The issue is that of perception, and justification, beneficairies can see no justification for tax on assetts that are paid for out of taxed earnings. While the revenue perceive that any benefit is a bonus so why should the beneficiary complain. Unfortunately it is difficult to reconcile these positions a notional 1 million prize tag purely satiates the majority, in as much as it does not affect them or they can postulate that those with so much do not need it. It would be far simpler to remove the tax altogether and use the resources of the tax office to better effect on unearned income etc. However these would not be such easy pickings another reason why the chancellor and revenue like the currnet system.

Royston, leeds,

As ever, the Tories are behind the curve and so remain unelectable. Their proposed IHT policy may have won them more votes in the last election when voters were dizzy with their supposed housing wealth. By the next election the housing market will have well and truly crashed, wiping out most of the fictional wealth which has taken some 'ordinary' estates beyond the IHT threshold in recent years. Brown will be unpopular because of the debt ridden crumbling economy built upon totally unproductive housing wealth, but the possibility of paying IHT will be the last thing on most people's minds. What the Tories need is a sound economic stratedgy to reassure the millions who will have been forced into negative equity, bankruptcy and home repossession. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of ruined buy-to-let investors.

Clive, Sussex, UK

OK, so a lot of people hate IHT, especially second home owners, and those in the property to let rackets, and Council Tax is a mess. Easy peasy, dump them both.

Of course we will need a real, effective, thorough, Property Tax with no let-outs.

Then just wait for the squealing to start.

Tom, Maidstone, UK

Tim Hames- thinking like a Brown supporter, which you clearly appear to be.

The reality is far different from your and Labour's perspective - many people now have property and savings worth over £300,000 and they generally feel very strongly that should both partners die then their wealth should most definitely not cause problems to their children, and nor should the profligate Labour Govt. in particular get anywhere near it.

If you think that this is the only unfair tax, as far as the ordinary working person or pensioner is concerned there is the Council tax, increased hugely under Labour, a 54% total tax take per person, stealth and fiscal drag tax increases such as the National insurance increases and the iniquitous 40% tax hitting middle-income workers ( ie. senior teachers, mid ranking police and hospital staff). And... all these are made worse for taxpayers by seeing appalling mismanagement and wasted billions ( new computer system for NHS) and a Society in meltdown.

Paul Butler, Reading, UK

Of course there would be an immediate effect from the Conservative inheritance tax proposals, if implemented. Millions of older people would be able to relax without worrying about when, and how much, they can safely transfer to their dependents without beggaring themselves if they live to extreme old age. It appears to be a basic human instinct to pass on what one can to one's children; it is the (growing) older constituency to which this policy is most attractive.

kato, oxford,

Hatred of inheritance tax is not about "the British and property." It's about the British and family. After a lifetime of hard work and striving to provide a good home for our children of course we want to pass what we have achieved on to them. And please don't let me hear any of the usual claptrap about children making their own way in the world and not depending on their parents. I earnestly hope that by the time I drop off the perch my then middle aged children will still be working hard to provide for their own families as they are now.

Vivienne, Colchester,

I agree with Callum. I'm very unconvinced that elderly couples will compete with first time buyers. They'll be competing for different properties in different areas for the most part. Moreover they'll be releasing their larger houses onto the market and thus making it easier for families to upgrade and leave their current house for first time buyers to take. It would be good for the property market (and fairer) if houses were sold off rather passed from generation to generation.
I also agree with Chris about the beneficiaries being the heirs. So rather than tax those who worked for the money why don't we tax those who didn't. Tax recipients of large amounts of assets, any time it happens whether from the deceased or not. Then it's no longer the perjorative 'death tax' and simply a windfall tax on all those lucky to be given substantial gifts.

Nick, London,

Remove inheritance tax and apply capital gains tax to the unearned untaxed profit on selling/inheriting property.

Dick Penlothe, Stevenage,

Yes only few pay the tax, but I guess a huge number of people worry about it and and work extremely hard to avoid it. Would it not be wonderful if this stress went away?

S D, reigate, surrey

Mention is rarely made of the effect of the current system of IHT where there is more than one beneficiary. It would be fairer if each child of a testator were to be given his or her own threshold.

laurie, Tunbridge Wells,

Right on! This is all about rising house prices. Council tax stops at about the same level as IHT kicks in. Let's abolish IHT for all our 'principal residences' and bring in a flat-rate Council Tax of about 0.6% on all houses. (Council Tax is almost the only tax that the non-doms pay, so that would hit them too!)

Conall, Margam, Wales

Please no "Last Rites" - that implies that this wretched tax might have life after its death.

Christopher Gillibrand, Brussels/, Belgium in exile

Why all this fuss over IHT? Any inheritor receives £300K plus 60% of any funds above this level.
Nursing home fees on the other hand take ALL of a persons wealth, including property right down to £16K.
I would suggest that voters would be won in greater numbers by any party that offered free care for the elderly, or at least offered to ignore any wealth above say the current £300K IHT limit.
Gordon brown in particular needs reminding that all he would have to do is to treat English OAP's the same as Scottish ones.
IHT still affects people in wealthier areas and will only deliver a small number of voters, wheras nursing home fees affect people in all areas, even if their wealth is well below £300K.

tony, birmingham, uk

The only moral approach is to use tax on unearned income (inheritance) to fund cuts in taxes on earned income. The exact opposite of what was proposed last week.

A possible acceptable compromise is to class a realised inheritance as a capital gain, and tax it in exactly the same way as any other capital gain – with a threshold of £7,500.

Traditional family homes could therefore become naturally exempt – if you inherit a home only to pass it on to your own heirs, you never sell it, never realise a gain on it, and never attract tax. Only if you fuel house price inflation by attempting to profit from your inheritance do you pay tax. QED.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Tim Hames writes that 'the number of possible beneficiaries is tiny. About 25,000 people would have benefited last year from a £1 million threshold.'

A very outdated figure as even the government estimates that 35,000 estates or more will have paid IHT in 2006/7; but, of course, the people who benefit are the heirs, not the deceased. As a large proportion of deceased will have children and grandchildren of voting age, an estate figure of 25,000 or 35,000 hides a considerably larger disgruntled voting population.

Chris Dickinson, Brighton & Hove, UK

With an over heated housing market and shortage of new homes, a pensions crisis, a collapse in personal savings and investments, and the early stages of a personal debt crisis the truly radical move would be the exact opposite of Tim Hames' suggestion.

Why not set the Death Duties personal exemption for savings and investments at a much higher level, while taxing heavily property over a certain value?

This would encourage people to down size earlier releasing equity, it would increase the supply of family housing, it would keep a check on house prices because there would be less benefit in having a super charged housing market, and the increased availability of money could be used to diffuse the savings and pension time-bomb!

Callum, Edinburgh,