A new proposal calling for landlords to pay National Insurance on rental income has reopened the debate about how the private rented sector should be taxed.
According to recent reporting, the New Economics Foundation has urged the Labour government to extend National Insurance Contributions to landlords’ rental profits, with the measure estimated to raise around £3.2 billion. Supporters of the idea argue that rental income is currently taxed more lightly than employment income because landlords pay Income Tax but not National Insurance on their property income.
That argument may sound simple. But for landlords, tenants and the wider rental market, the reality is far more complicated.
At a time when the private rented sector is already under pressure from higher interest rates, increased regulation, reduced mortgage interest relief, tax changes and growing compliance costs, another tax on rental income would not exist in isolation. It would affect investment decisions, landlord confidence, rents, property supply and, ultimately, tenants.
What is being proposed?
The proposal is that rental profits should be brought within the scope of National Insurance.
At present, most landlords pay Income Tax on rental profits, but rental income is not usually treated in the same way as employment or self-employment income for National Insurance purposes. The think-tank argument is that this creates an unfair distinction between people earning income from work and people receiving income from property.
On the surface, this is being framed as a fairness measure. In practice, it would be another direct tax increase on landlords, many of whom are already operating in a market where margins have narrowed sharply.
The proposal appears to sit within a wider political theme: governments looking for ways to raise revenue without increasing the headline rates of Income Tax, VAT or employee National Insurance. Property income is therefore an obvious target because landlords are often portrayed as having untaxed or lightly taxed gains.
That portrayal needs to be challenged.
The claim that landlords benefit from a “preferential tax regime”
One of the most questionable assumptions behind this proposal is the idea that landlords benefit from a preferential tax regime.
That may have been easier to argue many years ago, when individual landlords could deduct mortgage interest in the same way that most businesses deduct finance costs before calculating taxable profit. But that is no longer the position for many residential landlords.
Since the introduction of the finance cost restriction, often referred to as Section 24, individual residential landlords can no longer deduct mortgage interest in full from rental income before calculating taxable profit. Instead, they generally receive only a basic-rate tax credit.
This is not how most ordinary businesses are taxed.
A shop, manufacturer, consultant or trading business would normally expect to deduct the cost of borrowing used for business purposes before calculating taxable profit. Individual residential landlords are treated differently. They can be taxed on a figure that is not their true commercial profit after finance costs.
That means a higher-rate taxpayer with a mortgaged rental property may pay tax on income that has, in practical terms, gone straight to the lender. In some cases, the tax calculation can make a property look profitable on paper even where the landlord’s real cash position is weak.
This is why it is misleading to suggest that landlords are simply enjoying favourable tax treatment. In important respects, they are taxed not just differently from other businesses, but worse.
Landlords already face a heavier tax and cost burden
The National Insurance proposal also needs to be seen in the context of the wider burden already placed on landlords.
In recent years, landlords have faced:
- the restriction of mortgage interest relief for individual residential landlords;
- higher mortgage rates following the rise in interest costs;
- additional Stamp Duty Land Tax on purchases of additional properties;
- tighter energy efficiency expectations;
- licensing schemes in many local authority areas;
- growing compliance obligations;
- increased maintenance, insurance and letting costs;
- uncertainty around the Renters’ Rights Act and future regulation;
- pressure from rent arrears and affordability issues among tenants.
For many landlords, especially those with mortgages, rental income is not passive surplus wealth. It is business income used to pay finance costs, repairs, insurance, agent fees, safety checks, service charges, tax and long-term maintenance.
The public debate often treats gross rent as if it were profit. That is a serious misunderstanding.
A landlord receiving £1,000 per month in rent is not necessarily “making” £1,000 per month. From that rent must come mortgage costs, repairs, void periods, certificates, insurance, management costs, accountancy, licensing and tax. Once those costs are included, the actual return can be modest, particularly for landlords who bought recently or refinanced at higher rates.
Why National Insurance on rent would not simply be absorbed by landlords
Supporters of the proposal may argue that landlords should simply accept a lower return. Some may. But many will not be able to.
When costs rise in any supply-constrained market, those costs tend to be passed on where possible. In the private rented sector, demand remains strong and supply is already under pressure. If landlords face another tax charge, many will have only three options:
- raise rents where the market allows;
- reduce investment in repairs, improvements or future purchases;
- sell and leave the sector.
None of those outcomes is good for tenants.
A landlord who increases rent does so because the cost of providing the property has increased. A landlord who delays investment may leave the tenant with a less well-maintained home. A landlord who sells may remove a property from the rental market altogether, especially if the buyer is an owner-occupier rather than another landlord.
The key point is that taxes on landlords do not stop with landlords. They change the economics of providing rented housing.
The likely effect on tenants
Tenants are already dealing with high rents, limited availability and intense competition for homes in many parts of the UK. A further tax on landlords risks making that worse.
If landlords are required to pay National Insurance on rental profits, rents may rise as landlords attempt to recover the additional cost. This will not be possible in every case, because local affordability still matters, but in high-demand areas the pressure is likely to feed through.
For tenants, the consequences could include:
- higher advertised rents;
- fewer available homes;
- more competition for each property;
- reduced choice;
- greater difficulty for lower-income tenants, benefit tenants and families;
- more landlords choosing short-term letting, sale or non-residential investment instead.
The proposal is therefore not just a landlord tax issue. It is a housing supply issue.
Private landlords provide homes for millions of people. If government policy makes that provision less viable, tenants will feel the impact.
The danger of treating landlords as an easy revenue source
The private rented sector has become an easy target for tax policy. The political logic is clear: landlords are often seen as a group that can be taxed without much public sympathy.
But housing policy cannot be built on political convenience. It has to be built on supply, affordability and long-term stability.
If the government wants more secure, better-quality and more affordable rented homes, it needs landlords to remain in the market. It also needs new investment. Constantly increasing the tax and regulatory burden sends the opposite message.
A landlord considering whether to buy, improve or retain a rental property will look at the direction of travel. If that direction is higher tax, reduced control, more compliance, higher risk and political hostility, many will decide the return is no longer worth it.
That is already happening in parts of the market, with many landlords selling because the numbers no longer work. Adding National Insurance to rental income would risk accelerating that trend.
Is rental income really comparable to employment income?
Another flaw in the proposal is the comparison between rental income and employment income.
Employment income is earned from labour. Rental income is generated from an asset, but that does not mean it is cost-free or risk-free. Landlords provide capital, take borrowing risk, manage maintenance, deal with regulation, carry void periods, face arrears, absorb damage, pay for compliance and remain responsible for the property.
It is also worth remembering that National Insurance was historically connected to work and entitlement to certain benefits. Extending it to rental income would blur the distinction between earnings and investment income.
If the government wants to tax property income more heavily, it should be honest that this is a tax rise on landlords. Dressing it up as the removal of a “preference” ignores the existing ways in which landlords are already treated less favourably than many other businesses.
Why this could worsen the housing shortage
The UK does not have too many rental homes. It has too few.
That shortage cannot be solved by making rental supply less attractive. If private landlords leave the sector faster than new supply is created, tenants face fewer choices and higher rents.
Some argue that if landlords sell, first-time buyers may benefit. In some cases, that may happen. But the housing market is not that simple. A property sold by a landlord does not automatically house the same people who were renting it. A shared rental home occupied by three tenants may become a single household owner-occupied property. A family renting because they cannot yet buy may be forced to move. A tenant receiving benefits may not be in a position to purchase at all.
Reducing the number of rental homes does not remove rental demand. It simply leaves more tenants competing for fewer properties.
That is why tax policy aimed at landlords often has unintended consequences.
A better approach
If the government is serious about improving the rental market, the focus should be on increasing housing supply, encouraging responsible long-term investment and supporting good landlords who provide safe, well-managed homes.
A better approach would include:
- restoring a fairer tax treatment of finance costs for genuine rental businesses;
- encouraging long-term investment in energy efficiency and property standards;
- ensuring regulation is clear, practical and proportionate;
- tackling rogue landlords without penalising responsible ones;
- increasing housebuilding across all tenures;
- supporting institutional and private investment in rented housing;
- recognising that a healthy rental market needs landlords as well as tenants.
The debate should not be framed as landlords versus tenants. In a functioning rental market, both need stability. Tenants need secure, affordable homes. Landlords need confidence that the rules and tax system allow them to provide those homes sustainably.
Conclusion
The proposal to make landlords pay National Insurance on rental income may be presented as a fairness measure, but it risks being another example of policy that sounds simple in theory and becomes damaging in practice.
The claim that landlords benefit from a preferential tax regime is, at best, incomplete. Individual residential landlords are already subject to a tax treatment that is harsher than that faced by many other businesses, particularly because of the restriction on mortgage interest relief.
Adding National Insurance would increase costs in a sector already under pressure. Some landlords may absorb the cost, but many will seek to recover it through higher rents or may decide to leave the market altogether. Either outcome risks making life harder for tenants.
If policymakers want a better private rented sector, they need to recognise that landlords are part of the housing solution. Continually increasing the burden on them may raise revenue in the short term, but it could reduce supply, increase rents and worsen the very problems tenants already face.
NetRent does not provide legal or tax advice. This article reflects our understanding of current rental property issues and should not be relied upon as legal, financial or tax advice. Landlords should seek advice from a suitably qualified professional before making decisions about their property or tax position.
Telephone: 01352 721300
Email: support@netrent.co.uk