I didn't expect you to agree to be honest. Clearly there are going to be scenarios where what I said didn't apply. That's why I said may have to sell. Also why should a person be forced to sell a buiness they love, a family business to pay IHT.
That goes against all the arguments that have been discussed on here by others who have used the argument that IHT is fair as it doesn't affect the person who leaves it and the person who pays, as they are always better off. I don't recall anyone on here saying that people would have to sell their livelihood to pay the IHT bill?
Lots of people on here are using Clarkson and Dyson as examples as to why this is a suitable change in the IHT rules. Those people are completely missing the wider issue and the negative impacts this change will have on many others.
I notice many have the same stance over the NI rise and the WFA. Many of the same people see no issues with these changes simply as they have been brought in by the party they support. It's a bizarre combination of blind loyalty mixed with the politics of envy.
Reeves could could announced in the budget that the retirement age was being raised to 75 for everyone with immediate affect, and anyone who goes to the opera or ballet would have to pay 10% more in income tax. I gaurantee the usual suspects on here would be on here defending it.