JOHN O’CONNELL: If our new Prime Minister tries to impose 10% death tax on all estates, the wave of rage will blow him away

Within 48 hours of entering Downing Street, Andy Burnham confirmed what much of the country feared. He heads a fiscally illiterate government and has no economic plan that even begins to make sense.

Despite this, the new Prime Minister is already spending money on shore leave like a drunken sailor.

Yesterday he put forward the idea of ​​a ‘national care service’ to tackle the problems of caring for an aging population. Like much of his unwritten manifesto, this concept was frighteningly short on detail. But he hinted that the new system would be a sister service to the NHS; The idea was previously estimated by the Health Foundation think tank to cost an additional £18.7bn a year.

As health secretary under Gordon Brown in the Noughties, Mr Burnham proposed raising billions of dollars for more healthcare by imposing a flat-rate inheritance tax of 10 per cent, a universal death tax.

It is difficult to imagine a tax that would be more unpleasant or destructive. The gasps of pain and distress Rachel Reeves faces when she scraps inheritance tax relief for farms worth more than £1 million in her first Budget in October 2024 will pale in comparison to the national shock and horror if the Burnham regime taxes every inheritance.

The majority of the public is in favor of abolishing inheritance tax, which is seen as the ‘most unfair’ of all taxes. Polling we carried out as the Taxpayers Alliance found that every group – however you combine it – supports cutting or abolishing inheritance tax, except, oddly enough, those with PhDs. Reformation England’s Richard Tice summed it up succinctly as ‘a terrible tax of grief’.

The majority of people are able to leave everything they own to family and friends because most of us do not have enough savings and property to get over the £325,000 (frozen since 2009) tax threshold; this rises to £500,000 if their main home is left directly to grandchildren.

This means that ordinary people who have been stingy and budgeted all their lives, and who were by no means rich at the time, could create a home for their children and grandchildren.

In a property-based economy, being able to do things for the people we love most is a fundamental right. And this is the main reason why the concept of communist society sends an instinctive shiver through the veins of most people.

Mr Burnham’s plan, which formed no part of Labour’s elected manifesto two years ago, will undermine that right. This will cause untold damage to the economy in exchange for an amorphous, cost-free ‘national care service’ that might as well be called Britain’s Bottomless Money Pit.

Without a clear plan, geriatric healthcare will gobble up all the money we can throw at it without providing any tangible benefits. That’s for sure, because we already have a template: The NHS, which is apparently the envy of the world, is now a broken system that wastes tens of billions of pounds in taxes.

The reality of this will hit Mr Burnham like a sledgehammer the moment he tries to impose his social care plan. Neither the economy nor the electorate will be able to stand this.

However, there is also talk of a second death tax, with the removal of the ‘step-up’ of capital gains on inherited assets.

Currently, for inheritance tax purposes, property is assessed on the value it has when the owner dies, rather than on the price originally paid. However, the Labor Party is considering removing this rule and introducing a tax on the difference.

The impact of this double whammy will leave most bereaved families unable to hold on to the family home. They would have to sell just to pay the staggering death taxes. This will not only cause misery to individuals, but will also flood the housing market and cause prices to plummet. It is difficult to overstate the chaos it can create.

It is difficult to imagine a more unpopular tax; The majority of public opinion is in favor of abolishing inheritance tax, which is seen as the ‘most unfair’ of all taxes.

For all his talk of easing the cost of living crisis, what Mr Burnham fails to understand is that Britain is already saddled with its heaviest tax burden since the Second World War. We have entered a doomsday cycle, and increasing taxes and government spending now will only cause the country to sink faster.

The cause of both the economic crisis and unsustainable taxation needs to be clear to everyone. We spend much more on social assistance than we can afford. More than four million people are currently claiming Personal Independence Payment (PIP); this is a non-means-tested benefit; The number of claimants has increased by 400,000 since Labor came to power.

Almost a quarter of PIP claimants cite ADHD, autism, depression or anxiety as their main disability. Benefit payments to people with mental health problems have reached £3bn a year. The total cost of sickness and disability benefits for working-age people currently stands at £58bn and is expected to rise to £78bn within five years.

But disability minister Sir Stephen Timms says in an internal government report that he does not see this as a cause for concern. The discomfort is surprising.

Previous Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer made a timid attempt to slow the rise of the welfare bill and was forced into a humiliating U-turn by angry backbenchers. But the extent of the crisis was highlighted by Pat McFadden, Minister for Work and Pensions under both Prime Ministers.

What Mr Burnham fails to understand, for all his talk, writes John O’Connell, is that Britain is already suffering the heaviest tax burden since the Second World War.

In a WhatsApp message made public during the Peter Mandelson scandal, Mr McFadden said every discussion he had with colleagues resulted in a dilemma: ‘Who can we tax to benefit others?’

The answer is obviously “everyone possible, dead or alive.”

According to research from the TaxPayers’ Alliance released yesterday, 1 million people will either be forced to pay income tax or be pushed to a higher tax threshold in 2026-27, including an extra 600,000 pensioners.

Half of them will pay the basic rate, while 41 per cent will pay a higher rate. Only 7 percent will pay the top rate; This highlights that it is lower-paid workers and self-employed workers with their families who bear the brunt of these hidden taxes.

The average taxpayer will face an increase of £640 from 2024-25. But for those who are prosperous, the prospects are quite good. A beneficiary based in London who takes full advantage of the range of potential benefits could earn an income of £710 per week; this is equivalent to an annual salary of £46,000 before tax; This is only slightly less than the average annual salary in the capital of £49,700, or around £756 per week.

There is also the potential benefit of a subsidized Motability vehicle for those who qualify.

Once the costs of working, such as commuting and workwear, are taken into account, full-time work is likely to have better, or indeed worse, returns on welfare for many people.

This cannot continue like this; not just because it’s morally repugnant, but because people won’t stand for it. No amount of gimmicks on bus fares or grand promises to end insomnia can hide the disaster facing Britain.

The government can’t keep paying millions not to work. He can’t keep forcing more people to pay taxes. And it can’t keep raising taxes.

This is the cycle of doom. If it is not stopped, it will lead our country to destruction.

John O’Connell is chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance.