Labour should increase inheritance tax to 50 per cent

Ah yes, the good old “50% IHT will solve everything” argument — dusted off once more like a vintage Cath Kidston tea towel.
Look, I’m all for fairness and plugging gaps in public spending (I’d like my local NHS dentist to exist again too, thanks). But suggesting a flat 50% inheritance tax across the board feels less like tax reform and more like punishing people for having parents who happened to own something more valuable than a rusty Vauxhall Astra.
Let’s not pretend all inherited wealth is yacht money. For many, it’s a modest semi in a once-affordable area that's ballooned in value, not because Mum and Dad were secret hedge fund managers, but because the housing market went absolutely feral. A 50% IHT bill doesn’t feel like “making the rich pay their share” — it feels like penalising people who worked hard, paid taxes their entire lives, and just want to pass something on to their kids other than generational anxiety.
Absolutely, close the loopholes and ensure the truly super-wealthy pay their fair share (looking at you, trust funds, shell companies, and “non-doms”). But let’s not punish the middle class and high earners while playing Robin Hood in a council meeting.
People on state benefits are often seen as receiving unearned income. So, if anyone is feeling particularly snarky, they might go straight for their jugulars—just kidding.
Just my tuppence — now back to reusing teabags and checking if my kids' school has pencils this term.

I don't necessarily agree. Our kids are raised on the principles their dad and I implement. Having a frugal understated lifestyle, no flashy holidays, no constant treats , no designer clothes, no paid family trips every weekend, so we can have a nest egg for them for basic needs like a home, and give their families a good start. My kids even work to pay for their own school trips (pet sitting, jam making and selling) so although they will put have contributed money for the household they would have made sacrifices

Not everyone has a spouse and DCs with the same spouse to use this allowance.

A very modest flat in London can be valued at more than 500k. So a single parent cannot pass their kids their family home without kids having to sell it.

As mentioned above - super wealthy can avoid IHT altogether. Those muppets who worked hard and tried to better themselves and pass it on to their kids will be taxed yet again.
You know what's going to happen now, with Labour's smart move to IHT pensions - people stop putting more money in it and reduce hours and retire earlier to spend it on. The loss for economy is huge.

Not IHT, but the same behavioural change:
Capital gains tax receipts fall after big cuts in allowances

Revenue falls 18 per cent in 2023-24 to £12.1bn as the UK’s efforts to increase revenues from the levy backfire

This entire debate is focused on the wrong issue - we don't need to increase spending, we need to reallocate it and use what we have efficiently. We need to reduce taxes to stimulate growth.

In this case they should be going after people with insane amounts of money , not someone passing a little bungalow worth £345k to their kids...the really rich will always find a loophole, and the hard working middle class will get f&*#ed as per usual.

I think inheritance tax on anything above £345k should be above 5 million IMO.

The wealthy pay extremely low rates of IHT. It’s the moderately well of who get hammered. If you cannot afford to give away your assets because you need to live in your house you are likely to pay 40% on everything above the nil rate band. The extremely wealthy just give the majority of their assets away and keep a few million back to see out their years with.

Well said

this grabbing if what other people have worked for to waste

Not that many years ago, it was only the very wealthy who paid IHT. Now, moderately successful working class people will have to pay, but the OP wants to cut this transfer of wealth in the lower classes. Just what the establishment wants, don't let the oiks get above their station.

But there would be iht on the second home. The nil rate is for residence only.

But someone renting a £100k has probably paid 250-300k over the decades and has nothing to show for it at the end! Meanwhile, the landlord has paid off their mortgage and is sitting on a house probably worth a few hundred thousand - all paid for by the tenant! If the landlord dies before selling, there'll be no capital gains tax. SO much is wrong with our capital taxes system, especially regarding houses.

Those of us old enough to remember the Labour of the 1960s are not at all surprised!

You do realise that a lot of those who pay inheritance are 'working people'! Maybe you mean the non-working people who are happy to be kept by the rest of us.

That is a very good point

I'm unlikely to inherit anything but it's still a no from me.

You also need to factor in inflation. £100 000 in 1990 was worth much more than £100 000 today - so selling the home today at say £400000 would not translate into a real terms gain of £300000.

The description of not taking money from people as "very generous" is interesting.

Money belongs to the state unless they agree to let you keep it?

Unless it was funded by a totally untaxed under-v-generous-nil-rate-band inheritance windfall instead of course.

Anyone that bought a house for 100k with a mortgage likely paid 250 to 300k for it over the life of the loan.

This really. Hence the increasing scrap over inheritances that is seen on sites like this.

House price inflation is at the root of multiple evils in society.

I came from a very poor working class family. I have worked hard to make a life for me and my family as has DH. I want my assets to go to my children, not to the state. Philosophically I want a smaller state with less spent on it and certainly I would not want to give it half my house when I die. I would be starting with significant reform of benefits payments.

erm…no

The thing is that the average sized home has gone from something that people didn’t need to inherit to something people want to or need to have, it’s driving housing prices ( along with the lack of council/ social homes ) and that’s driving a lot of the crap in our economy - if house prices were back at 3 times a normal income people who don’t have inherited wealth would be a lot better off than they are

and the house price gain has never been taxed - if your parents bought for 100k and you sell it for 500k the government will have seen nothing for the additional 400k that they didn’t ever do anything for

There are other ways of tackling inequality without going for someone's main home. More tax on additional propertes and rental income, capped rent, building more affordable rent and shared ownership properties and security of tenure. Of course, governments are fearful of this crashing the housing market and then the economy as so much rests on property. Far too much.

I'm not sure. IHT has increased massively in terms of tax take over the years as the thresholds have not changed in line with property prices, and I don't believe it was ever intended to apply to someone passing on a single average-sized home, as it could now. 40% is already a big chunk of tax on a large estate.

No need to feel sorry for my daughters. But it’s my husband I feel sorry for - what was the point of him leaving the house at 4am every morning, getting home after 10pm, slaving away and skipping holidays to gain extra qualifications for all those decades, if he can’t pass the majority of his earnings onto our daughters? He did it for them.

Our house only accounts for about a quarter of our estate. The rest is the product of extremely hard work in challenging but well-paid industries by both me and my husband.

(In reality, we’ll make sure our daughters get more than £1 million each, but we’re having to begin the process of transferring wealth to them much sooner than we’d planned).