Campaign inherits an award

The Cash team uncorked the champagne last week after scooping an award for our campaign this year on reforming inheritance tax.

Cash took the runner-up prize in the Personal Finance Consumer Campaign of the Year category at the annual Bradford & Bingley Personal Finance Media Awards, widely regarded as the 'Oscars' of personal finance journalism.

Our sister magazine, Money Observer, was runner-up for Best Personal Finance Consumer Magazine.

The judges praised editor Jill Insley and writer Neasa MacErlean for running 'a balanced and a very well researched and written campaign'.

The campaign stirred up a strong response from readers, some supporting our stance and others outraged by our approach.

Last week, Mike Warburton, senior tax partner at Grant Thornton, said that he believed most views on IHT fall into one of three camps. Again we had a strong response.

The statements and your reactions

These are the statements we asked you to consider:

A) IHT is an unfair tax that penalises the prudent who save for their old age so as not to be a burden on others. It is also a tax on savings that have already borne tax.

B) We need schools and hospitals. Somebody has to pay. It's only fair that it should be the rich.

C) We are neither leaving our hard-earned money to the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor to our children: we plan to spend the lot in our lifetime.

Around half of our respondents agreed with statement 'A', around a quarter sided with 'B' and just a few of you opted for 'C', with the rest undecided.

'A' voters

I started with nothing, received my education by means of a scholarship, worked, and was taxed for all that I have, and I now see IHT as penalising a lifetime of effort.
GHR, St Andrews

IHT is an unfair tax that penalises the prudent. My mum died in September, leaving my dad a widower. He is making it so that his modest estate will be as tax efficient as possible. This includes having his half share (the other half to my sister and I) of the house in a nil rate trust up to the value of the IHT threshold.
DF, via email

If I had a crystal ball I might vote for C, but it is not a practical solution.
DJ, via email

We would come in the modest estates which means, seemingly, that everything would go.
E & RB, via email

'B' voters

I think it is ridiculous you should choose to make the case for IHT reform by making reference to a person leaving £37 million. It would be far more appropriate to consider the position alongside the large number of people who will be below any inheritance threshold due to low income, no home ownership, no inherited wealth and no privilege. These are the people (and their children) quite entitled to expect some support from society to counter their disadvantageous position and the taxation regime exists to provide it.
IP, via email

I would rephrase it: 'Somebody has to pay. It's best if it is those who are dead (or, alternatively, those who, by good fortune, are benefiting from the bounty of someone who has recently died).
SH, via email

People should pay more tax on money they have not earned. Working people with low incomes never get huge sums of unearned cash.
DA, via email

Inheritance Tax is a middle-class tax. That is why it is coming under criticism, not because it is iniquitous. Why does the media not campaign for the removal of exorbitant rates of tax on poor people trying to earn a living? I refer to the more than 30 per cent marginal rates of National Insurance plus Income Tax imposed on modest earnings above £150 per week. That tax is often not affordable, especially by those with young families You should be targeting tax levied on income below £10,000 a year as iniquitous and leaving Inheritance Tax well alone.
MS, via email

'C' voters

Offspring in our rich society should make their own way and money in life (like I have had to do from very modest beginnings). I fully intend to spend as much of my money as I wish, and any left over has been left to charity, to benefit people in less affluent societies who do not enjoy the privileges and opportunities our kids enjoy.
TT, via email

Other options

It would be better to have a tax geared, like income tax, to the position of the recipient. Maybe add it to income, with the option to spread it over several years, maybe make it more progressive than it is now.
DO, via email

IHT should be levied under a system of 'banding', with a starting rate of under 40 per cent on the first tranche but rising to perhaps 60 per cent on the top slice of the largest estates.
HC, Winchester