Michael Gove, Section 24 and Mars bars?

There wouldn’t be more houses if S24 hadn’t been introduced. Zero impact on homelessness.

Those analogies work quite well.

I remember all the "it's unfair that landlords get tax relief when normal homeowners don't" and constantly shouting at the TV, radio whatever, "but that's because homeowners don't pay tax on their property in the first place"

For that reason I always carried on thinking that s24 could never happen,
except in the mind of jealous idiots...but then it did.

Reply to the comment left by Easy rider at 02/11/2023 - 02:27
"There wouldn’t be more houses if S24 hadn’t been introduced. Zero impact on homelessness."
Actually that might be blatantly wrong. I for one had to cut back on investing. Pre s24, I was always developing and extending properties. The natural progression would have been to build new houses, but then everything stopped being financially viable. Instead I let the guys I was employing full time go. Since s24 I have used all my funds to pay down mortgages and I now nearly own my entire portfolio outright, but I have got bored out of my mind instead of doing anything particularly constructive.

Yet another blithering idiot who doesn't understand Section 24 and just parotting the usual inane platitudes. I remember when it was first announced as Clause 24 by Osborne - my accountant called me after having mulled it over for a few days and said "this is going to cause huge problems and most people won't understand it". I still meet landlords who have been badly affected by S24 and are still baffled as to why their tax bills have gone through the roof. Let's not forget that 2021 was the year that the full impact of S24 was felt and many felt the impact in their tax returns in Jan 2022.
A thoroughly nasty tax that penalises those citizens who have the temerity to grow a small to medium sized portfolio of properties to house their fellow citizens. I have tried to explain to my MP and he really doesn't understand.
"Spreadsheet" Phil Hammond is on record as having stated that any tax would be reviewed if the cost of it outweighed the benefit. I would argue that the costs of S24 in terms of short term emergency housing significantly outweigh the tax derived, probably by a significant factor if some of the numbers are to be believed. The costs to society in terms of broken households and the opportunity costs of disruption to families is incalculable.

The argument was that if interest rates were (my example) 5% and forgetting any small premium that BTL borrowers would pay, homeowners paid the full 5% whereas higher rate taxpayers effectively paid only 3%. This could reasonably be considered to be unfair.

It’s only now that interest rates have returned to normal that the full impact is being felt.

The unintended consequence is that higher rate taxpayer landlords (with BTL funded by debt) will need to raise rents further than a basic rate taxpayer, a non-taxpayer or an investor that has invested their own money.

Reply to the comment left by Easy rider at 02/11/2023 - 02:27
"There wouldn’t be more houses if S24 hadn’t been introduced. Zero impact on homelessness."

Of course there would, for a multitude of reasons.
An obvious one being landlords buying off plan new builds. The homes simply don't get built.

"There wouldn’t be more houses if S24 hadn’t been introduced. Zero impact on homelessness."

We stopped buying, also the additional 3% didn't help. PRS has been stifled by conservatives and local councils & media slowly chip away to get their share.

Interest rate should (!) come down by mid next year, in time for the elections, who wants to say; "vote for us, we give you inflation and high interest rates".

Reply to the comment left by Easy rider at 02/11/2023 - 02:27
except that owner occupied often have empty bedroms but tenants homes are fully occupied. This over the whole country makes a significant difference

"why should a landlord have a more favourable tax regime than those seeking to buy properties as a home for themselves?”
Is that it!!!!
Is that the justification for section 24. Its just complete nonsense and should be called out as such. How insulting to even use that as a reason.
That statement is so poor and should be easily challenged.
1) When being challenged if Santa clause actually exists its like replying "Why wouldn't he exist"?
What is wrong with landlords having a more favourable tax regime than non-landlords?
That has not been explicitly stated. If there was a coherent reason, where is it?
2) Has he actually made the case that landlords have a more favourable tax regime?
Just because landlords can claim an expense against their income, does not mean they are treated more favourably.
A homeowner(non landlord) has no rental income, so nothing to claim against.
A homeowner does not pay the 3% extra stamp duty, CGT or income tax on property earnings.
We are talking apples and pears here, they are not even comparable assets.
3) Lets just say they are comparable, then why not give homeowners a break to match landlords?
Why does it have to be taking something away from landlords rather than giving something to homeowners?
Sounds like the state is just victimising their citizens.
4) One could just as well ask, why should landlording have less tax advantages than other businesses? Other businesses are not subject to this outrage.
If this is the level of his thinking, and he is in government, how can we justify people governing on our behalf?

Section24 was not only te cause of a shortage of rental property it was the constant hammering with legislation, taxes, demonising of prs, climate change nonesense, if any government think that they can treat private landlords like this and expect a vibrant viable prs they are living in cloud cookoo land.