MPs from Opposition parties in the House of Commons have attacked the government’s recent stamp duty change - and taken the opportunity to have a swipe at landlords and second homes, too.
The mini-Budget six weeks ago raised the threshold before stamp duty is paid to £250,000 and for first-time buyers to £425,000.
However Labour MP John McDonnell told the Commons that the move was of little help to ordinary people, with wage levels, after 12 years of austerity, meaning that most of his Hayes & Harlington constituents could not save up for a deposit. He then complained about a boom in ‘private landlordism’, finding it extraordinary that incorporated landlords can still offset 100 per cent of their mortgage interest against profits.
McDonnell said we could assist first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder through housing supply and reducing overall property costs. If the government insist on proceeding with this Bill, we could protect the first-time buyer measures by paying for them through what he called “an excess profits tax” on the landlords and banks profiting from the government’s measures, he said.
In the same debate the former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, said the new stamp duty cut would benefit only a fraction of one per cent of people who wanted to buy a house but are currently unable to do so. He repeated his call for a change in planning law so that second homes and holiday lets become separate categories of planning use.
Then Labour’s shadow treasury minister Tulip Siddiq contrasted the beneficiaries of the stamp duty change with the fact that average private rents have risen by over £4,500 a year compared with the position in 2010.
Siddiq went on to say: “This plan will do little to help people take their first important step on to the housing ladder and that it is just another Government handout for wealthy landlords and second homeowners. Labour is the true party of home ownership, which is why we have committed to a target of 70 per cent home ownership across the UK. We will achieve that by looking at reform of the planning system to increase house building. Because if the Government keep inflating demand without increasing supply, house prices will only rise.”
She reiterated Labour policy that it would give first refusal on newly built homes to local first time buyers. meaning an end to buy-to-let landlords and second homeowners getting in first.
Economic Secretary to the Treasury Richard Fuller closed the debate by addressing the prospect of a U-turn, saying that ‘the stamp duty change is already in effect and the Government are continuing with the legislation’. Separately, the Government’s stamp duty cut will ensure that about 43 per cent of purchases each year will pay no SDLT whatever and none of those will be purchases of second homes or buy to lets. He was keen to say that there is a two per cent charge for non-residents (foreign) on SDLT.
The minister closed by saying: “This measure will boost labour mobility, support hundreds of thousands of jobs and businesses, increase transactions to boost the property industry, and continue the Government’s record of supporting people, including younger people, into home ownership.”
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
And these f*$%ers will be in Gov't in a couple of years...
MP,s are three times more likely to have a second home than the general public. Surely they are not all Tories
I'm pretty sure McDonnell has more than one property - and also had his eye on No.11 when his crony was after No. 10!
Rents may have risen but that was to be expected when landlords were told that they had to pay for all sorts of stuff previously paid by tenants. And then there are the EPC issues which LLs are required to make. Who pays for thes? Tenants, of course but politicians are too blind or ignorant to see that.
When I have void periods my council insists that I pay FULL council tax. Is that fair? My next tenant is a single person and he will get a 25% deduction so why should I have to pay 100% on an EMPTY property. Makes no logical sense.
Apparently I am running a business so all my costs must be factored in to work out the rent to be charged. Standard business practice. I don't expect politicians to understand that though.
Trouble is....they don't recognise landlords as a business... Our properties are classed as investments. Can't wait to offload my portfolio. Enough is enough.
I had a tenant leave at 5pm and the next tenant moved in the next day at 9am. The council charged me one day council tax as the property was empty at midnight!
John
I would have told them that the new tenancy started an hour after the old tenant left.
After all, every rental property is left pristine with any dirt or damage left by the Landlord dealt with by the tenants - so never any need for any void periods!
Wow - so much nonsense from this MP - where to even start unpicking it. She’s woefully uninformed and ignorant. What’s becoming clear to me, is MPs do not need to have a shred of understanding or competence to get elected, all they have to do is talk a good game and be slightly less unpalatable than their opposition.
Her solutions would make things worse for everyone - we all know any excess taxes would just get swallowed up into government inefficiency while raising costs for tenants.
And a perfect example of MPs not needing any experience to do what they do was George Osborne.
“an excess profits tax” on the landlords. Profits are dwindling, which is leading to an Exodus of LL. What about bankers excess profits. Are they acceptable?
Yes John! What exactly IS an ‘excess profits tax’ and how is it to be calculated? On turnover or profit? True profit or govt S24 invented profit? I bet even McDonnell doesn’t know!
I still don't get this idea of saying that lLabour 'would give first refusal on newly built homes to local first time buyers. meaning an end to buy-to-let landlords and second homeowners getting in first'.
Anyone can buy a house from a developer. Why do these idiots think that a landlord has a head start? What they also don't seem to understand is how builders work. They don't build an estate and then put all the houses on the market, they build a few at a time and sell them before beginning the next few. So if anything their policy will slow down house building whilst the developers wait for first time buyers or other owner-occupiers to come along.
You are spot on John - and because of policies like Help To Buy that were restricted to new builds, there is now a premium attached to the cost so they will be forcing FTBers to pay. over the odds for an often substandard home.
I have never bought a new build and never will!
I've not seen any MP anywhere that acknowledges the bleeding obvious (but would appreciate someone pointing me in the right direction if there is one that has).
The price of materials have already 'gone through the roof'. If we launch into major building across the land the problem is going to ramp up further which will force the price of houses up, not down. So what solutions have any political party offered to help people get on the ladder if they're struggling to do so now?
FTBers will soon have the pick of lots of lovely Victorian Terraces with EPCs of D or below as LLs shift them out other portfolios. Bigger, cheaper, better built and all together nicer than a new build in my book.
I can understand why politicians are so keen on homeownership as it would cut the benefit bill hugely. Homeowners aren't entitled to any help with housing costs unless all adults in the household are fully unemployed.
Tenants have UC entitlement on far higher salaries than homeowners because of the LHA element.
I can't understand why the public fall for the homeownership thing quite so readily. It makes sense eventually when someone is settled in a long term job and has put down roots in a community but until that point the benefits are often questionable.
Having to pay a mortgage usually denies home owning parents the opportunity to spend time at home with pre-school children. Haven't numerous studies shown that spending early years with a parent rather than in paid for childcare is usually far better for a child's development?
Having to factor in selling a house and buying another one makes accepting better job opportunities far more difficult. Doesn't that make our workforce far less dynamic than it could be and therefore stunt the economic growth of the nation?
Buying a home too early usually means buying something that will be too small once children come along. The cost of selling and buying a bigger house is huge (equivalent to more than a years rent). In a rapidly rising market it may make sense but in a flat or falling market it can make moving completely impossible.
Was the figure of £4500 a year rent increase since 2010 a typo or only applicable to London?
Back in 2010 my HMO tenants were paying £95 a week including bills, the same rooms today are £115 a week.
A 2 bed flat was £600 a month, now it's £675.
A 3 bed maisonette was £715 a month, now it's £795. That strikes me as between £900 and £1040 a year increase. How much have wages gone up in the last 12 years? How much have my HMO utility costs gone up in the same period?
Jo, Thank you for your email. I was about to write a similar message about why are so many people getting stressed over buying a property compared to long-term renting. You have answered far better than I could.
With regards to the government is all about big businesses taking over and of course lowering the benefits allowances so they can maintain the 7 million pounds a day spent on illegal immigrants.
First time buyers are paying a massive premium due to inflated prices because of the Schemes to rope them-in, including the pretend zero SD which to Developer has factored-in to the price, more profit fo them.
They are getting rid of us, then the Tenants that were Renting from a landlord like the one that got a huge fine, can instead now Rent from new Build 2 Rent Companies with 100% Rent increase no exaggeration.
What McDonnell and Labour are proposing is nothing less than modern day ' Robin Hood ' or Communism. They want Incorporated landlords to subsidise the price of first time buyers. !
He was a major factor with these draconian views that nearly wiped labour off the face of the earth. As someone who clearly does not learn from his mistakes the question must be are people like this fit to be MPs?The luxury of safe seats protect so many of these had there time wastes of space.
The problem here also is that too many voters fall for their claims. Go back 20 years and the conservatives were the safe pair of hands, now it would appear that Labour have adopted this slogan.
Last time they were in we had good times, true. But they spent all the money and more and then had none left to fix the last financial meltdown. Madness and so much for the Bank of England being independent, they are just as useless and being paid far too much money to be muppets.
I see that Labour also have their eye on Ltd companies whom run a portfolio. Surely that will need a change in the law, can a limited company be classed as a investment!?
Now the conservatives have turned into New Labour. They tried to fix Labour’s mess with austerity. Then Covid came and New Labour P’d a tonne of money up the wall just like Labour would have done.
I can’t think of a darker time in my life with the current political climate. I have give up my ambitions as it’s just means more red tape and more taxes to come when Labour get in.
Old McDonnel had a farm and 3 houses too
Typical Hypocritical Lefty
Champagne socialist
Labour are such laughable cretins that you can’t take them seriously. The removal of interest relief from ltd cos was always likely to be on the cards, especially for those fools, but only offering new builds to local FTBs is hilarious. Tulip Siddiq clearly doesn’t understand that these developments don’t start unless money is committed months or even years in advance. No FTB can do this. Also, what constitutes a local? Can I move to an area and buy one of these houses right away? What if you’ve spent 20 years living 10 miles from, say, Truro - would you be allowed to move into central Truro, or would someone who’d been in the High St for 2 years get priority? What if you grew up there, moved away, but wanted to return - is that allowed? I can just see local authorities wanting to commit resources to implementing all this. Labour are trying to solve an impossible riddle and hilariously can’t even see that they can’t.
Please login to comment