By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.

An MP is to stage a special all-party parliamentary debate on the future of stamp duty on homes and the way in which, she says, it distorts the housing market.

Anne Main, Conservative MP for St Albans, has persuaded the Backbench Business Committee of the House of Commons to give consent for the debate. Because it is not part of a new law, it will not be debated in the Commons chamber but in Westminster Hall on Thursday September 4.

As an indication of the all-party nature of the discussion, Main has won support for the debate not only from fellow Tory MPs Dominic Raab and John Redwood but also from Labour MP Steven Pound.

Main has told EAT that this matter has resonance not only in St Albans, but throughout the country as more and more people are being dragged into paying an absurd amount to the Exchequer just to move home.

She promises that the debate means MPs will be able to speak freely on the impact the tax is having on the housing market. From my point of view, St Albans has some of the highest house prices in the country, and residents are writing to me with their concerns about the expense of simply moving to a more appropriately-sized home.


  • icon

    We do get hung up about stamp duty. Whilst I fully agree that it is not a fair tax, you can probably find a case to argue that about any tax. I do also agree that the thresholds are in the wrong place and skew the market around those thresholds.

    However, it's alwys been there, and if a buyer can't afford the stamp duty, then they probably cannot afford to buy in the first place, and there we come on to a far more serious problem!

    • 29 July 2014 09:46 AM
  • icon

    Social mobility is inhibited by high levels of stamp duty which causes stagnation in the market. In the old days first time buyers aspired to move up the ladder, nowadays, they are forced to wear lead boots. 7% as a top rate of stamp duty is a disgrace, it sends out a negative anti aspirational message that reads 'if you try to succeed we will get you, so don't bother', even 3% seems high, I remember when it was 1% . It really doesn't matter how much money is raised by taxation if the effect is to demotivate and discourage productivity, it also doesn't matter how much money you raise if you spend it ineffectively. We would be better off with leaner government, less regulation and more efficient services.

    • 28 July 2014 15:36 PM
  • icon

    I agree with all of the comments previous - Pointless tax and good on Miss Main for trying to abolish it but it seems like a wasted effort.

    • 28 July 2014 13:49 PM
  • icon

    If Miss Main is reading this then well done to her for at least trying but as the guy's before me have said 10 billion is a lot to throw away but if they at least looked at each threshold being the next charging point instead of if you go over 250 then its 3% on the whole sum, let it be 3% on the amount over the 250 threshold and the saving would help everybody (except hmrc of course) and on upwards of the other thresholds the same and the savings become bigger thus less borrowing or more money available to spend on home improvements etc thus also helping other businesses.

    • 28 July 2014 10:00 AM
  • icon

    Rob's right, the government are making too much money from this to get rid. A nice gesture from Main, but it seems certain to be a futile one.

    • 28 July 2014 09:26 AM
  • icon

    The article just below this one Stamp duty revenues hit 10 billion surely tells you all you need to know. Call me cynical, but if the government are making that much money from stamp duty, I cant see them getting rid of it. I wait to be proved wrong, but I cant see it somehow.

    • 28 July 2014 08:33 AM
  • icon

    Could the answer to Ray's question be "the aqueduct"

    • 28 July 2014 08:27 AM
  • icon

    About time too! What does the government provide for this ridiculously calculated taxation Nothing.

    • 28 July 2014 08:19 AM
MovePal MovePal MovePal