imbalance there.

    to add. A landlord can loan a mortgage against market rents. A FTBr can only loan against his earned income. In an environment where wages are static and rising house prices/rents, this gives the landlord another clear advantage.

    Also, a tenant might be paying 75% of their income on rent. But a bank would never loan them a mortgage for an amount so large that it would consume 75% of salary to pay the mortgage each month. So really, BTL is an effective way for banks to circumnavigate responsible lending rules.

    All else equal, rising prices means falling material living standards.

    Homes ought to be dirt cheap, cheaper than cars, due to the progress of technology and mass production.

    Why are houses - brick boxes - any different to food, computers, mobile phones, air travel, clothes, and so on?

    The difference is the fuedal economics of land and landlords. A fuedal system is NOT capitalism!


    so what is the answer

    The Govt is broke it cant build the number homes we need

    So this only leaves Large Business to fill the gap

    Do you think they will be better than the BTL Landlord

    The New Taxation rules effecting BTL now will have effect and a great number of landlords will leave the PRS

    You can now see it Landlords are not borrowing as they did

    Your views have been listened too by the Govt

    so where do we go from here I understand what you are against

    But what are you for how would you solve this issue of homes in the UK

    and more importantly who should supply them


    Learn Change and Adapt ?????

    Oh dear are you sure your name is not John Banyan a prodigious poster on DM comments who spouts the same utter rubbish as you.

    I can see in your world the masses would all be allocated some free land taken from the land owing classes.

    Existing LL would be stripped of their rental assets and the assets given to the masses.

    Such a policy has been tried before and has singularly failed.

    Of course unbridled capitalism should be kept in check and there are many inequities of such a system.

    But it remains still the best process to deliver riches for all.

    The idea of land ownership being feudalistic is bonkers.

    Land by its very nature is productive.

    Sometimes factories sit on it, sometimes fields of crops sometimes rental properties.

    Somebody must own that land asset.

    Capital is used to do so whether it is borrowed or earn't from other sources.

    There is no right or wrong way to be able to raise capital.

    Physically slogging your guts out to earn the capital is just one way of doing so.

    There is no self righteous way of doing this.

    The days have long gone of the feudalistic concept of working like a dog in the fields to garner enough crops to sell to live on and pay rent to the landowner.

    So raising capital on the strength of rental income is just a way the bankers decided was appropriate to deal with the piles of cash they had and nobody to lend it to.

    Bankers make a lot of their money by lending to people or would you shut them down as well!!?.

    Like it or not for a modern society to function there needs to be a supply of affordable credit in all its various guises.

    Waiting to earn the capital by the sweat of one's brow is an outdated concept.

    Borrowing capital is the way the modern world works like it or not.

    Your strategy would return the UK to the Dark Ages.

    LL are just part of the mix of capital borrowing people.

    Anyone can have a go at being a LL if they wish.

    Though of course such a borrower would have to meet a banks requirements.

    Banks must surely be allowed to determine who they wish to risk lending to!!?

    If not then their capital would be effectively stolen from them to distribute to those who are considered worthy enough, perhaps a Party member.

    I suggest you read Animal Farm where you will realise that your Communist paradise is a flawed and very dangerous concept.

    Capitalism for all its undoubted flaws represents the best way to bring riches for everyone.

    This has been the case for centuries and will remain so.

    Little Trots like you need to recognise such.

    Making capitalism fairer is an admirable aspiration.

    But you cannot force people with capital to give it to another.

    Only the giver can decide on who they choose to lend their capital to.

    That inevitably means some will be able to obtain capital and some won't.

    There is no God given right for anyone to expect an amount of capital they want or need to be given to them.

    So for those who allege they can't afford to buy I say complete and utter rubbish.

    What such aspirant buyers are actually saying is that they cannot afford to buy where they want!

    Which is a totally different concept.

    Nobody has the right to live in an expensive area if they can't afford it.

    Buying in a cheaper area is the answer even though doing so is logistically and financially not worth doing.

    Which is why many rent!!

    Many do choose to afford cheap property and then commute to work.

    There are lots of domestic choices to he made.

    But your flawed idea of banning LL does no good for anyone.

    I suggest you Trot off to the pages of the idiot Guardian where your flawed views will be welcomed and agreed with.

    We LL have no time for idiots like you.


    I lost my job a few years ago. I was in my 50s and my skills were near obsolete. I could have lived off my capital until my pensions were due. Instead I put my capital to work to provide an income of around the UK average. That is capitalism. I did not buy any properties in the expectation that the values would rise faster than inflation (except as a result of refurbishment). Prices around here have only just recovered to 2007 values. The latest council housing survey said there was a surplus of 2 bed houses in the area. 

    Houses would be dirt cheap if therre was a way to manufacture land, but there isn't, at least not in a way that people like, Large cheap tower blocks are not popular..

    A tenant who would have to pay 75% of their income on rent would fail the credit checks  that sensible landlords use. It is common to require an income 3.5 times the rent. I suppose London might have a lower ratio but I doubt it would be under 2.5. A landlord does not want a tenant who is going to struggle to pay, just as a lender would not want a borrower who will struggle to may mortgege payments. Next month stricter lending rules for BTL come into force. Many lenders are already applying them.

    The feudal system involved giving land for work. Major lords gave minor lords land in return for military service, Serfs were given land in exchange for labour. Cash rents are not feudal. Housing in the UK is largely capaitalistic, but it is not a free market. It can't be since the supply of land is limited, and it can not be moved about . Because of that laws are needed to control it which make it even less free. Particularly the planning laws that favour those who live in an area against those who would like to move there.


    You could argue that all landlords are parasites by your logic.  The main brunt of your attack seems to be that someone who doesn't fit the typical landlord image of being wealthy means they shouldn't be a landlord and should go get a real job?

    I view it the opposite way, if someone on a lower wage tries to better their finances/retirement by being a landlord then that's not a bad thing in a capitalist world.

    I'd be more concerned with a system where only very wealthy people can be landlords, like ones who don't have mortgages and no worries where S24 is concerned.


    Your Right S24 attacks working class landlords not the super rich

    again the Tory Govt shows who it supports and its not the working man and women of the UK

    We were all fools to think they supported us in the first place


    Learn Change and Adapt ?????

    1% I feel I should give something to HMRC, I wouldn't be able to sleep at nights otherwise.


    Listen to Taxman by the Beatles, witten by George Harrison when he found out they were paying 95% income tax.

    The highest rate of tax in the UK is more than 45% when you add NICs and loss of allowances.

    Currently I pay about 10% overall with a marginal rate of 20%. I hope to be paying a higher proportion of a larger income in a couple of years.

    As for asking what the government's future plans for the sector are  I doubt the government has any. Possibly parts of the government have plans, probably not all the same.