To think it’s unfair that some people get inheritance while others start with nothing?

I think inheritance tax has less effect on people's incentive to work than income tax does.

Agree. I work p/t largely because anything extra I earn is taxed at 40% so it's not worth it despite the fact I have plenty of work to do.

He should have paid £4bn tax, but of course, the wealthy can use legal structures like trusts to reduce inheritance tax liabilities. The system benefits the wealthy disproportionately, as ordinary individuals do not have access to the same legal tools or resources to reduce their tax bills.

YABU

I’ll receive nothing and my DH very little BUT I still don’t think it’s unfair for others to inherit. We’re setting ourselves up to ensure DC are left with as much as possible. I’m from nothing and have worked very hard to change that. Why would you begrudge someone passing on their hard earned cash or assets to the people they care for most?

Why do most people replying think that because life can never be entirely fair, we must make no attempts to reduce avoidable unfairness. What kind of logic is that?

It's illogical

This will only push people to hand it over earlier

The majority won't be able to access it earlier & besides we are going down a route of the NHS not existing in its current form so if you need that operation you will have to go private as there is a 3 yr wait.

I plan on giving every penny I save to my DC. I had jo help whatsoever from my parents who spent all their money on themselves. I pay enough tax already.

No, I was born I to a fairly poor family and me and my husband have worked incredibly hard and been very prudent to.build.up some.decent assets. I realise of course that luck also comes into it. I want my children to be the beneficiaries of my remaining wealth when I die. It's my money and I am entitled to give it to who like!
I recognise the privilege in this, but we pay massive amounts more tax than.most people, we don't receive child benefit or anything like that. We also give significant sums of money to charity. I'm.not complaining about any of that at all. We should pay more tax and shouldn't be receiving family benefits. I do however want to pass on what remains to my children.
It's not a race to the bottom and instead of pointing out the obvious, we should have a competent economic and educational setup that enables children from poorer backgrounds to generate wealth that they can paas on too.
The logical conclusion to your view is surely communism and that hasn't really worked out anywhere has it.

The Soviet Union tried that in the 20th century. It did not end well.

So if I couldn’t pass it down in death I’d be passing more on in life: jewelry artwork and simply cash. Rather than have savings I’d be spending more on the kids and grandkids.

Life's unfair get over it. When I die, all the money DH and I have worked very hard for will go to our DC.

Because wealth is built. So you are talking about taxing income and then taxing it again if you have a certain amount

In a higher rate tax payer, I would like to bands to be unfrozen. When my property went up 300k in 5 yrs how did I earn that? I didn't even do anything more than repaint it.

My current gripe is the 30 hours free childcare given to people living in million quid houses bought by their mum and dad. Loads of them in my area. While high earners with high mortgages get nothing.

I know loads of loaded people who earn averagely but are more staggeringly asset wealthy than I can dream of but don’t get means tested.

Yes, I absolutely do. Not everyone of course, there are truly some absolutely tragic circumstances in some cases. But there are vast vast numbers of people who are lazy, feckless and frankly stupid.

I don't really have anything to say to that. Definitely agree there are too many stupid people! 😆

DH inherited around £7k when his father died and if both of my parents died tomorrow then I would be likely to inherit a substantial sum. Their estate is currently split 5 ways - grandchildren get 10% each, my sister and I 35%

However, they are both very healthy and I hope they live long enough to spend the lot, they've worked long and hard for their money and are enjoying their retirement. I have not factored any inheritance into future financial plans for DH and I, we've both got good pensions, and are driving our mortgage down and will be okay with what we've put in place.

DD has a nest egg already - we have saved for her since she was born, and we are on track to give her a substantial deposit towards a property, she's also got premium bonds and other savings.

We are very lucky to be in the position we are, it's taken a lot of hard work to get to this point though.

I wouldn't argue for 100%, no. But I would argue for a signficant increase, particularly on the highest value estates.

I think inheritance tax has less effect on people's incentive to work than income tax does. You could use the increased inheritance tax to reduce income tax at low/medium levels of income slightly. I think that would be an improvement.

PS I'm a professional economist with a PhD and a conscience.

picked the wrong parents

Clearly written by someone who is not in line for some dosh.
Not all who leave an inheritance are 'wealthy'. They've just worked hard to cover themselves for old age, and if it doesn't get spent on care/nursing home, the kids get it.
Better to really have all the facts befoe making 'candid' and nonsense remarks.

Yes, I absolutely do. Not everyone of course, there are truly some absolutely tragic circumstances in some cases. But there are vast vast numbers of people who are lazy, feckless and frankly stupid.

Because wealth is built. So you are talking about taxing income and then taxing it again if you have a certain amount

And even if they were feckless, how would that be their child's fault lol?

So is reducing avoidable unfairness the government seizing 100% of a person's assets upon their death?

You can see no unintended consequences in this at all?

Which is yet another stupidity from comrados.

This will only push people to hand it over earlier. Pre Labour people would spend their savings /investments and leave pension till last as it was IHT free. Now it makes sense to pass wealth much sooner, risking not having enough left for old age and care needs. She extends 7 years rule - well, parents will start transferring on 18th birthday. I'd rather my DC fritter it all and have a good time than hand it over to state. And I'm not alone in this and it's really bad for everyone, incl DC.

What do you mean?

Why do most people replying think that because life can never be entirely fair, we must make no attempts to reduce avoidable unfairness. What kind of logic is that?

My parents sat on their asses and spent it all so nothing to leave to me.

Do you really believe that people don't have anything to pass on because they are feckless?!