Good news for houses like these. Photo: Carl Court
Show Hide image

Cutting inheritance tax will be good news for a privileged few, bad news for the rest

Cutting inheritance tax will mean happy days for the top 10 per cent, and nothing to everyone else.

The UK’s archaic taxation system taxes income too heavily but wealth too lightly. This acts as a roadblock to social mobility, which is the lowest in the western world.

And George Osborne is about to make it worse. When he unveils his Budget, the Chancellor will announce an increase in the individual inheritance tax threshold from £325,000 to £500,000, fully transferable between couples. No inheritance tax will be paid on a couple passing on a £1 million house to their children.

Only the wealthiest families will benefit. If the inheritance tax threshold were left untouched until 2018-19, it would only affect 10% of people. While cutting it does nothing for those in the bottom 90%, it amounts to a boon for those inheriting houses worth £1 million to £2.35 million (when the cut will be fully tapered off). Someone inheriting a £2 million home will benefit more than someone inheriting a £950,000 home. Exactly how this policy fits into the ‘One Nation’ playbook is not clear.

Osborne once recognised the great structural flaw in the UK’s taxation system. According to In It Together, Matthew d’Ancona’s study of the coalition, Osborne and Nick Clegg agreed a ‘grand bargain’ in 2012: reducing income tax to 40% and introducing a mansion tax in return. But David Cameron had other ideas. “Our donors will never put up with it,” the Prime Minister said before vetoing the idea.

Now taxation is becoming even more dependent on income rather than wealth. The inheritance tax cut will be paid for by reducing pension tax relief for those earning over £150,000; hardly a group many feel much sympathy for, but the upshot will be to prioritise those who inherit money over those who earn it.

None of this is to say that inheritance tax is perfect. It is “a somewhat half-hearted tax, with many loopholes and opportunities for avoidance through careful organization of affairs,” as the IFS-led Mirrlees Review into inheritance tax noted in 2011. On the grounds of equality of opportunity, it advocated instead taxing individuals at progressive rates on the total amount of gifts and inheritances they received over their lifetime. Radical leftism this is not: Edward Heath’s Conservative government in 1972 proposed a similar policy.

Robert Halfon, the Conservative Party’s vice-chair, wants to make the party logo a ladder to symbolise opportunity. Yet the cut to inheritance tax will show no regard for equality of opportunity. Instead, it will entrench a system of taxation that favours those who have inherited money rather than those who earned it. By making property an even more attractive investment for the wealthy, it could lead to house prices rising even more. And cutting inheritance tax also risks reducing economic growth: a Royal Economic Society study three years ago suggested that increasing inheritance tax while reducing income tax could increase growth by creating greater incentives to work.

Eight years after proposing to do so, George Osborne will finally make good on his pledge to deliver on inheritance tax. The party faithful will be delighted. But the risk for the Conservatives is that the combination of £12 billion of welfare cuts with a tax cut for the wealthiest families will exacerbate their image as the party of the rich.

Tim Wigmore is a contributing writer to the New Statesman and the author of Second XI: Cricket In Its Outposts.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Grenfell survivors were promised no rent rises – so why have the authorities gone quiet?

The council now says it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels.

In the aftermath of the Grenfell disaster, the government made a pledge that survivors would be rehoused permanently on the same rent they were paying previously.

For families who were left with nothing after the fire, knowing that no one would be financially worse off after being rehoused would have provided a glimmer of hope for a stable future.

And this is a commitment that we’ve heard time and again. Just last week, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) reaffirmed in a statement, that the former tenants “will pay no more in rent and service charges for their permanent social housing than they were paying before”.

But less than six weeks since the tragedy struck, Kensington and Chelsea Council has made it perfectly clear that responsibility for honouring this lies solely with DCLG.

When it recently published its proposed policy for allocating permanent housing to survivors, the council washed its hands of the promise, saying that it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels:

“These commitments fall within the remit of the Government rather than the Council... It is anticipated that the Department for Communities and Local Government will make a public statement about commitments that fall within its remit, and provide details of the period of time over which any such commitments will apply.”

And the final version of the policy waters down the promise even further by downplaying the government’s promise to match rents on a permanent basis, while still making clear it’s nothing to do with the council:

It is anticipated that DCLG will make a public statement about its commitment to meeting the rent and/or service charge liabilities of households rehoused under this policy, including details of the period of time over which any such commitment will apply. Therefore, such commitments fall outside the remit of this policy.”

It seems Kensington and Chelsea council intends to do nothing itself to alter the rents of long-term homes on which survivors will soon be able to bid.

But if the council won’t take responsibility, how much power does central government actually have to do this? Beyond a statement of intent, it has said very little on how it can or will intervene. This could leave Grenfell survivors without any reassurance that they won’t be worse off than they were before the fire.

As the survivors begin to bid for permanent homes, it is vital they are aware of any financial commitments they are making – or families could find themselves signing up to permanent tenancies without knowing if they will be able to afford them after the 12 months they get rent free.

Strangely, the council’s public Q&A to residents on rehousing is more optimistic. It says that the government has confirmed that rents and service charges will be no greater than residents were paying at Grenfell Walk – but is still silent on the ambiguity as to how this will be achieved.

Urgent clarification is needed from the government on how it plans to make good on its promise to protect the people of Grenfell Tower from financial hardship and further heartache down the line.

Kate Webb is head of policy at the housing charity Shelter. Follow her @KateBWebb.