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.

Who’s talking about bailing out? Paid tax all my working life, plus CGT on sale of assets.
no bailing here …

No, not really, it’s not black and white to the exclusion of any and all nuance. Most people do manage to strike a balance between the two positions.

That’s right. No one is arguing for every man for himself to the exclusion of all else. The question is where it is reasonable to draw the line.
when you get to the point of hectoring strangers online about what they’re permitted to think is reasonable to leave to their kids, a line has most definitely been crossed. It’s not the right way to deal with a debate on which there are perfectly respectable views on both sides.

I'm not interested in what you think. I'm more interested in what people can actually do and their justifications for doing so. You can think what you want.

Discussion forums are about people putting forth opinions. And other people put forward their ideas and rebuttals. If you're not prepared to accept the critique of your opinions and why other people don't agree with them then a discussion forum is probably not the place for you.

What you think is reasonable to leave to your kids is not a line that people shouldn't cross. Otherwise we wouldn't have inheritance tax in the first place and everyone could justify paying no tax at all on that basis.

You're trying to use emotive terms to put something beyond discussion. Again that is not what discussion forums are for. I don't recognise your "lines". you don't get to chose what I do and don't contribute and am or am not allowed to criticize. That's for your own contributions.

I’m trying to indicate what’s reasonable in terms of arguments. Making judgements about what’s acceptable for other people to want to do for their children in circumstances of which you know next to nothing is not reasonable, and if you do it you shouldn’t be surprised when you’re told to mind your own chuffing business.

But this isn't about individual decision-making, it's about government policy.

You can want to do whatever you like for your children, but fortunately the state currently puts some limits around that. Many of us want those limits to stay in place.

Ultimately, government policy should be about what is best for society as a whole, not just individual wants.

I agree it’s about policy. That is why discussing it based on views you have formed about people you have never met as to whether they have “enough” for their DCs particular circumstances is both ridiculous and rude.

Tbf, the limits the state places on this aren’t difficult to sidestep at all with a bit of planning.

And again, I have at no point said that you have "enough" for your dc. I have merely made the point that he will be better provided for than most disabled people if you are concerned about how much inheritance tax he will have to pay. Are you actually disputing that fact?

As for it being ridiculous and rude to suggest that your objections are shaped by selfishness, I disagree. You have not offered any other explanation. Of course, you don't have to explain yourself to strangers on the Internet, but if you don't, then they will of course draw their own conclusions from the information that you have provided.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that I understand your concerns for your son and your desire to provide security for him after you are gone. However, as I have said, I believe that government policy should be focused on what is best for society as a whole, rather than on individual wants and preferences, because many people are naturally selfish and will put the needs of their own families first, even when the needs of others may be even greater.

I believe that the only fair way to design a society is to think about what things would ideally look like if you had no idea what your own position in that society might be. If you thought that you were in a position to leave your disabled son nothing at all for his future security, would you not want to feel confident that a decent welfare state would be in place to support him when you're gone? And would you not think it selfish that some parents were objecting to paying a modest amount of tax on their dc's huge inheritance while your dc was left with nothing?

We if enough individuals want it and vote for it then society does adopt it.

It may not be the case but votes on this thread alone show it’s quite popular.

So is capital punishment but we won’t be reverting to that any time soon.

I agree with a PP upthread who suggested CGT on the sale of a deceased's assets would be preferable to IHT. I am a single parent with two adult children still living at home. If I went under a bus, I would love them to be able to inherit the house tax free so they could stay in it. The IHT would force them to sell as despite being a very modest house, it is worth more than £500,000 and they don't yet have the income to cover the tax.

abolition Of IHT compared to reintroduction of capital punishment.
only on mumsnet, people

Part of the reason it's popular though is that most people are ignorant - especially a lot who believe it will impact them, when in fact it won't.

There are also a lot of misunderstandings and emotive statements made to justify arguments, which are completely spurious. "Paid tax all my life", "it's for my kids","shouldn't be taxed twice". These are all nonsense attempts at justification in my opinion.

Threads like this are important to dispel those myths and help people make more informed choices of which policies they support.

I don't think my views to believe this tax should be increased and made unavoidable to the benefit of society should be made a red line and put the topic beyond discussion.

If someone doesn't want their personal business discussed here, then don't discuss it. But expecting people not to hold a view and allow your view to prevail and shut down discussion because it is "about you and your children" is unreasonable.

In your first sentence you say you havent done something and in your second you promptly do it again.
Can’t take this seriously, sorry

Tories would absolutely love to scrap it

“Justification”
yes indeed, wanting a say over what is done with your assets is grossly unreasonable. Justification clearly required 🙄

Yep. Nuts

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension?

There is a difference between having "enough" and having a lot more than other people in comparable situations. If you are unable to understand this simple difference, I don't know how to explain it to you.

Yes, indeed, that's democracy. If enough people vote for selfish twats that work to make the rich richer while the poor get poorer, then that's the government that we will get. I'm not disputing that.

Let's see what happens at the next election.

The problem with IHT is that it is a voluntary tax to those who are so rich they don’t need to use the assets they gave on their day to day living. If you have a £800k house that you want to live in and some savings to see you though but die relatively early at say 70 then your estate could incur IHT. If you have £10m in the bank and a nice pension then you could set £1m aside for a luxurious retirement and give the other £9m away without IHT. It’s the upper middle class who pay, not the massively wealthy.

Studies show that if you drop IHT from 40% to 10% people are less incentivised to avoid it and the overall tax take rises.

if you drop IHT from 40% to 10% people are less incentivised to avoid it and the overall tax take rises.

If you did that the amount raised would barely be worth collecting. There might be a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of people whose estates are likely to be liable for inheritance tax taking steps to avoid it but it almost certainly isn’t the majority. There are plenty of couples who think a tax free share of £1 million, plus 60% of everything over that is enough for their kids.

The clear implication of saying that I have more than other people in comparable situations is that I should shut my trap and be jolly well content with that. Given your total ignorance of my circumstances this is both stupid and extremely rude. Give over.

Nasty, too.

It has become a stealth tax which catches people of modest means but with an asset of a house*, and the rich for whom it was intended may largely avoid it. When a tax departs from the purpose for which it was intended or becomes so far out of kilter, it should be abolished or reformed or replaced. There's a case for saying stealth taxing should be illegal.

VAT is another example of stealth taxing. The rate was put up to 20% to deal with the financial crisis of 2008 and it has been kept at that for all these years. 15 years. Is it now permanent? Looks like it. It brings in a lot of money.

Stamp duty is another questionable tax. Thresholds and rates have been tinkered with at times of panic about the housing market but why should anyone pay a tax in the first place just for buying a house? It brings in money but is it the right way to raise money?

*other types of asset may be exempt.