In reply to Postmanpat:
> You'd also be imposing it on pretty much every house owner in the country and thereby never win an election again!
That might be so, but the "house owner" only pays when dead. What you'd really be taxing is the windfall legacies to middle-aged, middle-class people whose parents owned homes. Why would taxing that at a rate of 15% be so bad? People getting such legacies are usually doing ok financially, and a 15% reduction still leaves them with most of it. If those people were getting the same in pay or capital gains they'd pay much more tax on it. As I said above, a little on everything, a modest tax rate whenever money changes hands, is the best policy.
I do realise, though, that I'm out of line with most people on this, who regard homes as sacrosanct. I've never seen anything wrong with elderly people being expected to sell their homes to fund going into a care home, since at that point they no longer need or use their home. It seems bonkers to me that it should be a national priority to provide state funding to ensure that this doesn't happen, and thus that the middle-aged, middle-class lucky ones get their windfall legacies.
To me, national priority for state funding are the families who are less well off than that, plus education, health etc. Ensuring that the middle-aged, middle-class lucky ones get their windfall legacies is way down my priority list for government spending.
[By the way, I myself am in the latter group, who may one day get a chunk of a parental home which is valued at over the threshold, but I certainly don't regard myself as any sort of priority for government subsidy.]