FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Windfall Tax
Windfall Tax
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
It would appear that it might happen, after all.
Whether it does, or it doesn't, the argument that it will stifle future investment is utter nonsense.
Why? Well, firstly, it hasn't in the past, when it's been done.
Secondly, if any company fails to invest in its future, it gets left behind by those of its competitors who do.
The energy companies aren't likely to take such a self-harming course. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"since geoffrey howe implemented frequent windfall taxes to prop up the thatcher government years, every time that there has been a windfall tax the result has been a boom in investment.  "
They should implement a " letting of wind in public tax ".
Politician would pay the most, has their comes out both ends. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"... the argument that it will stifle future investment is utter nonsense.
Why? Well, firstly, it hasn't in the past, when it's been done."
It's only been done twice, and in both cases due to wrongdoing in the industry.
The first was in 1981 when the banks were taxed for failing to pass on profits to customers. Interest rates were at 17%, and many banks were refusing to pay interest on current accounts. The (Tory) government took a percentage of all the money in the no-interest accounts to right the injustice.
The second was after the mass privatisations of the 80s and 90s. When it became clear that most of the businesses had been undervalued, the (Labour) government levied a windfall tax on them all to correct the injustice.
While the oil companies may have made more profits than normal recently, that's not because any of any injustice, it's just the markets changing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"... the argument that it will stifle future investment is utter nonsense.
Why? Well, firstly, it hasn't in the past, when it's been done.
It's only been done twice"
twice? ... your posts get less and less factual with each one . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone worked out what it would achieve per person as there is in excess of 70 million in the country, plus your pension pot may also take a hit, lots of pension money in oil companies ? "
Twelvty Two pounds, fuck all and thrupence a head. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How about a 10% windfall tax on all property? "
I'm not sure what you think that would achieve. Surely that would just make a lot of us 10% poorer.
Well, the ones that could afford to pay it would be poorer. The rest of us would end up in jail after being unable to pay. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How about a 10% windfall tax on all property?
I'm not sure what you think that would achieve. Surely that would just make a lot of us 10% poorer.
Well, the ones that could afford to pay it would be poorer. The rest of us would end up in jail after being unable to pay."
Ot would tax those of us who own property and have benefited from capital gain and give to the poor who by definition don’t have any property.
Like a windfall tax. Or robin hood  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You know what is going to happen, is that the Tory windfall tax is going to half arsed, its not going to have the desired effect and then they can argue it didn't work so they can prove it at some later date if someone tries to do it again.
Its an utter scam, because we know the tories do lots of half assed changes to other people's ideas so they can promote the crappy polices they've came up with and say they are better.
Don't expect this windfall tax they do to quell any of the discontent at this time, more so it will only give people more reasons to kick them out come election time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"How about a 10% windfall tax on all property?
I'm not sure what you think that would achieve. Surely that would just make a lot of us 10% poorer.
Well, the ones that could afford to pay it would be poorer. The rest of us would end up in jail after being unable to pay.
Ot would tax those of us who own property and have benefited from capital gain and give to the poor who by definition don’t have any property.
Like a windfall tax. Or robin hood "
On someone’s primary/family home? Or on their buy-to-let property empire?
If you are trying to draw parallels with oil/gas industry windfall...
The buy-to-let landlord finds that their variable rate mortgage increases slightly so they immediately increase rent for their tenants by an amount larger than the mortgage increase thus increasing their profit margin. However, when the mortgage rate falls they fail to pass on that saving for an extended period of time maintaining an even better profit margin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How about a 10% windfall tax on all property?"
"I'm not sure what you think that would achieve. Surely that would just make a lot of us 10% poorer.
Well, the ones that could afford to pay it would be poorer. The rest of us would end up in jail after being unable to pay."
"Ot would tax those of us who own property and have benefited from capital gain and give to the poor who by definition don’t have any property.
Like a windfall tax. Or robin hood "
My house is indeed worth more than it was when I bought it, but I don't have any more money in my pocket. If I had to pay a 10% tax, I wouldn't be able to afford it. I'd have to sell the house to pay the tax.
Many, if not most of us are in the same position. On paper we're all richer, but we don't have any extra money.
No one benefits from a rise in the price of their house until they sell it, and even then they need the extra money to be able to afford a new house. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"How about a 10% windfall tax on all property?
I'm not sure what you think that would achieve. Surely that would just make a lot of us 10% poorer.
Well, the ones that could afford to pay it would be poorer. The rest of us would end up in jail after being unable to pay.
Ot would tax those of us who own property and have benefited from capital gain and give to the poor who by definition don’t have any property.
Like a windfall tax. Or robin hood
My house is indeed worth more than it was when I bought it, but I don't have any more money in my pocket. If I had to pay a 10% tax, I wouldn't be able to afford it. I'd have to sell the house to pay the tax.
Many, if not most of us are in the same position. On paper we're all richer, but we don't have any extra money.
No one benefits from a rise in the price of their house until they sell it, and even then they need the extra money to be able to afford a new house."
Precisely why this should not apply to the primary/family home! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
How about personal assets purchased with post tax net income are off limits to any further form of taxation. If the assets are part of a business generating income then that is different.
If I buy some jewellery for my wife then years later we go on antiques roadshow and find that particular item is highly desirable and we can sell it, then I do not believe that is subject to capital gains tax right? So why should your home be subject to tax. Multiple homes and but to let can be see as investments or a business but not the family home. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The real problem we have is that owning property is the only safe investment available to us that makes money. Is the Bank of England responsible for this by holding down interest rates for so long or does the root lie in Thatcher’s destruction of manufacturing and selling off of publicly owned assets? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How about a 10% windfall tax on all property?
I'm not sure what you think that would achieve. Surely that would just make a lot of us 10% poorer.
Well, the ones that could afford to pay it would be poorer. The rest of us would end up in jail after being unable to pay.
Ot would tax those of us who own property and have benefited from capital gain and give to the poor who by definition don’t have any property.
Like a windfall tax. Or robin hood
On someone’s primary/family home? Or on their buy-to-let property empire?
If you are trying to draw parallels with oil/gas industry windfall...
The buy-to-let landlord finds that their variable rate mortgage increases slightly so they immediately increase rent for their tenants by an amount larger than the mortgage increase thus increasing their profit margin. However, when the mortgage rate falls they fail to pass on that saving for an extended period of time maintaining an even better profit margin."
Only in your head not in real life a landlord. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How about personal assets purchased with post tax net income are off limits to any further form of taxation. If the assets are part of a business generating income then that is different.
If I buy some jewellery for my wife then years later we go on antiques roadshow and find that particular item is highly desirable and we can sell it, then I do not believe that is subject to capital gains tax right? So why should your home be subject to tax. Multiple homes and but to let can be see as investments or a business but not the family home."
jewellery is cgtable.
My guess is primary homes aren't cgtable as otherwise you'd clog up the market. People wouldn't sell as they'd end up getting smaller places for tej same overall cost to them.
In the end homes are "got" via IHT. But noone likes this, even though most other forms of money are taxed multiple times. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"How about a 10% windfall tax on all property?
I'm not sure what you think that would achieve. Surely that would just make a lot of us 10% poorer.
Well, the ones that could afford to pay it would be poorer. The rest of us would end up in jail after being unable to pay.
Ot would tax those of us who own property and have benefited from capital gain and give to the poor who by definition don’t have any property.
Like a windfall tax. Or robin hood
On someone’s primary/family home? Or on their buy-to-let property empire?
If you are trying to draw parallels with oil/gas industry windfall...
The buy-to-let landlord finds that their variable rate mortgage increases slightly so they immediately increase rent for their tenants by an amount larger than the mortgage increase thus increasing their profit margin. However, when the mortgage rate falls they fail to pass on that saving for an extended period of time maintaining an even better profit margin.
Only in your head not in real life a landlord. "
You understand the concept of an analogy I take it? No! Thought not  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"How about personal assets purchased with post tax net income are off limits to any further form of taxation. If the assets are part of a business generating income then that is different.
If I buy some jewellery for my wife then years later we go on antiques roadshow and find that particular item is highly desirable and we can sell it, then I do not believe that is subject to capital gains tax right? So why should your home be subject to tax. Multiple homes and but to let can be see as investments or a business but not the family home.
jewellery is cgtable.
My guess is primary homes aren't cgtable as otherwise you'd clog up the market. People wouldn't sell as they'd end up getting smaller places for tej same overall cost to them.
In the end homes are "got" via IHT. But noone likes this, even though most other forms of money are taxed multiple times. "
Seriously! Jewellery is subject to capital gains if you sell it? 
I know generally cars lose value but say it didn’t. Is that subject to CGT?
What about clothes?
Books?
Stamps?
Paintings?
While I am a centrist (sometimes centre left) on most aspects, taxing people’s belongings purchased with post tax net income feels very wrong to me.
So all those people on antiques roadshow who bought an ugly vase from a jumble sale for £1 who then find out it is worth £50k have to pay CGT? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How about personal assets purchased with post tax net income are off limits to any further form of taxation. If the assets are part of a business generating income then that is different.
If I buy some jewellery for my wife then years later we go on antiques roadshow and find that particular item is highly desirable and we can sell it, then I do not believe that is subject to capital gains tax right? So why should your home be subject to tax. Multiple homes and but to let can be see as investments or a business but not the family home.
jewellery is cgtable.
My guess is primary homes aren't cgtable as otherwise you'd clog up the market. People wouldn't sell as they'd end up getting smaller places for tej same overall cost to them.
In the end homes are "got" via IHT. But noone likes this, even though most other forms of money are taxed multiple times.
Seriously! Jewellery is subject to capital gains if you sell it?
I know generally cars lose value but say it didn’t. Is that subject to CGT?
What about clothes?
Books?
Stamps?
Paintings?
While I am a centrist (sometimes centre left) on most aspects, taxing people’s belongings purchased with post tax net income feels very wrong to me.
So all those people on antiques roadshow who bought an ugly vase from a jumble sale for £1 who then find out it is worth £50k have to pay CGT?"
car is exempt. As are things with limited lifespans (which include clocks)
Not taking this approach would be a big loop hole for taking money out of businesses I'd guess. Rather than pay a dividend or bonus you could buy that costume jewellery for £1m. Tax free.
At least CGT targets wealth. Rather than income. Imo, a better tax approach. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Paying a higher tax rate to start with would mean a country didn't have to start scratching its heads for ideas when a crisis comes along.
Instead we have a complicated tax system which benefits clever accountants and their clients to find loopholes in the complicated system.
Its like the football agents taking vast sums money out football clubs for doing some paperwork. Money that would otherwise have stayed in football and trickled down the leagues.
The downside of the higher tax, is.
1. A lot of people who can afford it but don't want to pay it. Because it means they won't get their fancy new car this year.
2. Governments wasting it on things that do not better the country e.g illegal wars, expensive high speed rails, cronyism e.g covid contracts to friends. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Paying a higher tax rate to start with would mean a country didn't have to start scratching its heads for ideas when a crisis comes along.
Instead we have a complicated tax system which benefits clever accountants and their clients to find loopholes in the complicated system.
Its like the football agents taking vast sums money out football clubs for doing some paperwork. Money that would otherwise have stayed in football and trickled down the leagues.
The downside of the higher tax, is.
1. A lot of people who can afford it but don't want to pay it. Because it means they won't get their fancy new car this year.
2. Governments wasting it on things that do not better the country e.g illegal wars, expensive high speed rails, cronyism e.g covid contracts to friends."
Ferries? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Paying a higher tax rate to start with would mean a country didn't have to start scratching its heads for ideas when a crisis comes along.
Instead we have a complicated tax system which benefits clever accountants and their clients to find loopholes in the complicated system.
Its like the football agents taking vast sums money out football clubs for doing some paperwork. Money that would otherwise have stayed in football and trickled down the leagues.
The downside of the higher tax, is.
1. A lot of people who can afford it but don't want to pay it. Because it means they won't get their fancy new car this year.
2. Governments wasting it on things that do not better the country e.g illegal wars, expensive high speed rails, cronyism e.g covid contracts to friends.
Ferries?"
Yes Ferries too. It wasn't aimed at any particular government. It was a general observation that if we could trust governments to spend wisely taxpayers money. I think most of us would be willing to pay more tax.
Unfortunately the stronger a government becomes, they become emboldened to do as they please because they feel infallible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Clawing back the £8bn from suppliers of unusable PPE and the £4bn on fraudulent Covid loans would be a start!"
I was chatting to a chap today who knows a local businessman who's business seemed to do really well during COVID. He even bought a new £50,000 car.
Just last week he was contacted by the government asking him how his business managed to do so well when all of his staff were on furlough, and to provide evidence of how he used that £50,000 COVID loan they gave him.
The government might not be fast, but they are starting to check up on people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
My (tongue in cheek) mention of a windfall tax on property was to turn the tables. I guess people get an itchy arse when they think that the windfall could come out of their own pocket .
But lets pretend was serious:
No CGT today on a primary residence. But plenty have made a bundle sitting on their arse.
So how about applying a one off ‘CGT’ windfall on the gains made in order to invest money in affordable housing for the poor?
If people don’t have the cash to pay it, then they could pay a bit extra council tax and pay it off like a student loan. Though why people are stretching themselves so thin I don’t understand.
We could also tax the banks and all the privatised infrastructure / utility companies and use the fund to bolster capital investment in public services.
Then raise the minimum wage, close the loopholes and bosh!
We’ve levelled up. Bosh! Everyone’s a winner. No more poverty or cost of living crisis.
What’s not to like?
Next? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My (tongue in cheek) mention of a windfall tax on property was to turn the tables. I guess people get an itchy arse when they think that the windfall could come out of their own pocket .
But lets pretend was serious:
No CGT today on a primary residence. But plenty have made a bundle sitting on their arse.
So how about applying a one off ‘CGT’ windfall on the gains made in order to invest money in affordable housing for the poor?
If people don’t have the cash to pay it, then they could pay a bit extra council tax and pay it off like a student loan. Though why people are stretching themselves so thin I don’t understand.
We could also tax the banks and all the privatised infrastructure / utility companies and use the fund to bolster capital investment in public services.
Then raise the minimum wage, close the loopholes and bosh!
We’ve levelled up. Bosh! Everyone’s a winner. No more poverty or cost of living crisis.
What’s not to like?
Next? "
If you keep moving goalposts where you tax people, a lot of people will lose faith in the country and seriously think of moving out.
I personally think, if you hit people who pinched and saved to invest for their own future, and now because they are comfortable having made the sacrifices in the past, find themselves in the crossfire of something like your proposing will just it will be robbing Peter to pay Paul. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My (tongue in cheek) mention of a windfall tax on property was to turn the tables. I guess people get an itchy arse when they think that the windfall could come out of their own pocket .
But lets pretend was serious:
No CGT today on a primary residence. But plenty have made a bundle sitting on their arse.
So how about applying a one off ‘CGT’ windfall on the gains made in order to invest money in affordable housing for the poor?
If people don’t have the cash to pay it, then they could pay a bit extra council tax and pay it off like a student loan. Though why people are stretching themselves so thin I don’t understand.
We could also tax the banks and all the privatised infrastructure / utility companies and use the fund to bolster capital investment in public services.
Then raise the minimum wage, close the loopholes and bosh!
We’ve levelled up. Bosh! Everyone’s a winner. No more poverty or cost of living crisis.
What’s not to like?
Next? "
are you proposing a tax on top of CGT, or as well as?
You could have a deemed disposal tax on secondary homes. Bit that's probably just spreading CGT.
I don't follow how your other tax isn't just corporation tax.
Maybe the state could tithe 1pc of all plc shares and have a wealth fund.
The trouble is, the state livea hand to mouth so if we had higher taxes, I suspect we'd be spending it all today so still have no cushion in the next crisis.
We need a man in a technicolour dream coat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My (tongue in cheek) mention of a windfall tax on property was to turn the tables. I guess people get an itchy arse when they think that the windfall could come out of their own pocket .
But lets pretend was serious:
No CGT today on a primary residence. But plenty have made a bundle sitting on their arse.
So how about applying a one off ‘CGT’ windfall on the gains made in order to invest money in affordable housing for the poor?
If people don’t have the cash to pay it, then they could pay a bit extra council tax and pay it off like a student loan. Though why people are stretching themselves so thin I don’t understand.
We could also tax the banks and all the privatised infrastructure / utility companies and use the fund to bolster capital investment in public services.
Then raise the minimum wage, close the loopholes and bosh!
We’ve levelled up. Bosh! Everyone’s a winner. No more poverty or cost of living crisis.
What’s not to like?
Next?
If you keep moving goalposts where you tax people, a lot of people will lose faith in the country and seriously think of moving out.
I personally think, if you hit people who pinched and saved to invest for their own future, and now because they are comfortable having made the sacrifices in the past, find themselves in the crossfire of something like your proposing will just it will be robbing Peter to pay Paul."
If they move they will (likely) have to liquidate assets so that means a lot more stock on the housing market. Win win |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Clawing back the £8bn from suppliers of unusable PPE and the £4bn on fraudulent Covid loans would be a start!
I was chatting to a chap today who knows a local businessman who's business seemed to do really well during COVID. He even bought a new £50,000 car.
Just last week he was contacted by the government asking him how his business managed to do so well when all of his staff were on furlough, and to provide evidence of how he used that £50,000 COVID loan they gave him.
The government might not be fast, but they are starting to check up on people."
Good news. We need our money back from the thieving bastards |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"My (tongue in cheek) mention of a windfall tax on property was to turn the tables. I guess people get an itchy arse when they think that the windfall could come out of their own pocket .
But lets pretend was serious:
No CGT today on a primary residence. But plenty have made a bundle sitting on their arse.
So how about applying a one off ‘CGT’ windfall on the gains made in order to invest money in affordable housing for the poor?
If people don’t have the cash to pay it, then they could pay a bit extra council tax and pay it off like a student loan. Though why people are stretching themselves so thin I don’t understand.
We could also tax the banks and all the privatised infrastructure / utility companies and use the fund to bolster capital investment in public services.
Then raise the minimum wage, close the loopholes and bosh!
We’ve levelled up. Bosh! Everyone’s a winner. No more poverty or cost of living crisis.
What’s not to like?
Next? "
Put in place a stupid tax. Anyone proposing stupid ideas have to be taxed.
Sorry I know you are playing devil’s advocate but no, simply no. What about the 80 yr old who bought her council house in Islington under Thatchers right to buy scheme. She’s now sitting on a multi-million property (probably) and is asset rich but cash poor. How is she supposed to pay?
Primary home should never be taxed beyond the original stamp duty you had to pay when buying it from your net/post taxed income.
What are you? A communist? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My (tongue in cheek) mention of a windfall tax on property was to turn the tables. I guess people get an itchy arse when they think that the windfall could come out of their own pocket .
But lets pretend was serious:
No CGT today on a primary residence. But plenty have made a bundle sitting on their arse.
So how about applying a one off ‘CGT’ windfall on the gains made in order to invest money in affordable housing for the poor?
If people don’t have the cash to pay it, then they could pay a bit extra council tax and pay it off like a student loan. Though why people are stretching themselves so thin I don’t understand.
We could also tax the banks and all the privatised infrastructure / utility companies and use the fund to bolster capital investment in public services.
Then raise the minimum wage, close the loopholes and bosh!
We’ve levelled up. Bosh! Everyone’s a winner. No more poverty or cost of living crisis.
What’s not to like?
Next?
Put in place a stupid tax. Anyone proposing stupid ideas have to be taxed.
Sorry I know you are playing devil’s advocate but no, simply no. What about the 80 yr old who bought her council house in Islington under Thatchers right to buy scheme. She’s now sitting on a multi-million property (probably) and is asset rich but cash poor. How is she supposed to pay?
Primary home should never be taxed beyond the original stamp duty you had to pay when buying it from your net/post taxed income.
What are you? A communist?"
The tax could be tolled over and charged on exit. Or said lady could
Move to free up stock where a productive youngster needs a home.
10% is not a lot after 30 years of London gains.
We on the other hand we can just do fk all. I was just thinking of a simple way to enable the lower paid to get some assistance with the biggest cost they face.
What’s a fair wage rise for staff these days? I’m currently hiking all the chargeable hourly rates. Thinking 8%?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I was just thinking of a simple way to enable the lower paid to get some assistance with the biggest cost they face."
For me an achievable thing would be an immediate ban on the creation of new leases on any property which has a lien. In simple terms that means that no one can make a new contract to rent out a building if there is a mortgage on it.
I'd let all existing leases continue for the next 10 years, and then ban it completely.
Buy-to-let is causing rampant house price inflation, and there's no excuse for it. Slowly ramping it down over 10 years will release a lot of housing back on to the market at reduced prices. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I was just thinking of a simple way to enable the lower paid to get some assistance with the biggest cost they face.
For me an achievable thing would be an immediate ban on the creation of new leases on any property which has a lien. In simple terms that means that no one can make a new contract to rent out a building if there is a mortgage on it.
I'd let all existing leases continue for the next 10 years, and then ban it completely.
Buy-to-let is causing rampant house price inflation, and there's no excuse for it. Slowly ramping it down over 10 years will release a lot of housing back on to the market at reduced prices."
Interesting idea (agree on the but-to-let). Should also look at foreign investment in property (particularly London) that leaves homes empty.
Most importantly though, build more social housing and stop right to buy schemes (unless for each sold one has to be built). I believe Johnson recently announced Housing Associations would be compelled to allow tenants to buy at reduced market rates (funny how he didn’t suggest that for private landlords). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I was just thinking of a simple way to enable the lower paid to get some assistance with the biggest cost they face.
For me an achievable thing would be an immediate ban on the creation of new leases on any property which has a lien. In simple terms that means that no one can make a new contract to rent out a building if there is a mortgage on it.
I'd let all existing leases continue for the next 10 years, and then ban it completely.
Buy-to-let is causing rampant house price inflation, and there's no excuse for it. Slowly ramping it down over 10 years will release a lot of housing back on to the market at reduced prices."
As a landlord myself who is exiting the domestic buy to let market. I can tell you the exodus has already begun. Mostly because of section 24.
But rents are going up because of reduction in rental stock. The results are longer waiting lists for councils tenants who used the private rental stock. So be care what you wish for.
https://www.property118.com/76-of-councils-report-an-increase-in-landlords-selling-up-and-warn-of-increased-waiting-lists/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As a landlord myself who is exiting the domestic buy to let market. I can tell you the exodus has already begun. Mostly because of section 24."
I don't think the section 24 changes go far enough. I'd like to see the whole leveraged property scene killed off.
I agree that at the moment the rental stock is decreasing, but once the momentum picks up I would expect to see house prices starting to fall, helping the less well-off to buy their own place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How about a 10% windfall tax on all property?
I'm not sure what you think that would achieve. Surely that would just make a lot of us 10% poorer.
Well, the ones that could afford to pay it would be poorer. The rest of us would end up in jail after being unable to pay.
Ot would tax those of us who own property and have benefited from capital gain and give to the poor who by definition don’t have any property.
Like a windfall tax. Or robin hood "
So tax those who have worked hard and saved hard and give it to those that haven’t . The only reason for high capital gains on property is because of the long term failure to build enough new properties. In many European countries new property devalues like new cars, there is only capital loss not capital gain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I was just thinking of a simple way to enable the lower paid to get some assistance with the biggest cost they face.
For me an achievable thing would be an immediate ban on the creation of new leases on any property which has a lien. In simple terms that means that no one can make a new contract to rent out a building if there is a mortgage on it.
I'd let all existing leases continue for the next 10 years, and then ban it completely.
Buy-to-let is causing rampant house price inflation, and there's no excuse for it. Slowly ramping it down over 10 years will release a lot of housing back on to the market at reduced prices."
No it isn’t. It is the shortage of housing causing inflation. In much of Europe house ownership is the exception not the norm. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As a landlord myself who is exiting the domestic buy to let market. I can tell you the exodus has already begun. Mostly because of section 24.
I don't think the section 24 changes go far enough. I'd like to see the whole leveraged property scene killed off.
I agree that at the moment the rental stock is decreasing, but once the momentum picks up I would expect to see house prices starting to fall, helping the less well-off to buy their own place."
With interest rates rising, then with section 24 your paying tax on it again, it impossible to make money in domestic property.
Add to that with a lot tenants abusing the suspension of eviction during lockdown and not paying rents, even when they could afford to.
A lot will not sell of ,as they are move into Airbnb short term letting model. So you might end up with a lot of evicted tenants and those houses being moved to the Airbnb market.
You will probably find the people who can afford to buy properties without borrowing, will be filthy rich or big companies. These people probably don't need to considerate landlords because of their financial position, the couldn't give a toss and can afford the property to lie empty.
Am sure if things don't go the way you hope, you will then be wanting to ban, non leveraged purchases of rental properties too.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A lot will not sell of ,as they are move into Airbnb short term letting model. So you might end up with a lot of evicted tenants and those houses being moved to the Airbnb market."
I must admit, I've seen a huge increase in Airbnb properties in my area. I hadn't considered that it might be a result of the section 24 changes.
Regardless, I would have banned Airbnb on mortgaged properties as well.
"Am sure if things don't go the way you hope, you will then be wanting to ban, non leveraged purchases of rental properties too."
Not at all. I have no hatred for rich people. If someone has worked hard enough to be able to afford a property to rent out, good luck to them.
If things didn't go the way I planned, I'd have to come up with a better idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Boss admits a windfall tax wouldn't deter BP from investing in the UK
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-05-03/bp-hit-with-20-billion-loss-as-it-quits-russia-but-oil-and-gas-prices-climb
Just bloody do it Johnson & Sunak! What’s that? Oh your own investment portfolio won’t receive the dividend bonus you have now factored in! Well we can’t have that can we? Let the plebs suffer!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I have a theory that any windfall tax will be much lower than the public expect. After all winffall should be based in exceptional versus the average .... Whereas all the numbers in the press tend to be versus a bad year last year.
And HMG / HMT are thinking of the press if they did something and it looked like a kop out.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
