| Topic: | Re:Reply | |
| Posted by: | Steven Rose | |
| Date/Time: | 24/12/25 01:15:00 |
| It’s sixth form socialism, Sue. Determined to prove his ideological enemies wrong, Michael has evidently looked up IHT on Wikipedia or AI. There he has learned that only 5% of estates are subject to death duties. Since, living in Putney, you possess an asset whose value is almost certainly above £325 000, your estate is likely to be subject to IHT. That puts you in the top 5%. If you are in the top 5%, that means you are rich. And if you are rich, you must expect to pay your fair share of tax. That’s Michael’s superficial argument. The only problem with his logic is that a person such as yourself, whose only asset is her house, is obviously not among the richest 5% of people in the country. Keir Starmer and the idiots at the Treasury on £200k pa who came up with the tax on family farms are probably among the richest 5% of people in the country. The fact is that with the inflation of house prices in the London area, IHT is clobbering, not just the rich, but the middle classes, ordinary people on average salaries who have worked all their lives to pay off their mortgage. Rachel Reeves needs their money in order to finance Labour’s ever- increasing welfare budget. And even if allowance were made for varying house prices in different parts of the country, IHT is probably not the best way of raising tax. It’s unfair because it allows the government to tax people twice, once when they are alive and a second time when they are dead. It also inhibits growth. Why would people strive to build a business for their families if they think 40% is going to be taken by the Chancellor? |