Boris Johnson’s proposal to raise the 40 per cent tax threshold to £80,000 would be of particular benefit to landlords, according to financial commentator Paul Lewis.
The significant loss to the treasury through tax normally collected on earnings of £50,000 would be offset by a rise in the NIC upper earnings limit to the tune of £30,000.
“Boris Johnson’s tax plan will benefit landlords twice as much as anyone else. People who make a living through rents, dividends and pensions do not pay NICs, which will result in them gaining £6,000, over the salaried and self-employed who will make £3,000 a year,” explains Lewis.
“For landlords who earn £50,000 a year this proposal is good news, but for the landlords who generate over £80,000 a year through renters, this is great news.
“The individuals who will benefit the most are largely the better off people who make their living from owning things,” Lewis concludes.
Mansfield chief executive Gev Lynott says that the attractiveness of the buy-to-let market has been “severely dampened by George Osborne’s fiscal policy changes.”
However, he adds that “if the simultaneous income tax and national insurance threshold raising proposed by Johnson, were to come into effect, then it would certainly start to redress some of the bad news encountered by investor landlords.”
Lynott continues: “In an indirect way, it could also be a benefit for tenants as it would relieve some of the financial pressure on landlords which hopefully means a lower rent increase than might otherwise occur without this boost to income tax relief.”
North London estate agent Jeremy Leaf adds: “This idea may help landlords to remain in the sector, particularly amateur landlords – after the onslaught private landlords have endured following the regulatory and tax changes.
“However, just as much of a concern is the removal of Section 21, which has made it more difficult for landlords to get their property back if their tenant has been misbehaving or they want to reoccupy their own property. I believe landlords would be happier if Section 8 were beefed up instead.”