Express launches campaign against inheritance tax

The Daily Express has this morning launched a campaign to abolish what it calls the "hated death tax."  The newspaper's political editor Macer Hall has set up a petition on the Number 10 Downing Street website "to ensure that inheritance tax is scrapped in this year's Budget."  You can add your name to the petition here.

Conservative MP Mike Penning has already signed up to the campaign:

“This is a fantastic way for the people of this country, who are being fleeced by inheritance tax, to express their views directly to the Prime Minister.  Mr Blair ignores this at his peril. He must listen. Inheritance tax is quite simply immoral. It hits Middle Britain big time.  I urge anyone who feels angry about inheritance tax to use this petition to make their voice heard.”

Comments

[JimJam]

It won't let me post as the server is too busy - excellent !

[Andrew Woodman]

Copying the Daily Mail campaign. I think we need to be careful with this though. I can't see we would be in any position to get rid of it for a quite a while when we get into office.

[ToMTom]

I can't see we would be in any position to get rid of it for a quite a while when we get into office.

Well then - farms are tax-exempt but family homes are not. It levies the same tax whether 1 person or 100 people inherit.

It is bizarre that Capital Gains Tax PLUS Inheritance Tax is levied

It is weird that Probate is not granted until IHT paid and interest accrues in the meantime even though the Executors have no access to Probated Funds

[Valedictoryan]

There was a very similar petition that ended on 15 Jan to which the PM's office officially responded (http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page10780.asp):

"Your epetition refers to a petition to abolish inheritance tax. You may not be aware that currently only 6 per cent of estates pay inheritance tax.

Inheritance tax is charged only on any net value of a person's estate over and above the exemption of £285,000. The effect of this combined with the various reliefs available from inheritance tax is that 94 per cent of estates pay no inheritance tax whatsoever. This exemption will rise to £325,000 by 2009-10.

Nevertheless, inheritance tax is expected to raise around £3.6 billion this year - roughly equivalent to a 1p raise in the basic rate of income tax, for example. If inheritance tax were to be abolished, this revenue would have to be made up, either by raising other taxes or cutting public services.

Abolishing inheritance tax would therefore benefit a very few people at the expense of ordinary tax-payers.

As with all tax policies, the Government keeps inheritance tax under constant review."

In other words, you're an insignificant minority so put up and shut up.

[Andrew Woodman]

I agree the tax is a nonsense but the negative spin that could be put on it by scraping it straight away would be a problem. Reforming it and raising allowences would be the only course of action we could realistically take I'd have thought.

[Jon White]

Valedictoryan - to use the old legal jargon: "Examine the source". Of course the PM's office will claim that only 6% of the population will pay inheritance tax. I would very much question that figure.

If, as we are told, the average price of a house in this country is now approaching £250,000, then it won't be long before it reaches the Inheritance Tax threshold of £285,000. As owner occupation is about 55-60% in this country, that means that more than half the population will be hit with it.

Secondly, your argument that it only effects a small minority so shut up is so typical of the twisted morality of the left. Racism only effects a minority of the population, should we shut up about that too? The fact is that Inheritance Tax is morally wrong - taxation has already been levied on that money, so why should ANYONE have to pay it twice?

Your final point that it would mean 1p on Income Tax to fill the hole left by it's going is equally facile. Surely, if the money wasn't coming in we could just not spend it - you know on a war that no-one wants, benefits for the lazy, etc etc.

[George Hinton]

Would this be a newspaper publisher and owner realising the hit that his estate would take, and deciding to take a personal stance to influence a future decision on taxes.
Surely not a return to the early 20th Century when policy was made through the papers for the benefit of a small minority.
Am i being unduly cynical, as todays Times ignores the Charity Commission probe into the Smith Institute, consigning into the mid-pages, and has a piece on the alleged spread of "right of centre" think tanks.
Oh well chacun a son goute.

[MH]

I think that it's absolutely right to kill off this tax. It'll save the millionaire leader of the Conservative Party a fortune for some more eco-friendly schemes.

[changetowin]

I don't think this should be a priority for the next Conservative government. Conservatives should support earned income over income gained through accident of birth. Inheritence tax is a tax which helps achieve meritocracy across the generations by improving opportunities for those with poorer parents. Of course it is not nice to pay a tax, but having this tax seems better than scrapping it and raising income taxes.

[clive elliot]

Best thing to promise for a start in the manifesto would be to double the threshold and halve the rate. A fair, strong and easily remembered/understood policy. Would solve 90% of the problem, after doing that the yield would be so small it could be abolished quietly a few years later.

[Opinicus]

IHT is an absolute inquity. A tax on wealth created by saving from already taxed income.
I cannot think of anything that the Conservative Party should oppose more - a priori, on principle.
That Valedictoryan and Changetowin, the two CCHQ mouthpieces on this site, should be urging caution is wholly symptomatic or how far the rot has set in.
Abolishing IHT is or should be a Tory USP. Very little other is more likely to energise our troops to get out and vote. CCHQ, vetoing the idea for ideological reasons, hastens the day when they fail and we can elect the leader again.

[matt wright]

My initial thought was that we should double the threshold but really why should some people have to pay an immoral tax and not others. I think the basic problem is this tax is indefensible. People have already paid tax on their income etc. No my view is scrap it. Period.

Cllr Matt Wright

[NigelC]

I'm with Clive at 15.11

[malcolm]

As always Changetowin I fundamentally disagree with you for the reasons outlined by Jon White. This money has been taxed already. I wish the campaign the best of luck although as it is being spearheaded by Express Newspapers who surely publish the worst newspapers in Fleet St. I don't fancy its chances.

[Jon White]

And lets face it, Malcolm, it's hardly going to be a vote winer amongst labour voters is it? So it won't happen whilst this lot are in office.

It is a vote winner for 'middle England' however, and as such it should be our policy.

I agree with you about the Express too!

[changetowin]

Malcolm,

When we pay VAT the money we use has been taxed already. Do you want to abolish this tax too?! (I would have suspected you like this tax since it is regressive)

[TomTom]

Secondly, your argument that it only effects a small minority

What does that mean ?

IT surely will not affect the same 6% each day or each year. We know that many people die intestate, that if they have total assets below £285.000 NETT of Debt they do not pay....but after that they pay CGT + IHT on assets

Some people give money to charity to reduce estates, others have farmland or private companies.

I doubt Roman Abramovitch would pay any IHT in Britain if he drank polonium tea. I doubt any rich person will pay IHT just lower middle class people.

Trusts are not possible for those who cannot afford to forego assets - but the very rich are safe.

So the motto for the middle class is to die heavily in debt - never pay off the mortgage and die with negative net worth

[TomTom]

And lets face it, Malcolm, it's hardly going to be a vote winer amongst labour voters is it? So it won't happen whilst this lot are in office.

No Labour voters live in caves and put their children up chimneys, and when they aren't sewing their children into vests for the winter, they are stuffing bread and dripping into them as they watch Coronation Street and drink Tetleys.

They look at the Conservatives swishing by in their carriages and wonder how they can afford to snort cocaine with 't mill falling on hard times and whether they'll happen meet the Labour candidate at greyhound track

Yes Jon back in Merrie Olde Englande we can see why Conservatives can't win elections - they are stuck in the 1930s

[Jon White]

Changetowin - strange that as a Tory you seem so pro-tax. Clearly the party that I joined, one of giving the money back to those who had earned it and away from the state is not your Tory party. Shame, I rather miss the old one - you know, the party that WON elections.

Yes, I would abolish VAT for exactly the reason that you state-it is regressive. I would also abolish it as a contribution towards lowering the overall tax burden in this country, which should be the first objective of Conervative economic policy. That may/will mean cutting spending. It will also reduce govt and civil service waste, and encourage more self-reliance. More people keep more of what they earn, and can pass it on to their descendants.

[Jon White]

TomTom, I really don't understand the point you are making. I don't think that Labour voters live in caves, they live in subsidised accomodation, on state benefits, paid for by people who work.

[Graeme Archer]

Rotten tax, let's get rid of it, absolutely. But let's not do anything which connects us, in any way, shape or form, with the Express or Desmond. Avoid the petition and instead ask the TPA to start an alternative.

[Sean Fear]

Exempting main residences from IHT would be a popular move.

[Valedictoryan]

"Valedictoryan... Secondly, your argument that it only effects a small minority so shut up is so typical of the twisted morality of the left... Your final point that it would mean 1p on Income Tax to fill the hole left by it's going is equally facile. "

Jon White, so itching for a fight you were that you did not see those important quote marks. I was quoting Mr Blair's office. Still, it's to your credit that you were able to instantly recognise facile thinking and twisted morality ;-)

"That Valedictoryan and Changetowin, the two CCHQ mouthpieces on this site..."

OK, I'm sure you didn't just make a random comment there. Can you explain?

[changetowin]

Jon,

Calm down! Let's not be so facile... I'm not pro-tax any more than anyone is pro-death. Tax is a fact of life - we need to raise it. The question is, should an inheritence tax be a small part of the mix. My argument is that it should because the alternative is to raise the proportion of taxes taken from earnings. You claim you joined the Conservatives to give money back to those "who earned it". A fine idea - but scrapping a tax on unearned income you will do the opposite!

[changetowin]

And before you all go crazy, when I say you need to "raise" tax, I mean it needs to be collected - not that it needs to go up!!! Phew - this site is hard work... ;-)

[changetowin]

Jon,

No need to go quiet! If, on reflection, I've successfully challenged one of your prejudices, then say so!!!

[Cllr Keith Standring]

As a free-market, libertarian Conservative I welcome the campaign to scrap the Inheritance Tax. Not only do I think the Conservative Party should support the campaign in Parliament, but the leadership should commit to scrapping IHT when elected to Government.

Inheritance Tax is absolutely unjust. People are taxed when they earn money, taxed when they spend money and taxed when they invest money - what right has the state to seize yet more when someone dies? Taking £3.6 billion from the pockets of bereaved families is appalling. The Government should be encouraging people to work hard, save and take responsibility for their families, and abolishing Inheritance Tax would be a step in the right direction.

[Account Deleted]

On the one hand I can't help thinking that IHT must be one of the least regressive taxes around, that if you are born to well off parents you have the benefits of being brought up free from financial worry, people who will ensure you can go to a good school, people who can support you when things go wrong, and so on.

But on the other hand 285,000 does seem very low as an amount to pass on. Perhaps it would be better if we doubled the allowance, and gave people a long term grace period to pay IHT (say 10 years) so that they don't have to sell off the family home?

I can't quite support this tax cut over say, raising income tax thresholds to take people who are earning the minimum wage out of the tax system.

[Annabel Herriott]

What makes you think it wont affect labour voters? Think of all those thousands on Gordon Browns pay roll vote. Bet they are nulab, and live in houses that could quite easily reach his figure. Then think of the "Champagne Socialists". They can afford to be nu lab, but do they want their nice houses with ensuite bedrooms to attract inheritance tax? Dont think so, do you?

[TimberWolf]

Didn't the Conservatives introduce Inheritance Tax?

[Londoner]

Changetowin - Jon may not have been silenced by your eloquence, but just doing something else for a while - perhaps trying to accumulate some wealth to pass down to his descendants. Oh sorry, in your book that would be limiting someone else's opportunities wouldn't it?

I had actually written an eloquant post pointing out all the reasons why your statements:
"Conservatives should support earned income over income gained through accident of birth. Inheritence tax is a tax which helps achieve meritocracy across the generations by improving opportunities for those with poorer parents."
is so flawed as a basis for any sort of Conservative policy - unless of course the changetowin you really have in mind is to turn socialist. But unfortunately the system did a "wobbly" on me and lost the post. Maybe it too starts from socialist assumptions...and feels that a successful post from me might limit others' opportunities.

I am not going to write it again. But I do wonder whether the only reason you are not a Blairite is because he is not socialist enough for you? I would also briefly remind you that as a party we are still committed to tax cuts, i.e. sharing the proceeds of growth between tax cuts and public expenditure growth. As part of any reasonable level of tax cuts over a Parliament, if there are normal levels of economic growth abolishing IHT would almost be accommodated in a rounding error.

[William Norton]

Secondly, your argument that it only effects a small minority

Technically, only those people who are going to die are within the scope of Inheritance Tax...

(IHT is levied on all estates, its just the rate is 0% for the first £285,000 of an estate. 40% above that)

[Londoner]

Timberwolf says: "Didn't the Conservatives introduce Inheritance Tax?"

Quite probably but, if I recall correctly, it replaced Capital Transfer Tax, an even more pernicious measure introduced in place of Death Duties, by the Labour Govt of 1974-79.

I've no doubt that if the great lady had remained in power for a while longer that she would have got around to abolishing it long before now.

[Sean Fear]

Timberwolf. Yes, but it replaced Capital Transfer Tax, which was much worse.

IHT doesn't affect the seriously rich, as business property, farms, woodlands, and country houses and art collections are mainly exempt. They can also afford expensive accountants and lawyers to come up with complex schemes to avoid payment.

It does, however, affect the sort of people who might have c.£50,000 in savings and a house worth £400,000 (not at all uncommon in London). Exempting main residences would be very popular with such people, and the loss of revenue would be a drop in the Ocean.

[Denis Cooper]

Don't worry - the European Commission is already on to this and will probably sort it out before the Tory party needs to put forward its own policy. Of course, not everybody would necessarily welcome their solutions, but at least it would relieve our hard-pressed politicians of the burden of making difficult decisions.

http://euobserver.com:80/9/22876 16.11.2006

"MEPs call on commission to tackle inheritance laws"

"The commission is not obliged to act on any legislative call by the European Parliament but it has not ruled out a law in the area, with Mr Gargani saying that EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini has "accepted our request to draft a legislative proposal in the course of 2007."

A commission justice spokesperson said it was "too soon" to look at what power base the commission would use to justify taking action in this area which belongs in member states' domain.

The MEP report suggests an article in the current treaty on "promoting the compatibility of the rules...concerning the conflict of laws and of jurisdiction" would be a good basis."

[Londoner]

Soory to multiple post but:

William Norton,
As the Blair Govt seems to be defying death at the moment, perhaps Blair himself is gaining confidence that not only can he personally walk on water, but he can defy corporeal death also and therefore will prove your analysis of the inevitability of IHT wrong.

On reflection, perhaps that wopping mortgage is an IHT avoidance device.

Is it just me or is this system going very slow this afternoon?

[michael mcgough]

Unless I am mistaken it is UKIP policy to abolish IHT .

[Londoner]

So?

It may be the solemn and binding policy of the Outer Mongolian Republican Party; and has about as much relevance either to this thread or to the likelihood of it happening.

[michael mcgough]

"and has about as much relevance either to this thread or to the likelihood of it happening."

As this thread is about IHT and the Express(a UKIP sympathetic paper) it is clearly relevant-----the moreso as Letwin promises wealth redistribution.

[Tanuki]

Surely hard campaigning against IHT is something that truly fits into the Conservative/Cameron model of being 'family/children-friendly' and supporting Britain's 'strivers'?

You work hard through your life to do the decent thing - to be self-sufficient and to support your family - your children - but under Labour when you die the State comes along and slices off 40% of it!

To me, being "Conservative" means that I can conserve my wealth and pass it on as I see fit, not see 40% of it skimmed off to fund a slew of State-funded Real Nappy Outreach Coordinators. If we're smart we can really push the abolish-IHT line as a way to win ourselves back votes among the horribly overtaxed B/C1/C2 demographic-groups.

[Richard]

"In other words, you're an insignificant minority so put up and shut up."

A recent poll showed around 80% calling for its abolition. So put up or shut up.

"Conservatives should support earned income over income gained through accident of birth."

You are aware that the Tories have traditionally defended the principle of inheritance? Why shouldn't a parent be able to pass the money that they have earned onto their children?

"Inheritence tax is a tax which helps achieve meritocracy across the generations by improving opportunities for those with poorer parents."

You're making the mistake of assuming that without IHT those with lots of money would keep it all. On the contrary, wealthy people or their children frequently squander money away. Furthermore, the wealthy are more likely to save and therefore contribute towards economic growth.

"Of course it is not nice to pay a tax, but having this tax seems better than scrapping it and raising income taxes."

It only raises a few billion, we could easily abolish it within a few years as the economy grows or by cutting spending.

[Ted]

Richard
I read Valedictorian's final sentence as a summary of the quoted response from number 10 showing what the Govt thought of abolition, not as his own opinion. I presume that therefore your response was addressed to the No 10 press office?

Sorry to be sarcastic but while I agree with your views I think if you are going to say "put up or shut up" to another poster you ought to check who you are attacking.

[matt wright]

Still think IHT should be scrapped,

Matt

[Steve]

Raises peanuts, is expensive and time consuming to collect, amounts to 900 pages of the tax code, the very rich can avoid through smart accountants and lawyers.

£3.5bn can be found overnight it's such a piffling amount.

Abolish it. For crying out loud, let's have some gumption.

[TomTom]

they live in subsidised accomodation, on state benefits, paid for by people who work.

Posted by: Jon White | February 02, 2007 at 15:51

Comments like that are so stupid as to merit psychiatric care. You really need an education.

[Valedictoryan]

Thank you Ted. You understood me perfectly.

[Richard]

"I presume that therefore your response was addressed to the No 10 press office?"

Ahem, yes, that was what I meant.

[Andrew]

UKIP's national support is so small as to be nearly unnoticeable (<1% in last poll). Who gives a monkeys what their policies are? It's clearly nothing to do with inheritance tax.

[Tapestry]

Go one better. Just leave the UK.

Anyone worth more than 1 million pounds will find a life of luxury, sunshine, low tax and ease awaiting them in many corners of the earth.

why sweat and stress just to pay for Gordon Brown's outdated socialist dogma that's been dumped everywhere in the world apart from the UK? It's time the lazy and the irresponsible of society woke up and carried themselves for once. There are far poorer people in the world who need the skills and leadership that successful Brits can offer by leaving the UK.

Why become a tax victim? Voting Tory won't help any more. Just quit the country. The world awaits you.

[comstock]

"Nevertheless, inheritance tax is expected to raise around £3.6 billion this year - roughly equivalent to a 1p raise in the basic rate of income tax, for example. If inheritance tax were to be abolished, this revenue would have to be made up, either by raising other taxes or cutting public services.

Abolishing inheritance tax would therefore benefit a very few people at the expense of ordinary tax-payers."

I agree with this. However I do wonder how much the *higher* rate of income tax would have to be raised by to raise this money.

You could then reasonably say 'tax paid in full' on this money, and not tax it again on death.

I doubt either Tory or Labour have the guts to raise income tax though.

[TomTom]

Funny that IHT cuts in at 40% straight after £285.000 and then 40% on CGT as well. I wonder why Lawson did not taper it but made it flat rate ?

It does seem bizarre that Endowment Policies use to pay off mortgages are added to the Estate, and that Pension Funds which aren't SIPPs automatically disappear once the pensioner dies.

Obviously the way to live is highly leveraged on a pay-as-you-go basis and file an IVA before death

[Steve]

Actually technically CGT is charged at your marginal rate, not simply 40% flat; unlike IHT which is 40% dead (excuse the pun!).

[Ted]

Richard
Apology, unfair to single you out and recognise it's easy to misread - excuse is I had just finished a stressful 14 hour day on continuous audio conferences and some of the earlier responses by our trollish visitors had riled me. Sorry.

[Milton]

There's no point thinking about IHT:
- it's a tax which is relatively limited in its scope (just read the stuff about half of all households being liable in 2020 and think about the housing/IHT/inflation assumptions for a second)
- it plays into stereotypes of us as greedy and nasty
- if you have the money to pay off IHT, use it to slash corporation tax before you hit any of the personal taxes.

[grundrisse]

Scrap inheritance tax? What an interesting and utterly hypocritical way for the self appointed supporters of hard work and opportunity to put paid to meritocracy.

How do you justify condemning the dependency culture of the poor, picking up a pittance in unearned income yet, somehow, the notion of the idle and privileged sons and daughters of the wealthy, living from inherited wealth and property, where the latter may even allow then to sponge from the hard working, is somehow moral?

This is the most disingenuous and self interested campaign that has been proposed since the Dickensian 19th century, and one that must be stopped in its tracks. Otherwise, this country faces a return to a society perpetually divided between an idle rich, who have never worked a day in there lives, and an exploited majority who provide the country's wealth, one where social mobility becomes a remnant of the past.

Back the Tax for Meritocracy rather than Aristocracy.

[matt wright]

message for 1AM, you do have 10 years to pay off IHT. You can pay instalments over 10 years plus 4% interest. This relates usuaully to the property element which for the vast majority will be the main element. However I still think it is immoral and we should get rid of it. I don't think we should raise the threshold. If it is wrong for us why should be right for somebody whose parents happen to pass on more.

Matt

[matt wright]

Just seen Grundrises comment at 1.32. You sound more like a socialist but regardless of that most people who receive money in a will do so in their late 40s and 50s and most of them have already made their own way in life very successfully. The stereotype of idle rich is just that.. a stereotype. IHT is just punishing families who make a go of life. Conservatives should be backing such families and encouraging more to get on in the world,

Matt

[Steve]

Once again it's a tax which is expensive to administer, raises peanuts and which can be avoided by the rich.

Abolish it. One tax less. One more step along the road to tax simplification.

As to having to defend it, have some gumption and stand up for people who have worked hard all their lives. Challenge opposition parties to reintroduce it. They never would.

[Father Brian]

What has meritocracy to do with conservatism? Those with long enough memories will recall it being the cornerstone of Harold Wilson's Labour Party of the 1960s, along with the "white heat of technology" and other empty slogans.

Inheritance Tax penalises those whose merit earned the wealth and paid Income Tax on it but passes by those who squander their assets. The corporate statists posting here obviously think they know better how to dispose of peoples' hard earned money. I think you'll find they're in the minority!

[grundrisse]

'What has meritocracy to do with conservatism?'

Father Brian's admission goes to the heart of this argument. Do we have a society based on hard work and effort or do we have a society based on privilege and inherited wealth? The two are not, as some commentators would have it, reconcilable.

As to Matt Wright's suggestion that inheritance passes hard earned money to the already hard working, this is a spurious claim. The children of wealthy already have an a people Money creates the ability to generate more money with increasingly less effort over time. Moreover, the more one sector of a society has, as intergenrational legacies build up over time, the less effort is needed to sustain one's position, and the less likely that the thrifty, hard working and talented can compete. This is called social closure.

Some commentators never seem to allow facts to get in the way of prejudice. We are becoming an increasingly divided and immobile society. Ridding ourselves of the 'hated' inheritance tax can only greatly exacerbate this situation over time as, increasingly, subsequent generations of inheritors live off of the backs of a working majority. This was very much the condition of our past, where an idle aristocratic elite lives off the backs of the rest.

Is it not ironic that it was the ancestors of the current tory constituency, i.e. the upwardly mobile traders and factory owners of the industrial revolution, that opposed this sort of system that inhibited their own rise through effort, in favour of inherited privilege? Now these very people, having consolidated their own position, wish to close social mobility off to future generations.

[grundrisse]

'What has meritocracy to do with conservatism?'

Father Brian's admission goes to the heart of this argument. Do we have a society based on hard work and effort or do we have a society based on privilege and inherited wealth? The two are not, as some commentators would have it, reconcilable.

As to Matt Wright's suggestion that inheritance passes hard earned money to the already hard working, this is a spurious claim. The children of wealthy already have an advantage over others throughout their lives. Moreover, money creates the ability to generate more money with increasingly less effort over time. Moreover, the more one sector of a society has, as intergenerational legacies build up over time, the less effort is needed to sustain one's position, and the less likely that the thrifty, hard working and talented can compete. This is called social closure.

Some commentators never seem to allow facts to get in the way of prejudice. We are becoming an increasingly divided and immobile society. Ridding ourselves of the 'hated' inheritance tax can only greatly exacerbate this situation over time as, increasingly, subsequent generations of inheritors live off of the backs of a working majority. This was very much the condition of our past, where an idle aristocratic elite lives off the backs of the rest.

Is it not ironic that it was the ancestors of the current tory constituency, i.e. the upwardly mobile traders and factory owners of the industrial revolution, that opposed this sort of system that inhibited their own rise through effort, in favour of inherited privilege? Now these very people, having consolidated their own position, wish to close social mobility off to future generations.

[TimberWolf]

So the Tories did introduce Inheritance Tax. So they are to blame for all the faults in the legislation.

[Roger]

If government are so set on having this tax in some shape or form (note the response to an earlier petition on the PM website, that basically said it only affects a few people, so shut up) I think it would be best to start by increasing the limit so it affects less people, rather than the "near-majority" it does today.
Also, with fewer people marrying, the options for getting out of paying the tax are increasing.

So, bring it more into line with house prices for a start - thereby making the move to abolish easier for the treasury to swallow later on. I would suggest a rise to about 400 000 would be needed and then increase this in line with average house prices, ratherr than thje lower rate it has today.

I would encourage folk to delay signing up tro the petition until after 20 Feb, when the current road pricing policy petition
(see http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/ ) has ended. This would mean the traveltax petition had maximum impact in the next couple of weeks!

[Ian Jones]

No Chancellor is going to give up £3.6 billion from inheritance tax, as is expected to be received this year. It would be far better to pursue a compromise and follow the path as submitted by Andrew Baker to petition the Prime Minister to remove the primary residence from inheritance tax calculations. This would help alleviate the financial misery for the surviving partner of those couples who were not married or not in a same sex registered civil partnership or for children who suddenly found themselves without a living parent.

[Alex Forsyth]

That Valedictoryan and Changetowin, the two CCHQ mouthpieces on this site

Confirmation, as if were needed, of my long-held suspicion.

I suggest that we ballot the membership to see whether they want IHT abolished. If the democratic vote goes in favour we make it policy!