According to the Labour party, if Rishi Sunak goes ahead with his planned changes to inheritance tax, he will save himself £300m. Does that refer to what he will inherit from his in-laws, or is it how much he will save after he’s dead? Are we forgetting that changes to tax law are hardly immutable and, thinking about it, it is unlikely that any of his silly talking-point policies will still be standing by the time anyone he knows has a change of mortality status? As lines of attack go, this is pretty mild: the simple statement of two facts – that only 4% of us pay inheritance tax, and that Sunak is extremely rich – followed by a proposition most of us will swallow pretty easily, namely that he is not on your side.
It shouldn’t be a stupid thing to say, and yet it is an extremely stupid thing to say. Because ever since the 6th Duke of Westminster died in August 2016, just at the dawn of our nation’s age of stupid, it has been common knowledge that if you are rich enough, you don’t pay any inheritance tax. The fact that Hugh Grosvenor’s estate is held in a trust means that the lion’s share of his £9bn inheritance is likely to remain largely intact, thanks to a series of arrangements that it is fashionable to call “complicated”, which is accountant-speak for “not transparent”.
