Government vows to tackle rental discrimination in PRS
15 hours ago | 18 comments
Could Andy Burnham’s proposed land tax force landlords to sell?
9:33 AM, 24th June 2026, 14 hours ago
34
Categories:
Hello, Andy Burnham has been reported to be considering replacing council tax and stamp duty with a new tax based on property values.
Under the proposal, the tax would be paid by property owners rather than tenants. Owner-occupiers would reportedly pay 0.48% of the property’s value each year, while landlords, overseas owners and second-home owners could face a higher rate of 0.96%.
For a landlord with a property worth £250,000, that would mean an annual bill of £2,400. On a £500,000 property, the charge would rise to £4,800 a year.
Would landlords realistically be able to absorb another cost of this size?
Some may try to recover it through higher rents, but that may not be possible if mayors are also given powers to freeze or cap rents.
Even without rent controls, tenants may simply be unable to afford the increases needed to cover the tax.
I also wonder whether the higher rate would lead to an exodus of overseas landlords and second-home owners, while persuading more UK landlords that remaining in the private rented sector is no longer financially worthwhile.
Could this proposal reduce the number of homes available to rent and push rents even higher?
Would a property tax of this size be the final straw for you, or could it be a fairer replacement for council tax and stamp duty?
Thank you.
Altan
Tags:
Andy Burnham property tax, Council tax replacement, Landlord property tax, Private Rented Sector, stamp duty abolition, UK landlords selling up
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Previous Article
Buy to let lenders widen landlord optionsRelated Articles
Why the Renters’ Rights Act is causing a tsunami?
2 days ago | 14 comments
Landlords face £7,000 fines for damp and mould in government crackdown
3 days ago | 10 comments
Member Since December 2023 - Comments: 1628
8:52 AM, 24th June 2026, About 15 hours ago
There will be two choices.
Either the rent is increased to cover the cost or landlords will sell.
It’s a ridiculously unfair idea, typical of Labour.
Member Since June 2019 - Comments: 862
9:30 AM, 24th June 2026, About 15 hours ago
I wonder why the far left can’t grasp the simple answer to the question where do landlords get their money from?
For any far left readers out there the answer is by charging rent for their assets – so you should now understand that every time you put charges on landlords either rents will increase or landlords will remove their assets.
For labour voters, if any of this is unclear we are available to explain this in person if you want to invite us to number 10.
Member Since September 2015 - Comments: 1025
9:41 AM, 24th June 2026, About 14 hours ago
Word on the street is a land value tax would replace Council Tax. So tenants would face higher rents but no CT to pay. But I wouldn’t hold my breath on CT being abolished.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2241 - Articles: 2
9:53 AM, 24th June 2026, About 14 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Gromit at 24/06/2026 – 09:41
Yes I bet the charge would be in addition to council tax – but only for the PRS.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2241 - Articles: 2
9:55 AM, 24th June 2026, About 14 hours ago
I can appreciate that second home owners should be charged double land tax as they are effectively taking a property off the market, but why landlords?
Member Since March 2024 - Comments: 292
10:32 AM, 24th June 2026, About 13 hours ago
As far as rental property, my last remaining tenants would be paying any tax or the property would be sold.
Don’t tell Andy Burnham, but I’d be breaking out the champagne as far as my second home is concerned. Worth around £250k and like many already paying a 100% CT premium meaning double Band D at well over £4,000. So £2,400 is basically reverting to the position pre the doubling.
That tells me the tax won’t be 0.96% (where has this precise figure come from as he isn’t even PM yet and nobody is really sure what he will do, except move to the left). If it was it would encourage more second homes, especially from those not wishing to carry on renting out properties under the RRA but not desperate to sell up.
Member Since September 2015 - Comments: 1025
10:37 AM, 24th June 2026, About 13 hours ago
The people who will really lose out will be those with a CT exemption eg students, people getting a Council Tax Reduction, and certain other groups. They see a rent rise but no corresponding CT reduction.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2241 - Articles: 2
10:47 AM, 24th June 2026, About 13 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Gromit at 24/06/2026 – 10:37
Tough.
Member Since September 2015 - Comments: 1025
10:47 AM, 24th June 2026, About 13 hours ago
……. because they hate Landlords. The Government has a track record on this with SDLT; treating Landlords the same second home buyers.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 2031 - Articles: 21
11:28 AM, 24th June 2026, About 13 hours ago
Readers may be interested in the philosophical basis for land value taxes and Georgism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
Like Gromit and the Maluka, I am doubtful that Burnham would do away with a tax, at least for private sector landlords. As I predicted when Gideon Osborne introduced s24 and then we had the Tenant Fees Act, Labour could see the Tories giving landlords a good kicking and thought: “well if they do that to their own supporters, why shouldn’t we put the boot in as well?” And so they have done with the RRA and will continue to do unless a bucketload of common sense is shaken over Parliament.
Henry George died in 1897 and the fact that his ideas have not been taken up, suggests that there are flaws in his reasoning.
That said, it is anomalous that the £20 million mansion in Mayfair may pay less CT than a 4 bedroom house in Middlesbrough.