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.

Oh, I give up.

I haven't said that you should shut your trap and be content with what you have got. I simply believe that some redistribution of wealth is just and fair.

You're right that I don't know your exact personal circumstances but to be honest, these are irrelevant. We are not talking about you as an individual, we are talking about policy.

The fact is, if you're worrying about inheritance tax, you stand to pass down a vast amount of wealth to your dc. I don't begrudge that in the slightest, I just think it's perfectly reasonable for a modest percentage of that to be taken by the state in tax to help support those who are less fortunate, regardless of your personal circumstances.

@Abitofalark ,

How does inheritance tax ‘catch’ anyone? You are dead! You can’t take your money with you and it was never your children’s money to start with.

I am also opposed to stamp duty. It penalises those forced to move and those getting divorced. A better solution would be taxing property wealth. Foreign buyers and those buying through corporations couldn’t avoid this. The CGT exemption on people’s primary residence is very questionable. It encourages people to buy far bigger houses than they need and penalises those trying to buy an affordable property (via price inflation).

In a civilised country, we have to pay taxes, unless we want even more inequality than we are currently seeing. A lot query the unfairness of taxes but few query the nepotism and London-centric ability of socially questionable businesses who can pay huge wages to a number of very average people.

you say “I give up” and yet you don’t. Your opinions on what I ought to be contented with are uninformed, intrusive and irrelevant to the policy debate.
our tax system, thankfully, doesn’t work on the basis that the state decides what’s reasonable for an individual to have at their disposal and takes the rest (however much you might like it to). your opinions on this question are entirely beside the point.

The thing is that despite those in favour of inheritance tax calling those opposed to it selfish, greedy etc…those people are still going to be against it, they’re still going to vote in favour of parties pledging to scrap it, and they’re still going to avoid it if at all possible. Thinking people should be okay with it, and have a more moderate definition of ‘enough’ doesn’t mean they will be. Okay, you think I’m selfish…and? What impact does that have on my life exactly? Please do go ahead and think I’m selfish, that isn’t something that worries me tbh.

btw, estate planning is not just for the super wealthy. Anyone worried about iht should look at what their options are, because they do exist.

I'm not sure if you are willfully misunderstanding me or genuinely incapable of reading comprehension.

For the last time, I have not told you that you should be contented with anything. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you are contented or not.

And yes, actually, the state does decide the level at which to tax individuals - it isn't just a voluntary arrangement, though of course there are loopholes that can be exploited by those with no scruples. The sooner those are closed off, the better.

If you don't like the current inheritance tax policy, you are of course free to campaign against it. Just as others are free to question your motivations for doing so.

I am not going to keep going round in circles with this. I do think your motivations are selfish. I understand that you disagree. Your personal circumstances are irrelevant to this conversation.

I'm sure you'll come back wanting to have the last word. I have nothing more to say to you on the issue.

Of course the state decides the level at which to tax individuals. It doesn’t do that on the basis of “it’s reasonable for you to have this much and we’ll take the rest.” It just feels like that sometimes.
I’m not sure the one struggling with comprehension here is me …

To be honest it’s not something I have ever needed to worry about and I don’t know anyone else that does either. I’m sure people in the South will get more excited by it than people in the North.

They have already rewarded wealthy people by scrapping the lifetime allowance and increasing the annual allowance for pension investment and this just seems like another attempt to make wealthy people more wealthy.

The divide between those that have and those that don’t is certainly getting bigger.

I'd like it and it wouldn't affect me in the slightest. I think it's a very unfair tax.

The divide between those that have and those that don’t is certainly getting bigger.

Truest words on the thread.

They wouldn't have to pay any IHT on it because assuming you leave the house to them equally in your will, they would each gain about 250k from the sale and they would get at least the 325k exemption each.

No they wouldn’t. The exemption is per estate, not per heir. They’d still get £250k each + 60% of the residue though which isn’t insignificant.

Apologies @Wildandwonderful they may have to pay some IHT but not much as they would effectively get a 500k exemption so only have to pay 40% on what is left after that. You can use online calculators to get a rough idea.

https://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/tax-calculators/inheritance-tax-calculator-aLtwm6T5zOu0

This calculator is a bit misleading though. Most couples would enter joint assets but it only allocates one SNRB and one MRNRB. The actual tax it calculates is £200k too high for estates between £500k and £2m.

https://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/tax-calculators/inheritance-tax-calculator-aLtwm6T5zOu0

That is 100% the case.

There is an argument for increasing the IHT exemptions, perhaps even having a larger Residential Nil Rate Band for Greater London homes. But the wholesale scrapping of IHT will drop £7 billion of tax revenue a year out of collection.

The rich 4% of who pay IHT will get away, but it will be the middle-earners that pick up the tab. In case it has not sunk in yet I will say it again very loudly:

THE INTEREST WE PAY ON UK GOVERNMENT DEBT IS GOING TO BE £115 BILLION THIS FINANCIAL YEAR ALONE.

25 YEARS OF QUANTATIVE EASING IS OVER. HIGHER INTEREST RATES ARE HERE TO STAY.

UK NATIONAL DEBT AVERAGES £90,000 PER HOUSEHOLD.

THERE IS NO MONEY LEFT TO GIVE TAX CUTS TO THE RICHEST.

There is certainly no case to abolish IHT completely and give a £2m estate a £400k uplift.

But sheep will believe anything they are told that is written in the Daily Mail or the side of a red bus.

Labour would be fools if they didn't. Sadly the left wing of the Labour Party has form for putting what it calls "principle" before electoral advantage - as the past 13 years (especially 2017 and 2019) have shown.

We’ll wait and see what happens next year, shall we?🙂

I wouldn't be surprised at all if more people use food banks in the UK each week than are affected by inheritance tax. It seems bizarre to me that it's the richest 4% that we're prioritising.

https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/end-year-stats/#:~:text=Between%201%20April%202022%20and,the%20same%20period%20last%20year.

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has reported that 41,000 people were liable to paying inheritance tax (IHT) in the 2022/23 financial year.

So, I was right. 760,000 first time food bank users last year and 3 million food bank parcels distributed. With only 41,000 people liable for inheritance tax, you're nearly 20 times more likely to need to use a food bank in the UK than pay inheritance tax.
Wow!
And its inheritance taxpeople are up in arms about!

I know. I saw a map the other day showing the number of estates liable for inheritance tax by location. In the county where I live - 60 miles north of London - it was 30 estates last year.

And its inheritance tax people are up in arms about!

It isn't though. It is a handful of editors in newspapers who are driving the agenda backed by wealthy Tories. The idea is to get the tax abolished by saying the average homeowner in the South East is now worth above the thresholds.

All the Government needs to do to make IHT work better is to increase the threshold - double it to £2m inclusive of joint sets of allowances.

But in seeking to abolish it altogether it gets the wealthiest off the hook too.

Mark my words - as we approach the next GE it will be played out as a tax on the average south-East homeowner to get it abolished to let the rich off. Meanwhile the average reader will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

that would perhaps bring it more in line with what IHT was intended to be originally. But I guess they may take the view that if you raise the threshold to that level it will raise so little as to not be worth the bother anymore? So just abolish.
bottom line is they are contemplating doing it as a sop because they think they won’t be able to cut income tax.

I think the threshold should be lower not raised. And yes I would be affected by it even at the high rate it is now. Better still, get rid of inheritance tax and just treat any inheritance as income to the recipient and tax it as such. Including and fancy fake 'loans' or other such nonsense taken out against any estate.

Do you believe in your position enough to not take what you will get?

Hand it to a charity perhaps.

I kind of get the easy come easy go stance when privileged but there are other ways to live to principle

We have a welfare state not a Victorian patchwork system of charities.
We don't want a return to that.