To not understand this at all ( inheritance tax related)

but it is not the people who worked and paid the mortgage (to put it bluntly they are dead) who have received the money but their beneficiaries who have not done a thing to 'earn' that money. it is not stealing from the dead at all (where on earth do you get that idea) it is taxing unearned income above a certain amount.
and the argument about no inheritance tax in other countries is a complete 'red herring' Other countries perhaps do not allow things like primary residence being exempt from estate taxes.
the fact that house prices in London are insane and only those already living there can afford to buy should not make this proposal 'right or fair'
the rich just get richer.

I had a look at Rightmove the other day.

In the London suburb where we used to live, what were ordinary 3 bedroomed semi-detached houses with an extension or two providing eg another bedroom and extended kitchen are now going for £1.2 million.

It is the skewed house prices that are the problem.

These would be considered normal family homes in most areas of the country, not 'mansions', many bought by newly married couples 40 or 50 years ago who extended to accommodate growing families and have no wish to move in their old age - or could not afford to do so. They will be living on pensions and savings (if they have savings) and they are not necessarily 'wealthy'.

Tax has been paid on earnings to pay the mortgage and loans for the possible extension, stamp duty, and mortgages charged at 14.5% in the past.
Bought and paid for with hard-earned taxed money. No-one expected house prices to rise so dramatically in certain areas.

There is no inheritance tax at all in many other countries.
It is stealing from the dead imo.

Tax evaders are the ones to chase.

mollie The tax allowances are per person, ie treating individuals fairly. I don't think the government can be blamed that there is only you in your situation. You would still get the family home allowance of £175,000 plus the allowance of £325,000. You can't expect to pass your allowances on to a spouse/partner if none exists.

Do you know how to copy and paste posters' names? If not jbf is fine.

the link
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2353905-What-are-the-Tories-thinking-with-insane-1-000-000-inheritance-tax-threshold-proposal-for-family-homes?

this topic is being discussed on mumsnet too
guess what - they are mostly all in favour as their houses (must all live in the south east) are worth SO MUCH but it is all hard earned and inheritance should not be taxed twice (house price gains are NEVER taxed on principal residence) - I despair at how selfish a whole cohort of well-heeled people can be - not one myself.

but j-whatever you do not seem to see how 'unfair' the proposal is
you would benefit so I assume your children when they inherit would benefit hugely
you have not addressed the so-called 'chip' I have on my singleton shoulder that couples already have massive benefits re any sort of tax - when i shuffle off my son would have to pay IHT as my modest home worth about 400k would be above the threshold - I did not choose to be a single person it was down to circumstances. Is my estate any less hard-earned than yours.

Ann - you are being hard on yourself to call it a 'chip'. Thinking something is not fair is not having a chip - whatever that silly word means anyway. Lots of social change and progress came about because people fought to change things that disadvantaged them ( as well as others). Did Mrs Pankhurst have a chip because she wasn't allowed to vote?

Excuse me grannytwice? Who is "copping out"?

One thing perhaps, to have the chip. Another thing to make it quite so obvious as one or two posts have done.

As I understand it there would be a £175,000 allowance per person for the family home, which, together with the £325,000 per person current allowance, would total an allowance of the one million. This would taper off for homes of higher value.

I think the family home is different from other assets - "an Englishman's home is his castle", and all that. I think this is a very English thing to do.

Well jbf I certainly have one on mine. When, and not if,my DH needs care, we shall certainly have to sell our house to pay for it,and he will only need it as a very last resort when I am no longer able to cope.

Jingle - speak for yourself. I haven't seen any 'chips' ( and how I hate that as a cop out in discussion). Flick for example has said she would benefit from the proposal and is still against it.

This is the kind of topic that brings to light chips on shoulders.

Just a thought:

As with every other recent policy proposal, this is being done in the name of the so-called "hard working" homeowners - or rather their offspring. Then when the inevitable happens, some of these offspring will be able to buy a property of their own outright with their inheritance.
I was wondering, as their homes will have been paid for by someone else's hard work, not their own, will they also automatically inherit the title of "hard working" homeowners?

The problem with our tax system is that it has just grown over the years in scope and complexity and that all that all governments ever do is really tinker round the edges. Occasionally something radical is introduced - like the 'poll tax' but basically it's a real mess that will just continue to be tinkered with

'The policy is to give money to those with houses valued up to £ 1 million. It will affect approximately 20 - 30,000 people a year the value of whose house exceeds the current joint Inheritance Tax allowance of £650,000. Those with properties worth more than£1 million will still pay Inheritance Tax'.

Djen - it is also not spelled out what happens to 'single' people whose beneficiaries are already much worse off as the IHT threshold is £325,000 - couples are massively advantaged (and not just in this area) and not everyone is single by choice.
so the single would have an IHT threshold of £325K + £125K - not a million then?
it is insane suggestion - the doubling of the IHT for couples was madness, the price of houses is madness, the rich get richer but we are all in this together is madness.
and don't for a second imagine that Labour would not come out with similar insane suggestions as they have proved in the past.

sorry - meant upto not over - I told you I didn't understand! And I still don't understand why the family home is being treated differently from other kinds of wealth. So basically, if you left a family home worth £1m, there would be no IHT to pay on that and then say you also left £200,000 in savings/ investments, the estate would pay £80,000 on that? But if you'd sold your house for £1m and so had £1.2 million in savings/ investments, the estate would pay 40% of £550,000 ie £220,000. Regardless of the whole rights and wrongs of IHT, this is just completely ridiculous isn't it?

Well, let's hope they don't all squander their pension pots then jendurham.

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?

It's not to give money to them, Flickety; it's not to take money from their descendants when they die. Not quite the same.

Only those who do not have to sell their houses to pay for care, jingl. Many of those with houses less than that do not have enough money to pay for care if they need it. All their money is in the value of the house, which at the moment will have to be sold to pay for their care.

It applies to homes worth up to one million pounds.

When people have worked hard, saved, and paid off a mortgage, why shouldn't they be allowed to pass on their house to their children without the taxman taking a cut? With house prices being what they are today, it will benefit a lot of families.

The policy is to give money to those with houses valued up to £ 1 million. It will affect approximately 20 - 30,000 people a year the value of whose house exceeds the current joint Inheritance Tax allowance of £650,000. Those with properties worth more than£1 million will still pay Inheritance Tax.

We will benefit from this if it goes ahead, however, I can see no justification for it whatsoever and, in my case, far from making me want to vote Conservative in gratitude, it makes me more determined not to vote Conservative to show my contempt for such pork barrel politicking.

I know you're right about it only being a relatively small number of estates but are they hoping that many of their supporters will just think it's a good thing per se without understanding that it won't benefit them. I agree Jess, it's a sign of being very frit - after the EM Sex God thing, they really don't know what to do next!

It only affects about 20-30000 estates. Not a lot of votes in that. They have obviously wildly overestimated, as usual.

They think they are doing badly in the election campaign. So they are firing off random ideas, without any coherent plan behind them.
They reckon they are going to cut £12,000,000,000 off the benefits budget without any obvious or clear plan to get anywhere near that figure.
Sounds like the perfect moment to reduce taxes on fairly wealthy people.