Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Sandstorm]

Don’t knock ‘Spoons. Nowhere else can you get an ice-cold Bud Light pint. Mmmmm.

To be fair. He heavily supports local craft beer breweries and they always have a great selection of beers at good prices.

My wife and I were in Edinburgh a few weeks ago and a pint of Stewart's IPA and a large wine was £16 in a pub in the west end. Same drinks in the Spoons were less than £8.

The wine in any Spoons is vile. Truely vile.

[weegie01]

700k houses is roughly 2.5%. That's not many.

Assets worth nearly £1m. Meaning they're likely already not qualifying for IHT. On top of that, how much of those assets are also pensions? Which don't count towards IHT anyway.

EDIT- It's still a tiny minority that will be effected by IHT by any degree.

A minority of the population as a whole, but a relatively larger number of those who are relevant in a conversation about direct taxes since most people pay very little tax.

We can argue whether the numbers are significant, but I don't think dismissing the effects of IHT just because it does not affect many people is a valid argument. IHT is unfair because it is hitting the wrong people regardless of the number.

IHT in its various forms was targetted at the very rich. More and more people who were never part of the target group are being included by fiscal drag and improved asset values. They are not any richer relatively to what they were in the past, but are now liable for IHT when they had no need to worry about it in the past. Meanwhile those who were the intended targets plan their way out of paying it. The target audience are not paying, those of relatively modest means to them are. Predictions are that the number of people liable for IHT will continue to rise as the thresholds decline in real terms.

My wife is the tax managing partner of a large accounting firm. I appreciate that as a result of that our tax planning is more arcane than most, but there very definitely is a potential liability on her pension pot on her death. Though that is not so in every case.

[fishfoodie]

...... and just like that the Head boy shows what a cuck he is by ramming thru "Pork Markets" Liz's honors list under cover of the New Years one, in the hope that no one notices ......

He could have deep sixed the the whole rotten lot, & no one bar the muppet responsible would have given a fuck, but he's too weak & gutless to do so.

[Biffer]

Martin may be a bellend but he isn't the worst honours recipient I've ever seen.

That speaks more to how low standards have become than anything.

Exactly my point.
I would abolish the whole system, it's as anachronistic as the HOL.

And then you see names further down the list, like the Tube worker in London who has approached 29 suicidal people on platforms and talked them back from taking their own lives. Truly deserving of an honour.

[Paddington Bear]

700k houses is roughly 2.5%. That's not many.

Assets worth nearly £1m. Meaning they're likely already not qualifying for IHT. On top of that, how much of those assets are also pensions? Which don't count towards IHT anyway.

EDIT- It's still a tiny minority that will be effected by IHT by any degree.

A minority of the population as a whole, but a relatively larger number of those who are relevant in a conversation about direct taxes since most people pay very little tax.

We can argue whether the numbers are significant, but I don't think dismissing the effects of IHT just because it does not affect many people is a valid argument. IHT is unfair because it is hitting the wrong people regardless of the number.

IHT in its various forms was targetted at the very rich. More and more people who were never part of the target group are being included by fiscal drag and improved asset values. They are not any richer relatively to what they were in the past, but are now liable for IHT when they had no need to worry about it in the past. Meanwhile those who were the intended targets plan their way out of paying it. The target audience are not paying, those of relatively modest means to them are. Predictions are that the number of people liable for IHT will continue to rise as the thresholds decline in real terms.

My wife is the tax managing partner of a large accounting firm. I appreciate that as a result of that our tax planning is more arcane than most, but there very definitely is a potential liability on her pension pot on her death. Though that is not so in every case.

We discussed this a few weeks ago - really struggle to see how it is hard to grasp that massive increases in house prices = lots more people paying IHT than has been traditionally the case. Most of the people in that cateogry are alive, but ageing

[C69]

700k houses is roughly 2.5%. That's not many.

Assets worth nearly £1m. Meaning they're likely already not qualifying for IHT. On top of that, how much of those assets are also pensions? Which don't count towards IHT anyway.

EDIT- It's still a tiny minority that will be effected by IHT by any degree.

A minority of the population as a whole, but a relatively larger number of those who are relevant in a conversation about direct taxes since most people pay very little tax.

We can argue whether the numbers are significant, but I don't think dismissing the effects of IHT just because it does not affect many people is a valid argument. IHT is unfair because it is hitting the wrong people regardless of the number.

IHT in its various forms was targetted at the very rich. More and more people who were never part of the target group are being included by fiscal drag and improved asset values. They are not any richer relatively to what they were in the past, but are now liable for IHT when they had no need to worry about it in the past. Meanwhile those who were the intended targets plan their way out of paying it. The target audience are not paying, those of relatively modest means to them are. Predictions are that the number of people liable for IHT will continue to rise as the thresholds decline in real terms.

My wife is the tax managing partner of a large accounting firm. I appreciate that as a result of that our tax planning is more arcane than most, but there very definitely is a potential liability on her pension pot on her death. Though that is not so in every case.

We discussed this a few weeks ago - really struggle to see how it is hard to grasp that massive increases in house prices = lots more people paying IHT than has been traditionally the case. Most of the people in that cateogry are alive, but ageing

So what if a few people pay more tax?
Such small numbers as has been explained to you time and time again.

[Paddington Bear]

A minority of the population as a whole, but a relatively larger number of those who are relevant in a conversation about direct taxes since most people pay very little tax.

We can argue whether the numbers are significant, but I don't think dismissing the effects of IHT just because it does not affect many people is a valid argument. IHT is unfair because it is hitting the wrong people regardless of the number.

IHT in its various forms was targetted at the very rich. More and more people who were never part of the target group are being included by fiscal drag and improved asset values. They are not any richer relatively to what they were in the past, but are now liable for IHT when they had no need to worry about it in the past. Meanwhile those who were the intended targets plan their way out of paying it. The target audience are not paying, those of relatively modest means to them are. Predictions are that the number of people liable for IHT will continue to rise as the thresholds decline in real terms.

My wife is the tax managing partner of a large accounting firm. I appreciate that as a result of that our tax planning is more arcane than most, but there very definitely is a potential liability on her pension pot on her death. Though that is not so in every case.

We discussed this a few weeks ago - really struggle to see how it is hard to grasp that massive increases in house prices = lots more people paying IHT than has been traditionally the case. Most of the people in that cateogry are alive, but ageing

So what if a few people pay more tax?
Such small numbers as has been explained to you time and time again.

It’s a larger and larger number each year, in areas of the country the Tories need to win. How are you not getting the politics of this? I haven’t expressed an opinion either way on its policy merits, don’t anticipate being affected personally by it for a long time.

[tabascoboy]

The big problem is surely the super-inflated property values, a situation that we know the Tories are only too keen to support and prolong. So you could argue I guess that by addressing IHT thresholds they are clearing up a mess they have helped to create.

It's madness that 4/5 bedroom houses within hundreds of meters of my own house in a fairly normal commuter belt residential area can sell for £900 000+ and one or two are over £1M, simply for being near good schools and transport links.

[Biffer]

Dead people don't pay tax. Neither do they own assets. It's the transfer of these things that is taxed. If that helps choke back the property market, good.

[C69]

We discussed this a few weeks ago - really struggle to see how it is hard to grasp that massive increases in house prices = lots more people paying IHT than has been traditionally the case. Most of the people in that cateogry are alive, but ageing

So what if a few people pay more tax?
Such small numbers as has been explained to you time and time again.

It’s a larger and larger number each year, in areas of the country the Tories need to win. How are you not getting the politics of this? I haven’t expressed an opinion either way on its policy merits, don’t anticipate being affected personally by it for a long time.

Tough titties, the numbers are tiny

[shaggy]

Last day for UK self assessment if you want to pay for any excess tax still due through your tax going forward.

[weegie01]

So what if a few people pay more tax?
Such small numbers as has been explained to you time and time again.

It’s a larger and larger number each year, in areas of the country the Tories need to win. How are you not getting the politics of this? I haven’t expressed an opinion either way on its policy merits, don’t anticipate being affected personally by it for a long time.

Tough titties, the numbers are tiny

That is the best argument you have? The logic, the impact of a tax on individuals, the fairness of the tax, the coherence of the tax, whether it is actually doing what was intended etc, none of it matters as long as the numbers affected are small?

[C69]

It’s a larger and larger number each year, in areas of the country the Tories need to win. How are you not getting the politics of this? I haven’t expressed an opinion either way on its policy merits, don’t anticipate being affected personally by it for a long time.

Tough titties, the numbers are tiny

That is the best argument you have? The logic, the impact of a tax on individuals, the fairness of the tax, the coherence of the tax, whether it is actually doing what was intended etc, none of it matters as long as the numbers affected are small?

I don't care a jot if a tiny amount of rich individuals are taxed on the wealth of their dead benefactors.

Yes I know it's more nuanced but it's not a subject that should be a priority at all. Leave it alone it's too peripheral an issue that does not matter. Sort out tax issues that will make a material difference to the many not the few.

[dpedin]

Tough titties, the numbers are tiny

That is the best argument you have? The logic, the impact of a tax on individuals, the fairness of the tax, the coherence of the tax, whether it is actually doing what was intended etc, none of it matters as long as the numbers affected are small?

I don't care a jot if a tiny amount of rich individuals are taxed on the wealth of their dead benefactors.

Yes I know it's more nuanced but it's not a subject that should be a priority at all. Leave it alone it's too peripheral an issue that does not matter. Sort out tax issues that will make a material difference to the many not the few.

Agreed! This is the rich trying to make stuff up about IHT in order to fool the voting pop that it will benefit the poor and the needy. It affects a small minority of already wealthy population and the majority of them do what they can to avoid it. Of course there is no mention of the things that wouldn't get funded if they got rid of it - if there is extra cash swilling around then throw it at social care to help those who actually need help ie the elderly poor and the disabled, and at the same time free up some NHS beds. The thing that annoys me most is this 'double tax' nonsense - many things we buy everyday are subject to a double tax. Instead of getting rid of IHT they should increase tax rates in dividends etc to the same rate as income tax, that would scare the pigeons!

[shaggy]

Except it is not the rich that are being affected. It is impacting people based on where they live mostly as most wealth is tied to property and just owning a 4-bed house in London suburbia can make you liable.

I know a lot of you hate the fact house prices have risen and you are cheering for a correction and that IHT is therefore karma but let’s not pretend it affects the ‘rich’. It affects teachers, medical professionals, self employed, middle management, business owners, many people that have just worked hard and chosen to invest in their home.

It is just lazy to describe them as ‘’rich’, but then politics of envy has been driven hard by a number of political parties in the last few years so it makes this gotcha acceptable.

[C69]

Except it is not the rich that are being affected. It is impacting people based on where they live mostly as most wealth is tied to property and just owning a 4-bed house in London suburbia can make you liable.

I know a lot of you hate the fact house prices have risen and you are cheering for a correction and that IHT is therefore karma but let’s not pretend it affects the ‘rich’. It affects teachers, medical professionals, self employed, middle management, business owners, many people that have just worked hard and chosen to invest in their home.

It is just lazy to describe them as ‘’rich’, but then politics of envy has been driven hard by a number of political parties in the last few years so it makes this gotcha acceptable.

How many people did this effect last year? Lets look at the numbers and the facts. Not whatabouteryin the future etc. If there is a real issue reform the system and makeit fairer not just fucking abolish it tofeather the nests of millionnaires and billionnaires and the rich.
It's a total irrelevance, the media and the Tories trying to make it an issue. The politics of envy is a childish jibe perpetuated by entitiled twats with money and prejudice.

[Raggs]

Owning a 4 bedroom house in London, you've got to be fairly rich... If you've got £1m in assets as a couple, whether it's housing, savings etc (and pensions don't count!) Then yes, you were rich. And iht is only for over that amount!

[petej]

Except it is not the rich that are being affected. It is impacting people based on where they live mostly as most wealth is tied to property and just owning a 4-bed house in London suburbia can make you liable.

I know a lot of you hate the fact house prices have risen and you are cheering for a correction and that IHT is therefore karma but let’s not pretend it affects the ‘rich’. It affects teachers, medical professionals, self employed, middle management, business owners, many people that have just worked hard and chosen to invest in their home.

It is just lazy to describe them as ‘’rich’, but then politics of envy has been driven hard by a number of political parties in the last few years so it makes this gotcha acceptable.

Most haven't chosen to invest in their home. The shit state of UK housing stock tells you this. Their home didn't cost them that much. I wonder if many of these people would ban immigration if it meant house prices being static or decreasing. It is part of the pact the Tories made with the older generations. As I've previously stated it makes no difference if it is fractionally increased so why bother as the discussion is intentionally misleading. Most the population don't know the thresholds, most have no clue about tax or progressive taxation. Labour are better off saying very little on it.

I do agree it is failing to actually hit the incredibly rich people it should be impacting. The oligarch and despot enablers (accountants, lawyers, pr people) make sure it doesn't.

[Biffer]

Except it is not the rich that are being affected. It is impacting people based on where they live mostly as most wealth is tied to property and just owning a 4-bed house in London suburbia can make you liable.

I know a lot of you hate the fact house prices have risen and you are cheering for a correction and that IHT is therefore karma but let’s not pretend it affects the ‘rich’. It affects teachers, medical professionals, self employed, middle management, business owners, many people that have just worked hard and chosen to invest in their home.

It is just lazy to describe them as ‘’rich’, but then politics of envy has been driven hard by a number of political parties in the last few years so it makes this gotcha acceptable.

You owning a four bed house million pound house does not make you liable. It makes your kids liable after you die.

[shaggy]

Very predictable responses. None of which invalidate the position that many of the people/families impacted will not be ‘rich’.

[Biffer]

Very predictable responses. None of which invalidate the position that many of the people/families impacted will not be ‘rich’.

If you are inheriting more than a million pounds of assets that you didn’t work for, you’re not poverty stricken, and you can afford the tax on it. Sorry if you don’t like that but it’s true.

[Deveron Boy]

Very predictable responses. None of which invalidate the position that many of the people/families impacted will not be ‘rich’.

‘Impacted’ ffs this is all financial upside for beneficiaries- the only ‘impact’ is they will receive a bit less - many people -less than 4% the population? - how do you define rich in this circumstance?

[Jockaline]

Very predictable responses. None of which invalidate the position that many of the people/families impacted will not be ‘rich’.

If you are inheriting more than a million pounds of assets that you didn’t work for, you’re not poverty stricken, and you can afford the tax on it. Sorry if you don’t like that but it’s true.

Most of those that can pass it on didn't earn it either, they were beneficiaries of a property market that was allowed to to get out of hand.

[sockwithaticket]

I think a lot of people in the sorts of houses that keep getting brough up don't realise how exceptional they are on a national scale in terms of asset wealth. They struggle with the idea that not being cash rich or living a luxurious lifestyle doesn't preclude them from having more to pass on than the overwhelming majority of people in the country.

My parents live in Hampshire in a house that cost them £700k 15 years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if it's up to about £1m by now. My mum doesn't appreciate how many people don't own a home of any sort, let alone how much of a price bubble the south east is for owners.

[Biffer]

Very predictable responses. None of which invalidate the position that many of the people/families impacted will not be ‘rich’.

If you are inheriting more than a million pounds of assets that you didn’t work for, you’re not poverty stricken, and you can afford the tax on it. Sorry if you don’t like that but it’s true.

Most of those that can pass it on didn't earn it either, they were beneficiaries of a property market that was allowed to to get out of hand.

I know. But people always make the ‘he invested at a smart time’ argument, even though it’s bs. But again, it’s the emphasis that I think is important - the dead aren’t paying tax, the living are. And the living definitely didn’t earn it.

[C69]

Very predictable responses. None of which invalidate the position that many of the people/families impacted will not be ‘rich’.

If you are inheriting more than a million pounds of assets that you didn’t work for, you’re not poverty stricken, and you can afford the tax on it. Sorry if you don’t like that but it’s true.

Most of those that can pass it on didn't earn it either, they were beneficiaries of a property market that was allowed to to get out of hand.

Absolutely

[dpedin]

If you are inheriting more than a million pounds of assets that you didn’t work for, you’re not poverty stricken, and you can afford the tax on it. Sorry if you don’t like that but it’s true.

Most of those that can pass it on didn't earn it either, they were beneficiaries of a property market that was allowed to to get out of hand.

I know. But people always make the ‘he invested at a smart time’ argument, even though it’s bs. But again, it’s the emphasis that I think is important - the dead aren’t paying tax, the living are. And the living definitely didn’t earn it.

The average total net wealth per household in the UK is c£300k. This is total assets including house, car, etc less any debt including mortgage, credit, etc. Most net wealth is made up of house value and pension pots. Most of the increase in house value is due to rising housing inflation and is in effect unearned income that hasn't been taxed but is a result of a rising housing market and housing values. My mum and dad bought their bungalow for £4,000 in early 70's and we sold it for £175,000 in 2010 after they had both died - we in effect benefited from £171k increase in value of their home by doing nothing. If you have a net worth of c£1m then you are in the top 15% of the UK in terms of net wealth. If you have a net worth of c£1.4m then you are in the top 10% ie the rich end!

However most estates will be inherited by spouses and/or children and. in these cases the IHT tax free allowance of £325k is increased by £175k to £500k. If the partner of the deceased didnt use their IHT allowance when they died then this can be passed on to create a IHT tax free allowance of c£1m. So in reality most folk will not pay any IHT - 96% didnt in last tax year. Those that do pay IHT will probably have used up all these tax free exemptions and even after that these their estate was still large enough to incur IHT on any amount over and above the tax free element.

So all the shroud waving from those who are saying IHT is unfair, a tax on a tax, etc are essentially trying to defend letting the children of the rich avoid paying tax on unearned income resulting from house ownership and those who have used tax allowances to pay into and grow their private pension pots. I have no problem in these large inheritances being subject to IHT once the appropriate tax free allowances of somewhere between £500k and £1,000k have been used. I am sure those inheriting the 4% of estates which incur IHT will not go broke, starve or go homeless as a result - they might not afford the 2nd home in Cornwall though?

[Biffer]

Most of those that can pass it on didn't earn it either, they were beneficiaries of a property market that was allowed to to get out of hand.

I know. But people always make the ‘he invested at a smart time’ argument, even though it’s bs. But again, it’s the emphasis that I think is important - the dead aren’t paying tax, the living are. And the living definitely didn’t earn it.

The average total net wealth per household in the UK is c£300k. This is total assets including house, car, etc less any debt including mortgage, credit, etc. Most net wealth is made up of house value and pension pots. Most of the increase in house value is due to rising housing inflation and is in effect unearned income that hasn't been taxed but is a result of a rising housing market and housing values. My mum and dad bought their bungalow for £4,000 in early 70's and we sold it for £175,000 in 2010 after they had both died - we in effect benefited from £171k increase in value of their home by doing nothing. If you have a net worth of c£1m then you are in the top 15% of the UK in terms of net wealth. If you have a net worth of c£1.4m then you are in the top 10% ie the rich end!

However most estates will be inherited by spouses and/or children and. in these cases the IHT tax free allowance of £325k is increased by £175k to £500k. If the partner of the deceased didnt use their IHT allowance when they died then this can be passed on to create a IHT tax free allowance of c£1m. So in reality most folk will not pay any IHT - 96% didnt in last tax year. Those that do pay IHT will probably have used up all these tax free exemptions and even after that these their estate was still large enough to incur IHT on any amount over and above the tax free element.

So all the shroud waving from those who are saying IHT is unfair, a tax on a tax, etc are essentially trying to defend letting the children of the rich avoid paying tax on unearned income resulting from house ownership and those who have used tax allowances to pay into and grow their private pension pots. I have no problem in these large inheritances being subject to IHT once the appropriate tax free allowances of somewhere between £500k and £1,000k have been used. I am sure those inheriting the 4% of estates which incur IHT will not go broke, starve or go homeless as a result - they might not afford the 2nd home in Cornwall though?

Exactly. All this crap about ‘I earned it and I already paid tax on it’ is just ridiculous. After you’re dead you don’t own it anymore, and your kids didn’t pay tax on it. And they should (above a certain amount, as you explain).

[weegie01]

I know. But people always make the ‘he invested at a smart time’ argument, even though it’s bs. But again, it’s the emphasis that I think is important - the dead aren’t paying tax, the living are. And the living definitely didn’t earn it.

The tax is paid by the estate, not the recipient(s). The beneficiaries have no tax liability, the liability is on the estate and the executor has to discharge it. Nor is it a tax on a transfer as you say above. It is a tax on dying, after it is paid the money gets distributed.

[Biffer]

I know. But people always make the ‘he invested at a smart time’ argument, even though it’s bs. But again, it’s the emphasis that I think is important - the dead aren’t paying tax, the living are. And the living definitely didn’t earn it.

The tax is paid by the estate, not the recipient(s). The beneficiaries have no tax liability, the liability is on the estate and the executor has to discharge it. Nor is it a tax on a transfer as you say above. It is a tax on dying, after it is paid the money gets distributed.

That’s the way it’s set up, but it’s dumb to think of the dead paying tax. It’s being paid by the living, and frankly should be structured that way.

Regardless of that, you can’t say that it’s ever unaffordable or casting anyone into poverty.

[Hal Jordan]

IHT on a £1.6m estate of a second spouse with full IHT allowances passing the estate to direct dependants is £240,000 (£1m allowances, £600,000 balance at 40%).

That's an effective tax rate on the whole estate of 15%.

That leaves £1.36m left to the kids. Even if they have three, that's £453,333 just for being born and not falling out with your parents. Hardly a monstrous imposition and a theft from the living or the dead.

And with some very vanilla IHT planning, say a BPR qualifying portfolio held for a mere two years prior to death (see the chaps at Octopus Investments for more details, and it's amazing how many attorneys of elderly parents suddenly remember how mum was always interested in AIM shares), and whatever is in that is valued at Nil for IHT purposes, so that's £40k back per £100k. And combine that with the Capital Gains Tax uplift on death to revalue the portfolio at probate value, and suddenly you can cash in a portfolio that was previously heavily pregnant with gains with zero tax implications.

To say nothing of gifts out of income, 36% reduced IHT rate for giving 10% of the net estate to charity, gifts you live long enough to wash out of the estate, financial schemes like discounted gift trusts, and, of course, donations to political parties being free from IHT.

[weegie01]

I know. But people always make the ‘he invested at a smart time’ argument, even though it’s bs. But again, it’s the emphasis that I think is important - the dead aren’t paying tax, the living are. And the living definitely didn’t earn it.

The tax is paid by the estate, not the recipient(s). The beneficiaries have no tax liability, the liability is on the estate and the executor has to discharge it. Nor is it a tax on a transfer as you say above. It is a tax on dying, after it is paid the money gets distributed.

That’s the way it’s set up, but it’s dumb to think of the dead paying tax. It’s being paid by the living, and frankly should be structured that way.

Regardless of that, you can’t say that it’s ever unaffordable or casting anyone into poverty.

Why is it dumb to think of it operating the way it was set up? It is explicitly a charge on the estate of the dead, not on the living recipients.

Who has said it is unaffordable or casting anyone into poverty?

[Biffer]

The tax is paid by the estate, not the recipient(s). The beneficiaries have no tax liability, the liability is on the estate and the executor has to discharge it. Nor is it a tax on a transfer as you say above. It is a tax on dying, after it is paid the money gets distributed.

That’s the way it’s set up, but it’s dumb to think of the dead paying tax. It’s being paid by the living, and frankly should be structured that way.

Regardless of that, you can’t say that it’s ever unaffordable or casting anyone into poverty.

Why is it dumb to think of it operating the way it was set up? It is explicitly a charge on the estate of the dead, not on the living recipients.

Who has said it is unaffordable or casting anyone into poverty?

What I’m saying is it should be set up as a tax on unearned income. In the meantime I don’t have any sympathy for anyone complaining about it.

[shaggy]

Very predictable responses. None of which invalidate the position that many of the people/families impacted will not be ‘rich’.

‘Impacted’ ffs this is all financial upside for beneficiaries- the only ‘impact’ is they will receive a bit less - many people -less than 4% the population? - how do you define rich in this circumstance?

I am not the one defining those subject to IHT as rich.

Maybe those who have used it can provide a defnition?

[weegie01]

The average total net wealth per household in the UK is c£300k.

If you have a net worth of c£1m then you are in the top 15% of the UK in terms of net wealth. If you have a net worth of c£1.4m then you are in the top 10% ie the rich end!

It suits the ‘it is only a few people’ rhetoric to use the whole population as a comparator. But it is the wrong comparator to use in a conversation about death taxes.
It would be a valid comparator if death was spread evenly across the population, which it is clearly not. Death occurs overwhelmingly amongst the older cohort, so in a conversation about death taxes, the wealth of those above 65 (for example) is a more accurate comparator. That group have had a lifetime to acquire wealth, wealth is concentrated in that group compared to the population as a whole, and thus the number of £1m plus estates in that group will be much higher than the UK as a whole.

If you are interested in a true comparison for IHT, maybe use the older cohort as a comparator and you might find the £1m plus estates are not as much of an outlier as you think.

So in reality most folk will not pay any IHT - 96% didnt in last tax year. Those that do pay IHT will probably have used up all these tax free exemptions and even after that these their estate was still large enough to incur IHT on any amount over and above the tax free element.

And the point that keeps getting made is that the number of people who pay IHT is low because it is so easy to avoid, not that so few people fall into the relevant group. Those with reasonable wealth avoid it, it falls on those who do not have the ability to do so. One of the reasons it is a bad tax is it hits the wrong people.

[TheNatalShark]

Scrap IHT and treat any amounts left to individuals as taxable income with a 200k exemption.

If you want, you can have a separate tax banding. Apply it to gifts as well to avoid admin on gifts within 7 years blah blah blah.

[Paddington Bear]

‘It only really affects London and the SE’ is to an extent true, but London and the SE is what? 30% of the country’s population? Maybe more now? To counter the obvious response, yes I am aware that not every one of those 30% has a large IHT liability. The point stands - something that affects London and the SE affects a large amount of the country and can’t be considered niche, particularly at an election where a lot of the Tory held seats in this area are in play.


Anyway, Happy New Year all, I’m sure in 2024 someone will change their mind on an issue as a result of a post in this thread

[Prembore]

Anyway, Happy New Year all, I’m sure in 2024 someone will change their mind on an issue as a result of a post in this thread

If I were a floating voter I think the sheer weight of preening piety in this thread would make me plump for the Tories.

[Sandstorm]

Anyway, Happy New Year all, I’m sure in 2024 someone will change their mind on an issue as a result of a post in this thread

If I were a floating voter I think the sheer weight of preening piety in this thread would make me plump for the Tories.

If you’re a floating voter after the last 5 years of Tory Govt, then you’re either just out of a coma or a cnut.

[C69]

Latest polls showing a 6 point lead for labour in Scotland now.
Worse to come for the Govt with NHS pay strikes likely again and 1m seeing fixed rate mortgages ending this year and today's 5% increase in energy costs.