Families and property investors could face significantly higher Capital Gains Tax (CGT) bills if an Andy Burnham-led government adopts reforms currently being discussed, according to new analysis from wealth manager Rathbones.
The report examines the potential impact of two proposals: abolishing the CGT uplift on death and aligning capital gains tax rates with income tax. Rathbones estimates that removing the uplift could leave beneficiaries with a tax bill of almost £120,000 when selling an inherited family home that has risen in value by £500,000.
The analysis also suggests that matching CGT rates to income tax rates would substantially increase liabilities for investors. An additional-rate taxpayer making a £50,000 gain could pay almost £10,000 more in tax, while a higher-rate taxpayer could face an increase of more than £7,500.
Ed Wood, financial planning director at Rathbones, said: “We’ve seen a significant increase in client enquiries about CGT as speculation grows over what fiscal measures a new government might consider to fund its economic agenda. With commitments made on the main tax levers, many investors see CGT as a potentially tempting area for area for policymakers looking to raise additional revenue.
“However, there is a risk that further increases in the CGT burden could discourage investment at a time when the UK needs private capital to turbocharge economic growth. There is also a question over whether higher rates would ultimately deliver the expected boost to the public finances, as investor behaviour often changes in response to tax increases.”
Under current rules, assets are generally rebased for CGT purposes on death, meaning gains accrued during the deceased’s lifetime are wiped out. If this relief were abolished and inherited assets retained their original acquisition cost, beneficiaries could face substantial tax liabilities when those assets are eventually sold.
Rathbones’ analysis* shows that, assuming a 24% CGT rate:
| Lifetime gain on inherited asset | Estimated CGT liability |
| £150,000 | £35,280 |
| £300,000 | £71,280 |
| £500,000 | £119,280 |
A family inheriting a property that has risen in value by £500,000 over a 25-year period could therefore face a CGT bill approaching £120,000 when the property is ultimately sold.
The prospect of abolishing CGT uplift on death comes alongside planned inheritance tax changes that will bring unused pension funds within the scope of IHT from April 2027.
Wood continued: “For many families, the removal of CGT uplift on death would feel like a one-two punch. Not only could inherited wealth be subject to inheritance tax, but beneficiaries could also face a CGT bill on gains that accrued during their loved one’s lifetime. Add in the forthcoming inclusion of unused pension pots within inheritance tax calculations, and there is a growing concern that a much larger slice of intergenerational wealth will end up in the taxman’s coffers.”
“The tax implications are only part of the story. Removing CGT uplift on death could also create a paperwork nightmare for executors, who may be forced to reconstruct decades of ownership history, track down purchase records, calculate the cost of long-forgotten improvements and establish the original acquisition cost of assets that may have been held for generations.
“For grieving families, the challenge may not just be paying the tax, but establishing how much tax is due in the first place. Any reform would therefore risk adding significant complexity, cost and delay to the administration of estates at an already difficult time.”
There has also been growing speculation that CGT rates could be aligned with income tax rates, potentially increasing the rate paid on gains to as much as 45% for additional-rate taxpayers.
If this occurred, an additional-rate taxpayer making a £50,000 gain outside tax wrappers such as ISAs and pensions could face a tax bill of £21,150, compared with £11,280 under the current regime — an increase of £9,870.
Higher-rate taxpayers would also face a notable increase in their tax burden. A £10,000 gain would generate a tax bill of £2,800, up from £1,680 currently. On gains of £50,000, the tax liability would rise to £18,800, compared with £11,280 today.
Basic-rate taxpayers would also be affected, with the tax bill on a £10,000 gain rising from £1,260 to £1,400 if CGT rates were aligned with income tax rates.
Kirsty Cartwright, Investment Director at Rathbones, commented: “For higher and additional-rate taxpayers, aligning CGT rates with income tax rates could add thousands of pounds to the tax bill on a single disposal. For business owners, landlords and long-term investors, any reforms could have implications not only for investment returns, but also for succession planning and the transfer of wealth between generations.”
“While speculation has prompted useful conversations about tax planning, investors should avoid letting tax considerations alone drive investment decisions. One approach we use is agreeing a CGT budget with clients, allowing gains to be realised in a measured way while reinvesting into opportunities that are better aligned with their objectives, circumstances and risk profile.
“The key is not to let the tax tail wag the investment dog. After all, CGT is only payable when you’ve made a profit. Whatever policy changes may come, making full use of available allowances and tax-efficient wrappers such as ISAs and pensions remains as important as ever.”



Comments (11)
We are now to be taxed on inflation. What about all the interest we paid on the mortgage. This averaged at 12% in my day.
Define wealthy. It seems to be anybody who owns a house and is actually working
If the CGT uplift on death is removed from residential housing, there needs to be a recognition that much of the increase is due to inflation, which should be deducted before treating it as unearned income… but it won’t happen.
Following Reeves’ last increase in CGT, there should now be evidence of the change in behaviour of those with chargeable gains, and the impact on the expected tax revenues. Personally, I’ve stopped selling shares, hoping for a sensible government in the next couple of years who will realise growth needs to be encouraged, not taxed. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Then there are the thousands of higher net worth earners and investors who have simply left the UK for more investor-friendly climes. How much has that cost the government? Their response? We don’t recognise that!
Would not an incoming replacement government repeal these socialist driven ideological taxes? Don`t die, just hang on.
The Tories had their chance and didn’t do anything to encourage investment and growth. That leaves Reform UK, and we can already see the levers being pulled by all the other Parties plus the media, unions, and civil service, to ensure Reform UK, don’t get the chance to make those changes.
Pay TAX on the income needed to purchase a property.
Pay Stamp Duty Land TAX needed to purchase a property.
Pay TAXon everything you ever purchase for that property.
Pay TAX on any renovations ever needed in that property.
Pay Council TAX to live in that property.
Die and you cant even leave that asset to your kids without them getting stung by the government in further TAX.
Its a joke.
The left insist upon interfering with our lives don’t they?
In short – if tax increases on wealth, people with wealth will pay more tax.
People without wealth, which is increasing at a rapid rate (see home ownership vs tenancy trends for example) tend to pay a much higher ratio of tax from sources of income than those who have wealth and tax advisors.
The lower classes are struggling and the middle class’s days are numbered – that means most people reading this. We either make changes or continue down this trajectory towards a society like India. Who wants that?
The question should be – what will the tax be used for?
Oh dear!
At least 1 person seems to get it !
I don’t get the attitude, the country is clearly in a dire state .
A healthy minority of people made some good/lucky decisions In the 1980s and seem determined that the rest of society should keep subsidising them.
If you’re lucky enough to be a multi millionaire then just pay up and be grateful you lived in a society that allowed you to become so wealthy in the first place.
How is the rest of society subsidising those who bought homes in the 80s?