rates go down, does he reduce the rent? No. And if interest rates go up, does he increase the rent? Again no. Or do you genuinely believe that BTL landlords are completely indifferent to interest rates? ttp://profiles.google.com/gmwadsworth Mark Wadsworth "Rents cannot be lower than tax. This is quite simple, and what you're ignoring. People cannot afford to make a loss by not passing the tax on!" Half right. The rents are fixed, by the market, and the tax is set at the total rent minus all running and maintenance and insurance costs. So the correct statement is "the tax will not be higher than the pure location rent". No landlord will make a loss. If the total rental income for a nice house is 15,000 and the running costs, depreciation and voids and so on are 3,000 a year, then the location rent is 12,000 and the tax would be (say) 10,000. You appear to be suggesting that the landlord can somehow persuade people to pay 15,000 + 10,000 = 25,000 a year for a home which is only worth 15,000. Which is nonsense of course, the landlord is like any other supplier in this regard, he maximises his income by setting his rent at 15,000 -- if he asks for more he gets  nothing and has no income to pay the 10,000 tax. As to food prices, I'd be interested to see these proposals you have read (taxing farmland is barely relevant in the context of London) and even