What % of all deaths (uk) resulted in an inheritance tax bill in 2021-22? you're not previewing try and have a guess?

Yes, they wait until you are dead to take what you've built up over the years.

Anyway I'm not too bothered. Anyone who can't be arsed to look into mitigation and is happy to give a big chunk of money to the government- knock yourselves out.

London pay is around 30-40% more than some other parts of the UK, and many who live in the south east, work in London.

Yes, they've made money out of it. That doesn't mean it's now yours.

But you aren’t taxed on it as you are dead!

That value belongs to the people who own the property. Not the state.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/416139/full-time-annual-salary-in-the-uk-by-region/

Link just to follow up.

Sorry but if you look at statistics if average salaries in the south east its not just a couple of K.

Lots hasn't already been taxed though, to be honest I don't care what people do, but I'm not sure why many seem to struggle to comprehend this. If it's an asset such as a house it will have accumulated value over time for nothing.

Quite.

Lol.

I'm sure being powerful hasn't occurred to the many many people who own houses in London and the south east.

My guess was 3% but I agree with @CrabSignalArmy. The very wealthy can and do avoid it.

Perfectly acceptable if they can do it. It's already been taxed. Remember, the state doesn't own your money. I know it's the socialist way but it's wrong.

I'm not sure why I should be able to inherit more because my parents have a house in London though?
It's only luck they bought there in the 70s. I've done nothing to earn it. And we'll be getting a hell of a lot more from then then my MIL in the NE.
Tbh I think it should be taxed more. The transfer of wealth that is going to happen it's going to a hugely disproportionately affect people brought up in lower income houses and increase the north southdivide further.

I will be affected when my parents pass on as I think there estate including a house is just over £1m.

But you know what -I will in no way "suffer" if I get say £300k rather than £500k.

Now will be nephew "suffer" if he gets £600k rather than £1m when I go (as single no kids)

Why does anyone think the beneficiary suffers at all by getting slightly less of an unexpected windfall (ignoring family farms /businesses)

I already knew it was 4%. The problem is that it isn't the richest 4%. I"d be fine with it being up to 20% so long as all the loopholes get closed to ensure that is the wealthiest 20%.

The amount of negativity and complaints about IHT are because the people who are worried they might fall into that 4% are powerful and influential and capable of making 20times as much noise about it as is reasonable.

I would say lots do, yes and try to mitigate if they can. Gifting, spending while alive, moving money around. Not 'loopholes', perfectly valid ways to avoid as much IHT as you can.

So if you have a £1.5 million estate you get to keep £1.16 million.

Do people really begrudge paying 400k but keeping 1.16m? Both my parents & in-laws have 1m plus estates, it might all go on care but if not my siblings & I are lucky.

Sorry but i disagree. People in the south east are paid far, far higher wages. The disparity between pay in the south east and the rest of the country borders on the ridiculous.

Agree too. I’m in the SE and I know hardly anyone who hasn’t bought their house using some kind of inheritance from grandparents or parents. Without it most people would not have been able to have moved out of their parents home and would be stuck there in their 30s or older. It’s simply enables them to buy a normal sized home. Not inherit millions and off shopping all day or something!

And what about people who have parents who rent? The inequality is a big issue. It’s more about whether & what you inherit rather than what you earn, not exactly progressive.

I have never given it a second thought.

My PILS both worked very hard all their lives, saved for their retirement, created jobs and employment. They've contributed more than most. Even if they hadn't done any of those things I wouldn't have a problem with them doing whatever they want with their money.

Working farms should not be counted we are fools to target our food supply we could have tightened up the definition to stop people taking advantage

Yanbu- I think.

My instinctive response was 5%, but that is still higher.

I knew it was that percentage but it still surprises me it's not higher. We had to pay some inheritance tax on my mum's estate. She had a 1960s linked detached house in the Midlands and some savings; it's certainly not just millionaires with mansions in the southeast.

Many already have. However, family businesses are also caught by this change as well.

It's not just who is the director that matters but, more importantly, who owns the shares in the company business?

If the parents pass on the shares to their children then that is a gift which is subject to IHT for seven years after the gift is made.

Boohoo. You want a system where only people who inherit will be able to afford houses? What about those people who won't inherit anything? Are they supposed to pay more tax to subsidise someone else keeping all their unearned windfalls? Or is everyone supposed to pay through the nose for terrible privatised cartels (we've been here before...).

You still get up to £650k before you even start to pay IHT if you inherit from a couple and you still get to keep 60% of the rest. So if you have a £1.5 million estate you get to keep £1.16 million. The heart bleeds. BTW I have paid large IHT and didn't moan once. It's still vastly more than I could save in my lifetime.