I would say that a tax on Investment residential properties and Investment Commercial Properties will come into play. An easy and correct tax in my opinion, but then no doubt others will doubt this.
I've wondered about this also, wouldn't be surprised if there was another tax imposed but I don't think that rent increases are an option. We reduced the rent last year for our tenants & as long as it covers the mortgage & related charges we're happy enough.
Until the market has lost the unprofessionals in the market, both agents and purchasers and Financial Institutions, then the property market can rebuild itself. If placing a Tax means the start of a clean up, well and good. Otherwise there is nothing more pathetic than watching amateurs really screw a market and in this case persons that empty their pockets to satisfy the greed of others.
The irony that the 'crime' in question was actively encouraged, facilitated and incentivised by the same State apparatus
Encouraged Yes, Incentivised (with tax incentive schemes) Yes, but not facilitated. The Banks did this in a completely reckless manner which if the Senior Management and Middle Maqnagement had of taken cognisance of what they were doing, it would have been stopped. Instead, the Bonuses were paid for crazy lending and allthough the loans have gone pear shaped, none of the bonuses have been recalled. But before we all get into a rhetoric about blaming the Government, does anyone really believe that the opposition would have done anything different -- Not in a month of Sundays.
Expect the tax relief on mortgage interest to be reduced or eliminated. Maybe if they had listened to Bacon in the early part of the decade, the prices wouldn't have got so crazy.
Because people live in those premises. We're a society first, and an economy second. Housing is a critical service.Why should one sector of business be singled out for special treatment on interest on loans for premises?
Certainly, relief on unlimited interest on interest-only property investments should be stopped, as this is simply a tax avoidance device.If this is brought in it would be so as to increase the tax take -therefore should this approach not be applied to all businesses? It would appear as it is that restricting it to 75% is already unfair-when compared to other businesses with loans on premises.
Cutbacks in social welfare, public sector pay and increased taxation will all lead to additional defaults from struggling house-owners too. Do we defer these measures too, or are landlords expected to be immune?Surely this will lead to lots of defaults from landlords struggling? Just a point...
Because people live in those premises. We're a society first, and an economy second. Housing is a critical service.
It is really a case of removing a relief rather than imposing a charge, though I understand the net effect is the same. In the long term, this will reduce the still-inflated property prices, which will be passed on to tenants as reduced rent.Indeed, but I can't fathom how the State's imposition of special taxes and other charges on landlords is supposed to help their tenants.
Indeed there is some disruption, though the impact on a tenant is fairly marginal. The longer term benefit to the tenant is reduced property and rental prices.If a landlord goes bankrupt, has their property repossessed, or is forced to sell the property, their tenants will also suffer amid the ensuing disruption.
That said, the last time such measures were tried (March 1998 to December 2001, following the Bacon Report) rents went through the roof, only to fall when these measures were scrapped in December 2001.