To not understand this at all ( inheritance tax related)

Others have the Conservatives ahead, albeit by only one percent. CBA to look back to see which - it's going to change from day to day, so hardly worth crowing about by any party.

rosequartz the randomness of life has increased the price of their house far more than the similar of someone living at the other end of the country (who may have had an identical career). So no reason not to charge their inheritance tax on their chance windfall is there?

So people who buy big houses are encouraged to stay put, but people who live in the same size house in a council or housing association are hit by the bedroom tax. Of course , we're all in it together.
Anyone know how many MPs the Tories have in London? No idea, just asking.

N, but I'm sure you'll give us a link soon, durhamjen!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/poll-tracker

BBC election poll tracker.

No, that should've been...

Not that link - anyone can Google a poll or two.

It's not a poll or two, as you will see if you look. It's a poll tracker of quite a few polls over six months. Sorry, forgot, you can't be ......

Sarky...! As I also said before, you can't predict an outcome from polls. They may be a rough guide, but I wouldn't have thought anyone should be gloating just yet.

Hopefully this will bring down house prices in London
Let's hope it does have this effect, as I said they are skewed in that area.

Did someone post that only those who live in London can afford those prices (can't find that post now) - the point I made was that younger people who have been brought up there and wish to stay in the area cannot afford to buy a house there. If they inherit all or part of a family home they could possibly afford to buy in that unrealistic market.

It's on BBC2 at the moment, rose.

Thank you.

However, I am
Busy day today and again tomorrow.
Perhaps I can find it on catch-up tv.

As I am not an economist I cannot work out what effect it would have on house prices and whether or not it is a good or bad idea, just trying to look at it objectively and without prejudice or envy.

I've just started recording it, because I'm off to bed, too.

No point in envy; way too far out of my league.
But looked at from the point of view of those who need to work in London but cannot afford anywhere to live there, by which I mean teachers and nurses, etc, house prices need to come down.

People who have gained from house price rises over the years should not object to prices coming down just to stop paying inheritance tax. After all, the increase wasn't earned.

You are right *rosequartz", the National Housing Federation reported last year that "the income needed to afford a typical 80 percent mortgage on an average London home was £108,500 – way above the average yearly wage of just £33,000." I believe that in less "fashionable" areas, the income needed is still in excess of £60,000.

You are talking, though, as if some of us are suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to inherit anything. They could, up until recently, inherit up to £650,000 without becoming liable for IT. I think that was pretty generous. Now the Conservatives propose increasing it to £1 million - plus 60% of any amount above that threshold. The majority of people will inherit either nothing or less than £10,000, and as the Office for National Statistics stated, those inheriting substantial amounts are likely to already be wealthy in their own right.

I'm not absolutely sure that inheritance tax at 40% is such a great idea and I am aware that the threshold has stayed at pretty much the same level – certainly not in tune with soaring house prices in quite a lot of places in the UK – for quite a long time. Equally, I am aware that tax has to come from somewhere and unearned income is probably a fairer source than earned income which families' use for their day-to-day living. So capital gains, inheritance tax and some other taxes are less cause for complaint than income tax and VAT. Once again, I think it's the loopholes that need some attention as there are myriad ways around inheritance tax and, once again, it's the very rich who can afford the tax specialists to exploit them rather than the "hard-working" families whose house has been in the "hard-working" family for decades with huge amounts of loving and costly input to make it lovely (i.e. increase its value in tax speak).

Just out of curiosity, why are wins on the National Lottery or whatever it is called these days not taxed as they are in the USA and many other countries?

Well we know there are ways of 'dodging' inheritance tax and the most notorious of late has been the feted Tony Benn and the Miliband family. Yes I know and understand there will be conservatives who will/have done the same but if those with such a strong socialist stance do it then surely it is showing a dislike for a death tax if people like that consider it a practical move to avoid it.

My home is worth about £225.000 so I certainly won't be gaining anything but I don't worry about the rise in the level of inheritance tax. I see it as a cash cow for the Treasurty and to be honest if for arguements sake a government got in and they lowered the level of IT to £100.000 I would be mighty p----d off at paying it.

Maybe fewer people will be finding loop holes to evade paying, could generate money for the Treasury in an odd way.

Isn't there a bit of a trade off with pension tax relief for higher earners in the proposal? I don't know that's my understanding of what little I have read.

What about people who built their own house, years ago when starting out on married life. Built it mainly with their own hands and with the help of friends in the building trade. Built it slowly, using their savings, and as the money was earned, working on it evenings and weekends. Built it not with any kind of financial gain in mind, but for living in and raising a family.

Yes absent, we have added slightly to it over the years, to accommodate a growing family, and in the interests of energy economy. Again, not for adding value to the house.

An Englishman's home is indeed his castle. It's much more than bricks and mortar. A real home is much more than financial values. It is entirely separate from any monetary wealth that may, or may not, exist.

That's right, POGS it is an adjustment being paid for by removal of higher tax relief on higher earners.

It is the '£1 million' which is causing so much upset, I think. In fact it is not a huge adjustment on estate duty and will not cost a fortune - and it is not affecting the seriously wealthy who have always made their own secretive and devious arrangements to avoid paying tax.
Those are the arrangements which need to be looked at and should be exercising people, together with disproportionate house prices in certain areas, not the piddling small amount of lost revenue we are talking about here.

If it is only the concept of "home" rather than "investment/monetary value" that is the concern, I don't see why IT is an issue. The owner occupant of a home will not be thrown out of that home in order to pay IT. It is only payable after their death, and only affects beneficiaries - most of whom, the records show, sell the property.

Why it is such a terrible imposition for beneficiaries to be able to only inherit the current £650,000 or proposed £1 million tax-free?

I also think Trust the arrangement whereby people can avoid paying IT and care costs should be wound up.

Self-build homes, I believe, constitute only around 10% of housing.

Absent - I think 12% of all the money spent on lottery tickets is paid as 'duty' to the Government so there's a sort of tax paid in advance

GrannyTwice But that isn't the same as the winners of millions being expected to pay tax on their winnings (capital gains) – as in the USA and some other countries.

There's no point worrying about IT. We'll be dead and gone anyway. Let them sort it out for themselves. I intend to enjoy the rest of my life as much as I can. I will help the kids out as and when, and will continue to spoil my grandkids rotten at every available opportunity.

This country was pretty good to me during my childhood, so perhaps it's right I should pay some back. It's on a sliding scale anyway so it probably won't be that bad.

I am going to place IT in the 'sod it' section of my mind.

jingle It's not on a "sliding scale". There is a threshold over which IT is paid - but from then on it is paid at 40%.

No I agree absent but I guess the 'betting tax' ( it applies to all forms of legal betting /gambling I believe) probably brings in more money! I think I read once that it was decided you couldn't tax the activity twice - on the stake and the winnings- so they went for the stake. It was the same for the football pools - remember that? I'm not saying I agree with it, just what the thinking is behind it. On reflection, I think I agree with it - if it brings in more money and it's easier to collect and avoid. I respect those views which are anti- betting of all kinds and especially now those awful machines in betting shops

I really don't care Grannytwice. Neither I nor DH will ever be affected by IT.