I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out. The degree of utility is going to depend on the size of inheritance and your, your kids and grandkids circs.
I expect that I will inherit in my 60's, though split with my sibs. I plan to pass the money straight through to my boys. I would rather they had it.
If you do plan to do that - look at not having the money at all yourself but letting it go even more directly. Deeds of variation, and get the lawyer to do them for safety. Just in case you follow them within 7 years. (Not cheerful, I know, but ...).
Ah, deeds of variation, another Ed Miliband error.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out. The degree of utility is going to depend on the size of inheritance and your, your kids and grandkids circs.
I expect that I will inherit in my 60's, though split with my sibs. I plan to pass the money straight through to my boys. I would rather they had it.
If you do plan to do that - look at not having the money at all yourself but letting it go even more directly. Deeds of variation, and get the lawyer to do them for safety. Just in case you follow them within 7 years. (Not cheerful, I know, but ...).
Ah, deeds of variation, another Ed Miliband error.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
They can do both but in London and much of the Home counties inheritances are key to getting deposits and on the property ladder for all but the highest earners
So fix that. That isn't good enough.
Inheritances should never be required for anyone who works for a living to get a deposit.
Well tough, London is a global city and always will be expensive no matter how many new properties you build or tighter immigration rules you implement. That they spills over time the Home Counties commuter belt too as Londoners move out to buy.
So inheritances will remain key if you want to buy in London and the Home counties and are only on an average wage
Then tough to anyone who "needs" an inheritance if they don't get it then either.
If people who aren't able to work can't get a deposit, I fail to see why an inheritance should be protected either.
So on your definition then most of the population of London and the Home counties will have to move north then to buy if you refuse to protect inheritances. Thus concreting all over your Northern countryside with the extra properties that need to be built while in the meantime your Northern property prices surge at the same time.
London meanwhile becomes a city just for a few very rich high earning home owners with the vast majority renting and even more based on immigration from abroad than now!
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
What rubbish. If our own income wasn't being taken from us to prop up the selfish generation, we wouldn't need an inheritance when we are already old ourselves to get an inheritance.
I would rather work for a living and keep my own income than rely upon my parents dying and getting an inheritance, what about you?
HYUFD's statement (and he can back it up with whatever spurious evidence takes his fancy) is an absolute crock anyway.
Unless lifetime gifts have been given over time, care home costs run inheritance values down in next to no time.
I wish I lived in HYUFD's alternative reality.
As I already said 3/4 of over 65s will never need social care or will die before they do
Is compulsory euthanasia at 65 a manifesto commitment for GE2024?
That might have electoral implications for your party.
P.S. As someone currently transferring five and a half grand of my own savings every month to pay my mother-in-law's care home costs as we desperately try to complete the sale of her property I can confirm you don't have a Scooby-Doo as to how late life care works and costs!
No as 75% of over 65s will still not need social care and certainly not residential social care
Rather than quoting utter b******* and Government propaganda at me, why don't you, as someone with serious political ambitions avail yourself of the facts. Ring around a few local care homes, find out the monthly costs, look at average pension incomes plus carers allowance, be astonished at the shortfall. Calculate how long it would take for the cost of an average property less the inheritance allowance would be eaten up on the basis of that shortfall, then campaign Frank Field-like to make late life social and residential care more affordable and of better quality. If you did all that, you would get my vote!
Better still as an elected official ring around and visit some. When, after his car accident the Princess of Wales Hospital decided to discharge my fully infirmed father home, I looked into local care homes, the one I settled on The Manor House in St. Hilary was excellent, it was like a country house hotel. Some of the others I visited were so grim, and still very expensive. One I visited was awash with the aroma of cabbage water and stale urine. Care of the elderly is a national disgrace, and you, and it would seem your party, are only interested in ensuring the stately home remains in the family.
I assume then you will be voting Tory next time in gratitude for Boris capping residential and social care costs paid out of estates for those who do need care at £86,000
So more money going out of the public pocket to those who have money already.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
The average property in the South East is now over £400k and in London over £600k, there is plenty to inherit
Head. Wall. Bang. Read the bloody posts. Firstly some will be in the subset you define (read the posts). Some will inherit a lot, but not need it at 60+ (read the posts). Some will inherit little or nothing (read the posts).
You have put everyone in the country in one set/basket that most of us aren't in.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
The average property in the South East is now over £400k and in London over £600k, there is plenty to inherit
Head. Wall. Bang. Read the bloody posts. Firstly some will be in the subset you define (read the posts). Some will inherit a lot, but not need it at 60+ (read the posts). Some will inherit little or nothing (read the posts).
You have put everyone in the country in one set/basket that most of us aren't in.
Most of London and the Home counties ARE in that subset that is the whole point. Unless on a high income they cannot get a deposit without an inheritance.
You are a Liberal, why should we Tories care what you think about inheritances anyway? Support for inheritance is one of the core principles of our party and voters not yours!
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
They can do both but in London and much of the Home counties inheritances are key to getting deposits and on the property ladder for all but the highest earners
So fix that. That isn't good enough.
Inheritances should never be required for anyone who works for a living to get a deposit.
Well tough, London is a global city and always will be expensive no matter how many new properties you build or tighter immigration rules you implement. That they spills over time the Home Counties commuter belt too as Londoners move out to buy.
So inheritances will remain key if you want to buy in London and the Home counties and are only on an average wage
Then tough to anyone who "needs" an inheritance if they don't get it then either.
If people who aren't able to work can't get a deposit, I fail to see why an inheritance should be protected either.
So on your definition then most of the population of London and the Home counties will have to move north then to buy if you refuse to protect inheritances. Thus concreting all over your Northern countryside with the extra properties that need to be built while in the meantime your Northern property prices surge at the same time.
London meanwhile becomes a city just for a few very rich high earning home owners with the vast majority renting and even more based on immigration from abroad than now!
No. If inheritances aren't protected, then income becomes the way people can get a home of their own instead, which is what it should be.
People should be able to buy their own homes, from their own work. If they can't, that's fucked up and needs fixing. There is absolutely no justification for ever needing an inheritance and if you do and don't get one, then "tough".
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out. The degree of utility is going to depend on the size of inheritance and your, your kids and grandkids circs.
I expect that I will inherit in my 60's, though split with my sibs. I plan to pass the money straight through to my boys. I would rather they had it.
If you do plan to do that - look at not having the money at all yourself but letting it go even more directly. Deeds of variation, and get the lawyer to do them for safety. Just in case you follow them within 7 years. (Not cheerful, I know, but ...).
Ah, deeds of variation, another Ed Miliband error.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
Yes but you are a libertarian, pro Brexit liberal NOT a Tory
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
The greatest legacy we leave, for better or worse, is our example to them. (I don't claim any great merits from myself on this, but I'm acutely aware of it.)
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
What rubbish. If our own income wasn't being taken from us to prop up the selfish generation, we wouldn't need an inheritance when we are already old ourselves to get an inheritance.
I would rather work for a living and keep my own income than rely upon my parents dying and getting an inheritance, what about you?
HYUFD's statement (and he can back it up with whatever spurious evidence takes his fancy) is an absolute crock anyway.
Unless lifetime gifts have been given over time, care home costs run inheritance values down in next to no time.
I wish I lived in HYUFD's alternative reality.
As I already said 3/4 of over 65s will never need social care or will die before they do
Is compulsory euthanasia at 65 a manifesto commitment for GE2024?
That might have electoral implications for your party.
P.S. As someone currently transferring five and a half grand of my own savings every month to pay my mother-in-law's care home costs as we desperately try to complete the sale of her property I can confirm you don't have a Scooby-Doo as to how late life care works and costs!
No as 75% of over 65s will still not need social care and certainly not residential social care
Rather than quoting utter b******* and Government propaganda at me, why don't you, as someone with serious political ambitions avail yourself of the facts. Ring around a few local care homes, find out the monthly costs, look at average pension incomes plus carers allowance, be astonished at the shortfall. Calculate how long it would take for the cost of an average property less the inheritance allowance would be eaten up on the basis of that shortfall, then campaign Frank Field-like to make late life social and residential care more affordable and of better quality. If you did all that, you would get my vote!
Better still as an elected official ring around and visit some. When, after his car accident the Princess of Wales Hospital decided to discharge my fully infirmed father home, I looked into local care homes, the one I settled on The Manor House in St. Hilary was excellent, it was like a country house hotel. Some of the others I visited were so grim, and still very expensive. One I visited was awash with the aroma of cabbage water and stale urine. Care of the elderly is a national disgrace, and you, and it would seem your party, are only interested in ensuring the stately home remains in the family.
I assume then you will be voting Tory next time in gratitude for Boris capping residential and social care costs for those who do need care at £86,000
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
Yes but you are a libertarian, pro Brexit liberal NOT a Tory
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out. The degree of utility is going to depend on the size of inheritance and your, your kids and grandkids circs.
I expect that I will inherit in my 60's, though split with my sibs. I plan to pass the money straight through to my boys. I would rather they had it.
If you do plan to do that - look at not having the money at all yourself but letting it go even more directly. Deeds of variation, and get the lawyer to do them for safety. Just in case you follow them within 7 years. (Not cheerful, I know, but ...).
Ah, deeds of variation, another Ed Miliband error.
I do enjoy watching Lindsay Hoyle in action. A refreshing change vs the self-inflating buffoonery of his predecessor and the "is he asleep" actions of the one before.
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
RIP rpjs. If I'm not mistaken he was actively posting until quite recently was he not?
Yes, I saw him in March and he was still responding to treatment quite well. in the last month or so he went downhill quickly.
Professor Tim Spector, of Zoe fame, sounds like a barrel of laughs, must be good at parties
“Face masks and ventilation continue to provide important additional layers of protection – especially in crowded settings. “I still wear a mask, but not a cheap mask – I wear a proper FFP2 or 3 mask,” said Spector. “These new variants are still very much airborne and you need an even smaller amount to get infected, so I think a mask is definitely a good idea when as many as one in 30 people have it again.””
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
You are indeed fortunate to have both parents alive at your age. I was not so fortunate. Nonetheless I do detect a little hint of envy each time inheritance or property ownership is discussed. My view is that life offers us a bit of a lottery on many things. Most people who post on here have intelligence. That is one of the best inheritances and privileges you can get. There are some that don't like the idea that some also get the privilege of inherited money. My view is that if I earned it, or even got it by good fortune (won lottery or bought a house in a "lucky" area) then it should be my right to pass that to my kids for their benefit.
Where I might agree with you is that I do not feel it is right to expect tax payers to foot the bill for my old age care so that I can pass on a £1M+ house to my kids. that is a bit more troubling.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
You are indeed fortunate to have both parents alive at your age. I was not so fortunate. Nonetheless I do detect a little hint of envy each time inheritance or property ownership is discussed. My view is that life offers us a bit of a lottery on many things. Most people who post on here have intelligence. That is one of the best inheritances and privileges you can get. There are some that don't like the idea that some also get the privilege of inherited money. My view is that if I earned it, or even got it by good fortune (won lottery or bought a house in a "lucky" area) then it should be my right to pass that to my kids for their benefit.
Where I might agree with you is that I do not feel it is right to expect tax payers to foot the bill for my old age care so that I can pass on a £1M+ house to my kids. that is a bit more troubling.
You can't over £1 million as inheritance tax is still owed on it
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
Yes but you are a libertarian, pro Brexit liberal NOT a Tory
It’s a big tent, there’s room for lots of us.
Not those who want to tax inheritance out of existence, they are not Tories and should go off to Labour or the LDs where they belong
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
You are indeed fortunate to have both parents alive at your age. I was not so fortunate. Nonetheless I do detect a little hint of envy each time inheritance or property ownership is discussed. My view is that life offers us a bit of a lottery on many things. Most people who post on here have intelligence. That is one of the best inheritances and privileges you can get. There are some that don't like the idea that some also get the privilege of inherited money. My view is that if I earned it, or even got it by good fortune (won lottery or bought a house in a "lucky" area) then it should be my right to pass that to my kids for their benefit.
Where I might agree with you is that I do not feel it is right to expect tax payers to foot the bill for my old age care so that I can pass on a £1M+ house to my kids. that is a bit more troubling.
You can't over £1 million as inheritance tax is still owed on it
You win a pedantry award, but you know the point I was making. There are many that think they have the right to expect the state to pay for their care so they can cling on to a house to give to their kids. I don't agree that that is right
Tomorrow my devil is due to be admitted to the Scottish bar. I have the honour of presenting him to the Faculty. As per tradition we will go out for a rather nice lunch afterwards. Which will not involve drink on my part because of the rail strikes. Later in the day I am invited to a Dean's reception as are all the other devil masters. Ditto.
Devilling is a bit weird, and not just the name. My devil has not been paid for the work he has done for me over the year but I have paid for his food, drink and accomodation when required. I have also given him a lot of my time and given him vivid demonstrations of how not to do various things. He has also had training from the Faculty which is generally acknowledged to be some of the best advocacy training in the world for free.
It seems a legacy of times past where professionals often used to have to pay for their apprenticeships. There are obviously concerns that it may be a barrier to those from poorer backgrounds. But it has its charms. It should be a good day.
Tell us about the lunch afterwards ...
Going to Maison Bleue in Victoria Street. Should be excellent.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
They can do both but in London and much of the Home counties inheritances are key to getting deposits and on the property ladder for all but the highest earners
So fix that. That isn't good enough.
Inheritances should never be required for anyone who works for a living to get a deposit.
Well tough, London is a global city and always will be expensive no matter how many new properties you build or tighter immigration rules you implement. That they spills over time the Home Counties commuter belt too as Londoners move out to buy.
So inheritances will remain key if you want to buy in London and the Home counties and are only on an average wage
Then tough to anyone who "needs" an inheritance if they don't get it then either.
If people who aren't able to work can't get a deposit, I fail to see why an inheritance should be protected either.
So on your definition then most of the population of London and the Home counties will have to move north then to buy if you refuse to protect inheritances. Thus concreting all over your Northern countryside with the extra properties that need to be built while in the meantime your Northern property prices surge at the same time.
London meanwhile becomes a city just for a few very rich high earning home owners with the vast majority renting and even more based on immigration from abroad than now!
No. If inheritances aren't protected, then income becomes the way people can get a home of their own instead, which is what it should be.
People should be able to buy their own homes, from their own work. If they can't, that's fucked up and needs fixing. There is absolutely no justification for ever needing an inheritance and if you do and don't get one, then "tough".
No it does not.
London is a global city now and will always thus have expensive properties and owning a home will always be out of reach of the average Londoner without Inheritances unless you slash immigration to near zero
Professor Tim Spector, of Zoe fame, sounds like a barrel of laughs, must be good at parties
“Face masks and ventilation continue to provide important additional layers of protection – especially in crowded settings. “I still wear a mask, but not a cheap mask – I wear a proper FFP2 or 3 mask,” said Spector. “These new variants are still very much airborne and you need an even smaller amount to get infected, so I think a mask is definitely a good idea when as many as one in 30 people have it again.””
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
You are indeed fortunate to have both parents alive at your age. I was not so fortunate. Nonetheless I do detect a little hint of envy each time inheritance or property ownership is discussed. My view is that life offers us a bit of a lottery on many things. Most people who post on here have intelligence. That is one of the best inheritances and privileges you can get. There are some that don't like the idea that some also get the privilege of inherited money. My view is that if I earned it, or even got it by good fortune (won lottery or bought a house in a "lucky" area) then it should be my right to pass that to my kids for their benefit.
Where I might agree with you is that I do not feel it is right to expect tax payers to foot the bill for my old age care so that I can pass on a £1M+ house to my kids. that is a bit more troubling.
You can't over £1 million as inheritance tax is still owed on it
Missing the point. IHT is payable only on the bit above £1m and only 40% at that - and that assumes there are no donations to your political party or the local doggies' home. So NF only has to leave sufficient to cover the rest, or have his bairns pay it themselves.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out. The degree of utility is going to depend on the size of inheritance and your, your kids and grandkids circs.
Triple lock extra benefit is a grand total over a decade of about £12-14 per week, which given where pensions started, and where they still are, seems necessary and not at all overdone.
I'd disagree about inheritances in your 60s.
You either need it to give a comfortable retirement, or you have that so you can usefully give it away.
The expressed hatred for "pensioners who voted for Thatcher" or "boomers" is weird.
Thatcher's highest share of the vote was 43.9%.
Presumably people who say such things are happy being demonised as "the generation that voted for Boris Johnson".
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
Yes but you are a libertarian, pro Brexit liberal NOT a Tory
It’s a big tent, there’s room for lots of us.
Must be a circus tent, as there is a clown trying to entertain the crowd.
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
Ah god. That’s sobering. My sympathies
I always read his comments, they were sagacious and judicious
Starmer didn't mention that Boris took a lot of money from a Russian donor at that fundraiser...
Johnson is smashing Starmer out of the park.
Its strangely subdued from both. I think there is a trail of mines being laid for next week. Once again the Boris response to the genuine woes people are facing is to say how marvellous everything is.
As that just isn't the real world I don't see how boosterism helps the Tories now.
Tomorrow my devil is due to be admitted to the Scottish bar. I have the honour of presenting him to the Faculty. As per tradition we will go out for a rather nice lunch afterwards. Which will not involve drink on my part because of the rail strikes. Later in the day I am invited to a Dean's reception as are all the other devil masters. Ditto.
Devilling is a bit weird, and not just the name. My devil has not been paid for the work he has done for me over the year but I have paid for his food, drink and accomodation when required. I have also given him a lot of my time and given him vivid demonstrations of how not to do various things. He has also had training from the Faculty which is generally acknowledged to be some of the best advocacy training in the world for free.
It seems a legacy of times past where professionals often used to have to pay for their apprenticeships. There are obviously concerns that it may be a barrier to those from poorer backgrounds. But it has its charms. It should be a good day.
Tell us about the lunch afterwards ...
Going to Maison Bleu in Victoria Street. Should be excellent.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
You are indeed fortunate to have both parents alive at your age. I was not so fortunate. Nonetheless I do detect a little hint of envy each time inheritance or property ownership is discussed. My view is that life offers us a bit of a lottery on many things. Most people who post on here have intelligence. That is one of the best inheritances and privileges you can get. There are some that don't like the idea that some also get the privilege of inherited money. My view is that if I earned it, or even got it by good fortune (won lottery or bought a house in a "lucky" area) then it should be my right to pass that to my kids for their benefit.
Where I might agree with you is that I do not feel it is right to expect tax payers to foot the bill for my old age care so that I can pass on a £1M+ house to my kids. that is a bit more troubling.
I have absolutely no qualms with you passing on money to your kids, whatever you want to do with your money, is your choice, good for you. And we are agreed on the care element.
However you joined the conversation halfway through, I suggest you go back and read the chain of comments that led to that response - HYUFD was suggest an inheritance should be necessary to get a home of your own, an inheritance should only ever be something nice to have, rather than necessary to have.
It should be preferable that people are able to get a home and a deposit from their own savings, from their own job, ideally if they are fortunate enough while their loved ones are still alive and can see them get it too, rather than saying "wait for an inheritance and then you might get a deposit". Can we agree on that point?
Starmer didn't mention that Boris took a lot of money from a Russian donor at that fundraiser...
Johnson is smashing Starmer out of the park.
Its strangely subdued from both. I think there is a trail of mines being laid for next week. Once again the Boris response to the genuine woes people are facing is to say how marvellous everything is.
As that just isn't the real world I don't see how boosterism helps the Tories now.
Labour should be lobbying Durham Constabulary to hurry up an issue that FPN.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
They can do both but in London and much of the Home counties inheritances are key to getting deposits and on the property ladder for all but the highest earners
So fix that. That isn't good enough.
Inheritances should never be required for anyone who works for a living to get a deposit.
Well tough, London is a global city and always will be expensive no matter how many new properties you build or tighter immigration rules you implement. That they spills over time the Home Counties commuter belt too as Londoners move out to buy.
So inheritances will remain key if you want to buy in London and the Home counties and are only on an average wage
Then tough to anyone who "needs" an inheritance if they don't get it then either.
If people who aren't able to work can't get a deposit, I fail to see why an inheritance should be protected either.
So on your definition then most of the population of London and the Home counties will have to move north then to buy if you refuse to protect inheritances. Thus concreting all over your Northern countryside with the extra properties that need to be built while in the meantime your Northern property prices surge at the same time.
London meanwhile becomes a city just for a few very rich high earning home owners with the vast majority renting and even more based on immigration from abroad than now!
No. If inheritances aren't protected, then income becomes the way people can get a home of their own instead, which is what it should be.
People should be able to buy their own homes, from their own work. If they can't, that's fucked up and needs fixing. There is absolutely no justification for ever needing an inheritance and if you do and don't get one, then "tough".
No it does not.
London is a global city now and will always thus have expensive properties and owning a home will always be out of reach of the average Londoner without Inheritances unless you slash immigration to near zero
No it absolutely won't be.
People buy their own homes in global cities from their own incomes all over the world. Global cities come with global pay rates.
Don't tax people too much, and people can keep enough of their income that they can pay for their own deposit rather than waiting for the lottery of somebody dying.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
The average property in the South East is now over £400k and in London over £600k, there is plenty to inherit
Head. Wall. Bang. Read the bloody posts. Firstly some will be in the subset you define (read the posts). Some will inherit a lot, but not need it at 60+ (read the posts). Some will inherit little or nothing (read the posts).
You have put everyone in the country in one set/basket that most of us aren't in.
Most of London and the Home counties ARE in that subset that is the whole point. Unless on a high income they cannot get a deposit without an inheritance.
You are a Liberal, why should we Tories care what you think about inheritances anyway? Support for inheritance is one of the core principles of our party and voters not yours!
Ok you have just made that up but lets look at the sets you were looking at.
Firstly you were looking at everyone in the UK. Now you are just down to London and the South East.
There go those jet powered goal posts of yours again.
Then you end with 'I am a liberal so why should you consider what I think'. I haven't actually said what I think at all I am just pointing out what you are saying is factual nonsense so actually it doesn't matter whether what my views are at all. What I am is of no relevance to this discussion
Now you have again (because you either don't read or don't understand the posts) assumed the subset I was talking about was the one you just invented for £400K - £600K homes. Something I didn't ever mention.
Of course there will be people in that subset (again something I have numerous times), but (and I am tired of doing this) there will be people who won't inherit much, there will be people who inherit lots who don't need to inherit (a lot in their 60s when they don't need it), there will be those whose potential inheritance is taken up with care costs, etc, etc.
Try responding to the points made and not what you think I am saying (challenging I know).
Off topic - I am sorry to let regular readers know that the fairly frequent poster rpjs passed away last Thursday after a battle with cancer.
Apart from being the only person on this board that I knew in real life, he was also my oldest friend and his gentle style of reasoning reflected that he was a thoroughly good person in real life and leaves a hole in my life even though we have been separated by the Atlantic for the past decade. I will also miss being able to recognise his posts instantly from the way they were written.
Professor Tim Spector, of Zoe fame, sounds like a barrel of laughs, must be good at parties
“Face masks and ventilation continue to provide important additional layers of protection – especially in crowded settings. “I still wear a mask, but not a cheap mask – I wear a proper FFP2 or 3 mask,” said Spector. “These new variants are still very much airborne and you need an even smaller amount to get infected, so I think a mask is definitely a good idea when as many as one in 30 people have it again.””
Was it a relative or disciple of his on that bus with you perhaps?
The woman in the plastic bag from Preveza? Lol. Mebbes
I always somehow remember Prof Spector as being a voice of sanity. Yet he is STILL wearing a mask, and not just any mask - a proper FFP2 or FFP3!! - all the time, it seems.
I get that he really wants to avoid Covid A LOT but has he not got the brain space to work out that many other people have balanced the risks, realised that Covid is here to stay, and opted for a modest dash of extra danger, in return for a real human life of smiles and laughter and unmasked faces?
We cannot wear masks for the rest of time. Down with the Mask Taliban
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
You are indeed fortunate to have both parents alive at your age. I was not so fortunate. Nonetheless I do detect a little hint of envy each time inheritance or property ownership is discussed. My view is that life offers us a bit of a lottery on many things. Most people who post on here have intelligence. That is one of the best inheritances and privileges you can get. There are some that don't like the idea that some also get the privilege of inherited money. My view is that if I earned it, or even got it by good fortune (won lottery or bought a house in a "lucky" area) then it should be my right to pass that to my kids for their benefit.
Where I might agree with you is that I do not feel it is right to expect tax payers to foot the bill for my old age care so that I can pass on a £1M+ house to my kids. that is a bit more troubling.
You can't over £1 million as inheritance tax is still owed on it
Missing the point. IHT is payable only on the bit above £1m and only 40% at that - and that assumes there are no donations to your political party or the local doggies' home. So NF only has to leave sufficient to cover the rest, or have his bairns pay it themselves.
Well so what, they still have to pay something and if it benefits those with estates over £1 million too those estates under £1 million getting taken out of IHT again so what? Those with estates over £1 million are part of the Tory core vote and part of who the Tories were elected to deliver for when Osborne raised the IHT threshold. Which was also one of the most popular Tory policies this century
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
You are indeed fortunate to have both parents alive at your age. I was not so fortunate. Nonetheless I do detect a little hint of envy each time inheritance or property ownership is discussed. My view is that life offers us a bit of a lottery on many things. Most people who post on here have intelligence. That is one of the best inheritances and privileges you can get. There are some that don't like the idea that some also get the privilege of inherited money. My view is that if I earned it, or even got it by good fortune (won lottery or bought a house in a "lucky" area) then it should be my right to pass that to my kids for their benefit.
Where I might agree with you is that I do not feel it is right to expect tax payers to foot the bill for my old age care so that I can pass on a £1M+ house to my kids. that is a bit more troubling.
I have absolutely no qualms with you passing on money to your kids, whatever you want to do with your money, is your choice, good for you. And we are agreed on the care element.
However you joined the conversation halfway through, I suggest you go back and read the chain of comments that led to that response - HYUFD was suggest an inheritance should be necessary to get a home of your own, an inheritance should only ever be something nice to have, rather than necessary to have.
It should be preferable that people are able to get a home and a deposit from their own savings, from their own job, ideally if they are fortunate enough while their loved ones are still alive and can see them get it too, rather than saying "wait for an inheritance and then you might get a deposit". Can we agree on that point?
Yes, yes, yes. There is nothing wrong with inheritance, but nobody should be dependent upon it.
Just catching up on the latest on M5S travails in Italy. A blazing row between Conte (ex-PM, current party leader, against arming Ukraine) and Di Maio (ex party leader, current foreign minister, and by now firmly pro-EU, NATO and government armament line) has raged since poor local election results and last night Di Maio quit the party. It's likely to be a more substantial split than the average and frequent calvings of Italian politics, not least because a lot of senior figures, Di Maio.included, were facing the Logan's run of M5S's limit of serving 2 political terms.
As I've said before, perhaps the central, yet under discussed, question underpinning the next Italian election is M5S's willingness and organisational ability to commit fully to the centre left in a national election and that discussion is again notable by its low profile in this split. They helped the left mayoral tickets greatly in locals in the many places they participated, whilst themselves suffering badly in the proportional party vote.
It's perfectly likely both factions will end up on the left ticket, but whenever the election looms the finalisation, or not, of that is liable to be a bit chaotic.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
They can do both but in London and much of the Home counties inheritances are key to getting deposits and on the property ladder for all but the highest earners
So fix that. That isn't good enough.
Inheritances should never be required for anyone who works for a living to get a deposit.
Well tough, London is a global city and always will be expensive no matter how many new properties you build or tighter immigration rules you implement. That they spills over time the Home Counties commuter belt too as Londoners move out to buy.
So inheritances will remain key if you want to buy in London and the Home counties and are only on an average wage
Then tough to anyone who "needs" an inheritance if they don't get it then either.
If people who aren't able to work can't get a deposit, I fail to see why an inheritance should be protected either.
So on your definition then most of the population of London and the Home counties will have to move north then to buy if you refuse to protect inheritances. Thus concreting all over your Northern countryside with the extra properties that need to be built while in the meantime your Northern property prices surge at the same time.
London meanwhile becomes a city just for a few very rich high earning home owners with the vast majority renting and even more based on immigration from abroad than now!
No. If inheritances aren't protected, then income becomes the way people can get a home of their own instead, which is what it should be.
People should be able to buy their own homes, from their own work. If they can't, that's fucked up and needs fixing. There is absolutely no justification for ever needing an inheritance and if you do and don't get one, then "tough".
No it does not.
London is a global city now and will always thus have expensive properties and owning a home will always be out of reach of the average Londoner without Inheritances unless you slash immigration to near zero
No it absolutely won't be.
People buy their own homes in global cities from their own incomes all over the world. Global cities come with global pay rates.
Don't tax people too much, and people can keep enough of their income that they can pay for their own deposit rather than waiting for the lottery of somebody dying.
That really is not true. Property prices in NYC, Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Sydney are often as bad as London if not worse
Massively attractive global cities are hugely expensive. Is all
Professor Tim Spector, of Zoe fame, sounds like a barrel of laughs, must be good at parties
“Face masks and ventilation continue to provide important additional layers of protection – especially in crowded settings. “I still wear a mask, but not a cheap mask – I wear a proper FFP2 or 3 mask,” said Spector. “These new variants are still very much airborne and you need an even smaller amount to get infected, so I think a mask is definitely a good idea when as many as one in 30 people have it again.””
Was it a relative or disciple of his on that bus with you perhaps?
The woman in the plastic bag from Preveza? Lol. Mebbes
I always somehow remember Prof Spector as being a voice of sanity. Yet he is STILL wearing a mask, and not just any mask - a proper FFP2 or FFP3!! - all the time, it seems.
I get that he really wants to avoid Covid A LOT but has he not got the brain space to work out that many other people have balanced the risks, realised that Covid is here to stay, and opted for a modest dash of extra danger, in return for a real human life of smiles and laughter and unmasked faces?
We cannot wear masks for the rest of time. Down with the Mask Taliban
If you are going to wear a mask, and you can afford it, of course you should choose a proper one. Wearing a less effective one is the worst option of all.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
They can do both but in London and much of the Home counties inheritances are key to getting deposits and on the property ladder for all but the highest earners
So fix that. That isn't good enough.
Inheritances should never be required for anyone who works for a living to get a deposit.
Well tough, London is a global city and always will be expensive no matter how many new properties you build or tighter immigration rules you implement. That they spills over time the Home Counties commuter belt too as Londoners move out to buy.
So inheritances will remain key if you want to buy in London and the Home counties and are only on an average wage
Then tough to anyone who "needs" an inheritance if they don't get it then either.
If people who aren't able to work can't get a deposit, I fail to see why an inheritance should be protected either.
So on your definition then most of the population of London and the Home counties will have to move north then to buy if you refuse to protect inheritances. Thus concreting all over your Northern countryside with the extra properties that need to be built while in the meantime your Northern property prices surge at the same time.
London meanwhile becomes a city just for a few very rich high earning home owners with the vast majority renting and even more based on immigration from abroad than now!
No. If inheritances aren't protected, then income becomes the way people can get a home of their own instead, which is what it should be.
People should be able to buy their own homes, from their own work. If they can't, that's fucked up and needs fixing. There is absolutely no justification for ever needing an inheritance and if you do and don't get one, then "tough".
No it does not.
London is a global city now and will always thus have expensive properties and owning a home will always be out of reach of the average Londoner without Inheritances unless you slash immigration to near zero
No it absolutely won't be.
People buy their own homes in global cities from their own incomes all over the world. Global cities come with global pay rates.
Don't tax people too much, and people can keep enough of their income that they can pay for their own deposit rather than waiting for the lottery of somebody dying.
The majority of New York city and Paris rent now too just like in London actually and even more would have to without an inheritance.
You could tax the average earning Londoner zero and they still would not have enough to get a deposit to buy the average London property which is about 20 times the average London income now
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
Yes but you are a libertarian, pro Brexit liberal NOT a Tory
It’s a big tent, there’s room for lots of us.
Must be a circus tent, as there is a clown trying to entertain the crowd.
And a clown car driven by the transport specialist clown.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
I only knew one set of my grandparents; the others died before I was born. However my eldest granddaughter, now in her early 30's, met all her great grandparents, although she barely remembers some of them, and all her grandparents are still alive, as indeed are the 'other' grandparents of all our other grandchildren! The only one of her immediate ancestors who is not still alive is her mother who died of MND some 8 years ago!
Most of us are living a lot longer than our grandparents did, and that affects inheritance patterns.
So is it CPI that is 9.1%? And that excludes housing cost inflation?
Christ.
It is going higher still so a lot of pain ahead
Pain felt by younger working people and not the asset classes or the retired.
Many pensioners receive the state pension of just £9,600 pa and are really hurting
True, but the state pensioners now are the ones who voted for Thatcher from '79 onwards. The current stingy state pension follows on from policies of her governments.
I have some sympathy, but fairly limited amounts.
Blair/Labour were in office for 13 years from 1997-2010
This period of Conservative government will comfortably exceed that but it doesn't feel it, still less the Thatcher-Major period of 18 years.
At no time has it felt secure and transformatory.
It has certainly been the latter, and not in a good way.
I'm not so sure it has. Blair and Thatcher both permanently shifted the dial.
It's not clear this one has.
Nothing is permanent in a democracy. But leaving the EU will be harder to reverse than anything Thatcher or Blair did. These Tory years have been completely transformatory, they will long be remembered.
As far as I can tell the Tory government has achieved a moderate change in our political relationship and trading arrangements with our near neighbour (at great political cost) whilst seeing its economic policy shift notably to the Left and the ongoing triumph of the Left in social and cultural matters over the last 12 years.
If I were you I wouldn't be too downhearted.
Well that is the problem of the Tories losing a lot of their old Remain vote and acquiring new voters who favour porkbarrelling and economic protectionism. It is a fundamental clash with the old pro-business free trade Tories.
They sold out business and financial rigour for a mess of pooterish populism. British Peronism in effect.
In the 19th century and early 20th century the Tories were often protectionist, it was the Whigs and Liberals who were most pro free trade.
It was just keeping Labour out after universal suffrage that in the 20th century shifted many pro free trade middle class Liberal businessmen to become Tories.
Remember too it was the Liberals who introduced the workhouse, many old school Tories opposed it
Back in the days of Elizabeth I, young HY, long before the Liberal Party was created. But mind you, they were needed, after Henry VIII and is gang of greedy chancers tore down the monasteries and grabbed the land and the loot. The poor and the homeless were dying in the ditches. So the original workhouses were a vast improvement on that state of affairs.
It was later on that you Tories saw the workhouses as a way of exploiting the poor inmates as a form a slave labour, and they became discredited.
Professor Tim Spector, of Zoe fame, sounds like a barrel of laughs, must be good at parties
“Face masks and ventilation continue to provide important additional layers of protection – especially in crowded settings. “I still wear a mask, but not a cheap mask – I wear a proper FFP2 or 3 mask,” said Spector. “These new variants are still very much airborne and you need an even smaller amount to get infected, so I think a mask is definitely a good idea when as many as one in 30 people have it again.””
Was it a relative or disciple of his on that bus with you perhaps?
The woman in the plastic bag from Preveza? Lol. Mebbes
I always somehow remember Prof Spector as being a voice of sanity. Yet he is STILL wearing a mask, and not just any mask - a proper FFP2 or FFP3!! - all the time, it seems.
I get that he really wants to avoid Covid A LOT but has he not got the brain space to work out that many other people have balanced the risks, realised that Covid is here to stay, and opted for a modest dash of extra danger, in return for a real human life of smiles and laughter and unmasked faces?
We cannot wear masks for the rest of time. Down with the Mask Taliban
If you are going to wear a mask, and you can afford it, of course you should choose a proper one. Wearing a less effective one is the worst option of all.
OR do not wear one, because Covid is with us forever and masks are horrible
The Johnson family are bigger grifters than the Trump family.
Boris Johnson’s father is seeking the removal of a ban that blocks the Chinese ambassador to Britain from the Palace of Westminster as the 81-year-old plans to visit the sanctioned country.
Stanley Johnson intends to retrace the steps of Marco Polo and will visit Xinjiang, home to the Uighur people, who are persecuted by Beijing for their Muslim faith.
In an interview with the South China Morning Post, Johnson described Zheng Zeguang, the Chinese ambassador to Britain, as “a very agreeable, capable and intelligent man” after the two met and talked about his travel plans.
However, his comments mark an embarrassing blow to his son, whose government has joined the European Union, Canada and the United States in sanctioning Chinese officials for human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
The former MEP said that Zheng was enthusiastic about the project, which Johnson said might help improve UK-China relations. He is planning to take his son, Max, the prime minister’s half-brother, with him on the trip.
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
But isn't it to the government's advantage that people aren't annoyed? The media are obsessed with the strikes at the moment. They might not be so interested when they are on strike for the 10th time later this year.
No, the government chose this fight for the political advantage they thought it would give them (Labour's strikes etc). It has nothing to do with economics or the running of the railway business. If it was the focus would be on different points and a genuine attempt to resolve it would have been made before the strikes began. People being sympathetic and not cross was not the desired outcome.
Really? Surely the most important thing is that government doesn't give in on pay because they'll have the rest of the public sector queuing up for similar pay increases.
Absolutely spot on. High pay rises from public and private sector prolonging the inflation cost of living crisis is an existential threat to the re election of this government. This is a battle to the death for this government, they cannot give an inch on the pay rises being demanded.
The Johnson family are bigger grifters than the Trump family.
Boris Johnson’s father is seeking the removal of a ban that blocks the Chinese ambassador to Britain from the Palace of Westminster as the 81-year-old plans to visit the sanctioned country.
Stanley Johnson intends to retrace the steps of Marco Polo and will visit Xinjiang, home to the Uighur people, who are persecuted by Beijing for their Muslim faith.
In an interview with the South China Morning Post, Johnson described Zheng Zeguang, the Chinese ambassador to Britain, as “a very agreeable, capable and intelligent man” after the two met and talked about his travel plans.
However, his comments mark an embarrassing blow to his son, whose government has joined the European Union, Canada and the United States in sanctioning Chinese officials for human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
The former MEP said that Zheng was enthusiastic about the project, which Johnson said might help improve UK-China relations. He is planning to take his son, Max, the prime minister’s half-brother, with him on the trip.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
Yes but you are a libertarian, pro Brexit liberal NOT a Tory
It’s a big tent, there’s room for lots of us.
Must be a circus tent, as there is a clown trying to entertain the crowd.
And a clown car driven by the transport specialist clown.
A clown train would be terribly inconvenient when they’re on strike.
Bill Wiggin asks a question about how the strike will impact the posh kids from Hereford Sixth Form College. What about the poor kids from the tech next door?
In principle, I am very much against industrial action. And I tend to think rail workers are remunerated very well for what they do. However, on the face of it, the fault lies with the Government for refusing to meet with the Union. That cannot be right, however little headway they anticipate. It's dereliction of duty, flagrantly so.
We deserve a Government that performs its basic duties.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
Interesting perspective with the possibility of personal bitterness/envy thrown in. I have received no inheritance due to a bit of a twist of fate, but it doesn't stop me wanting to pass on a large one (vast if possible) to my kids. I will use every legal means to ensure they get as much as possible. Assuming my wife and I live to a reasonable age, maybe mid 80s, that will put them in their late 40s, so could be a useful time to inherit.
Absolutely no personal bitterness/envy, completely the opposite, I consider myself most fortunate.
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
Yes but you are a libertarian, pro Brexit liberal NOT a Tory
It’s a big tent, there’s room for lots of us.
Must be a circus tent, as there is a clown trying to entertain the crowd.
And a clown car driven by the transport specialist clown.
A clown train would be terribly inconvenient when they’re on strike.
Yes, but the clown transport specialist "chooses to drive" anyway. If there was a level crossing in the tent he'd get stuck on it ...
I wore a mask the other day, for the first time in a couple of months.
I had an issue with an eye, and so I had an emergency optician's appointment. Given the closeness of optician and customer for a sustained period, it made sense. Everyone in the shop was masked.
The Johnson family are bigger grifters than the Trump family.
Boris Johnson’s father is seeking the removal of a ban that blocks the Chinese ambassador to Britain from the Palace of Westminster as the 81-year-old plans to visit the sanctioned country.
Stanley Johnson intends to retrace the steps of Marco Polo and will visit Xinjiang, home to the Uighur people, who are persecuted by Beijing for their Muslim faith.
In an interview with the South China Morning Post, Johnson described Zheng Zeguang, the Chinese ambassador to Britain, as “a very agreeable, capable and intelligent man” after the two met and talked about his travel plans.
However, his comments mark an embarrassing blow to his son, whose government has joined the European Union, Canada and the United States in sanctioning Chinese officials for human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
The former MEP said that Zheng was enthusiastic about the project, which Johnson said might help improve UK-China relations. He is planning to take his son, Max, the prime minister’s half-brother, with him on the trip.
The Johnson family are bigger grifters than the Trump family.
Boris Johnson’s father is seeking the removal of a ban that blocks the Chinese ambassador to Britain from the Palace of Westminster as the 81-year-old plans to visit the sanctioned country.
Stanley Johnson intends to retrace the steps of Marco Polo and will visit Xinjiang, home to the Uighur people, who are persecuted by Beijing for their Muslim faith.
In an interview with the South China Morning Post, Johnson described Zheng Zeguang, the Chinese ambassador to Britain, as “a very agreeable, capable and intelligent man” after the two met and talked about his travel plans.
However, his comments mark an embarrassing blow to his son, whose government has joined the European Union, Canada and the United States in sanctioning Chinese officials for human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
The former MEP said that Zheng was enthusiastic about the project, which Johnson said might help improve UK-China relations. He is planning to take his son, Max, the prime minister’s half-brother, with him on the trip.
In principle, I am very much against industrial action. And I tend to think rail workers are remunerated very well for what they do. However, on the face of it, the fault lies with the Government for refusing to meet with the Union. That cannot be right, however little headway they anticipate. It's dereliction of duty, flagrantly so.
We deserve a Government that performs its basic duties.
Since when has it been the Government's duty to mediate between unions and their employers?
Shouldn't the employers be the ones meeting with unions?
In principle, I am very much against industrial action. And I tend to think rail workers are remunerated very well for what they do. However, on the face of it, the fault lies with the Government for refusing to meet with the Union. That cannot be right, however little headway they anticipate. It's dereliction of duty, flagrantly so.
We deserve a Government that performs its basic duties.
They don't give a rat fuck. That's the reality. Strikes? Marvellous, lets say its a return to the 70s. Stop the strikes? Why would we want to do that?
Well, my rail commute this morning was a massive mission despite it being a 'no-strike' day. Trains were cancelled because of mysterious 'train faults'. Apparently, because of yesterday's disruption, the signalmen couldn't start work until late. And there were one-an-hour services where they'd normally run three times an hour. In short, a journey that should take me one hour took three. Had I known I wouldn't have bothered. They should have just closed everything all week - at least we'd have known where we stood.
Yes, this is often the case because the day after a strike, all the trains (and apparently the signal staff) are in the wrong place. This is why Grant Shapps was talking about outlawing striking every other day, although it is not clear how he'd enforce it without a lockout or what would be the political benefit of government-mandated week-long strikes.
Off the top of my head, how about saying that when staff are balloted to take industrial action, that ballot must name a single, continuous bloc of dates the action will be over? After that strike, then any further strike would require a new ballot.
That would prevent industrial action from being in alternate dates, since you couldn't have a new ballot done in the day inbetween. It would still allow industrial action to be taken, and allow a fresh mandate as to whether to continue it or not after the first bloc of dates has happened.
This just seems to me like an arbitrary restriction on the right to strike. Union members voted for a specific proposal. There have been numerous restrictions in recent years, so any strike now is certainly what members want to do.
The current Government objects to any constraints on their own power, but they rush to limit what anyone else can do.
Professor Tim Spector, of Zoe fame, sounds like a barrel of laughs, must be good at parties
“Face masks and ventilation continue to provide important additional layers of protection – especially in crowded settings. “I still wear a mask, but not a cheap mask – I wear a proper FFP2 or 3 mask,” said Spector. “These new variants are still very much airborne and you need an even smaller amount to get infected, so I think a mask is definitely a good idea when as many as one in 30 people have it again.””
Was it a relative or disciple of his on that bus with you perhaps?
The woman in the plastic bag from Preveza? Lol. Mebbes
I always somehow remember Prof Spector as being a voice of sanity. Yet he is STILL wearing a mask, and not just any mask - a proper FFP2 or FFP3!! - all the time, it seems.
I get that he really wants to avoid Covid A LOT but has he not got the brain space to work out that many other people have balanced the risks, realised that Covid is here to stay, and opted for a modest dash of extra danger, in return for a real human life of smiles and laughter and unmasked faces?
We cannot wear masks for the rest of time. Down with the Mask Taliban
If you are going to wear a mask, and you can afford it, of course you should choose a proper one. Wearing a less effective one is the worst option of all.
OR do not wear one, because Covid is with us forever and masks are horrible
No they aren't. It's a state of mind.
Wore one in Asia where it's de rigueur. It becomes second nature, like wearing knickers or underpants.
PMQs - Starmer really does need to get quicker on his feet, too many opportunities for good ripostes are missed.
So today - Boris: "25 of your MPs were on picket lines", Starmer should have been straight back with: "I'd rather have 25 of my MPs on the picket line than 148 of my MPs voting no confidence in me".
The quality of sycophantic back bench Tory MP questions really is dire.
Then, as if by magic, a backbench Labour MP tees Johnson up perfectly.
Any questions about the Bill of Rights?
Raab's weaknesses are well documented on here, but recently he has performed quite strongly, sounded like a conservative, and the successful implementation of the Bill could increase his standing with the faithful.
I wore a mask the other day, for the first time in a couple of months.
I had an issue with an eye, and so I had an emergency optician's appointment. Given the closeness of optician and customer for a sustained period, it made sense. Everyone in the shop was masked.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
They can do both but in London and much of the Home counties inheritances are key to getting deposits and on the property ladder for all but the highest earners
So fix that. That isn't good enough.
Inheritances should never be required for anyone who works for a living to get a deposit.
I agree with your sentiment: “fix that”. We’ve had 12 years of Conservative PMs who haven’t fixed it. I wonder if maybe the solution therefore is to vote in a PM from another party…?
In principle, I am very much against industrial action. And I tend to think rail workers are remunerated very well for what they do. However, on the face of it, the fault lies with the Government for refusing to meet with the Union. That cannot be right, however little headway they anticipate. It's dereliction of duty, flagrantly so.
We deserve a Government that performs its basic duties.
Since when has it been the Government's duty to mediate between unions and their employers?
Shouldn't the employers be the ones meeting with unions?
Yes, they should, and the Government for its part should have done its best to facilitate and support such meetings, and if asked to, attend them. Even if the expected (or even hoped for) outcome was the failure to reach a positive outcome.
The Johnson family are bigger grifters than the Trump family.
Boris Johnson’s father is seeking the removal of a ban that blocks the Chinese ambassador to Britain from the Palace of Westminster as the 81-year-old plans to visit the sanctioned country.
Stanley Johnson intends to retrace the steps of Marco Polo and will visit Xinjiang, home to the Uighur people, who are persecuted by Beijing for their Muslim faith.
In an interview with the South China Morning Post, Johnson described Zheng Zeguang, the Chinese ambassador to Britain, as “a very agreeable, capable and intelligent man” after the two met and talked about his travel plans.
However, his comments mark an embarrassing blow to his son, whose government has joined the European Union, Canada and the United States in sanctioning Chinese officials for human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
The former MEP said that Zheng was enthusiastic about the project, which Johnson said might help improve UK-China relations. He is planning to take his son, Max, the prime minister’s half-brother, with him on the trip.
Bill Wiggin asks a question about how the strike will impact the posh kids from Hereford Sixth Form College. What about the poor kids from the tech next door?
They aren't that posh, certainly not as posh as those from Hereford Cathedral school
PMQs - Starmer really does need to get quicker on his feet, too many opportunities for good ripostes are missed.
So today - Boris: "25 of your MPs were on picket lines", Starmer should have been straight back with: "I'd rather have 25 of my MPs on the picket line than 148 of my MPs voting no confidence in me".
He does need to sharpen up, quickly.
He just doesn't have the wit or response time needed by either a court lawyer or a front line politician. I can't see this changing now.
The quality of sycophantic back bench Tory MP questions really is dire.
Then, as if by magic, a backbench Labour MP tees Johnson up perfectly.
Any questions about the Bill of Rights?
Raab's weaknesses are well documented on here, but recently he has performed quite strongly, sounded like a conservative, and the successful implementation of the Bill could increase his standing with the faithful.
Not out of the picture for next leader.
If you are right, I better re-evaluate the idea of a Labour landslide.
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
They can do both but in London and much of the Home counties inheritances are key to getting deposits and on the property ladder for all but the highest earners
So fix that. That isn't good enough.
Inheritances should never be required for anyone who works for a living to get a deposit.
I agree with your sentiment: “fix that”. We’ve had 12 years of Conservative PMs who haven’t fixed it. I wonder if maybe the solution therefore is to vote in a PM from another party…?
Maybe.
There were some good reforms done when George Osborne was Chancellor that reversed some of the damage inflicted in the Blair and Brown years. Not seen much good in recent years from any party though, the originally proposed planning reforms this government were proposing were very sound, but were defeated by NIMBY backbenchers like Theresa May moaning about "mutant algorithms" and the Lib Dems winning a by-election by campaigning on NIMBYism.
If another party comes up with better proposals, I would be interested in hearing them, sadly none seem to right now.
Professor Tim Spector, of Zoe fame, sounds like a barrel of laughs, must be good at parties
“Face masks and ventilation continue to provide important additional layers of protection – especially in crowded settings. “I still wear a mask, but not a cheap mask – I wear a proper FFP2 or 3 mask,” said Spector. “These new variants are still very much airborne and you need an even smaller amount to get infected, so I think a mask is definitely a good idea when as many as one in 30 people have it again.””
Was it a relative or disciple of his on that bus with you perhaps?
The woman in the plastic bag from Preveza? Lol. Mebbes
I always somehow remember Prof Spector as being a voice of sanity. Yet he is STILL wearing a mask, and not just any mask - a proper FFP2 or FFP3!! - all the time, it seems.
I get that he really wants to avoid Covid A LOT but has he not got the brain space to work out that many other people have balanced the risks, realised that Covid is here to stay, and opted for a modest dash of extra danger, in return for a real human life of smiles and laughter and unmasked faces?
We cannot wear masks for the rest of time. Down with the Mask Taliban
If you are going to wear a mask, and you can afford it, of course you should choose a proper one. Wearing a less effective one is the worst option of all.
OR do not wear one, because Covid is with us forever and masks are horrible
No they aren't. It's a state of mind.
Wore one in Asia where it's de rigueur. It becomes second nature, like wearing knickers or underpants.
Its different for everyone though. The face is crucial to human-human interaction - you don't get the same communication with just words and eyes. It also tends to emphasize that things aren't normal. You can argue that that's a good thing - we still have lots of covid around, and sadly people are still dying, and the NHS is still under pressure. However go to Glastonbury this weekend, or Wimbledon next week, or the pub, or the cinema and you will see that for the vast majority of the country, they no longer regard this as an emergency that warrants mask wearing.
If individuals want to carry on thats fine. But just as I won't criticize them, I'd hope they would not criticize those who no longer where the things.
We should realistically be looking at better approaches to air quality. Using air filters and better building design is easier on people than mask wearing. You may find it easy to wear one, many of us hate it.
The quality of sycophantic back bench Tory MP questions really is dire.
Then, as if by magic, a backbench Labour MP tees Johnson up perfectly.
Any questions about the Bill of Rights?
Raab's weaknesses are well documented on here, but recently he has performed quite strongly, sounded like a conservative, and the successful implementation of the Bill could increase his standing with the faithful.
Not out of the picture for next leader.
He ruled out running in an interview today i believe 'i have said i wouldnt run again'
Professor Tim Spector, of Zoe fame, sounds like a barrel of laughs, must be good at parties
“Face masks and ventilation continue to provide important additional layers of protection – especially in crowded settings. “I still wear a mask, but not a cheap mask – I wear a proper FFP2 or 3 mask,” said Spector. “These new variants are still very much airborne and you need an even smaller amount to get infected, so I think a mask is definitely a good idea when as many as one in 30 people have it again.””
Was it a relative or disciple of his on that bus with you perhaps?
The woman in the plastic bag from Preveza? Lol. Mebbes
I always somehow remember Prof Spector as being a voice of sanity. Yet he is STILL wearing a mask, and not just any mask - a proper FFP2 or FFP3!! - all the time, it seems.
I get that he really wants to avoid Covid A LOT but has he not got the brain space to work out that many other people have balanced the risks, realised that Covid is here to stay, and opted for a modest dash of extra danger, in return for a real human life of smiles and laughter and unmasked faces?
We cannot wear masks for the rest of time. Down with the Mask Taliban
If you are going to wear a mask, and you can afford it, of course you should choose a proper one. Wearing a less effective one is the worst option of all.
OR do not wear one, because Covid is with us forever and masks are horrible
No they aren't. It's a state of mind.
Wore one in Asia where it's de rigueur. It becomes second nature, like wearing knickers or underpants.
It’s not de rigueur in Asia
It’s de rigueur when you have a respiratory illness (cold, flu, etc) and you do it as a courtesy to others, in crowded places, transport, etc
THAT is a habit we should borrow. For sure. But healthy people in Bangkok, or Tokyo, or Hong Kong, or Shanghai, pre Covid, did not go around wearing masks in bars or streets or restaurants or schools or offices or trains, because masks are horrible
I note that Thailand is now dropping nearly all mask restrictions from July 1
A few days ago I commented that the problem with the strike was that it didn't have a clearly articulated purpose.
Well, the Mick Lynch media blitz has fixed that... And more. The big shift in support has come from a lot of people recognizing the argument and saying "hey, that applies to me too."
Yes, Lynch is really earning his salary - I can't remember a union leader who puts the case as clearly, calmly and with a dash of dry wit. (I don't care what he thinks about the Labour Party, Ukraine, or anything else.)
In fairness he's sitting there with 7 or 8 hearts in his hand and the government has just declared them trumps, having completely misread the situation.
In what regard? I get that people might be thinking "yeah, they deserve a higher pay rise, and so do I", but there was a notable lack of "chaos" yesterday. The government can afford to sit back and let them go on strike again and again and again.
In regard to public opinion. The majority are not annoyed at the inconvenience and support the strikes. That is not what the government wanted. The government has come across as completely unreasonable by not allowing the management to make an offer until the day after the first strike. Claims that the Union were not negotiating have been effectively demolished by Lynch whose blunt style is well suited to such disingenuousness.
The number annoyed may increase as the number of strike days increase but other unions settling for circa 7% in the same industry show where this needs to go.
But isn't it to the government's advantage that people aren't annoyed? The media are obsessed with the strikes at the moment. They might not be so interested when they are on strike for the 10th time later this year.
No, the government chose this fight for the political advantage they thought it would give them (Labour's strikes etc). It has nothing to do with economics or the running of the railway business. If it was the focus would be on different points and a genuine attempt to resolve it would have been made before the strikes began. People being sympathetic and not cross was not the desired outcome.
Really? Surely the most important thing is that government doesn't give in on pay because they'll have the rest of the public sector queuing up for similar pay increases.
Absolutely spot on. High pay rises from public and private sector prolonging the inflation cost of living crisis is an existential threat to the re election of this government. This is a battle to the death for this government, they cannot give an inch on the pay rises being demanded.
Hence it was Starmer who had a subdued Boris over a barrel at PMQs today, with the “the nation wants you to sit down and sort the strike out” attack line, which Boris can’t do - I actually think would if he could - he can’t give in to the unions on pay. Starmer will just keep repeating that line now: you are in government, talk and sort it. But Boris can’t, the government can only hold out till the Union caves - if the government signed a deal to green light higher pay they will be stoking the fire that burns their election hopes.
And that is how a rather subdued and boring PMQs went today if you missed it - I actually thought it looked like a TV play, anyone on PB could have written all the questions and answers they were that boringly predictable, and the actors were just going through the motions.
I’m beginning to think if the General election is held in 28 months time it will produce the same result as if held today, Labour beating Boris by 5%, the die is cast already.
The quality of sycophantic back bench Tory MP questions really is dire.
Then, as if by magic, a backbench Labour MP tees Johnson up perfectly.
Any questions about the Bill of Rights?
Raab's weaknesses are well documented on here, but recently he has performed quite strongly, sounded like a conservative, and the successful implementation of the Bill could increase his standing with the faithful.
Not out of the picture for next leader.
He ruled out running in an interview today i believe 'i have said i wouldnt run again'
I found this table on state pension rises. If you look at it, the state pension has cumulatively risen by around 45% over 11 years. Whereas, as I understand it, public sector pay rises have been frozen at 0.5 - 1% for the whole time. What is explosive is the prospective April 2023 rise to the state pension, if it is CPI, it could be 10%.
The government make things worse by just going on about how people must 'take the pain' etc. They have just themselves to blame. There was bound to be a eventual reckoning for such a divisive and unfair policy.
State pension triple lock: rises since 2011 Financial year State pension rise Based on 2011/12 4.6% RPI 2012/13 5.2% CPI 2013/14 2.5% 2.5% 2014/15 2.7% CPI 2015/16 2.5% 2.5% 2016/17 2.9% Earnings 2017/18 2.5% 2.5% 2018/19 3% CPI 2019/20 2.6% Earnings 2020/21 3.9% Earnings 2021/22 2.5% 2.5% 2022/23 3.1% CPI
It would be interesting to see the FT chart updated with the latest figures.
Of course today's pensioners were working in Thatcher's day, not pensioners. So if it was good enough for their parents to have the link broken, and not saved for, then why isn't it good enough for them?
Boomers eh? They screwed over their parents. Then they screwed over their kids. The most selfish generation.
What rubbish, thanks to boomers their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them.
You are assuming they do not need care and nursing over several years
My son in law's parents have already burned through £200,000+ in nursing care costs though his mother has recently died
3/4 of over 65s will not need social care or will die beforehand
Ok so we have chopped out 25% from the list who will benefit, although for all I know you have just made up that figure or got it from some disreputable internet source or (most likely) have misunderstood something you have read. Now lets deal with the 75% left:
a) What percentage will inherit nothing or an amount that is meaningless in terms of long term existence. So all those whose parents are renting, have a significant mortgage, have to live off of their accumulated wealth, have multiple children (or any combination of that list). That is the parents have little to give.
b) What percentage are going to inherit at a time in life where it is pointless.
c) What percentage simply don't need to inherit.
Now just to show how common those are my circumstances fit into all 3 as well as @Big_G_NorthWales case. My father has little to give me. I don't need it anyway as I am considerably richer than him. I am 67 and I have never inherited anything (most people won't until their 60s). Unlike him (who lives off of a civil service pension) I don't have any pension (other than the state) so will be living off my wealth, so I (or more importantly my children) have no idea if they will inherit from me. I also have no idea if my father at 96 will need care to be paid for (it seems likely and it is amazing that so far he has needed none).
Can I suggest you live in a fantasy world where the children inherit the family home or business or farm at 40 and everything carries on to the 1950's middle/upper class sunset.
I have just hit 40 and sadly already know some of my contemporary who have lost either 1 or both parents well before they reached 80, let alone 90 or 100
You keep referring to Stats, although I know you really don't understand the maths of them, but we have been here before but in response to that it is now anecdotes. To leave money to your children clearly they must have been born and you needed to be alive to produce them. The average person has children around the age of 30ish so if you now do a life expectancy for a 30 something you can progress with the calculation. Now you have to adjust that life expectancy to be not for one person, but for both dying because you don't inherit until both parents die. That increases the age again.
Sometime ago I did that calc using ONS data and a bit of maths and it comes out at an average of about 63 - 65. When I posted that others confirmed the ball park with info they looked up.
If you are going to keep quoting stats at us then don't go back to anecdotes which are meaningless. We all sadly know people who have sadly died in there 40s, 50s, 60s and well as children and teens. It does stop the maths that tell you the average age of inheritance is in your 60s.
Well if we are talking averages most people will still be alive in their 60s when they get that big inheritance with about 20 years of life left too
Yes they will be, but you seem (as usual) to have cherry picked the information and/or gone off on a tangent. So if you go back to my original reply you will see that for many/most although they will be alive there will not be a big inheritance or if there is they will not need it (In their 30s handy, in their 60s less so). Your scenario is only available to a single defined set of people, all the others are just buggered or inheriting at the point where they don't need it anyway.
You don't seem to be able to hold more than one pair of linked facts in your head at one time.
I repeat my circumstance and one or more will apply to many/most people:
a) There is little to inherit. We don't all have family farms and businesses b) If there was stuff to inherit I don't need it anyway at 67+ (I am at least 10x wealthier than my Dad, so pointless) c) If my Dad needs care, I will be paying for that (negative inheritance)
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. What a pathetic notion to be grateful for.
I'd rather have a lifetime of being able to spend my own money, than get a windfall when I'm already elderly myself.
Inheritances in your 60s are utterly pointless. I'd challenge that. They're less useful than at say 30 but you'd be able to help your own kids or grandkids out.
In which case that gets back to the notion that 60s isn't that useful compared to earlier in life - and if "helping out" others is a good idea, why wasn't it done while the person bequeathing the inheritance was alive in the first place?
Far better than the grandkids can all achieve an income on their own merits rather than relying upon the fatality of others to help them out.
They can do both but in London and much of the Home counties inheritances are key to getting deposits and on the property ladder for all but the highest earners
So fix that. That isn't good enough.
Inheritances should never be required for anyone who works for a living to get a deposit.
I agree with your sentiment: “fix that”. We’ve had 12 years of Conservative PMs who haven’t fixed it. I wonder if maybe the solution therefore is to vote in a PM from another party…?
Maybe.
There were some good reforms done when George Osborne was Chancellor that reversed some of the damage inflicted in the Blair and Brown years. Not seen much good in recent years from any party though, the originally proposed planning reforms this government were proposing were very sound, but were defeated by NIMBY backbenchers like Theresa May moaning about "mutant algorithms" and the Lib Dems winning a by-election by campaigning on NIMBYism.
If another party comes up with better proposals, I would be interested in hearing them, sadly none seem to right now.
How did Theresa and the Lib Dems overturn Boris's landside majority?
It had to happen eventually - I've caught Covid. Surprised not to have done so earlier, but, also, I'm glad that I didn't catch the vomiting virus that also spread at the wedding we went to last week.
Both myself and my wife remain COVID free. I have no idea why.
Its certainly interesting. I'm in the same boat. There are a lot of theories. You may have a pre-existing immunity from another coronavirus. You may have had it completely asymptomatic. The vaccine may have induced a sufficient level of protection that you don't get sick. You may have not inhaled enough virus.
There are studies looking at people who have not had covid, particularly NHS staff in the pre-vaccine period. One colleague was enrolled, but then just before the testing started she caught covid.
You will probably fall like a domino eventually, not least because the variants keep coming, so if it is a pre-existing immunity, chances are it will get bypassed eventually.
For now - enjoy it. Of those i know who have had it, there has been a wide range of responses.
Interestingly, one paper was recently published (https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/156372/pdf) indicating that cross-reactive immunity to two of the existing cold coronaviruses ( HCoV-OC43 and HCoV- HKU1, the first especially) was associated with worse outcomes.
Essentially, the immune system had imprinted on those before, saw similarities in the spike, and respopnded by rolling out its usual response to those two HCoVs. Which was massively insufficient, and by the time it had responded further, the virus had got far further.
(And, as older people will have had more exposure to those and greater chance of "original antigenic sin" being triggered, it would be one of the many contributors to worse outcomes as you aged)
I am working out where to go next, after I’ve finished Armenia and Georgia. I’ve kind of had enough of post USSR states, charmingly ramshackle as they are. That said, I am drawn to the Stans, particularly Kyrgyzstan, which looks small enough to see in a week
But where else could I go within striking distance of the Caucasus? I don’t want to double back to europe. Is there anywhere in India that has decent weather in July? Ladakh sounds like it does, but what the hell is Ladakh?!
Professor Tim Spector, of Zoe fame, sounds like a barrel of laughs, must be good at parties
“Face masks and ventilation continue to provide important additional layers of protection – especially in crowded settings. “I still wear a mask, but not a cheap mask – I wear a proper FFP2 or 3 mask,” said Spector. “These new variants are still very much airborne and you need an even smaller amount to get infected, so I think a mask is definitely a good idea when as many as one in 30 people have it again.””
Was it a relative or disciple of his on that bus with you perhaps?
The woman in the plastic bag from Preveza? Lol. Mebbes
I always somehow remember Prof Spector as being a voice of sanity. Yet he is STILL wearing a mask, and not just any mask - a proper FFP2 or FFP3!! - all the time, it seems.
I get that he really wants to avoid Covid A LOT but has he not got the brain space to work out that many other people have balanced the risks, realised that Covid is here to stay, and opted for a modest dash of extra danger, in return for a real human life of smiles and laughter and unmasked faces?
We cannot wear masks for the rest of time. Down with the Mask Taliban
If you are going to wear a mask, and you can afford it, of course you should choose a proper one. Wearing a less effective one is the worst option of all.
OR do not wear one, because Covid is with us forever and masks are horrible
I hate masks with a passion, but I was surprised that wearing a good quality one on public transport in London over Easter was sufficient to prevent me from catching Covid then, while a family wedding (obviously without masks) has meant that I've caught it now.
My wife is still wearing a mask around the house though. She has Covid. I have Covid. Her mother has Covid. Her Dad will have Covid after sharing a car with her mom for four hours as they drive back from Roscommon. Some people are a bit strange about masks.
Hopefully the vaccines will do their thing for us and, after we recover, her fear will have abated. And then the masking can stop.
Comments
London meanwhile becomes a city just for a few very rich high earning home owners with the vast majority renting and even more based on immigration from abroad than now!
You have put everyone in the country in one set/basket that most of us aren't in.
Gonna be fascinating on Friday morning (assume it is overnight count??).
I am in the incredibly fortunate position that I have reached the age of 40 myself while still having not only my parents but almost all of my grandparents still alive. I only went to my first funeral for my nan a few months ago after she passed away. My wife has lost all of her grandparents, most of them when she was a teenager before I met her - and she commented mournfully the other day that she knew my nan while we were together for longer than she knew her own nan. I am grateful that my nan and my other grandparents lived long enough to see my own children and get to know them themselves, I feel sorry for my wife that none of her grandparents lives long enough to see her get married or have children.
I am incredibly grateful that I have had a lifetime of knowing my parents and grandparents. I feel sorry for those that don't. I have never received, nor wanted, a penny of inheritance. All I have wanted is love and happiness for my family, that is what family is for.
I do not desire to leave any inheritance for my children. I hope to ideally live to see my children grow up, be happy, get their own jobs, get married and walk them down the aisle, for them to have children and maybe even live long enough to see them have grandchildren of their own. I wish that they will be happy and provided for, with a home of their own, while I am still alive.
I don't intend to see my children want, to only be supported after I am gone and they can have my leftovers.
You are a Liberal, why should we Tories care what you think about inheritances anyway? Support for inheritance is one of the core principles of our party and voters not yours!
People should be able to buy their own homes, from their own work. If they can't, that's fucked up and needs fixing. There is absolutely no justification for ever needing an inheritance and if you do and don't get one, then "tough".
Long story short, I think, they acted to avoid tax but in the end it didn't make any difference as the rules were changed.
(I don't claim any great merits from myself on this, but I'm acutely aware of it.)
Money can be very useful, but it's just money.
Much sympathy.
“Face masks and ventilation continue to provide important additional layers of protection – especially in crowded settings. “I still wear a mask, but not a cheap mask – I wear a proper FFP2 or 3 mask,” said Spector. “These new variants are still very much airborne and you need an even smaller amount to get infected, so I think a mask is definitely a good idea when as many as one in 30 people have it again.””
He’s still living in a diving helmet
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/22/uk-worried-rising-covid-infections?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Where I might agree with you is that I do not feel it is right to expect tax payers to foot the bill for my old age care so that I can pass on a £1M+ house to my kids. that is a bit more troubling.
If he's the top lawyer he's supposed to be, the law must be in a really poor state.
(runs for cover...)
London is a global city now and will always thus have expensive properties and owning a home will always be out of reach of the average Londoner without Inheritances unless you slash immigration to near zero
I'd disagree about inheritances in your 60s.
You either need it to give a comfortable retirement, or you have that so you can usefully give it away.
The expressed hatred for "pensioners who voted for Thatcher" or "boomers" is weird.
Thatcher's highest share of the vote was 43.9%.
Presumably people who say such things are happy being demonised as "the generation that voted for Boris Johnson".
Ah god. That’s sobering. My sympathies
I always read his comments, they were sagacious and judicious
As that just isn't the real world I don't see how boosterism helps the Tories now.
However you joined the conversation halfway through, I suggest you go back and read the chain of comments that led to that response - HYUFD was suggest an inheritance should be necessary to get a home of your own, an inheritance should only ever be something nice to have, rather than necessary to have.
It should be preferable that people are able to get a home and a deposit from their own savings, from their own job, ideally if they are fortunate enough while their loved ones are still alive and can see them get it too, rather than saying "wait for an inheritance and then you might get a deposit". Can we agree on that point?
Dafuq?
People buy their own homes in global cities from their own incomes all over the world. Global cities come with global pay rates.
Don't tax people too much, and people can keep enough of their income that they can pay for their own deposit rather than waiting for the lottery of somebody dying.
Firstly you were looking at everyone in the UK. Now you are just down to London and the South East.
There go those jet powered goal posts of yours again.
Then you end with 'I am a liberal so why should you consider what I think'. I haven't actually said what I think at all I am just pointing out what you are saying is factual nonsense so actually it doesn't matter whether what my views are at all. What I am is of no relevance to this discussion
Now you have again (because you either don't read or don't understand the posts) assumed the subset I was talking about was the one you just invented for £400K - £600K homes. Something I didn't ever mention.
Of course there will be people in that subset (again something I have numerous times), but (and I am tired of doing this) there will be people who won't inherit much, there will be people who inherit lots who don't need to inherit (a lot in their 60s when they don't need it), there will be those whose potential inheritance is taken up with care costs, etc, etc.
Try responding to the points made and not what you think I am saying (challenging I know).
Cut the number of staff on the railway, make it easier to fare-dodge.
https://twitter.com/LenMcCluskey/status/1538471071699042304/photo/1
@LenMcCluskey
In the Mirror
@REWearmouth
gets it wrong again, quoting a "Labour source" saying I "nearly bankrupted Unite."
Unite had £50m when I became General Secretary in 2011; it now has £500m—the wealthiest UK union, giving our members real clout.
Good journalists check the facts.
I always somehow remember Prof Spector as being a voice of sanity. Yet he is STILL wearing a mask, and not just any mask - a proper FFP2 or FFP3!! - all the time, it seems.
I get that he really wants to avoid Covid A LOT but has he not got the brain space to work out that many other people have balanced the risks, realised that Covid is here to stay, and opted for a modest dash of extra danger, in return for a real human life of smiles and laughter and unmasked faces?
We cannot wear masks for the rest of time. Down with the Mask Taliban
Russian 2: “Is it Ukrainian?”
Russian 1: “Of course not!”
…💥
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1539547331187572736
As I've said before, perhaps the central, yet under discussed, question underpinning the next Italian election is M5S's willingness and organisational ability to commit fully to the centre left in a national election and that discussion is again notable by its low profile in this split. They helped the left mayoral tickets greatly in locals in the many places they participated, whilst themselves suffering badly in the proportional party vote.
It's perfectly likely both factions will end up on the left ticket, but whenever the election looms the finalisation, or not, of that is liable to be a bit chaotic.
Massively attractive global cities are hugely expensive. Is all
Then, as if by magic, a backbench Labour MP tees Johnson up perfectly.
You could tax the average earning Londoner zero and they still would not have enough to get a deposit to buy the average London property which is about 20 times the average London income now
The only one of her immediate ancestors who is not still alive is her mother who died of MND some 8 years ago!
Most of us are living a lot longer than our grandparents did, and that affects inheritance patterns.
It was later on that you Tories saw the workhouses as a way of exploiting the poor inmates as a form a slave labour, and they became discredited.
The Johnson family are bigger grifters than the Trump family.
Boris Johnson’s father is seeking the removal of a ban that blocks the Chinese ambassador to Britain from the Palace of Westminster as the 81-year-old plans to visit the sanctioned country.
Stanley Johnson intends to retrace the steps of Marco Polo and will visit Xinjiang, home to the Uighur people, who are persecuted by Beijing for their Muslim faith.
In an interview with the South China Morning Post, Johnson described Zheng Zeguang, the Chinese ambassador to Britain, as “a very agreeable, capable and intelligent man” after the two met and talked about his travel plans.
However, his comments mark an embarrassing blow to his son, whose government has joined the European Union, Canada and the United States in sanctioning Chinese officials for human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
The former MEP said that Zheng was enthusiastic about the project, which Johnson said might help improve UK-China relations. He is planning to take his son, Max, the prime minister’s half-brother, with him on the trip.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stanley-johnson-seeks-to-lift-westminster-ban-on-chinese-envoy-before-xinjiang-visit-m6h37rpb9
We deserve a Government that performs its basic duties.
I had an issue with an eye, and so I had an emergency optician's appointment. Given the closeness of optician and customer for a sustained period, it made sense. Everyone in the shop was masked.
Fortunately the issue was nothing serious.
Shouldn't the employers be the ones meeting with unions?
The current Government objects to any constraints on their own power, but they rush to limit what anyone else can do.
Wore one in Asia where it's de rigueur. It becomes second nature, like wearing knickers or underpants.
So today - Boris: "25 of your MPs were on picket lines", Starmer should have been straight back with: "I'd rather have 25 of my MPs on the picket line than 148 of my MPs voting no confidence in me".
He does need to sharpen up, quickly.
Raab's weaknesses are well documented on here, but recently he has performed quite strongly, sounded like a conservative, and the successful implementation of the Bill could increase his standing with the faithful.
Not out of the picture for next leader.
There were some good reforms done when George Osborne was Chancellor that reversed some of the damage inflicted in the Blair and Brown years. Not seen much good in recent years from any party though, the originally proposed planning reforms this government were proposing were very sound, but were defeated by NIMBY backbenchers like Theresa May moaning about "mutant algorithms" and the Lib Dems winning a by-election by campaigning on NIMBYism.
If another party comes up with better proposals, I would be interested in hearing them, sadly none seem to right now.
You can argue that that's a good thing - we still have lots of covid around, and sadly people are still dying, and the NHS is still under pressure. However go to Glastonbury this weekend, or Wimbledon next week, or the pub, or the cinema and you will see that for the vast majority of the country, they no longer regard this as an emergency that warrants mask wearing.
If individuals want to carry on thats fine. But just as I won't criticize them, I'd hope they would not criticize those who no longer where the things.
We should realistically be looking at better approaches to air quality. Using air filters and better building design is easier on people than mask wearing. You may find it easy to wear one, many of us hate it.
It’s de rigueur when you have a respiratory illness (cold, flu, etc) and you do it as a courtesy to others, in crowded places, transport, etc
THAT is a habit we should borrow. For sure. But healthy people in Bangkok, or Tokyo, or Hong Kong, or Shanghai, pre Covid, did not go around wearing masks in bars or streets or restaurants or schools or offices or trains, because masks are horrible
I note that Thailand is now dropping nearly all mask restrictions from July 1
And that is how a rather subdued and boring PMQs went today if you missed it - I actually thought it looked like a TV play, anyone on PB could have written all the questions and answers they were that boringly predictable, and the actors were just going through the motions.
I’m beginning to think if the General election is held in 28 months time it will produce the same result as if held today, Labour beating Boris by 5%, the die is cast already.
Essentially, the immune system had imprinted on those before, saw similarities in the spike, and respopnded by rolling out its usual response to those two HCoVs. Which was massively insufficient, and by the time it had responded further, the virus had got far further.
(And, as older people will have had more exposure to those and greater chance of "original antigenic sin" being triggered, it would be one of the many contributors to worse outcomes as you aged)
I am working out where to go next, after I’ve finished Armenia and Georgia. I’ve kind of had enough of post USSR states, charmingly ramshackle as they are. That said, I am drawn to the Stans, particularly Kyrgyzstan, which looks small enough to see in a week
But where else could I go within striking distance of the Caucasus? I don’t want to double back to europe. Is there anywhere in India that has decent weather in July? Ladakh sounds like it does, but what the hell is Ladakh?!
My wife is still wearing a mask around the house though. She has Covid. I have Covid. Her mother has Covid. Her Dad will have Covid after sharing a car with her mom for four hours as they drive back from Roscommon. Some people are a bit strange about masks.
Hopefully the vaccines will do their thing for us and, after we recover, her fear will have abated. And then the masking can stop.