Critics hit out at proposed National Insurance for rental income plan

Many of those most affected by these changes will be ordinary working people who rent their homes.

Every extra cost added to landlords — whether that’s new taxes such as NIC on rental profits, licence fees, registration schemes, or the cost of meeting EPC targets — has to be paid for somehow. The reality is that these costs get passed on through higher rents.

And if regulation becomes so burdensome that landlords can’t recover their costs or are put at greater risk of fines and losses, then many will choose to sell up. That reduces the supply of rental properties, which again pushes rents higher.

This isn’t about landlords versus tenants. It’s simply how the economics of housing work. If government wants lower rents, increasing the costs and risks of providing rental housing is not the way to achieve it.

It isn’t rocket science, it is basic common sense.

Reply to the comment left by Ryan Stevens at 29/08/2025 – 10:26
It isn’t rocket science, it is basic common sense….of which the ones running the asylum, have none.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 29/08/2025 – 10:30
As a long since retired Rocket Scientist, I can professionally confirm that landlording has nothing to do with Rocket Science. I can confirm that I have never used Newtons equations of motion in relation to my activities as a landlord, although Einsteins relativity equations do indirectly come into play when using GPS.

Some have been slow to realise that this is what the government actually want – a massively reduced size PRS with the sold properties going to owner-occupiers. The benefit tenants then either get housed in the new social housing being built or in what is left of the PRS. They do not believe in private sector housing unless it’s corporate level large scale new builds such as John Lewis.
We realised this as soon as she increased the stamp duty levy on buying new rentals last year.
I laugh when I see readers still asking why they don’t understand. Of course they get the maths. It’s by design.

Reply to the comment left by Robert at 29/08/2025 – 12:32You give governments (of all persuasions) too much credit. Their overriding goal is simply to be in power. To achieve this, they make promises they cannot possibly fulfil. Paying for these pledges—along with the rising interest on their ever-growing debts—requires ever more tax revenue.

Since they’ve pledged not to raise income taxes on ‘workers,’ they turn instead to stamp duty. But higher stamp duty feeds directly into higher rents, as landlords pass on costs in order to preserve their returns. In the end, workers still lose spending power, just by another route.

According to Migration Watch:
“The financial cost of the UK’s asylum system increased ten-fold from £538 million in the financial year 2011/12 to £5.38 billion million ten years later in 2023/24. A significant driver of this rise is the growing reliance on hotels to accommodate asylum seekers.”

Apparently the average cost per night for a hotel stay is £145 per day, compared with just £14 for ‘shared dispersal housing’.

Therefore, it defies common sense to bash landlords to the stage when they will sell up, at a time when more rental accommodation is needed. This reinforces my view that governments have none.

Reply to the comment left by Ryan Stevens at 29/08/2025 – 12:56
We will know for sure at the next budget. An easy target for her instead, would be raising CGT levels to income tax levels. She could do this if she wants to keep some of us ‘in’. This would be far simpler than the complexities of trying to apply national insurance to investment income (not currently done).
However, if she does not increase CGT then we will know that she has left the ‘exit’ door firmly open. This is at the same time as clearly disincentivising buying, with the stamp duty surcharge and making it unaffordable for small landlords.
If you put all the pieces of the jigsaw together, including their house building strategies and reducing the barriers on owner-occupier mortgages, it does appear that there is a housing policy which is only gradually being revealed.
If she does increase CGT or increase barriers to selling then obviously I will stand corrected.

There is no housing policy, there is just a desperate need for tax revenue from the least number of possible Labour voters.

She cannot tax tenants (directly), so she is targeting landlords instead. In addition, she cow tows to large business because she needs them for donations to party funds, etc.

How is raising £2 billion going to “tackle” the £40 billion black hole?
It wont even touch the sides.

Reply to the comment left by David100 at 29/08/2025 – 16:08Ummmmm, pays a bit of the interest I suppose.
Anyway, with their election promises, debt is pretty much guaranteed to be much higher by the end of their term.

It is also pretty much guaranteed that property owners and pensions will continue to be a target – biggest tax take from the minimum number of Labour supporters.

Time to sell up, before even more sh*t hits the fan.