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, 15 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 May 2018 - Comments: 2151
6:35 PM, 24th June 2026, About 6 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Martin at 24/06/2026 – 18:11
The proposal is that they’d all pay 0.48% based on ‘property value’ but ‘second home’ owners would pay 0.96%. It’s not clear what that would mean though….would a ‘second home’ owner be somebody with a holiday home in a seaside resort like Brighton? Or would a ‘second home’ owner be a buy-to-let landlord? If the ‘second home’ owner was a buy to let landlord then of course the landlord would just pass the tax on as increased rent to the tenant and the tenant would pay twice as much as the owner of the principle private residence. It would be a stealth tax increase hitting Joe Public, like increasing employers national insurance and dropping the level at which it kicks in.
Currently, if the tenant pays the council tax and the council doesn’t collect the bins or fix the potholes the tenant knows about it and can complain because the tenant is the paying customer, not the landlord, who might be a hundred miles away.
The truth is that the proposal was never thought through, but as you can see that it’s a proposal to tax the landowner rather than the resident paying the council tax, it’s a bit of extreme left-wing b******t typical of the kind of thing Denis Healey and Gordon Brown would have done.
But it’s really related to Pat McFadden’s statement that back-bench labour MPs don’t care about anything other than who they can tax to pay benefits, the size of the benefits bill, the deficit in defence spending, and the fact that Andy wants to get his new job without actually being elected.
Member Since September 2015 - Comments: 1025
6:45 PM, 24th June 2026, About 6 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 18:35
If its an extra tax then home owners, second home owners and tenants all pay double (CT+LVT) assuming Landlords pass on 100% of the LVT through increased rent, Student will see just a rent increase for the LVT as they are currently CT exempt..
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2151
7:10 PM, 24th June 2026, About 5 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Gromit at 24/06/2026 – 18:45
The only fair and objective way to allocate council tax would be on the basis of living space. But reforming council tax doesn’t always work out for politicians. The poll tax didn’t work out for Margaret Thatcher.
Where I live there is a mix of owner occupier, private rented and council house accommodation. The council house tenants have some of the bigger houses and typically pay about a third of what a house of the type that they rent would fetch if they were renting in the PRS. Their council houses are worth a lot of money when they are sold but the council tenants can get a massive discount on the purchase, as I presume Angela Rayner and her husband did.
Presumably the council would be paying Andy’s new property tax on behalf of their council tenants and this would reflect the value of the very large, very expensive houses these tenants live in at an enormous discount?
Because this proposal is to tax the land owners you can see that this proposal is a bit of extreme left-wing b******t. It’s an asset grab typical of Denis Healey or Gordon Brown. But it’s really about Pat McFadden’s statement that back-bench labour MPs only care about who they can tax to pay for benefits.
The country’s most urgent current priority is defence.
Member Since February 2023 - Comments: 24
8:43 PM, 24th June 2026, About 4 hours ago
2 or 3 beds end up in market with no one to buy. 4 bed are rarely available but costs double than 3 bed. All because of this government. Rents are very high just because of all these. No one is benefiting with idiotic policies. 5% surcharge can never be earmed back as the rent yield is still poorer