MORE than 21,000 homes across London could face annual bills exceeding £50,000 under land value tax proposals championed by Andy Burnham.

Tax Policy Associates modelled the impact of an annual levy of 1.28% on the value of the land beneath each property and shared its findings with The Jattvibe.

The worst-hit areas will include Kensington and Chelsea, which accounts for more than 15,000 homes facing bills above £50,000, alongside properties in Camden, Hackney, and Haringey.

But the financial impact extends far beyond London and the South East, as a further 576,000 properties across the UK could attract annual bills above £10,000.

Sign up for the Money newsletter

Thank you!

Responding to the proposals, a Reform UK spokesperson said: “Nobody in Britain has voted for this.

“It has not been thought through and if Burnham imposes it it will simply force people who have done the right thing to pay more tax.

DOWN THE DRAIN
South East Water ordered to pay £30.5m in compensation and fines

PUB POWER
Three Lions heroes give pubs major spending boost, bank consumer study reveals

“State capacity is more stretched than ever and this would be an impractical measure, that would cost the country dearly, from a man who a few weeks ago pretended he had no interest in being PM.”

You can use our interactive tool above to calculate their potential land value tax based on location and compare it against their current council tax bill.

How would it work?

A land value tax is an annual charge based solely on the value of the land beneath a home, rather than the house or flat itself.

Tax Policy Associates’ figures assume it would replace council tax, which places homes into eight bands, from A to H, based on property valuations dating from 1991.

The model would also abolish stamp duty, the one-off tax paid when purchasing a property.

The analysis assumes there would be no ten-year phase-in period, credit for stamp duty recently paid or option to defer bills until a property is sold or its owner dies.

The figures therefore show the estimated first-year impact of introducing a flat 1.28% rate without transitional measures.

Regional impact

The proposed tax could raise £56.7billion a year, replacing £45.2billion from council tax and £11.5billion from residential stamp duty.

The change would therefore be broadly revenue-neutral for the Treasury.

About 69% of homes nationally would receive lower bills, according to the analysis, while the remaining 31% would pay more.

London and the South East would face the largest overall increases.

London households would pay an additional £8.5billion a year, with total payments in the capital rising from £11.1billion to £19.6billion.

The South East would pay an additional £938million annually.

For example, in Brighton and Hove, 20,470 Band D homes currently paying £2,457 in council tax would face an estimated annual land value tax bill of £4,267.

In Guildford, 16,940 Band D homes currently paying £2,429 would face estimated bills of £2,930.

In Waverley, 13,590 Band D properties paying £2,484 would see estimated bills rise to £3,130.

Homeowners in some areas outside London and the South East would also pay more.

Bristol has 19,900 Band D homes where bills would increase from £2,584 to an estimated £4,791.

The wider South West would pay £919million less overall, but Bristol’s higher property values would leave many households facing increased charges.

Homes paying more under the model would be spread across major English cities.

The backlash

Burnham has long argued that stamp duty punishes people for moving house.

The former Greater Manchester Mayor also believes council tax is deeply unfair.

He claims it hits owners of cheaper homes harder than those in expensive mansions.

He previously wrote that abolishing stamp duty helps young people put down roots.

Economists generally agree that stamp duty is a terrible tax.

Stuart Adam from the Institute for Fiscal Studies said it discourages people from buying and selling.

He said a land tax is efficient because land is fixed and cannot be hidden.

“More or less any property tax is going to be better than stamp duty,” he said.

But changing the entire tax system is fraught with practical and political dangers.

Lucian Cook, head of residential research at Savills, questioned Burnham’s mandate.

“It is such a big change to the tax system with clear winners and losers,” he said.

He added it would be incredibly difficult to pull off within this Parliament.

Valuing land separately from the buildings on it would be highly bureaucratic.

It would also leave the Government open to endless legal challenges from landowners.

There are also deep fears for older homeowners who are asset-rich but cash-poor.

Aneisha Beveridge of Hamptons warned they may simply not have the income to pay.

“They may struggle to absorb a higher annual tax bill,” she said.

Renters could also be battered if landlords pass the massive new charges onto them.

Robert Salter of Blick Rothenberg said landlords could simply look to hike rents.

Alternatively, landlords might sell up, shrinking the rental market and driving up costs further.

Alternative plans

Burnham has also reportedly backed a proportional property tax proposed by the Fairer Share campaign group.

Under that proposal, owners would pay an annual charge of 0.48% based on the total market value of their property, rather than only the land.

Initial increases would be capped at £1,200 above a household’s previous council tax bill.

Second-home owners and people living abroad would pay a higher rate of 0.96%.

Again, the impact would remain greatest in London and the South East because of higher property values in those regions.

Other tax rises being considered

While the Tax Policy Associates data suggests 69% of households would see their bills fall under a land value tax, Burnham is also said to be considering a range of other tax rises that could offset any gains for those households.

Burnham has promised what he has called the “biggest change in our lifetimes” if he takes over in Downing Street, but he would inherit a reported £5 billion gap in the public finances.

Raising taxes is regarded as one of the quickest ways to fill it.

Nimesh Shah, of accountancy firm Blick Rothenberg, said the incoming prime minister would need “quick wins” within the current tax system to raise cash.

Income tax thresholds are already frozen under Labour until 2031, and Burnham could choose to extend that freeze further.

Freezing tax bands acts as a stealth income tax through “fiscal drag”, where wages rise but taxpayers are dragged into higher brackets.

Someone earning £35,000 is already set to be up to £500 worse off by the end of the decade under the existing freeze, and any extension would leave millions of people paying more.

Burnham has also hinted at wanting higher earners to pay more.

Despite pledging to stick to Chancellor Rachel Reeves‘ fiscal rules and not raise income tax, VAT or National Insurance, Shah said Burnham could introduce a 50% higher rate of income tax, replacing the current 45% rate paid on earnings over £125,140 a year.

Someone earning £150,000 would pay around £1,250 more in income tax annually under such a change.

Fuel duty, frozen for more than a decade and held down by Labour until the end of this year, is another lever Burnham could pull.

Shah said unfreezing the tax and uprating it in line with inflation could add between £60 and £100 a year to petrol and diesel costs for households, raising an estimated £6billion to £7billion for the Treasury.

Capital Gains Tax (CGT) is also reportedly under consideration.

CGT is charged on the profit made when selling assets such as a second home, shares, investments or cryptocurrency.

It is currently charged at 18% for basic rate taxpayers and 24% for higher earners, calculated after profits are added to other income – both lower than equivalent income tax rates.

Burnham is understood to be considering aligning CGT rates with income tax rates, after his close adviser, Louise Haigh MP, called for the rates to be revised.