New research reveals strong support among estate agents in England for chancellor Rachel Reeves’ proposed reforms to property taxation – including the potential scrapping of stamp duty. However, most agents want to see the tax abolished entirely without introducing a replacement levy.
According to the survey of 536 estate agents carried out by GetAgent, 66% of agents either strongly or somewhat support replacing SDLT with a seller-side tax, as Reeves recently instructed Treasury officials to explore. Just 13% oppose the idea. Proposals under consideration include a value-based levy targeting higher-value properties — akin to a mansion tax — as well as plans to modernise council tax, which currently relies on outdated 1990s property valuations.
But when it comes to what should replace SDLT — if anything — opinion is more divided. While 44% of agents believe any new levy should apply only to higher-value homes, nearly half (49%) said a proposed £500,000 threshold for such a tax was appropriate. Still, a significant 44% argue the threshold should be set higher, to avoid hitting mainstream sellers.
A key concern shared by agents is the potential for unintended consequences. If a seller-side levy were introduced, 96% believe homeowners would likely raise asking prices to offset the added cost — potentially undermining the intended benefits of the reform.
Despite these concerns, the majority of agents believe removing the upfront cost of SDLT would have a positive impact on market activity. An overwhelming 92% said it would encourage more buyers to enter the market, with 47% expecting a significant boost to demand.
The research also highlights a strong appetite for more radical change:
-
79% of agents favour abolishing stamp duty entirely without introducing a replacement
-
Just 15% support replacing SDLT with a different property tax
-
Only 10% think the current system should remain unchanged
Overall, while the industry welcomes reform, the message from estate agents is clear: any new system must be carefully designed to avoid penalising everyday homeowners and to ensure that it delivers real benefits for the market.
Colby Short, co-founder and CEO of GetAgent, commented: “Stamp duty has long been one of the biggest barriers to homeownership and removing upfront costs for buyers would undoubtedly stimulate demand. Less friction within the purchasing process means more sales and, for agents, more commission, so it’s no surprise to see the majority back stamp duty reform in one form or another.
“However, our research shows scepticism about simply shifting the burden onto sellers and one potential path forward would be allowing buyers to spread this hefty upfront cost over a number of years post-purchase.
“Whatever may materialise, it’s clear that agents want a system that is fairer, more transparent and does not stifle market activity.”
Abolishing stamp duty ‘would create a very different market landscape for agents’
It is utterly ridiculous to consider that this government will overhaul SDLT with a tax that is better. The only change will mean increasing tax income which naturally means it will be bad for the market. Anyone who has answered that SDLT should be abolished and not replaced is living in a dream world. I would love income tax and NI to be abolished and not replaced but it’s ridiculous to think that a left wing government that has a debt of £2,700,000,000,000 with annual interest payments of £107,000,000,000 will do anything other than raise taxes. Leave stamp duty alone! Stop making so much noise about it or you’ll regret it when they change it. Every time ‘the people’ demand a tax is abolished, it’s just replaced with another tax that generates more income! Rates to Council tax for example. We should be focussing on why the government doesn’t cut its costs rather than raise taxes.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I agree. And don’t forget those close to and in retirement. Limited incomes, tight budgets and facing a tax on living in a house you (probably) paid tax on to buy. My mums in a house probably worth £500k but it’s only because it’s risen in value over the decades it’s been owned and suddenly to be taxed to live in it but only government pension increases to cover it. It’s time this looney lot realised Rachel from accounts and two tier Kier gave in or got kicked out of power.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Shift the focus. The biggest barrier to FTB’s buying their first home is having to raise a 5% deposit or more. Just let them borrow 100% mortgages on 5 year fixed rates. Their are vast numbers of extremely creditworthy buyers that just can’t raise the deposit on top of all other costs, particularly in the South whereprices are high and where prices were inflated falsely by the Help to Buy scheme for new homes. Prices are just about starting to reach parity with income levels for FTB’s. If the government wants to actually help FTB’s then all they have to do is indemnify the top 5% of their mortgage. IE if they get repossessed and the lender doesn’t redeem the full loan, the government insures up to 5% of the loan. It should cost the government nothing, but the FTB’s would pay a nominal sum for the indemnity which would generate a small amount of income. If prices rise then the lender will recoup the full loan anyway so the indemnity would rarely be used. Just lend wisely to people that can afford the payments.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Not sure why we’re listening to GetAgent’s opinion all of a sudden, to be honest. They don’t have the interests of the property industry, or estate agents at heart, and as such they should be ignored by the industry. Any company that tries to intercept leads you’d receive anyway, and then sell them back to you, it not a company our industry should be dealing with.
But anyway…
For what it’s worth, I’d support SDLT being reformed so that both the seller and the buyer pay 0.5% each no matter what the value. That’s an affordable sum for each party, and will still raise a significant sum for the treasury, which ought to mean that tax would not have to rise in other areas.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register