Delighted to report that two important voices have virtually killed stone dead the plan by Rachel Reeves to stop you giving away as much money as you like to your children.
The first intervention came from Richard Tice, Farage’s No.2. He confirmed that, were Reform to be elected in 2029, they would scrap inheritance tax. Tice’s views matter as he will almost certainly be their Chancellor.
He described the tax as causing ‘’unnecessary pain to grieving families’’ and ‘’ disincentivises hard work, ambition and risk-taking.’’ Good points.
**ARE YOU READING THIS ON OUR APP? DOWNLOAD NOW FOR THE BEST GB NEWS EXPERIENCE**
Equally important came a surprising voice from Left against Reeves’ mad and bad idea. Dan Neidle is a well- known tax expert, but in this debate it’s his strong and historic political affiliations which mean his views should be listened to.
Neidle is a long-time Labour activist, having been a party member for 35 years and been an agent for two Labour MPs. You wouldn’t like to share a coffee with him but when he speaks, Labour listens.
He says that such an idea would make the UK ‘’a dangerous place for a wealthy person to be’’.
Agree with him, but frankly, it’s already a dangerous place for a wealthy person to be.
Even my neighbours who are in their seventies told me last night they are seriously leaving for Spain and his son is heading to Dubai next month.
Getty Images
| Rachel Reeves just gifted Richard Tice her chancellorship in 24 hours. Inheritance tax does pay - Kelvin MacKenzieCurrently anybody who has anything about them will be pondering where to live in the world.
Neidle, who was a lawyer, before plying his trade in tax, says changes in inheritance tax would be unlikely to bring in the £20-50billion in revenues required by these Socialist tossers to ‘’balance the books’’.
He says: ‘’No one knows how much people are gifting currently, so there’s no way that you could calculate how much tax that might theoretically raise.’’ I like that point.
Another view came from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which said the tax wouldn’t raise significant sums without hitting relatively small gifts by middle earners.
What Labour could do is cut the exploding benefits bill, likely to hit £100billion by 2029, but that’s out of the question because her own MPs wouldn’t even give the go-ahead to a puny £5billion cut. Labour is trapped.
There’s no doubt Reform would have little compunction in slashing the benefits bill, and I believe they will have the kind of majority in Parliament that the cuts will sail through.
I am puzzled why Reeves thought it was a good idea in the first place. If she knew her Labour history, she would only have to go back to the Gordon Brown regime of 2007 to see there was danger written all over the policy.
Shortly after taking over from Blair, he was inclined to go to the country for his own personal mandate. Then the Tories announced they were considering raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1miilion (it’s still only a paltry £300K+ today) and he took fright, scrapping the idea as he felt he could lose the election on that policy alone.
So, my advice, and you will be surprised to learn that Reeves doesn’t call me that often, is that she lets it be known publicly that there will be no changes in inheritance tax.
Let’s face it, an inheritance is plain wrong. It’s a levy on those who have worked hard throughout their lives to earn something to pass on to the next generation.
What surprises me is that in fourteen years of power, through five Tory prime ministers, the Conservatives did nothing about dismantling the tax.
Now they have discovered how unpopular it is, expect Badenoch to make noises saying it will be scrapped by them as well.
I think it’s too late for the Tories to suddenly adopt this view. In this case, and I hope in relation to Channel migrants, Reform are the real deal.
They are entitled to our trust.