x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Tax Grab! Massive premiums paid by landlords to HMRC

New research shows that, since 2016, the average stamp duty payment on buy to let homes has increased by £11,848 in England, - and much, much more in some specific areas.

In April 2016, the UK government introduced a stamp duty surcharge on buy to let and other so-called additional homes.

Prior to this change, the average stamp duty payment owed on a buy to let in England was £1,953. A month later in April 2016, immediately after the rules changes were announced, this increased to £8,689 - an immediate 345 per cent hike.

Advertisement

Today, the average stamp duty paid on a buy to let purchase has climbed to £13,801, a 607 per cent increase compared to the cost prior to the 2016 change.

The current average buy-to-let stamp duty bill of £13,801 means that purchasing a rental property today will see investors pay 183 more in stamp duty compared to a regular homebuyer (£4,876).  

Regionally, the biggest stamp duty surcharges are found in the North East where the bill is a remarkable 777 per cent higher on a buy-to-let investment than it is for those purchasing a primary residence. 

This is followed by Yorkshire & Humber (401 per cent), the North West (384 per cent), East Midlands (313 per cent) and West Midlands (312 per cent).

Despite these significant premiums found across the English market, they’re not as high as the buy to let stamp duty premiums paid in the other UK nations, under the schemes various other guises.

In Northern Ireland, the premium is 624 per cent versus that paid on an owner occupier house purchase, while in Wales (894 per cent) and Scotland (997 per cent) the gap is even bigger still. 

Almas Uddin of Revolution Brokers - which commissioned the research - says: “When the stamp duty rules were changed in 2016, it was a move by government to deter landlords from snapping up property that could otherwise be bought by a first-time buyer. 

“But despite buy to let properties now commanding a hefty stamp duty premium regardless of where you’re looking to purchase, there is still a healthy appetite for investment.”

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

  • icon

    If anything it has pushed some of us to buy cheaper properties instead of the bigger houses we used to buy.

  • icon

    I heard Michael Gove yesterday say benefit claimants should be able to pay "their" money towards a mortgage rather than to a landlord.

    He forgets that in both cases the money goes to a property owner, one of whom is selling it and the other is maintaining it for tenants who can't afford to buy it.

    Why is the first type of property owner "good" and the latter type "bad"?

    icon

    Your right Robert. But when tax payers money or state funds are used to purchase assets for an individual surely this can’t be legal or indeed fair at any level. Landlords provide a service that is optional we don’t have to provide homes to those on benefits if that’s what the government wants. There’s plenty of good working people out there. I simply can not vote for the conservatives again when such direct cheap swipes are aimed at our sector.

     
    icon

    Thats pretty obvious the mortgage company gives you the property and a landlord doesnt, I imagine you once borrowed to buy unless you one the lottery ?

     
    icon

    You're an idiot!

    The mortgage company does NOT give the borrower the property as it belongs to the property owner who will give the buyer the agreed property in exchange for the agreed purchase price, possibly funded through a mortgage but with significant additional costs going to the mortgage company, tax man, legal advisor etc. All responsibility for its upkeep passes to the new purchaser.

    When a property owner allows temporary use of his property by a renter, no fees are charged to the renter by any party other than the AGREED rental payments for the AGREED rental term, which may be extended by AGREEMENT or possession sought as outlined in the AGREEMENT. No further fees are payable by the renter on vacating the property owner's property, provided it's been returned in the condition in which it was handed over. During the entire rental term, the responsibility for all maintenance, local authority registration or licensing charges, letting agent fees etc. has remained with the property owner, not the temporary resident.

    The two scenarios are totally different but the former can cost much more over the average rental period when all ancillary costs are included and the owner occupier cannot decide to move on unilaterally but is dependent on the AGREEMENT of a new purchaser to allow him to do so and is then faced with all those ancillary charges all over again.

    I repeat : "Why is giving money to purchase a property to its owner to become an owner occupier GOOD whereas giving a much lower amount to an owner to rent the property for an AGREED rental period BAD?"

    Neither can happen without AGREEMENT which is always available for inspection and on which legal advice can be obtained if desired or required.

     
  • icon

    Whichever government is in power this industry will be a target. Labour is no different and possibly worse.

    icon

    I agree. Both as bad as each other. Neither deserves to be in power. Its a very sad thing that we have a choice between awful and worse than awful.

     
    icon

    Or in the case of the SNP, truly diabolical!

     
  • icon

    Totally agree with you Adrian. I went to school in East London with people who had no intention of getting an education or a job. They have sat on their benefits for 30 odd years and never worked a day in their lives. All of them able to somehow afford living in the city I had to move out of because I couldn't afford to buy a house there, have active social lives, children, tattoos, cigarettes, drugs etc., (and not contribute positively to society in any of that time), whilst I've gone to university (which one likened to 'doing time'), got a job and bought a house. Scrimping the entire time, worrying if I've got enough for my retirement, planning for my son's future. The idea of these people being able to buy a house using money that my taxes have directly funded makes my blood absolutely boil. It's bad enough my taxes have fuelled their wasteful lifestyle, but now I'm also buying them a house? I could cry.

    icon

    You mean the same way people who work pay your mortgages from their hard work not yours

     
    icon

    David. You know nothing about me or my life. I work hard every single day. In a job. I have worked hard ever since I started work. My partner works. He's worked hard ever since he started his first job in a call centre as a teenager and worked up through that company.

    I have one property that I rent out and have never increased the rent on that property for my tenant since the day she moved in. I've let her make changes to the property and keep a dog. If something has broken its been fixed immediately.

    Any rent I get goes towards my retirement and my son's future, so that neither of us will be a burden on an increasingly burdened economy. Which, frankly, is preferable to someone's rental income going towards a corporate entity's profits. An entity that no doubt has no issues increasing their rents regularly - I know this, because I used to rent. In a property that had no insulation, no central heating and extensive mould in every room, with awful neighbours making noise throught the night that was never dealt with, even though it went on for years.

    You sound like a very bitter person who has an axe to grind and no intention of listening to the other side of an argument. I've lived on the other side of that argument and I'm doing the best for my family to ensure they don't experience private housing association stock or council stock, which is woeful. If you can't do the same then I'm sorry for you, but that doesn't make me the bad guy. Too many people in this country think they're entitled to something for doing absolutely nothing to achieve it. Ask yourself if you're one of them instead of blaming everyone else, because you certainly come across that way.

     
    icon

    So David us landlords sit down watching the cash flow into our bank accounts do we ? You know nothing of the real world mate

     
  • icon

    This is partly another distraction from this Government, not that I mind this as the media have bled to death the partygate situation.
    The PM was trying to directly aim the benefits that working families have and instead of paying money to Landlords he intends to pay it towards the individuals house. I could agree with this as long as the percentage paid by us the taxpayer is returned when the house is sold. Otherwise all that have saved and scrimped and never made a claim will be seriously dis-advantaged as well as highly miffed.
    The one thing that I take from listening to him yesterday is that it is time to sell off my portfolio!

    icon

    Andy

    If I were 40 years younger I might also agree with you and give Boris and his cronies the benefit of the doubt.

    I also think partygate is a red herring and Boris didn't do anything worse than beer-quaffing Sir Keir and his leg flashing deputy, but the key point is why is it "good" to give tax payer funded benefits to a property owner via a mortgage and reap any future capital gains tax free whilst it is "bad" to give the same to a property owner who allows tenants to live in a property they can't afford to buy and who will pay up to 46% (in Scotland) tax on the rental profit, a 4% ( 3 in England) stamp duty penalty on its purchase and 28% CGT if it's sold?

    I suspect Boris is just doing the same as Sir Keir and the loony woman we have in Scotland, in trying to get votes through vilifying landlords whilst totally underestimating the contribution we make to the overall economy and the well-being of decent rent paying tenants.

     
  • icon

    It would take a big article to explain covid, but l researched it and it was clear that it was no more dangerous than the winter flu we get and wrote to the PM saying the cure is worse than the disease.

    icon

    Yes thats right it was all made up and a conspiracy, not

     
icon

Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up