MrSmith Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 My son has decided to rent his property for a while and within 24 hrs of advertising we had 8 requests to visit the property. The first to visit took the house. It took a day or so to remove the advert and I must have received a dozen calls and texts. I suppose it depends on where the house is and how many other rental properties are in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 There will always be some rental properties for you to rent, but we do need some of the buy to let brigade of the past several years to go under and be forced to sell their properties. If buy to let landlords went under in serious numbers then it'd be bad news for the banks. The buy to let landlord's rental payments will be the fuel that keeps many CMOs ticking over. Cut the base income stream into CMOs by enough and parts of the banking system will get into difficulty. It's one of the reasons why interest rates have to be kept low for regular mortgage holders - if they start defaulting in sufficient numbers it's seriously bad news for the banks too. David Cameron might say he wants to protect mortgagees by keeping interest rates low. What he really means is he wants to protect the banks and rest assured if the banks thought they could make money by kicking people out their homes right now then the banks would be sending the boys round with Dave C's blessing. And Ed Miliband would be doing the same too. What's best for the banks is best for the two main parties. The whole thing is a house of cards just waiting to collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted March 8, 2013 Author Share Posted March 8, 2013 Are you sure he didn't get it all? If you refused to engage in arbitration and he supplied some evidence of damage (even fabricated evidence) it may have been released to him. I didn't refuse to engage in arbitration, I simply chose not to. The DPS is kind of the middle man, and whatever one party says, they communicate to the other. So he didn't initiate arbitration either! Guess he chose not to. Stalemate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorkerSWFC Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Well...therein lies the problem. Interst rates go up, so the landlord increases the rent to compensate. The tenant can't afford the higher rent...or if on HB the council will only pay so much of it. So the tennant is left up the proverbial creek without a paddle ---------- Post added 07-03-2013 at 13:01 ---------- That's not much help to the tenant though is it?...and of course the council won't be able to provide alternative accommodation, cos that's presumably why there are private landlords and tenants. ---------- Post added 07-03-2013 at 13:04 ---------- Bloody hell...Where's Chem1st You seem to be doing people a dis-service on housing benefit, my mate rents at least 10 houses out and nearly all of his tenants are on benefit. They have to pay hardly anything towards what has to be said stack better properties than what the council offer so an extra 20 pound a week or whatever it is won't bother them. As lot's and lot's of landlords have said recently, the best tenants are the housing benefit tenants... Never mind if they are on benefit they may have there reasons it's just a very very good point actually... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Did several threads get merged here? Anyway, I had a look at the changes re:insulation. It's only the two lowest ratings that will be affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 There's an easy answer: remove all tax relief on borrowings (inc. BTL mortgage advances). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 That's far from an "easy option". How do you propose to draft legislation such that a genuine business expense (ie interest on a loan) cannot be offset against the profit the business makes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 There's an easy answer: remove all tax relief on borrowings (inc. BTL mortgage advances).Can I ask if you have had much experience of corporate investment at all, Jeffrey? In any form? 'tis a loaded question, for sure: your proposal would effectively kill off UK corporate investment outright, overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 That's far from an "easy option". How do you propose to draft legislation such that a genuine business expense (ie interest on a loan) cannot be offset against the profit the business makes? Can I ask if you have had much experience of corporate investment at all, Jeffrey? In any form? 'tis a loaded question, for sure: your proposal would effectively kill off UK corporate investment outright, overnight. Let's deal with both those nonsenses together. 1. Assume no tax relief on interest at all. 2. All the so-clever offshore avoidance devices disappear. 3. Capital Allowances could be retained, enabling inward investment to continue. 4. As matters stand, your much-vaunted UK corporate investment might well be a figment of your imagination. 5. No company will refuse to invest merely because tax relief on interest is unavailable, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Let's deal with both those nonsenses together. <...> 2 snipped, as irrelevant at the national scale (happy to stand corrected by your figures, that said ), relative to the myriad SMEs investing daily in all sorts of ways, both tangible and intangible, for which an "offshore avoidance device" is something they might read about in the FT but certainly not use. Hardly worth the entry fees for an investment in 6 to early 7 figures, which already represents a 'large' investment at the SME level. 3. Capital Allowances could be retained, enabling inward investment to continue.What do you think most businesses in the UK buy equipment, machinery, etc. with? Cash? 4. As matters stand, your much-vaunted UK corporate investment might well be a figment of your imagination.Really? As matters stand, many of my clients are investing, both in their IP (where I come in) and in equipment to manufacture same (whence I know corporate investment is doing just fine...for clients with products in-demand, that is). In very varied fields of technology (MechEng, electric, electronic, software, FMCG, clothing & accessories, medical devices, renewable energies, and much more). Without exception, all of them are doing it on the pump (little to no funding from any Gvt agency/quango left to be had, but banks are lending just fine, if your proposal holds the road). But then again, that's the way it's always been done (when done right, i.e. with the right amount of due diligence and less of a casino approach to using the "yes" stamp). Whereby: 5. No company will refuse to invest merely because tax relief on interest is unavailable, you know.But they might think twice at grabbing the capital on offer, when they can't offset the interest (which is fully costed in the RoI, down to the unit price) under your proposal. Suddenly, setting up the new production to <somewhere else that still provides the relief, if not cheaper this-that-the other as well for good measure> becomes still that bit more attractive. But hey-ho...it's only British jobs after all, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.