I am very much working class, I simply learned about money/why it's needed/how it's created and a basic understanding of the financial system, I risked some of my work tokens (£'s) on things I believed would be worth more in the future or things that would at least hold their purchasing power, obviously holding pounds is a very bad idea, how do you squirrel away purchasing power for the future if the government just takes huge pieces of it? Are we being incentivised to just think in the short term? I've already paid tax on the money I used to buy assets and there was absolutely no guarantee they would increase in value, if I'd lost could I get a reimbursement from the tax payer too?
Deffo. Even though everyone costs the same to look after the people with more money have to pay more. It's s joke. Poor people still cost money to look after. Their tax requirements should be increased and rich people's should be lowered, rich people should have to subsidise others. It's not very equal having to pay more just because you earn more
It's definitely not fair when inflation sky rockets and they freeze tax thresholds. Now your money is worth less and we're going to take more of it. Shouldn't be legal.
@@arghjayem Mostly because the govt encourages the intelligent side of society to save by offering tax-free savings wrappers like ISAs and pensions. It's better than encouraging people to spend everything they have like idiots, because the govt has to look after them when they retire.
Just rich people not wanting to pay more tax, all of this fuss of private schools, inheritance tax, landlords, shareholders etc. is just a rich people owned media complaining about rich people having to pay more tax that they should be paying. There is no 'controversy' and this will not impact like 95% of the country.
@@SkulldugerySmiles since when did landlords care if tenants can afford rent increases or not? Maybe landlords can pay their own mortgages for once. They're the ones that "took a risk" after all, and it's not exactly a risk if you can't lose money on it. Rents should go down and landlords should be left paying their increased mortgages and thinking about their own actions for a change instead of making excuses and blaming everyone else.
@@BrianFace182 think sensibly for a second. A landlord has a tenant who is making ends meet. Why would they raise their rent to an unaffordable level. It would be pointless as they couldn't pay it. The tenant leaves, the landlord has to pay expenses and has a void, the increase in rent takes years to compensate for the void period. It's simple maths and common sense for a landlord to take care of their tenant.
@@SkulldugerySmiles It's called "demand" FFS....! There aren't enough properties for rent. Why? Because the govt keeps demonising landlords. Landlords sell up and stop renting. Less properties available. Higher demand, therefore higher prices. The last decade of landlord-bashing has only made the ones who dared to keep going much better off! Why are so many people totally illiterate when it comes to finances...!?
Vampires is a bit strong but the UK housing market is definitely broken, less private rental and more properties to buy would help to go some way to fixing this.
My ex is the carer for her 96 year old mother, so cannot work. She has moved in with her mother and rents out her own house. Technically she is a landlord, yet she is financially on the edge. It is wrong to confuse small renters with rentier capitalist. I find rentier capitalism distasteful, and would be delighted to shift the balance away from it, but care is required.
@@andyisabeast7782you think being a carer isn't working? Do you know what a carer does? Have you seen what they expect a carer to live on? This scenario is me. I work thank you. Everything single day. There is no one else when I get sick. There is no sick pay. There is no holiday pay. Pay into my pension?! I forget what year I was last able to do that! When my mother passes which I hope is many years from now, I will have nothing but the home I used to live in.
You're disproving your own point that your ex is different, being a fulltime carer is an actual job - it is fulltime job and you would struggle to hold down another job doing it - but your ex is able to be a landlord at the same time. Your ex does not own two properties, but the family collectively owns two properties, which is ahead of many people who do not even own their home yet. Your ex and her mother has the privilege of holding two properties, let me be clear, they are able to choose to keep two properties in their ownership. That is a privileged position.
@@ItsDeffoScott This is a weird comment. So if an adult child and a 96 year old mother have two properties that's a privileged position because there's 2 properties in the family? By that definition any nuclear family unit where a parent with 3 kids has them grow up and buy their own properties is privileged to be a family holding 4 properties?
Near me a school was knocked down and 40 houses were built on the site , very small houses and put up for sale ,when i passed the next day every one had a FOR RENT SIGN UP OUTSIDE . Is this why the young cannot buy a house ???????.
@@ifeyhome A large pub was renovated near me and 9 flats were created. All put up for sale, sold and then rented out by people who are already on the property ladder. The flat that I lived in (across the road) is owned by a 70+ year old lady who also owns 80+ other properties in this area. And yes, she was still getting a winter fuel allowance.
I 100% agree. If you're making money from what you own, such as by renting out houses, you're not working while you're doing that. I see no reason why there should be any difference between unearned income and earned income when it comes to income tax.
But wouldn't this increase rents because of all of the buy to lets? They should totally be taxed for all income whether they work for it or not, but I'm worried the burden will still get shafted onto the poor.
If landlords want to be seen as ‘working people,’ then income from rental properties should be taxed as earned income-just like wages and business profits. Sole business owners, who are clearly ‘working people,’ pay National Insurance and income tax on their profits without all the extra deductions landlords get. Right now, rental income is treated as unearned, giving landlords favourable tax breaks that regular workers and business owners don’t get. If they want the label, they should take on the same tax responsibilities!
i run a garage ,have done for 30 years ,work long hard hours ,not many hols ,very stressful , also built up a small property portfolio through my own hard work ,have had some absolutely awful tenants ,most are fine , its not easy money . I work far harder than you average working person !!!!!!!!!!
@@stogmot1absolutely, I’ve worked 7 days a week for most of my working life , saved hard , gone without , arguments with the other half because I barely gave her enough to pay the bills until we saved . Saved hard and slowly started to buy properties , and chip away at our own mortgage, I came from nothing and had nothing , if you want something in life get out and earn it , absolute load of b…..s that young people now can’t get on the housing ladder
@@stevelevick8705 I think what he is saying is that rental income (unless you are a limited company trading solely as a property rental business) is considered by the tax people as an investment (and therefore NOT earned), not as normal earned income - it is confusing 🙄 i just asked the wife (shes x-inland revenue) and she explained it. 😁
Making money from assets you own is by definition, returns on investment. A world away from being paid for labour or services rendered. Working class people don't have investment portfolios. Landlords are called landLORDs for a reason.
You do realise that some people choose to waste there money and others choose to put in hard work over their lifetimes to acquire these assets. EG properties stocks and shares. If you've put in this hard work and acquired these you have every right to reap the benefits from them. Stop feeling sorry for your self. Stop wasting your money buy investments not liabilities...
@@shadowz7356 you do realise many people can barely afford to get by day-to-day and don't have the spare cash to invest in anything? Blaming poor people for not investing is like blaming wheelchair users for not using their legs. It's a facetious argument.
Borrow money from the bank. Get your loan paid off by someone else and make a profit and get an increasing asset and then use that asset to repeat the process multiple times. It's a scummy way to make money
@@amjidali588 kinda proves my point. None of these landlords OWN their properties so cry when rent isn't paid because guess what they have to pay the loan
I get what you mean, but all this would mean is only the very wealthy would be able to afford to be landlords, as they would be the only ones to outright own their property.
@@Tinar55 this is exactly it. It would allow a lot more stability in the market. I find it a bit maddening that so many people are acting like making these kind of moves to filter the landlords with the least value-add out of the marketplace, is somehow going to collapse everything. At worst it will slightly cool price rises, whilst nickle and dime 'passive income' investors are replaced by professional companies that have a more secure long term approach to financing and maintenance...
@trevfindley and maybe some social housing then we dont need so many private rentals . The dwp are paying people mortgages via the private rental market.
Agreed, but what about people who put off a new car and holidays for many year to get a deposit to buy themselves a retirement nest egg? Are they the greedy landowning class or more careful with their money? I am fine to be taxed on the income from my property and taxed on the sale of it when I sell it. All that is normal. But to put me in the rentier class along with the Duke of Westminster et al is a misunderstanding of how the small man finds his way to a comfortable retirement.
I agree to a point, but you have to consider that those purchases are heavily taxed, too. It also puts money back into the economy and drives economic growth. Those people will continue to work into old age and will provide the country with more taxable income.
I dont get it if during a shortage I bought up all the food or medicine then sold it on at massively inflated price I'd be crucified But do the same with housing and the government cant stop singing your praises
No. It requires maybe an hour of work a week. That is then reduced to nothing if you use an agency of some sort to manage for you. All Landlords and Shareholders did was have money to acquire assets to then make nearly free money off of.
And how did they aquire those assets? Usually by years of hard graft, scrimping and saving - having a plan to make an income from it, along with all the hassle it can bring from difficult tenants who move in and move out, leaving their imprint on every tenancy. If all landlords sold up, the rental market would collapse. We need to stop this selfish spite or it will backfire
...plus if they do go with an agency, it usually means the house gets ruined over time and they have to pay a fortune in repairs. I have two family members this has happened to, and know many others who have had the same experience. Student politics like this will make people homeless
@@DilbertWhitehead Usually they get the money to buy a house through inheritance or help from family. No one i know has bought a house through hard graft. And if you do manage to get one house through hard graft, why would you do that all again for a second? For easy money. Landlords can put the rent up to cover their rising costs, however i have never known of a landlord reducing the rent when their costs ease up.
@@cycleinthesun 😂 and how many of the 2.82 million landlords do you know in the UK? As I said, student politics. It's the beginning of the end of this country as we know it
The fundamental problem is that we’re focusing on the employment status of the landlord rather than classifying the profits from renting a property as ‘unearned income’.
Yeah because that's what they do when criticised. They instinctively move the conversation away from the elephant in the room and start making lots of noise and whining and moaning and creating an argument. Either that or landlords don't understand economics, which is also a possibility because they do seem to be universally thick.
They don't provide housing. They buy up housing so other cant buy them and rent them out for profits. The vast majority of housing in the UK is council built.
That's not true though is it. The state can't provide everyone's housing needs, and if you can't afford to buy a home of your own, where do you turn? Landlords provide an essential service - ticket touts fleece people who are buying non-essential items. It's a really poor analogy.
@@adamnutley600the only meaningful distinction you've raised is essential vs non-essential goods - landlords don't provide housing, just as ticket touts don't provide entertainment
@@olb3587 If a landlord withdrew their property from the rental market, that's one less unit of accommodation that's available to renters. So yes, they do provide housing.
We were accidental landlords for 12 months as we had to leave the town where we lived for employment purposes. No buyers at the time, even for less than we paid for it 5 years previously. We got an agent to do everything and only visited the place once in that 12 months. ie we did nothing to get that income. My wife has a friend whos husband is a full time landlord who had a HMO and several flats. He puts in about 10 hours a week but does not have an agent. She and their daughters cant wait for him to die. He is a mean old man of 80 now who won't sell up on account of capital gains tax on gains that are way beyond inflation, ie free money
So you chose to leave the equity in your house in the rental market. As an alternative you could have used that equity to make money elsewhere. I don't understand your point. I assume like most grounded people you want to make best use of that equity and thought it best to leave it in your house. Until the market improved to a point when you can sell at a level you are happy with. And then like an honest citizen pay the CG tax on a property you haven't been living in. Raynor.
Many landlords work a proper job, so they are workers who also exploit workers. Many landlords however do not work a job and simply accrue wealth through investing in necessities, and is almost impossible to not duplicate your dollar. They are not working at all.
yeah rental properties suddenly appear on your balance sheet. Make the effort to buy one then 5 then 10 its a full time job researching arranging finance organising property managers managing the portfolio organising accounts re mortgaging re letting. If it was an easy job many more people would have more than just one investment property. Statistics confirm people stop at 1. Perhaps 2 or 3 would have to be earned with hard work???
CGT and corporation tax are far below income tax and therefore it is open to abuse on an industrial scale by the mega rich. For the past 30 years an individual could have purchased a property and used the rent generated to solely pay the mortage and other fees incurred. All profits on the increase in value would have then been subject to CGT when the asset was cristalized(sold). CGT is currently way below the top level of income tax and I believe it should be far closer to the top rate of 45% than it currently is. I was a landlord for awhile and I made a 100k profit on the house and paid 1.5k in tax on that in capital gains tax. Very complicated situation because it was at times my primary residence and also my personal allowance was used to limit the tax as well. It did take me approx an hour a week to look after the tennant and my property , it is not a job unless you are looking after multiple properties and then it can become one. The right wing machine do not like the fact that James is right. An individual should pay more tax on increases in value of assets than they do from an actual job but that is not currently the situation.
If you only paid 1.5k on a 100 k gain. Then the property would need to be your primary Residence for nearly the entire time that you owned the property. If it wasn’t then you didn’t pay enough cgt
It sounds like your CG tax was worked out on a very short period when your main residence was a second property. CG tax doesn't take into account inflation. It works on an asset being worth the same in todays terms as it was years ago. If I bought something for £100 10 years ago then with inflation that would now cost about £135. If I sell for £150 I am taxed on £50. But in real terms I haven't actually made £50. I have made £15 but paying tax on £50 so with these figures I have about broken even. But had a lot of hassle for 10 years.
a landlord is not a worker , a landlord can sell their asset. working people don't have any choice but to work to survive from one pay check to the other - if there lucky they may be able to save something to pay the electricity bill or eat something
The gap between those that have and have not is getting so distorted. I have a friend that has never worked a day in his life, mommy and daddy money, says he works hard, at his computer 1 hour a day? on stockes and bonds. He's very serious, we laugh at him, but he doesn't see the irony. There's the problem, they believe making money is hard work. For the rest of us money is what we get for hard work.
I have a friend who owns several properties with commercial stores and flats. He complained that his property insurance had gone up. He hasn't raised rents in 10 years. I asked why there were no increases, and he responded that he had great tenants, and it was worth the price of not dealing with tenant indigestion. He inherited the properties and works in the season selling fruits and vegetables so he an can socialize.
I can recommend "Who Owns England?" by Guy Shrubsole which explains about who owns the land, who makes the laws that govern the people who own the land (clue: for a long time, the Venn diagram was a circle) and I'm hoping he's about to get to the bit about what we can do instead
I think its wrong to put all landlords in the same basket. If you own 1 property that you rent out due to a change in circumstances, chances are, you work a full time job, own the property in your own name and pay 40% income tax on the rental income. These landlords imo would have more empathy for thier tenants as well. But if you own 40 properties as part of a business, only pay 20% corporation tax on the income and systematically put the rent up by 5-8% every year spening minimal amount on maintenance, then you should be viewed and taxed differently in my very humble opinion.
As a soldier who has many assets: All income should be taxed at the same rate. No matter the source. Dividends should count as normal income. Capital Gains should count as normal income. Rent is income and should be treated as such. I should pay the same on my Dividends and capital gains as I do on my income.
Depends what kind of landlords, if you couldn't afford your mortgage with the hike in interest rates and have a property you couldn't sell when the market crashed and put someone in it to cover the bills while you move in with your parents to save money, probably. If you're someone who has 10 properties and rents them out without mortgages and doesn't work off it, that's difference. The latter will be the kind who put those properties in companies and get tax breaks. The former are who will be hit with tax hikes.
Exactly this. But most on here sadly don't differentiate. It's a race to the bottom now. The politics of envy doesn't discriminate & will demonise in general, whoever you are or however you've managed to be successful
As a landlord (in the US, just the one house, my first home we are renting out), I would say that just being a landlord isn't work. I don't consider my being a landlord as my work. (My work 7:30 - 4:30 five days a week in a cube is my work.) But, there is work involved in properly handling rental property. In our case, that work is done by a property management company and the contractors they hire. I pay for that to be done, directly to contractors or thru the percentage the property management company gets. It is work and it is paid for. It is stuff that need to be done. For some landlords, they do that themselves and that is work. In their case, they are doing work. So, there is work involved in property rental. But I don't think just being a landlord is work.
If someone builds a house then makes money from that house by renting it. How is that different from someone writing a book then earning money from the copyright?
If they are a builder and they actually built the house then the value of that property is the worked income. The renting out of that property for financial gain is not income from work, it is from ownership of assets and no different than dividends from stocks and shares.
Very few people will build a house purely by their individual efforts. Even if they do that a large part of the value will be in materials they buy in. And especially in cities a much larger part of the value of the house will be ownership of the land it sits on. None of that applies to a book.
@@barneylaurance1865 a large part of the value of James’s book is his prime location on LBC - his celebrity. Not the actually content of the book. Plus there is almost no risk involved in writing a book. He didn’t put the money up for publishing it. Building a house involves substantial risks.
Starmers definition of a working person was ridiculous. Anyone who has enough savings to be able to write a check to solve a family problem isn't a working person? So a carpenter who has worked with their hands for x number of years and has some savings isn't a working person. Utterly ridiculous.
I'd say TWO.... One as a primary dwelling and one as a Rental OR Holiday Home..... WE'd eliminate the Smoke n Mirrors of "The Market" overnight and you'd VERY quickly have affordable housing available to most.
@Midland_Wolf_71 and where would the rental market go then in your grand plan? Everyone 'rents' off the already stretched councils who spend far too much time and money already maintaining these properties. The whole country will be a welfare state with these policies
I'd agree with this. Landlords with multiple properties are just land barons. But someone renting out a second home so renters can live somewhere is not to be looked down on - or taxed further to pay for all the effects of mass migration
@@DilbertWhitehead There would STILL be the same amount of property (hopefully more if Labour get moving as planned)... many in the rental market would simply be able to BUY as rentals hit the market at REALISTIC prices, thats the point!!!!!
Maybe this is mixing different problems. Tax is unfair, employment and "unearned" income like dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, etc should be taxed at the same rate. As a separate issue, should people be able to buy a car, bus, horse, trampoline, boat, caravan, plane, house, etc and rent it out? Is the problem more that housing is contentious in that most people would like to own a property, have to live somewhere and resent paying a landlord? Hiring a car, getting on a bus or staying in a hotel is seen differently despite the fact that the renter is paying towards the cost of the asset for the owner. Housing is more likely to appreciate but so do some other assets and a fairer tax on sale might lessen the resentment. Landlords are also blamed for rising house prices but the price is caused by a lack of supply that is greater than landlord owned property and many renters couldn't necessarily afford a mortgage and the cost to maintain property. There would need to be a lot of socal housing before getting rid of private landlords. If councils bought landlord property and rented it out at a price to cover costs and make a profit to be invested in more social housing would that be acceptable?
Sorry but landlords have had it easy for the last few years hoovering up property and letting the money roll in, while pushing up property prices and exploiting peoples need for a home. Now that gravy train is coming to an end they are whining because the money has stopped coming in.
I'm a landlord and I'm not whining, I'm selling up and investing elsewhere. But my tenants are whining because they can't get a social housing place and rents are still going up because the supply of houses for rental is going down.
@@forestsunset9617 that's a different issue and please don't try to justify this by saying you are providing a service where social housing is failing. Arguably landlords buying up properties and being part of the rise in house prices are a major part of the issue.
@@forestsunset9617 this is the important point they fail to realise. 'Yeah, get rid of all the greedy landlords!' ...oh, but 'now where is everyone going to live who can't get a massively overpriced and unreliable mortgage?'
A landlord, defined as a person who rents out property which they own, is not a worker by that definition. They are an investor. However, property managers (defined as someone who responds to tenant requests, maintains compliance with regulatory bodies, manages property maintainance and repair, etc) is a worker. Some landlords are also property managers, some hire that work out to others. If you are a landlord who does their own property management (or plumbing, electrical, cleaning, or other labor-requiring tasks), then you are a self-employed worker. But since it is possible to hire all required labor out and still make money as a landlord, landlords are not categorically workers.
like the royals owning most the country and the seabed. making money from those that we end up paying.. like the wind farms who pay fees to the royals, that then gets added to our bills
Taxes should be scaled by the number of units owned as well. The people who rent out one or two units are not the same, in my mind, as the people who rent out 200+ units. Easy way to differentiate "working" landlords from the landlord class.
Working class paying landlords mortgages for them . But yet the tenant can’t afford the deposit for the mortgage! House prices increase and the landlords capitalise. Honestly I couldn’t sleep at night taking advantage . Landlord is an investor,not a charity.
@@thegoodpimps No reason for anyone starve to death. Many food banks around. We might be going to the dogs as a Country but not starving to death yet .
The problem is it’s going to be a blanket policy, in other words anyone can be a landlord and own a second property and will have worked for it, but he will be treated the same as the landlord that inherited 20 properties through greed making it a business and I agree the business should be taxed, not the individual that worked his socks off to get a second property
They are in fact the same. With a heavy concentration of everyone seeing property as an asset that will only keep going up, new property must be limited to ensure property value and rent doesn't crash. They vote for people who ensure very little affordable housing is built continually for a reason.
The business of being a landlord can no longer include the interest on dept as an expense. No other business is taxed on its expenses. Many landlords are not making money and are working people.
@@amjidali588 oh I didn’t know that. No need for the hostility. You can correct without getting angry, it makes for smoother interactions 😉. You my friend sound stressed. And breathe….
Absolutely right, James. But the problem is that people seem to have forgotten what the actual meaning of capitalism is and believe it’s a system that rewards hard work. It isn’t - it’s a system that rewards the owners of capital through exploiting the hard work of others. As you say, this is why income tax is (much) higher than capital gains tax.
@@robbielad YOur assetts over the years would have paid minimal to no tax on unrealised gains. The only part of the chain that is paying tax is the rental income. Then the only part of that that is paying N.I is the element of the income that pays you personally. So you personally would be the worker the bit that pays you shouldnt have tax increases. BUt the unrealised gains on assetts and the business element should be taxed. Then if they are personal liabilites then you sell them after your retirement and then you skip N.I. all together! system is a joke
@beepbop9 I did work. In an ordinary job and paid tax. I still pay tax. I produce a Self Certificate and pay tax on the income from the rental. Why don't you try a "buy to let " for yourself. Find out how easy it is. And when you do you can cry on someone else's shoulder.
@@robbielad If you are just a person renting out a house and also claiming the rental income as personal income you likely wont seee a rise in taxation (other than tax allowances). I would think the main taxation change would be a) scrapping any tax allowances that currently exist (this will incrase your tax liabilty to the same rate as a normal working person) b) corproations that own multiple rental properties being taxed heavier
I’m a landlord… I have 2 apartments that I rent out. I’m 100% in favor of rising taxes on this profit. I’m well aware of the privilege I have. And that is why I don’t speculate about the rent, and I always pay my taxes and i cheerlead higher taxes. It’s the minimum One can do to share the privilege.
@@thegoodpimps the house I worked for I don’t give to charity unless it was in a revolutionary context. Would you do it? What I do is to rent it out way under the market value and way under what one would pay to the bank. Enough for me to be able to maintain it. I’m not even sure about a charity that would rent it out cheaper. What would you do yourself ?
@@jcc2725 i always spare a room for a homeless person, and a couch for a couch surfer. Inherited one house it’s been a revolving door of people. Charity is always rewarding, what form it the reward takes you never know that’s part of the fun.
I think it depends if the landlord is doing the maintenance and repair of the rental properties themselves. I have been a landlord for nearly 2 decades and for the first 14 years I did just that. And it was work. I worked as a plumber, an electrician, a landscaper, a carpenter, an accountant and anything else that needed to be done. And after a while, as I got older, it became too much work for me and I hired a property manager. After I hired a property manager then I would agree that I was no longer a "working person",
Shareholding and landlord incomes are parasitical and anyone exclusively receiving money from these means they are not working class. However, you need to be more specific when they work for a wage and receive their income from the shares or rent. You need to state what percentage of their total income is parasitical. The way forward is to explain to people the immorality and exploitative nature of the status of shareholders and landlords. Convince people of this aspect and exploitation generally. With structural economic changes making capitalism obsolete people would, over time, have a higher and different consciousness. This similar to the obsolescence of feudalism which now is considered immoral.
a drastic change is required that is for sure. We are at the late stage of capitalism, where people value money more than lives. a drastic change needs to be done, otherwise humanity won't really survive the next 2-3 decades
The principle of shareholding means you are receiving an income from someone else's labour without supplying any labour physical or mental of your own. You are not contributing to the increased values of the goods or services produced by converting them to a product of higher value when sold. Shareholding is therefore a parasitical activity. Rents from tenants are similarly achieved by not contributing anything. You are just able to extract a rent because of private property and not from the labour process.
In short: If your income only comes from others (who go to work) paying rent to live in your houses, you are not a 'working' person. You may have worked hard to buy the houses to rent out, but you yourself are no longer working if you're just relying on 'passive income' only from now on and don't have another job. To me there is a difference between money you 'earn' and money you 'receive' which just lands in your bank account.
The term for such workers, and there are millions, just needs a prefix or adjective to define. How about," pay check dependent worker" or "salaried reliant worker". The legacy client media know what is really meant, they are just been deliberately obstructive.
A working person is someone who works and earns an income that is less than the top rate of tax. It's simple to me. They should have just said "working class". If losing a month of pay would put you in serious risk of losing your housing, or if you have savings less than a week's pay, or if losing a washing machine becomes a serious question of "can I pay to correct this", or if you ever have to ask "can I order a takeaway on a Friday night" and the answer is not an instant, unequivocal "yes" EVERY SINGLE TIME without thinking about it - you're not "working class". Also, if someone buys those properties off of Derek in Denmark and then just gets an estate manager to deal with maintenance, you've moved from "a worker" to "not a worker".
Let's break this down correctly. "Working people" broadly refers to anyone who is employed, regardless of job type, income, or social status, and includes both manual and non-manual workers. On the other hand, the working class traditionally refers to those employed in manual labor or industrial jobs, often characterized by lower income and limited job security. It is a socio-economic term that carries cultural and historical significance related to labour movements and class structure in society. Owning assets is not a defining factor in distinguishing between "working people" and "working class." The terms are primarily based on the type of employment and socio-economic roles rather than asset ownership. The working class typically refers to manual or industrial workers, whereas working people can include anyone employed, regardless of their wealth or assets. Reality is Starmer and this Labour Party are full of morons.
The suggestion is that landlords can only be landlords 😂 I know 2 people that are landlords and both have full time jobs... property investment is done by all sections of society
That’s not the suggestion though is it. They get income from their jobs, they are workers. Being a landlord is not work, especially the thousands of slum landlords and rental profiteers across the nation. The money they get from rental income is not earned, how is that hard to understand?
So anyone who has a rental business including Office and Workshops, holiday resorts, caravan parks, camping grounds, Hotels, Motels, Bed & Breakfast, Inns and Taverns, Car/Van rentals, Boats, Barges and equipment etc, etc do not work.
I dont even own a door handle, and I'm 49 yrs old. As an imigrant living here for about 20 yrs now....I still don't have enough money to even get ONTO the property ladder, let alone have the ability to pay mortage. It's flatshare for me probably for the rest of my life unfortunately, I fear.
I tried getting on to LBC. I work as an estate agent, where I do the same level of work in my work life as I do as a private landlord. One is regarded as work and the other isn’t! James?
Landlords are definitely NOT Working class or Working people. As you rightly said, James, is that as a Landlord you enjoy the rewards of the asset that you own/you inherited, without putting in any real work. This is money accrued from a immovable asset. Its surprising that people who claim that they dont understand this, should be taxed twice as high, for being so dogmatic and thick!!
I am a landlord and retired. I receive a small pension and a small income from rental income, from my previous business premises. I do not earn either income as i am not a worker! I get taxed on both income streams. The income i receive from rental income is a lot more unreliable and subject to a lot risk. This is not residential property and the rent hasnt increased in 6 years. I would be a lot better off if i had continued working in the public sector and not bothered running a retail business. Dont assume landlords are all privileged and wealthy people. Real wealth lies with those with large final salary and career average pensions, in some cases worth millions, with zero risk and responsibility.
If landlords have another job, then sure - in which case, their income from their work is not due for tax rises, according to the government. If their "job" is landlord - no. They're an asset owner, and an extractative one at that.
Yes, what the government are saying is that landlords income from rental properties will see an increase in taxes. If they have another job as well then they won't see any tax or NI rise on that portion of their income. That seems fair to me
In no way, shape or form are landlords working people (unless they have a proper job as well). Currently, they have 0 obligation to have any knowledge or understanding of what a safe and modernly functional dwelling should consist of and how to maintain it. They hire people to do that for them. Working people not only need to have skills but also need to stay up to date with the latest knowledge and developments in the area of work. My landlord needed days of discussion and reasoning just to get them to understand that we cannot get copper wire internet anymore because our street was fiber enabled. All because he didnt want any drilling done to the building. Madness.
I dont understand? Isnt rental income already taxed ? If your annual yield exceeds 12 k then you are automatically taxed anyway. Is she saying that she will tax anyone earning anything at all from a rental property? How can anyone live off a yield of £600 prr month !? Wouldn't taxing them at 20% force them to claim benefits out of impoverishment ? I agree that someone raking in 8k a month from a flat in London should be taxed. But wouldn't they be anyway ?
Nope not workers, the are investors. I actually don't have a problem with landlords they are providing a service, most only earn a few property. I think the problems are the large companies owning 50,000 property's. I really don't know why so many people complain about a "mum & Dad" landlords when there are companys that own thousands. these companies are much more of a problem.
Renting property isn't a business. It's making money from your own assets but it's not the same as providing jobs, providing a product others can buy from you and own.
BuT it's a service! they let you live in a land they bought! We need landlords for housing to exist, because if there was no landlords renting, then people would actually need to buy their own homes at affordable prices!! that would be inhumane.
@@zloyboy8I'm not saying they shouldn't exist but it's not a proper businessman. We don't need landlords for housing to exist. If we had cheaper houses which didn't require a huge deposit but proof of prior rent for 2 years everyone could get a house. There'd be a waiting list while building them, but we could create hundreds of thousands of new "owners" overnight We'd have to build lots of homes but should be doing that anyway
@@benstern310 nah, not a proper business. The reason the UK economy is in tatters is because people have been led to believe its a viable long term business. It's fine while people have money and the economy is strong, but this country doesn't make enough. Brexit crippled the best export we had, the financial sector, and the economy has stagnated since 2016. In the US real estate is a great option because the economy is doing well and any downs are shortlived. Rents cannot continue rising while wages remain stagnant
@@zloyboy8Rubbish! The housing exists already whether they're landlords or not. They are not providing a service. They have the financial means to purchase lots of properties so they lock out first time buyers & keep property prices high.
@@user-im2te2fg9y perhaps being a professional landlord is their job. I'll get most landlords will have one property bequeathed to them or a spare house when they move in with a partner. Professional landlords are a different proposition
Scenario, Two hard-working people, they both have their own home, they meet and decide to move in together, they. They then decide to put the spare house up for rent, allowing others to have a place to live. Are you suddenly going to define that couple as none working? For providing housing to others.? They still work, they still have bills they merely made their asset available to others, and you want to punish them for that? Would you prefer they sat on it, and not allowed anyone to live there just an empty shell?
They’re still working people, so it’s not about punishing them. Owning rental property is managing an asset, and like any investment, it comes with market risks. Most landlords pass rising costs onto renters, which drives up the rental market anyway. They could have sold the extra house and invested in something else but chose to stay in the rental market. Costs change in any business-that’s just part of owning an asset.
If they cared about allowing someone else a place to live, they should sell up. If they are only keeping onto it to extract a living, they should pay tax on it
I think if you're JUST a landlord, no. You're not a worker. You make money from assets, which I think should be taxed more heavily. However, some workers are also small-time landlords, myself included. I'm a self-employed joiner and work around 50 hours a week. I think the money I make from working should be taxed much less, and the money I get from owning an asset should be taxed much more..
Landlords they don’t even work for their money they just wait outside your post office or bank just stalking you. Always saying “got my money got my money got my money got my money like a zombie drug dealer
I love the clarity you bring to the topics you choose to pick up. But I'm surprised the quite obvious difference between unearned income (rents in all forms) and earned income (work done) is such a new revelation to you. I think you just wanted to make a dramatic emphasis in your presentation
My landlord owns 7 properties and cleans the gutters, does all the maintenance and has even vacumed my carpets now and again. I consider him a full time landlord and i know he worked hard and works hard maintaining all 7 properties.
If somebody gave me £500k today, I'd be a multi millionaire by 2034. Landlording is just real life monopoly, there's no skill to it. There may have been skill in their previous jobs to amass the capital to becoming landlords, but once they do become landlords they hand it all to property managers and literally just collect the money. I don't see them as working people once their sole income is from rent. But having said that, if you are at a point in life where you can just make money like that then fine, I wouldn't restrict these people.
Being a landlord is passive income. Many landlords use a lettings agency / management company who take care of rental income & any property maintenance. The landlord just sits back & lets the money roll in.
I’m glad it’s coming to the forefront now, so those 60 and 70 year old landlords who have benefitted so much off hard working people should be crippled now. I don’t know landlord who lives in a property remotely as shabby as the properties they let out.
No one talking about the landowners (because they are kings and lords) who do even less. But let's complain about someone who is making a 4%-5% return on the money he invested in a property. Rich people pitting poor against the middle class again to avoid being in the spotlight. When is labour going to tax the king (speaking of which, has he paid his inheritance tax yet)?
Making money from owning assets is by definition not working class
It's not even middle class. It's upper class
Does that include private pensions.
I am very much working class, I simply learned about money/why it's needed/how it's created and a basic understanding of the financial system, I risked some of my work tokens (£'s) on things I believed would be worth more in the future or things that would at least hold their purchasing power, obviously holding pounds is a very bad idea, how do you squirrel away purchasing power for the future if the government just takes huge pieces of it? Are we being incentivised to just think in the short term? I've already paid tax on the money I used to buy assets and there was absolutely no guarantee they would increase in value, if I'd lost could I get a reimbursement from the tax payer too?
You have a pension, that's an asset.
You care to apply the same logic there?
@@drbennyboombatz9195Still wrong, that’s called a delayed investment “Dr”
Finally came round to the realisation our tax system is inherently unfair 👏👏👏
Deffo. Even though everyone costs the same to look after the people with more money have to pay more. It's s joke. Poor people still cost money to look after. Their tax requirements should be increased and rich people's should be lowered, rich people should have to subsidise others. It's not very equal having to pay more just because you earn more
@@PLl-jr8xiexcept you clearly don’t understand our tax system because those who earn more relatively don’t pay more tax.
It's definitely not fair when inflation sky rockets and they freeze tax thresholds. Now your money is worth less and we're going to take more of it. Shouldn't be legal.
@@arghjayem Mostly because the govt encourages the intelligent side of society to save by offering tax-free savings wrappers like ISAs and pensions. It's better than encouraging people to spend everything they have like idiots, because the govt has to look after them when they retire.
Just rich people not wanting to pay more tax, all of this fuss of private schools, inheritance tax, landlords, shareholders etc. is just a rich people owned media complaining about rich people having to pay more tax that they should be paying. There is no 'controversy' and this will not impact like 95% of the country.
Someone thinks they live in a democracy
You pay disproportionately a lot more tax earning £100k/year than someone earning £30k/year.
@@lewis72 That's called progressive taxation.
@@lewis72And so you should.
@@stephenjon3502
They do, so why the complaints from the Leftys that they're not paying more tax ?
I dont sympathise with them, i sympathise with myself because they are going to raise rents again to compensate...
How do they do that when their tenants can't afford to pay rent increases, but their mortgages have increased
@@SkulldugerySmiles since when did landlords care if tenants can afford rent increases or not? Maybe landlords can pay their own mortgages for once. They're the ones that "took a risk" after all, and it's not exactly a risk if you can't lose money on it. Rents should go down and landlords should be left paying their increased mortgages and thinking about their own actions for a change instead of making excuses and blaming everyone else.
I was just wondering would it be the opposite to avoid paying taxes? One can hope
@@BrianFace182 think sensibly for a second. A landlord has a tenant who is making ends meet. Why would they raise their rent to an unaffordable level. It would be pointless as they couldn't pay it. The tenant leaves, the landlord has to pay expenses and has a void, the increase in rent takes years to compensate for the void period. It's simple maths and common sense for a landlord to take care of their tenant.
@@SkulldugerySmiles It's called "demand" FFS....!
There aren't enough properties for rent. Why? Because the govt keeps demonising landlords.
Landlords sell up and stop renting. Less properties available. Higher demand, therefore higher prices.
The last decade of landlord-bashing has only made the ones who dared to keep going much better off!
Why are so many people totally illiterate when it comes to finances...!?
No. They are the vampires of working people.
🙄
Jealous cos you are all renting and poor
Vampires is a bit strong but the UK housing market is definitely broken, less private rental and more properties to buy would help to go some way to fixing this.
don’t blame others for your failings
@@st200ol Its not strong, its accurately descriptive: Leeching off others without providing anything meaningful.
My ex is the carer for her 96 year old mother, so cannot work. She has moved in with her mother and rents out her own house. Technically she is a landlord, yet she is financially on the edge.
It is wrong to confuse small renters with rentier capitalist.
I find rentier capitalism distasteful, and would be delighted to shift the balance away from it, but care is required.
Agreed!
Yes so what you're saying is as a landlord she isn't working but she does look after her mum as a carer... So landlords aren't working
@@andyisabeast7782you think being a carer isn't working? Do you know what a carer does? Have you seen what they expect a carer to live on? This scenario is me. I work thank you. Everything single day. There is no one else when I get sick. There is no sick pay. There is no holiday pay. Pay into my pension?! I forget what year I was last able to do that!
When my mother passes which I hope is many years from now, I will have nothing but the home I used to live in.
You're disproving your own point that your ex is different, being a fulltime carer is an actual job - it is fulltime job and you would struggle to hold down another job doing it - but your ex is able to be a landlord at the same time.
Your ex does not own two properties, but the family collectively owns two properties, which is ahead of many people who do not even own their home yet.
Your ex and her mother has the privilege of holding two properties, let me be clear, they are able to choose to keep two properties in their ownership. That is a privileged position.
@@ItsDeffoScott This is a weird comment. So if an adult child and a 96 year old mother have two properties that's a privileged position because there's 2 properties in the family? By that definition any nuclear family unit where a parent with 3 kids has them grow up and buy their own properties is privileged to be a family holding 4 properties?
Near me a school was knocked down and 40 houses were built on the site ,
very small houses and put up for sale ,when i passed the next day
every one had a FOR RENT SIGN UP OUTSIDE .
Is this why the young cannot buy a house ???????.
Yes
@@ifeyhome A large pub was renovated near me and 9 flats were created.
All put up for sale, sold and then rented out by people who are already on the property ladder.
The flat that I lived in (across the road) is owned by a 70+ year old lady who also owns 80+ other properties in this area.
And yes, she was still getting a winter fuel allowance.
No - these houses would have been available to buy for anyone.. maybe the developer (a corporation) had prices too high.
I 100% agree. If you're making money from what you own, such as by renting out houses, you're not working while you're doing that. I see no reason why there should be any difference between unearned income and earned income when it comes to income tax.
But wouldn't this increase rents because of all of the buy to lets? They should totally be taxed for all income whether they work for it or not, but I'm worried the burden will still get shafted onto the poor.
@@CandyKoRn That's why we also need rent controls, which were abolished by the Tories some decades ago.
@@jerry2357 and then what happens if landlords sell up ? do Labour and councils go and buy up all the houses so they can rent to "working people" ?
If landlords want to be seen as ‘working people,’ then income from rental properties should be taxed as earned income-just like wages and business profits. Sole business owners, who are clearly ‘working people,’ pay National Insurance and income tax on their profits without all the extra deductions landlords get. Right now, rental income is treated as unearned, giving landlords favourable tax breaks that regular workers and business owners don’t get. If they want the label, they should take on the same tax responsibilities!
i run a garage ,have done for 30 years ,work long hard hours ,not many hols ,very stressful , also built up a small property portfolio through my own hard work ,have had some absolutely awful tenants ,most are fine , its not easy money . I work far harder than you average working person !!!!!!!!!!
The income I get from the house i rent out is taxed (less expenses) like any other business income
Are you saying rental income is not taxed ? Do you even know what you’re talking about ?
@@stogmot1absolutely, I’ve worked 7 days a week for most of my working life , saved hard , gone without , arguments with the other half because I barely gave her enough to pay the bills until we saved .
Saved hard and slowly started to buy properties , and chip away at our own mortgage, I came from nothing and had nothing , if you want something in life get out and earn it , absolute load of b…..s that young people now can’t get on the housing ladder
@@stevelevick8705 I think what he is saying is that rental income (unless you are a limited company trading solely as a property rental business) is considered by the tax people as an investment (and therefore NOT earned), not as normal earned income - it is confusing 🙄 i just asked the wife (shes x-inland revenue) and she explained it. 😁
Making money from assets you own is by definition, returns on investment. A world away from being paid for labour or services rendered. Working class people don't have investment portfolios. Landlords are called landLORDs for a reason.
You do realise that some people choose to waste there money and others choose to put in hard work over their lifetimes to acquire these assets. EG properties stocks and shares. If you've put in this hard work and acquired these you have every right to reap the benefits from them. Stop feeling sorry for your self. Stop wasting your money buy investments not liabilities...
@@shadowz7356lol...look up the Duke of Westminster!
@@shadowz7356 Sounds like owning-class propaganda to me
@@shadowz7356 you do realise many people can barely afford to get by day-to-day and don't have the spare cash to invest in anything? Blaming poor people for not investing is like blaming wheelchair users for not using their legs. It's a facetious argument.
@@marmite8959 what's the evidence? I'm 22 with £60,000 to my name £30,000 invested and £30,000 I put to a deposit on a house. What's your excuse?
Borrow money from the bank. Get your loan paid off by someone else and make a profit and get an increasing asset and then use that asset to repeat the process multiple times. It's a scummy way to make money
oh yeah ,its just that easy . so simplistic ,you must be a worker
@@stogmot1Yep there is no other investment so lucrative and that is obvious otherwise people wouldn't do it.
Get a tenant who doesnt pay rent for 6 months and see how you fair
@@amjidali588 kinda proves my point. None of these landlords OWN their properties so cry when rent isn't paid because guess what they have to pay the loan
It's called be8ng clever
If you want a fair economy and society, tax the rich with the same rate we tax the poor.
I don't think ypu should be allowed to rent out a property if out has a mortgage on it
I get what you mean, but all this would mean is only the very wealthy would be able to afford to be landlords, as they would be the only ones to outright own their property.
@@JohnSmith-vg6hbnothing wrong with that.
@JohnSmith-vg6hb except mainly they don't. Investors buy swathes of properties on credit for lettings.
@@Tinar55 this is exactly it. It would allow a lot more stability in the market. I find it a bit maddening that so many people are acting like making these kind of moves to filter the landlords with the least value-add out of the marketplace, is somehow going to collapse everything. At worst it will slightly cool price rises, whilst nickle and dime 'passive income' investors are replaced by professional companies that have a more secure long term approach to financing and maintenance...
@trevfindley and maybe some social housing then we dont need so many private rentals . The dwp are paying people mortgages via the private rental market.
Agreed, but what about people who put off a new car and holidays for many year to get a deposit to buy themselves a retirement nest egg? Are they the greedy landowning class or more careful with their money? I am fine to be taxed on the income from my property and taxed on the sale of it when I sell it. All that is normal. But to put me in the rentier class along with the Duke of Westminster et al is a misunderstanding of how the small man finds his way to a comfortable retirement.
I agree to a point, but you have to consider that those purchases are heavily taxed, too. It also puts money back into the economy and drives economic growth.
Those people will continue to work into old age and will provide the country with more taxable income.
I dont get it if during a shortage I bought up all the food or medicine then sold it on at massively inflated price I'd be crucified
But do the same with housing and the government cant stop singing your praises
Because it has a direct profit to their pockets.
Most people, wouldn't do something that does them harm intentionally.
Try.. It yourself
O’Brien has never done a days work in his life. Irony is something he simply doesn’t understand. Get rid.
The "Job" has lord in it... absolutely not
so whats an assett manager is that a job!?
No. It requires maybe an hour of work a week. That is then reduced to nothing if you use an agency of some sort to manage for you. All Landlords and Shareholders did was have money to acquire assets to then make nearly free money off of.
And how did they aquire those assets? Usually by years of hard graft, scrimping and saving - having a plan to make an income from it, along with all the hassle it can bring from difficult tenants who move in and move out, leaving their imprint on every tenancy. If all landlords sold up, the rental market would collapse. We need to stop this selfish spite or it will backfire
...plus if they do go with an agency, it usually means the house gets ruined over time and they have to pay a fortune in repairs. I have two family members this has happened to, and know many others who have had the same experience. Student politics like this will make people homeless
@@DilbertWhiteheadno they didn’t 😂
@@DilbertWhitehead Usually they get the money to buy a house through inheritance or help from family. No one i know has bought a house through hard graft. And if you do manage to get one house through hard graft, why would you do that all again for a second? For easy money.
Landlords can put the rent up to cover their rising costs, however i have never known of a landlord reducing the rent when their costs ease up.
@@cycleinthesun 😂 and how many of the 2.82 million landlords do you know in the UK? As I said, student politics. It's the beginning of the end of this country as we know it
The fundamental problem is that we’re focusing on the employment status of the landlord rather than classifying the profits from renting a property as ‘unearned income’.
Yeah because that's what they do when criticised. They instinctively move the conversation away from the elephant in the room and start making lots of noise and whining and moaning and creating an argument. Either that or landlords don't understand economics, which is also a possibility because they do seem to be universally thick.
Landlords provide housing in the same way ticket touts provide entertainment
They don't provide housing.
They buy up housing so other cant buy them and rent them out for profits.
The vast majority of housing in the UK is council built.
That's not true though is it. The state can't provide everyone's housing needs, and if you can't afford to buy a home of your own, where do you turn? Landlords provide an essential service - ticket touts fleece people who are buying non-essential items. It's a really poor analogy.
@@adamnutley600the only meaningful distinction you've raised is essential vs non-essential goods - landlords don't provide housing, just as ticket touts don't provide entertainment
@@olb3587 If a landlord withdrew their property from the rental market, that's one less unit of accommodation that's available to renters. So yes, they do provide housing.
@adamnutley600 they sequester and scalp housing, they produced nothing
Landlords are working people the same way cats are mice. You are what you eat.
@@alexanderprice6612 oooft that's ironic
@@alexanderprice6612 Hows the job hunt going?
@@alexanderprice6612 Why aren't you working? I am but like most workers, I get a tea break
@@alexanderprice6612 🎣
@@alexanderprice6612The joys of working from home as a sole trader buddy.
We were accidental landlords for 12 months as we had to leave the town where we lived for employment purposes. No buyers at the time, even for less than we paid for it 5 years previously. We got an agent to do everything and only visited the place once in that 12 months. ie we did nothing to get that income. My wife has a friend whos husband is a full time landlord who had a HMO and several flats. He puts in about 10 hours a week but does not have an agent. She and their daughters cant wait for him to die. He is a mean old man of 80 now who won't sell up on account of capital gains tax on gains that are way beyond inflation, ie free money
So you chose to leave the equity in your house in the rental market. As an alternative you could have used that equity to make money elsewhere. I don't understand your point. I assume like most grounded people you want to make best use of that equity and thought it best to leave it in your house. Until the market improved to a point when you can sell at a level you are happy with. And then like an honest citizen pay the CG tax on a property you haven't been living in. Raynor.
Many landlords work a proper job, so they are workers who also exploit workers. Many landlords however do not work a job and simply accrue wealth through investing in necessities, and is almost impossible to not duplicate your dollar. They are not working at all.
yeah rental properties suddenly appear on your balance sheet. Make the effort to buy one then 5 then 10 its a full time job researching arranging finance organising property managers managing the portfolio organising accounts re mortgaging re letting. If it was an easy job many more people would have more than just one investment property. Statistics confirm people stop at 1. Perhaps 2 or 3 would have to be earned with hard work???
CGT and corporation tax are far below income tax and therefore it is open to abuse on an industrial scale by the mega rich.
For the past 30 years an individual could have purchased a property and used the rent generated to solely pay the mortage and other fees incurred. All profits on the increase in value would have then been subject to CGT when the asset was cristalized(sold). CGT is currently way below the top level of income tax and I believe it should be far closer to the top rate of 45% than it currently is.
I was a landlord for awhile and I made a 100k profit on the house and paid 1.5k in tax on that in capital gains tax. Very complicated situation because it was at times my primary residence and also my personal allowance was used to limit the tax as well. It did take me approx an hour a week to look after the tennant and my property , it is not a job unless you are looking after multiple properties and then it can become one.
The right wing machine do not like the fact that James is right. An individual should pay more tax on increases in value of assets than they do from an actual job but that is not currently the situation.
If you only paid 1.5k on a 100 k gain. Then the property would need to be your primary Residence for nearly the entire time that you owned the property. If it wasn’t then you didn’t pay enough cgt
It sounds like your CG tax was worked out on a very short period when your main residence was a second property.
CG tax doesn't take into account inflation. It works on an asset being worth the same in todays terms as it was years ago. If I bought something for £100 10 years ago then with inflation that would now cost about £135. If I sell for £150 I am taxed on £50. But in real terms I haven't actually made £50. I have made £15 but paying tax on £50 so with these figures I have about broken even. But had a lot of hassle for 10 years.
@@LG-jn5fx not true. Cgt is paid on your tax band. First part 18% then 28& then at higher band.
a landlord is not a worker , a landlord can sell their asset. working people don't have any choice but to work to survive from one pay check to the other - if there lucky they may be able to save something to pay the electricity bill or eat something
Wow brilliant analysis,
The gap between those that have and have not is getting so distorted. I have a friend that has never worked a day in his life, mommy and daddy money, says he works hard, at his computer 1 hour a day? on stockes and bonds. He's very serious, we laugh at him, but he doesn't see the irony. There's the problem, they believe making money is hard work. For the rest of us money is what we get for hard work.
Landlords only pay income tax on rental earnings, no NICs, so they are not “working”. Workers pay NICs, that’s the definition
Simple question for landlords who have an actual job.
If you lost that job; despite the fact you own a rental property, would you then be unemployed?
One property owned per person. End the greed
tell that to the king.
I have a friend who owns several properties with commercial stores and flats. He complained that his property insurance had gone up. He hasn't raised rents in 10 years. I asked why there were no increases, and he responded that he had great tenants, and it was worth the price of not dealing with tenant indigestion. He inherited the properties and works in the season selling fruits and vegetables so he an can socialize.
So you want to dictate peopes lives. Who made you dictator. Why shouldn't people live freely and buy what they want
@@unionjackjackson2706 tell that to the private housing associations.
So no property to rent then……..you are a genius, sir.😂😂😂
The twisted logic of free money grubbers is sick.
I can recommend "Who Owns England?" by Guy Shrubsole which explains about who owns the land, who makes the laws that govern the people who own the land (clue: for a long time, the Venn diagram was a circle) and I'm hoping he's about to get to the bit about what we can do instead
I think its wrong to put all landlords in the same basket.
If you own 1 property that you rent out due to a change in circumstances, chances are, you work a full time job, own the property in your own name and pay 40% income tax on the rental income. These landlords imo would have more empathy for thier tenants as well.
But if you own 40 properties as part of a business, only pay 20% corporation tax on the income and systematically put the rent up by 5-8% every year spening minimal amount on maintenance, then you should be viewed and taxed differently in my very humble opinion.
Well said, better than I could put it.
Maybe Starmer was thinking about his mate Jas Athwal MP when he said landlords are not working people........eh James ?
As a soldier who has many assets:
All income should be taxed at the same rate. No matter the source.
Dividends should count as normal income.
Capital Gains should count as normal income.
Rent is income and should be treated as such.
I should pay the same on my Dividends and capital gains as I do on my income.
Depends what kind of landlords, if you couldn't afford your mortgage with the hike in interest rates and have a property you couldn't sell when the market crashed and put someone in it to cover the bills while you move in with your parents to save money, probably.
If you're someone who has 10 properties and rents them out without mortgages and doesn't work off it, that's difference.
The latter will be the kind who put those properties in companies and get tax breaks. The former are who will be hit with tax hikes.
Exactly this. But most on here sadly don't differentiate. It's a race to the bottom now. The politics of envy doesn't discriminate & will demonise in general, whoever you are or however you've managed to be successful
@@DilbertWhitehead There's a reason MPs will target the former, and it's because most of them are the latter.
@@DilbertWhitehead pulled the "politics of envy card". You lose.
As a landlord (in the US, just the one house, my first home we are renting out), I would say that just being a landlord isn't work. I don't consider my being a landlord as my work. (My work 7:30 - 4:30 five days a week in a cube is my work.)
But, there is work involved in properly handling rental property.
In our case, that work is done by a property management company and the contractors they hire. I pay for that to be done, directly to contractors or thru the percentage the property management company gets. It is work and it is paid for. It is stuff that need to be done.
For some landlords, they do that themselves and that is work. In their case, they are doing work.
So, there is work involved in property rental.
But I don't think just being a landlord is work.
If someone builds a house then makes money from that house by renting it. How is that different from someone writing a book then earning money from the copyright?
Exactly! What about hotels? they're renting out rooms. These socialists just don't get it do they?
Don’t forgot though like JOB said , “it’s hard work writing a book” building a house is easy I suppose in his head,,🤣🙈🤦♂️🤷♂️😆
If they are a builder and they actually built the house then the value of that property is the worked income. The renting out of that property for financial gain is not income from work, it is from ownership of assets and no different than dividends from stocks and shares.
Very few people will build a house purely by their individual efforts. Even if they do that a large part of the value will be in materials they buy in. And especially in cities a much larger part of the value of the house will be ownership of the land it sits on. None of that applies to a book.
@@barneylaurance1865 a large part of the value of James’s book is his prime location on LBC - his celebrity. Not the actually content of the book. Plus there is almost no risk involved in writing a book. He didn’t put the money up for publishing it. Building a house involves substantial risks.
Starmers definition of a working person was ridiculous. Anyone who has enough savings to be able to write a check to solve a family problem isn't a working person? So a carpenter who has worked with their hands for x number of years and has some savings isn't a working person. Utterly ridiculous.
There should be a policy where you are not allowed to own more than 20 properties in the UK and only landlords pay council tax
I'd say TWO.... One as a primary dwelling and one as a Rental OR Holiday Home..... WE'd eliminate the Smoke n Mirrors of "The Market" overnight and you'd VERY quickly have affordable housing available to most.
@Midland_Wolf_71 and where would the rental market go then in your grand plan? Everyone 'rents' off the already stretched councils who spend far too much time and money already maintaining these properties. The whole country will be a welfare state with these policies
I'd agree with this. Landlords with multiple properties are just land barons. But someone renting out a second home so renters can live somewhere is not to be looked down on - or taxed further to pay for all the effects of mass migration
@@DilbertWhitehead There would STILL be the same amount of property (hopefully more if Labour get moving as planned)... many in the rental market would simply be able to BUY as rentals hit the market at REALISTIC prices, thats the point!!!!!
I'll happily pay my tenants' council tax.
Rent will go up accordingly.
Maybe this is mixing different problems. Tax is unfair, employment and "unearned" income like dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, etc should be taxed at the same rate.
As a separate issue, should people be able to buy a car, bus, horse, trampoline, boat, caravan, plane, house, etc and rent it out? Is the problem more that housing is contentious in that most people would like to own a property, have to live somewhere and resent paying a landlord? Hiring a car, getting on a bus or staying in a hotel is seen differently despite the fact that the renter is paying towards the cost of the asset for the owner. Housing is more likely to appreciate but so do some other assets and a fairer tax on sale might lessen the resentment.
Landlords are also blamed for rising house prices but the price is caused by a lack of supply that is greater than landlord owned property and many renters couldn't necessarily afford a mortgage and the cost to maintain property. There would need to be a lot of socal housing before getting rid of private landlords. If councils bought landlord property and rented it out at a price to cover costs and make a profit to be invested in more social housing would that be acceptable?
Sorry but landlords have had it easy for the last few years hoovering up property and letting the money roll in, while pushing up property prices and exploiting peoples need for a home. Now that gravy train is coming to an end they are whining because the money has stopped coming in.
I'm a landlord and I'm not whining, I'm selling up and investing elsewhere. But my tenants are whining because they can't get a social housing place and rents are still going up because the supply of houses for rental is going down.
@@forestsunset9617 that's a different issue and please don't try to justify this by saying you are providing a service where social housing is failing.
Arguably landlords buying up properties and being part of the rise in house prices are a major part of the issue.
@@forestsunset9617 this is the important point they fail to realise. 'Yeah, get rid of all the greedy landlords!' ...oh, but 'now where is everyone going to live who can't get a massively overpriced and unreliable mortgage?'
@@forestsunset9617
Your tenants are whining because they can’t afford your rent?
Hope you lose everything.
The vast majority of landlords only own a couple of properties.
A landlord, defined as a person who rents out property which they own, is not a worker by that definition. They are an investor.
However, property managers (defined as someone who responds to tenant requests, maintains compliance with regulatory bodies, manages property maintainance and repair, etc) is a worker. Some landlords are also property managers, some hire that work out to others. If you are a landlord who does their own property management (or plumbing, electrical, cleaning, or other labor-requiring tasks), then you are a self-employed worker. But since it is possible to hire all required labor out and still make money as a landlord, landlords are not categorically workers.
The tax system favours people who own things over people who do things. It’s the remnants of feudalism and the aristocracy.
like the royals owning most the country and the seabed.
making money from those that we end up paying.. like the wind farms who pay fees to the royals, that then gets added to our bills
Taxes should be scaled by the number of units owned as well. The people who rent out one or two units are not the same, in my mind, as the people who rent out 200+ units. Easy way to differentiate "working" landlords from the landlord class.
Working class paying landlords mortgages for them . But yet the tenant can’t afford the deposit for the mortgage! House prices increase and the landlords capitalise. Honestly I couldn’t sleep at night taking advantage . Landlord is an investor,not a charity.
Landlords take advantage of basic necessities. It’s no different than someone jacking up food prices while people starve to death in the street.
@@thegoodpimps No reason for anyone starve to death. Many food banks around. We might be going to the dogs as a Country but not starving to death yet .
@@nickjackson5534 i mentioned starvation as a simile… uk is the homeless capitol of europe.
The problem is it’s going to be a blanket policy, in other words anyone can be a landlord and own a second property and will have worked for it, but he will be treated the same as the landlord that inherited 20 properties through greed making it a business and I agree the business should be taxed, not the individual that worked his socks off to get a second property
They are in fact the same. With a heavy concentration of everyone seeing property as an asset that will only keep going up, new property must be limited to ensure property value and rent doesn't crash. They vote for people who ensure very little affordable housing is built continually for a reason.
The business of being a landlord can no longer include the interest on dept as an expense. No other business is taxed on its expenses. Many landlords are not making money and are working people.
The money earned from renting houses is income, income should be taxed at the same rate as income for working
@@dottyp137it is taxed at the same rate, what are you talking about?
@@amjidali588 oh I didn’t know that.
No need for the hostility. You can correct without getting angry, it makes for smoother interactions 😉. You my friend sound stressed. And breathe….
Absolutely right, James. But the problem is that people seem to have forgotten what the actual meaning of capitalism is and believe it’s a system that rewards hard work. It isn’t - it’s a system that rewards the owners of capital through exploiting the hard work of others. As you say, this is why income tax is (much) higher than capital gains tax.
Make landlords pay national insurance
I'm a landlord. I'm now retired. I paid N.I. for 48 years.
What's your point?
@@robbielad YOur assetts over the years would have paid minimal to no tax on unrealised gains. The only part of the chain that is paying tax is the rental income. Then the only part of that that is paying N.I is the element of the income that pays you personally. So you personally would be the worker the bit that pays you shouldnt have tax increases. BUt the unrealised gains on assetts and the business element should be taxed.
Then if they are personal liabilites then you sell them after your retirement and then you skip N.I. all together! system is a joke
@beepbop9 I did work. In an ordinary job and paid tax. I still pay tax. I produce a Self Certificate and pay tax on the income from the rental.
Why don't you try a "buy to let " for yourself. Find out how easy it is. And when you do you can cry on someone else's shoulder.
@@robbielad If you are just a person renting out a house and also claiming the rental income as personal income you likely wont seee a rise in taxation (other than tax allowances). I would think the main taxation change would be a) scrapping any tax allowances that currently exist (this will incrase your tax liabilty to the same rate as a normal working person) b) corproations that own multiple rental properties being taxed heavier
I’m a landlord… I have 2 apartments that I rent out. I’m 100% in favor of rising taxes on this profit. I’m well aware of the privilege I have. And that is why I don’t speculate about the rent, and I always pay my taxes and i cheerlead higher taxes.
It’s the minimum One can do to share the privilege.
You could just give to charity… you don’t need government permission to spread the prosperity.
@@thegoodpimps the house I worked for I don’t give to charity unless it was in a revolutionary context.
Would you do it?
What I do is to rent it out way under the market value and way under what one would pay to the bank. Enough for me to be able to maintain it.
I’m not even sure about a charity that would rent it out cheaper.
What would you do yourself ?
@@jcc2725 i always spare a room for a homeless person, and a couch for a couch surfer. Inherited one house it’s been a revolving door of people. Charity is always rewarding, what form it the reward takes you never know that’s part of the fun.
@@thegoodpimps 👏👏
I’d argue we don’t have normal people and definitely still have sociopaths in power
I think it depends if the landlord is doing the maintenance and repair of the rental properties themselves. I have been a landlord for nearly 2 decades and for the first 14 years I did just that. And it was work. I worked as a plumber, an electrician, a landscaper, a carpenter, an accountant and anything else that needed to be done. And after a while, as I got older, it became too much work for me and I hired a property manager. After I hired a property manager then I would agree that I was no longer a "working person",
Money for nothing and your check’s for free… 🤑
You can't build social housing if everyone's trying to play the same game. There's too many special interest groups to make housing affordable
Shareholding and landlord incomes are parasitical and anyone exclusively receiving money from these means they are not working class. However, you need to be more specific when they work for a wage and receive their income from the shares or rent. You need to state what percentage of their total income is parasitical.
The way forward is to explain to people the immorality and exploitative nature of the status of shareholders and landlords. Convince people of this aspect and exploitation generally. With structural economic changes making capitalism obsolete people would, over time, have a higher and different consciousness. This similar to the obsolescence of feudalism which now is considered immoral.
a drastic change is required that is for sure.
We are at the late stage of capitalism, where people value money more than lives.
a drastic change needs to be done, otherwise humanity won't really survive the next 2-3 decades
Parasitical? How?
The principle of shareholding means you are receiving an income from someone else's labour without supplying any labour physical or mental of your own. You are not contributing to the increased values of the goods or services produced by converting them to a product of higher value when sold. Shareholding is therefore a parasitical activity.
Rents from tenants are similarly achieved by not contributing anything. You are just able to extract a rent because of private property and not from the labour process.
In short: If your income only comes from others (who go to work) paying rent to live in your houses, you are not a 'working' person. You may have worked hard to buy the houses to rent out, but you yourself are no longer working if you're just relying on 'passive income' only from now on and don't have another job. To me there is a difference between money you 'earn' and money you 'receive' which just lands in your bank account.
The term for such workers, and there are millions, just needs a prefix or adjective to define. How about," pay check dependent worker" or "salaried reliant worker". The legacy client media know what is really meant, they are just been deliberately obstructive.
You mean "The workers that make their employer or shareholders rich"?
and do you have another way of doing economics that would work everywhere in the world??
A working person is someone who works and earns an income that is less than the top rate of tax.
It's simple to me. They should have just said "working class".
If losing a month of pay would put you in serious risk of losing your housing, or if you have savings less than a week's pay, or if losing a washing machine becomes a serious question of "can I pay to correct this", or if you ever have to ask "can I order a takeaway on a Friday night" and the answer is not an instant, unequivocal "yes" EVERY SINGLE TIME without thinking about it - you're not "working class".
Also, if someone buys those properties off of Derek in Denmark and then just gets an estate manager to deal with maintenance, you've moved from "a worker" to "not a worker".
Let's break this down correctly. "Working people" broadly refers to anyone who is employed, regardless of job type, income, or social status, and includes both manual and non-manual workers.
On the other hand, the working class traditionally refers to those employed in manual labor or industrial jobs, often characterized by lower income and limited job security. It is a socio-economic term that carries cultural and historical significance related to labour movements and class structure in society. Owning assets is not a defining factor in distinguishing between "working people" and "working class." The terms are primarily based on the type of employment and socio-economic roles rather than asset ownership. The working class typically refers to manual or industrial workers, whereas working people can include anyone employed, regardless of their wealth or assets. Reality is Starmer and this Labour Party are full of morons.
"regardless of job type"
Being a monarch is a "job". Do you think kings are working class or nah?
Shocking admission that the penny only just dropped ...!!!
The suggestion is that landlords can only be landlords 😂 I know 2 people that are landlords and both have full time jobs... property investment is done by all sections of society
Mate can you stop being logical and correct. The left wing James O'Brien fans don't understand
So they'll get a slight tax rise on their part time landlord job...what's your problem again?
That’s not the suggestion though is it. They get income from their jobs, they are workers. Being a landlord is not work, especially the thousands of slum landlords and rental profiteers across the nation. The money they get from rental income is not earned, how is that hard to understand?
Anyone who has the luxury of owning assets like property and/or land that generate passive income, is not a working person by any definition.
So anyone who has a rental business including Office and Workshops, holiday resorts, caravan parks, camping grounds, Hotels, Motels, Bed & Breakfast, Inns and Taverns, Car/Van rentals, Boats, Barges and equipment etc, etc do not work.
Nothing will change for the better as an awful lot of MPs are landlords
MPs and those who help them get into office.
I dont even own a door handle, and I'm 49 yrs old. As an imigrant living here for about 20 yrs now....I still don't have enough money to even get ONTO the property ladder, let alone have the ability to pay mortage. It's flatshare for me probably for the rest of my life unfortunately, I fear.
Really? Do you live in London?
@@ifeyhome
‘Fraid so. Expensive here. A lot of people have a massive leg up by inheriting their family’s properties.
Wish I had that advantage.
Starmers a waste of space
I tried getting on to LBC. I work as an estate agent, where I do the same level of work in my work life as I do as a private landlord. One is regarded as work and the other isn’t!
James?
Landlords are definitely NOT Working class or Working people. As you rightly said, James, is that as a Landlord you enjoy the rewards of the asset that you own/you inherited, without putting in any real work. This is money accrued from a immovable asset. Its surprising that people who claim that they dont understand this, should be taxed twice as high, for being so dogmatic and thick!!
LBC havent been reporting on governemnt nearly as much since labour got in. Think there arent enough positives
I am a landlord and retired. I receive a small pension and a small income from rental income, from my previous business premises. I do not earn either income as i am not a worker! I get taxed on both income streams. The income i receive from rental income is a lot more unreliable and subject to a lot risk. This is not residential property and the rent hasnt increased in 6 years. I would be a lot better off if i had continued working in the public sector and not bothered running a retail business. Dont assume landlords are all privileged and wealthy people. Real wealth lies with those with large final salary and career average pensions, in some cases worth millions, with zero risk and responsibility.
If landlords have another job, then sure - in which case, their income from their work is not due for tax rises, according to the government.
If their "job" is landlord - no. They're an asset owner, and an extractative one at that.
Yes, what the government are saying is that landlords income from rental properties will see an increase in taxes. If they have another job as well then they won't see any tax or NI rise on that portion of their income. That seems fair to me
In no way, shape or form are landlords working people (unless they have a proper job as well). Currently, they have 0 obligation to have any knowledge or understanding of what a safe and modernly functional dwelling should consist of and how to maintain it. They hire people to do that for them. Working people not only need to have skills but also need to stay up to date with the latest knowledge and developments in the area of work.
My landlord needed days of discussion and reasoning just to get them to understand that we cannot get copper wire internet anymore because our street was fiber enabled. All because he didnt want any drilling done to the building. Madness.
You don't tax workers, you tax income, regardless of how it was obtained.
Money tax from the work you are paid for is taxed harder than money you take from the working people.
I dont understand? Isnt rental income already taxed ? If your annual yield exceeds 12 k then you are automatically taxed anyway. Is she saying that she will tax anyone earning anything at all from a rental property? How can anyone live off a yield of £600 prr month !? Wouldn't taxing them at 20% force them to claim benefits out of impoverishment ? I agree that someone raking in 8k a month from a flat in London should be taxed. But wouldn't they be anyway ?
I am a working person and i am also a landlord and all i can say is some people need a hobby. This is BS. Squirrel!
Guess you feel attacked and that’s the reason for the lash out?
Nope not workers, the are investors. I actually don't have a problem with landlords they are providing a service, most only earn a few property. I think the problems are the large companies owning 50,000 property's. I really don't know why so many people complain about a "mum & Dad" landlords when there are companys that own thousands. these companies are much more of a problem.
Renting property isn't a business. It's making money from your own assets but it's not the same as providing jobs, providing a product others can buy from you and own.
BuT it's a service! they let you live in a land they bought!
We need landlords for housing to exist, because if there was no landlords renting, then people would actually need to buy their own homes at affordable prices!! that would be inhumane.
@@zloyboy8I'm not saying they shouldn't exist but it's not a proper businessman.
We don't need landlords for housing to exist. If we had cheaper houses which didn't require a huge deposit but proof of prior rent for 2 years everyone could get a house. There'd be a waiting list while building them, but we could create hundreds of thousands of new "owners" overnight
We'd have to build lots of homes but should be doing that anyway
It is
@@benstern310 nah, not a proper business. The reason the UK economy is in tatters is because people have been led to believe its a viable long term business. It's fine while people have money and the economy is strong, but this country doesn't make enough.
Brexit crippled the best export we had, the financial sector, and the economy has stagnated since 2016.
In the US real estate is a great option because the economy is doing well and any downs are shortlived.
Rents cannot continue rising while wages remain stagnant
@@zloyboy8Rubbish! The housing exists already whether they're landlords or not. They are not providing a service. They have the financial means to purchase lots of properties so they lock out first time buyers & keep property prices high.
All the landlords should sell up and work in asda. And all their tenants can be free to live on the streets.
very few landlords will have a job
@@user-im2te2fg9y perhaps being a professional landlord is their job. I'll get most landlords will have one property bequeathed to them or a spare house when they move in with a partner. Professional landlords are a different proposition
Bit ironic James saying other people earn money doing nothing.
Have you listened to him before? He makes this self-observation all the time.
He literally pointed that out in this video.
Whereas many do nothing for free.
Landlords are workers like passive shareholders do 12 hours a day 6 days a week as hod carriers.
Scenario,
Two hard-working people, they both have their own home, they meet and decide to move in together, they.
They then decide to put the spare house up for rent, allowing others to have a place to live.
Are you suddenly going to define that couple as none working? For providing housing to others.?
They still work, they still have bills they merely made their asset available to others, and you want to punish them for that?
Would you prefer they sat on it, and not allowed anyone to live there just an empty shell?
And that right there is the law of unintended consequences. It's what politicians never think about.
They’re still working people, so it’s not about punishing them. Owning rental property is managing an asset, and like any investment, it comes with market risks. Most landlords pass rising costs onto renters, which drives up the rental market anyway. They could have sold the extra house and invested in something else but chose to stay in the rental market. Costs change in any business-that’s just part of owning an asset.
The exact situation I am in but JOB with their binary decisiveness spread hate just like the people they say spread the same thing.
If I have a car and start using it as a taxi should I not pay tax on the income made from said taxi firm? I'm providing transport for others! Wise up.
If they cared about allowing someone else a place to live, they should sell up. If they are only keeping onto it to extract a living, they should pay tax on it
I think if you're JUST a landlord, no. You're not a worker. You make money from assets, which I think should be taxed more heavily.
However, some workers are also small-time landlords, myself included. I'm a self-employed joiner and work around 50 hours a week.
I think the money I make from working should be taxed much less, and the money I get from owning an asset should be taxed much more..
Landlords they don’t even work for their money they just wait outside your post office or bank just stalking you. Always saying “got my money got my money got my money got my money like a zombie drug dealer
Well if the renters paid the rent on time and didn’t keep dodging then we wouldn’t have to resort to stalking
@@stevelevick8705lower the rents or find better renters. Stop blaming others and acting like a nuissance.
I love the clarity you bring to the topics you choose to pick up. But I'm surprised the quite obvious difference between unearned income (rents in all forms) and earned income (work done) is such a new revelation to you. I think you just wanted to make a dramatic emphasis in your presentation
Lol, no!
Of course it's not work. It's celebrated as PASSIVE income. By definition it's income without work.
My landlord owns 7 properties and cleans the gutters, does all the maintenance and has even vacumed my carpets now and again. I consider him a full time landlord and i know he worked hard and works hard maintaining all 7 properties.
He sounds too greedy to pay professionals to do this work. Also, it's NOT a full time job!
@@ifeyhome
Foolish ignorant comment from somebody who will never achieve in life.
Landlords are often working men and women with jobs. They buy a property as a. Investment, often instead of a pension scheme. Is this wrong?
Love this. All the part time landlords will sell up. Leaving us, the proper landlords to raise rents.
If somebody gave me £500k today, I'd be a multi millionaire by 2034.
Landlording is just real life monopoly, there's no skill to it.
There may have been skill in their previous jobs to amass the capital to becoming landlords, but once they do become landlords they hand it all to property managers and literally just collect the money.
I don't see them as working people once their sole income is from rent.
But having said that, if you are at a point in life where you can just make money like that then fine, I wouldn't restrict these people.
If they work then YES of course they should... However if they're simply living off parasitism then NO, absolutely NOT.
Being a landlord is passive income. Many landlords use a lettings agency / management company who take care of rental income & any property maintenance. The landlord just sits back & lets the money roll in.
The landlord of my pub works very hard
It’s an entrainment venue. Not really part of this conversation but A+ for the effort
I’m glad it’s coming to the forefront now, so those 60 and 70 year old landlords who have benefitted so much off hard working people should be crippled now. I don’t know landlord who lives in a property remotely as shabby as the properties they let out.
No, no, and no! That's preposterous
Don’t they make money by providing a vital public service… like councils, except by agreement and not threat.
Absolutely not
No one talking about the landowners (because they are kings and lords) who do even less. But let's complain about someone who is making a 4%-5% return on the money he invested in a property. Rich people pitting poor against the middle class again to avoid being in the spotlight. When is labour going to tax the king (speaking of which, has he paid his inheritance tax yet)?
royals own the sea bed around the UK so earn money from renwable wind farms.... we pay for it in our bills a joke.
I was listening to James, seemingly making sense when he launched into a lefties rant. Bye bye, LBC.
Absolutely not! Tax the rich!
...nope..we need to tax the poor more..Labour need the poor vote...no poor...no vote!
..nope..we need to tax the poor more..that's where Labour gets its vote...no poor....no vote!