Bravo FlicketyB!
This will no doubt be welcomed by some of the people in the south east (particularly London) and wealthy areas of other parts of the country who will benefit.
A lot of people have misunderstood the position up until now and have thought their homes will be liable for IT. In fact, even before this increase in threshold, the Spectator reports that in 2013/14 only 5% of estates were liable for IT. And IT is only payable on the amount of money that exceeds the limit, not on the whole value.
Even for those who will benefit from this, how can they possibly think it right? Cameron justifies this move by saying that people have "worked hard" and "saved" to own properties of this value. The fact is, property prices in London and the south east have risen astronomically - not because their owners have worked much harder than anyone else in the country but just because of where they live.
And what an insult to suggest that those who haven't been able to afford to buy a home aren't equally as hardworking or thrifty as those who have. In my local paper this week is a job advert for full time support staff to work with "adults with complex needs and challenging behaviours" for the princely salary of £15,150 p.a. Where I live, you're lucky if you can get a small terraced house for less than £350,000 - and, relative to their size, flats are even more expensive. To rent a 1-bedroom flat costs at least £1,150 per month and a 3-bedroom terrace upwards of £1,600. How can it be right that couples owning a house worth up to £1 million are being protected in this way while those on low incomes are being penalised at every turn?