Could Andy Burnham’s proposed land tax force landlords to sell?

Reply to the comment left by Suspicious Steve at 25/06/2026 – 14:55
What we know about the proposal is that it’s a new tax based on property values, but paid for by the land-owner with the owner of a ‘second property’ (second property undefined) paying twice what an owner-occupier pays. We can assume that the attraction for labour is to raise extra tax at a time when the tax bill is already higher than it’s been since the end of the second world war.

This would raise rents for tenants in the PRS although it’s not clear what the owners of council houses and social housing would pay. We don’t know for example how this would affect councils or housing associations; presumably in a fair society they would also have to pay the tax.

Reply to the comment left by The_Maluka at 24/06/2026 – 09:55
But there are many reasons why people may have a 2nd home. You are not taking a property away from anyone, look on Rightmove, there is a glut of houses and flats for sale with no buyers in sight.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 24/06/2026 – 18:35
The tenants will love it because on the tenants blogs they hate having to pay council tax. So of course they will be able to vote for left wing councils/ politicians etc and not have to bear the consequences through high council tax and waste of resources. Whereas the landlord will not be able to complain as they are not “resident”, the MP is not interested, the councillors are not interested, the council will not even take away large item rubbish from landlords but are happy to take the council tax.

Reply to the comment left by Martin at 24/06/2026 – 18:11
This is a problem also not addressed with stamp duty, the price of property differs widely depending on location. The same size property you can buy without stamp duty up north will attract stamp duty in the south. How is that fair.

This is the final straw that breaks the camel’s back for me. If 0.96%pa is levied on land or property value (or any % of tax no matter how low on top of all other indirect & direct attacks on landlords) it would crucify all the hard work I’ve put in over the years of making no profit in the early years & ongoing hard work to build & maintain a healthy portfolio that tenants want to stay in (most of my tenants have been with me for 10-20years) & the many years of avid saving out of earned income (save first/spend 2nd philosophy that meant sacrificing holidays & other luxuries over the years) . This land tax on its own has pushed me over the edge which will be worsened by a simultaneous rent freeze. After 27years I’m out & have started planning my exit now.

This is pretty much the system we already have in Northern Ireland. We did not go down the “council tax” route and still pay “rates”
So as a landlord, I pay the rates on the properties I rent out.
Rates are an allowable tax deduction, as its a cost of doing business.
But it makes it look like tenants are paying a fair rent, until you take the rates off, and your profit takes a hit.
Also benefits’ the government, because some people in the mainland get council tax relief, but landlords don’t get that.

Reply to the comment left by Laura Delow at 27/06/2026 – 07:39
I saw the light in 2018 when the Renters Reform Bill rose it’s head.
Suggested on here and other landlord forums/groups how I thought to make the then government of the day work with and not against PRS landlords. Sadly I wasn’t supported, a massive missed opportunity I think.

But I took my own advice, and served s21s year on year, and following through, After 30 odd years I am out of the PRS. Relieved? Yes.

Maybe those left in the PRS should take up my 2018 suggestion and the threat of every renter being homeless on the same day might force Labour into sense. Though many Local Authorities have been bulk buying in tents since 2019.

Reply to the comment left by Kevyn Jones at 12:30
Kev you had asked how would the properties be valued. Well I live in Northern Ireland, and we still have the old rates system (no council tax).
Like you suggested, its a massive job to keep up with house valuations.
So local government simplified it.
Its based on location (post code), square footage imprint on the ground floor only (visible by satellite) and outbuilding that might increase value like a garage or outbuilding (also visible from satellite).
Obviously its not really fair, because bungalows have a bigger imprint because they don’t have upper floors.
But it makes it easy to come up with a valuation.

My understanding is that a land tax will bring in far more revenue than SDLT. It also increases the turnover of properties, so older people with larger properties are not disincentivised from selling up and downsizing. I’m all in favour of that, however, in real terms, we’ve already paid our SDLT for our properties, (landlords +5%), so as usual this is a case of double dipping.

I also wonder about it replacing CT, I believe CT goes to local governments for services. Will they provide local councils additional funds to cover this loss of revenue? Surely the user should pay for those services themselves and not the landlord?

How can landlords be expected to afford this? My personal feeling is that the percentage rates should be minimal whilst council tax carries on as is.

Properties are generally a long term investment, so a small charge each year will eventually eclipse the SDLT figure, whilst not crippling landlords and homeowners – especially the elderly with little to no income.

Reply to the comment left by Keith Wellburn at 24/06/2026 – 10:32
It’s from the fairer share campaign but their graphic shows landlords paying the .48% and second home owners who don’t let their property paying the .96%

See https://fairershare.org.uk/proportional-property-tax/