Show the Working

Cut residential stamp duty

Reform UK · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Cut residential stamp duty” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Affordable housing — Hurts

moderate · moderate confidence

Cutting stamp duty to zero below £750,000 would put more money in buyers' pockets short-term, but credible analysts warn this mostly gets absorbed into higher house prices rather than making homes cheaper — especially since the policy does nothing to build more homes. Wealthier buyers gain the most, while first-time buyers could end up paying more over their lifetime.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether any accompanying supply-side measures would be sufficient to prevent the tax saving being absorbed into higher house prices — without that, the net affordability effect is likely negative.

Our reading: The policy removes stamp duty entirely for homes below £750,000 — a dramatic cut relative to the current 5% band on most mid-market homes. The stated rationale is boosting economic activity and housebuilding, but the evidence strongly challenges the affordability framing. The core problem is that stamp duty cuts are demand-side stimulus. Multiple credible analysts — including the IFS and Resolution Foundation — project that, absent a commensurate supply increase, the tax saving gets capitalised into higher house prices. The historical record backs this: 40% of the 2008–09 holiday saving went to sellers, and the 2020 holiday coincided with 13% annual house price growth. Nothing in the policy addresses planning constraints or land supply, which are the binding constraints on housebuilding. Distributionally, the cuts are regressive within the housing market: larger absolute savings accrue to buyers of more expensive homes, not to those struggling at the bottom. First-time buyers already receive partial relief, and the bigger beneficiaries of a zero-rate below £750,000 are existing homeowners moving up or across the market. There is a genuine upside: lower transaction costs do reduce market friction and could improve mobility, helping some households move to better-matched homes. But the mechanism by which this improves *affordability* — the fundamental being judged — is weak without supply reform. The fiscal cost (receipts currently ~£11.5bn) would either require compensating cuts elsewhere or borrowing, with indirect effects on public services and potentially social housing investment. On balance, the weight of cited evidence points toward this policy worsening affordability at moderate magnitude: demand stimulus without supply reform raises prices, the gains are skewed to wealthier buyers, and the fiscal cost may crowd out other housing investment. The verdict is moderate rather than major because some mobility benefit is real and the price-inflation effect, while likely, is not certain.

Tax & the money you keep — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy cuts stamp duty to zero for homes below £750,000, directly reducing the upfront tax bill for most buyers. However, evidence suggests a significant share of the saving may be captured by sellers through higher prices rather than staying in buyers' pockets.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: How much of the stamp duty saving is absorbed by sellers via higher house prices, reducing the net money-in-pocket gain for buyers.

Our reading: On the O11 metric — how much of what people spend do they keep — a stamp duty cut is unambiguously a reduction in the tax burden on property transactions. Under current rates, a buyer at £400,000 pays 5% on a large portion of the price; under the proposal they pay nothing. A buyer at £1 million currently pays up to 10% on the upper portion; under the proposal they pay 2%. The nominal saving is real and immediate at point of transaction. The distributional picture is regressive in absolute terms: the largest cash savings accrue to buyers of the most expensive homes, while buyers in the lowest price bands (already paying 0–2%) see smaller absolute gains. The main O11 caveat is seller capture: evidence from the 2008–09 holiday suggests roughly 40% of the tax saving was absorbed by sellers through higher prices, meaning buyers' net money-in-pocket gain is materially less than the headline tax cut implies. Still, buyers retain an estimated 60% of the saving on that evidence, so the direction remains 'improves' for most buyers. The effect is felt at the point of purchase rather than in weekly take-home pay, but it is a genuine reduction in the tax burden on a major transaction. Magnitude is moderate: the cuts are substantial across most price bands (0% threshold rises from £125k to £750k, and upper rates fall sharply), but the seller-capture effect and the concentration of benefit among higher-value purchases tempers the rating. Confidence is moderate because the price-capture dynamic is well-evidenced but varies with market conditions.

Public finances & the next generation — Hurts

major · moderate confidence

Cutting stamp duty to zero on homes below £750,000 would remove a large chunk of the roughly £11.5 billion a year the Treasury currently collects, with no stated replacement revenue — passing the cost to future taxpayers or public services. Some economic activity gains are possible but are disputed and unlikely to fully offset the revenue loss.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: How much of the static revenue loss would be clawed back through wider economic activity (higher transactions, construction, wages) is genuinely contested, with estimates ranging from partial to near-full offset depending on the model used.

Our reading: The policy eliminates stamp duty on all homes below £750,000 — covering the vast majority of UK transactions — and sharply reduces it above that threshold. Against a current revenue base of approximately £11.5 billion a year, the IFS (an independent institutional source) puts the cost of full abolition at around £9 billion annually by 2029-30; the proposed policy stops short of full abolition above £750,000 but the structural revenue loss would still be very large. No funding mechanism is stated in the policy text, so the default assumption is that this is unfunded — either requiring offsetting cuts elsewhere or adding to borrowing, both of which worsen the debt path. The ASI (an advocacy source, weighted accordingly) does estimate a net fiscal cost of £5.1 billion after dynamic gains, implying some partial offset through economic activity. However, the ASI's estimates are at the optimistic end and are not corroborated by independent institutional modelling in the evidence provided. Even on the most favourable reading, a multi-billion-pound annual revenue shortfall remains. There is no stated instrument — no replacement tax, no ring-fenced spending reduction — that would close this gap. On the dual-horizon test: near-term, the loss lands immediately as reduced receipts; long-term, if dynamic gains materialise (more transactions, more construction), the gap narrows somewhat, but the IFS and Resolution Foundation both warn that much of the demand stimulus would be captured in higher house prices rather than productive economic expansion, meaning the fiscal return on the revenue sacrifice is likely modest. The verdict is therefore 'worsens/major': a large, unfunded tax cut with no credible offset, scored symmetrically on the same basis as unfunded spending commitments.

Prosperity & living standards — Mixed picture

moderate · moderate confidence

Cutting stamp duty would boost housing transactions and release economic activity in the short term, but much of the saving is likely to be absorbed into higher house prices rather than improving real living standards — and the fiscal cost could squeeze public spending. The net effect on prosperity depends heavily on whether housing supply responds.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether housing supply expands enough to prevent the tax saving from being capitalised into higher prices, which would erode or reverse the living-standards gain.

Our reading: This policy has genuine but contested effects on O13. On the upside, the evidence is strong that stamp duty is distortionary: the OBR and broad expert consensus confirm it suppresses mobility, and transaction data from past holidays confirm a real short-term surge in economic activity — benefiting related sectors (legal, surveying, construction). The ASI (advocacy — flag) forecasts large aggregate gains, but even the more cautious framing supports the view that mobility unlocks labour market matching and consumer spending, both relevant to living standards and productivity. On the downside, the IFS and Resolution Foundation — independent institutional sources — warn that under supply constraints, cuts primarily inflate prices. Historical evidence backs this: ~40% of the 2008–09 saving was captured by sellers, and the 2020 holiday coincided with 13% house price growth. If savings capitalise into prices, the net living-standards gain for buyers is eroded, and the fiscal cost (up to ~£9bn annually for full abolition per IFS) either compresses public spending or requires offsetting tax rises elsewhere, both of which reduce real living standards through other channels. The policy's stated aim of boosting housebuilding is plausible in theory but analysts flag that demand-side instruments alone do not resolve supply constraints — absent planning reform, new construction is unlikely to absorb the demand stimulus at scale. On balance: the transaction and mobility effect is real (improves); but price capitalisation and fiscal drag are also real (worsens). Both are supported by cited institutional evidence. This is a genuine 'mixed' verdict, not manufactured balance. The near-term effect leans toward activity stimulation; the longer-term effect leans toward price inflation and fiscal pressure — unless supply expands, which this policy alone cannot guarantee.

Inequality & fair shares — Hurts

moderate · moderate confidence

This stamp duty cut delivers the largest cash savings to buyers of more expensive homes, so it disproportionately benefits wealthier households. Evidence also suggests a significant share of any saving gets absorbed into higher house prices, which can hurt less wealthy buyers most.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: How much of the tax saving is captured by sellers as higher prices rather than retained by buyers — if the price-inflation effect is large, the regressive distributional harm is compounded; if supply responds strongly, it is partly offset.

Our reading: The distributional verdict hinges on two converging effects. First, by design, the policy's rate structure concentrates the largest absolute savings on high-value transactions: removing 5% on the bulk of a £900,000 purchase saves far more than removing 2% on a £200,000 one. E27 — drawing on credible analysts — confirms this consensus: absolute savings are largest for wealthier buyers. This alone widens the gap between richer and poorer households on a wealth-accumulation measure. Second, there is a strong evidence-backed risk that a material share of the saving is captured by sellers as higher prices. E15 documents ~40% seller capture in the 2008–09 holiday; E13 names the IFS and Resolution Foundation as warning that cuts primarily inflate prices. Higher prices disproportionately harm wealth-poor buyers who rely on mortgages and have little equity buffer, while sellers — who skew older and wealthier — gain. The combination of top-heavy cash savings and likely price inflation thus widens both income and wealth gaps. The main counter-argument — that increased mobility and supply could eventually broaden homeownership — is plausible in principle but the supply response is unconfirmed and contested (E26), and even the optimistic ASI estimate (E25) forecasts only 38,000 additional homes annually against a backdrop of unaddressed planning constraints. That projected upside is insufficient to overturn the near-term distributional harm established by stronger, independent evidence. The direction is therefore worsens, at moderate magnitude, within this parliament.

Compare all parties on affordable housing →Compare all parties on tax & the money you keep →Compare all parties on public finances & the next generation →Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on inequality & fair shares →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home