« Andrew Lilico: Everyone hates you, America, but so what? | Main | Tomorrow, Labour loses the election »


Matt Wright

There is no doubt IHT is affecting far more people. I get the issue on the doors in North Wales. IHT is charged on the total estate. A fairly average bungalow is upwards of £200 and then add on the rest of the estate. People have already been taxed on their income, why the hell shouldn't they leave things to their children. It might be the only way those children get a chance to either get on the property ladder or move up to a house of a size they can bring up a family. Remember also that Brown has wrecked your pensions. Many people under about 35 have no decent pension provision. When their parents die it might be the only way those parents could have helped their children. No wonder there is real anger and we have shot up in the polls.


The link from the front page to this article does not seem to work.

The point about the 6% is who cares?

In terms of people likely to vote in a general election, a much greater quantity than 6% will think they might be subject to the effects of IHT at some point in the not too distant future.

That is what counts - for the people who have already been affected as beneficiaries (a once or perhaps twice in a lifetime event), it is probably no skin off their nose as they can't eactly get the money back now.


The underlying justification for IHT must be that in some degree your assets belongs to the state or they need the tax money. Certainly if IHT ever reaches 50% they are saying that assets belong to the state as much as they belong to you, and we should counter the underlying thinking directly. The other point is that needing the money is no excuse ("we have to balance the books") - if it isn't right in principle for you to have it, you do without and spend less. We could pass a law to confiscate the assets of everyone whose names begin with F, to balance the books, but that wouldn't be right - the issue is why we have IHT, especially if we already have tax on income and gains, IHT being a capital-based tax after income and gains tax (and stamp duty, VAT, fuel duty etc) have already been levied.

Rebecca Harris

Peter's story about a man wanting his relatives to freeze his corpse to avoid IHT is not apocryphal. It was my grandfather although I doubt he would have agreed with Peter's assertion that he was rich.

Having left school at 14 to work in Boldon Colliery he subsequently made a bit of a go of his life as a builder. After working all his life, serving his county, paying his taxes, providing homes for most of his relatives & doing a huge amount for charity he was disgusted at what he considered legalised grave robbery.

I am pleased to say my father declined to stick his corpse in the chest freezer (although my mum still finds it useful) and instead my grandfather pretty much forced himself to live until a about week after the 7 years elapsed.

What he couldn't forgive was not simply how much the state wasted of other people’s money, but that the government did not appear to want as many people as possible to have the means to be independent of it. A more sensible IHT regime would be one which encouraged as wide a distribution of capital as possible.

The comments to this entry are closed.

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker