Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions

Reply to the comment left by “John McKay” at “28/07/2015 – 18:55“:

Hi John

I would suggest something like this:

Hi Ruhal

Congratulations on being the first to submit a petition on this ruinous budget proposal.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the Property118 portal. A thread there about this topic has attracted 1,400 comments since the budget announcement.

Unfortunately, many of its members think your heading will not attract the support of enough people. It is written in the way only a tax accountant would understand – and very few of those realise the implications. There have only been two comments on the website of the Institute of Chartered Accountants about its impact, for example.

It is not only landlords who will be affected. Tenants will be evicted or have their rents increased. Landlords selling en masse could cause a house price crash. Everyone is potentially affected.

We have collectively drawn up a petition which describes the many disastrous effects this change would have. We have chosen a name that will attract the support of tenants and their friends and relatives. We are poised to promote it through all sorts of organisations. We are not just aiming for 100,000 signatures – we want ten times that number.

This is what we drafted:

“Scrap the mortgage interest tax levy before it forces tenants out and rents up!

The decision in the Budget to restrict landlords’ right to offset finance costs of their businesses will lead to bankruptcies, repossessions, house prices falling, negative equity, higher rents, empty houses and homelessness. It will adversely affect landlords, tenants, home owners and businesses.

The justification for the misleadingly-presented and outrageously unfair ‘tax relief’ change for landlords effectively re-defines finance costs of business as taxable ‘income.’ It creates a dangerous precedent in business and was based on an idea (since proven false) that landlords enjoy a tax advantage over owner-occupiers. In fact, landlords are taxed more heavily (rental income; CGT) (sources: IFS, Policy Exchange, chief economists). As its central premise is wrong, we urge its abandonment.”

However, our petition has been rejected because it concerns the same topic as yours. So I am contacting you to ask you respectfully to withdraw your petition please so that ours can go ahead.

Regards

Hi all.
Can we suspend discussion of ‘Ruhal Uddin’ for the moment? Mark and I will get back to you all once we’ve sorted the petition. Shouldn’t be too tricky. There are lots of other positive things to be getting on with for those feeling dynamic – contacting MPs, writing to the newspapers (I think that’s better than writing to GO and the ‘business ministers’ – I haven’t had one poxy reply).
On the other hand, we should all take a ‘time out’ as the Americans say. Chill out. Relax. Watch something escapist on the telly. Have a glass of something. We’ve all worked really hard and there is more hard work to do. But we also need to preserve our strength. Love and kisses to all!

Reply to the comment left by “Ros .” at “28/07/2015 – 20:08“:

Okay. I’ll finish my second letter to Nick Gibb MP 🙂

Reply to the comment left by “Ros .” at “28/07/2015 – 20:08“:

Well said Ros. Not ideal, but another option is to consider using another site to host the petition, as other similar petitions may appear online soon?

Unlike Mark, I know very little about SEO and methods that their webcrawlers use, but I chose not to post a weblink to the other petition or mention the name of the owner after I spotted the other competing petition just in case I was inadvertently publicizing it on the net. In the meantime I suggest Mark or Neil (or others with admin rights) might want to consider removing any links posted to that petition or the owner’s name? Or am I being too paranoid?

Assuming the owner of the other petition is sincere in his motives, then I can’t imagine him not agreeing to have it replaced if there is a more suitable alternative?

Just been reading the comments on the Accountants Web referred to earlier… They reckon a lot of use of the Ramsey case will be made during a mass of incorporations to follow … CAse details here http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/Documents/decisions/Elisabeth_Moyne_Ramsay_v_HMRC.pdf

You can send message on Facebook in order to avoid message getting trapped into folder. Facebook requires £0.70 pence debit card payment.

Our man Ruhal Uddin seems to be keen on a company called Kenza Creations. I’ll call their number tomorrow. I think the director and Ruhal may just be friends.

But why not sign the one already approved to get this moving?

Reply to the comment left by “Connie Cheuk” at “28/07/2015 – 08:35“:

Connie – I will add something on the point you have raised. I’m hoping to finalise my work on this tonight.

Reply to the comment left by “Y L Newbury ” at “28/07/2015 – 21:51“:

If we added our hundreds of signatures it would make his seem more successful. We don’t want that because we want him to withdraw it. So far it has only got 24 signatures in 2 days.