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%

Why should people who weren't fortunate enough to be born into generational wealth be overly bothered about how much money someone who has done nothing to earn it themselves stands to get for free?

I don't care personally, but I do contest when people shout about being double taxed on assets that have risen in value due to nothing the owner has done themselves because its not true.

Edit to add: I do care about working farms and businesses because this isn't just about passing on assets worth x amount, but viable businesses which are worth a lot to society.

That’s not what I said though, is it?

A house worth £1million is unlikely to be swallowed entirely by care home fees. A house worth £100k? Much more likely 🙄🤣

It's because the people dying now are much more likely to fall into the pennies in the 70s category than they are to be single parents buying 500k properties now then dying straight after. And even then, someone who has enough equity in a home now, whatever their marital status, is overwhelmingly likely to have got some of that through unearned property price increase.

I understand the argument that this doesn't matter to the principle. But if that's so, people need to make the argument on that basis, not make incorrect claims about the money being taxed twice. Because actually, this is a discussion about what should happen to wealth that's often unearned.

House value to care home fee ratio. A cheaper house will be used up on fees much faster than a more expensive house.

It was paid on the estate of a family member. He had a very ordinary job and a very tatty three bedroom terrace…in London and he never married. Well, for the majority of his adult life it was illegal for him to marry because he was gay. So, yes it is paid on the estates of ordinary people in some cases.

Yep, it's more likely that a person needing care will outlive the value of a 800k house than a 200k house. And the 500k house has probably seen a greater amount of unearned equity increase, of course.

I knew it was 4%. I strongly believe it should be a higher % and that most of those who pay should pay more. I honestly cannot understand why people are so against paying more IHT to allow eg income taxes to fall slightly (or to pay more towards public services, according to your preference). As taxes go, it seems like one of the best to me.

So assuming no children to leave to, so he had an estate over £325k, do you think that tax should not have been paid on it?

It’s the assumption that it is not paid on the estates of ordinary people that infuriates me. It’s an incorrect assumption. It’s actually ordinary people who are least likely to tax plan. I actually think it should be paid on every estate at a lower amount. 10% across the board, a much fairer system.

You will always have outliers though, you cannot cover every different scenario.

Less than 5% of people leave an estate that requires inheritance tax (obviously excluding the rich bastards who leave in trusts etc!) so your friend is not in the ordinary pile, he was in the less than 5% pile, not the other more than 95%

I think the fear of IHT is far greater than the actual number of estates which have to pay it - isn’t that number something like only 10-12% of estates?

He wasn’t a friend, he was a family member and he was perfectly ordinary. Grew up in a council house, did an apprenticeship, saved to buy a terraced house, paid the mortgage off and lived in it for the rest of his life. Do you know the breakdown of that 5%? How do you know that they are not “ordinary”?

Why do you think that IHT shouldn’t apply to all estates?

I think it should be doubly penalised to force a rebalancing across the country.

Nobody is going to do that voluntarily.

Wealth inequality is the driver behind poverty.

Where did I say it shouldn't apply to all estates?

What I said was "he was in the less than 5% of estates that needed to pay IHT" not sure why you are having a go at me.

He had assets worth more than £325,000 on death which is why his estate had tax to pay on the remainder, which is more than 95% of other estates left (excluding the marriage allowance, and children allowance and trust fund fuckers)

The vast majority of those other estates can take advantage of the marriage and children allowance, so it’s not a case that they are all of a lower value.

You were the one that challenged me first. So why wouldn’t I respond, but you perceive it as me having a go at you. Strange!

Agree 100% that the assumption that it’s huge estates that pay tax is frustrating. IHT nil rate has been frozen since 2006 if you have no children the extra allowance does not apply so tax to pay over £325k which is not a massive estate.

So your family member left over £325,000 which was then taxed at 40% over what what £325,000

I'm not seeing an issue here.

My DM has assets over £1m, and me and my siblings are not looking at loopholes to pay less.

Inheritance tax should be low and limited to the very rich, as it seems to be. People have already been taxed all their lives.

The younger generations have it worse off so I hope many inherit money that allows them to buy into businesses and own homes etc. Hard working parents should be allowed to directmost of their wealth to their kids, grandchildren and charities of their choice.

I don't agree with high taxes. Just my personal opinion.

If this person left an estate worth say £350k then HMRC figures say that 8.4% of people who had an estate worth between £300k and £400k paid IHT.

So, 92% of people with an estate worth £350k did not pay any IHT at all. This would imply that they were either married and/or had children.

But, as you rightly say, there are people who leave between £325k and £400k who do end up paying IHT. HMRC say that there were 2,210 people like this out of total deaths that year of 634,000.

But what if the people due to inherit have already moved to a cheaper part of the country?

I didn’t inherit from the estate. Stop making assumptions.

And again, where am I making assumptions?

I'll paste it for you "So your family member left over £325,000 which was then taxed at 40% over what what £325,000"

"£325k which is not a massive estate."

Taking the country as a whole it is. The latest HMRC figures say that out of 634,000 deaths in 2021-2022 there were 103,750 that had a net estate of £300k or more.

So, £300k puts you in the top 16%.

You were referring to what you would be paying and that you weren’t complaining about it and therefore implying that I was complaining about what I had paid…except that I didn’t pay anything because I didn’t inherit anything. Language is not all about what is written in black and white.

You can assume what you like, and be as arsy as you like, no skin off my nose.

You are projecting your own thoughts on what I wrote, but I wrote what I wrote.