By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.


Capital gains tax on buy-to-let should be increased, says IPPR

Buy-to-let landlords could soon be required to pay more money in capital gains tax (CGT) under new proposals put forward by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). 

The plan is expected to spark outrage among many landlords given that the CGT tax take is likely to be bolstered by buy-to-let property sales over the next few years. 

There has already been a hefty rise in CGT receipts due to the changes in property taxes over the past two years. 


A number of landlords have responded to the government squeezing their returns by selling their assets, triggering an 18.6% increase in CGT payments. 

The latest data released by HM Revenue & Customs revealed the CGT tax take hit a record £9.2bn in the 2018-19 financial year, up from £7.8bn in the previous 12 months.

CGT applies to gains made from the sale of assets such as second properties and stocks and shares. 

All taxpayers have an annual CGT exemption of £12,000. Above this amount, lower-rate taxpayers pay 10% on capital gains and higher and additional rate taxpayers pay 20%. 

But people selling additional properties pay CGT at 18% if they are a basic rate taxpayer or 28% if a higher or additional rate taxpayer.

Capital gains are traditionally taxed at lower levels because of the investor risk, whereas employment income and savings interest are generally more guaranteed.

However, the IPPR believes that CGT rates on investment sales, second homes and buy-to-lets should be increased to income tax levels. 

The influential think-tank also proposes that the annual exempt allowance of £12,000 should be reduced to just £1,000. Under its plans, a basic rate income tax payer would face a CGT hike to 20% from as low as 10%. 

Meanwhile, higher and additional rate taxpayers would see CGT rates jump to 40% and 45%. 

Savers and investors could be slapped with an additional £120bn in tax over five years under the major overhaul of CGT. 

Sarah Coles, personal finance analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, told the press: “The IPPR wants the government to ramp up the tax on savers and investors – both on the gains they make and any income they receive.

“It underlines how tax allowances and rates can change overnight, and the importance of wrapping as much of your savings and investments in Isa wrappers as possible - to help protect your money from tax, regardless of any policy change.

“The think-tank says its proposals are fairer than the current system. It underplays the fact that in reality, the vast majority of savers and investors pay tax on their income from work, they save and invest diligently for their future, and may pay a second round of tax on their investment income or gains.” 

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

  • icon

    Oh my god! Really! Legalized theft in supersize! What with John macdonnel ( hope I`ve spelt your name wrong) wanting to give a discount on my properties even if I don't want to sell them and now these baffoons wanting to tax the Cr**p out of me if I want to get rid I may as well just post em the keys and be done with it. I tell you if the country gets any worse I really think its time to live in Russia where its starting to look a better proposition than this Cr**p pit. Sorry rant over.


    Russia, I know a guy that married a Russian lady , he now lives in Russia very happily with his younger bride.

  • icon

    I get really annoyed about how BTL landlords pay far higher CGT than any other investors who can take their tax free gains every year. We should be able to roll up the unclaimed annual CGT allowances and set them against any eventual longer term gain. Our tax system favours those who take a short term view of investment and penalises those providing long term homes for those who won't or can't afford to buy their own homes.

  • John Cart

    Really!!!!!!!!! These cnuts don't know what to do next to screw money out of landlords.

  • icon

    It’s pure communism. I would say ‘let’s hope Labour never get in’ but you can equally imagine the Tories pulling this stunt. This happens and I’m off to somewhere more welcoming.

    John Cart

    This "Tory" government is really just Labour "lite". Stealing their policies in the vague hope of getting votes from Generation Rant.

  •  G romit

    Why don't they just raise all taxes on Landlords to 100% and have done with it!!!

  • icon

    We already pay a far higher rate of capital gains than anyone else @ 28%, or course it should be reduced to 18% like for most others but we are singled out. Its not a think tank just a Draconian Cess
    Pit, the scum of the earth. We all know why they are doing it, LL so fed up they want out but this is designed to stop them, they need to keep us there to be able to torture us in the future or if this don’t stop us getting out they make another killing while we exit.

    • 12 September 2019 14:17 PM

    Yep it is all a bit worrying.
    It really cannot be practical to remain a LL if there is no effective exit strategy.
    LL will be trapped by Govt into utilising their capital for the good of the feckless with the very likely possibility of their properties being stolen from them by tenants in a Labour RTB process.
    Quite frankly with such possibilities it can't make sense for LL to offer AST to anyone.
    I know if I had equity across multiple BTL properties I would retain as many as I could but on Residential mortgages and take in lodgers.
    There is no limit as to how many Residential properties one has.
    So to me it makes sense to reduce to possibly 2 or 3 Residential properties where there is no risk of RTB with lodgers.
    Or if unencumbered then offering AST to sharers means no RTB possibility.
    I can't see how a RTB policy would work if it was one of the LL homes!?
    But with all these pressures on LL it seems that substantial rationalisation of existing properties would make sense.
    It would seem that less will be more!

  • icon

    Well, that will make it impossible to sell for those who have already released equity by remortgaging. Maybe that's the intention. To trap people into into having to rent out at no profit and with no way out except bankruptcy.

    • 10 October 2019 05:46 AM

    Yep your contentions are correct.
    But we have exactly the same situation with S24.
    LL with properties made unviable cannot sell as they have no resources to pay the CGT bill because they have borrowed the increased equity over the years.
    They did this on the basis that they would have years for properties to increase in value.
    S24 somewhat compromised that business projection to say the least!! and many LL now do indeed face bankruptcy.
    To avoid such they will be forced to subsidise these properties if they have the resources in the hope that in the coming years equity will increase so that they can sell and pay the CGT bill.
    Not exactly a guaranteed situation!!
    Which is why retrospective tax legislation is so unfair.
    But Govt doesn't care about bankrupting mortgaged sole trader LL.
    Who'd be such a LL!?...........................Well many AREN'T they are selling up!!!
    Had a very interesting conversation with an EA yesterday.
    This year he has sold 23 former LL properties for good prices
    Neither FTB nor tenants bought these ex-LL properties.
    They were all bought by upsizers or downsizers.
    Lots of them exiting the London property market and bringing the spoils of the London property market to the hinterlands.
    They know they will not be returning to the London market and so they can afford to pay top prices.
    This leaves me quite satisfied as I intend to get out of the PRS for all the obvious reasons and I will be selling to these upsizers and downsizers who are after the sorts of properties I have to sell.
    I will escape nutty Corbyn and his property expropriating fellow Labour Marxists.
    Plus escaping from the ridiculous Tory S24 policy.

  • icon

    For anyone selling it is possible to legally avoid CGT using EIS investments. It won't suit everyone but it is an option.

  • icon
    • 23 November 2019 19:04 PM

    Don't trust such circumstances..Every 5 years there is the risk of a Marxist Labour Govt removing facilities like EIS.
    To protect wealth which is what all Govt's are now coming after that wealth needs to be able to be liquidated pretty quickly so that cash can be got out of the UK to avoid potential exchange controls.
    As fewer people pay tax on income Govt's have no choice for their magic money tree than to tax wealth..
    That means taxing LL until the pips squeak as Govt knows doing so won't be electorally damaging!!
    The reason is obvious because especially in the SE that is where the money is in the form of taxable equity.

    So you can struggle all you like to achieve property wealth out of taxed income only to find that substantial proportions of wealth will be taxed into oblivion.
    So why bother!!??
    Govt now seems to be attacking FHL so even that business avenue will be removed as viable.

  • icon

    Yes Paul they can remove EIS but it would be nigh on impossible to make that retroactive. Anyway that is up to you.


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up