Inheritance tax is charged at 40% on the value of a UK estate above the £325,000 nil-rate band, or up to £500,000 per person with the residence nil-rate band for a main home left to direct descendants. Thresholds remain frozen until April 2031 while house prices have risen, bringing more estates into tax. From April 2026 business and agricultural property relief is capped at £2.5 million for 100% relief.
Abolition won by 57 votes, but this was no simple anti-tax revolt. The floor was split between a Yes case built around prior taxation and family provision, and a No case that treated inherited wealth as the sharper engine of inequality.
The floor’s most-respected Yes argument reduced the case to two propositions: “tax has already been paid” and society should “incentivise saving”. Another Yes voice argued that much of the charge falls on “assets which have already been taxed”, while the more excitable end of the side called it “legalised grave robbery”.
No supplied more arguments, and its strongest-rated case was directed less at the tax’s design than at the consequences of removing it: abolition would shift the burden onto working people and deprive “our NHS and schools of vital funding”. A second-respected No voice accepted that the charge was too high, but warned that scrapping it would let people “hoard ridiculous amounts of wealth”.
The two sides were often answering different questions. Yes voters dwelt on homes, farms and savings accumulated over a lifetime; No voters treated inheritance as unearned advantage and asked whether it was preferable to “tax unearned income rather than earned income”. That places the result inside the wider argument over whether wealth should be taxed when it is made, spent or passed on.
The room did not reject reform; it rejected the idea that reform was enough. The winning instinct was to make inheritance untouchable, even as much of the debate argued for a less blunt way to tax it.
“Firstly, tax has already been paid. Secondly, we should incentivise saving.”
YES case · Jim · 3 respects · read the thread ↓
“Scrapping it shifts the tax burden even further onto working people and deprives our NHS and schools of vital funding. Inheritance tax reform? Yes. Inheritance tax abolition? No, it would hand a massive tax cut to the wealthiest while blowing a multi-billion-pound hole in public finances.”
NO case · BenL · 3 respects · read the thread ↓
Should the pension triple lock be scrapped to ease financial pressure from recent surge in bond yields?
Welfare · 583 votes · 57% voted No
Should the UK introduce universal basic income while keeping targeted benefits like disability and housing support?
Welfare · 383 votes · 60% voted No
Is Robert Jenrick right that long-term welfare harms young people rather than supporting them?
Welfare · 294 votes · 74% voted Yes
Should in-work benefits be replaced with a higher minimum wage?
Welfare · 292 votes · 53% voted Yes
1.3 million foreign nationals claim universal credit in the UK, is this fair?
Welfare · 316 votes · 69% voted No
Should UK spending be refocused on investment in infrastructure and services instead of working-age benefits levels?
Welfare · 307 votes · 80% voted Yes
Should those that have been out of work for a year be forced to do 20 hours community service?
Welfare · 281 votes · 62% voted Yes
Should welfare benefits for working-age claimants be cut?
Welfare · 246 votes · 57% voted Yes
18 Opinions
No, but how about halving it? There are people who inherit large properties, contents too, and they are unable to find any inheritance tax without selling the property and contents, losing treasured family possessions Tax has already been paid by deceased relative. It's not unearned income, it's not income. It's a sudden burden, needs thought about it's future.
No, but it is really harsh and should be done more on a case-by-case basis, considering who is left behind and what their circumstances are, and should have tiers to it eg. richer people are taxed at a higher rate, poorer families at a lower rate or not at all.
Most people will never be affected by inheritance tax. They will be er see that amount of wealth or money. Millionaires can cough up. Bollocks to them
Inheritance tax was introduced to soak the rich, not some normal person who finds themselves living in a £325,000 house entirely because of govt losing control of inflation.
Set at a million or so negates probably 90% of population. Should not apply to business being passed on but caveat that if sold within certain amount of years then inheritance tax will be charged
Only a very small % of estates ever have to pay IHT. Yes there should be some reform to the system but to scrap it is ridiculous.
On certain things, yes. It should also be lowered and not be a recurring tax on high value items. Or on intangible assets that do not become money until sold (such as farms). In many cases inheritance tax is tax on something that has already been taxed multiple times.
Inheritance Tax only accounts for about 0.7 per cent of total UK government receipts so scrapping it would make a barely discernible difference to the ability of government to fund their programme. Much of this tax is on assets which have already been taxed. It unfairly targets people and families who have saved in order not to be a burden on the state in retirement and who want to give their descendants a good start in life
I am in favour of lowering it since it is to high. But scrapping it altogether would allow people to hoard ridiculous amounts of wealth.
The Fabians want to confiscate all wealth. Labour has crashed the economy each time & mistake is to see it as solely incompetence. It is but it’s also by design. They want a Socialist One World Government. There is no a failure of Capitalism but a failure of Socialists interfering in markets & then blaming them for their own failures. We should embrace wealth & the citizen should be allowed to retain assets & money already taxed, without predatory politicians stealing them.