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.

The property market is flawed.

See point (a)!

Communism was a very dangerous failed experiment that cost millions of lives. Let's not idealise it.

I think it should remain.

HOWEVER should you self-fund any care during your lifetime, those costs should be added to your personal IHT threshold.

Basically the more you self fund, the higher your personal IHT threshold should be.
Self funders save the Local Authorities money & at times they subside LA funded care.

I don't get it really.We are constantly told there is no money, but now they are thinking of planning scrapping something that the Treasury say 93% of estates are forecast to have zero inheritance tax liability in the coming years. And HMRC say only 1 in 20 estates actually pay. According to Sky news, Inheritance tax raises about 7 billion pounds each year and is spent on public services. So, how do they plug that gap for public services if they scrap it.

I was also surprised it was so few, but see some of the other posts for info.

The theory is by lowering tax thresholds you incentivise investment and create growth.

It has the potential to level out farmland prices which are ridiculously inflated at the moment and more often than not are purchased as they are a tax haven for IHT relief and not because people actually want to farm/ use the land and for us that is a positive move.

Why should people have to pay tax on a family owned asset for it passing through the generation? The people who oppose it generally do so because they haven’t anything to gain by this proposal.

I think it would be v popular if my friendship group are anything to go by 🙄. They don’t get the unfairness of inheritance at all. They’re still inheriting hundreds of thousands of (largely) unearnt money but quibbling about IHT. Does my head in 🤷‍♀️.

It would also help protect our heritage. Many of those rambling estates that get passed to the national trust do so because of IHT and upkeep costs. It's that or they fall apart into a pile of rubble.

Inheritance tax was a massive burden to our family, meant selling the family home, losing our last ties to London and the harassment by the Tax Man was just not what we needed in the aftermath of our DDad's traumatic death and probate

Lessening the tax burden and giving a longer time to pay it back would be very welcome

The money has already been taxed.
If people inherit as a result of the loss of a parent/s, I dont see why a tax bill should be introduced to an already difficult situation.

I stand to gain by this.

It’s APPALLING policy.

There needs to be more tax on inheritance, not less, and it needs to pay for proper public services.

Is there anyone on here who have studied hard, worked hard , sacrificed to climb up the work and property ladder , who is in favour of inheritance tax?

UK is a true land of opportunity. My recent immigrant friends have re emphasised that.

I'd like to see more tax on inheritance. A lower percentage, paid by more people.
We need wealth circulating not sat in pensioners bank accounts. And we need a housing market not propped up by the bank of mum and dad.

Possibly needs reforming to have a 25% band rather than going straight from 0% to 40%. The very rich don't pay it, they can afford to protect their assets. It's the rich, known misleadingly as the "squeezed middle" who bear the brunt.

But it's normal human nature to want to give one's offspring a hand up, so if there's anything left after care needs in later life, of course you want it to go to your children and not have a large proportion go to the government.

Well yes - sort of...

It's not coming in for another couple of years unless it's pushed back again of course. The cap applies only to the cost of personal care. Any other costs – such as room, food, entertainment, and utility bills – do not count towards the £86,000 cap, so residents or their families will continue to cover these costs.

The devil is always in the detail when it comes to Govt policies.

The money has already been taxed.

This is an often-repeated, bizarre argument.

a) None of the money has been taxed in the hands of the recipient (the beneficiary under the will). The idea that money should pass through multiple hands and only be taxed once is very odd.

b) In fact in most chargeable estates the vast bulk of the money comes from capital gains, mostly on housing, which has never been taxed even in the hands of the dead. (And CGT on other assets is not charged if the person dies with those assets in their estate.)

How is that selfish? People work hard to provide for their children, why should they be penalised?

What's the point of working to have assets if they just lost or reduce considerably when you die. People already spend a fortune on tax, income tax, corporation tax. Being taxed on the loss of your loved one, it's disgusting.

Inheritance tax is a joke, and the funniest part? It doesn't affect the richer elements anyway. They have set up funds and to avoid any tax, check how much "inheritance tax" the Duke of Westminster or the current King of England have paid.

Actually you’re not taxed on capital gains or at least not the capital gains from your main residence. This is not money which has ever been taxed.

And if my parent were to own a second property, they would pay CGT if they sold it, but if I inherit it, I pay no CGT. How is that fair? If their total assets are less than £1m, I pay nothing in CGT.

Why should everyone who works pay high taxes to shield the wealth of a few?

And it will take about 3 years to hit the £86,000 total, when the average stay in a care home is 3 years, so for most people it won't make a blind bit of difference.

A quick google and we are one of the highest in the OECD, and in fact many/most others have either very low inheritance tax, or none whatsoever, even the famously socialist Nords.

@midgetastic I don't think it should be scrapped, just distributed more fairly, based on average house sale price:
Average House price pays 2.5%
2 x Average House price pays 5%
3 x Average House price pays 7.5% and so on, up to a Maximum of 20%

IHT only applies if there is more than £1m in assets for most people.

Why is taxing a windfall the recipient did not earn themselves, any worse than VAT on food or income tax?

It would be better if they taxed it as income for the recipients, not the estate. That way, we could have a generous allowance, so the first £250k or even £500k per recipient could be tax-free.

The tax rate is high, 40% but the revenue is low because so few pay it. There are cut offs at the very wealthy end (9 million plus).

A pp suggesting recipient based taxation is favoured by the OECD. It is fairer, easier to administer, doesn't penalise estate holders, and encourages wealth to be distributed more widely.