What % of all deaths (uk) resulted in an inheritance tax bill in 2021-22? you're not previewing try and have a guess?

[HecatesBees]

What % of all deaths (uk) resulted in an inheritance tax bill in 2021-22? you're not previewing try and have a guess?

Some 4.39pc of all deaths resulted in an inheritance tax bill in 2021-22 – a total of 27,800, according to official figures.

If your guess was higher, pick YANBU
if your guess was lower pick YABU

(I would have guessed higher, maybe even up to 50%

I do - I have zero confidence that any government would use money that I earn in this lifetime in a more efficient and better way than I would. I am totally happy to pay tax for the good of all. But why should we not be able to look out for our own families- why on earth do people think that any government knows best!!!

This.

I understand that some people have objections to IHT on principle, which is fine. But the overwhelming majority of people dying and leaving a substantial estate are going to have benefitted from unearned, previously untaxed equity increase in their homes. It's simply not true that IHT means the money is being taxed twice.

How are the beneficiaries impacted?

A married couple owning a home can leave up to £1 million to their children without paying a penny in IHT. The fact that the estate will have to pay IHT on amounts above £1 million before distributing the money to the "multiple" beneficiaries doesn't really impact them. They will receive slightly less of a pot that is worth over £1 million.

The more elderly folk grew up, and lived their lives, expecting to pass stuff down (and expecting not to pay care fees I'm going to add in), so they worked and planned on that basis. I am not talking about the rich, just those who worked/got their own homes. This is their background, and one they probably shared with their kids/legatees as their expectations, so it isn't surprising some aren't happy I think but I would say they are disappointed they did what was best for family and maybe it's not as best as they intended. Though IHT has always been around it's only more recently house prices will have taken more people over the threshold, again not expected 10/20 years ago. Everyone will get used to it, but I do cut elderly some slack with the changes of things they thought for most of their lives.
Houses inherited also fall for CGT from any rise between date of death to date of sale, so that's a bit more for the government that might be more difficult to 'dodge' and I expect has always been the case.
I recognise this impacts certain areas of the U.K. more than others but care costs impact more where house prices are lower and house is sold for these or attached to be sold - the money runs out a lot faster. So maybe swings and roundabouts.

Boohoo. You want a system where only people who inherit will be able to afford houses? What about those people who won't inherit anything? Are they supposed to pay more tax to subsidise someone else keeping all their unearned windfalls? Or is everyone supposed to pay through the nose for terrible privatised cartels (we've been here before...).

You still get up to £650k before you even start to pay IHT if you inherit from a couple and you still get to keep 60% of the rest. So if you have a £1.5 million estate you get to keep £1.16 million. The heart bleeds. BTW I have paid large IHT and didn't moan once. It's still vastly more than I could save in my lifetime.

Many already have. However, family businesses are also caught by this change as well.

It's not just who is the director that matters but, more importantly, who owns the shares in the company business?

If the parents pass on the shares to their children then that is a gift which is subject to IHT for seven years after the gift is made.

I knew it was that percentage but it still surprises me it's not higher. We had to pay some inheritance tax on my mum's estate. She had a 1960s linked detached house in the Midlands and some savings; it's certainly not just millionaires with mansions in the southeast.

Yanbu- I think.

My instinctive response was 5%, but that is still higher.

Working farms should not be counted we are fools to target our food supply we could have tightened up the definition to stop people taking advantage

I have never given it a second thought.

My PILS both worked very hard all their lives, saved for their retirement, created jobs and employment. They've contributed more than most. Even if they hadn't done any of those things I wouldn't have a problem with them doing whatever they want with their money.

Agree too. I’m in the SE and I know hardly anyone who hasn’t bought their house using some kind of inheritance from grandparents or parents. Without it most people would not have been able to have moved out of their parents home and would be stuck there in their 30s or older. It’s simply enables them to buy a normal sized home. Not inherit millions and off shopping all day or something!

And what about people who have parents who rent? The inequality is a big issue. It’s more about whether & what you inherit rather than what you earn, not exactly progressive.

Sorry but i disagree. People in the south east are paid far, far higher wages. The disparity between pay in the south east and the rest of the country borders on the ridiculous.

So if you have a £1.5 million estate you get to keep £1.16 million.

Do people really begrudge paying 400k but keeping 1.16m? Both my parents & in-laws have 1m plus estates, it might all go on care but if not my siblings & I are lucky.

I would say lots do, yes and try to mitigate if they can. Gifting, spending while alive, moving money around. Not 'loopholes', perfectly valid ways to avoid as much IHT as you can.

I already knew it was 4%. The problem is that it isn't the richest 4%. I"d be fine with it being up to 20% so long as all the loopholes get closed to ensure that is the wealthiest 20%.

The amount of negativity and complaints about IHT are because the people who are worried they might fall into that 4% are powerful and influential and capable of making 20times as much noise about it as is reasonable.

I will be affected when my parents pass on as I think there estate including a house is just over £1m.

But you know what -I will in no way "suffer" if I get say £300k rather than £500k.

Now will be nephew "suffer" if he gets £600k rather than £1m when I go (as single no kids)

Why does anyone think the beneficiary suffers at all by getting slightly less of an unexpected windfall (ignoring family farms /businesses)

I'm not sure why I should be able to inherit more because my parents have a house in London though?
It's only luck they bought there in the 70s. I've done nothing to earn it. And we'll be getting a hell of a lot more from then then my MIL in the NE.
Tbh I think it should be taxed more. The transfer of wealth that is going to happen it's going to a hugely disproportionately affect people brought up in lower income houses and increase the north southdivide further.

Perfectly acceptable if they can do it. It's already been taxed. Remember, the state doesn't own your money. I know it's the socialist way but it's wrong.

My guess was 3% but I agree with @CrabSignalArmy. The very wealthy can and do avoid it.

Lol.

I'm sure being powerful hasn't occurred to the many many people who own houses in London and the south east.

Quite.

Lots hasn't already been taxed though, to be honest I don't care what people do, but I'm not sure why many seem to struggle to comprehend this. If it's an asset such as a house it will have accumulated value over time for nothing.

Sorry but if you look at statistics if average salaries in the south east its not just a couple of K.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/416139/full-time-annual-salary-in-the-uk-by-region/

Link just to follow up.

That value belongs to the people who own the property. Not the state.