Why doesn't the taxman spend more time and energy trying to recoup the losses from the megarich 'manipulating' the tax system rather than attacking us, the savers and groups in the middle, who pay our way and pay our taxes all our life to have the double whammy of inheritance tax to deal with as we get older. It is frankly inhumane that the Chancellor is allowed to get away with this double taxation - the tax free theshold must be raised to fully cover at least our main home and average life savings - the exempt threshold should therefore be £600,000 with effect from the next tax year.

Ideally, abolish this tax entirely and tax the rich and those using the UK as a tax haven

Neal, wycombe,

Never knew so many socialists read the Times.
It is no longer a tax on the wealthy, the point is that we're ALL falling into it's grasp.
Taxed on everything I earn then taxed again when I spend it, surely there is enough money there for the re-distribution of wealth and the support of society. I would like the money the government has allowed me to keep to go to my children to help them through life.
Be aware teh IHT is capturing a greater percent of the proletariat not just the aristocarcy. Do we really need to knock down every new generation so they're forced to start from scratch.

Martin, Aberdeen, Scotland

What everyone seems to overlook is that IHT is in effect a double jeopardy tax. IHT and its predecessors have now been around so long that all 'old money' families with large amounts of capital have already paid large sums to the Treasury on the assets they retain which they inherited. New money has already been taxed through income tax and no doubt capital gains tax as well. Thus all future payments of IHT are a double taxation on the same assets or accumulated income - that is plain immoral.

As to the argument of it being a redistributive tax that is stuff and nonsense, many other correspondents have pointed out how easy it would be to replace the 3.6 billion. Well also bear in mind that that sum represents roughly 60 pounds per head of population - not an amount which would make a meaningful change to anyone's life.

Michael P, Cluj, Romania

I don't disagree with IHT as a concept, but I think it would be useful to have some kind of exclusion of the family home from IHT calculations, in addition to the Nil Rate Band. However, this is likely to be abused by people investing in large properties just to avoid tax. Therefore, why not limit the value that can be deducted for the home and base it on a regionalised quarterly average for say a three bed semi. That way, many people fall out of the Inheritance Tax bracket. This would remove many of the smaller estates.

Jacqueline Stringer, Billericay, Essex

All the better off are just annoyed that their sprogs might have to compete on a level playing field with all those nasty proles..who might be brighter than your Tarquin or Tamsin.Inherited success is the only type most of these over-pampered wasters will ever get.Finklestein has let the cat out of the bag...the right wing hates, and fears meritocracy,and really wants a reproduction of the existing order,as it suits them.This is very bad for society.The average rises to the top,by dint of privilige,just look at the shadow cabinet,except for David Davis,not one of them would have made it above assistant loo cleaner,without a bit of privilege.

Rob, Plymouth, Devon

All very sensible, except the weird twist at the end. Taxes of pollution are, in effect, taxes on consumption. Much like VAT. Increasing consumption taxes would reduce economic growth. Who would that hit? Disproportionately the young (who would have a whole lifetime of lower earnings to look forward to), rather than the old, who have already banked the profits from the good times. If you want to transfer wealth from the old to the young, you have to do it in a way that lets the young keep it!

Redcliffe, London,

This argument is nonsense - the blunt fact of the matter is that most people simply don't worry about inheritance tax. To end inheritance tax is a tax cut for the wealthy. Moreover it is a tax cut that reduces incentives to work - inheritance tax is vital for a meritocratic society. Abolishing it would lead to a rentier economy (as the USA is developing) and away from the dynamic, skilled labour economy we currently have.

We need more meritocracy, not less.

FA, London,

The key point about IHT is that it rams home the message that the State is more powerful than the family, and that the State can determine how much you can help your family, telling you how much you "deserve" to be able pass on to them. Worse, any child in many parts of the South East who loses both parents would have to sell the family home to pay the tax. Getting rid of IHT would strengthen the link between behaviour and reward, and strengthen the power of family against the state. IHT is a vindictive and damaging tax.

James Thompson, London,

The argument for an inheritance tax - that it prevents concentration of wealth in the hands of a few - seems to me seriously flawed. It must have as an unspoken assumption that (a) there must be a limited amount of wealth in the country, which cannot expand, and that without an inheritance tax, this wealth is unavailable to others. This simply ain't true. It may make the ownership of land to some extent unavailable, but this does not prevent the less well off creating their own wealth through employment, entrepreneurship, or by other means.

Rob MacLeod, London,

Everyone knows that the rich pay proportionately (a lot) less tax than the poor,that those who inherit this tax have a lot better life chances than the poor,and that the rich have greater power to shape the world according to their selfish aims.Bob from Reading seems to think their wealth is about hard work,though to my mind they don't work any more hours than most low paid workers (and if one looks abroad they can see that the world's hardest workers i e in sweatshops working 70 hours plus a week,receive the lowest pay).I work as a nurse,I work hard,but I will never be rich,that is because I have other aims i e working for the public good etc.The offspring of the rich seem to lack real virtue.These have never struggled,and their position in society (aided by inheritance)is a false one,based on inheritance not struggle,or intelligence.This is the antithesis of a meritocracy.Therefore I would make inheritance tax greater,to aid fairness,and ensure talent counts more than privilige

Rob, Plymouth, Devon

Very few would argue the notion that it is wrong or some how superfluous for people to be able to leave their assets to their children.

John Redwood's argument for the aforementioned tax cuts also fall into pedantic territory; while abolishing the inheritance would indeed be revenue-neutral, ALL tax cuts are revenue-neutral. This is the very point to capitalism.

However, Daniel, like all current Tories, seem to miss the point completely: the Tories aren't ever going to become elect-able - that is, appeal to lorry drivers, nurses, or post-grads - to instigate any kind of tax break while they constipate out a quasi-Libertarian agenda that seems only to be concerned with the exclusively rich. Instead of Jefferson Vs the Rent-Keepers, we've got Dave the Rent-Keeper Vs Gord the Rent-Keeper.

Lee, London, England

Those who say that IHT involves double taxation are wrong with respect to most estates, in which the main asset is a residential property. In the current crazy housing market most of the gain will have been an unearned windfall on the back of a property price bubble and will not have been taxed prior to the imposition of IHT. However, if you want to pursue this line of argument the Chancellor could replace much IHT with Capital Gains Tax to be paid on all property when it changes hands - whether on death or ordinary sale. Better watch out what you wish for!

Graham, Oxford, UK

It won't be too long now before the property market crashes back to sustainable long term levels. Once houses have halved in value, most estates will once again fall under the IHT threshold and this thread will have no relevance. Anyone worried about their beneficiaries having to pay IHT in the near future would be better advised to stick their house on the market now - whilst there might still be a few idiots willing to pay well over the odds for it. After all, 60% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

Clive, Chichester, UK

I'm in favour of IHT. I expect my children to be affected by it but they have had no input to building my estate. Their liability to IHT is largely down to my decision to move to the SE 20 years ago. Rampant house price inflation has done the rest.

The only thing I can see in favour of IHT abolition is that parasitic lawyers and finance experts will be adversely affected by it. Such advisers who are genuinely in favour of IHT reform are in similar percentages to those turkeys who vote in favour of Christmas. Their statements to the contrary are designed to ingratiate themselves with those currently expecting have it levied on their estates.

Malcolm Williamson, Welwyn Garden City, UK

Gosh, I'm so excited! I've just read that I'm "rich" ( since what I leave in modest property, bought out of income, will be taxed on my death if I don't take evasive action). I'll stop working (over retirement age) immediately, give up the difficult business of making ends meet and get myself a butler. Never thought of myself as a member of the landed classes but it just shows what Socialism and the politics of envy can do for you and your children. I will spread the good news to my daughter : that she should be proud to pay tax on whatever I leave as it makes us, as a family, part of the privileged 6 percent who help to keep the Government in nice, solid pensions.

anne, bournemouth,

There's no denying we are genetically disposed to want to support our children, but society should be looking for a more balanced view. Daniel's article has two flaws:
(1) he suggests IHT is "taxing useful economic activity" - but if you removed IHT, you'd need to collect the same amount from other taxes, which would still tax useful economic activity.
(2) he suggests the young may revolt at "getting a raw deal". Well they might - and with some justification over some things - but not logically with regard to IHT because (a) with their parents living longer, they typically won't inherit until it's too late to make an impact on their house-buying during most of their lives, and (2) the vast majority don't have parents with a large amount to leave to them anyway, so at best he's addressing a small proportion of the young.

John W, Altrincham, UK

The issue which most commentators on this topic have ignored is that of inheritance tax hitting ordinary people in suburban semi-detached houses. The new factor here is the effect which the women's liberation movement has had on house prices.

If that sounds far-fetched, consider, for a moment, the basic law of Economics, which states that if there is a limited supply of anything, it goes to the highest bidder. There is a limited supply of housing, and the highest bidders are now two-income families. Consequently, a suburban semi in London SW, which may have cost £80,000 thirty years ago, on a single income, will now cost £250,000, because two-income families are the new trend. But that brings ordinary middle-class people, in semi-detached houses, into the inheritance tax bracket. The tax needs revising, and if the Conservatives promise to do so, Labour will be thrown out.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

An excellent article.

I, like many others loath IHT for many reasons (many listed below) - but you are absolutely right in the main point of your argument that the main "evil" with this tax is that it hits right at the heart of familial/social ties and is an extreme example of state meddling in personal relations. Thank you for phrasing the argument so well.

BTLl, Gloucester,

You are quite right. However, whatever the morality of the tax, its level, etc. the bottom line is that most people would rather give their money to their children than the state and the more they have the more worthwhile it is to make arrangements to ensure their children have it. This means that inheritance tax is mostly paid by those who leave a little over the threshold, those who do not plan to avoid it, those that do not wish to avoid it and the seriously wealthy who do not want to spoil their kids.

R Mason, London, UK

excellent article.

Misses the other point about inheritance tax and thats that you're taxing money thjat has already been taxed. Given how much of my money is stolen in other taxation it would be a minor miracle if I ever manage to earn an estate which would be liable, however, I fail to see how its acceptable to take 40% of my money at source and 20odd percent on everythying I spend, then take 40% of whatevers left when I die.

mat gore, london, uk

IHT used to be called Death Duties. They were paid by people inheriting great houses and landed estates. To pay the tax the legatees often sold them to the National Trust. On the whole, a good thing: redistribution that benefited everyone (except the legatees, of course). The situation is very different now. People who have never earned more than £35-40K p.a. (in today's money) and who, out of that taxed income, have helped their children through university and bought a modest house that now happens because an accident of location to be worth £300+K, are having to think hard about how to pass their estate on to their children as intact as possible within the law. Not having offshore bank accounts, they can give them a good wedding present (max. permitted £5K) and make other gifts (such as cancelling student debt) hoping they won't die before the silly 7-year rule kicks in. Talk about penalising thrift and punishing parental affection! That's exactly what the government is doing.

J.Fletcher, Canterbury, UK

The big problem in the rise in the value of estates is the vast number of people whose future wealth will depend on inheritance rather than effort. Its already possible to inherit almost £300k tax free - how long would it take someone on an average salary to save £300k? Essentially abolishing inheritance tax gives the message that recieving income for no effort should be free of tax while those working will be clobbered with ever higher taxes. In the South East if you want to get on the housing ladder you need your parents to be owner occupiers - without inheritance it will soon be impossible to get ahead . I have friends holding down two jobs working 50 hours a week to try and get on the housing ladder - why should they pay 40% tax to subsidise those who are lucky enough to inherit from parents who happened to live in the right areas? Even at current inheritance tax levels the majority of personal wealth will soon by inheritted rather than earned.

tony, cobham, surrey

IHT is wrong because:
It is double taxation.
It makes me fixate about my own death instead of my life.
It makes me worry when I should be feeling relatively carefree having worked hard all my life.
It worries my kids.
It also robs the economy of capital I might have put to work in some activity I could start up that would create jobs and pay taxes. Instead it will lie mouldering in some tax avoiding trust fund that I've paid parasites to set up for me.

John Farley, Rotherham,

In the UK the wealthiest individuals already pay a lower marginal tax rate than the poorest, having to give up a portion of your total wealth (at death, when you no longer need it), seems fairer than for example higher rates of income tax throughout life or an annual wealth tax.

CJ, Coventry, UK

Grahame, Dorking. Those of us without children currently pay a large chunk of income tax to help keep the children of others - child benefit, tax breaks, education, healthcare etc. We've got every right to comment in the debate about what happens to YOUR assets after YOU cease to be.

George, Brighton, UK

Canada abolished estate duty (UK IHT is not a true "inheritance tax" like those of countries where rate of tax varies by degree of kinship of heir). But abolishing estate duty creates anomalies: IHT works to forgive capital gains tax (the property gets a new, current basis). So until the US-Canada estate tax treaty was amended (it took 10 years) there was double taxation of cross-border estates. Canada (and Denmark, France, Australia, etc.) impose CGT on a deemed sale upon emigration.

If the US abolishes estate tax after 2010 (a year when the rate will be zero, but will be reimposed in 2011 under the Bush tax law now in force) "basis" for calculating CGT will carry over to heirs.

In the UK, much les in the USA, IHT is easily evaded by the very rich: in the UK because gifts 7+ years prior to death are tax free. There are terrible anomalies in domicile.
http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/downloads/rep107.pdf

The law is great need of change to increase fairness. But abolish? Then what?

Andy, London,

Lots of talk about 'rights', especially from the supporters of abolition of inheritance tax, but most not really thought through. In a liberal democracy we value personal rights but it is perfectly reasonable to say that these rights end at death, when we as individuals end (for any practical earthly purposes). From this perspective, whatever we have accumulated during our lifetime should be redistributed amongst the whole social pot (it is a completely different issue whether or not we manage to elect governments we trust to do this fairly). Anyone who doesn't like this can give their assets away during their lifetime - which the current tax rules allow for, subject to safeguards to avoid last minute giving. Taking the arguments of those who favour tax abolition to their logical conclusions, there is no reason why I should stop being able to vote when I die - I should just leave my voting preferences in the hands of my offspring. Why is money and the power it brings any different?

Graham, Oxford, UK

There is a statutory trade-off between CGT (which is not payable on death) and IHT. The repeal of IHT would probably result in CGT being applied and HMG might disentitle the estate fom claiming residence relief on the home. That would result in all accumulated income and gains comprised in the estate having borne tax unless it has benefitted from any special exemption on the way. That, I would say, is fair enough.

But it is not fair that it should bear a second levy of tax before it can be enjoyed by the beneficiaries for whose benefit, more often than not, the deceased will have toiled for many years to support. It is absurd to suggest that parents should have no concern for the continued welfare of their children after their death. Many do and go to great lengths to preserve their estates.

If that is the will of the people, it should be respected by the elected government. Those who do not have children should stand aside from this discussion.

Grahame, Dorking,

As usual, another Tory propaganda from Finkelstein. The transfer of assets from one generation to the next is, as rightly put,"dumb luck rather than meritorious effort", end of story. Taxes have to be raised one way or the other to maintain the "British way of life",NHS etc -and to say that Green taxes are an alternative merely propagates the Cameron line. The world has moved on and this notion of transfering assets from one generation to the other is an anachronism, if the children have not contributed anything towards the accumulation of those assets. I recall a client who sought legal advice from me, years ago, and indicated that he was not worried about his £52,000 debt because " dad is 88, unwell and I expect to settle my debt from his will". I am not interested in politics but this inheritance tax nonsense from Cameron depicts a lack of viable policies and a blatant attempt to woo middle England, including me. I wonder whether Finkelsteinhe can handle a Brown victory in 2008.

Moses Koroma, Surrey, UK

I am intrigued at the number of negative comments this article has provoked. Is this a typical Times Reader sample? I would think not. Most people I come across consider this a vote winner.

David, London, UK

MDHinton, Sieradz, Poland. Too late on that one, I'm afraid. I know, for example, plenty of couples who have between them biological and social links with numerous children, with different combinations of parents and living in different households. Anyway, what's this animalistic obsession with genetic links? If you trace DNA heritage far enough back, won't you find that we are all related? Surely in the 21st century we can come up with a better social model than the near random one which privileges some with large, functional families whilst others are saddled with large disfunctional families or with no family at all.

Clive, Chichester, UK

The main argument in favour of this tax is that the recipients of the money don't deserve it - they haven't earned it - so they can't resent giving up some of it. This view makes the same error that so much modern legislation is guilty of, with disastrous consequences. Society is treated by the law as a collection of unrelated individuals rather than a collection of very much related families. The much lamented 'breakdown' of the traditional family has been caused directly by the state's refusal to recognise anything other than independent individuals. Family money should stay in the family and family income should be taxed as a family - then perhaps, more families would stay together. There is, then, and obvious case for taxing those who inherit money from distant relatives or friends, but not sons and daughters of the deceased.

MDHinton, Sieradz, Poland

The issue isnt a simple rich vs poor. A large proportion of those who would pay inheritance tax werent born rich - their assets and equity come from a lifetimes worth of hard work. Ask me on my death bed who I want to benefit from my lifetimes hard work, it is my direct decendants and their decendants. It is not and will never be whoever the government of the day decides to waste it on. You will find most functional families think and plan along the same lines. As for the threshold rising so it isnt an issue, well would you take a politicians word for it or would you take active steps to ensure the most comfortable and financially sound life for your blood line. Its simple - I've paid the tax and now I will do whatever within the law to ensure the family benefits from it and doesnt pay tax on it again.

Al, Newcastle,

firstly, grahamh, whether taxed or not, the same pressure not to spend your chidren's inheritance is there. and secondly, taxed or not, you have the right to leave however much and to whomever you choose. you are not obliged to provide a lottery handout, nor to maximise the amount by your parsimony.

however, to those who think abolition of inheritance tax allows the concentration of wealth over generations, it is equally true that the rich do not have to leave everything to their children, but may choose to leave their assets to any good cause they see fit. and, as it is their money, it should be as they see fit, rather than as the government sees fit. and they should choose whether to "spoil" their lazy children, not you. fact is, most who inherit are probably in their 50s anyway. already made. and smart enough to have trust funds.

and the logical extension of this argument would be to say we shouldn't allow anyone to get rich in the first place. which is poppycock.

jem, london, uk

Graduates will amass huge student loans on completing their degrees. They will then buy a home and mortage themselves at increasing muliples of their salaries. Over their remaining years, the decline in final salary schemes will require these new workers to make record investments in providing pensions for their old age.

Abolish inheritance tax. Allow estates to pass freely into the family. For many people inheritance represents thier only hope of meeting the obligations that have spiralled out of control as a result of this government's policies.

JM, Hemel Hempstead,

If someone has worked hard all his life (and paid income tax) then why should he be penalised and taxed again on whatever estate he has been able to accumulate to pass on to his children. Does anyone honestly believe that people like Philip Green or Bernie Ecclestone will be caught for Inheritance Tax? The governement already steal money from lower and middle class householders under the excuse of Stamp Duty which is another tax that should be abolished.

George, Glasgow, UK

Let's see if I've got this right: there's a tax which currently leaves 90% of the population unscathed, and which the most pessimistic suggest will still miss 85% of the population in 5 years time (the goverment says it'll be 94%). Those affected are by definition more affluent than those who aren't, and commentators all agree that almost all of the wealth liable for this tax has resulted from people sitting doing nothing while market forces drive up the value of their property.

Yet somehow we're told this is a major issue, a grotesque unfairness, the point at which the middle classes will snap. Aw diddums! The poor wee souls! Imagine having to share their good fortune with those who've missed out, and having to help pay for the public services they all use - how awful!

Those who imagined that the Tory Party was no longer just institutionalised selfishness, and that the comfortably-off possessed even a smidgen of social conscience, now realise just how wrong they were.

Graeme Bell, Dinan, France

What politicians give with one hand they will take back with another. If they abolish Inheritance Tax, then they will just claw the money back through restructuring Capital Gains Tax, so that, when, say, your children leave home and you downsize to the bungalow, they'll take a slice then.

Lux Aeterna, Manchester,

IHT is a good thing - the higher the better. Allowing the next generation to inherit wealth has far too many negative consequences. It encourages over-stretching borrowing now, to further inflate property price bubbles etc, in the belief that all will be well in the end when, granny, mum, dad etc pop off. It also distorts career ambition, at the moment someone could easily inherit the equivalent of twenty years average salary if left granny's modest semi in London. How can any of this be good for society? Finally, if any more evidence is needed - just look at the aristocracy (the products of generations of wealth inheritance)!!!

clive, chichester, UK

>the way things are going, most of the "young" generation
>will need to wait for their inheritance to get on to the
>property ladder themselves
That is those that inherit will be able to afford more and ever more expensive homes, while those that do not, will rent from the ever increasing rich?

Inheritance tax, for all its faults is at least prgressive.

JonB, glasgow, UK

The inherent problem with inheritence tax is not that it exists at all, but that the £3.6billion is poured directly into the 'communal' coffers of a government allowed to spend the cash where ever it sees fit. To sort that out, studies and white papers are drawn up by company lawyers who bill hundreds per hour, paid for by the same money ripped from families that had earned the right to do with their wealth as they saw fit. Money for the poor, for social services? No, inheritence tax is effectively a redistribution of wealth amongst the already wealthy and a criminally inefficient government.

Julian, Twickenham, UK

Towards the second half of the article, you have your logic wrong. Inheritance tax is considered by some (me included) wrong because the next generation will receive it (or not) based on no fault or virtue of their own, as you rightly point out. Likewise environmental damage caused by the previous generation is inflicted by them but they do not suffer the consequences. If one wanted everyone to have a perfectly fair start in life and where possible to only bear the consequences of their own decisions, one would abolish inheritance (not inheritance tax), and force everyone to pay the cost of their environmental pollution. The money could be fairly redistributed as a bursary to newborns, to meet concerns that the whole thing was based on state greed.

Interesting point about the 37% of estates though. I suspect you have hit the nail on the head there.

Josh, Ashford,

I am sure that 6% of estates that paid IHT last year did not reflect the top 6% of the most valuable estates. It also seems a remarkably low figure (given average house prices) suggesting that those who paid IHT have been penalised for being too honest and / or were caught out in unfortunate circumstances, such as an unexpected death, where forward planning had not yet happened. I trust those that are defending IHT will not be taking any preventative measures if / when their assets reach the payment threshhold?

Obediah Poundage, London,

The problem is that what we call inheritance tax is, in fact, estade duty, because it is levied directly on the estate, not the inheritor. This makes all the difference, for instance, the tax is the same if an estate of £1m is left to 1 inheritor, or equally to 4 inheritors. This is clearly ridiculous.
A real inheritance tax would allow an inheritance of up to a threshold level tax free, and tax above that level.
This would allow one generation to enable the next to get a reasonable financial start, for instance on the property ladder, but not to inhibit them from doing something useful with their life by burdening them with too much unearned wealth.
It would also redistribute wealth for the benefit of the economy.
Thus your two main objectives would be met. Also the government and treasury objectives would be satisfied either directly by the tax, or through other taxes when the inheritance is spent.
So how about campaigning for a real inheritance tax?

Robin Williams, Sudbury, Suffolk

Spot on, Daniel. Removing IHT will have another effect, too. It will tend to increase the savings rate. People will spend less if they believe their children will benefit. Good for the environment and the future but bad for today's spending - and bad for short term tax revenue. Which is another reason why the government won't allow it.

Rob Wilard, Reading,

I don't know where the dumb luck comment comes from but when I pass on my estate to my children it will consist of what is left of my lifetime income after having paid a large amount of income tax and NI in accumulating it.
Most of the estates of the very rich probably pay no IHT as they paln it away so as usual it is the man in the middle who gets hit.
Just scrap it.

Ian, Manchester, UK

One wonders why the Tories never rid of IHT, other than the obvious agrument that it might have been seen at the time as a vote loser. Even poor countries like India have abolished death duties, recognising it distorts behaviour out of all proportion to the tax revenue generated.

The idea that one should not work and save for one's (congenitally undeserving) children is an absurd consequence of political correctness in the UK. Why bring up one's children when the state could do it more equitably, cosmetic surgery should be available on the NHS so that everyone can be equally attractive...and so on.

Mukesh Shah, London,

Raise its starting point to 1,000,000 and exclude the main family residence. that way only the rich will pay, an dif they really can avoid it then it will effectively be dead.

neil murphy, cromer,

As much as I want to agree with you I cannot entirely. It is just not fair for money to continually accumulate in the hands of the wealthy.

What is a real problem, and the point of the article I hope, is where families such as mine have dragged themselves up from nothing and have bought a house. My grandparents struggled for years to be able to leave a modest house to my mother. She divorced, had nothing but now has a house and, finally, some security. However that property has gone up in value a lot and is now going to be taxed if she dies. It is our only family asset and it is treasured. With the current value I would have to get a mortgage in order to inherit it so that I can pay the tax. I certainly cant afford to buy my own place. I would have to sell the place if I could not get a mortgage that I can afford. That way I will not have my family home or the value of it.

That is what is unfair and it is certainly not money accumulating to the undeserving rich.

Paul, London, UK

The only problem with inheritance tax, I think, is that really rich people might avoid it by emigration, moving their assets abroad, and other means which they probably know but I am not aware of , which means that only the not so very rich pay it.

Otherwise, to object to inheritance tax is very selfish. The children of the well off are already at an advantage to the children of the poor, to further demand that they get all their parents money, not just most of it, to maximize their advantage over others, without any regard for the effect this has on inequality and unfairness in society, shows a lack of concern for the welfare of society.

I think that if these people could get their way, they would abolish the national health service, but fortunately they cant because they know that one is a vote loser. People with such views are potentially harmful to society, but fortunately they are held in check by democracy and the ballot box.

Mohammad, San Francisco, USA

Inheritance Tax is state robbery. You work all your life and pay a huge amount of tax, directly and indirectly. At the end of your life , the distribution of your wealth should be in response to your wishes. The state has no right to access your wealth at this point by means of inheritance tax. You have already paid a lifetime of taxes. The Sheriff of Nottingham would be proud of Gordon Brown.

Irving Leyland, Weymouth, England

The clas-hate of a few is no good reason to penalise people for saving for themselves and their children. The destruction of the aristocracy as a political force -- the sole purpose of this tax -- has surely been effected already.

As for the idea that "we can't afford" to stop collecting this; why, if so, are large landowners allowed to donate their estates to the National Trust? Why aren't those old masters being sold, rather than "donated to the nation"?

It's a nasty, hateful, regressive tax, and the sooner it is got rid off the better.

Roger Pearse, Ipswich,

Two things come to mind on this:

1. The poor don't pay IHT, while the very rich don't either, because they can afford tax advisers. The burden falls on those whose property assets are above the limit but have little or no ready cash to make clever arrangements. So-called Mondeo-man is therefore the main target for IHT. Hardly a fair tax.

2. It may be that only 6% of those dying recently paid IHT. However, as house prices have continued to rise while the IHT threshold hasn't kept pace, more people will pay as time goes on. It's therefore disingenuous to quote the 6% of current estates when the politicians know that in 5 or 10 years it will be significantly higher.

So if IHT is to be kept, set the threshold at a level that deliberately excludes 94% of estates by linking it 100% to house prices (by area?). Only by doing this can the politicians continue to claim that it will remain at "only 6%" of estates.

Peter, Warwick, UK

The Swiss got rid of their inheritance tax long ago. At least most cantons did. And there's no capital gains tax either (on financial assets). Filing tax here is a doddle compared to the UK. The Swiss economy seems to be doing just fine.

Could it not simply be that Brits have this inordinate innate craving for the complex?

Just passing it on ;-)

Jeremy Wilshere, Zürich, Switzerland

Piffle. If 37% of estates are valued above the inheritance tax threshhold, then 37% of estates will pay inheritance tax. Am I saying it wrong? Is it not in English?

I want my estate to go to my kids, whether they have earned it or not. If not them, then who? The government? You must be joking.

Dave, Basingstoke, UK

If someone has the wit and ability to amass a fortune why should the nerr-do-wells and dole scroungers of this country benefit from that persons death?

d case, newquay,

Well I agree with DJD - abolish inheritance tax, and you will ensure that the "nice-but-dim" offspring of wealthy familes are given a good foot up on the housing ladder.

Sounds very clearly like the rich want to protecting the children of the rich to me.

CST, Northampton, UK

"if I am expected to think this way in respect of the environment, then I should be allowed to think this way in respect of my estate."
The analogy is misleading. I the case of environment, our conduct affects the future generation as a whole, while in the case case of inheritance we create (unjust) inequalities inside the future generation.

speranta, paris, france

Yes, and our only son is severely sutistic and will need to live in sheltered accomodation the rest of his life. I'm not convinced the state will pay for his care( they've got rid of a lot of special needs schools in the name of 'inclusion'), so we save everything we can to leave for him. I don't want to give the chancellor what is rightfully my son's.

DR ANDREW JOHN KITCHING, Reading,

All this talk of wealth redistribution and all the rest of it is misguided The simple fact is that taxing the passing of money and property between generations benefits no-one except HM Government. It certainly doesn't redistribute wealth to the needy to any appreciable degree.

Thing is, if I work hard all my life and am fortunate enough to amass wealth, it is **nobody's business but mine** what I choose to do with it. If I choose to spray it around like a drunk on Saturday night, that's my affair. If I choose to leave it to my son upon my death, that's up to me too. I don't see why the Government should be able to help themselves to a chunk of it in the event that I choose the latter.

Paul, Worthing,

"[the government] says it will do this rapidly enough, as fast as house price inflation, so that in years to come inheritance tax will still fall on only this small proportion of estate."

The problem, Daniel, is NOT that you don't known when you are going to die. The problem is that no-one trusts anything they are told by this government, particularly if it emanates from our mendacious ex-chancellor!

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU

Having just dealt with my Fathers estate I came away very angry at the implicite assumptions in calculating and paying the tax - it's the Goverments money, give us it now and heaven help you if under pay us.
To complete the Confirmation (Scottish term) you are required to calculate the tax bil then pay it before you can proceed. You can't take the money from the estate but they helpfully suggest borrowing the money.! You are expected to borrow and pay interest so you can pay a tax bill. Only then will the Revenue release the required forms so that you can proceed.
My Fathers estate didn't come anywhere near the threshhold and all went to my Mother so I am not a beneficiary. So, no tax paid, inheritance not reduced as I didn't get any yet the Goverments attitiude to my Father's money disgusted me.
The 3.6 Billion just covers the Govermnet's administration costs. Scrap this disgusting tax, simplify the process of confirmation and let the money go where the deceased whished

Graeme Stewart, Milnathort, Scotland

Althiough only 6% pay the tax, I am certain that these are not richest 6%. They employ measures to avoid the tax.

Shah, London, UK

Nice one. Good article.

Keep it in the family. Gordon Brown will only waste it on fabulous GP-type pay deals.

Phil, Preston,

Inheritance tax has been abolished in Cyprus. This is just one of the many reasons why many British people try to redomicile in Cyprus, paying fortunes for real estate and conveyancing duties to our Government. Meanwhile residents here are free to plan for their children.

I think that the British Goverment should continue this ridiculous tax so as to help other economies grow.

Demosthenes Mavrellis, Limassol, Cyprus

Inheritance Tax is a relatively 'good' tax, because it taxes money that people don't need and haven't earned. Taxes are too high, but the first taxes to be cut should be income tax and NI, which mostly fall on income that people do need and have earned - and perhaps VAT on necessities such as clothing and heating. Inheritance Tax is, indeed, offensive because it is in effect stealing from the dead, but levying income tax, NI and VAT on people with well below average incomes is really nasty.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

Congrats Danny! You will never be short of work while you keep defending the rich!

PS why not abolish IHT and extend Council Tax to 1% on properties over £500K?

Conall, Margam, Wales

Anyone who is seriously wealthy knows that what ones children inherit has nothing to do with Dumb Luck and everything to do with a life of hard work and some very good tax advice.

Bob, Reading,

All well and good Mr Finkelstein - but `human nature been what it is ` means that if your thesis was followed through then children would be allowed to exert immense pressure on their parents not to `spend their inheritance` and given current increasing rates of longtivity I do not fancy an old age of parsimony so my miidle-aged children can get what is in effect a lottery hand-out .
Also in a world where 50% of marriages end in divorce and people re-marry inheritiance is a messy issue anyway ...

GrahamH , Oslo, Norway

Sorry, Mr Finkelstein, but you have missed one of the main points of inheritance tax. It is not only a tax on "dumb luck" - it is the main means of preventing wealth being ever more concentrated in the hands of the fortunate and their heirs. Inter-generational inequality is not going to be reduced by ensuring that the children of the rich stay rich while the children of the poor stay poor.

Writing as a parent and as one who stands to inherit a large sum, a far better way to reduce inter-generational inequality would be to set inheritance tax at 100% over a comparatively high threshold (e.g. £500K). Then the older generation would have a strong incentive to sell their large, expensive homes - increasing supply and making property more affordable for the young - and spend the money, boosting the economy, employment and wages. It would also have the benefit of forcing the children of the rich to make their own way in the world - they have enough advantages in life anyway.

DJD, London,

Well said David. Inheritance tax has always struck me as something that causes far too much anger and stress for what is, in the grand scheme of things, very little income, that is should be abolished. Whacking a tax on chewing gum and plastic bags would probably cover it.

Dean Rodrigues, Sevenoaks, Kent

Thanks for this. It is nice to see the moral argument against inheritance tax stated so nicely. I have always thought there was something wrong with inheritance tax in that it discourages a kind of long-termist prudence which is almost fundamental to the idea of being a parent. Your children are not strangers, they are in some ways extensions of yourself, in whose long-term success you have a close interest and that interest usually manifests itself as a desire to leave them as much as possible when you die. This seems a pretty central part of the idea of what parenthood is all about -- an unconditional commitment to the long-term prospering of your kids. And yet it is something that inheritance tax clearly vitiates. There is little point in trying to provide for your children when you lose 40 percent of anything above a rather low threshold -- lower, for example, than the average house price in greater London -- in tax.

Laurence Eyton, Taipei, Taiwan

I’ll admit my recall for detail is anything but perfect and I won’t mind at all being corrected here but the impetus for inheritance tax reform can be taken to a level where it is possible to play governments off one against each other. Queensland as we all know has a fabulous climate and has long attracted retirees. Some 20 years ago I seem to remember it abolished inheritance tax altogether or at least seriously raised the tax threshold. Facing mass out-migration and potential loss of tax revenue as the retired folk sold-up and took their assets with them the remaining Australian states and New Zealand had no choice but to quickly follow suit.

A Holmes, Auckland, NZ

Here is one vote for Inheritance tax.
There is nothing particularly desirable in passing things on and we can't take it with us!

Robert, London, UK

Inheritance tax penalizes those that care about their children’s future. As Finklestein points out, it is precisely this same future that we are supposed to care about so much that we alter our lifestyle beyond recognition to combat climate change. Sorry, you can’t have your cake and eat it.

Laurence Eyton, Taipei, Taiwan

Why not tax the recipient who has done nothing to "earn" the money. Or make houses subject to Capital Gains Tax? Or put VAT on house sales?

The creation of a groundswell of opinion towards the abolition of Inheritance Tax is yet another example of the rich arranging society for their own gain.

david, Ely,

That hits the nail on the head - well done

NBeale, London,

a good article but when you drew a parallel with the environmentalists pre-occupation with future generations i think you missed a more obvious argument against inheritance tax.

this being that inhertance tax encourages people to spend their wealth now rather than defer consumption to future generations just so that tax can be avoided or at least minimised.

inheritance tax therefore encourages consumption rather than saving and this from the eco lobby's view of the world is surely a very bad thing.

richard fowler, shanghai, china

Well said Mr Finkelstein. What you say seems only common sense to me, however I think , that untrustworthy scrub Brown will be deaf to your arguments. After all his record over the past 10 years speaks against it. The 100 million quid that he knowingly filched from the private pension plans is indicative of his mendacity.

Denver Watt, Osaka, Japan

Do people arguing for inheritance tax even take into consideration that, the way things are going, most of the "young" generation will need to wait for their inheritance to get on to the property ladder themselves!

Joanna, London,

Part of the problem with IHT is the RATE of tax when it is levied-40% or nothing. Would it not be fairer and less likely to give rise to tax evasion /avoidance ( eg placing financial assets offshore) if EVERY estate paid a tax, but at a low rate- for example 5 or 10%? It might raise more cash for the Treasury overall but no inheritors would be left with the feeling that they had just been mugged by the Chancellor.

John Walker, London, UK

the 'Duke' of Westminster and his friend owe you eternal gratitude. But joking apart, the tax should be made MORE watertight. Same rate as any other income with no escape clauses (farmers, business etc). If working stiffs are expected to pay 25 to 40 % than someone receiving a windfall should be able to do so as well. That would lead to a somewhat more equal distribution of income/wealth.

Heinz Geyer, London,