Hello and welcome back to the bunker your recommended daily allowance of news without the nonsense. I'm Andrew Harrison.

Today, read any newspaper to the right of the Guardian and you think the entire country lives in terror of one thing, inheritance tax.

It dominates the personal finance pages.

In news coverage, death duties are always a tax raid or a haul that the government is raking

in.

Labor's plan to raise the rate on inherited farms from zero to 20%, still only half of the standard 40%,

produced uproar on a rapid rethink, and the telegraph routinely invokes bereaved and grieving

families, even though it's the estate and not the children who pay. And yet the anxiety is not

baseless. Decades of soaring property prices combined with frozen IHC thresholds,

have dragged many into the tax net who never expected to be there.

Much of their wealth is locked up in homes that were modest when they bought them,

meaning that when the bill comes, it can mean selling up.

And behind all of this, it's a larger moral question of inequality.

The top 10% of people hold 57% of Britain's wealth,

the bottom 50% have less than 5%, and large inheritances only make it worse. So what should a smart,

progressive government do about this? How do you balance the human desire to pass on something

with the fiscal reality and the social cost.

What if we are all getting inheritance tax wrong?

To talk about this, I'm joined by somebody who's seen it inheritance tax from the inside and

has thoughts about how we approach it.

Dan Kemp was Global Chief Investment Officer at Morningstar, the International Finance

Data Company, where he oversaw about $350 billion in assets. He's now left to start a new company, portfolio thinking, which aims to bring AI fully into investment research. Hello, Dan, thanks for joining us. Hello, Andrew. It's great to be here. We're very glad to have you here. So, I mean, IHT, as it is known, actually only accounts for a small share of government revenue.

...