Search results

so you'd prefer private landlords with mortgages not called "buy to let"? because thats essentially the only thing that changed, the name, and how the lenders viewed the loan proposal as a commercial transaction. the tax efficencies that apparently cause such ire are there for normal...

thats all very well to say, but how would you frame such a tax to avoid those who circumstances mean they rent out a property? or other landlords for that matter, who is going to provide private rental if you exclude anyone who borrows money to buy property?

brave.