2 weeks ago | 25 comments
I know that the country is skint, but we must be impressed with Labour’s remarkable new trick to increase a tax before its previous increase has even arrived.
Presumably, landlords should be grateful the Chancellor John Healey stopped at two announcements before sending us the bill.
They say Labour is the party for working people? Don’t make me laugh.
Working people need to rent homes that are near their jobs, somewhere their children can settle, somewhere that does not swallow every spare pound.
Yet this government has chosen another policy which its own fiscal watchdog warns risks pushing rents higher.
Budget 2026 adds two percentage points to the property income tax increases announced in 2025 by our allegedly fellow landlord, Rachel Reeves.
Both land in April 2027, taking rates to 24%, 44% and 49% in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Treasury’s tax document confirms the rates and start date.
Consider this: £10,000 of taxable property income falling entirely within the basic-rate band, with no finance-cost tax reduction.
Moving from 20% to 24% increases the bill from £2,000 to £2,400.
That is a 20% increase in the tax payable on that income.
Mr Healey, who looks like a grim Harry Potter character, can dress it up as another two percentage points, but the combined £400 increase is real enough.
The Chancellor even had the brass neck to tell BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that he wanted to protect income that was earned through employment.
So, the government still don’t understand or believe that being a landlord is a job.
Starmer didn’t and now this clown seems to think that tenants lob envelopes stuffed with cash into our bank accounts and that there’s no paperwork, no maintenance and no legal obligations.
This is as frustrating as it is demeaning.
They hate us. They don’t want to know what being a landlord is about.
For a stressed landlord already wondering whether to keep a property, another recurring cost could settle the argument.
And there is something particularly galling about being expected to plan years ahead while ministers keep revising the sums.
A landlord deciding whether to replace a kitchen or retain a property needs some confidence about what will remain after tax.
Repeated tax surprises make that decision harder, even before the extra money leaves the account.
The most damaging evidence for this nonsense increase in tax comes from the Office for Budget Responsibility’s October outlook.
Paragraph 3.46 describes the combined increases as ‘a material reduction in returns to private landlords’.
It warns that discouraging new entrants and prompting existing landlords to leave risks reducing supply and increasing rents over time.
These are cumulative effects, including earlier measures, rather than a prediction that every rent will rise immediately.
The NRLA’s Ben Beadle has also warned that the Chancellor has made life harder for tenants, pointing to the consequences for rents and available homes.
Of course, selling a house does not make it disappear.
Some sales help first-time buyers, and that deserves acknowledging.
But the tenant who cannot obtain a mortgage does not suddenly become a buyer because their landlord has had enough.
They still need somewhere to rent.
That is why I think this tax rise could prove even worse for tenants.
A landlord may eventually withdraw their investment, but a tenant cannot withdraw their need for a home.
The Budget promises households breathing space and calls the tax changes fair and proportionate.
It says 84% of income taxpayers will be unaffected.
Unaffected by the direct tax change, perhaps.
But that offers precious little reassurance to someone facing higher housing costs.
Ministers should explain how discouraging investment in homes to let helps the people who need them.
Until then, spare us the speeches about working people.
They will be working even harder to pay the rent.
Until next time,
The Landlord Crusader
26 comments on this article
A different perspective could help you spot an issue, avoid a mistake or find a better way forward. Read the comments and add your own views if you wish.
Previous Article
Landlord database audit trail and privacy concerns raised by MPsNext Article
Landlords face paying tenants' unpaid energy bills
2 weeks ago | 25 comments
2 weeks ago | 145 comments
2 weeks ago | 1 comments
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 121
4:02 PM, 3rd November 2026, About 6 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Ryan Stevens at 03/11/2026 – 15:18
As an accountant I need to look at your worked example Ryan! £15k interest at say 5% means a £300k loan. At 75% LTV that means the property’s value is £400k. Rent of £20k means a gross yield of 5%. That would have been a really poor investment decision. And there’s no mention of repairs, insurance etc.
Okay, I know it was only an example to illustrate you can make a loss after tax from a profit before tax…
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 3422 - Articles: 83
4:18 PM, 3rd November 2026, About 6 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Neil P at 03/11/2026 – 16:02
Eh, I’ve got loads that’s only doing 5% now. And you right they would be or are a poor investment now trying to look after tenants with not high rents. But some of us we stuck with em till tenant passes away unfortunately. Or Govt as is now gives us excuse to say I’m 7k a year better off after tax without your house.
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 121
4:21 PM, 3rd November 2026, About 6 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 03/11/2026 – 16:18
You bought with tenants paying 5% Mick? I’m talking on purchase price, not current value. Or have you got sitting tenants, in which low yield now, return is on capital gains when they “move on”?
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 3422 - Articles: 83
4:55 PM, 3rd November 2026, About 6 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Neil P at 03/11/2026 – 16:21
I’ve not bought since 2018, although yes bought loads with tenants in since 1997. Can’t remember the yields now.
Aah now purchase price, I’ve got loads doing over 100%, but Mark Alexander told me off & said I must do on current value.
Got loads with sitting tenants in now low yield.
Don’t understand your last bit:
return is on capital gains when they “move on”?
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 121
5:18 PM, 3rd November 2026, About 6 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 03/11/2026 – 16:55
“Move on”…when the tenant dies or moves out for whatever reason. With sitting tenants you obviously buy cheaper (66%-ish), accepting the rent officer sets rent low. Payback is when you get vacant possession. I bought one then found out the tenant was fit as an ox, long payback period!
Member Since January 2024 - Comments: 456
11:48 AM, 4th November 2026, About 5 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Neil P at 03/11/2026 – 16:02
One of mine is making about 2.5-3% gross! Also, unable to sell it at a sensible price. We were going to live in it, but ended up renting it out because we couldn’t get the planning permission we wanted.
I would say that for some properties in London/the South 5% gross is good, with property prices dumping too. Not worth being a landlord nowadays, gilts are a better option with the clowns that are in government (of all colours).