It’s being reported that the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is considering a radical shake-up of property taxation, potentially replacing stamp duty with an annual property levy for homes over £500,000. If that’s true, and all signs point to a major announcement on 26 November, then brace yourself: the housing market, already subdued, could be in for a major shock.
The Treasury is scrambling to fill a £30bn black hole. Stamp duty may be on the way out – whether through Labour’s plans or under the Conservatives, if re-elected to power. But don’t mistake this for a tax cut. Instead, we’re likely to see an annual property tax under Labour, which could push homeowners’ bills up by thousands of pounds a year. Where are people, many of whom are already struggling, supposed to find that kind of cash?
It’s not just property taxes under the microscope either. Rumours are swirling about a raid on pension pots — yet another quiet attempt to squeeze more out of those who’ve saved responsibly all their lives. So we’re now facing a situation where people could be taxed out of their homes and out of their retirement funds. It’s a double whammy for middle Britain.
There’s also talk of applying capital gains tax to main residences, which could wipe billions of pounds off the UK economy. That’s not just a housing issue — that’s a national financial crisis in the making.
And who’s buying anyway? First-time buyers are already stretched. Upsizers are hesitant. Landlords are exiting. Construction is slowing. So what exactly are we hoping to stimulate? Even with planning permission, developers aren’t building — there’s no incentive, no workforce and no confidence.
Against this backdrop, we’re also being told the Government is planning a major overhaul of the home moving process and estate agency sector. According to newly appointed Housing Secretary Steve Reed, these massive changes including mandatory upfront information, optional binding pre-sale contracts and a whole raft of minimum qualification requirements for agents.
Apparently, this will cut transaction times by four weeks, halve fall-throughs and save first-time buyers £710. In principle, I support reform — we’ve been calling for more transparency and professionalism for years. But let’s not pretend these are new ideas. Upfront information, logbooks and digital IDs have been floating around for years.
As ever, estate agents will be expected to foot the bill and pick up the pieces. We’re told this will ‘drive up standards’, but how about addressing the delays caused by conveyancing and the dire shortage of skilled trades holding back housebuilding?
Meanwhile, if Reeves’ property tax proposals go ahead, agents should prepare for a flood of downsizers — not through choice, but necessity. And make no mistake, these won’t be happy movers. These will be pensioners forced to leave the homes they’ve built their lives around. The emotional toll is real and the political backlash will be even more so.
We need to act fast. Get the messaging right. There’s no shame in downsizing but it’s tragic we’re even here. For generations, home ownership has been the foundation of British society. An Englishman’s home is his castle, as the saying goes (though that needs rewriting in this modern day and age!). If we start taxing people out of their homes while raiding their pensions and rewriting the rules of agency, we’re not reforming — we’re dismantling.
Rachel from Accounts may be balancing the books, but if she’s not careful, she’ll tip the whole market over in the process.
So here’s my message to government: don’t confuse reform with revenue-raising. If you want a fairer system, start by cutting transaction costs, incentivising new homes and supporting skilled labour. Don’t punish aspiration. Don’t penalise pensioners. And don’t spring changes on a sector already shouldering the burden of broken systems elsewhere. Engage with us — the people who live and breathe this market every day — before you take decisions that could derail it for years to come.
Paul Smith is chairman and founder of Spicerhaart.
Kier Starmer refuses to rule out property tax rise during PMQs
Why the need for misogyny in the title of the article?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Agreed.
Totally uncalled for and completely put me off the main message because I was cross.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Misogyny is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It is a form of sexism that can keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the social roles of patriarchy.
Are you saying Rachel is not a woman?
Did you complain of misandry when any male chancellor was named in an article?
Stop clutching your pearls and READ THE ARTICLE.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
In short, calling her “Rachel from Accounts” is misogynistic because it uses gendered stereotypes to belittle a woman’s authority, diminishes her accomplishments, and invokes a cultural image of female subordination in the workplace. It’s not merely a joke, it reflects (and reinforces) the way powerful women are often trivialised in ways men are not.
the nickname trivialises her senior role. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of the most powerful and high-status positions in government. Calling her by a nickname that suggests she’s a low-level office worker implies she’s not qualified for or deserving of her position.
If a male Chancellor were instead referred to as “Richard from Finance”, it would likely be seen as mockery of his competence, but that phrase doesn’t carry the same cultural baggage about gender and status.
The phrase “Rachel from Accounts” evokes a familiar sexist trope… the idea of a woman in a junior administrative or support role, often portrayed as dull, fussy, or unimportant. It taps into cultural clichés about “office women” who are diligent but lack authority or sophistication.
Using that label for a senior female politician reduces her to a stereotype of an unthreatening office worker, reinforcing old patterns of dismissing women’s expertise.
Men in high positions are rarely belittled with names that imply subordination or domesticity. When men are mocked, it’s usually for their decisions or competence, not by infantilising or reducing their professional standing in gendered terms. Women, however, are more often demeaned through language that trivialises or stereotypes them.
So, while the phrase might appear humorous or harmless on the surface, its power lies in a double standard that undermines women’s authority in ways men don’t typically face.
Rachel Reeves has a long background in economics and finance — she’s not “from accounts” but from the Bank of England, the LSE, and years in public office. Framing her in such a dismissive way carries an implicit message: that even when women achieve high office, they’re still seen as lesser, or as “lucky to be there”.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
During her time as shadow chancellor, she claimed she had worked at the Bank of England for a decade and “loved it”. Labour has also claimed she worked there for “the best part of a decade” despite the fact she SPENT 18 months of the six-year period ON A SECONDMENT at the US Embassy.
Her FIRST YEAR at the bank was as a master’s student at the London School of Economics.
Questions have also been raised about the seniority of the roles held by Ms Reeves.
Last year, she said in a social media post: “As a former Bank of England economist, I know what it will take to get Britain’s economy back on track.”
Other posts on her X, formerly Twitter, account stated that her time at the Bank of England taught her “how important stability is for our economy” and “what it takes to run a successful economy”.
But a separate post dating from 2012 said in response to a deleted tweet: “Indeed – I first met him when I was the very JUNIOR Japan analyst at the Bank of England 12 years ago!”
NOT SUCH A BRILLIANT ECONOMIST AFTER ALL. Do let us know, on November 27th, how your wonderful Chancellor of the Exchequer did with her budget. I have yet to know of a competent Labour Chancellor: Denis Healey, Gordon Brown & Alistair Darling – ALL MALE.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
We found another misogynist!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Look, we found another misandrist.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I think you’re really stretching with this one… take a deep breath and move on with your life.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The headline made you cross? Not the prospect of more tax or the risk of a financial crisis? Wipe your tears and grow up.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Hi Paul!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
misogyny? I am female and that comment is ridiculous.
Might be time to move abroad though…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I’ve been in Portugal for 3 years and a breath of fresh air compared to the doom laden country I once loved, i still return for family and last properties I’m selling-but the markets stalled due to the mess and budget uncertainty, the elephant in the UK’s room is corruption, woke, regulation, migration and welfare that are not being addressed by a PM who seems to enrich himself and prefers to be on the international stage.
Sadly all I see is civil unrest in the next 5 years or more.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Goodness!
As a person who has emigrated to another country, you have those opinions…?
Wow, just wow!
(and here comes the downvote brigade…)
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Rachel worked in complaints, not even accounts. We are in for a very rocky ride, at least those of us who are savers, pensioners, home owners, landlords etc.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I think the problem is that the English have focussed on having a castle
We have so much illegal immigration that need any form of housing has becomes an issue (no issue with Legal immigration)
We have so many on benefits in “Welfare Briton” that just 4 none mouldy walls seems to be an issue
So the minority percentage that want the castle are deemed as “Rich” and should be whipped, bereted and stripped of all privileges – bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Then we have those that have worked hard all their lives paying tax and NI only to find that we are supporting all those on benefits
This country is screwed right now. Farage may not be THE answer, just like Trump is not the answer – but we need change and we need it fast because right now we are walking almost blindly into the end of this, once great, country.
Just maybe, we need a new country to call home now.
I am getting out of here. I do not recognise this country as home anymore
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
No, housing would still be a problem even if all the asylum seekers were deported. Our lives wouldn’t change at all if they all went. Welfare Britain hasn’t caused mouldy walls. Most people claiming benefits are actually working. If you think it’s bad here you’ll probably be in for a shock if you move away.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
We’re certainly heading into challenging times, but we all anticipated that at the start of the year and should have adjusted our expectations accordingly.
The positive side is that those who have experienced recessions before and know how to actively negotiate sales—rather than simply listing on Rightmove and waiting for results—will thrive.
Although the overall outlook may seem bleak, there are still some bright spots worth holding onto.
May stop the one man brigades spouting on as to how wonderful life is without a corporate umbrella for the bad times
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
This is an opinion piece and PAS is entitled to his view. However the headline is puerile and unnecessary and takes away credibility from his opinion.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
That you, Rachel?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
That you, Nigel?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Now I KNOW you are Rachel – she always blames, Tories, Reform or Brexit for her incompetence.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
The government is between a rock and a hard place.
Because of profligate mis-spending by the Tories that lined the pockets of the already wealthy, this country has HUGE debts. This is material fact, not my opinion. Think of the money that found its way to the personal bank account of one Baroness Mone, for example.
Those debts were accrued when the interest rates were ridiculously low. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but debt always becomes due sooner or later.
The interest rates have risen and paying off those debts is eye-wateringly costly, projected to be £111 billion pounds for 2025-26. For nothing, just to pay the interest, not paying back any capital…
Just for reference, the NHS costs £182 billion a year to run.
A complete sh*t show handed to the current government by the Conservatives.
In 2007 the UK National debt was £640billion (about 35% of GDP).
Today it is about £2,800billion (that’s 2.8 TRILLION pounds about 101% of GDP). That’s 4.4 times higher than 2007.
ALL of that is the fault of the Conservatives. NONE of that is the fault of the Labour government. The Labour Government were not in power when all of that money got spent.
So, where did all that money go? Remember, this is the Tories we’re talking about, so it definitely didn’t go to workshy migrants…
Unfortunately, Labour do have to try and deal with it. Unless of course we can all band together and find a spare couple of trillion pounds.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register