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

Reply to the comment left by The_Maluka at 24/06/2026 – 09:53
no it’s proposed to be only double for second home owners who don’t let their property

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

no it’s proposed to be only double for second home owners who don’t let their property

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

At present, those renting who are on benefits get some or all of their council tax paid for.
Under this proposed system, that would no longer be the case, because the landlord would be paying.
So rents would go up to cover landlords additional costs, and this would most affect the poorest.
Not a very fair system for a socialist think tank, is it?

Reply to the comment left by David100 at 28/06/2026 – 09:13
Except that under the RRA a tenant can go to a rent tribunal to challenge a rent increase and 1) when the overloaded tribunal system eventually deals with it that’s when the increase, if allowed, would start – saving the tenant a large part of that increase and 2) the tribunal might not agree that a new tax for the landlord means that the market value of the property has gone up and so could deny the increase and 3) the socialist think tank will probably come up with rent controls next.

Homeowners in a lot of the country outside of London and the SE will probably be better off under this system and won’t be bothered about private landlords getting the bill instead of their tenants getting it.

Reply to the comment left by Gromit at 24/06/2026 – 09:41
I was thinking that. Land tax will (apparently??) be charged on the land size, but not on the actual use of the land.

So buying an empty field at priced at X, the exact same field size next door with a connection for water and electric will be priced at ?, and the field next door to that has a two bed bungalow – this will be priced at ?

If the ownership of the same piece of land ultimately determines the cost of the tax to pay, then its not a land tax is it. Its ownership/land use tax.

A landlord who rents a small house on a large plot pays 0.98%. On the exact same sized plot next door the freeholder/landlord has a three story block with 3 flats also pays 0.98%

The house has one tenant, the block has 6 (3 x 2 couples) yet the land tax is the same?

If the single tenant rents the house and with that is the right to use the garden then they are the only ones using the land. They are renting the land in totality. They will then be charged accordingly.

The value of the property is apparently still required to be taken into consideration to make any sense of this proposal, but the value of anything is only actually realised after it is sold.
So again not a tax on land, but now on what the land is used for as well as who owns it.

So are they going to guess the value of the property, relate this with the size of the plot/land and then charge accordingly?

All this hangs off correct valuations and ownership.

Valuations are where we already are with CT. So is just a revaluation of CT needed to pacify the bee in the bonnet the Mancunian Messiah seems to have?

Property valuation creates havoc, which is why non party has attempted this since CT was introduced.

Unless they send a man with a clipboard out to literally look at every property, account for all extensions, roof conversions and basements and garage conversions, its all a huge waste of time and cost.

Then as the whole thing also rests clearly on land ownership (in keep with the ideology those with more, must pay more – yawn) then they will need to marry all that up too.

But there again we are under a Marxist state these days where time and cost do not feature. Its a blindsided cause. It creates income. The tax monster must be fed.

I cant see Councils being in favour of this either – the money goes to the state first then divvied out to councils apparently.

So all this rests on valuations/ownership being determined, tax collected, calculations being made, before any of this can happen?

How do they decide what councils get?

Reply to the comment left by Debra at 28/06/2026 – 11:33
If the cost of council tax passes from tenants to landlords, then there as to be a reckoning.
Landlords need to as a block increase rents simultaneously to cover this additional cost.
If rents go up together, then courts cannot claim you are raising the rent above the rest of the market.

Reply to the comment left by David100 at 28/06/2026 – 14:22
All my tenancy agreements say “£[Rent] every month, plus any levies or taxes imposed by local or central government”. Yet to be tested in court!

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 28/06/2026 – 12:07
It’s not .96 for landlords – only for second home owners who haven’t let their property. I read it as being based on the property value, not the land value as if it wasn’t built upon or had amenities.

Reply to the comment left by David100 at 28/06/2026 – 14:22
Nice idea but when people have tried to get landlords to band together and act in the past it hasn’t worked very well.

Reply to the comment left by Debra at 20:50
What the proposal on the Fairer Share website says as you correctly point out is that the tax would be based on property value. But the proposal also says – we will scrap Council Tax, Stamp Duty and Bedroom Tax – the tax is only paid by property owners, not tenants.
So that is what the proposal Andy Burnham is supporting actually SAYS. So the proposal is to get rid of council tax and have tenants pay nothing when at present tenants have to pay council tax in order for their bins to be emptied and their roads to be maintained. And it is a healthy thing for the service user to see the tax and hold the council to account for delivering these services if they are not delivered. The landlord might be a hundred miles away. Clearly all landlords would raise rents if this proposal went ahead and the council would be even less accountable that it is today.