Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I'm sorry I couldn't be in Blackpool, it's not the same trying to follow a party conference from outside the goldfish bowl. I suspect that the Osborne bid to raise the threshold on inheritance tax to £1million is a smart move. It is not the numbers of people who are directly affected, it is the many who would like their house to be worth £300,000 or more. It's a kind of 'we are on your side if you want to do better' type ploy. I tried to warn my Labour friends that this would have been a good move for them too - justified as a consequence of the hyper-inflation of house prices. I'd have done it differently though. I'd have kept the threshold at £300,000 and then said that every legacy after that of up to £250,000 would also be taken off the taxable value of the estate. In that way if one person was left a house worth £1million they would pay tax on half of it - but they could afford to. However, if it was left to, say, three children or grandchildren to share there would be no tax. In other words, if the principle of inheritance tax is prevent the perpetuation of inequality why not encourage the fortunate ones to do the distribution, while stopping the racket of trusts etc? I recall that ippr published a learned pamphlet on why this approach could not be done but it was too baffling to understand. Where there's a will there's a way, in my view, if you'll excuse the pun.
Declaration of interest: the bank helped us buy a house at the bottom of the market and we have two children.
