Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Labour should increase inheritance tax to 50 per cent

309 replies

Tummyachey · 01/08/2025 17:19

If they did this it would raise billions of pounds - while avoiding raising taxes on working people. Exemptions should be put in place to protect small businesses; I accept this would be complicated, but they need to try and make it work.
So much money could be raised and it would also encourage earlier wealth transfers which would stimulate the economy. In addition, it would help redistribute wealth thus reducing inequality.
There would be political backlash, of course, but they need to get the economy growing and should act now so that the results are visible in time for the next general election.

OP posts:
NorthXNorthWest · 02/08/2025 14:45

Tummyachey · 02/08/2025 09:23

“A little something?” You get £1 million before it kicks in.
Also, a huge amount of inheritance is down to huge property value increases - not down to how “hardworking” your parents were at all.
The country is spending more than its raising so we have to find money somewhere. Better it came from IHT than from income tax on living, working people.

Show quote history

We have to find it somewhere.

Lets not worry about how efficiently tax is being spent, the damaging effects of big business or spiraling energy, food and housing costs. Lets focus on IHT so we screw people who have worked hard all their lives and tried to place as little strain on the public purse strings as possible into their latter years.

Op you are part of the problem.

Original poster
Tummyachey · 02/08/2025 14:09

MyLimeGuide · 02/08/2025 13:52

Its not a gain though is it? Its protecting what's already yours from being a loss (being stolen IMO)

Show quote history

If it’s yours then you will be dead.

OP posts:
florathedress · 02/08/2025 14:08

MyLimeGuide · 02/08/2025 13:50

Far too much of the money tax payers earns goes to benefits, benefits is the main reason this country is in such a mess. Labour were close to doing something about it 😪

Show quote history

Do you genuinely not understand though that, If benefits weren’t topping up the policeman’s wages, you would have to pay more in Council tank because it’s not sustainable for the policeman to exist given the amount of money that you are paying into the pot on Council tax even if you’re in the top band the numbers just don’t add up.

Where I do object is private business. I don’t think Tesco’s should be having their wages subsidised however.
The harsh reality of it is, There aren’t enough jobs to go around they just aren’t so we would have unemployment of around 10% which was horrific in the 80s.
And that was before mass Immigration now it would probably be 20% of the population unable to feed clothing and house itself.

Another 30% unable to feed clothing and how self adequately.
And they would burgle murder shoplift whatever it takes to survive from the existing so-called net contributors.

I kind of thought everybody knew this. It’s the social Contract.

MyLimeGuide · 02/08/2025 13:52

Tummyachey · 02/08/2025 13:35

The fact that you’ve assumed it doesn’t affect me says more about you than you realise - not everyone is thinking only of their own gain.

Show quote history

Its not a gain though is it? Its protecting what's already yours from being a loss (being stolen IMO)

MyLimeGuide · 02/08/2025 13:50

Tummyachey · 02/08/2025 12:29

Taxes don’t just pay for benefits - they pay for healthcare, education, defence, police, roads, paying back debt, libraries, museums … and many other things. I agree that spending on welfare needs to be cut, somehow, but even if that were to happen there would still be a need for the country to raise money.

Show quote history

Far too much of the money tax payers earns goes to benefits, benefits is the main reason this country is in such a mess. Labour were close to doing something about it 😪

suburburban · 02/08/2025 13:49

taxguru · 02/08/2025 12:57

My son will have left the UK by then as he has no intention of staying in the UK once he's fully qualified. There's a constant stream of other staff moving abroad in his firm too!

Show quote history

Shame he has to do this

florathedress · 02/08/2025 13:37

Agreed, We all came into this world with nothing to be honest. I would say that we leave the same way but that applies to absolutely everyone. His Royal Highness included.

Venalopolos · 02/08/2025 13:37

Billions is a stretch. Current IHT take is £8bn, if that raised by a quarter then that’s £2bn.

But given a lot of that IHT will be from trusts and not partially relieved assets, and that it’s not a straight line 40% given allowances so it’s unlikely to increase take by a quarter. And that’s without factoring in behaviour changes.

So it could bring in an extra £1-2bn, maybe. But not billions. And given the political backlash it’d cause then it’s just not worth it for any government.

Original poster
Tummyachey · 02/08/2025 13:35

TeapotTallulah · 01/08/2025 18:22

My father worked hard all his life. Ran his own successful business. He paid tax on nearly half of his earnings over the years. He paid tax when he sold his business. He paid tax on the interest he made on his savings. And when he finally goes, all his hard work will be taxed again. I think it works out something like he’ll have paid 90p tax out of every pound he earned.

Not everyone falls into IHT bands because they’ve bought a big house 50 years ago. And no, he can’t take it with him, but he’s already paid more than his fair share to a multitude of inept governments, why should his estate have to pay them even more?

The fact that it doesn’t affect you doesn’t make it fair.

Show quote history

The fact that you’ve assumed it doesn’t affect me says more about you than you realise - not everyone is thinking only of their own gain.

OP posts:
FullOfLemons · 02/08/2025 13:27

AmateurNoun · 01/08/2025 20:49

It's used by HMRC to describe gifts within 7 years of death that are subject to IHT. You are using it meaning the exact opposite - ie gifts more than 7 years before death that are not subject to IHT.

It would be a fundamental change because at the moment (leaving aside trusts) the whole system is geared up around taxing people who have died after they have died on the value of their estate immediately before they died and on transfers they have made within the last 7 years. It wouldn't be impossible to make such a change but it would be a very radical change with increased administrative costs and be harder to police. To be effective, you'd probably need to switch to taxing all lifetime transfers upon the transfer in the same way lifetime transfers to trusts are taxed.

I'm not suggesting that radical change is wrong - I am just saying that it is completely and utterly wrong to describe such a change as closing a loophole.

Edited
Show quote history

No, I have not described PETs in the way you suggest.

I don’t describe them at all in my posts.

Perhaps you have confused me with another poster ?

You have not explained why the admin costs would be higher than existing rules on gifts. That may be your opinion, however that doesn’t make it fact.

Original poster
Tummyachey · 02/08/2025 13:21

jbm16 · 02/08/2025 13:07

It doesn't generate the money people believe it does, also just demotivates people from working hard, my husband and I are in early 50's and now looking to slow down and live of the existing money rather than leaving for tax man.

By spending it rather than hoarding it you will be helping to stimulate the economy - which is a positive.

OP posts:
Original poster
Tummyachey · 02/08/2025 13:19

DrPrunesqualer · 02/08/2025 13:14

👏👏

Show quote history

You don’t have to give half of your hard earned wealth to the government- it only kicks in after £500,000 or £1,000,000 if you’re married.

OP posts:
DrPrunesqualer · 02/08/2025 13:14

LadyGillingham · 02/08/2025 12:51

I pay for teen mums, long term off sick people, single mums, people who didn’t bother saving up etc through taxes. I build assets with the rest because I choose to save than spend on lifestyle. I do this so my kids could have a good life. Why exactly do you think I owe the public 50% of this? I’ve already paid half of what I earned. I didn’t take much from the system. My kids studied privately, I use private medical services where possible. Why the f should I give half my hard earned wealth to the govt ? So more people could sit at home while my kids work and pay for their lifestyle?

👏👏

DrPrunesqualer · 02/08/2025 13:13

Chiseltip · 01/08/2025 17:25

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

As ever
First post nails it 😁

jbm16 · 02/08/2025 13:07

It doesn't generate the money people believe it does, also just demotivates people from working hard, my husband and I are in early 50's and now looking to slow down and live of the existing money rather than leaving for tax man.

taxguru · 02/08/2025 13:00

EasternStandard · 02/08/2025 12:40

It was their error, which I see they still haven’t acknowledged, they’ll have to find another way other than more taxes.

Show quote history

They need growth to raise funds. Tax rises don't work in the longer term. We need more people working, more business activity, more production, etc.

Personally, I think we need to dust off the YTS/JTS schemes of the 80s to get the younger people and longer term unemployed in the workplace. It's no coincidence that we have relatively high growth in the late 80s and 90s which followed from the mid 80s job creation grants/incentives/schemes, etc.

taxguru · 02/08/2025 12:57

suburburban · 02/08/2025 12:49

Yes I know we pay council tax tax

but this “unearned” rhetoric is irritating

Show quote history

My son will have left the UK by then as he has no intention of staying in the UK once he's fully qualified. There's a constant stream of other staff moving abroad in his firm too!

LadyGillingham · 02/08/2025 12:51

I pay for teen mums, long term off sick people, single mums, people who didn’t bother saving up etc through taxes. I build assets with the rest because I choose to save than spend on lifestyle. I do this so my kids could have a good life. Why exactly do you think I owe the public 50% of this? I’ve already paid half of what I earned. I didn’t take much from the system. My kids studied privately, I use private medical services where possible. Why the f should I give half my hard earned wealth to the govt ? So more people could sit at home while my kids work and pay for their lifestyle?

Original poster
Tummyachey · 02/08/2025 12:50

This reply has been deleted

Post withdrawn at author's request

I disagree with VAT on education on principle - that does not affect my views on increasing IHT.

OP posts:
suburburban · 02/08/2025 12:49

Tummyachey · 02/08/2025 12:29

Taxes don’t just pay for benefits - they pay for healthcare, education, defence, police, roads, paying back debt, libraries, museums … and many other things. I agree that spending on welfare needs to be cut, somehow, but even if that were to happen there would still be a need for the country to raise money.

Show quote history

Yes I know we pay council tax tax

but this “unearned” rhetoric is irritating

FrodisCapering · 02/08/2025 12:43

This reply has been withdrawn

Post withdrawn at author's request

EasternStandard · 02/08/2025 12:40

Tummyachey · 02/08/2025 12:31

Labour clobbered business too hard stifling growth and increasing unemployment. It would be better to raise IHT than to hit businesses again.

Show quote history

It was their error, which I see they still haven’t acknowledged, they’ll have to find another way other than more taxes.

Original poster
Tummyachey · 02/08/2025 12:36

Pictishblue · 02/08/2025 12:23

We are not staying to watch the bankruptcy.

Show quote history

Staying here - and working towards saving the country from bankruptcy - would be my idea of working towards the greater good.

OP posts:
Original poster
Tummyachey · 02/08/2025 12:31

EasternStandard · 02/08/2025 12:28

The last budget was meant to be a one off tax and borrowing hike from Labour.

What happened, why are Labour etc still asking for more with this kind of thing?

Show quote history

Labour clobbered business too hard stifling growth and increasing unemployment. It would be better to raise IHT than to hit businesses again.

OP posts:
Original poster
Tummyachey · 02/08/2025 12:29

suburburban · 02/08/2025 12:04

Well said

the benefit money is unearned

Show quote history

Taxes don’t just pay for benefits - they pay for healthcare, education, defence, police, roads, paying back debt, libraries, museums … and many other things. I agree that spending on welfare needs to be cut, somehow, but even if that were to happen there would still be a need for the country to raise money.

OP posts: