From City AM:
LANDLORDS were forced to fork out a massive £1.1bn in business rates on empty buildings in 2012, a hike of 19 per cent on the amount collected in the previous tax year...
Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of the TPA, said empty property rates were placing an unfair burden on landlords struggling to find tenants in the economic downturn and also prompting hundreds of properties to be demolished to avoid paying rates. He added: "There are elderly people who invested in a small commercial or industrial unit in the reasonable expectation that the rent would top up their pension. This new tax is ruining them."
Let's just re-write that:
LANDLORDS were forced to fork out a massive £1.1bn in mortgage repayments on empty buildings in 2012, a hike of 19 per cent on the amount collected in the previous tax year...
Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of the TPA, said mortgage repayments were placing an unfair burden on landlords struggling to find tenants in the economic downturn and also prompting hundreds of properties to be demolished as a poison pill defence against repossession. He added: "There are elderly people who borrowed heavily to acquire a small commercial or industrial unit in the reasonable expectation that the rent would top up their pension. These mortgage repayments are ruining them."
X leavers
1 hour ago
7 comments:
The TPA is using a Vince Cable quote about it being economically damaging, which seems an odd thing for him to say. I can't find any original source for it though.
F, I've a nasty feeling that he actually did say it once or twice, back in 2008 or whenever.
Matthew Sinclair does point out something useful - the loophole where demolishing a building exempts the landowner from tax. If the council has given planning permission on the land, then it should be liable for tax as it would be if it were developed. It would nudge developers into realising their land banks if they had to pay council tax on their permitted developments.
DS, while I fully support Council Tax on undeveloped sites, I don't think it would make much difference; it merely turns a very small part of notional-economic cost of owning such sites into an actual cost.
If land bankers know that they can boost their future monopoly profits per site by more than a few thousand pounds by keeping them out of use, then they'll just pay up. And moan and bleat.
Nice to see the grey-haired human shield forming up again.
B, yup. They must be really busy investing in all those vacant shops and offices.
I went for a meeting with Matt Sinclair with the Executive Director of an institution at the time, to talk about LVT. We approached him with the utmost of grace, and he accepted us with the utmost of disrespect calling us communists to boot. Bingo!
The Exec Member, whom I have never heard say a bad word to anyone, came out and said "Robin, that guy is a wanker isn't he"
Yup, he is one of the arch tax collectors, protecting home owners from having to work for a living. Ironic given he operates behind a mask of free trade
I called him out on it a month or so later and I got all the usual ad hominem, projection, straw men, demands for infinite evidence.
A perfect specimen. He is doing what in The Game we call "GoodPlay"
We should respect him highly.
Post a Comment