To think people who own more than 3 properties should have a special tax applied to them?

[Calltheguards]

I'm just thinking with the housing crisis, should people really own more than 3 properties? I would assume it's a property portfolio and used to exploit renters. AIBU to think there should be a special tax applied to property owners who own more than 3 properties? Maybe tax them at a really high rate to discourage people from hoarding property.

I agree with Foxmuffin

Savings in bank = low risk
Invest in property = more work & higher risk/responsibility

@iamhereiamhappy
They already pay it. That’s the point. The OP has stared a post wishing for what is already reality...

OP you need to start a new thread about automation. It’s completely OT.

Thank you mammylamb for reiterating what I said ages ago.

Many 'haves' need to acknowledge the luck in their lives that allows them to be a property owner, let alone a multiple property owner.

I get a visceral urge to slap those who think those who, despite long hours of hard work, will always live at the 60 day whim of a private Landlord; and those who think working 90 hour weeks in 3 different jobs should be considered what you should expect to do to house own.

Tho my inheritance bought mine.

planet Let me help you, there:

'Invest in property= not particularly high risk, asking yourself when the last crash was, and how few years that took to reverse into more stratospheric profit, especially given the government's determination to keep house prices high via quantitative easing and negligible interest rates so as to salve our core constituents, and recall how recently BTL house maintenance ceased to be tax deductible= almost guaranteed profit'

HTH

Why 3, why not just more than own home? Landlords do pay taxes on profit from rentals? Different parts of the UK have different taxing system, Scotland has the harshest both in what is allowed as expenses by the Landlord and rate of taxation. Perhaps if taxation is higher then rents would just go up to help compensate.

Foxmuffin Yes, I know that BTL is 'the way to go' as savings in banks earn all but no interest.

However, the whole premise of my argument- you'll have to scroll, it was yesterday- is that it shouldn't be allowed. Housing, roofs over heads, security of belonging- should not be treated like a Rio Tinto share.

I think 'ave a go landlords with one or two properties should be financially and legally 'actively discouraged'. It breeds social division; transient communities, entrenches division.

An alarming number of posters on here seem to be saying 'Well, how else am I expected to turn a profit?? Hmm?? Other than snapping up homes on the basis of the equity I have on my home, renting it to people who may be, in terms of industry, and ambition, be just like me except they lose cos I got an inheritance. And/or a good education, from a stable, supportive family. And/or bought at an opportune moment, or have profited from it (see earlier, family home bought in 1969 for £4.5k on 2.5 multiple of one annual salary of a 9-5 'middle manager', selling for £450k 3 years ago. I know, I sold it).

I could be on my 3rd or 4th BTL. But I'm not.

Because I think a secure roof over your head is a human right, and profiteering from that is immoral.

manic let me take you to the possible conclusion of your 'rents will just go up'.

Nope. In the same way 'market forces' act on individuals in a way that prevents them from 'earning more' (a facile solution given on here by several to achieve home ownership), it acts on LL in the same way.

It's all balances, supply/demand. But the first LL to hoik his fee above his competition will have a fair bit of void time, cancelling out his potential profit.

If they all hoik their fees simultaneously (which will never happen in our glorious free market economy), the point comes where they're all in void. The potential renters, priced out, just miserably stick to their squalid 1 bed flat, while, I suspect, given how more and more educated young people are in this position, simmer with the sort of rage that overthrows governments. We live in interesting times.

The well of affordability is not bottomless. Sooner or later, despite every shared ownership scheme etc scam the government can engineer, your BTL rent becomes unaffordable, thus unoccupied- given that the cannier, multiple rental owner of the other houses in the block has undercut you. Free market economy.

Miljah

If you have a savings account, paid into a savings scheme or you have paid into a pension then you will have contributed to BTL

Properties are owned by banks, big institutions and pension companies.

I don't think taxing individual BTL Landlords out of the market is the way to go as it just either drives the landlord into renting through Airbnb or they add the extra costs to the rent.

I believe MN is predominantly female forum

I wonder if you had the same conversation about property & BTL on a male forum if you would receive the same answers
I don't know any male friends who would be apologising for owning more than one property. They seem to think that they have a good investment. I've never heard a male talk about BTL being immoral

Parasites?? So being successful and paying taxes makes you a parasite to society? Get a grip

No, buying up property so others cannot access it does though.

A seller of property is surely not going to know if the buyer is going to live there or rent it out ?
If the property is on the open market for everyone to see, how is that stopping some people from buying, apart from deposit & fees ?
I have a property, it is my home. After some years my circumstances changed & I rent it out. It is mortgage free. I charge low rent for the area, do all repairs, pay tax
Why should I feel guilty ?
When the present tenants move out, I'm going to sell it.
I've worked & paid my taxes for x years

I realise most people are not in my position
& I appreciate that

Why should I apologize ?

Why is everything a crisis?

There are many aspects to the housing market debate which are rarely considered in the white hot fury generated by the fact that younger people cannot buy property where they want to live which it would take too long to explain in detail. However, a few factors are:-

• younger people seem to know little about the past or they would realise the problem of scarce and/or expensive housing has been here forever. Read your Dickens, Hardy, Bronte or Austen. They all concern money and housing and show that for rich and poor alike, these problems are not new. In the recent past, which seems also as foggy to the young, expectations were not of house ownership but of renting for most people. My mother never had anything but rented accommodation all her life.

• the last Labour decision to make 50 per cent of the school population graduates has also produced a generation with expectations that they will be house owners when other factors militate against many of them doing so.

• globalism has forced UK workers to compete with low paid workers abroad so jobs have disappeared and wages stagnated to an extent.

• policies encouraging immigration have exponentially exploded the population which requires housing. House building is at a very high level at the moment but for years immigration has been running at twice the level of house building suggesting the housing squeeze will never be remedied. The rental market is also affected by population numbers keeping rents high.

• the policy of Quantitative Easing was used after the financial crash to provide a means for business to survive and to prevent family house owners from losing the family home which they would have done had interest rates risen. Years of artificially low rates caused by money ‘printed’ by the government have made saving a poor investment and have caused asset prices to rise accordingly. Housing is one asset which will always pay its keep and many less well off people whose pensions were destroyed in the crash and for other reasons switched to property to protect their otherwise penniless later years.

• Many of those who ‘cannot afford to buy’ could afford to buy in a cheaper area but do not want to move away from high price areas with all their advantages. This is a choice and choices have consequences. Some people understand that and some do not as this thread reveals.

I dont want to kove to a cheaper area as my family, friends, university and general support network are here.
I used to live in Liverpool but don't want to live so far from support now. Not worth it just to get a mortgage tbh.

Many people now work very hard..teachers, cleaners, nurses, care workers, paramedics etc but cannot afford to save for a deposit. Flawed logic...and many cannot afford to better themselves at university because of fees.
I blame austerity and thevrise in living costs.
This thread shows how clueless many are.

To add to the above:-

• In many cases those who want to buy are not prevented from doing so by high house prices but by mortgage lending affordability criteria. Before the financial crash self certified income mortgages ( on often made up incomes) were common as were 100 per cent mortgages. Northern Rock even lent over 100 percent to some house buyers. This meant that many were given mortgages who really couldn’t afford them and so could not pay the monthly bill when hard times struck either themselves or the country.

Affordability criteria are connected with an individual’s ability to pay as they assess income and outgoings and spending patterns. They also test mortgage applicants’ ability to pay a higher rate of interest should rates rise.

Thus, many are refused mortgages who could pay the monthly bill now and the unfortunate position has arisen that many renters are paying more in rent than they would pay in mortgage. My own DD and her DP pay less in mortgage outgoings on a two bedroomed house with a garden than they paid in rent on a one bed flat. (She also move d to a cheaper area and has a long commute to work.)

My answer would be to let people who want a house take a chance with the mortgage on the understanding that they could lose it. Free choice and responsibility are the way to go.

Tbh though being born at the right time is exactly why many are on the property ladder...this is causing great resentment among the young who also work incredibly hard but cannot afford the eeposit.

I was born at the right time but was unfortunate enough to have severe mental illness. I did work incredibly hard at school and in jobs and have goid qualifications but made silly decisions career wise due to bad mental health...hence still rent.
I now have a deposit...not because i saved as was on a low, unstable wage( as aypply teacher and care assiarant), but because an aunt died and left a big chunk to my mum. My mum is dead so i got the cash. I expect many have deposits in the same way.
Mark my words...the young will bite back eventually.

Sorry about the dreadful typos...

I really don't think stopping adherance to affordability criteria would do anyngood. They are there for reason. Irresponsible lending to people who couldn't actually afford it led to many issues and that's why the criteria are there.
Imagine if it was a case that lender "let someone take a chance", someone who couldn't properly afford it. That someone would end up with the loan written off like in cases of payday loans. Even if not, the bank would be losing money because it's not guaranteed the repossessed property would fetch enough to cover not only remaining mortgage, but also sale/auction fees and lost income from interest.

You do pay less with mortgage than you would rent in absolute majority of cases, but banks also need to see that you are not only able to pay for the property, but also for the care for the property and be able to pay in case of rate rise.

I am sorry, but if you don't pass affordability check, you shouldn't get the mortgage. Rules are there for a reason.

I blame austerity

If it wasn't for so-called austerity, house prices would be far higher than they are - supply & demand!

..and many cannot afford to better themselves at university because of fees.
No one pays fees outright unless they are considered non resident. Stident finance provides loan. And absolute majority never pay it off. You pay nothing until you make over certain wage and even then it's small amount. It's not like normal debt.
So "I can't afford uni due to fees" is not a valid excuse, unless immigration status comes into it.

many are refused mortgages who could pay the monthly bill now

What about all the other bills they'd have to pay -repairs, decorating, new boiler, damp-proofing, new roof, re-rendering, new kitchens and bathrooms - the list goes on. You can't just pay only the mortgage as you'd be living in a derelict house eventually. All houses, even new builds, need thousands spending on them every 10/20 years. You have to keep them updated and maintained if you want them to hold their value.

You pay nothing until you make over certain wage and even then it's small amount.

But at higher income levels, you're paying tax, nic, workplace pensions, possibly losing child benefit. There are so pretty high marginal deduction percentages at certain income levels.

The interest on student loans is also far higher than market rates, so the poor sods earning enough to repay will spend years longer to reap it as they also have interest to pay.

Another pseudo tax on "the rich", and as usual, those who can't be bothered to get good jobs don't have to repay it.