hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363 
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Nov 22, 2017 9:53:37 GMT
There are currently a few generous tax reliefs availabe to some P2P investors, which I am hoping will not be chopped in the budget.
These include, starting rate for savings, personal savings allowance, and loss allowance.
Seperately, please leave ISAs and pensions alone!
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Nov 22, 2017 10:46:07 GMT
Pensions tax relief is designed to encourage saving for retirement, I'm not sure that it works too well, and it is tilted towards giving help to people that don't need it.
Essentially, the incentive is to allow tax to be deferred, which is fine except that many that receive higher rate relief do not pay (much) higher rate tax when they retire.
Consequently, I think that there is a strong argument for abolishing higher rate tax relief and abolishing the 25% tax free withdrawal and using the £10bn per annum elsewhere.
I would use some of it to reduce the deficit a bit, raise the property stamp duty threshold, and encourage business capital investments that will improve productivity.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Nov 22, 2017 10:59:55 GMT
The 25% tax free is too popular imo to be hit. Personally as I want at least one more year without material changes to pensions but that’s being selfish.
Me? I’d bring in a turnover tax for companies who use offshore tax rules to remove their U.K. tax liability. At 1% or so less than corporation tax, I suspect it would convince all sorts of companies to pay corporation tax instead as it would still be cheaper. The additional revenue would be split between health, education, infrastructure and continuing to reduce the deficit.
Obviously with brexit coming, all the extra tax could simply be spent on higher border guards and customs inspectors.
|
|
aj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 348
Likes: 465
|
Post by aj on Nov 22, 2017 14:00:56 GMT
With P2P lending being heavily involved in housing, I'm taking the removal of first time buyer stamp duty as a boon for the industry.
I'm interested in how they plan to apply the 'compulsory purchase of land banked by developers for financial reasons'?
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Nov 22, 2017 14:36:50 GMT
With P2P lending being heavily involved in housing, I'm taking the removal of first time buyer stamp duty as a boon for the industry. I'm interested in how they plan to apply the 'compulsory purchase of land banked by developers for financial reasons'? The compulsory purchase of land idea seems to have resulted in a fall in share price of the major house builders so the market thinks this may have an impact...
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Nov 22, 2017 17:10:37 GMT
No nasty shocks in the budget today. I'm happy with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 22, 2017 17:59:26 GMT
With P2P lending being heavily involved in housing, I'm taking the removal of first time buyer stamp duty as a boon for the industry. I'm interested in how they plan to apply the 'compulsory purchase of land banked by developers for financial reasons'? Generally should be good news for most of the p2p developers we fund who are intent on actually building something in a sensible time frame. But may be very bad news for those who are leveraging their land bank to fund other developments or business interests as it could, in fact, have a major effect on residual land values. This could mean there will be even less willingness of the mainstream banks to lend against development land. The compulsory purchase bit is really interesting. My initial reaction was that its applicability outside the south east and the centres of major English cities is questionable. But the more I think about it, it might work nationally. Lets take two examples (forgetting about our particular borrower's handling of the respective loans) Lendy's DFL017 in Marylebone. I posted recently that I wouldn't want to start developing that site at the present time, as the oversupply of new build apartments in adjacent Paddington will likely persist for another two or three years. i.e. to maximise the GDV building out the plot should be delayed for a few years. So, arguably the threat of compulsory purchase might get things moving quicker, and result in slightly more affordable apartments as they will have to compete with the good availability in the (generally) superior location of Paddington. Priced right they would sell quick, and the developer still makes a profit. Funding Secure's Rishton plot in Lancashire is similiar in so far as it is a brownfield in-fill site, that has lapsed planning. However, a simplistic analysis of this plot suggests that the site is simply uneconomic to develop out in the context of local demand and ceiling prices. But if the land was compulsory purchased for a nominal value and resold with covenants dictating the types of property that could be built on the land (i.e. affordable housing in the context of no expensive granite worktops for example) , there might be interest from developers. On the otherhand it could leave councils with a landbank of land which is still uneconomic to develop out.
|
|
