Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?
Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.
I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.
GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights
Christopher Biggins (rumoured to post on here as Big G) says he voted for Brexit, then says he has “lots of friends with businesses who have suffered badly”.
You are just ridiculous and question my integrity
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
48 hrs solid would be enough to put anyone off.
And in my case it was not 48 hours solid
Did you catch any of Nigel Farage's "Talking Pints"? That's the flagship show. He sits there swigging steadily from a foaming glass of beer and has a reactionary natter about things with a suitably high-blooded guest (also supping ale). The conversational vibe is kind of peeved but humorous, if you can imagine this, and the idea is that you the viewer feel you've wondered into a traditional old pub, got yourself a drink and a seat, and are eavesdropping on a pair of interesting geezers who are saying lots of stuff that has you chuckling and nodding in agreement. It's been doing ok in the ratings and one can understand why. Once you've got it on, even if by accident, which it will be for most, it's a devil of a task to turn it off.
To be fair, Farage's show is actually quite good.
It's not my pint of old wallop but it is a cut above the rest of GB News. Farage is a good and very natural communicator. You can tell he's only there for the beer (as in the money) though. Seems to be subtly taking the piss to my eye.
Clarification Note: All of this, me talking at length about this show, is based on watching the grand total of 20 minutes of one episode. It was the one where his guest was ex-soldier Rusty Firkin (who I hadn't heard of). A few days later he had the darts legend Bobby George on, and I'd bookmarked that, but when it came to it there was a clash with something else and I opted for the something else.
I'd have opted for the almost anything else. Including unnecessary dental treatment.
Can somebody explain to me why young people should pay for the care of the elderly, can somebody explain that coherently
They can't mate, all they have is resorting to calling young people greedy or unpleasant for asking the old to pay their own way. The level of entitlement the generation above have is ridiculous.
They bought all the property, pulled up the ladder, leeched off young people for rent and now are leeching off us again to pay for their care.
Not a single person who supports this NI rise has been able to answer why a retired person with £80k in gross income will get £60.5k net (and receive ~£9k in benefits) while a working person on the same gross income will get £55k net and no benefits.
The whole system is stacked against us and I do fear that this will become the start of a brain drain from the UK as people decide they've had enough of being milked by the old who neglected to save for their old age.
I really do think you are way out by suggesting a retired person receives an £80k gross income nett £60.5, as these are figures I just cannot accept as anything other than for an exceptional few, and the vast majority of pensioners will struggle to see £20k pa, even much less
I would also take to task your attitude to the elderly many of whom suffer health issues consistent with ageing as quite unpleasant and to be honest rather surprising
There is an unpleasantness that has crept into this discussion, especially when the debate gets personalised.
@MaxPB stop being a dick. I, and many others, basically agree with what you’re saying, but the way you say it seriously undermines our argument.
I'm fed up of being polite, all it results in is being milked for tax by the selfish and thankless generation above.
Being impolite won't affect that result either though, it happens not because younger people do not object, but because of political calculation.
We've been polite until now and it hasn't helped, impolite could change that. I've had enough of doffing my cap to old people who got everything and then pulled up all the ladders.
I acxtually sympathise with that a lot. What happened about university fees and grants still upsets me veyr badly - how I benefited from that, first generation in my family etc., but today ...
In the days when today’s pensioners were potential students, only the cream of the crop got to go to Uni. Now that it’s a coin toss, the kids have to pay for the privilege. So I don’t think telling today’s 68 year olds how lucky they were not to pay tuition fees really works.
It’s like the football clubs that talent spot every other kid over the park, and invite them to train at one of their academies… then give the parents the bill for kit, and coaching. Too many go, and it’s pointless
We're running into a nomenclatorial issue; I went in the days when unis were unis, Polys were Polys, and FECs were FECs. But even then quite a few children got to uni.
50 years ago about 10% went to university, so by and large most of them ended up in the top 10% of income earners.
Now about 40% go to university so about 3/4 of them will end up on pretty average salaries but with student debt to pay off too
Be fascinating if this policy even goes ahead, why do I get the sense this is yet again Government by focus group
I'm just waiting for the first MPs to break ranks and ask 'How will this play in the Red Wall?' Only they matter of course.
It'll play well in the Red Wall. Older. Fewer working as a percentage. Much of the anger on here seems to be from folk on six figures.
No, the anger here seems to be from people who work on varying levels of earnings.
NI doesn't kick in at £100k, you're out by a factor of ten. It kicks in at below £10,000.
I Never said that. I said it would play well in the Red Wall. It will. That is the Tory Party now. The free market is like some vivid dream four hours later. Aware that it happened. You can recall the emotions it stirred. But the details have been long since lost.
I'm not sure it will.
Do you really think housing wealth to be inherited is highest in the Red Wall?
No. But looking after our own. Especially the old dears who've worked hard all their lives, will. If a few pampered, genderfluid, avocado munching snowflakes in that there London have to pay a bit more, then quite right too! Only fair. They don't have proper jobs anyway. They are always on their computer thingies.
Pray for those trapped in the £100-125k bracket 🙏🏻
Be fascinating if this policy even goes ahead, why do I get the sense this is yet again Government by focus group
I'm just waiting for the first MPs to break ranks and ask 'How will this play in the Red Wall?' Only they matter of course.
It'll play well in the Red Wall. Older. Fewer working as a percentage. Much of the anger on here seems to be from folk on six figures.
No, the anger here seems to be from people who work on varying levels of earnings.
NI doesn't kick in at £100k, you're out by a factor of ten. It kicks in at below £10,000.
I Never said that. I said it would play well in the Red Wall. It will. That is the Tory Party now. The free market is like some vivid dream four hours later. Aware that it happened. You can recall the emotions it stirred. But the details have been long since lost.
I'm not sure it will.
Do you really think housing wealth to be inherited is highest in the Red Wall?
No. But looking after our own. Especially the old dears who've worked hard all their lives, will. If a few pampered, genderfluid, avocado munching snowflakes in that there London have to pay a bit more, then quite right too! Only fair. They don't have proper jobs anyway. They are always on their computer thingies.
Pray for those trapped in the £100-125k bracket 🙏🏻
Perhaps we can start a crowdfunder to help them
Surely Sir Ed Davey will be starting a crowdfund from them for a donation judging by some of their views on here?
Can somebody explain to me why young people should pay for the care of the elderly, can somebody explain that coherently
They can't mate, all they have is resorting to calling young people greedy or unpleasant for asking the old to pay their own way. The level of entitlement the generation above have is ridiculous.
They bought all the property, pulled up the ladder, leeched off young people for rent and now are leeching off us again to pay for their care.
Not a single person who supports this NI rise has been able to answer why a retired person with £80k in gross income will get £60.5k net (and receive ~£9k in benefits) while a working person on the same gross income will get £55k net and no benefits.
The whole system is stacked against us and I do fear that this will become the start of a brain drain from the UK as people decide they've had enough of being milked by the old who neglected to save for their old age.
I really do think you are way out by suggesting a retired person receives an £80k gross income nett £60.5, as these are figures I just cannot accept as anything other than for an exceptional few, and the vast majority of pensioners will struggle to see £20k pa, even much less
I would also take to task your attitude to the elderly many of whom suffer health issues consistent with ageing as quite unpleasant and to be honest rather surprising
There is an unpleasantness that has crept into this discussion, especially when the debate gets personalised.
@MaxPB stop being a dick. I, and many others, basically agree with what you’re saying, but the way you say it seriously undermines our argument.
I'm fed up of being polite, all it results in is being milked for tax by the selfish and thankless generation above.
Being impolite won't affect that result either though, it happens not because younger people do not object, but because of political calculation.
We've been polite until now and it hasn't helped, impolite could change that. I've had enough of doffing my cap to old people who got everything and then pulled up all the ladders.
I acxtually sympathise with that a lot. What happened about university fees and grants still upsets me veyr badly - how I benefited from that, first generation in my family etc., but today ...
In the days when today’s pensioners were potential students, only the cream of the crop got to go to Uni. Now that it’s a coin toss, the kids have to pay for the privilege. So I don’t think telling today’s 68 year olds how lucky they were not to pay tuition fees really works.
It’s like the football clubs that talent spot every other kid over the park, and invite them to train at one of their academies… then give the parents the bill for kit, and coaching. Too many go, and it’s pointless
We're running into a nomenclatorial issue; I went in the days when unis were unis, Polys were Polys, and FECs were FECs. But even then quite a few children got to uni.
50 years ago about 10% went to university, so by and large most of them ended up in the top 10% of income earners.
Now about 40% go to university so about 3/4 of them will end up on pretty average salaries but with student debt to pay off too
But the definition of University has been stretched to include polys and FECS as well - effectively absorbing or replacing the latter two. So not that much difference in further education overall. Apart from the grants and fees.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% chance of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear; I know it won't be but I can't be arsed for such a trivial difference) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
Can somebody explain to me why young people should pay for the care of the elderly, can somebody explain that coherently
They can't mate, all they have is resorting to calling young people greedy or unpleasant for asking the old to pay their own way. The level of entitlement the generation above have is ridiculous.
They bought all the property, pulled up the ladder, leeched off young people for rent and now are leeching off us again to pay for their care.
Not a single person who supports this NI rise has been able to answer why a retired person with £80k in gross income will get £60.5k net (and receive ~£9k in benefits) while a working person on the same gross income will get £55k net and no benefits.
The whole system is stacked against us and I do fear that this will become the start of a brain drain from the UK as people decide they've had enough of being milked by the old who neglected to save for their old age.
I really do think you are way out by suggesting a retired person receives an £80k gross income nett £60.5, as these are figures I just cannot accept as anything other than for an exceptional few, and the vast majority of pensioners will struggle to see £20k pa, even much less
I would also take to task your attitude to the elderly many of whom suffer health issues consistent with ageing as quite unpleasant and to be honest rather surprising
There is an unpleasantness that has crept into this discussion, especially when the debate gets personalised.
@MaxPB stop being a dick. I, and many others, basically agree with what you’re saying, but the way you say it seriously undermines our argument.
I'm fed up of being polite, all it results in is being milked for tax by the selfish and thankless generation above.
Being impolite won't affect that result either though, it happens not because younger people do not object, but because of political calculation.
We've been polite until now and it hasn't helped, impolite could change that. I've had enough of doffing my cap to old people who got everything and then pulled up all the ladders.
I acxtually sympathise with that a lot. What happened about university fees and grants still upsets me veyr badly - how I benefited from that, first generation in my family etc., but today ...
In the days when today’s pensioners were potential students, only the cream of the crop got to go to Uni. Now that it’s a coin toss, the kids have to pay for the privilege. So I don’t think telling today’s 68 year olds how lucky they were not to pay tuition fees really works.
It’s like the football clubs that talent spot every other kid over the park, and invite them to train at one of their academies… then give the parents the bill for kit, and coaching. Too many go, and it’s pointless
We're running into a nomenclatorial issue; I went in the days when unis were unis, Polys were Polys, and FECs were FECs. But even then quite a few children got to uni.
50 years ago about 10% went to university, so by and large most of them ended up in the top 10% of income earners.
Now about 40% go to university so about 3/4 of them will end up on pretty average salaries but with student debt to pay off too
But all of that was Conservative policy, Young HY. You have nothing to complain about.
Can somebody explain to me why young people should pay for the care of the elderly, can somebody explain that coherently
They can't mate, all they have is resorting to calling young people greedy or unpleasant for asking the old to pay their own way. The level of entitlement the generation above have is ridiculous.
They bought all the property, pulled up the ladder, leeched off young people for rent and now are leeching off us again to pay for their care.
Not a single person who supports this NI rise has been able to answer why a retired person with £80k in gross income will get £60.5k net (and receive ~£9k in benefits) while a working person on the same gross income will get £55k net and no benefits.
The whole system is stacked against us and I do fear that this will become the start of a brain drain from the UK as people decide they've had enough of being milked by the old who neglected to save for their old age.
I really do think you are way out by suggesting a retired person receives an £80k gross income nett £60.5, as these are figures I just cannot accept as anything other than for an exceptional few, and the vast majority of pensioners will struggle to see £20k pa, even much less
I would also take to task your attitude to the elderly many of whom suffer health issues consistent with ageing as quite unpleasant and to be honest rather surprising
There is an unpleasantness that has crept into this discussion, especially when the debate gets personalised.
@MaxPB stop being a dick. I, and many others, basically agree with what you’re saying, but the way you say it seriously undermines our argument.
I'm fed up of being polite, all it results in is being milked for tax by the selfish and thankless generation above.
Being impolite won't affect that result either though, it happens not because younger people do not object, but because of political calculation.
We've been polite until now and it hasn't helped, impolite could change that. I've had enough of doffing my cap to old people who got everything and then pulled up all the ladders.
I acxtually sympathise with that a lot. What happened about university fees and grants still upsets me veyr badly - how I benefited from that, first generation in my family etc., but today ...
In the days when today’s pensioners were potential students, only the cream of the crop got to go to Uni. Now that it’s a coin toss, the kids have to pay for the privilege. So I don’t think telling today’s 68 year olds how lucky they were not to pay tuition fees really works.
It’s like the football clubs that talent spot every other kid over the park, and invite them to train at one of their academies… then give the parents the bill for kit, and coaching. Too many go, and it’s pointless
We're running into a nomenclatorial issue; I went in the days when unis were unis, Polys were Polys, and FECs were FECs. But even then quite a few children got to uni.
50 years ago about 10% went to university, so by and large most of them ended up in the top 10% of income earners.
Now about 40% go to university so about 3/4 of them will end up on pretty average salaries but with student debt to pay off too
The New Statesman article on the decline of labour, linked elsewhere, which is well worth reading makes the point under New Labour Blair The belief was the vast majority of jobs in the future would require degrees as we moved to a knowledge based economy. These people have been sold a lie and we have a lack of skilled people in areas that don’t need degrees, such as truck drivers, as younger people stopped moving into the profession.
Can somebody explain to me why young people should pay for the care of the elderly, can somebody explain that coherently
They can't mate, all they have is resorting to calling young people greedy or unpleasant for asking the old to pay their own way. The level of entitlement the generation above have is ridiculous.
They bought all the property, pulled up the ladder, leeched off young people for rent and now are leeching off us again to pay for their care.
Not a single person who supports this NI rise has been able to answer why a retired person with £80k in gross income will get £60.5k net (and receive ~£9k in benefits) while a working person on the same gross income will get £55k net and no benefits.
The whole system is stacked against us and I do fear that this will become the start of a brain drain from the UK as people decide they've had enough of being milked by the old who neglected to save for their old age.
I really do think you are way out by suggesting a retired person receives an £80k gross income nett £60.5, as these are figures I just cannot accept as anything other than for an exceptional few, and the vast majority of pensioners will struggle to see £20k pa, even much less
I would also take to task your attitude to the elderly many of whom suffer health issues consistent with ageing as quite unpleasant and to be honest rather surprising
There is an unpleasantness that has crept into this discussion, especially when the debate gets personalised.
@MaxPB stop being a dick. I, and many others, basically agree with what you’re saying, but the way you say it seriously undermines our argument.
I'm fed up of being polite, all it results in is being milked for tax by the selfish and thankless generation above.
Being impolite won't affect that result either though, it happens not because younger people do not object, but because of political calculation.
We've been polite until now and it hasn't helped, impolite could change that. I've had enough of doffing my cap to old people who got everything and then pulled up all the ladders.
I acxtually sympathise with that a lot. What happened about university fees and grants still upsets me veyr badly - how I benefited from that, first generation in my family etc., but today ...
In the days when today’s pensioners were potential students, only the cream of the crop got to go to Uni. Now that it’s a coin toss, the kids have to pay for the privilege. So I don’t think telling today’s 68 year olds how lucky they were not to pay tuition fees really works.
It’s like the football clubs that talent spot every other kid over the park, and invite them to train at one of their academies… then give the parents the bill for kit, and coaching. Too many go, and it’s pointless
We're running into a nomenclatorial issue; I went in the days when unis were unis, Polys were Polys, and FECs were FECs. But even then quite a few children got to uni.
50 years ago about 10% went to university, so by and large most of them ended up in the top 10% of income earners.
Now about 40% go to university so about 3/4 of them will end up on pretty average salaries but with student debt to pay off too
But all of that was Conservative policy, Young HY. You have nothing to complain about.
That too, with a little help latterly from the LDs tbf.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
So build more properties in the areas where the demand is highest.
Congratulations! Being under 40 I assume you won't actually work hard though. I mean that's what under 40s do apparently.
Something else worth mentioning, is that jobs for life don't really exist anymore. I worked with a few older folks who had been in the same job 20+ years, good pay rises, great pension etc. I've moved jobs three times and I'm not very old.
Now of course that comes with its own benefits, much bigger pay rises etc but it's a lot more stressful and difficult than it was even a few years ago. And this so I can afford to do things most people who are older could do quite easily.
And I am told I don't work hard, I am proud of what I do.
Yeah I completely agree, the last two times I've moved jobs both came with payrises that weren't available for people who stuck with the company. I can't imagine staying in a job for more than five years. Most of my friends would say more than three years.
Inertia is a powerful force. I'm not ambitious enough, I dislike disruption, and I don't currently have any personal pressures that would serve as pull factors. I do know people who have moved to jobs which are less well payed in part because longer, stable prospects hold an appeal, so I think there will always be some looking for a life job, but not many are available as there are push factors of cutbacks etc.
Define "not ambitious enough." If you're doing a job that you're good at, it's not particularly stressful and you're being paid enough to live reasonably comfortably, then perhaps you'd rather not expend vast amounts of time and energy on "career progression" and greasy pole climbing?
Yours truly has been working for the same firm for 17 years and counting, and has no intention of moving on unless forced. If I flogged myself half to death going into management (for which I wouldn't be suitable anyway) or schlepping round the country every few years trying to progress into slightly better paid roles each time, then what would I get out of it? Probably a house instead of a flat, followed by a coronary. A pointless waste of finite time and energy.
I agree (in fact I have recently stepped up the greasy pole a little, at least temporarily but we'll see), but I sometimes think our culture does not look kindly on people who are, well, content with moderate goals. Who might occasionally want an adventure or more money but don't feel they miss out if they don't and don't work very hard toward it. All those questions about where you see where yourself going in 5 years, how they can help you develop and progress, they are well meaning, but there can seem an undercurrent of expecting everyone wanting that. That it's wrong to not want it. That isn't intended, I know, it might be unfair, but sometimes it feels like I'd odd for not having that drive. (I am odd, but for different reasons).
I remember being struck by the thought watching Criminal on Netflix, where a junior detective talks about not being ambitious, and how you're not allowed to say that these days, and it rather stuck with me.
That's completely right. One of the things I find most difficult to negotiate at work is the pointless targets for improvement that they try to foist on us every year (and everybody gets them, including a colleague who is only a couple of years from retirement.) The notion that people who are employed in vital functions, and who not only don't particularly want to expand their horizons but who don't even need to do that for the greater good of the business, might be best left alone just to get on with the bloody job seems to be anathema. It's deeply irritating.
Yes, that's an interesting and AFAIK little-explored point. I used to know a GP who decided he wanted a quiet life and took an administrative job in the pharma company where I worked. He did it for 15 years, efficiently and uncomplainingly, and retired happy. Of course he could have earned more as a GP, but he didn't care. Is that wrong? Hard to say why, apart from the waste of training.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
Be fascinating if this policy even goes ahead, why do I get the sense this is yet again Government by focus group
I'm just waiting for the first MPs to break ranks and ask 'How will this play in the Red Wall?' Only they matter of course.
It'll play well in the Red Wall. Older. Fewer working as a percentage. Much of the anger on here seems to be from folk on six figures.
No, the anger here seems to be from people who work on varying levels of earnings.
NI doesn't kick in at £100k, you're out by a factor of ten. It kicks in at below £10,000.
I Never said that. I said it would play well in the Red Wall. It will. That is the Tory Party now. The free market is like some vivid dream four hours later. Aware that it happened. You can recall the emotions it stirred. But the details have been long since lost.
I'm not sure it will.
Do you really think housing wealth to be inherited is highest in the Red Wall?
No. But looking after our own. Especially the old dears who've worked hard all their lives, will. If a few pampered, genderfluid, avocado munching snowflakes in that there London have to pay a bit more, then quite right too! Only fair. They don't have proper jobs anyway. They are always on their computer thingies.
Pray for those trapped in the £100-125k bracket 🙏🏻
Perhaps we can start a crowdfunder to help them
Surely Sir Ed Davey will be starting a crowdfund from them for a donation judging by some of their views on here?
I dream of the day my headers are sandwiched by posts from party leaders! Of course, OGH may well find that he could do better than me for those posts too, in such a scenario.
Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?
Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.
I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.
GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights
Christopher Biggins (rumoured to post on here as Big G) says he voted for Brexit, then says he has “lots of friends with businesses who have suffered badly”.
You are just ridiculous and question my integrity
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
48 hrs solid would be enough to put anyone off.
And in my case it was not 48 hours solid
Did you catch any of Nigel Farage's "Talking Pints"? That's the flagship show. He sits there swigging steadily from a foaming glass of beer and has a reactionary natter about things with a suitably high-blooded guest (also supping ale). The conversational vibe is kind of peeved but humorous, if you can imagine this, and the idea is that you the viewer feel you've wondered into a traditional old pub, got yourself a drink and a seat, and are eavesdropping on a pair of interesting geezers who are saying lots of stuff that has you chuckling and nodding in agreement. It's been doing ok in the ratings and one can understand why. Once you've got it on, even if by accident, which it will be for most, it's a devil of a task to turn it off.
To be fair, Farage's show is actually quite good.
It's not my pint of old wallop but it is a cut above the rest of GB News. Farage is a good and very natural communicator. You can tell he's only there for the beer (as in the money) though. Seems to be subtly taking the piss to my eye.
Clarification Note: All of this, me talking at length about this show, is based on watching the grand total of 20 minutes of one episode. It was the one where his guest was ex-soldier Rusty Firkin (who I hadn't heard of). A few days later he had the darts legend Bobby George on, and I'd bookmarked that, but when it came to it there was a clash with something else and I opted for the something else.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
So build more properties in the areas where the demand is highest.
That would only make a real difference if all of them were affordable for first time buyers, immigration was reduced to cut demand and London ceased to be a global city with vast sums of foreign property investment and even high earning Londoners priced out of London then buying property in the Home Counties pushing up prices there too.
London and the South East also wants to protect its greenbelt, not become a vast urban sprawl
Congratulations! Being under 40 I assume you won't actually work hard though. I mean that's what under 40s do apparently.
Something else worth mentioning, is that jobs for life don't really exist anymore. I worked with a few older folks who had been in the same job 20+ years, good pay rises, great pension etc. I've moved jobs three times and I'm not very old.
Now of course that comes with its own benefits, much bigger pay rises etc but it's a lot more stressful and difficult than it was even a few years ago. And this so I can afford to do things most people who are older could do quite easily.
And I am told I don't work hard, I am proud of what I do.
Yeah I completely agree, the last two times I've moved jobs both came with payrises that weren't available for people who stuck with the company. I can't imagine staying in a job for more than five years. Most of my friends would say more than three years.
Inertia is a powerful force. I'm not ambitious enough, I dislike disruption, and I don't currently have any personal pressures that would serve as pull factors. I do know people who have moved to jobs which are less well payed in part because longer, stable prospects hold an appeal, so I think there will always be some looking for a life job, but not many are available as there are push factors of cutbacks etc.
Define "not ambitious enough." If you're doing a job that you're good at, it's not particularly stressful and you're being paid enough to live reasonably comfortably, then perhaps you'd rather not expend vast amounts of time and energy on "career progression" and greasy pole climbing?
Yours truly has been working for the same firm for 17 years and counting, and has no intention of moving on unless forced. If I flogged myself half to death going into management (for which I wouldn't be suitable anyway) or schlepping round the country every few years trying to progress into slightly better paid roles each time, then what would I get out of it? Probably a house instead of a flat, followed by a coronary. A pointless waste of finite time and energy.
I agree (in fact I have recently stepped up the greasy pole a little, at least temporarily but we'll see), but I sometimes think our culture does not look kindly on people who are, well, content with moderate goals. Who might occasionally want an adventure or more money but don't feel they miss out if they don't and don't work very hard toward it. All those questions about where you see where yourself going in 5 years, how they can help you develop and progress, they are well meaning, but there can seem an undercurrent of expecting everyone wanting that. That it's wrong to not want it. That isn't intended, I know, it might be unfair, but sometimes it feels like I'd odd for not having that drive. (I am odd, but for different reasons).
I remember being struck by the thought watching Criminal on Netflix, where a junior detective talks about not being ambitious, and how you're not allowed to say that these days, and it rather stuck with me.
That's completely right. One of the things I find most difficult to negotiate at work is the pointless targets for improvement that they try to foist on us every year (and everybody gets them, including a colleague who is only a couple of years from retirement.) The notion that people who are employed in vital functions, and who not only don't particularly want to expand their horizons but who don't even need to do that for the greater good of the business, might be best left alone just to get on with the bloody job seems to be anathema. It's deeply irritating.
Yes, that's an interesting and AFAIK little-explored point. I used to know a GP who decided he wanted a quiet life and took an administrative job in the pharma company where I worked. He did it for 15 years, efficiently and uncomplainingly, and retired happy. Of course he could have earned more as a GP, but he didn't care. Is that wrong? Hard to say why, apart from the waste of training.
Our window cleaner used to be head of a team in Children's Services. Got sick of the hassle, the paperwork, the pointless meetings and targets. The influence of outside mamagement consultants. Won't take on new customers. Is happy earning modestly and working stress free in moderation. Interesting guy.
You know those private rail franchises, so much more efficient than British Rail, driving innovation forward? Yesterday I tried to book a ticket to Brighton for tomorrow on SW Rail's website.
It said "ERROR, call this number... for help". So I did, and the chap repeated back to me, very slowly, what I wanted, then said "This is not the number for buying tickets, I am just giving information. Shall I put you through?" Yes please.
The next chap (by no means a baffled foreign service assistant, very posh RP accent) said "We no longer sell tickets by phone, you need to use the website." I explained the problem. "Ha,", he said, "That's a headscratcher, isn't it? I don't know what to advise." Should I try a different browser? "Ah, good idea." I did, and it worked - "collect the ticket from the stationn using code ......" So I went to the station today to pick it up, and the machine said "Code not recognised".
Now what? I suppose I buy a ticket on the day and then do battle to get a refund on the other one. Or might the booking be recognised if I try on the day of travel? 'Tis a mystery...
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
I think it is quaint that you think there is such a thing as a family home; we are not Victorian aristocrats. Most people now have moved multiple times (I am on my 7th home and it won't be my last) and most parents have more than 1 child so how do you manage that then.
On death most houses go on the market and the children split the cash. You are being far too romantic.
Mr. kle4, he’s had buckets of luck this year, with Verstappen’s Azerbaijan DNF, 1 point from two races due to Mercedes crashes, and Hamilton was saved from zero points when he put the car into the gravel at one race but the Bottas-Russell crash brought out a very helpful safety car (and maybe red flag). Minus misfortune, Verstappen would be about 50 points ahead.
Although I think the Belgian rain thing was F1 trying to give some points to him
Congratulations! Being under 40 I assume you won't actually work hard though. I mean that's what under 40s do apparently.
Something else worth mentioning, is that jobs for life don't really exist anymore. I worked with a few older folks who had been in the same job 20+ years, good pay rises, great pension etc. I've moved jobs three times and I'm not very old.
Now of course that comes with its own benefits, much bigger pay rises etc but it's a lot more stressful and difficult than it was even a few years ago. And this so I can afford to do things most people who are older could do quite easily.
And I am told I don't work hard, I am proud of what I do.
Yeah I completely agree, the last two times I've moved jobs both came with payrises that weren't available for people who stuck with the company. I can't imagine staying in a job for more than five years. Most of my friends would say more than three years.
Inertia is a powerful force. I'm not ambitious enough, I dislike disruption, and I don't currently have any personal pressures that would serve as pull factors. I do know people who have moved to jobs which are less well payed in part because longer, stable prospects hold an appeal, so I think there will always be some looking for a life job, but not many are available as there are push factors of cutbacks etc.
Define "not ambitious enough." If you're doing a job that you're good at, it's not particularly stressful and you're being paid enough to live reasonably comfortably, then perhaps you'd rather not expend vast amounts of time and energy on "career progression" and greasy pole climbing?
Yours truly has been working for the same firm for 17 years and counting, and has no intention of moving on unless forced. If I flogged myself half to death going into management (for which I wouldn't be suitable anyway) or schlepping round the country every few years trying to progress into slightly better paid roles each time, then what would I get out of it? Probably a house instead of a flat, followed by a coronary. A pointless waste of finite time and energy.
I agree (in fact I have recently stepped up the greasy pole a little, at least temporarily but we'll see), but I sometimes think our culture does not look kindly on people who are, well, content with moderate goals. Who might occasionally want an adventure or more money but don't feel they miss out if they don't and don't work very hard toward it. All those questions about where you see where yourself going in 5 years, how they can help you develop and progress, they are well meaning, but there can seem an undercurrent of expecting everyone wanting that. That it's wrong to not want it. That isn't intended, I know, it might be unfair, but sometimes it feels like I'd odd for not having that drive. (I am odd, but for different reasons).
I remember being struck by the thought watching Criminal on Netflix, where a junior detective talks about not being ambitious, and how you're not allowed to say that these days, and it rather stuck with me.
That's completely right. One of the things I find most difficult to negotiate at work is the pointless targets for improvement that they try to foist on us every year (and everybody gets them, including a colleague who is only a couple of years from retirement.) The notion that people who are employed in vital functions, and who not only don't particularly want to expand their horizons but who don't even need to do that for the greater good of the business, might be best left alone just to get on with the bloody job seems to be anathema. It's deeply irritating.
Yes, that's an interesting and AFAIK little-explored point. I used to know a GP who decided he wanted a quiet life and took an administrative job in the pharma company where I worked. He did it for 15 years, efficiently and uncomplainingly, and retired happy. Of course he could have earned more as a GP, but he didn't care. Is that wrong? Hard to say why, apart from the waste of training.
It's a serious issue for specialists as opposed to management/admin types, insofar as the specialists are forced to leave their specialist jobs if they want to be promoted as they get older - but that loses their expertise, and is also when they get more experienced. I imagine teaching is one such problem area; so too is science, at least before so much of it was cut or privatised from the public sector such as forensic science. IIRC the Civil Service tried to mitigate it with separate schemes for your average bowler-hatter and 'Scientific Officers' etc. No idea what happens now, or if they even try.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
I think it is quaint that you think there is such a thing as a family home; we are not Victorian aristocrats. Most people now have moved multiple times (I am on my 7th home and it won't be my last) and most parents have more than 1 child so how do you manage that then.
On death most houses go on the market and the children split the cash. You are being far too romantic.
Remember that post earlier about the UK reverting to a gentry plus peasantry society?
You know those private rail franchises, so much more efficient than British Rail, driving innovation forward? Yesterday I tried to book a ticket to Brighton for tomorrow on SW Rail's website.
It said "ERROR, call this number... for help". So I did, and the chap repeated back to me, very slowly, what I wanted, then said "This is not the number for buying tickets, I am just giving information. Shall I put you through?" Yes please.
The next chap (by no means a baffled foreign service assistant, very posh RP accent) said "We no longer sell tickets by phone, you need to use the website." I explained the problem. "Ha,", he said, "That's a headscratcher, isn't it? I don't know what to advise." Should I try a different browser? "Ah, good idea." I did, and it worked - "collect the ticket from the stationn using code ......" So I went to the station today to pick it up, and the machine said "Code not recognised".
Now what? I suppose I buy a ticket on the day and then do battle to get a refund on the other one. Or might the booking be recognised if I try on the day of travel? 'Tis a mystery...
Don't they have an app which downloads the ticket onto your phone? Northern Rail do, and it is very efficient and customer friendly. Unlike the rest of Northern Rail.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
So build more properties in the areas where the demand is highest.
That would only make a real difference if all of them were affordable for first time buyers, immigration was reduced to cut demand and London ceased to be a global city with vast sums of foreign property investment and even high earning Londoners priced out of London then buying property in the Home Counties pushing up prices there too.
London and the South East also wants to protect its greenbelt, not become a vast urban sprawl
Yes, it does, hence the Lib Dem’s winning in Chesham with an extremely parochial NIMBY campaign.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
I think it is quaint that you think there is such a thing as a family home; we are not Victorian aristocrats. Most people now have moved multiple times (I am on my 7th home and it won't be my last) and most parents have more than 1 child so how do you manage that then.
On death most houses go on the market and the children split the cash. You are being far too romantic.
For some of us there is a family home, not just for aristocrats, if you are a farmer for instance the farmhouse will often have been in the family for generations.
For the rest of them many will use the cash from the sale of their parents home to help fund a deposit to get their own children on the housing ladder
You know those private rail franchises, so much more efficient than British Rail, driving innovation forward? Yesterday I tried to book a ticket to Brighton for tomorrow on SW Rail's website.
It said "ERROR, call this number... for help". So I did, and the chap repeated back to me, very slowly, what I wanted, then said "This is not the number for buying tickets, I am just giving information. Shall I put you through?" Yes please.
The next chap (by no means a baffled foreign service assistant, very posh RP accent) said "We no longer sell tickets by phone, you need to use the website." I explained the problem. "Ha,", he said, "That's a headscratcher, isn't it? I don't know what to advise." Should I try a different browser? "Ah, good idea." I did, and it worked - "collect the ticket from the stationn using code ......" So I went to the station today to pick it up, and the machine said "Code not recognised".
Now what? I suppose I buy a ticket on the day and then do battle to get a refund on the other one. Or might the booking be recognised if I try on the day of travel? 'Tis a mystery...
A bit late for this occasion, but in the past I've always found Trainline to be quite efficient.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
I think it is quaint that you think there is such a thing as a family home; we are not Victorian aristocrats. Most people now have moved multiple times (I am on my 7th home and it won't be my last) and most parents have more than 1 child so how do you manage that then.
On death most houses go on the market and the children split the cash. You are being far too romantic.
I just realised I gave princess Charles as an example and I suspect I might be wrong about him selling off the family home. If he does put Buck House on Rightmove the Daily Express is going to be livid.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
The head of the family lives in the manor house, their children take the lodges, and the grand children are housed by the army or clergy of course.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
Often the funds will go to their grandchildren to help get them on the housing ladder, that is often the case in London and the Home Counties
You know those private rail franchises, so much more efficient than British Rail, driving innovation forward? Yesterday I tried to book a ticket to Brighton for tomorrow on SW Rail's website.
It said "ERROR, call this number... for help". So I did, and the chap repeated back to me, very slowly, what I wanted, then said "This is not the number for buying tickets, I am just giving information. Shall I put you through?" Yes please.
The next chap (by no means a baffled foreign service assistant, very posh RP accent) said "We no longer sell tickets by phone, you need to use the website." I explained the problem. "Ha,", he said, "That's a headscratcher, isn't it? I don't know what to advise." Should I try a different browser? "Ah, good idea." I did, and it worked - "collect the ticket from the stationn using code ......" So I went to the station today to pick it up, and the machine said "Code not recognised".
Now what? I suppose I buy a ticket on the day and then do battle to get a refund on the other one. Or might the booking be recognised if I try on the day of travel? 'Tis a mystery...
As a frequent rail traveller this has happened to me a few times.
Take a copy of the email which shows your booking then show it to the conductor/barrier people.
I occasionally take a picture of the machine saying code not recognised.
If it is a manned station the ticket office staff can try and print your tickets in station.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
The head of the family lives in the manor house, their children take the lodges, and the grand children are housed by the army or clergy of course.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
The head of the family lives in the manor house, their children take the lodges, and the grand children are housed by the army or clergy of course.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
I think it is quaint that you think there is such a thing as a family home; we are not Victorian aristocrats. Most people now have moved multiple times (I am on my 7th home and it won't be my last) and most parents have more than 1 child so how do you manage that then.
On death most houses go on the market and the children split the cash. You are being far too romantic.
I just realised I gave princess Charles as an example and I suspect I might be wrong about him selling off the family home. If he does put Buck House on Rightmove the Daily Express is going to be livid.
Yeah. Zoopla are one of the biggest advertisers in the Express.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
I think it is quaint that you think there is such a thing as a family home; we are not Victorian aristocrats. Most people now have moved multiple times (I am on my 7th home and it won't be my last) and most parents have more than 1 child so how do you manage that then.
On death most houses go on the market and the children split the cash. You are being far too romantic.
I just realised I gave princess Charles as an example and I suspect I might be wrong about him selling off the family home. If he does put Buck House on Rightmove the Daily Express is going to be livid.
Whoops Prince Charles. It is alright I am not privy to some sort of secret that I have just let slip.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
The head of the family lives in the manor house, their children take the lodges, and the grand children are housed by the army or clergy of course.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
The head of the family lives in the manor house, their children take the lodges, and the grand children are housed by the army or clergy of course.
Seriously? They'd give up the chance to be in the HoL for a mere detail like that?
Anyway that is twice as many grandchildren sorted in that way, including the ones who marry clerics.
He has a wife, Sarah, and two children. Although Catholic priests are not permitted to marry, the Roman Catholic Church has in the past accepted married Anglican priests who convert.
Bit of a kick in the teeth for those who were already there.
Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?
Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.
I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.
GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights
Christopher Biggins (rumoured to post on here as Big G) says he voted for Brexit, then says he has “lots of friends with businesses who have suffered badly”.
You are just ridiculous and question my integrity
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
48 hrs solid would be enough to put anyone off.
And in my case it was not 48 hours solid
Did you catch any of Nigel Farage's "Talking Pints"? That's the flagship show. He sits there swigging steadily from a foaming glass of beer and has a reactionary natter about things with a suitably high-blooded guest (also supping ale). The conversational vibe is kind of peeved but humorous, if you can imagine this, and the idea is that you the viewer feel you've wondered into a traditional old pub, got yourself a drink and a seat, and are eavesdropping on a pair of interesting geezers who are saying lots of stuff that has you chuckling and nodding in agreement. It's been doing ok in the ratings and one can understand why. Once you've got it on, even if by accident, which it will be for most, it's a devil of a task to turn it off.
To be fair, Farage's show is actually quite good.
It's not my pint of old wallop but it is a cut above the rest of GB News. Farage is a good and very natural communicator. You can tell he's only there for the beer (as in the money) though. Seems to be subtly taking the piss to my eye.
Clarification Note: All of this, me talking at length about this show, is based on watching the grand total of 20 minutes of one episode. It was the one where his guest was ex-soldier Rusty Firkin (who I hadn't heard of). A few days later he had the darts legend Bobby George on, and I'd bookmarked that, but when it came to it there was a clash with something else and I opted for the something else.
A couple of minutes in and Bobby George is the sort of bloke you'd have a pint with.
You have to be that sort of bloke to get on the show because they have a pint. And probably it's their 2nd, having already had one beforehand as a settler.
Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?
Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.
I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.
GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights
Christopher Biggins (rumoured to post on here as Big G) says he voted for Brexit, then says he has “lots of friends with businesses who have suffered badly”.
You are just ridiculous and question my integrity
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
48 hrs solid would be enough to put anyone off.
And in my case it was not 48 hours solid
Did you catch any of Nigel Farage's "Talking Pints"? That's the flagship show. He sits there swigging steadily from a foaming glass of beer and has a reactionary natter about things with a suitably high-blooded guest (also supping ale). The conversational vibe is kind of peeved but humorous, if you can imagine this, and the idea is that you the viewer feel you've wondered into a traditional old pub, got yourself a drink and a seat, and are eavesdropping on a pair of interesting geezers who are saying lots of stuff that has you chuckling and nodding in agreement. It's been doing ok in the ratings and one can understand why. Once you've got it on, even if by accident, which it will be for most, it's a devil of a task to turn it off.
To be fair, Farage's show is actually quite good.
Farage's great strength is that he comes across as a human being. Not an especially nice human being, but human nevertheless.
Yes, and he's not Nick Griffin either, is he?
I've no doubt he'd be pretty right-wing in office but I'm not sure much worse than Boris, and certainly nowhere near as unpleasant as Trump.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
The head of the family lives in the manor house, their children take the lodges, and the grand children are housed by the army or clergy of course.
Seriously? They'd give up the chance to be in the HoL for a mere detail like that?
Anyway that is twice as many grandchildren sorted in that way, including the ones who marry clerics.
He has a wife, Sarah, and two children. Although Catholic priests are not permitted to marry, the Roman Catholic Church has in the past accepted married Anglican priests who convert.
Bit of a kick in the teeth for those who were already there.
Yes; much better for them to stay in the C of E, however Puseyite they might be. I don't understand the logic myself.
Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?
Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.
I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.
GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights
Christopher Biggins (rumoured to post on here as Big G) says he voted for Brexit, then says he has “lots of friends with businesses who have suffered badly”.
You are just ridiculous and question my integrity
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
48 hrs solid would be enough to put anyone off.
And in my case it was not 48 hours solid
Did you catch any of Nigel Farage's "Talking Pints"? That's the flagship show. He sits there swigging steadily from a foaming glass of beer and has a reactionary natter about things with a suitably high-blooded guest (also supping ale). The conversational vibe is kind of peeved but humorous, if you can imagine this, and the idea is that you the viewer feel you've wondered into a traditional old pub, got yourself a drink and a seat, and are eavesdropping on a pair of interesting geezers who are saying lots of stuff that has you chuckling and nodding in agreement. It's been doing ok in the ratings and one can understand why. Once you've got it on, even if by accident, which it will be for most, it's a devil of a task to turn it off.
To be fair, Farage's show is actually quite good.
It's not my pint of old wallop but it is a cut above the rest of GB News. Farage is a good and very natural communicator. You can tell he's only there for the beer (as in the money) though. Seems to be subtly taking the piss to my eye.
Clarification Note: All of this, me talking at length about this show, is based on watching the grand total of 20 minutes of one episode. It was the one where his guest was ex-soldier Rusty Firkin (who I hadn't heard of). A few days later he had the darts legend Bobby George on, and I'd bookmarked that, but when it came to it there was a clash with something else and I opted for the something else.
A couple of minutes in and Bobby George is the sort of bloke you'd have a pint with.
You have to be that sort of bloke to get on the show because they have a pint. And probably it's their 2nd, having already had one beforehand as a settler.
"It would be better not to recommend universal vaccination" to healthy children aged 12-15.
Professor Anthony Harnden, deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, tells @krishgm his “responsibility is to the children of this country… not to government”.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
Often the funds will go to their grandchildren to help get them on the housing ladder, that is often the case in London and the Home Counties
And you're OK with that as a solution? If you want a home then don't work hard and save for a deposit - instead wish for a wealthy relative to die and leave you money?
Personally I'd rather work for my own money, and wish for my relatives to stay alive instead.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
They should lift the tax-free gift limit to that of the ISA - from £3k to £20k.
That'd help far more people out when it matters most.
Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?
Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.
I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.
GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights
Christopher Biggins (rumoured to post on here as Big G) says he voted for Brexit, then says he has “lots of friends with businesses who have suffered badly”.
You are just ridiculous and question my integrity
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
48 hrs solid would be enough to put anyone off.
And in my case it was not 48 hours solid
Did you catch any of Nigel Farage's "Talking Pints"? That's the flagship show. He sits there swigging steadily from a foaming glass of beer and has a reactionary natter about things with a suitably high-blooded guest (also supping ale). The conversational vibe is kind of peeved but humorous, if you can imagine this, and the idea is that you the viewer feel you've wondered into a traditional old pub, got yourself a drink and a seat, and are eavesdropping on a pair of interesting geezers who are saying lots of stuff that has you chuckling and nodding in agreement. It's been doing ok in the ratings and one can understand why. Once you've got it on, even if by accident, which it will be for most, it's a devil of a task to turn it off.
To be fair, Farage's show is actually quite good.
It's not my pint of old wallop but it is a cut above the rest of GB News. Farage is a good and very natural communicator. You can tell he's only there for the beer (as in the money) though. Seems to be subtly taking the piss to my eye.
Clarification Note: All of this, me talking at length about this show, is based on watching the grand total of 20 minutes of one episode. It was the one where his guest was ex-soldier Rusty Firkin (who I hadn't heard of). A few days later he had the darts legend Bobby George on, and I'd bookmarked that, but when it came to it there was a clash with something else and I opted for the something else.
A couple of minutes in and Bobby George is the sort of bloke you'd have a pint with.
You have to be that sort of bloke to get on the show because they have a pint. And probably it's their 2nd, having already had one beforehand as a settler.
Hitchens had a cup of tea!
Red Ken looked a little worse for wear before he got started
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
Often the funds will go to their grandchildren to help get them on the housing ladder, that is often the case in London and the Home Counties
And you're OK with that as a solution? If you want a home then don't work hard and save for a deposit - instead wish for a wealthy relative to die and leave you money?
Personally I'd rather work for my own money, and wish for my relatives to stay alive instead.
Yes, fine. I am a Tory not a liberal like you so I am fine with inherited wealth and keeping property and assets in the family.
The reality is that if you want to buy a home in London and the Home Counties now for most people you either need to be a high earner working in the City for example or to get a gift or inheritance from family.
Otherwise if you want to buy rather than rent and you are only an average earner you need to move to the North, Wales, Scotland, NI or the Midlands
Be fascinating if this policy even goes ahead, why do I get the sense this is yet again Government by focus group
I'm just waiting for the first MPs to break ranks and ask 'How will this play in the Red Wall?' Only they matter of course.
It'll play well in the Red Wall. Older. Fewer working as a percentage. Much of the anger on here seems to be from folk on six figures.
No, the anger here seems to be from people who work on varying levels of earnings.
NI doesn't kick in at £100k, you're out by a factor of ten. It kicks in at below £10,000.
I Never said that. I said it would play well in the Red Wall. It will. That is the Tory Party now. The free market is like some vivid dream four hours later. Aware that it happened. You can recall the emotions it stirred. But the details have been long since lost.
I'm not sure it will.
Do you really think housing wealth to be inherited is highest in the Red Wall?
No. But looking after our own. Especially the old dears who've worked hard all their lives, will. If a few pampered, genderfluid, avocado munching snowflakes in that there London have to pay a bit more, then quite right too! Only fair. They don't have proper jobs anyway. They are always on their computer thingies.
Pray for those trapped in the £100-125k bracket 🙏🏻
Perhaps we can start a crowdfunder to help them
Surely Sir Ed Davey will be starting a crowdfund from them for a donation judging by some of their views on here?
How do you feel about shifting the tax burden away from income and towards wealth?
No, I know the answer. Hate it. But what about this as a "primary colour" Labour policy for the election? Bold, radical, left, modern, different, unstealable.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
Often the funds will go to their grandchildren to help get them on the housing ladder, that is often the case in London and the Home Counties
And you're OK with that as a solution? If you want a home then don't work hard and save for a deposit - instead wish for a wealthy relative to die and leave you money?
Personally I'd rather work for my own money, and wish for my relatives to stay alive instead.
Who is the poster most suited to a role in an Austen novel?
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
Often the funds will go to their grandchildren to help get them on the housing ladder, that is often the case in London and the Home Counties
And you're OK with that as a solution? If you want a home then don't work hard and save for a deposit - instead wish for a wealthy relative to die and leave you money?
Personally I'd rather work for my own money, and wish for my relatives to stay alive instead.
Yes, fine. I am a Tory not a liberal like you so I am fine with inherited wealth and keeping property and assets in the family.
The reality is that if you want to buy a home in London and the Home Counties now you for most people you either need to be a high earner working in the City for example or to get a gift or inheritance from family.
Otherwise if you want to buy rather than rent and you are only an average earner you need to move to the North, Wales, Scotland, NI or the Midlands
You must have hated Thatcher.
I believe in people being able to work hard and provide for their own family. Not wait until they're retired and pray for a relative's death. That's sick.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
Often the funds will go to their grandchildren to help get them on the housing ladder, that is often the case in London and the Home Counties
And you're OK with that as a solution? If you want a home then don't work hard and save for a deposit - instead wish for a wealthy relative to die and leave you money?
Personally I'd rather work for my own money, and wish for my relatives to stay alive instead.
Who is the poster most suited to a role in an Austen novel?
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
I think it is quaint that you think there is such a thing as a family home; we are not Victorian aristocrats. Most people now have moved multiple times (I am on my 7th home and it won't be my last) and most parents have more than 1 child so how do you manage that then.
On death most houses go on the market and the children split the cash. You are being far too romantic.
Many do, though, particularly on farms and the like.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
Often the funds will go to their grandchildren to help get them on the housing ladder, that is often the case in London and the Home Counties
And you're OK with that as a solution? If you want a home then don't work hard and save for a deposit - instead wish for a wealthy relative to die and leave you money?
Personally I'd rather work for my own money, and wish for my relatives to stay alive instead.
Yes, fine. I am a Tory not a liberal like you so I am fine with inherited wealth and keeping property and assets in the family.
The reality is that if you want to buy a home in London and the Home Counties now you for most people you either need to be a high earner working in the City for example or to get a gift or inheritance from family.
Otherwise if you want to buy rather than rent and you are only an average earner you need to move to the North, Wales, Scotland, NI or the Midlands
You must have hated Thatcher.
I believe in people being able to work hard and provide for their own family. Not wait until they're retired and pray for a relative's death. That's sick.
Of course I didn't hate Thatcher, she was fine with inherited wealth too, indeed her own son got a lot of support from her.
There is nothing wrong with working hard and providing for your family but in the real world no matter how hard you work if you are on an average income you will still not be able to buy a property in London and the Home Counties without family support (and some of those gifts come in life not just on the death of a grandparent or parent)
Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?
Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.
I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.
GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights
Christopher Biggins (rumoured to post on here as Big G) says he voted for Brexit, then says he has “lots of friends with businesses who have suffered badly”.
You are just ridiculous and question my integrity
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
48 hrs solid would be enough to put anyone off.
And in my case it was not 48 hours solid
Did you catch any of Nigel Farage's "Talking Pints"? That's the flagship show. He sits there swigging steadily from a foaming glass of beer and has a reactionary natter about things with a suitably high-blooded guest (also supping ale). The conversational vibe is kind of peeved but humorous, if you can imagine this, and the idea is that you the viewer feel you've wondered into a traditional old pub, got yourself a drink and a seat, and are eavesdropping on a pair of interesting geezers who are saying lots of stuff that has you chuckling and nodding in agreement. It's been doing ok in the ratings and one can understand why. Once you've got it on, even if by accident, which it will be for most, it's a devil of a task to turn it off.
To be fair, Farage's show is actually quite good.
It's not my pint of old wallop but it is a cut above the rest of GB News. Farage is a good and very natural communicator. You can tell he's only there for the beer (as in the money) though. Seems to be subtly taking the piss to my eye.
Clarification Note: All of this, me talking at length about this show, is based on watching the grand total of 20 minutes of one episode. It was the one where his guest was ex-soldier Rusty Firkin (who I hadn't heard of). A few days later he had the darts legend Bobby George on, and I'd bookmarked that, but when it came to it there was a clash with something else and I opted for the something else.
A couple of minutes in and Bobby George is the sort of bloke you'd have a pint with.
You have to be that sort of bloke to get on the show because they have a pint. And probably it's their 2nd, having already had one beforehand as a settler.
Hitchens had a cup of tea!
he did on this occasion but he was interviewed in a pub during mini lockdown drinking a pint so he does indulge but I suspect not before a certain time of day- and probably as contrarian as anyone he would want to NOT drink beer on a programme called Talking Pints.Great idea btw and not many come close to keeping up with the Farage in terms of drinking - I think colonol Bob Stewart was closest
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
Often the funds will go to their grandchildren to help get them on the housing ladder, that is often the case in London and the Home Counties
And you're OK with that as a solution? If you want a home then don't work hard and save for a deposit - instead wish for a wealthy relative to die and leave you money?
Personally I'd rather work for my own money, and wish for my relatives to stay alive instead.
Yes, fine. I am a Tory not a liberal like you so I am fine with inherited wealth and keeping property and assets in the family.
The reality is that if you want to buy a home in London and the Home Counties now you for most people you either need to be a high earner working in the City for example or to get a gift or inheritance from family.
Otherwise if you want to buy rather than rent and you are only an average earner you need to move to the North, Wales, Scotland, NI or the Midlands
You must have hated Thatcher.
I believe in people being able to work hard and provide for their own family. Not wait until they're retired and pray for a relative's death. That's sick.
Of course I didn't hate Thatcher, she was fine with inherited wealth too, indeed her own son got a lot of support from her.
There is nothing wrong with working hard and providing for your family but in the real world no matter how hard you work if you are on an average income you will still not be able to buy a property in London and the Home Counties without family support (and some of those gifts come in life not just on the death of a grandparent or parent)
You absolutely could on two average London incomes if taxes weren't so high.
Be fascinating if this policy even goes ahead, why do I get the sense this is yet again Government by focus group
I'm just waiting for the first MPs to break ranks and ask 'How will this play in the Red Wall?' Only they matter of course.
It'll play well in the Red Wall. Older. Fewer working as a percentage. Much of the anger on here seems to be from folk on six figures.
No, the anger here seems to be from people who work on varying levels of earnings.
NI doesn't kick in at £100k, you're out by a factor of ten. It kicks in at below £10,000.
I Never said that. I said it would play well in the Red Wall. It will. That is the Tory Party now. The free market is like some vivid dream four hours later. Aware that it happened. You can recall the emotions it stirred. But the details have been long since lost.
I'm not sure it will.
Do you really think housing wealth to be inherited is highest in the Red Wall?
No. But looking after our own. Especially the old dears who've worked hard all their lives, will. If a few pampered, genderfluid, avocado munching snowflakes in that there London have to pay a bit more, then quite right too! Only fair. They don't have proper jobs anyway. They are always on their computer thingies.
Pray for those trapped in the £100-125k bracket 🙏🏻
Perhaps we can start a crowdfunder to help them
Surely Sir Ed Davey will be starting a crowdfund from them for a donation judging by some of their views on here?
How do you feel about shifting the tax burden away from income and towards wealth?
No, I know the answer. Hate it. But what about this as a "primary colour" Labour policy for the election? Bold, radical, left, modern, different, unstealable.
Labour traditionally like taxing income and wealth, at least when they are socialist.
It is liberals who want to shift the tax burden from income to wealth but if the next election sees a PM Starmer propped up by the LDs in a hung parliament it is possible. Obviously the Tories won't do it as wealthy home owners and their heirs are their core vote
Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?
Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.
I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.
GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights
Christopher Biggins (rumoured to post on here as Big G) says he voted for Brexit, then says he has “lots of friends with businesses who have suffered badly”.
You are just ridiculous and question my integrity
I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum
I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil
Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
48 hrs solid would be enough to put anyone off.
And in my case it was not 48 hours solid
Did you catch any of Nigel Farage's "Talking Pints"? That's the flagship show. He sits there swigging steadily from a foaming glass of beer and has a reactionary natter about things with a suitably high-blooded guest (also supping ale). The conversational vibe is kind of peeved but humorous, if you can imagine this, and the idea is that you the viewer feel you've wondered into a traditional old pub, got yourself a drink and a seat, and are eavesdropping on a pair of interesting geezers who are saying lots of stuff that has you chuckling and nodding in agreement. It's been doing ok in the ratings and one can understand why. Once you've got it on, even if by accident, which it will be for most, it's a devil of a task to turn it off.
To be fair, Farage's show is actually quite good.
It's not my pint of old wallop but it is a cut above the rest of GB News. Farage is a good and very natural communicator. You can tell he's only there for the beer (as in the money) though. Seems to be subtly taking the piss to my eye.
Clarification Note: All of this, me talking at length about this show, is based on watching the grand total of 20 minutes of one episode. It was the one where his guest was ex-soldier Rusty Firkin (who I hadn't heard of). A few days later he had the darts legend Bobby George on, and I'd bookmarked that, but when it came to it there was a clash with something else and I opted for the something else.
A couple of minutes in and Bobby George is the sort of bloke you'd have a pint with.
You have to be that sort of bloke to get on the show because they have a pint. And probably it's their 2nd, having already had one beforehand as a settler.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
Often the funds will go to their grandchildren to help get them on the housing ladder, that is often the case in London and the Home Counties
And you're OK with that as a solution? If you want a home then don't work hard and save for a deposit - instead wish for a wealthy relative to die and leave you money?
Personally I'd rather work for my own money, and wish for my relatives to stay alive instead.
Who is the poster most suited to a role in an Austen novel?
One might think one of the ladies - Austen is a very female writer, my mother used to tell me - but given the discussion today, we should perhaps find someone whose economics match those of Mr Bennet.
The second one may not be accessible - but the abstract gives a sense:
" Recent scholars have demonstrated that Jane Austen does not depict a 'bourgeois' world. But the attention paid to socio-economic issues of rank or class in the novels has been accompanied by relatively little specificity about the magnitude and buying power of particular sums, especially incomes. Austen lived a very straitened life in economic terms, and she was, unsurprisingly, hyperconscious of money. Each novel poses economic questions, but the difficulty of determining present-day-equivalent buying power makes it hard to judge the magnitude of the sums involved. While recognizing that 'retail price* and 'average earnings' may diverge as measures of inflation by a factor of more than thirteen, this essay argues that a multiplier some- where between 100 and 150 produces a generally plausible equivalent today. It also argues that attention to the size and buying power of the specified incomes of Austen's principals underlines their elite status. Bingley's £4000-5000 per annum puts him in the top one-tenth of 1% of the population, and Mr Bennet's £2000 falls in the top one-fifth of 1%. Yet Austen makes clear that Mr Bennet has saved nothing, and will leave his wife and daughters in relatively penury when he dies. Pride and Prejudice can be read as a delightful romance, but properly understood, the romance camouflages a grimly realistic depiction of the dismal position of gen- teel women in Austen's society."
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
By the time people are dying nowadays they typically not just have children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren too.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
Often the funds will go to their grandchildren to help get them on the housing ladder, that is often the case in London and the Home Counties
And you're OK with that as a solution? If you want a home then don't work hard and save for a deposit - instead wish for a wealthy relative to die and leave you money?
Personally I'd rather work for my own money, and wish for my relatives to stay alive instead.
Yes, fine. I am a Tory not a liberal like you so I am fine with inherited wealth and keeping property and assets in the family.
The reality is that if you want to buy a home in London and the Home Counties now you for most people you either need to be a high earner working in the City for example or to get a gift or inheritance from family.
Otherwise if you want to buy rather than rent and you are only an average earner you need to move to the North, Wales, Scotland, NI or the Midlands
You must have hated Thatcher.
I believe in people being able to work hard and provide for their own family. Not wait until they're retired and pray for a relative's death. That's sick.
Of course I didn't hate Thatcher, she was fine with inherited wealth too, indeed her own son got a lot of support from her.
There is nothing wrong with working hard and providing for your family but in the real world no matter how hard you work if you are on an average income you will still not be able to buy a property in London and the Home Counties without family support (and some of those gifts come in life not just on the death of a grandparent or parent)
You absolutely could on two average London incomes if taxes weren't so high.
You couldn't. The average London salary is £41,017, that is £82,034 combined before tax (and that is for full time workers). 4.5 times that to get a mortgage is only £369, 153.
Of course I didn't hate Thatcher, she was fine with inherited wealth too, indeed her own son got a lot of support from her.
There is nothing wrong with working hard and providing for your family but in the real world no matter how hard you work if you are on an average income you will still not be able to buy a property in London and the Home Counties without family support (and some of those gifts come in life not just on the death of a grandparent or parent)
You absolutely could on two average London incomes if taxes weren't so high.
You couldn't. The average London income is £41,017, that is £82,034 combined (and that is for full time workers). 4.5 times that to get a mortgage is only £369, 153.
All the Talking Pints interviews are on youtube btw . Ken Livingstones was good as was Vince Cables as both are to the left of Farage but both are sort of not typical woke lefties and both are what you would call "blokes" in a nice way and at home in a pub sort of setting. Farage presumably likes both enough to interview them
Of course I didn't hate Thatcher, she was fine with inherited wealth too, indeed her own son got a lot of support from her.
There is nothing wrong with working hard and providing for your family but in the real world no matter how hard you work if you are on an average income you will still not be able to buy a property in London and the Home Counties without family support (and some of those gifts come in life not just on the death of a grandparent or parent)
You absolutely could on two average London incomes if taxes weren't so high.
You couldn't. The average London income is £41,017, that is £82,034 combined (and that is for full time workers). 4.5 times that to get a mortgage is only £369, 153.
Of course I didn't hate Thatcher, she was fine with inherited wealth too, indeed her own son got a lot of support from her.
There is nothing wrong with working hard and providing for your family but in the real world no matter how hard you work if you are on an average income you will still not be able to buy a property in London and the Home Counties without family support (and some of those gifts come in life not just on the death of a grandparent or parent)
You absolutely could on two average London incomes if taxes weren't so high.
You couldn't. The average London income is £41,017, that is £82,034 combined (and that is for full time workers). 4.5 times that to get a mortgage is only £369, 153.
Of course I didn't hate Thatcher, she was fine with inherited wealth too, indeed her own son got a lot of support from her.
There is nothing wrong with working hard and providing for your family but in the real world no matter how hard you work if you are on an average income you will still not be able to buy a property in London and the Home Counties without family support (and some of those gifts come in life not just on the death of a grandparent or parent)
You absolutely could on two average London incomes if taxes weren't so high.
You couldn't. The average London income is £41,017, that is £82,034 combined (and that is for full time workers). 4.5 times that to get a mortgage is only £369, 153.
Depends what you mean by a property in London. You could well afford a 2 bed in the suburbs with that mortgage.
Somebody getting the first step on the housing ladder rarely pays the average price either.
£369,000 is more than enough to pay the average price for some parts of London according to that link HYUFD shared, such as Barking and Dagenham, let alone below average prices.
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
I think it is quaint that you think there is such a thing as a family home; we are not Victorian aristocrats. Most people now have moved multiple times (I am on my 7th home and it won't be my last) and most parents have more than 1 child so how do you manage that then.
On death most houses go on the market and the children split the cash. You are being far too romantic.
Many do, though, particularly on farms and the like.
Of course I didn't hate Thatcher, she was fine with inherited wealth too, indeed her own son got a lot of support from her.
There is nothing wrong with working hard and providing for your family but in the real world no matter how hard you work if you are on an average income you will still not be able to buy a property in London and the Home Counties without family support (and some of those gifts come in life not just on the death of a grandparent or parent)
You absolutely could on two average London incomes if taxes weren't so high.
You couldn't. The average London income is £41,017, that is £82,034 combined (and that is for full time workers). 4.5 times that to get a mortgage is only £369, 153.
Depends what you mean by a property in London. You could well afford a 2 bed in the suburbs with that mortgage
Somebody getting the first step on the housing ladder rarely pays the average price either.
£369,000 is more than enough to pay the average price for some parts of London according to that link HYUFD shared, such as Barking and Dagenham, let alone below average prices.
I'd want more than £369k to live in Barking and Dagenham
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
I think it is quaint that you think there is such a thing as a family home; we are not Victorian aristocrats. Most people now have moved multiple times (I am on my 7th home and it won't be my last) and most parents have more than 1 child so how do you manage that then.
On death most houses go on the market and the children split the cash. You are being far too romantic.
Many do, though, particularly on farms and the like.
Farms and the like are more like businesses than merely homes.
Many businesses can and have passed down generations and farms can be no different to that.
But that doesn't mean we need to structure all of society around that. There are ways to ensure businesses and the like can be handed down whether that be a farm, or otherwise.
Of course I didn't hate Thatcher, she was fine with inherited wealth too, indeed her own son got a lot of support from her.
There is nothing wrong with working hard and providing for your family but in the real world no matter how hard you work if you are on an average income you will still not be able to buy a property in London and the Home Counties without family support (and some of those gifts come in life not just on the death of a grandparent or parent)
You absolutely could on two average London incomes if taxes weren't so high.
You couldn't. The average London income is £41,017, that is £82,034 combined (and that is for full time workers). 4.5 times that to get a mortgage is only £369, 153.
Depends what you mean by a property in London. You could well afford a 2 bed in the suburbs with that mortgage.
'Somebody getting the first step on the housing ladder rarely pays the average price either.
£369,000 is more than enough to pay the average price for some parts of London according to that link HYUFD shared, such as Barking and Dagenham, let alone below average prices.'
Why buy in Dagenham when you could move to Harrogate or Trafford or Northumberland or Warwickshire or Herefordshire and have a bigger property in a nicer location even on a lower salary?
The problem we have is too many people on average incomes in London do not realise London is now a city where you need to be rich to buy property.
London is fine if you are in your 20s and renting, after that unless you are rich best to move out
All the Talking Pints interviews are on youtube btw . Ken Livingstones was good as was Vince Cables as both are to the left of Farage but both are sort of not typical woke lefties and both are what you would call "blokes" in a nice way and at home in a pub sort of setting. Farage presumably likes both enough to interview them
I think it would do Sir Keir a favour to go on there - he likes a pint I reckon
How many farmers are still actively running the farm into their nineties nowadays anyway?
Not my area of expertise but I'd have thought farmers might want to retire and hand over to the next generation while still alive. Not upon death when the next generation is potentially already 70+.
Piers can't even remember the short list of places he wants the massive army of about a dozen cranks to go and invade. He keeps checking his little bit of paper. Decides in the end that town halls are the place to go as their "doors are wide open", which he seems to think is funny.
Meanwhile I had not registered before that they call the vax the "clotshot".
If you are earning £100K a year in London and struggling to buy a house - which you would be with house prices now - then the system is broken. I don't care how anti London you are.
Thirty years ago you could have worked about 50% less hard and been able to afford a house in a few months, there is no way anyone sane can justify the system as it is
This is where I have less sympathy with youngsters. Vote with your feet. I work in London (pre-COVID anyway), but only because I can live with my parents. Yet the capital seems to suck in youngsters from the rest of the country. Why? Because youngsters don’t tend to be all that rational. They want to have a fun and London is like a big playground.
Because it's where all the jobs are.
Software Engineering is by far and away really only good in London, as an example.
Long term absolutely, we need to get people living elsewhere. But the Tory strategy is level down London, not level up the country
BiB - that’s obviously not true.
That's where a lot of the jobs are, then.
I had a look as I was changing jobs just recently and the offerings outside of London are just horrendous compared to what you get here.
And all my friends are here, I'm drawn in - so I guess I do agree with your general point but I think people should be able to live wherever they want to be honest
I’d like to have lived in N5 so that I could walk to the Arsenal. Just because I’d like to have done that ten years ago doesn’t give me the right to be able to do so.
There isn't much of London you could live in now without some form of inheritance for a deposit.
Again I can see what you're saying but I stand by what I said, the system is broken
I’m generally in favour of tax second homes and BTLs, but London is ultimately very popular. Who has the right to live where they want? We can’t all live their, so how do you decide who is worthy of living in these places?
I think this is generally a difference between the left and the right. The right tend to accept that there are trade-offs in life (perhaps too accepting sometimes), whilst the left believe in entitlement.
That's such a load of cobblers. The biggest form of entitlement is inheritance tax, and the right are constantly campaigning to abolish that!
I'm thinking more in terms of the people rather than the politicians. So to take inheritance as an example, I accept that it's a trade-off. If the government doesn't tax inheritance then they have to tax elsewhere.
I actually wouldn't mind if more tax was raised via death duties. The tricky thing is that some people go to great lengths to avoid them.
Tax inheritance as income. And reduce income tax so it’s revenue neutral.
That would be my solution.
That was one of the policies I liked from McDonnell. Abolish IHT, instead tax legacies as income to the recipient per their personal tax situation. So a poor person receiving a legacy pays less tax on it than a rich one. It works on every level. Great reform.
I think a malign effect of inheritance is that it comes all at once and likely at the wrong time.
A thousand a year during their working lives would be better for people than a huge lump when they're old and their very old parents die.
Not necessarily, plenty of Home Counties parents of 20 and 30 year olds give them gifts well before they get a full inheritance for a deposit to buy a property.
For those on average incomes in London and the South East it is often the only way then can get on the housing ladder and buy their first property
BiB: Which is absolutely inappropriate.
We should cut taxes and ensure anyone who works hard can get on the housing ladder. Not raise taxes and make the situation even worse.
Even if you cut taxes to zero those on average incomes would still not be able to afford to buy in London and the South East as they could north of Watford.
Inheritance and parental gifts are the only way most can afford to get a depost before their late 40s in London and the Home Counties
I have read absolutely none of this thread other than the last two posts so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick or all this has been covered but:
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
As I said many in their 30s and 40s get gifts from their 60 or 70 year old parents to buy a property in London and the Home Counties well before they reach retirement, so they get much of their inheritance early.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
I think it is quaint that you think there is such a thing as a family home; we are not Victorian aristocrats. Most people now have moved multiple times (I am on my 7th home and it won't be my last) and most parents have more than 1 child so how do you manage that then.
On death most houses go on the market and the children split the cash. You are being far too romantic.
Many do, though, particularly on farms and the like.
Farms and the like are more like businesses than merely homes.
Many businesses can and have passed down generations and farms can be no different to that.
But that doesn't mean we need to structure all of society around that. There are ways to ensure businesses and the like can be handed down whether that be a farm, or otherwise.
Agree. So far as examples we have had farms and er farms. I think I should help out the other side with more examples: Castles, Stately Homes... No I'm running out now. It isn't like we are focusing our policy decisions on 0.0001% of the population is it?
Comments
Now about 40% go to university so about 3/4 of them will end up on pretty average salaries but with student debt to pay off too
Inheritance is irrelevant unless you have children and children normally come about at about the age of 30 and the life expectancy of a 30 year old is 88 and there is a 25% chance of making it to 96 (all from the ONS). As you don't inherit until both parents die I assume (if linear; I know it won't be but I can't be arsed for such a trivial difference) that we are looking at an average for both to have popped their clogs to be 92 years later, by which time you will be 62 and probably have paid off your mortgage and looking forward to your own retirement. You will not be 40 unless you had very unlucky parents.
Wouldn't it be better that the young enjoy the money when young and not when older and don't need it, by not taxing them then and giving it to the likes of me so I can inherit something in my dotage when I don't need it (I am nearly 67 and my father is still going strong, and think of poor Prince Charles).
You are also being inconsistent with your views as on the state pension want that cut back and you argued strongly with me that I was after the money at the expense of the young. You can't have it both ways.
The New Statesman article on the decline of labour, linked elsewhere, which is well worth reading makes the point under New Labour Blair The belief was the vast majority of jobs in the future would require degrees as we moved to a knowledge based economy. These people have been sold a lie and we have a lack of skilled people in areas that don’t need degrees, such as truck drivers, as younger people stopped moving into the profession.
For the remainder in their 50s and 60s many still would like to keep the family home in the family.
As I said earlier too even if you cut income tax and NI to 0 most average earners in London and the SE would still not be able to buy a property without parental support.
It seems the triple lock will be freezed too but my views on that are more rises in the state pension should be targeted at lower earning pensioners and cut or frozen for pensioners with substantial private pensions anyway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzqNE_wYs1Y
A couple of minutes in and Bobby George is the sort of bloke you'd have a pint with.
London and the South East also wants to protect its greenbelt, not become a vast urban sprawl
Won't take on new customers. Is happy earning modestly and working stress free in moderation.
Interesting guy.
It said "ERROR, call this number... for help". So I did, and the chap repeated back to me, very slowly, what I wanted, then said "This is not the number for buying tickets, I am just giving information. Shall I put you through?" Yes please.
The next chap (by no means a baffled foreign service assistant, very posh RP accent) said "We no longer sell tickets by phone, you need to use the website." I explained the problem. "Ha,", he said, "That's a headscratcher, isn't it? I don't know what to advise." Should I try a different browser? "Ah, good idea." I did, and it worked - "collect the ticket from the stationn using code ......" So I went to the station today to pick it up, and the machine said "Code not recognised".
Now what? I suppose I buy a ticket on the day and then do battle to get a refund on the other one. Or might the booking be recognised if I try on the day of travel? 'Tis a mystery...
On death most houses go on the market and the children split the cash. You are being far too romantic.
If someone is dying in their nineties then who exactly is the "family home" going to do you think? And where are the people who are "keeping the family home" supposed to live until then?
Yes, it does, hence the Lib Dem’s winning in Chesham with an extremely parochial NIMBY campaign.
For the rest of them many will use the cash from the sale of their parents home to help fund a deposit to get their own children on the housing ladder
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/03/qanon-shaman-pleads-guilty-509465
Take a copy of the email which shows your booking then show it to the conductor/barrier people.
I occasionally take a picture of the machine saying code not recognised.
If it is a manned station the ticket office staff can try and print your tickets in station.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58444204
Anyway that is twice as many grandchildren sorted in that way, including the ones who marry clerics.
Bit of a kick in the teeth for those who were already there.
Snowflake
Gabble
I've no doubt he'd be pretty right-wing in office but I'm not sure much worse than Boris, and certainly nowhere near as unpleasant as Trump.
Professor Anthony Harnden, deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, tells @krishgm his “responsibility is to the children of this country… not to government”.
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1434158054719868932?s=20
Personally I'd rather work for my own money, and wish for my relatives to stay alive instead.
That'd help far more people out when it matters most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaZdEnTBfNE
Trademark lefty beige suit with blue shirt
The reality is that if you want to buy a home in London and the Home Counties now for most people you either need to be a high earner working in the City for example or to get a gift or inheritance from family.
Otherwise if you want to buy rather than rent and you are only an average earner you need to move to the North, Wales, Scotland, NI or the Midlands
No, I know the answer. Hate it. But what about this as a "primary colour" Labour policy for the election? Bold, radical, left, modern, different, unstealable.
F1: I miss the days when red flags were rare.
I believe (not sure) Gabble was Dennis McShane
JackW wants to remain private
I believe in people being able to work hard and provide for their own family. Not wait until they're retired and pray for a relative's death. That's sick.
There is nothing wrong with working hard and providing for your family but in the real world no matter how hard you work if you are on an average income you will still not be able to buy a property in London and the Home Counties without family support (and some of those gifts come in life not just on the death of a grandparent or parent)
Well, that ban didn't last long!
https://twitter.com/marclister3k/status/1434158900748726273
It is liberals who want to shift the tax burden from income to wealth but if the next election sees a PM Starmer propped up by the LDs in a hung parliament it is possible. Obviously the Tories won't do it as wealthy home owners and their heirs are their core vote
One might think one of the ladies - Austen is a very female writer, my mother used to tell me - but given the discussion today, we should perhaps find someone whose economics match those of Mr Bennet.
https://jasna.org/publications-2/persuasions-online/vol36no1/toran/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42003625?seq=1 (possibly ££)
The second one may not be accessible - but the abstract gives a sense:
" Recent scholars have demonstrated that Jane Austen does not depict a 'bourgeois'
world. But the attention paid to socio-economic issues of rank or class in the novels
has been accompanied by relatively little specificity about the magnitude and buying
power of particular sums, especially incomes. Austen lived a very straitened life in
economic terms, and she was, unsurprisingly, hyperconscious of money. Each novel
poses economic questions, but the difficulty of determining present-day-equivalent
buying power makes it hard to judge the magnitude of the sums involved. While
recognizing that 'retail price* and 'average earnings' may diverge as measures of
inflation by a factor of more than thirteen, this essay argues that a multiplier some-
where between 100 and 150 produces a generally plausible equivalent today. It also
argues that attention to the size and buying power of the specified incomes of
Austen's principals underlines their elite status. Bingley's £4000-5000 per annum
puts him in the top one-tenth of 1% of the population, and Mr Bennet's £2000 falls
in the top one-fifth of 1%. Yet Austen makes clear that Mr Bennet has saved
nothing, and will leave his wife and daughters in relatively penury when he dies.
Pride and Prejudice can be read as a delightful romance, but properly understood,
the romance camouflages a grimly realistic depiction of the dismal position of gen-
teel women in Austen's society."
https://www.payspective.com/insights/average-salary-uk/#:~:text=The average salary in London,the UK (South East).
The average London property price is £675,274
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html
https://www.payspective.com/insights/average-salary-uk/#:~:text=The average salary in London,the UK (South East).
The average London property price is £675,274
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-London.html
Depends what you mean by a property in London. You could well afford a 2 bed in the suburbs with that mortgage.
"according to most of the experts I spoke with for this story, the immunological argument for a COVID-19 booster this early is shaky at best."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/waning-immunity-not-crisis-right-now/619965/
Just a thought.
Not much scope for generating a dynasty to leave the family mansion to.
You could afford a 2 bed in Newham, Bexley or Barking and Dagenham at a push and with many years saving, that is about it.
There is a reason most Londoners rent now and why London is now Labour's strongest region in the UK.
To have a chance to buy a property most Londoners move to the Home Counties in their 30s
Somebody getting the first step on the housing ladder rarely pays the average price either.
£369,000 is more than enough to pay the average price for some parts of London according to that link HYUFD shared, such as Barking and Dagenham, let alone below average prices.
Many businesses can and have passed down generations and farms can be no different to that.
But that doesn't mean we need to structure all of society around that. There are ways to ensure businesses and the like can be handed down whether that be a farm, or otherwise.
https://twitter.com/e_b_bobadilla/status/1433946931449978886?s=19
£369,000 is more than enough to pay the average price for some parts of London according to that link HYUFD shared, such as Barking and Dagenham, let alone below average prices.'
Why buy in Dagenham when you could move to Harrogate or Trafford or Northumberland or Warwickshire or Herefordshire and have a bigger property in a nicer location even on a lower salary?
The problem we have is too many people on average incomes in London do not realise London is now a city where you need to be rich to buy property.
London is fine if you are in your 20s and renting, after that unless you are rich best to move out
Not my area of expertise but I'd have thought farmers might want to retire and hand over to the next generation while still alive. Not upon death when the next generation is potentially already 70+.
Prince Charles syndrome again.
Meanwhile I had not registered before that they call the vax the "clotshot".
I know who the clots are here.