To think scrapping inheritance tax would not be popular with voters

[Lanadelday]

I'd say I can't believe the conservatives are considering it, but nothing surprises me any more that they do. But AIBU to think most people wouldn't back this anyway- I can't see it being a big vote winner and don't think they really get that voters are sick of all the inequality and so many people including kids and elderly, living in poverty, not wanting to make it worse.

Our house will probably sell for at least five times what we paid for it. That money has never been taxed.

This driving me mad: you do NOT pay tax when you die! You are dead - you can't do anything. People you choose get your money.

If you have an expensive house they pay some money to keep it (Paying a few thousand for a million-pound mortgage-free house sounds like a great deal).

If they don't want to do that they can sell it and get the cash. Again, paying 400 k to get 1.325 million sounds better than a kick in the teeth (using an earlier example).

I'm not annoyed at the prospect of paying IHT. I'm annoyed at my parents for being such lazy gits that I'll only get 100 k, which is too low to be taxed.

There will be a £5.5 trillion wealth transfer between generations over the next 30 years. £1 trillion between now and the 2030. I cannot for one second see any government giving up their share of that. It’s guaranteed easy tax money for them.

To be fair, a 60 year old these days will potentially have a 25/30 year old child so if they are already comfortable then they will likely use the inheritance to help? I'm 45 with boomer parents and foresee a situation where I inherit money at a point I don't really need it (mortgage repaid)so my DC will likely benefit instead.

Wow, that’s huge. And you’re right, it would be madness.

All it takes is IHT planning and you don't need to pay any just like the rich don't. Giving your money away when your dc can benefit from it the most is usually when they are in their 30's. Money has less impact on 60 year olds which is when most people inherit.
The main problem is most people think that their house is an asset not a liability.
People are better off downsizing then spending and giving away money then at least they get to benefit as well as their offspring.

i wonder how much of that will be exempt as a result of estate planning.

I think they could if, in the long run, they believe it could cost them more to keep it than to scrap it

^and yes. Estate planning isn’t just for the extremely wealthy. Most can utilize ways to minimize or avoid it altogether.

Well 59% of British people don’t have a will, so the government will be doing ok even if the rest manage to dodge some of it.

Would depend on how many of those 59% have assets that iht would apply to.

They’re probably not the people whose estates will be liable for inheritance tax.

this is true but does depend upon living to a certain age, a lot of my inheritance was pension assets my df was a few months short of starting to draw down. He certainly didn’t intend to leave anywhere near as much as he did. Which at the time did make me resent IHT, but a few years later I can see what a privileged position I’m in and don’t resent paying tax at all.

I know a worrying amount of 70 somethings (in laws, my parents friends) who most definitely come under IHT and they don’t have wills. They just think it’s their families problem when they die. It’s just bizarre!

I mean they’re not wrong, once you’re dead I doubt you care. I had to sort out an uncle’s estate, he’d written a will but outlived everyone mentioned in it! In the end it wasn’t his problem although I don’t understand why he’d not spent it all while he could.

I don’t understand why he’d not spent it all while he could

Presumably because he didn’t have a crystal ball and had no idea whether he’d need care. That’s why we’re not spending every penny. It makes no difference whether it pays for a care home or it goes to HMRC.

Your original deposit must have been taxed. How could it not have been? You invested that money into bricks and mortar. Your investment grew over time. That is normal for any investment. Just like if you invested into stocks and shares and that investment grew over time.

Just like if you invested into stocks and shares and that investment grew over time

Over a certain threshold you pay CGT on that though. Not so for first home increase in value. Kind of made the case yourself for CGT or IHT.

The allowance as it is doesn’t do much for children of single parents who would be paying on £500k compared to £1 million allowance for children of married parents. And yes it’s a lot of money but average houses in large parts of the South East are exceed that.

The allowance as it is doesn’t do much for children of single parents who would be paying on £500k compared to £1 million allowance for children of married parents

But don't children still have the 500k allowance from each parent?

I genuinely don't understand why people are so up in arms about a minuscule % of the very well off being taxed on unearned income.

It’s not an investment, it never was. It’s a home. We made mortgage payments instead of paying rent. If we’d invested in stocks and shares the dividends would have been taxed every year. The amount of money this house has gone up by since we bought it is obscene, of course the profit should be taxed - a lot more than it will be.

I think it's unfair that partners are treated differently to a married couple in these cases. It should be a set amount per estate imo, not per person with some 'rolling over'

Why is it unfair? You have the choice to marry or enter a civil partnership, if you choose not to that’s the result.

If people vote for that, without considering where the shortfall will come from, they're absolutely idiotic.

He had a lifetime to spend it or share it if he wanted. There's no prizes for being a miser.