Chancellor Brown produced a black pre-Budget for homebuyers yesterday with total silence on stamp duty reform called for by many in the housing market.

Leading independent mortgage broker Charcol, is disappointed, but not surprised, that the chancellor failed to announce any changes to the way stamp duty land tax is calculated.

Ray Boulger of Charcol comments: “We hear frequently that the government is keen to remove all inequality in the tax and benefits systems, but actions speak louder than words, especially from the chancellor. His silence on reforming the current grossly unfair structure of stamp duty land tax is deafening."

"Abolishing this tax was always a non-starter, but Charcol would have liked to see it reformed to reflect the way income tax is structured. With income tax, the higher percentage rates of tax are only payable on the amount of income over certain thresholds. However, with stamp duty land tax, once you reach a certain level, borrowers are forced to pay the higher percentage on the total amount."

In 1977 the then backbenchers, the late Audrey Wise and Jeff Rooker (now Lord Rooker), spectacularly won the day with an amendment to the 1977 Finance Bill, which became known as the Rooker-Wise amendment.

As a result of this success income tax thresholds have ever since automatically been increased each year in line with inflation, unless the chancellor specifically overrides the increase. Such a clause automatically avoids stealth increases in taxation creeping up on us again.

A sensible starting point for the 1% tax band would be the average property price, based on Land Registry figures (i.e. currently £188,000), and the annual inflation adjustment (up or down) should also be based on Land Registry figures.

Ray Boulger said, "We would encourage a back bench amendment to next year’s finance bill to at least highlight this problem further and hopefully gain enough support to become law. As a general election is expected shortly after the Budget, even if the amendment fails at least the publicity could help to make this a live election issue."

The National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA) is also disappointed that the chancellor did not take the opportunity to amend stamp duty levels.

Peter Bolton King, chief executive of the NAEA, comments: “House prices have risen by around 150% since the £60,000 threshold for stamp duty was set over a decade ago meaning that practically every homebuyer is now liable for higher levels of this tax."

"Stamp duty was never meant to be an all-encompassing property tax, but with the chancellor’s refusal to adjust the scale, one can’t help wondering whether he is beginning to look on it as a contribution to his shortage in his spending: home buyers should not be forced to pay for the chancellor’s errors in his budgeting."

“By failing yet again to bring this tax into the 21st century and adjust the levels accordingly, the government is faced with the possibility of the total extinction of first time buyers and serious effects on the health of the remainder of the market.”