Kaivan Shroff @KaivanShroff · Sep 2 But for Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton would have become the first female president of the United States – and none of this would have happened. Instead we got the first president to be impeached twice.
LOL. My dog would have made a better US President than HRC.
What odds offered for 2024 write in candidate 'Mr Ed's dog'?
Think the world's gone barking mad? So do we, so vote accordingly.
One of Prince Charles’s closest aides quit last night after claims that he had fixed an honour for a Saudi tycoon who donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities.
Michael Fawcett, the prince’s former valet, stepped down temporarily as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation after The Sunday Times provided evidence of Charles’s dealings with the businessman.
Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the prince who had told him they could secure the honour.
Charles, 72, personally awarded Mahfouz, 51, his CBE at a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace in November 2016. The event was not announced in the Court Circular, the official list of royal engagements.
Aides close to the prince and senior staff in his charities had helped the paid fixers to secure the CBE after Mahfouz donated large sums to restoration projects of particular interest to Charles, including Dumfries House and the Castle of Mey.
I think I will have to ask the police to investigate this.
Why? Some old houses got restored and some fat bloke gets to wear a bit of ribbon on his chest. Net net it’s good
Yeah - legalise bribery. After all, what is the state but an agency that protects the collective interests of a few dozen families?
As if this is likely to be the reason why Michael Fawcett - whose surname, as Private Eye once reminded us, is pronounced "Force It" - has "stepped down temporarily".
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
Yes, its stunning. Seems like something that has always been the same but that's not so. Should give hope that nothing is inevitable.
And hope is good. Because I think today has reminded us all that politics-by-generation can go pretty toxic.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
Yes, its stunning. Seems like something that has always been the same but that's not so. Should give hope that nothing is inevitable.
Indeed. Someone, maybe @Casino_Royale, was expressing astonishment that Trudeau's core vote was the over 55's. It hasn't always been like this, isn't everywhere, and doesn't have to be. See also "lefty public sector teachers." A group won by Cameron in 2010.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
I'm curious as to what Labour's policy will be re student fees / debt.
The best approach would be to abolish the student debt. Perhaps negative interest at 5% per year.
We all know that it is never going to be repaid, why not recognise that and save a lot of misery?
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
An interesting question. Is it better to give adult children money on anannual basis from their 20s or a much larger lump sum when they are in their 60s. Is either good for them? Does having unearned income from an early stage reduce ambition/motivation?
A lot of people work in order to provide for their families in the future, not necessarily for themselves. So if you stop or reduce the ability to inherit, you may reduce ambition and motivation.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
Yes, its stunning. Seems like something that has always been the same but that's not so. Should give hope that nothing is inevitable.
Indeed. Someone, maybe @Casino_Royale, was expressing astonishment that Trudeau's core vote was the over 55's. It hasn't always been like this, isn't everywhere, and doesn't have to be. See also "lefty public sector teachers." A group won by Cameron in 2010.
Same with Wales where CCHQ thought Labour was cheating. At least until they decided to try campaigning and came away with a hatful of MPs. Or indeed the red wall seats. Crass demographics are always harmful if one side gives up while the other lot take voters for granted.
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
An interesting question. Is it better to give adult children money on anannual basis from their 20s or a much larger lump sum when they are in their 60s. Is either good for them? Does having unearned income from an early stage reduce ambition/motivation?
A lot of people work in order to provide for their families in the future, not necessarily for themselves. So if you stop or reduce the ability to inherit, you may reduce ambition and motivation.
No one is planning to end inheritance. It is hard though to see why workers should pay extra NI so that a small number can preserve a larger inheiritance.
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
An interesting question. Is it better to give adult children money on anannual basis from their 20s or a much larger lump sum when they are in their 60s. Is either good for them? Does having unearned income from an early stage reduce ambition/motivation?
That is indeed interesting. It always strikes me that giving young people the money for a deposit is regarded as virtuous behaviour. Entirely right and proper to be received with thanks. However, giving them a similar sum to do with as they wished would be considered the height of folly for the parents. And sponging on the part of the kids. We really do seem to see the mere act of property ownership as virtuous, and an end in itself. Why isn't bunging the kids a huge sum to train in an expensive career, or start their own business as common? Or accorded such status? Or even just go travelling for 5 years?
Whether we like it or not, owning a property is regarded by most people as the basis of prosperity in this country. It is odd because in many quite similar societies, like Germany, this isn't necessarily the case.
Kaivan Shroff @KaivanShroff · Sep 2 But for Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton would have become the first female president of the United States – and none of this would have happened. Instead we got the first president to be impeached twice.
LOL. My dog would have made a better US President than HRC.
What odds offered for 2024 write in candidate 'Mr Ed's dog'?
Think the world's gone barking mad? So do we, so vote accordingly.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
I'm curious as to what Labour's policy will be re student fees / debt.
The best approach would be to abolish the student debt. Perhaps negative interest at 5% per year.
We all know that it is never going to be repaid, why not recognise that and save a lot of misery?
True in general but individual circumstances can change.
I know a graduate who has just got a well paid manual job and is aghast that he's now paying his student debt back when he'd assumed he never would.
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
An interesting question. Is it better to give adult children money on anannual basis from their 20s or a much larger lump sum when they are in their 60s. Is either good for them? Does having unearned income from an early stage reduce ambition/motivation?
A lot of people work in order to provide for their families in the future, not necessarily for themselves. So if you stop or reduce the ability to inherit, you may reduce ambition and motivation.
No one is planning to end inheritance. It is hard though to see why workers should pay extra NI so that a small number can preserve a larger inheiritance.
I'm more curious as to whether significant inheritance at an early stage is really beneficial to the recipient. You can get a lot of satisfaction from doing things independently. Is that undermined by just being given it without having to work for it?
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
I'm curious as to what Labour's policy will be re student fees / debt.
The best approach would be to abolish the student debt. Perhaps negative interest at 5% per year.
We all know that it is never going to be repaid, why not recognise that and save a lot of misery?
True in general but individual circumstances can change.
I know a graduate who has just got a well paid manual job and is aghast that he's now paying his student debt back when he'd assumed he never would.
I think on current projections 70% will not pay off their debt, and will have to suffer those chains for 30 years.
I observed before how EKOS and Mainstreet, who do daily polling, were picking up the large Tory leads of 4 to 8%. Enough for a Tory minority. Whereas all the others, including Nanos daily, were showing a statistical tie. Plenty good enough for Justin to carry on. Now Mainstreet seem to be herding towards the others, while EKOS isn't. As before. Someone is wrong. So EKOS can be lauded or lambasted. Take your pick.
I suspect the Liberals will over-perform relative to the rest of the country in their strongest areas in the centre of the cities like Montreal and Toronto where the electorates are younger and better educated than elsewhere. If true, that would mean piling up votes in safe seats, similar to how UK Labour did at the last couple of elections.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
I'm curious as to what Labour's policy will be re student fees / debt.
The best approach would be to abolish the student debt. Perhaps negative interest at 5% per year.
We all know that it is never going to be repaid, why not recognise that and save a lot of misery?
True in general but individual circumstances can change.
I know a graduate who has just got a well paid manual job and is aghast that he's now paying his student debt back when he'd assumed he never would.
I think on current projections 70% will not pay off their debt, and will have to suffer those chains for 30 years.
I guess if they had gone for a true graduate tax but applied it to anyone that had been to university previously as well, they would have a much bigger number of people to get money from and the rate could have been lower. If it was more like 3% but for life it would be much more acceptable.
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
An interesting question. Is it better to give adult children money on anannual basis from their 20s or a much larger lump sum when they are in their 60s. Is either good for them? Does having unearned income from an early stage reduce ambition/motivation?
That is indeed interesting. It always strikes me that giving young people the money for a deposit is regarded as virtuous behaviour. Entirely right and proper to be received with thanks. However, giving them a similar sum to do with as they wished would be considered the height of folly for the parents. And sponging on the part of the kids. We really do seem to see the mere act of property ownership as virtuous, and an end in itself. Why isn't bunging the kids a huge sum to train in an expensive career, or start their own business as common? Or accorded such status? Or even just go travelling for 5 years?
Whether we like it or not, owning a property is regarded by most people as the basis of prosperity in this country. It is odd because in many quite similar societies, like Germany, this isn't necessarily the case.
Strangely. A very good friend in Germany has just been left £100 k plus by her English father, on condition she use it to "get on the property ladder." She couldn't get a mortgage as she is nearing retirement. 55. So has ended up buying a tiny property, much smaller and more decrepit than she already had been renting. Much further away from work. Her German colleagues found the whole thing quite baffling. And not a little frivolous. Some were positively offended by the waste. With her generous pension, she'd have been set up for a very comfortable retirement. On the plus side she got away from her leech of a boyfriend.
Save me from "whataboutery" arguments used to defend members of the royal family.
No-one has presented any. Yet.
Oh come on. Did you not read the references to backhanders paid to political parties and charitable donations paid from chairmen's knighthood funds?
Read them? I wrote them. That's not whataboutery. That's saying something like it has always gone on. Well, backhanders might be whataboutery! You've got me there. Look, I do not care about honours, and at least this way some public good results. Some might even argue it is what honours are for – do some charitable work and get a badge. Backhanders for planning permission is in a quite separate class of corruption, as would be the political sale of honours or the sale of seats in the Lords.
The pattern of party support did change radically at the last GE. The crossover age of voting Tory instead of Labour dropped all the way from 55 to 39. Hence why the Tories won an eighty seat majority instead of no overall majority.
I think this tax will shift the voting age for Tories to well above 55, maybe approaching 60. I could easily see Labour get to 300+ seats if they oppose this and do it with some level of cunning.
Worth remembering that the incredibly steep age profile is a very recent phenomenon. These graphs are from the Mori post-election analyses;
I'm curious as to what Labour's policy will be re student fees / debt.
The best approach would be to abolish the student debt. Perhaps negative interest at 5% per year.
We all know that it is never going to be repaid, why not recognise that and save a lot of misery?
True in general but individual circumstances can change.
I know a graduate who has just got a well paid manual job and is aghast that he's now paying his student debt back when he'd assumed he never would.
I think on current projections 70% will not pay off their debt, and will have to suffer those chains for 30 years.
They really aren't chains though....the way student debt is treated isn't like regular debt e.g. if you fall out of work, you stop making payments. If you don't earn much, you don't pay. The amount you pay each month is dependent on your income.
That is totally different to debt from "proper" loans.
Martin Lewis always refers to it as a capped graduate tax, because to all intents and purposes that is exactly what it is. Anybody who has this should never think of it is as debt or worry about the balance, rather its simply an additional tax you have to pay, in the same way as your pay NI or IC, or that now most people are auto-enrolled into pension schemes. All this money just disappears before it ever gets to your pocket.
I made this mistake, considering it debt, I made a load of money, and wrote a big cheque to pay it all off. Its was one of the dumbest moves I have ever made* e.g. I could have instead paid the deposit on a buy to let instead.
* not as bad as betting on Team USA in Ryder Cup, or ignoring Bitcoin pre 2010.
Save me from "whataboutery" arguments used to defend members of the royal family.
No-one has presented any. Yet.
Oh come on. Did you not read the references to backhanders paid to political parties and charitable donations paid from chairmen's knighthood funds?
Read them? I wrote them. That's not whataboutery. That's saying something like it has always gone on. Well, backhanders might be whataboutery! You've got me there. Look, I do not care about honours, and at least this way some public good results. Some might even argue it is what honours are for – do some charitable work and get a badge. Backhanders for planning permission is in a quite separate class of corruption, as would be the political sale of honours or the sale of seats in the Lords.
I observed before how EKOS and Mainstreet, who do daily polling, were picking up the large Tory leads of 4 to 8%. Enough for a Tory minority. Whereas all the others, including Nanos daily, were showing a statistical tie. Plenty good enough for Justin to carry on. Now Mainstreet seem to be herding towards the others, while EKOS isn't. As before. Someone is wrong. So EKOS can be lauded or lambasted. Take your pick.
I suspect the Liberals will over-perform relative to the rest of the country in their strongest areas in the centre of the cities like Montreal and Toronto where the electorates are younger and better educated than elsewhere. If true, that would mean piling up votes in safe seats, similar to how UK Labour did at the last couple of elections.
Their strongest areas are generally the further East you are. Like the old/young, the urban rural divide doesn't apply the same way. The Liberals strongest vote was with the over 55's last time. They have many fewer safe seats than the Tories. Which was why their vote was more efficient. There is also the NDP to the left. Trudeau was very effective in munching in 2015, and nibbling in 2019, into both left and right blocs. This time he's being double nibbled himself.
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
An interesting question. Is it better to give adult children money on anannual basis from their 20s or a much larger lump sum when they are in their 60s. Is either good for them? Does having unearned income from an early stage reduce ambition/motivation?
That is indeed interesting. It always strikes me that giving young people the money for a deposit is regarded as virtuous behaviour. Entirely right and proper to be received with thanks. However, giving them a similar sum to do with as they wished would be considered the height of folly for the parents. And sponging on the part of the kids. We really do seem to see the mere act of property ownership as virtuous, and an end in itself. Why isn't bunging the kids a huge sum to train in an expensive career, or start their own business as common? Or accorded such status? Or even just go travelling for 5 years?
Whether we like it or not, owning a property is regarded by most people as the basis of prosperity in this country. It is odd because in many quite similar societies, like Germany, this isn't necessarily the case.
Strangely. A very good friend in Germany has just been left £100 k plus by her English father, on condition she use it to "get on the property ladder." She couldn't get a mortgage as she is nearing retirement. 55. So has ended up buying a tiny property, much smaller and more decrepit than she already had been renting. Much further away from work. Her German colleagues found the whole thing quite baffling. And not a little frivolous. Some were positively offended by the waste. With her generous pension, she'd have been set up for a very comfortable retirement. On the plus side she got away from her leech of a boyfriend.
Yes, that speaks for me. Never saw the point of buying property unless one's a builder by profession and skilled at improving it oneself.
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
An interesting question. Is it better to give adult children money on anannual basis from their 20s or a much larger lump sum when they are in their 60s. Is either good for them? Does having unearned income from an early stage reduce ambition/motivation?
A lot of people work in order to provide for their families in the future, not necessarily for themselves. So if you stop or reduce the ability to inherit, you may reduce ambition and motivation.
No one is planning to end inheritance. It is hard though to see why workers should pay extra NI so that a small number can preserve a larger inheiritance.
I'm more curious as to whether significant inheritance at an early stage is really beneficial to the recipient. You can get a lot of satisfaction from doing things independently. Is that undermined by just being given it without having to work for it?
I think it depends on the size of inheiritance. All that I have inherited was £1000 25 years ago from my grandfather, with the instructions to buy something for myself that I could keep. I bought a stereo, and still have it.
I think you are right though. The children of the super rich don't look particularly happy or purposeful.
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
An interesting question. Is it better to give adult children money on anannual basis from their 20s or a much larger lump sum when they are in their 60s. Is either good for them? Does having unearned income from an early stage reduce ambition/motivation?
That is indeed interesting. It always strikes me that giving young people the money for a deposit is regarded as virtuous behaviour. Entirely right and proper to be received with thanks. However, giving them a similar sum to do with as they wished would be considered the height of folly for the parents. And sponging on the part of the kids. We really do seem to see the mere act of property ownership as virtuous, and an end in itself. Why isn't bunging the kids a huge sum to train in an expensive career, or start their own business as common? Or accorded such status? Or even just go travelling for 5 years?
Whether we like it or not, owning a property is regarded by most people as the basis of prosperity in this country. It is odd because in many quite similar societies, like Germany, this isn't necessarily the case.
Strangely. A very good friend in Germany has just been left £100 k plus by her English father, on condition she use it to "get on the property ladder." She couldn't get a mortgage as she is nearing retirement. 55. So has ended up buying a tiny property, much smaller and more decrepit than she already had been renting. Much further away from work. Her German colleagues found the whole thing quite baffling. And not a little frivolous. Some were positively offended by the waste. With her generous pension, she'd have been set up for a very comfortable retirement. On the plus side she got away from her leech of a boyfriend.
Yes, that speaks for me. Never saw the point of buying property unless one's a builder by profession and skilled at improving it oneself.
Home ownership reduces labour mobility, which might be one reason Germany traditionally outperforms us. In any case, it is a good Conservative reason for opposing it, or at least not deifying owner-occupiers. Whereas enriching private landlords is a good Labour reason for support. Swings and roundabouts.
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
An interesting question. Is it better to give adult children money on anannual basis from their 20s or a much larger lump sum when they are in their 60s. Is either good for them? Does having unearned income from an early stage reduce ambition/motivation?
A lot of people work in order to provide for their families in the future, not necessarily for themselves. So if you stop or reduce the ability to inherit, you may reduce ambition and motivation.
No one is planning to end inheritance. It is hard though to see why workers should pay extra NI so that a small number can preserve a larger inheiritance.
I'm more curious as to whether significant inheritance at an early stage is really beneficial to the recipient. You can get a lot of satisfaction from doing things independently. Is that undermined by just being given it without having to work for it?
I think it depends on the size of inheiritance. All that I have inherited was £1000 25 years ago from my grandfather, with the instructions to buy something for myself that I could keep. I bought a stereo, and still have it.
I think you are right though. The children of the super rich don't look particularly happy or purposeful.
I was thinking of 100k a year or say £5m. Enough to not do anything
One line stands out. "When you hear Trudeau in English he sounds affected and phony. In French he sounds authentic and passionate." Isn't always appreciated that English is his second language.
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
An interesting question. Is it better to give adult children money on anannual basis from their 20s or a much larger lump sum when they are in their 60s. Is either good for them? Does having unearned income from an early stage reduce ambition/motivation?
A lot of people work in order to provide for their families in the future, not necessarily for themselves. So if you stop or reduce the ability to inherit, you may reduce ambition and motivation.
No one is planning to end inheritance. It is hard though to see why workers should pay extra NI so that a small number can preserve a larger inheiritance.
I'm more curious as to whether significant inheritance at an early stage is really beneficial to the recipient. You can get a lot of satisfaction from doing things independently. Is that undermined by just being given it without having to work for it?
I think it depends on the size of inheiritance. All that I have inherited was £1000 25 years ago from my grandfather, with the instructions to buy something for myself that I could keep. I bought a stereo, and still have it.
I think you are right though. The children of the super rich don't look particularly happy or purposeful.
I was thinking of 100k a year or say £5m. Enough to not do anything
That's a no-brainer. 100k a year unearned does no bugger any good. Nor £5m lump sum. More modest. And, may I venture to say, normal, figures might be a little different. Folk can do nowt on 15k a year quite easily.
I’m making a call. The triple lock will remain untouched.
My reasoning - it’s more of a political gimmick, a very clever one, than an even more clever policy of genuinely helping pensioners right across the board. Politically, why bust your headline gimmick when there must by thousands of ways to claw the same money off the same people by stealth?
I’m making a call. The triple lock will remain untouched.
My reasoning - it’s more of a political gimmick, a very clever one, than an even more clever policy of genuinely helping pensioners right across the board. Politically, why bust your headline gimmick when there must by thousands of ways to claw the same money off the same people by stealth?
You may well be right. I expect there are many poorer pensioners (and the state pension is only £179.60 a week, or £9,339 a year) in the red wall seats and the government will not want to see them return to voting Labour. In addition, the recent kite-flying about National Insurance suggests attention has switched away from the triple lock.
Elderly: the young should pay their way and pay their tuition fees
Also elderly: we will not pay for our bus passes, TfL travel or social care!
Also elderly: we all had our own houses at your age by working hard! But give us all your money for rent.
Actually many of the elderly help their grandchildren with deposits for houses now and also leave them and their children a hefty inheritance
The elderly don't leave their children an inheritance. They leave it to their elderly offspring.
An interesting question. Is it better to give adult children money on anannual basis from their 20s or a much larger lump sum when they are in their 60s. Is either good for them? Does having unearned income from an early stage reduce ambition/motivation?
That is indeed interesting. It always strikes me that giving young people the money for a deposit is regarded as virtuous behaviour. Entirely right and proper to be received with thanks. However, giving them a similar sum to do with as they wished would be considered the height of folly for the parents. And sponging on the part of the kids. We really do seem to see the mere act of property ownership as virtuous, and an end in itself. Why isn't bunging the kids a huge sum to train in an expensive career, or start their own business as common? Or accorded such status? Or even just go travelling for 5 years?
Whether we like it or not, owning a property is regarded by most people as the basis of prosperity in this country. It is odd because in many quite similar societies, like Germany, this isn't necessarily the case.
Strangely. A very good friend in Germany has just been left £100 k plus by her English father, on condition she use it to "get on the property ladder." She couldn't get a mortgage as she is nearing retirement. 55. So has ended up buying a tiny property, much smaller and more decrepit than she already had been renting. Much further away from work. Her German colleagues found the whole thing quite baffling. And not a little frivolous. Some were positively offended by the waste. With her generous pension, she'd have been set up for a very comfortable retirement. On the plus side she got away from her leech of a boyfriend.
Yes, that speaks for me. Never saw the point of buying property unless one's a builder by profession and skilled at improving it oneself.
Part of the problem is that housing rental markets tend to be quite disfunctional, especially if they're dominated by private landlords. There's an incentive for landlords to try to *keep* a good tenant and stop them moving, but once they move they likely can't rent from the same landlord again since the landlord only has a few houses, so the incentive to do good upkeep etc is a bit limited, and mostly comes down to whether the landlord is a nice person or not. It would be better if the market looked more like the hotel market, with property owned and managed by a bunch of ferociously competing brands, so if you weren't satisfied with the upkeep of your Mariott house you could switch to a Hilton.
I’m making a call. The triple lock will remain untouched.
My reasoning - it’s more of a political gimmick, a very clever one, than an even more clever policy of genuinely helping pensioners right across the board. Politically, why bust your headline gimmick when there must by thousands of ways to claw the same money off the same people by stealth?
It's quite a lot of money, maybe not trivial to get it back by stealth without people noticing. Alzheimer's sufferer tax, I guess?
The way to fudge it is just to apply the adjustment over a whole parliamentary term, rather than every year. That preserves the spirit of the promise while sanding off the corona-induced crazy.
I’m making a call. The triple lock will remain untouched.
My reasoning - it’s more of a political gimmick, a very clever one, than an even more clever policy of genuinely helping pensioners right across the board. Politically, why bust your headline gimmick when there must by thousands of ways to claw the same money off the same people by stealth?
It's quite a lot of money, maybe not trivial to get it back by stealth without people noticing. Alzheimer's sufferer tax, I guess?
The way to fudge it is just to apply the adjustment over a whole parliamentary term, rather than every year. That preserves the spirit of the promise while sanding off the corona-induced crazy.
It's about £3 billion, and possibly less depending what increase Rishi does grant. That could probably be reclaimed by limiting tax relief on contributions, as last time, or in other ways. We should not count the cost as the difference between zero and full triple lock, because no-one thinks HMG will announce no inrease in pensions. The relevant figure is the difference between whatever Rishi will (or perhaps wants to) announce and full triple lock.
I’m making a call. The triple lock will remain untouched.
My reasoning - it’s more of a political gimmick, a very clever one, than an even more clever policy of genuinely helping pensioners right across the board. Politically, why bust your headline gimmick when there must by thousands of ways to claw the same money off the same people by stealth?
It's quite a lot of money, maybe not trivial to get it back by stealth without people noticing. Alzheimer's sufferer tax, I guess?
The way to fudge it is just to apply the adjustment over a whole parliamentary term, rather than every year. That preserves the spirit of the promise while sanding off the corona-induced crazy.
It's about £3 billion, and possibly less depending what increase Rishi does grant. That could probably be reclaimed by limiting tax relief on contributions, as last time, or in other ways. We should not count the cost as the difference between zero and full triple lock, because no-one thinks HMG will announce no inrease in pensions. The relevant figure is the difference between whatever Rishi will (or perhaps wants to) announce and full triple lock.
If Rishi really has it in for me, reducing the 25% tax-free allowance on taking private pension money would be unfortunate, to say the least.
Save me from "whataboutery" arguments used to defend members of the royal family.
No-one has presented any. Yet.
Oh come on. Did you not read the references to backhanders paid to political parties and charitable donations paid from chairmen's knighthood funds?
Read them? I wrote them. That's not whataboutery. That's saying something like it has always gone on. Well, backhanders might be whataboutery! You've got me there. Look, I do not care about honours, and at least this way some public good results. Some might even argue it is what honours are for – do some charitable work and get a badge. Backhanders for planning permission is in a quite separate class of corruption, as would be the political sale of honours or the sale of seats in the Lords.
I wrote about the backhanders and sale of seats. Far from whataboutery it was associating the Charles stuff with it, as an indication where such behaviour can go if you do excuse it. So the purpose was the opposite of what @youngturk thought.
Comments
Think the world's gone barking mad? So do we, so vote accordingly.
https://coronavirus.bg/
As if this is likely to be the reason why Michael Fawcett - whose surname, as Private Eye once reminded us, is pronounced "Force It" - has "stepped down temporarily".
Can he still squeeze his boss's toothpaste?
Night night.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat
We all know that it is never going to be repaid, why not recognise that and save a lot of misery?
I know a graduate who has just got a well paid manual job and is aghast that he's now paying his student debt back when he'd assumed he never would.
She couldn't get a mortgage as she is nearing retirement. 55. So has ended up buying a tiny property, much smaller and more decrepit than she already had been renting. Much further away from work.
Her German colleagues found the whole thing quite baffling. And not a little frivolous. Some were positively offended by the waste.
With her generous pension, she'd have been set up for a very comfortable retirement.
On the plus side she got away from her leech of a boyfriend.
That is totally different to debt from "proper" loans.
Martin Lewis always refers to it as a capped graduate tax, because to all intents and purposes that is exactly what it is. Anybody who has this should never think of it is as debt or worry about the balance, rather its simply an additional tax you have to pay, in the same way as your pay NI or IC, or that now most people are auto-enrolled into pension schemes. All this money just disappears before it ever gets to your pocket.
I made this mistake, considering it debt, I made a load of money, and wrote a big cheque to pay it all off. Its was one of the dumbest moves I have ever made* e.g. I could have instead paid the deposit on a buy to let instead.
* not as bad as betting on Team USA in Ryder Cup, or ignoring Bitcoin pre 2010.
There is also the NDP to the left. Trudeau was very effective in munching in 2015, and nibbling in 2019, into both left and right blocs. This time he's being double nibbled himself.
I think you are right though. The children of the super rich don't look particularly happy or purposeful.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-breaking-down-the-wins-and-losses-in-the-first-leaders-debate
One line stands out. "When you hear Trudeau in English he sounds affected and phony. In French he sounds authentic and passionate."
Isn't always appreciated that English is his second language.
More modest. And, may I venture to say, normal, figures might be a little different.
Folk can do nowt on 15k a year quite easily.
My reasoning - it’s more of a political gimmick, a very clever one, than an even more clever policy of genuinely helping pensioners right across the board. Politically, why bust your headline gimmick when there must by thousands of ways to claw the same money off the same people by stealth?
The way to fudge it is just to apply the adjustment over a whole parliamentary term, rather than every year. That preserves the spirit of the promise while sanding off the corona-induced crazy.