Summer Budget 2015 – Landlords Reactions
2:00 PM, 8th July 2015, 11 years ago
9619
Categories:
The concern is;
Budget proposals to “restrict finance cost relief to individual landlords”. 
To calculate the impact of this policy on your personal finances download this software
Tags:
Budget 2015 Campaign
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Member Since February 2016 - Comments: 977 - Articles: 1
8:29 PM, 12th July 2016, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Barry Fitzpatrick” at “12/07/2016 – 10:12“:
According to news there is a chance GO is not going to be a Chancellor.
Whoever will be appointed we should concentrate on lobbying them to abolish S24 – private investment is needed now after all
Member Since July 2015 - Comments: 438
9:19 PM, 12th July 2016, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Whiteskifreak Surrey” at “12/07/2016 – 20:29“:
Agreed, but like it or not.. Grainger, Property Partner and L&G etc etc who have publicly stated they now want some more of the ‘PIE’ are also ‘private’ investors in the PRS themselves. These influential players banked on S24 and will now not be too happy if many of the little LLs are not obliterated by it.
Member Since November 2016 - Comments: 335
10:00 PM, 12th July 2016, About 10 years ago
Philip Hammond to become a Chancellor a done deal.
I was also reading an article, the government may look to have economy stimulus so the banks can start lending again, so economy can blossom in the light of BREXIT. One of the ways the economy can have stimulus is by reversing stamp duty.
So there is a real chance that Stamp Duty may temporarily be reversed together with S24.
Member Since November 2016 - Comments: 335
10:02 PM, 12th July 2016, About 10 years ago
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/12/mark-carney-no-silver-bullet-to-address-brexit-woes-as-policymak/
He also hinted that policymakers could unleash a fresh round of monetary stimulus to boost growth as soon as this week.
Member Since November 2016 - Comments: 335
10:05 PM, 12th July 2016, About 10 years ago
Reading between the lines….STAMP DUTY TO BE REVERSED!
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 648
10:28 PM, 12th July 2016, About 10 years ago
I’m confused. You seem to be asking me to support the petition again but when I follow the link it says that it closed at 60,894 signatures.
Regards
Paul
Member Since July 2015 - Comments: 438
10:28 PM, 12th July 2016, About 10 years ago
Whether it’s Osbo, Phil H or someone else as chancellor, I still think the JR may be the best chance of encouraging the political elite (and their sponsors) to consider alternative solutions, as difficult a challenge it will be.
On that front, any recent news re whether the JR application has been accepted & allowed to proceed yet?
Member Since February 2016 - Comments: 977 - Articles: 1
9:15 AM, 13th July 2016, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Mark Shine” at “12/07/2016 – 22:28“:
Mark, are you trying to say that lobbying a new Chancellor is pointless? Why?
Member Since July 2015 - Comments: 438
12:24 PM, 13th July 2016, About 10 years ago
Reply to the comment left by “Whiteskifreak Surrey” at “13/07/2016 – 09:15“:
No, I am certainly not saying lobbying would be pointless. On the contrary, I think it could be very worthwhile.
I could be wrong, but given that Section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015 has already passed through the Houses of Common and Lords, as I said above: ‘I still think the JR may be the best chance of encouraging the political elite (and their sponsors) to consider alternative solutions, as difficult a challenge it will be.’
Member Since September 2015 - Comments: 1013
12:30 PM, 13th July 2016, About 10 years ago
New Chancellors traditionally don’t like repealing existing tax legislation because:
a). it brings in revenue,
b). it can be blamed on their predecessors
c). repealing it creates a hole in tax revenues that they then have to fill (and be blamed for that new tax)
in its favour is that it’s not their “baby” so they don’t have to defend it.