A better alternative to S24?

A better alternative to S24?

10:16 AM, 31st January 2017, About 7 years ago 69

Text Size

I was thinking about Section 24 and the news that Hammond recently commented that if we could replace the revenue expected from S24 he would consider its repeal. Revenue from S24 is due to be £665m/yr after the 4 year implementation, so I got my thinking cap on.

I came up with a 2% rental levy. Charged across the board on all revenue from residential property, it would have several advantages: A better alternative to S24

1. Could truly ‘level the playing field’ by being charged equally to mortgaged individuals, cash buyers, companies. Everyone would pay it equally and would know how much was expected of them in advance.

2. MUCH cheaper than S24 for mortgaged landlords, yet raises more money.

3. My calculations show that just over £803m would be raised – £150m+ MORE than S24.

4. Simple to calculate and without complications.

5. Does not increase rents by much if anything at all, and negates need for increased evictions, which saves public money elsewhere.

6. Shows we as landlords are willing to co-operate with govt aims if fair and proportionate.

My calculations are based on roughly 4.5m private rental properties generating an average of £744 a month. This figure goes up to £892 if you include London. The gross rental take is around £40.176bn a year (WITHOUT the extra from London!) so 2% is around £803m.

Can anyone spot the downsides? I’m sure cash landlords/foreigners/companies might moan, but if its applied to everyone there can be no claim of discrimination and everyone in property gets equally and proportionately targeted.

Please note I am NOT in favour of this, but as an alternative to S24 is it not worthy of consideration?

All comments welcome!


Share This Article


Comments

Gromit

17:33 PM, 1st February 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jerry Jones" at "01/02/2017 - 17:26":

And what response did you get?

NW Landlord

17:36 PM, 1st February 2017, About 7 years ago

Great analogy that what twaddle did u get back in return ?

17:38 PM, 1st February 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "NW Landlord" at "01/02/2017 - 17:36":

As you surmised, a load of old billhooks:

Thank you for responding to my letter about mortgage interest rate relief. I fear your analogy with MP expenses isn't precise (for example, my staff expenses are paid via Parliament and go nowhere near me or my tax affairs) although, nonetheless, your underlying substantive point is still very well-made and important. On the substance, it still seems the old system is perverse when it rewards high-earning landlords at 40% but low-earning ones at half that. As a comparison, company taxes seem fairer because they are lower for small firms and higher for the large ones. So I suppose I appreciate your point about the change being unwelcome, but I'm still not sure why taxpayers should be rewarding rich landlords at a higher rate than poorer ones. That said, I'm happy to discuss this with you further at a surgery meeting if you feel that would help?

NW Landlord

17:40 PM, 1st February 2017, About 7 years ago

Yet again a load of shxte from elected fools ?

NW Landlord

17:42 PM, 1st February 2017, About 7 years ago

This 20% 40% relief gets my back up what they have done is disallowed 100% finance costs with a 20% rebate even MPs still don't get it or they are all part of the osbournes sneaky lies

Gromit

18:03 PM, 1st February 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "NW Landlord" at "01/02/2017 - 17:42":

..... and they seem to forget that it is only because our profits are being taxed at 40% or 45% in the first place. If we were only taxed on our "rental profits" at 20% (as limited companies are) then I happily forgo this "reward" and the "reward" on all my other property expenses.

Dr Rosalind Beck

18:05 PM, 1st February 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Barry Fitzpatrick" at "01/02/2017 - 18:03":

Yes, they kick us in the head and say that we headbutted their foot.

Jamie M

18:21 PM, 1st February 2017, About 7 years ago

NW Landlord

18:26 PM, 1st February 2017, About 7 years ago

Only scary if your not doing it professionally as most do I support trying to oust the bad landlords dragging all the others down

Dr Rosalind Beck

18:31 PM, 1st February 2017, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Jamie Moodie" at "01/02/2017 - 18:21":

Thanks, Jamie. You are right - it does say that they would receive the income and the landlord would still have to pay the costs. That is ridiculous. If they want the income they can at least pay the bloody costs. The case studies however are very much based on 'rogue' landlords/beds in sheds types of scenarios - and although they say that they would not be bound by this type of scenario hopefully if the council tried to ban you and steal your rental income while you paid all the costs, just because it took you 3 days to fix an extractor fan, I would hope the legal system would come to the landlord's rescue...

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now