Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8
The British are ditching negative gearing; Some old news that I'd just missed maybe?
Topic Started: 23 Aug 2015, 05:21 PM (5,565 Views)
herbie
Member Avatar


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11816726/Buy-to-let-tax-My-five-properties-were-my-pension-now-my-tax-bill-will-jump-38pc.html
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Rastus2
Member Avatar


goneaway
23 Aug 2015, 05:21 PM
wow, this is pretty significant... I wonder how we all missed it.

Seems to have come into effect very recently..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11816720/Death-of-buy-to-let-landlords-wake-up-to-Osbornes-150pc-tax.html


I asume that the entire rental market of the UK will now proceed to collapse based on the shrill cries from some in this forum.

I have no doubt the Tax agents, REA's and developers will start pouring money into the media to ensure this is blamed for any problems the UK has... lets see who wins.



Hundreds of thousands of landlords and their accountants are digesting the impact of George Osborne’s shock tax change unveiled in the summer Budget on July 8.

The tax increase, on which there was no consultation, will be phased in from 2017 and fully implemented by 2020.
The change was unexpected, and the new regime is highly complex, so investors and their tax advisers are only now fully grasping its effects. Many investors remain unaware of the change, or underestimate its severity.
All higher-rate taxpayers who own buy‑to‑let properties on which there is a large mortgage will pay substantially more tax. Some current basic-rate taxpayers will also be hit, because the change will push them into the higher-rate tax bracket.
Those who are worst affected will see:
● the actual tax they pay on their investment rising twofold or more;
● the tax rate payable rising above 100pc, meaning that more than all of their profit is paid in tax;
● a degree of tax that pushes them into loss, making their investment financially unviable and forcing them to increase rents sharply – or sell.
Scroll down for a worked explanation of the changes.
What is also becoming clear is that worst hit will be those modest, middle-class savers who have prudently chosen to invest in buy‑to‑let, often alongside pensions and Isas, as a means to supplement their income.
The mechanism of Mr Osborne’s tax attack is the removal of landlords’ ability to deduct the cost of their mortgage interest from their rental income when they calculate a profit on which to pay tax.
So very wealthy landlords who do not need mortgages are untouched.
• Comment: This Alice in Wonderland tax sets a new benchmark in financial absurdity
In effect, the Chancellor wants to tax landlords on their turnover rather than their profit, meaning that tax will be payable on nonexistent income. This explains why tax rates will, for some, exceed 100pc: landlords will have to pay all of their profit in tax, and then pay more tax still.
As landlords absorb news of this shock tax attack, many have turned to online forums to vent their dismay. Some are writing to their MPs and directly to Mr Osborne.
More than 14,000 have signed an online petition calling for the tax to be withdrawn.
Other buy-to-let investors, though, remain unaware of the tax bombshell poised to wreak havoc on their finances. Accountants, mortgage lenders, brokers and other professionals are themselves still working through the ramifications.
Tina Riches, tax partner at accountancy and investment firm Smith & Williamson, said: “We are contacting all of our clients who have mortgaged property which they let, and we want to speak one-to-one with those worst affected. It is going to have a significant impact.”
Smith & Williamson has calculated that any higher-rate taxpayer landlord whose mortgage interest is 75pc or more of their rental income, net of other expenses, will see all of their returns wiped out by 2020.
So mortgage costs above 75pc of rental income will mean the buy‑to‑let investments become loss-making.
For additional-rate (45pc) taxpayers, the threshold at which their investment returns are wiped out by the tax is when mortgage costs reach 68pc of rental income.
The investors worst affected are therefore likely to be those who have bought recently with large mortgages. Low-yielding properties, such as those in London and other parts of the South East, where rents are comparatively low relative to property prices, will also be exposed. That is because rental income is likely to be lower relative to investors’ mortgage costs.
“It will be very difficult for middle-income borrowers to get into buy‑to‑let in future,” Ms Riches said. “It won’t end overnight, but existing investors will sell and far fewer will buy. Buy‑to‑let may well waste away.
“The wider worry is that the Government can make such radical changes without any consultation. What other areas will come under attack?”

Connie Cheuk owns 5 Properties - Photographed at her home in Littlehampton. Photo: Philip Hollis
Read how Connie Cheuk (pictured above), a landlord with five properties, will see her tax bill rise by almost 40pc. She is even contemplating giving up her 18-year career as a teacher as a means of reducing the tax impact
Britain’s big mortgage banks are reluctant to comment and appear to want to downplay the impact, perhaps to reassure their shareholders. But a senior executive at a top-five buy‑to‑let lender admitted privately to Telegraph Money: “For a group of customers there is a challenge, a potential for their cashflow to turn negative. They will be loss-making. Overall, this move makes it substantially harder for investors to generate a net income from buy‑to‑let.”
Of the many landlords to contact us, several are considering selling. This would enable them to pay off mortgages and limit the tax damage. Others will evict tenants and refurbish properties so they can be re-let for more.
One landlord described how a property currently let to a single mother of four, who is on benefits, will “not wash its face” once the tax starts to bite. If he converted the property into two units he could increase the current rent to cover the tax. The council would have to rehouse the family, he said, “and there is already an acute shortage of housing in that area”.
Another landlord described a £110,000 property, on which there is a £68,000 mortgage, let to an elderly couple at “about two thirds of the going market rent”. It generates an annual £1,100 profit, which would fall to £370 after the tax change.
“The property needs a new boiler, which would wipe out profits for years,” the landlord said. “My options are to increase rent significantly, which the tenants can’t afford, or evict them and sell up, or convert the property into smaller units.
“The Chancellor doesn’t grasp the misery he’ll cause – or doesn’t care.”

A worked example: how landlord tax is changing
When George Osborne announced the change, he implied that the extra tax would hit only higher-earning landlords.
It’s true that every mortgaged landlord who pays 40pc or 45pc tax will indeed pay much more under his proposals.
But some basic-rate taxpayers will also pay more tax – because the change will push them into the higher-rate bracket.
In fact, contrary to Mr Osborne’s suggestion, 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.
At the heart of the change is landlords’ future inability to deduct the cost of their mortgage interest from their rental income.
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.
Here is a worked example assuming you, the landlord, pay 40pc tax.
NOW
Your buy-to-let earns £20,000 a year and the interest-only mortgage costs £13,000 a year. Tax is due on the difference or profit. So you pay tax on £7,000, meaning £2,800 for HMRC and £4,200 for you.
2020
Tax is now due on your full rental income of £20,000, less a tax credit equivalent to basic-rate tax on the interest. So you pay 40pc tax on £20,000 (ie £8,000), less the 20pc credit (20pc of £13,000 = £2,600), meaning £5,400 for HMRC and £1,600 for you. Your tax bill has therefore gone up by 93pc.
Now, say Bank Rate – and in turn your mortgage rate – rises by a small fraction, lifting your mortgage cost to £15,000, while your rent remains at £20,000.
You will have to pay £5,000 tax in this scenario, so you make no profit at all.
Edited by Rastus2, 23 Aug 2015, 07:57 PM.
Shadow - Defrauded his Bank ? 2015 I have 9 different loans and my bank had no idea which ones were personal and which were investment. They had half of them classed incorrectly. When this change came in they asked me to tell them if any personal loans were incorrectly classed as investment, which I did, and they switched them to personal for the lower rate. They also had a couple of investment loans incorrectly classed as personal. They didn't ask me about those. So they stay on the lower rate too. Worked out pretty well. :)
Shadow - 2008 Sydney Median House Price 1.25M by 2014-2015

Shadow : I think this boom has already begun in several cities. My prediction :
Peak of boom: 2014-2015. Sydney Median Price: $1,250,000 Bottom of bust: 2017-2018. Sydney Median Price: $1,100,000

Shadow's Original 2010 House Boom and Crash prediction http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/shady-orig-2010-chart.png.html?sort=3&o=0

Shadow's attempt to edit his 2010 chart in 2015 and replace it with one that does not show a crash in 2013 http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-06%20at%207.12.52%20pm_1.png.html
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Bardon
Default APF Avatar


Rastus2
23 Aug 2015, 07:54 PM
wow, this is pretty significant... I wonder how we all missed it.

These guys below have been banging on about it for some time.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/205534-tax-relief-on-buy-to-let-mortgage-interest/
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Chris
Default APF Avatar


Osborne is a credit to his country.

Vested interests caught off guard but I have read some associated articles on this today and the angle they are adopting is so blatantly deceptive it's not funny. They are going down the 'government is punishing middle class battlers' bullshit line.

Like a 42yr old teacher with 5 fucking investment properties is a 'middle class battler'?? They then throw in the biggest fist of bullshit with lines like 'this will leave only the most wealthy in a position to own all the investment properties' Buuuuullllllssssshhhhhit.

The reality she, like many Australians cannot afford the amount of debt they have taken on without enormous rebates from the tax payer. If she took on one or two and paid them off before the third then she would be fine but she got greedy at tax payers expense.

I can tell you what will happen, it will go like this. Thousands will go broke, banks will lose millions and house prices and rents will fall. Banks will lend again but will require greater deposits and allow IP in circumstances where they are PG or the borrower can comfortably cover the small shortfall, the market will return to sensibility and those who can afford an IP will buy one its that simple.

Dreams of every man and woman getting instantly rich through property will go, and so will all those fucking annoying vested interest shows like the block, Reno rumble, my house rules etc so it's not all that bad Bulls!!!
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Count du Monet
Member Avatar


This is nothing to do with negative gearing, in fact this is worse than negative gearing. Even if negative gearing was removed in Aus, interest payments are still deductible against rental income.

But this move is brilliant, allowing people to claim interest payments as a tax deduction is wrong altogether under any circumstances.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!!
You are no longer customer, you are property!!!

Don't be SAUCY with me Bernaisse
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Bardon
Default APF Avatar


Count du Monet
23 Aug 2015, 08:47 PM
This is nothing to do with negative gearing, in fact this is worse than negative gearing. Even if negative gearing was removed in Aus, interest payments are still deductible against rental income.

But this move is brilliant, allowing people to claim interest payments as a tax deduction is wrong altogether under any circumstances.
Count, you are a spoil sport and you know it!
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Chris
Default APF Avatar


Count du Monet
23 Aug 2015, 08:47 PM
This is nothing to do with negative gearing, in fact this is worse than negative gearing. Even if negative gearing was removed in Aus, interest payments are still deductible against rental income.

But this move is brilliant, allowing people to claim interest payments as a tax deduction is wrong altogether under any circumstances.
Then the current subsidies offered in Aust, including all subsidies associated with NG is nothing short of criminal!!

Edited by Chris, 23 Aug 2015, 09:08 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
stinkbug
Member Avatar


Chris
23 Aug 2015, 09:07 PM
Then the current subsidies offered in Aust, including all subsidies associated with NG is nothing short of criminal!!
What are these subsidies foir landlords? Please list them!
---------------------------------------------------------------

While it's true that those who win never quit, and those who quit never win, those who never win and never quit are idiots.

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
newjez
Member Avatar


Chris
23 Aug 2015, 08:45 PM
Osborne is a credit to his country.

Vested interests caught off guard but I have read some associated articles on this today and the angle they are adopting is so blatantly deceptive it's not funny. They are going down the 'government is punishing middle class battlers' bullshit line.

Like a 42yr old teacher with 5 fucking investment properties is a 'middle class battler'?? They then throw in the biggest fist of bullshit with lines like 'this will leave only the most wealthy in a position to own all the investment properties' Buuuuullllllssssshhhhhit.

The reality she, like many Australians cannot afford the amount of debt they have taken on without enormous rebates from the tax payer. If she took on one or two and paid them off before the third then she would be fine but she got greedy at tax payers expense.

I can tell you what will happen, it will go like this. Thousands will go broke, banks will lose millions and house prices and rents will fall. Banks will lend again but will require greater deposits and allow IP in circumstances where they are PG or the borrower can comfortably cover the small shortfall, the market will return to sensibility and those who can afford an IP will buy one its that simple.

Dreams of every man and woman getting instantly rich through property will go, and so will all those fucking annoying vested interest shows like the block, Reno rumble, my house rules etc so it's not all that bad Bulls!!!
Osbourne is a twat.
Whenever you have an argument with someone, there comes a moment where you must ask yourself, whatever your political persuasion, 'am I the Nazi?'
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Chris
Default APF Avatar


stinkbug
23 Aug 2015, 09:36 PM
What are these subsidies foir landlords? Please list them!
Just post your last tax return, I'm sure you have leeched every single one of them!!
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy