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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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
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. 😁
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.
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?
11:54 let’s take a second to reflect on your statement that dividends are not earned, I opened my own pub 18months ago have not taken a wage so that the business can grow and employ staff and be renovated inside and out. Working 7 days a week, 14 hours a day and i was able to take a small dividend so i can have a week holiday before Christmas and your on here saying dividends are not earned!! 😮
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’.
I’ve had a couple of landlords, and really got on with one that was private. Yes, there are leeches out there but there are plenty of honest people that make a profit, sure, but owning and managing properties is not as easy a money spinner as it used to be.
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
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!!!!!
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.
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?'
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.
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
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.
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
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 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.
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?
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.
To buy a property, or any other asset you need either: 1. Inherited money (tax via income tax at the time and inheritance tax) 2. Current money which is taxed by being in work So the money you have earned to buy the assets has one way or another has generally, unless you won it in the lottery, already been taxed. This is why taxes on assets which earn income have always been lower, because the investment has already been taxed (and if you sell the asset it is subject to CGT). It also factors in that most assets have a risk associated with them. Properties can be damaged, tenants can default on payments.
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.
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
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….
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".
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
Utter nonsense. Being a land lord is HARD WORK and requires constant work. It's hard work to make money, even harder to keep it. Why should people not be rewarded for deferred spending? This is utter inverted snobbery by a person who enjoys the fruits of capitalism with a champagne socialist mindset.
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 answer is that some small landlords are working people, just as some small drug dealers are working people. That doesn't mean that earnings from being a landlord or a drug dealer should be treated in the same way as earnings from work.
Anyone remembers SELF CERTIFICATIONS to aquire mortgages? Where's people with next to nothing acquired homes and buy to let's? This people same people think of nothing to those who pay for their acquired homes.
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.
We've inherited a house from our parents, and it's a slow market. Really slow. So we have a choice - rent it out to pay the bills until the market gets better, or sell it at a low price. It's a tricky one.
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)?
On the statement relating to shareholders. What about shares given to employees by big companies as part of their salary package. Does that mean that these working people are not working people?
Isn’t it obvious that when people talk about shareholders, they aren’t talking about the tiny fish (employees who get a few hundred shares) , we’re talking about shareholders who have millions of shares and huge influence over companies
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.
They can consider this after getting rid of stamp duty. It's absolutely ridiculous that it's so high despite properties costing insane amounts of money already and interest rates are high
As a Labour Party member, I agree with you James. Labour Comms have been woeful. , knowing that the majority of the media are on the right. However, in defence of Ministers, they are not ducking the media rounds like the Tories did.
I look at it like a promotion, for a lot of people they've worked hard in order to eventually do less but it's still work. Like a labourer eventually buys a house and rents it out, what's the problem?
Nope! LandLORDS have never worked for their money. But there is nothing wrong with renting out a property that has come to you, as long as you treat renters fairly. People do need places to live and not everybody wants to purchase or can afford to purchase. You can be a worker AND a landlord. But being a landlord is being in business.
There is a crisis for cheap student housing because small individual private landlords have been chased out of the market. Homely Affordable house shares has become a thing of the past.
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.
When someone buys a house. Then someone pays for it. Then they make a nice monthly income. Then they make a profit when they sell the house. Not too shabby!!!
The hard bit, is saving up to buy it... possibly renovating it... paying for it during periods of rental voids... dealing with non paying tenants... adhering to legal obligations in regard to gas and electrical safety testing... repairing stuff the tenants break... etc
What about pensions - these are effectively money invested from time you were a working person that you have postponed using so that you can survive once you no longer work. I fear that Labour's definition of money obtained from being a working person won't include this and they will see it as easy prey for more taxing
I think the labour definition of working people was quite clear. I took it to mean people whose primary source of income is their salary. The vast majority of people are employees not employers. They kept on mentioning income tax and national insurance. These are the things employees have deducted from their salary. So to me it was clear, anyone who is just a regular employee wouldn’t have their tax and national insurance going up. Anything else (apart from perhaps self employed electricians, plumber etc) is really outside of ‘normal’ for most people.
Easy answer: A landlord cannot qualify as a worker based on the idea that neither product nor service is provided from any "work" done without previously removing access to a product or service. As being a landlord operates as an extraction device for self benefit and no other. Perhaps it should be ranked as similar to investments (the expectation of wealth return before other outcomes).
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
@@user-im2te2fg9y well, I have a career as well as renting parts of my house out...I just wasn't sure where a subject lead and houseparent at a private school fits into the social class structure...
@@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 rent out my house after payimg off the mortgage by working all hours, got married, live in what was wifes house. Its my pension scheme as i dont have a company pension. Not all landlords are super wealthy!
Becoming any landlord is no easy task that is for sure, however you have to admit that it makes your life a lot easier. Having a side income that requires minimal effort. Happy for you that you actually managed to own a property, it isn't easy to do that these days...(I'm being sincere, hearing your story it's really sad but glad that you managed to arrange yourself a better life by land lording.)
He makes a compelling argument to become a landlord, if you can afford it of course. Although managing multiple properties and tenants can become work in itself, hence why you have companies doing property management for people. Maybe its not as black and white as James thinks, just depends on the landlord and how they choose to manage their properties. Either way I'd consider it easy money and relatively low risk compared to setting up a new business to generate income from or trying to play the stock market for example.
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”
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
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.
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.
You don't tax workers, you tax income, regardless of how it was obtained.
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.
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.
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.
LBC havent been reporting on governemnt nearly as much since labour got in. Think there arent enough positives
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
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,,🤣🙈🤦♂️🤷♂️😆
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
@@TheGeneReyva you're hugely over simplifying what's involved which probably means you have no idea what you're talking about.
@@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.
Maybe Starmer was thinking about his mate Jas Athwal MP when he said landlords are not working people........eh James ?
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.
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,
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. 😁
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
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?
11:54 let’s take a second to reflect on your statement that dividends are not earned, I opened my own pub 18months ago have not taken a wage so that the business can grow and employ staff and be renovated inside and out. Working 7 days a week, 14 hours a day and i was able to take a small dividend so i can have a week holiday before Christmas and your on here saying dividends are not earned!! 😮
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’.
I’ve had a couple of landlords, and really got on with one that was private. Yes, there are leeches out there but there are plenty of honest people that make a profit, sure, but owning and managing properties is not as easy a money spinner as it used to be.
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
Is James Obrien undermining our country? Its a relentless daily grind against all things British.
Wait. Are you saying that renting out property is one of these elusive British values that must be defended?
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
Landlords only pay income tax on rental earnings, no NICs, so they are not “working”. Workers pay NICs, that’s the definition
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.
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.
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.
I bet talks in his sleep about Brexit… what a lemon 😂
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.
14:07 JRM just died....again
Welcome to government by semantics. What's a woman ? what's a worker ? what's a sausage ?
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
Landlords should be taxed to buggery - robbing trolls
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.
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
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.
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 dicste 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.😂😂😂
I’d argue we don’t have normal people and definitely still have sociopaths in power
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?
Absolutely not! Tax the rich!
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.
Money for nothing and your check’s for free… 🤑
To buy a property, or any other asset you need either:
1. Inherited money (tax via income tax at the time and inheritance tax)
2. Current money which is taxed by being in work
So the money you have earned to buy the assets has one way or another has generally, unless you won it in the lottery, already been taxed. This is why taxes on assets which earn income have always been lower, because the investment has already been taxed (and if you sell the asset it is subject to CGT). It also factors in that most assets have a risk associated with them. Properties can be damaged, tenants can default on payments.
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.
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
Just tax us at the same rate as other business men both in tax on borrowings and tax on CGT, landlords pay more on both !!!
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….
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".
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.
Landlords don't work, just collect money...
Low standard flats, high payment... thats the rule....
Utter nonsense. Being a land lord is HARD WORK and requires constant work. It's hard work to make money, even harder to keep it. Why should people not be rewarded for deferred spending? This is utter inverted snobbery by a person who enjoys the fruits of capitalism with a champagne socialist mindset.
Explain the hard work
yea hard work to buy a property, never see it and hire an agency to rent it out
Landlords are workers like passive shareholders do 12 hours a day 6 days a week as hod carriers.
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 answer is that some small landlords are working people, just as some small drug dealers are working people. That doesn't mean that earnings from being a landlord or a drug dealer should be treated in the same way as earnings from work.
I don't think the current Labour government were paying attention to how the media treated Corbyn - that's why they're shocked
Anyone remembers SELF CERTIFICATIONS to aquire mortgages?
Where's people with next to nothing acquired homes and buy to let's?
This people same people think of nothing to those who pay for their acquired homes.
Landlords when you have affordable housing is fine, you need them actually.
I work full time and I am a landlord my taxed income from my job has paid for the properties.
@@JILANI786786 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😂
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??
We've inherited a house from our parents, and it's a slow market. Really slow. So we have a choice - rent it out to pay the bills until the market gets better, or sell it at a low price. It's a tricky one.
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.
Love this. All the part time landlords will sell up. Leaving us, the proper landlords to raise rents.
Landlords pay tax from their income and then again when selling the property in capital gains
On the statement relating to shareholders. What about shares given to employees by big companies as part of their salary package. Does that mean that these working people are not working people?
Isn’t it obvious that when people talk about shareholders, they aren’t talking about the tiny fish (employees who get a few hundred shares) , we’re talking about shareholders who have millions of shares and huge influence over companies
Landlords will be funnelling the money through a limited company, a limited company is not a working person
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.
They can consider this after getting rid of stamp duty. It's absolutely ridiculous that it's so high despite properties costing insane amounts of money already and interest rates are high
Nothing will change for the better as an awful lot of MPs are landlords
MPs and those who help them get into office.
Sell all the rented houses then!
sell them to housing associations and councils, :D at a nice discount
@@user-im2te2fg9yThey'll fluff it all up... And the country will go bust.
The working class should look after each other. Not lead the charge in exploiting themselves.
As a Labour Party member, I agree with you James. Labour Comms have been woeful. , knowing that the majority of the media are on the right. However, in defence of Ministers, they are not ducking the media rounds like the Tories did.
I look at it like a promotion, for a lot of people they've worked hard in order to eventually do less but it's still work. Like a labourer eventually buys a house and rents it out, what's the problem?
Nope! LandLORDS have never worked for their money.
But there is nothing wrong with renting out a property that has come to you, as long as you treat renters fairly.
People do need places to live and not everybody wants to purchase or can afford to purchase.
You can be a worker AND a landlord. But being a landlord is being in business.
My brother is a parasitical landlord
The "Job" has lord in it... absolutely not
There is a crisis for cheap student housing because small individual private landlords have been chased out of the market. Homely Affordable house shares has become a thing of the past.
Blah blah boring Brexit
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?
Most UK landlords, 80%+ only have one or two properties. Most will work too anyway
When someone buys a house. Then someone pays for it. Then they make a nice monthly income. Then they make a profit when they sell the house. Not too shabby!!!
The hard bit, is saving up to buy it... possibly renovating it... paying for it during periods of rental voids... dealing with non paying tenants... adhering to legal obligations in regard to gas and electrical safety testing... repairing stuff the tenants break... etc
No ,simple as that
What about pensions - these are effectively money invested from time you were a working person that you have postponed using so that you can survive once you no longer work. I fear that Labour's definition of money obtained from being a working person won't include this and they will see it as easy prey for more taxing
I think the labour definition of working people was quite clear. I took it to mean people whose primary source of income is their salary. The vast majority of people are employees not employers. They kept on mentioning income tax and national insurance. These are the things employees have deducted from their salary. So to me it was clear, anyone who is just a regular employee wouldn’t have their tax and national insurance going up. Anything else (apart from perhaps self employed electricians, plumber etc) is really outside of ‘normal’ for most people.
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?
@8:15 funny how he does not understand how pre-2008 bubble was created
Easy answer:
A landlord cannot qualify as a worker based on the idea that neither product nor service is provided from any "work" done without previously removing access to a product or service.
As being a landlord operates as an extraction device for self benefit and no other. Perhaps it should be ranked as similar to investments (the expectation of wealth return before other outcomes).
Yes. My parents are landlords and one is a TA and one is a plasterer. We've had the same tenents for 10 + years.
Let's not forget JOB was a landlord.
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
Increased Tax for Landlords only means increased Rent
As an investor, I can safely say investing in shares is a lot easier than being a landlord, and of course, I am a working person. 😀
Excellent; I was looking for confirmation that I'm not working class.
working class is people who work 9-5 worrying about bills and food
@@user-im2te2fg9y well, I have a career as well as renting parts of my house out...I just wasn't sure where a subject lead and houseparent at a private school fits into the social class structure...
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 rent out my house after payimg off the mortgage by working all hours, got married, live in what was wifes house. Its my pension scheme as i dont have a company pension. Not all landlords are super wealthy!
Becoming any landlord is no easy task that is for sure, however you have to admit that it makes your life a lot easier.
Having a side income that requires minimal effort.
Happy for you that you actually managed to own a property, it isn't easy to do that these days...(I'm being sincere, hearing your story it's really sad but glad that you managed to arrange yourself a better life by land lording.)
So because my pension is a house I should pay more tax than a workplace pension?
Simple some will be, others won't
i dont understand the differentiation? a landlord pays regular UK income tax on their net income received after allowing for expenses ?
Rented for over fifteen years. My landlords done about five days work in that time.
Maybe the only thing Mao got right in his political manifesto was landlords
He makes a compelling argument to become a landlord, if you can afford it of course. Although managing multiple properties and tenants can become work in itself, hence why you have companies doing property management for people. Maybe its not as black and white as James thinks, just depends on the landlord and how they choose to manage their properties. Either way I'd consider it easy money and relatively low risk compared to setting up a new business to generate income from or trying to play the stock market for example.