Andy Burnham’s team is examining proposals that would represent the most significant overhaul of property taxation in a generation. The plan, developed by cross-party campaign group Fairer Share, would abolish both Council Tax and Stamp Duty, replacing them with a single annual charge of 0.48% of a property’s value.
Second homes, empty properties, and homes owned by overseas buyers would face a higher rate of 0.96%.
The numbers are straightforward. A home worth £250,000 would incur an annual charge of £1,200. A £500,000 property would pay £2,400. A £1 million home, £4,800. Fairer Share claims 18 million households would pay less under the new system than they do today.
Council Tax remains based on property valuations from 1991. A three-bedroom semi in Norwich that was worth £65,000 then could easily be worth £280,000 today. The tax bands haven’t moved.
The result is a system where a Band D property in one borough can cost twice what an identical band costs in the next. Burnham has himself described the tax as “highly regressive,” and there’s little serious disagreement on that point from any quarter.
Amy Reynolds, head of sales at Richmond agency Antony Roberts, put it bluntly: “You pay tax on your income and then pay an absolutely enormous sum of money just to buy a terraced house, because it happens to be in London.” She noted that Stamp Duty prevents downsizers from moving and stops first-time buyers getting started, “leaving them paying extortionate rents, made worse now by the mass exodus of landlords.”
For most homeowners in Norfolk and Suffolk, the Fairer Share model could mean lower bills than their current Council Tax. Based on ONS average house prices, a typical home in Great Yarmouth at around £200,000 would pay roughly £960 a year. In Thetford, where averages sit lower, the annual charge would be less still.
Compare that to current Band C or D Council Tax bills in Norfolk, which can exceed £2,000 before parish precepts. The arithmetic favours most homeowners outside London and the South East.
The elimination of Stamp Duty would also remove a substantial barrier to moving. A buyer purchasing a £400,000 home in Norfolk currently pays £10,000 in Stamp Duty on top of legal fees, surveys, and moving costs. Under Fairer Share’s model, that upfront bill vanishes entirely.
There’s a rare consensus forming around Stamp Duty. Almost nobody defends it.
It discourages mobility. Older homeowners in large family homes stay put rather than face a five-figure tax bill to downsize. Young families can’t move up the ladder because they’re still recovering from the cost of their first purchase. Landlords factor the tax into their exit calculations, reducing the flow of stock onto the market.
Replacing a transaction tax with a proportional annual charge would, in theory, unlock movement at every level of the housing chain. More sellers means more choice. More choice means a healthier market.
Not everyone is convinced, and the objections aren’t trivial.
Tom Bill, head of UK residential research at a leading London agency, warned that annual revaluations would turn house price growth into “an ongoing tax liability.” The psychological difference between a one-off Stamp Duty bill and a recurring annual charge is real. “Up-sizers could think twice, particularly in London and the South East where payments are likely to be a proportionately larger share of income.”
He also raised practical concerns: “Valuing homes on a terraced suburban street using a drone or other technology is much less complex than doing the same thing in prime London locations, where properties are more unique, meaning valuations could be subject to legal challenge.”
Then there’s the question of asset-rich but cash-poor homeowners. A retired couple in a Norfolk village whose house has appreciated significantly over decades could face a bill that bears no relationship to their income. Reynolds acknowledged this tension, saying “the principle is sound” but fearing “the execution will be catastrophic.”
Burnham has said he has “long been persuaded of the argument for a Land Value Tax.” If he follows that instinct, the levy might be based on land values rather than property values, which would change the equation considerably.
A Land Value Tax charges the unimproved value of land itself, not the buildings constructed on it. Burnham has argued that land in the UK is under-taxed, pointing to large tracts of unused land where there’s currently no meaningful charge on plots left idle without development.
For Norfolk, with its extensive agricultural land and development-pressure areas around Wymondham, Attleborough, and the Norwich fringe, a land-based approach could have significant implications for both housebuilding and existing property values.
Nothing changes tomorrow. These are proposals being examined, not legislation being drafted. Cross-party support or not, any reform of this scale would take years to design, legislate, and implement.
But the direction of travel matters. If either Stamp Duty reform or Council Tax modernisation gains genuine political momentum, it could influence buyer and seller behaviour long before any new system takes effect.
Sellers considering a move in the next twelve to eighteen months shouldn’t wait for hypothetical tax changes. The current market, with annual prices rising 2.2% according to Nationwide’s latest figures, offers a solid foundation for those pricing realistically. The Ivybridge Collection’s property market reports cover 324 locations across Norfolk and Suffolk, providing the local pricing data that makes informed decisions possible.
The debate over property taxation is finally moving beyond the theoretical. For homeowners across the region, it’s worth paying attention to where it lands.
