What would Andy Burnham's proposed property tax mean for average homeowners in Greater Manchester?

Andy Burnham has long advocated for reforming the council tax system in England, which he and many others argue is deeply outdated and unfair because it is still based on property valuations from 1991. His proposals have generally centred on replacing or significantly reforming council tax with a system more closely tied to current property values, effectively creating something closer to a proportional property tax. The core idea is that wealthier homeowners in higher-value properties would pay more, while those in lower-value homes, particularly in areas like parts of Greater Manchester where property prices remain relatively modest compared to the south of England, could potentially pay less or see their bills stabilised. For average homeowners in Greater Manchester, the practical implications would depend heavily on where exactly they live and what their property is currently worth. Greater Manchester contains a wide range of property values, from relatively affordable terraced houses in towns like Rochdale, Oldham, and parts of Salford, to considerably more expensive properties in areas like Altrincham, Hale, and parts of Trafford. Under a proportional property tax model, someone living in a modest terraced house worth around 150,000 to 200,000 pounds might actually see their annual bill fall compared to what they currently pay under council tax bands, since the current system disproportionately burdens lower-value properties relative to their worth. A homeowner in a more expensive suburb worth 500,000 pounds or more would likely face a higher annual charge than they currently pay. The broader argument Burnham makes is one of fairness and regional equity. Council tax as currently structured means that someone in a modest home in Manchester can pay a similar or even proportionally higher rate relative to property value than someone in an expensive home in Surrey. A revaluation and reform would theoretically address this imbalance. However, critics point out that property wealth does not always correlate with income, meaning that asset-rich but income-poor households, such as older people who have lived in their homes for decades and seen values rise, could face significant financial strain if their annual tax bill increases substantially. This is a genuine concern for some homeowners in parts of Greater Manchester where property values have risen considerably in recent years, particularly in areas benefiting from regeneration or proximity to good transport links. There are also questions about how any such reform would interact with existing benefits and discounts, such as single person discounts and council tax support schemes for lower-income residents. Burnham's proposals have generally included protections for vulnerable groups, but the precise mechanics of how these would work in practice remain somewhat vague in public discussions. The revenue implications for Greater Manchester's combined authority and individual borough councils would also be significant, since any shift in how the tax is calculated could alter the total amount raised and how it is distributed across the ten local authorities that make up the region. It is worth noting that Burnham's ability to actually implement such a reform is limited by the fact that council tax is a nationally legislated system and any fundamental change would require Westminster to act. His advocacy has been more about pushing the national conversation and lobbying for devolved fiscal powers than about something he can simply introduce unilaterally as Mayor of Greater Manchester. So while his proposals give a sense of direction and intent, average homeowners in the region should understand that any concrete change to their bills would require a significant shift in national policy, which successive governments have been reluctant to pursue given the political sensitivity of property taxation in England.