A Proportional Property Tax for landlords has entered the property debate after reports that Andy Burnham supports replacing Council Tax and Stamp Duty with a new annual property-based charge.
The proposal itself comes from the campaign group Fairer Share. It is not government policy, and there is no confirmed timetable for anything like this becoming law. Even so, it raises a useful question for landlords and property owners: would replacing upfront property taxes with an annual charge make the system fairer, or simply create another pressure point for the private rented sector?
What is being proposed?
Fairer Share’s Proportional Property Tax, often shortened to PPT, would replace Council Tax, Stamp Duty and the Bedroom Tax with an annual charge based on the current value of a property.
The headline rate is 0.48% of the property’s value each year.
So, under that model, a property valued at £300,000 would face an annual bill of £1,440. A £500,000 property would face £2,400. A £750,000 property would face £3,600.
The key difference for landlords is not just the rate. It is who pays.
Under the proposals, tenants would no longer be responsible for Council Tax. Instead, the legal obligation would sit with the property owner. For occupied buy-to-let homes, the same 0.48% rate would apply.
Why are people talking about Stamp Duty reform?
Stamp Duty has long been criticised for making it more expensive to move home. Buyers face a large upfront tax bill, which can affect first-time buyers, movers and landlords buying additional properties.
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has also called for Stamp Duty reform, saying it reduces affordability, slows the market and damages the wider economy. The committee has recommended that the government consults on alternatives before the end of 2026.
That does not mean Fairer Share’s proposal will be adopted. It does mean property tax reform is becoming a more serious part of the housing conversation.
Plan Insurance Brokers can accommodate your Property Owners & Landlord Insurance needs. Just fill in our short call back form, and our professional brokers will be in contact to arrange your insurance.
Why landlords may be watching this closely
For landlords, the biggest concern is likely to be cash flow.
A one-off Stamp Duty bill is painful, but it is paid at purchase. An annual property tax would become a recurring cost. For buy-to-let owners already dealing with mortgage costs, maintenance, regulation, licensing, insurance, tax changes and periods without rental income, another yearly bill could change the numbers.
The void period element is particularly notable.
Fairer Share’s written evidence refers to a 0.96% surcharge for empty homes, second homes and non-resident-owned homes. Based on the proposal described in your source, a rental property that becomes empty between tenancies and remains unoccupied could trigger this higher rate.
For a £300,000 property, that would be £2,880 a year at the 0.96% rate. For a £500,000 property, it would be £4,800.
Even if a void period only lasts a few months, landlords may want clarity on how the rules would work in practice. Would short gaps between tenants be treated differently from long-term empty homes? Would there be exemptions for refurbishment, probate, major repairs or delayed tenancy starts? These are the sorts of details that can make or break a policy for property owners.
Could landlords pass the cost on through rent?
Some may assume landlords would simply increase rents to cover the new annual cost.
In practice, it may not be that simple.
Rent levels are shaped by local demand, tenant affordability, mortgage costs, supply of rental homes and competition from other properties. In areas where demand is very strong, some costs may feed into rent over time. In weaker markets, landlords may have less room to adjust prices.
There is also a wider question for policymakers. If costs increase for landlords, some may sell. That could reduce rental supply, although the scale of that effect would depend on the final design of any policy and wider market conditions.
What about landlords who recently paid Stamp Duty?
Fairer Share has proposed a credit for property owners who recently paid Stamp Duty. The idea is that the amount already paid would be used to offset future PPT bills, meaning the owner would pay no PPT until the credit had been used up.
That may ease the transition for some recent buyers. But again, the practical detail matters. Property owners would want to know how far back the credit applies, how it is calculated and whether it would transfer if a property is sold.
What should property owners think?
This proposal is still a political and policy debate, not a confirmed tax change. For now, landlords do not need to make decisions based on it.
But it is worth watching.
The direction of travel is clear enough: Stamp Duty reform, Council Tax reform and the taxation of property wealth are all back on the agenda. For landlords, the important question is whether any replacement system recognises the realities of owning and maintaining rental property.
A simpler tax system may sound attractive. But for property owners, the detail will matter far more than the headline rate.
Would an annual property tax feel fairer than Stamp Duty and Council Tax, or would it add more pressure to the rental market?
That is the question landlords may soon be asking.