Rachel Reeves

[Stirlingsays]

From what I'm hearing it sounds like Rachel from accounts is coming for the landlords.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

From what I'm hearing it sounds like Rachel from accounts is coming for the landlords.

8% on rental income isn’t it? Said to raise £2 billion.

So is that 8% of £1,000 monthly rent? = £80 x 12 =£960.00 per year?

Or is it 8% of income (rental profit) £50 = £4 per month?

It’s got to be the whole income surely of £80 per month in that example. This going to be passed onto renters. Maybe it will put more homes onto the property market, but maybe it will provide more homes for companies like Serco to buy for HMO’s for illegals.

 

[ASCPFC]

From what I'm hearing it sounds like Rachel from accounts is coming for the landlords.

When rents are already too high, this will be disastrous. I can guarantee it will not free up homes for sale. It will just increase costs for small landlords and renters. Large, corporate landlords will be unaffected, yet their tenants will still pay more. Frankly, an astonishing policy that will affect millions of people. At least, it will hasten the clamour to get rid.

 

[beak]

It is the silly season when folks confuse westminster gossip with reality, don't scream until your hit. Is it Isa's is it landlord is it banks is it pubs, new dog licencing, is it a tax on fresh air ,a ban on all green spaces. A bit like school, has the deputy head Master put the French miss up the stick?

 

[Rudi Hedman]

It is the silly season when folks confuse westminster gossip with reality, don't scream until your hit. Is it Isa's is it landlord is it banks is it pubs, new dog licencing, is it a tax on fresh air ,a ban on all green spaces. A bit like school, has the deputy head Master put the French miss up the stick?

Whilst this is a silly post, you make an unintentional point because as Starmer has no opinion or vision on many things political, he reacts to the public’s reaction on a lot of things for his own power, except of course anything to do with immigration.

 

[beak]

Whilst this is a silly post, you make an unintentional point because as Starmer has no opinion or vision on many things political, he reacts to the public’s reaction on a lot of things for his own power, except of course anything to do with immigration.

No money in immigration.

 

[ASCPFC]

It is the silly season when folks confuse westminster gossip with reality, don't scream until your hit. Is it Isa's is it landlord is it banks is it pubs, new dog licencing, is it a tax on fresh air ,a ban on all green spaces. A bit like school, has the deputy head Master put the French miss up the stick?

None of the policies are realistic and since all have been tried in other countries the affects are well known. I've not seen anything remotely useful. A tax on political stupidity would see the country rise to the richest it's ever been.
How about responsibility starts at home? The government stops all forms of gifts and expenses for MPs before they start taking other people's money? This is supposed to be Labour after all.
Because this lot lecturing anyone is not wearing thin. It's worn right through. This government's mandate is over - it's only them that doesn't realise it. The consensus required has gone. Tax rises - particularly the stupid ones mooted - will be the final straw.
Right wing parties will say that the money is to pay for more immigrants and their benefits but obviously this government is too deaf to realise that's how people feel. Whether it's true or not.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

No money in immigration.

Very naive.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

None of the policies are realistic and since all have been tried in other countries the affects are well known. I've not seen anything remotely useful. A tax on political stupidity would see the country rise to the richest it's ever been.
How about responsibility starts at home? The government stops all forms of gifts and expenses for MPs before they start taking other people's money? This is supposed to be Labour after all.
Because this lot lecturing anyone is not wearing thin. It's worn right through. This government's mandate is over - it's only them that doesn't realise it. The consensus required has gone. Tax rises - particularly the stupid ones mooted - will be the final straw.
Right wing parties will say that the money is to pay for more immigrants and their benefits but obviously this government is too deaf to realise that's how people feel. Whether it's true or not.

Like this one…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1962131341375340709

 

[beak]

None of the policies are realistic and since all have been tried in other countries the affects are well known. I've not seen anything remotely useful. A tax on political stupidity would see the country rise to the richest it's ever been.
How about responsibility starts at home? The government stops all forms of gifts and expenses for MPs before they start taking other people's money? This is supposed to be Labour after all.
Because this lot lecturing anyone is not wearing thin. It's worn right through. This government's mandate is over - it's only them that doesn't realise it. The consensus required has gone. Tax rises - particularly the stupid ones mooted - will be the final straw.
Right wing parties will say that the money is to pay for more immigrants and their benefits but obviously this government is too deaf to realise that's how people feel. Whether it's true or not.

Well until good 'ol rach hits the despatch box it's gossip ,wind and a load of bollo's.All parties are inventing stuff to see wether it sinks or swims.Fact is the UK defence industry signed the first of many deals for warships yesterday for 10 billion quid (Norway) there are many more countries in the pipeline this will mean an economic boost and therefore a sharp rise in taxes received.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

I think there might be some help with free childcare, which is a necessary subsidy in today’s Britain. Just heard some retired old gent say the country is broke and if you can’t afford to have children then don’t have them. This is so obviously short sighted now.

 

[Nutmegyeti]

I spend my days advising landlords and businesses on tax. this is one of our simple explanations. I'm also not a landlord.

The system is absurd though.


You collect £1,000 rent.
You spend £100 on costs.
You hand over £700 to the bank in interest.


Under the old rules, you’d be taxed on what’s left: £200. Tax at 40% is £80, leaving you with £120.


Under Section 24, you’re taxed as if the £700 interest doesn’t exist. Taxable income becomes £900. At 40% that’s £360. You get a small credit of 20% of the interest charged (£140), so the final tax is £220. After paying costs, interest, and tax, you are at –£20. You’ve lost money by being a landlord.


If an 8% levy is added, it applies to the £900 taxable income. That’s another £72, pushing the total tax to £292. After everything, you’re at –£92.


Old rules left you £120. Section 24 leaves you –£20. Section 24 plus the levy leaves you –£92.


The tenant has a home. The bank gets its interest. The government gets its tax. The landlord gets f***ed.

Then there is the tosser advising her - Torsten Bell. Not since somebody went "do you know what - that nice Jimmy Saville deserves a knighthood" has somebody misread the mood as badly as this prat.

If dividend tax rises to 20%, the gap widens between pensioners relying on dividends for income, wealthy shareholders, and those of us running small close companies with only a handful of shareholders. I operate through a limited company for the protection it provides. At present, earnings up to £50,000 face 19% corporation tax and 8.75% dividend tax, which is a combined 27.75%. Once income goes above £50,000, the corporation tax jumps to a marginal 26.5% and dividend tax to 33.75%, pushing the effective rate close to 60%.


If dividends rise to 20%, the effective rate on income over £50,000 climbs toward 70%. That destroys any incentive to grow a small business. The system assumes landlords and business owners are greedy and exploitative, when in reality the housing market depends on private rental stock and small businesses already carry most of the burden. For every poor landlord I’ve seen, I’ve seen many more who put in endless work and stress. For every large corporate, there are thousands of small firms forced to operate under the same rules without the ability to shift profits offshore.


We are, in effect, unpaid tax collectors for the government. The rules are written as if Tesco and Amazon face the same reality as the small shop with three staff, which simply isn’t true. The system is broken. Unless the idealists are replaced with people who are pragmatic and understand how the real world works, nothing will improve. Neither red nor blue offers any real change.


Meanwhile, politicians demonstrate the gap between morality and legality. What Angela Rayner has done may be legal, but politicians should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. It also highlights the hypocrisy that the leader of a party branding itself socialist is now buying what is essentially a third property, at a level of cost far out of reach for most ordinary people. In my own area, the price of that single flat would buy the entire postcode.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

I spend my days advising landlords and businesses on tax. this is one of our simple explanations. I'm also not a landlord.

The system is absurd though.


You collect £1,000 rent.
You spend £100 on costs.
You hand over £700 to the bank in interest.


Under the old rules, you’d be taxed on what’s left: £200. Tax at 40% is £80, leaving you with £120.


Under Section 24, you’re taxed as if the £700 interest doesn’t exist. Taxable income becomes £900. At 40% that’s £360. You get a small credit of 20% of the interest charged (£140), so the final tax is £220. After paying costs, interest, and tax, you are at –£20. You’ve lost money by being a landlord.


If an 8% levy is added, it applies to the £900 taxable income. That’s another £72, pushing the total tax to £292. After everything, you’re at –£92.


Old rules left you £120. Section 24 leaves you –£20. Section 24 plus the levy leaves you –£92.


The tenant has a home. The bank gets its interest. The government gets its tax. The landlord gets f***ed.

Then there is the tosser advising her - Torsten Bell. Not since somebody went "do you know what - that nice Jimmy Saville deserves a knighthood" has somebody misread the mood as badly as this prat.

If dividend tax rises to 20%, the gap widens between pensioners relying on dividends for income, wealthy shareholders, and those of us running small close companies with only a handful of shareholders. I operate through a limited company for the protection it provides. At present, earnings up to £50,000 face 19% corporation tax and 8.75% dividend tax, which is a combined 27.75%. Once income goes above £50,000, the corporation tax jumps to a marginal 26.5% and dividend tax to 33.75%, pushing the effective rate close to 60%.


If dividends rise to 20%, the effective rate on income over £50,000 climbs toward 70%. That destroys any incentive to grow a small business. The system assumes landlords and business owners are greedy and exploitative, when in reality the housing market depends on private rental stock and small businesses already carry most of the burden. For every poor landlord I’ve seen, I’ve seen many more who put in endless work and stress. For every large corporate, there are thousands of small firms forced to operate under the same rules without the ability to shift profits offshore.


We are, in effect, unpaid tax collectors for the government. The rules are written as if Tesco and Amazon face the same reality as the small shop with three staff, which simply isn’t true. The system is broken. Unless the idealists are replaced with people who are pragmatic and understand how the real world works, nothing will improve. Neither red nor blue offers any real change.


Meanwhile, politicians demonstrate the gap between morality and legality. What Angela Rayner has done may be legal, but politicians should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. It also highlights the hypocrisy that the leader of a party branding itself socialist is now buying what is essentially a third property, at a level of cost far out of reach for most ordinary people. In my own area, the price of that single flat would buy the entire postcode.

Under your section 24 in your example you get to clear the mortgage after say 25 years with a -£20 monthly loss after £100 maintenance costs so this may have been in the previous government’s thinking.

In this new proposal of a -£92 monthly loss it suggests there’s been no thinking behind it. Unless it is to nudge properties into hands that will use them for illegal migrants.

 

[ASCPFC]

Well until good 'ol rach hits the despatch box it's gossip ,wind and a load of bollo's.All parties are inventing stuff to see wether it sinks or swims.Fact is the UK defence industry signed the first of many deals for warships yesterday for 10 billion quid (Norway) there are many more countries in the pipeline this will mean an economic boost and therefore a sharp rise in taxes received.

Defence deals are going to win Labour votes? The Guardian supporting part will be off to Corbyn. The red wall will be off to Reform. All they'll have left are the Khan types in the end. And they'll form their own party soon. Plus, one thing never discussed is how minorities don't want any more immigration. Apart from their own relatives that is. They recognise that it takes from everyone including themselves. So they are not guaranteed voters for Labour either. The Trade Unions are going to need some payoffs to keep Labour afloat. Expect some pay deals.

 

[Rudi Hedman]

I spend my days advising landlords and businesses on tax. this is one of our simple explanations. I'm also not a landlord.

The system is absurd though.


You collect £1,000 rent.
You spend £100 on costs.
You hand over £700 to the bank in interest.


Under the old rules, you’d be taxed on what’s left: £200. Tax at 40% is £80, leaving you with £120.


Under Section 24, you’re taxed as if the £700 interest doesn’t exist. Taxable income becomes £900. At 40% that’s £360. You get a small credit of 20% of the interest charged (£140), so the final tax is £220. After paying costs, interest, and tax, you are at –£20. You’ve lost money by being a landlord.


If an 8% levy is added, it applies to the £900 taxable income. That’s another £72, pushing the total tax to £292. After everything, you’re at –£92.


Old rules left you £120. Section 24 leaves you –£20. Section 24 plus the levy leaves you –£92.


The tenant has a home. The bank gets its interest. The government gets its tax. The landlord gets f***ed.

Then there is the tosser advising her - Torsten Bell. Not since somebody went "do you know what - that nice Jimmy Saville deserves a knighthood" has somebody misread the mood as badly as this prat.

If dividend tax rises to 20%, the gap widens between pensioners relying on dividends for income, wealthy shareholders, and those of us running small close companies with only a handful of shareholders. I operate through a limited company for the protection it provides. At present, earnings up to £50,000 face 19% corporation tax and 8.75% dividend tax, which is a combined 27.75%. Once income goes above £50,000, the corporation tax jumps to a marginal 26.5% and dividend tax to 33.75%, pushing the effective rate close to 60%.


If dividends rise to 20%, the effective rate on income over £50,000 climbs toward 70%. That destroys any incentive to grow a small business. The system assumes landlords and business owners are greedy and exploitative, when in reality the housing market depends on private rental stock and small businesses already carry most of the burden. For every poor landlord I’ve seen, I’ve seen many more who put in endless work and stress. For every large corporate, there are thousands of small firms forced to operate under the same rules without the ability to shift profits offshore.


We are, in effect, unpaid tax collectors for the government. The rules are written as if Tesco and Amazon face the same reality as the small shop with three staff, which simply isn’t true. The system is broken. Unless the idealists are replaced with people who are pragmatic and understand how the real world works, nothing will improve. Neither red nor blue offers any real change.


Meanwhile, politicians demonstrate the gap between morality and legality. What Angela Rayner has done may be legal, but politicians should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. It also highlights the hypocrisy that the leader of a party branding itself socialist is now buying what is essentially a third property, at a level of cost far out of reach for most ordinary people. In my own area, the price of that single flat would buy the entire postcode.

It’s a bit of a mystery how she got a mortgage for a 800,000 flat, even if she received a payment for half the equity of her marital home in Ashton. Her cabinet salary isn’t long term and probably not big enough anyway. I wouldn’t care if it wasn’t for the hypocrisy and murkiness of it all. Well she paid £30,000 stamp duty instead of £70,000 because she didn’t own another property.

 

[beak]

Defence deals are going to win Labour votes? The Guardian supporting part will be off to Corbyn. The red wall will be off to Reform. All they'll have left are the Khan types in the end. And they'll form their own party soon. Plus, one thing never discussed is how minorities don't want any more immigration. Apart from their own relatives that is. They recognise that it takes from everyone including themselves. So they are not guaranteed voters for Labour either. The Trade Unions are going to need some payoffs to keep Labour afloat. Expect some pay deals.

I got nowhere near saying that but jobs bring in taxes. Hopefully Reform wins the next election and they will bring in foreign workers to complete the ship orders,a delight! 😆

 

[beak]

It’s a bit of a mystery how she got a mortgage for a 800,000 flat, even if she received a payment for half the equity of her marital home in Ashton. Her cabinet salary isn’t long term and probably not big enough anyway. I wouldn’t care if it wasn’t for the hypocrisy and murkiness of it all. Well she paid £30,000 stamp duty instead of £70,000 because she didn’t own another property.

Sleeping with her bank manager! 👍 😵

 

[ASCPFC]

It’s a bit of a mystery how she got a mortgage for a 800,000 flat, even if she received a payment for half the equity of her marital home in Ashton. Her cabinet salary isn’t long term and probably not big enough anyway. I wouldn’t care if it wasn’t for the hypocrisy and murkiness of it all. Well she paid £30,000 stamp duty instead of £70,000 because she didn’t own another property.

Her Onlyfans is probably doing ok.

 

[beak]

Her Onlyfans is probably doing ok.

According to the gutter press she ain't got any!

 

[Rudi Hedman]