Labour should increase inheritance tax to 50 per cent

How about people stop being so f””””” entitled to other people’s money? And make decision for your life based on YOUR OWN MONEY

Paying peoples wages isn't my responsibility. Im not a charity.

I don't have a moral duty to get my nails done to prop up the economy.

People talk about the costs associated with living in the South, like somehow you were dragged there kicking and screaming and forced to stay.

I grew up in Teesside, I now live in Cheshire. There is a huge cost of living difference. I bought my first house for £155k in 2018, that wouldn’t get me anything here. Nothing I could fit my family into anyway. Perhaps a shed.

Nobody made me move somewhere more expensive, and I’m aware enough of the COL difference in the South/South East to know that that’s worse still, and for that reason - I’m not living there.

We can’t decide what taxation of wealth looks like based on whether it’s more unfair for people who live somewhere else in the country. Leave, if you don’t want to deal with the cost of living there.

People who own property and live in those areas have more, that’s how they live there. If that means they pay more IHT? Good. They have more available, or they wouldn’t be able to own a £1m+ property in Surrey.

Well you could not be more wrong.

So eould you be ok with regional collection and dispersion then? Southern tax for Southern hospitals? They will pay higher rates, after all. Northern hospitals on Northern land will cost less and need less money.

It's so insulting to imply that southerners are wealthy when a lot of us live in shitty seasonal seaside towns with high housing costs and low salaries.

To go where? Which country wants people aged 60+ unless they are multi millionaires who sign contracts saying they aren’t entitled to any healthcare?

The wanted people are educated/specialist working age people.

My DF was a retired postman who lived on a State pension and a GPO pension.
He owned a 2 bed flat in South London and when he died, his estate came under the IHT limit by FIVE POUNDS!

YABU. This would affect most home owners in London while the very rich who you somehow think would be caught, would have taken the necessary steps to avoid IHT entirely.

It's an idiotic idea.

Would anybody like me to post their next thread for them, to save them doing it for themselves?

Who says they've worked? A lot of it could be unearned income and the beneficiaries may not have worked either.

If you don't want to pay IHT spend your money before you die.

There should be exceptions for sudden deaths of breadwinners so that kids don't have the money taken away from them that will support their childhoods but once you've retired, get spending. And downsizing. And if you don't want to do that, don't then moan if you are on your deathbed and the government's going to get 40% of your house (and it won't even get that if it is going to direct descendents).

If people get ill they have to pay for their care and they hardly get anything left over. I'd rather have enough left to pay IHT.

It's not like the allowance isn't generous either.

In short...
Because the threshold is 325 k for a single person.
Double that for a married person plus the value of the house if left to an offspring.

That’s 5% on all estates, no nil rate band or exemptions at all btw. Fair? I think so.

I agree with this. Younger people today with expensive homes will have had to pay top dollar for them but will have minimal unearned equity from growth.
I think it we could tax at 50 or 60% anything over the first 500k of house price growth. So on a house worth £1m that was bought for £100k - would pay £200k of IHT. There could be some deductions for improvements etc

raizing the tax by 10% would raise 1-2bn. So 0.1% of tax revenue. So no it wouldn’t make much of a difference

Right so this is a bit of a merry-go-round isn't it.

My kids have to leave their good jobs, go up north, earn less so that my money can be spent on housing for other people in the south.

Is this a circular plan or is there a further North their children can go to?

We already have majority non working and low income people occupying central London boroughs, whilst the higher earners commute in in order to afford a bedroom for a child, so this is already happening in the south.

But yeah, my money can pay for more houses in the south for people that aren't my family, they have to go up north.

Socialism.

Research has shown exactly this. Currently the very wealthy avoid IHT by giving away virtually all of their assets when middle aged. Those with more modest wealth need their assets to live off so can’t do this and are caught by IHT. Drop it to 5% and the very wealthy are much more likely to just stump up and you’d get lots more tax take.

But since when did the government listen to their actual tax advisory board members such as Dan Niedle?

Or we will just leave.

Well I had to move South to get a decent job and good opportunities - so yes why not? Then perhaps we'd have a more even economy

Quietly, because they don't want to sound grabby, a lot of actual farmers are quite happy about the new rules for them.
We know more than one situation where the owner is in his 80s and although the farming is absolutely being done by his son and dil, he still hasn't handed. It over.
The new rules mean at least conversations and even action might happen to pass on farms before the parent dies almost at the same point the child would retire.

I have worked my butt off since the age of 18. I will do everything I can to avoid this tax.

No worries - just trying to clear things up as IHT is so confusing!

And for those who are not married but leaving a home to children/grandchildren they still get the RNRB, so £500k.

Ah sorry, I'm not married so I hadn't taken that into account.

Because he is one person and was not leaving his house to children/grandchildren so only gets the nil rate band of £325k and has to pay tax over that.

Whereas a couple who are married/in a civil partnership get £325k each and if they are passing on their home to their children/hmgrandchildren they get an extra £175k residence nil rate band each - so it's £1m total tax-free.

@Tummyachey the only ones who manage to avoid it are the millionaires who have financial advisors at every turn. the man in the street cannot afford an advisor to take care of everything. why should people who have worked and saved really hard all their lives be penalised even more just to make sure that the generations of perpetually unemployed can remain on lifelong benefits?????

Taxed on earning
Taxed on saving
Taxed on spending
Taxed on dying

not really an incentive to work hard and provide for yourself is it?

My parents were taxed on earnings, savings, spending, paid their own care fees, supported their children, gave to charity, volunteered, and still paid £500k in IHT.

Increasing IHT will reduce saving and reduce assets to pay for care. The behavioural nudge is in the wrong direction