Labour should increase inheritance tax to 50 per cent

[Tummyachey]

If they did this it would raise billions of pounds - while avoiding raising taxes on working people. Exemptions should be put in place to protect small businesses; I accept this would be complicated, but they need to try and make it work.
So much money could be raised and it would also encourage earlier wealth transfers which would stimulate the economy. In addition, it would help redistribute wealth thus reducing inequality.
There would be political backlash, of course, but they need to get the economy growing and should act now so that the results are visible in time for the next general election.

The fact that you’ve assumed it doesn’t affect me says more about you than you realise - not everyone is thinking only of their own gain.

Billions is a stretch. Current IHT take is £8bn, if that raised by a quarter then that’s £2bn.

But given a lot of that IHT will be from trusts and not partially relieved assets, and that it’s not a straight line 40% given allowances so it’s unlikely to increase take by a quarter. And that’s without factoring in behaviour changes.

So it could bring in an extra £1-2bn, maybe. But not billions. And given the political backlash it’d cause then it’s just not worth it for any government.

Agreed, We all came into this world with nothing to be honest. I would say that we leave the same way but that applies to absolutely everyone. His Royal Highness included.

Shame he has to do this

Far too much of the money tax payers earns goes to benefits, benefits is the main reason this country is in such a mess. Labour were close to doing something about it 😪

Its not a gain though is it? Its protecting what's already yours from being a loss (being stolen IMO)

Do you genuinely not understand though that, If benefits weren’t topping up the policeman’s wages, you would have to pay more in Council tank because it’s not sustainable for the policeman to exist given the amount of money that you are paying into the pot on Council tax even if you’re in the top band the numbers just don’t add up.

Where I do object is private business. I don’t think Tesco’s should be having their wages subsidised however.
The harsh reality of it is, There aren’t enough jobs to go around they just aren’t so we would have unemployment of around 10% which was horrific in the 80s.
And that was before mass Immigration now it would probably be 20% of the population unable to feed clothing and house itself.

Another 30% unable to feed clothing and how self adequately.
And they would burgle murder shoplift whatever it takes to survive from the existing so-called net contributors.

I kind of thought everybody knew this. It’s the social Contract.

If it’s yours then you will be dead.

We have to find it somewhere.

Lets not worry about how efficiently tax is being spent, the damaging effects of big business or spiraling energy, food and housing costs. Lets focus on IHT so we screw people who have worked hard all their lives and tried to place as little strain on the public purse strings as possible into their latter years.

Op you are part of the problem.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for your daughters because they will only inherit about £1 million each? That is a massive amount of inheritance.

A lot of wealth is due to house price inflation, particularly in London and the South East, not due to hard work.

You show real ignorance here. Any money you earn over the personal allowance is taxed. So the money you buy your mortgage or house with, is on taxed income. You have paid an enormous amount of interest and stamp duty tax to buy the house. You continue to work damn hard to better yourself and go without, so you can have the best house you can afford. It then gets passed on to younger generations so they can may be get on the housing ladder. Let’s all move to the Isle of Man where there is zero inheritance tax, a very low tax rate and no capital gains tax!

Only it’s not mostly wealthy families. It’s middle class families down south who have all their wealth tied up in their property and without receiving this as an inheritance their dc have no hope of getting housing

it’s all very well for people living somewhere where £400k buys you a massive family home. You must think anyone with £2mil estate is loaded. In and around London it really means nothing of the sort.

Then what’s the point of owning anything at all?
Honestly, don’t you think your existence is already enough of a burden on the state’s balance sheet?
Every time these threads pop up, the underlying message is the same: success or financial prudence should be punished, not rewarded.
Want redistribution? Fine. But do it fairly. Don’t punish people for doing the right thing.
Oh, here we go again. Another “tax the dead” thinkpiece from someone who clearly assumes that anyone inheriting a house must be clinking glasses of Dom Pérignon while wiping their tears with hundred-pound notes.
In my opinion, inheritance tax should be abolished—50%?! HALF?! That’s not taxation; that’s legalized looting under a Labour badge.
And before anyone pipes up with, “It’s only the rich” — have you seen house prices in the South East? Ordinary families are getting stung just for inheriting a bog-standard semi in Croydon. We’re not talking landed estates and private jets here. Some of us just had parents who bought a house in 1973 for 12p and a packet of crisps.
As for this fantasy that it’ll “encourage earlier wealth transfers” — what, are we meant to hand out our life savings at 40 and just hope we don’t need a care home later? Try funding decent elder care when your so-called “wealth” has been hoovered up by the council.
And yes, I’d love to see them “exempt small businesses” — but we all know how that ends. Mega-corps will wriggle through custom-made loopholes while Bob from Barnsley gets hammered for trying to pass on his plumbing business to his lad.
Want to reduce inequality? Fab. Go after corporate tax dodging and offshore trickery. But punishing families who’ve scraped, saved, and behaved responsibly isn’t progressive — it’s lazy, short-sighted policy wrapped in class envy.
Anyway, must dash. Off to tell my mum that apparently the best thing she can do for Britain is die and donate her house to HMRC.
A few actual points, if anyone’s still reading:
Disincentivises Hard Work and Saving
Many families work for generations to build up modest assets — not out of privilege, but sheer effort. Hiking inheritance tax sends a clear signal: don’t bother being responsible, we’ll take it off you anyway.
Encourages Tax Avoidance
Jack up the rate, and the ultra-wealthy will just slide even more into trusts, offshore accounts, and “creative” structures. The rich will dodge it, the middle will foot the bill.
Hits More Than Just the Rich
With property inflation, that £325k threshold is laughably outdated. A bog-standard family home in many areas now crosses it, dragging in people who never saw themselves as “wealthy.”
Undermines Intergenerational Support
Older generations often save to help their kids — with uni fees, house deposits, even childcare. Strip that away and you’re weakening the very social fabric that keeps many families afloat.
Risk of Capital Flight
Push too far, and people — especially those with real money — will leave. Then who’s paying for everything, exactly?

Yes exactly and high amounts of stamp duty to boot

Actually will be the complete opposite, rather than working for another 10-15 years running business that employs 4 people paying hundreds of thousands in tax, we will close business and just reign in our spending, live off what we have, we will spend less and pay less tax.

No incentive to work hard if you can't give the money to your family.

How do you buy those houses in London in the first place?

No one has to feel sorry for anyone else, but these ideas just prevent people working hard, no incentive.

Many single parents in London and the SE will end up paying IHT on their very ordinary ex LA properties the paper value of which is well over the £500,000 mark. In most cases their children will be unable to stay in the family home.

They live next door to LA tenants in identical homes who are able to pass on their tenancies (subsidised rent and no maintenance costs) to their children without paying anything.

Something very wrong there.

I said that you had used the term to mean something that you think is not subject to IHT which is obviously true from your earlier post. PETs are by their definition always subject to IHT because a transfer is only a PET if it is made within 7 years of death.

And I have explained why moving to tax transfers over 7 years before death would result in additional costs because you would realistically need to be move to taxing all relevant lifetime transfers at the time of transfer (which is currently only used for transfers to trusts). At the moment most taxpayers who pay IHT only have to pay once (upon their death via their estate) rather than throughout their lifetime.

It seems pointless trying to explain further to you.

We should worry about all the things you mention - and search for solutions - AS WELL as raising IHT. Obviously raising IHT is not the only thing we need to do.

Labour need another way than going for tax hikes this often.

You have a lot to say, but none of it is constructive. Where would you rather we get the money from? Taxing business further? Taxing living, working people more? No - didn’t think so.

I genuinely wish someone would think of this other way …

Not voting in a party that would hammer business would have been better.

Without that Labour will have to think of something. It’ll probably harm their prospects at the next GE but since it’s their mistake to start with that’s what happens.

And yet here you are fixating on IHT.

This, in a nutshell.