Andrew Michael says the 'will he, won't he?' debate surrounding the Chancellor over the future of stamp duty has produced plenty of huffing and puffing on the property industry's part.

"Easily raised, pressing little on any particular class, especially the lower orders of society, and producing a revenue safely and expeditiously collected at small expense."

I don't suppose 18th century folk had much time for prime minister William Pitt the Younger's view of stamp duty in 1797 and, 211 years later, homebuyers and sellers are even more likely to cast brickbats in the direction of this description.

Residents of Acacia Avenues may have chosen in the past to regard stamp duty as 'out-dated', 'illogical' and 'greedy'. Given the events of the past few weeks, they would now add 'frustrating' to the list.

To the increasing annoyance of property professionals and homeowners alike, the Government remains tight-lipped on what (if anything) it plans to do with stamp duty.

When it comes to this form of tax collection, one which was only extended to property purchase in 1808 (happy 200th anniversary!), history reminds us that it pays us not to hold our breath too long when waiting for adjustments on the subject

After all, stamp duty was first levied in 1694 to pay for an altercation being waged against the French. The invention was envisaged to last for four years; to keep going three centuries later reflects a special kind of staying power.

Disappointingly, there appear to have been few constructive suggestions on a possible alternative if the Chancellor is to tinker with a revenue stream worth around £7billion a year.

Hearing about some tweaks to the present, 'progressive' system, where you pay proportionately more as the sum on which you are being taxed increases, would have been uplifting.

Where are the campaigns to call on the present starting point of £125,000 to be raised? Why does there have to be a jump from paying one per cent on sums between £125,001 and £250,000, to three per cent on the next band which covers £250,001 to £500,000?

Or what about an acknowledgment that thresholds have moved hardly at all? If the top rate of stamp duty had been increased in line with house-price inflation, the five per cent level would only apply to properties worth £1.44m plus, currently, rather than at £500,001.

It would be encouraging if property industry commentators started peppering the debate with some workable suggestions. Someone in the corridors of power might sit up, take note and even adopt them.

•# Andrew Michael is the editor of headlineproperty.co.uk