Snap General Election called - The new UK Politics thread

[Stom]

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

Fair enough, but then your generation has very little idea of the era that I grew up in (as a 1980s Millennial, for info), nor of the era that Gens Z and Alpha have grown up in - does that mean you're not allowed to opine on what we do? Big, if true.

I still don't understand why your grown kids need your wealth though once you're dead. Do they not have jobs of their own?

Puja

I'm the same generation (age? 39) as you, so I understand it. And I still feel it's:

a) not partcularly fair.
b) not the thing that's going to "right the wrongs" of the tax system.
c) would be a lot better for a bottom cap.

Like most things, I firmly believe that wealth in those "middle class" levels should be encouraged. Those are the levels where you keep your money in the economy. You want more people to have that wealth in the range of £250k-£1.5m. And so when someone exits that bracket through death, you want their children to enter that bracket. Neither my sister nor I are in that bracket, even though we own our own homes, because the mortgage takes away most of that (and in my case I'm in Hungary, too).

So, as with everything, I would only start taxing inheritance on assets valued over £1m or £1.5m or some other number that has had a bit more thought gone into it.2

Someone shouldn't be able to inherit a £20m mansion tax free. But then they use trusts to get around it. So I would close those loopholes.

But in it's current form, it is unfair.

[Donny osmond]

Because, generally, it's going to hit the middle class the most (again). That's the problem with nearly all "wealth" taxes proposed, they are made to hit the middle class the most, and the middle class are the guys who feel like they get shat on every single time (not without reason).

Now, I'm not saying that inheritance tax is bad, in fact I think it should exist quite strictly. But I think it can only exist as part of a wider tax strategy that taxes investments and assets. If an asset can be used as collateral to get a very good deal on a loan, that asset should be eligible for tax. Every year it is available to you as collateral.

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

Yeah, this, entirely. Parents are allowed to spend money on their kids while they're alive, but if you have the misfortune to die then your loved ones can gtf and the state can swallow whatever is left into the black hole of public debt? Nah you're alright thanks.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Can't see any downside to this:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ampaigners

Google providing services for free. Yeah, that sounds not worrying at all.

I predict that Peter Kyle will be in a nicely paid job at Google a few years from now.

[Banquo]

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

Fair enough, but then your generation has very little idea of the era that I grew up in (as a 1980s Millennial, for info), nor of the era that Gens Z and Alpha have grown up in - does that mean you're not allowed to opine on what we do? Big, if true.

I still don't understand why your grown kids need your wealth though once you're dead. Do they not have jobs of their own?

Puja

I said nada about your right to opine, you just said you didn’t understand why folks saved for their kids. I’m just giving you a clue why. No right or wrong. Though I was actually alive when you were born and have my own kids, so have a little teeny bit of a view
And yes my kids work very hard- charity sector and primary teacher but really none of your business tbh

[Puja]

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

Fair enough, but then your generation has very little idea of the era that I grew up in (as a 1980s Millennial, for info), nor of the era that Gens Z and Alpha have grown up in - does that mean you're not allowed to opine on what we do? Big, if true.

I still don't understand why your grown kids need your wealth though once you're dead. Do they not have jobs of their own?

Puja

I'm the same generation (age? 39) as you, so I understand it. And I still feel it's:

a) not partcularly fair.
b) not the thing that's going to "right the wrongs" of the tax system.
c) would be a lot better for a bottom cap.

Like most things, I firmly believe that wealth in those "middle class" levels should be encouraged. Those are the levels where you keep your money in the economy. You want more people to have that wealth in the range of £250k-£1.5m. And so when someone exits that bracket through death, you want their children to enter that bracket. Neither my sister nor I are in that bracket, even though we own our own homes, because the mortgage takes away most of that (and in my case I'm in Hungary, too).

So, as with everything, I would only start taxing inheritance on assets valued over £1m or £1.5m or some other number that has had a bit more thought gone into it.2

Someone shouldn't be able to inherit a £20m mansion tax free. But then they use trusts to get around it. So I would close those loopholes.

But in it's current form, it is unfair.

Agreed that it's not set up correctly as things stand in a lot of respects - a single person who didn't own a property gets £325k tax-free, whereas someone whose husband died 20 years ago and who has a property gets to pass on £1m tax-free is bananas and is designed around the assumption of a life escalator of one marriage, own a home, have kids, that isn't everyone's experience nowadays and yet is still continuously represented in the tax system in this country. Plus, as you said, trusts make a mockery of it.

I said nada about your right to opine, you just said you didn’t understand why folks saved for their kids. I’m just giving you a clue why. No right or wrong. Though I was actually alive when you were born and have my own kids, so have a little teeny bit of a view
And yes my kids work very hard- charity sector and primary teacher but really none of your business tbh

I would indeed describe it as a teeny bit of a view that you have - second hand comes a very distant second place to actual lived experience. I understand very much why people save for their kids, but I can't save for my kids in the same way you saved for yours. I won't get a pension like you will. The only reason that I have a house is because I am lucky enough to come from family who could help me financially. I am incredibly lucky, and I am still struggling.

And around me, I'm watching my children's future nation being whittled away by austerity and lack of investment, with things that you took for granted deemed too expensive to maintain.

I work in financial services, and I find it utterly bizarre how many of my clients openly admit to planning their finances around the assumption of their promised inheritance - I don't want a country where so many people's plans of future financial stability require surviving until their parents die (especially now assisted dying is legalised!)! This goes doubly for the fact that my job means that the sample of people that I speak to tends to skew middle-class - if we have a country built around inheritances, then we have a country where we're condemning a large number to continual generational poverty. I will inherit money from my parents at some point and it will likely be the only hope I have of a decent retirement - people who don't get an inheritance might just get to not retire at all and I'm really not okay with that being our country.

Puja

[Puja]

Can't see any downside to this:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ampaigners

Google providing services for free. Yeah, that sounds not worrying at all.

I predict that Peter Kyle will be in a nicely paid job at Google a few years from now.

It's the old saying of the internet - if you're not paying for a product, it's because you are the product.

Puja

[Stom]

Fair enough, but then your generation has very little idea of the era that I grew up in (as a 1980s Millennial, for info), nor of the era that Gens Z and Alpha have grown up in - does that mean you're not allowed to opine on what we do? Big, if true.

I still don't understand why your grown kids need your wealth though once you're dead. Do they not have jobs of their own?

Puja

I'm the same generation (age? 39) as you, so I understand it. And I still feel it's:

a) not partcularly fair.
b) not the thing that's going to "right the wrongs" of the tax system.
c) would be a lot better for a bottom cap.

Like most things, I firmly believe that wealth in those "middle class" levels should be encouraged. Those are the levels where you keep your money in the economy. You want more people to have that wealth in the range of £250k-£1.5m. And so when someone exits that bracket through death, you want their children to enter that bracket. Neither my sister nor I are in that bracket, even though we own our own homes, because the mortgage takes away most of that (and in my case I'm in Hungary, too).

So, as with everything, I would only start taxing inheritance on assets valued over £1m or £1.5m or some other number that has had a bit more thought gone into it.2

Someone shouldn't be able to inherit a £20m mansion tax free. But then they use trusts to get around it. So I would close those loopholes.

But in it's current form, it is unfair.

Agreed that it's not set up correctly as things stand in a lot of respects - a single person who didn't own a property gets £325k tax-free, whereas someone whose husband died 20 years ago and who has a property gets to pass on £1m tax-free is bananas and is designed around the assumption of a life escalator of one marriage, own a home, have kids, that isn't everyone's experience nowadays and yet is still continuously represented in the tax system in this country. Plus, as you said, trusts make a mockery of it.

I said nada about your right to opine, you just said you didn’t understand why folks saved for their kids. I’m just giving you a clue why. No right or wrong. Though I was actually alive when you were born and have my own kids, so have a little teeny bit of a view
And yes my kids work very hard- charity sector and primary teacher but really none of your business tbh

I would indeed describe it as a teeny bit of a view that you have - second hand comes a very distant second place to actual lived experience. I understand very much why people save for their kids, but I can't save for my kids in the same way you saved for yours. I won't get a pension like you will. The only reason that I have a house is because I am lucky enough to come from family who could help me financially. I am incredibly lucky, and I am still struggling.

And around me, I'm watching my children's future nation being whittled away by austerity and lack of investment, with things that you took for granted deemed too expensive to maintain.

I work in financial services, and I find it utterly bizarre how many of my clients openly admit to planning their finances around the assumption of their promised inheritance - I don't want a country where so many people's plans of future financial stability require surviving until their parents die (especially now assisted dying is legalised!)! This goes doubly for the fact that my job means that the sample of people that I speak to tends to skew middle-class - if we have a country built around inheritances, then we have a country where we're condemning a large number to continual generational poverty. I will inherit money from my parents at some point and it will likely be the only hope I have of a decent retirement - people who don't get an inheritance might just get to not retire at all and I'm really not okay with that being our country.

Puja

You make a great point. But one that shows that the entire system is broken, not necessarily inheritance tax.

Our situation isn’t because of inheritance tax, it’s because of wages, house prices, declining public services, the rise of monopolies/oligopolies…

I don’t see inheritance tax as a big problem when taken in relation to these things. But I do see trusts as a big problem, and think they should be outlawed. If average Joe didn’t have access to it, it shouldn’t be available.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The Welfare bill went through final reading yesterday. Gotta say I've lost track of what the hell is still in it. I hope I can trust last week's Labour rebels that the bill isn't too taxic now . . . but I have a sneaking suspicion that new PIP claimants will still get shafted next year after the Timms review.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... lfare-bill

[Which Tyler]

I would indeed describe it as a teeny bit of a view that you have - second hand comes a very distant second place to actual lived experience. I understand very much why people save for their kids, but I can't save for my kids in the same way you saved for yours. I won't get a pension like you will. The only reason that I have a house is because I am lucky enough to come from family who could help me financially. I am incredibly lucky, and I am still struggling.

And around me, I'm watching my children's future nation being whittled away by austerity and lack of investment, with things that you took for granted deemed too expensive to maintain.

I work in financial services, and I find it utterly bizarre how many of my clients openly admit to planning their finances around the assumption of their promised inheritance - I don't want a country where so many people's plans of future financial stability require surviving until their parents die (especially now assisted dying is legalised!)! This goes doubly for the fact that my job means that the sample of people that I speak to tends to skew middle-class - if we have a country built around inheritances, then we have a country where we're condemning a large number to continual generational poverty. I will inherit money from my parents at some point and it will likely be the only hope I have of a decent retirement - people who don't get an inheritance might just get to not retire at all and I'm really not okay with that being our country.

And yes, inheritance tax here is a symptom not a cause - and the very fact it's a concern is another symptom

[Banquo]

Fair enough, but then your generation has very little idea of the era that I grew up in (as a 1980s Millennial, for info), nor of the era that Gens Z and Alpha have grown up in - does that mean you're not allowed to opine on what we do? Big, if true.

I still don't understand why your grown kids need your wealth though once you're dead. Do they not have jobs of their own?

Puja

I'm the same generation (age? 39) as you, so I understand it. And I still feel it's:

a) not partcularly fair.
b) not the thing that's going to "right the wrongs" of the tax system.
c) would be a lot better for a bottom cap.

Like most things, I firmly believe that wealth in those "middle class" levels should be encouraged. Those are the levels where you keep your money in the economy. You want more people to have that wealth in the range of £250k-£1.5m. And so when someone exits that bracket through death, you want their children to enter that bracket. Neither my sister nor I are in that bracket, even though we own our own homes, because the mortgage takes away most of that (and in my case I'm in Hungary, too).

So, as with everything, I would only start taxing inheritance on assets valued over £1m or £1.5m or some other number that has had a bit more thought gone into it.2

Someone shouldn't be able to inherit a £20m mansion tax free. But then they use trusts to get around it. So I would close those loopholes.

But in it's current form, it is unfair.

Agreed that it's not set up correctly as things stand in a lot of respects - a single person who didn't own a property gets £325k tax-free, whereas someone whose husband died 20 years ago and who has a property gets to pass on £1m tax-free is bananas and is designed around the assumption of a life escalator of one marriage, own a home, have kids, that isn't everyone's experience nowadays and yet is still continuously represented in the tax system in this country. Plus, as you said, trusts make a mockery of it.

I said nada about your right to opine, you just said you didn’t understand why folks saved for their kids. I’m just giving you a clue why. No right or wrong. Though I was actually alive when you were born and have my own kids, so have a little teeny bit of a view
And yes my kids work very hard- charity sector and primary teacher but really none of your business tbh

I would indeed describe it as a teeny bit of a view that you have - second hand comes a very distant second place to actual lived experience. I understand very much why people save for their kids, but I can't save for my kids in the same way you saved for yours. I won't get a pension like you will. The only reason that I have a house is because I am lucky enough to come from family who could help me financially. I am incredibly lucky, and I am still struggling.

And around me, I'm watching my children's future nation being whittled away by austerity and lack of investment, with things that you took for granted deemed too expensive to maintain.

I work in financial services, and I find it utterly bizarre how many of my clients openly admit to planning their finances around the assumption of their promised inheritance - I don't want a country where so many people's plans of future financial stability require surviving until their parents die (especially now assisted dying is legalised!)! This goes doubly for the fact that my job means that the sample of people that I speak to tends to skew middle-class - if we have a country built around inheritances, then we have a country where we're condemning a large number to continual generational poverty. I will inherit money from my parents at some point and it will likely be the only hope I have of a decent retirement - people who don't get an inheritance might just get to not retire at all and I'm really not okay with that being our country.

Puja

All sounds a bit shut up boomer to me. I'm not going to apologise/be retrospectively penalised for providing for my kids, nor saving for my own house and pension (no parental help if that's germane)....and surprising as it may seem, that was not without considerable sacrifice nor working really hard- nor do I see why I should pay my taxes when I'm alive, then whatever's left just passes to the state when I'm gone (if that's your proposal). Not much of an incentive to save really.
Must confess though, I did misinterpret your original comment on inheritance tax- you were unable to understand why kids should have the right to money etc from their parents, rather than why parents saved to provide for their kids. That's such a different start point I probably wouldn't have started

I do have two questions though- what did I take for granted that isn't available now, and to WT " inheritance tax here is a symptom not a cause - and the very fact it's a concern is another symptom"....symptoms of what?

[Sandydragon]

Inheritance tax is a terrible idea. Most of the seriously rich will have trusts set up to avoid it, so it’s mostly those who have property in pricier parts of the country who get hit. And why is it such a problem to leave money to your children?

In my experience, people will accept some taxes, but they get more irritated over taxes like this, which come at a point where the family is already grieving. Labour is ideologically predisposed to taxing people more, but that’s not always the best option, particularly when outlay like the NHS and welfare seem to be bottomless holes. This government promised growth, but its only answer is to tax those who pay taxes more and more.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Inheritance tax is a terrible idea. Most of the seriously rich will have trusts set up to avoid it, so it’s mostly those who have property in pricier parts of the country who get hit. And why is it such a problem to leave money to your children?

In my experience, people will accept some taxes, but they get more irritated over taxes like this, which come at a point where the family is already grieving. Labour is ideologically predisposed to taxing people more, but that’s not always the best option, particularly when outlay like the NHS and welfare seem to be bottomless holes. This government promised growth, but its only answer is to tax those who pay taxes more and more.

I think it has another answer, which is to take away benefits. The leadership seems pretty keen on it.

[Puja]

All sounds a bit shut up boomer to me. I'm not going to apologise/be retrospectively penalised for providing for my kids, nor saving for my own house and pension (no parental help if that's germane)....and surprising as it may seem, that was not without considerable sacrifice nor working really hard- nor do I see why I should pay my taxes when I'm alive, then whatever's left just passes to the state when I'm gone (if that's your proposal). Not much of an incentive to save really.
Must confess though, I did misinterpret your original comment on inheritance tax- you were unable to understand why kids should have the right to money etc from their parents, rather than why parents saved to provide for their kids. That's such a different start point I probably wouldn't have started

I do have two questions though- what did I take for granted that isn't available now, and to WT " inheritance tax here is a symptom not a cause - and the very fact it's a concern is another symptom"....symptoms of what?

It's not really, "Okay Boomer," it's more, "Please acknowledge that being a Boomer means you have a perspective, not **the** perspective that comes only from the wisdom of years and that, just as there are things other generations don't know which you do, you will have some fairly sizeable blind spots yourself." That's not really as pithy though, and probably harder to reach for when someone is frustrated by a Boomer asserting authority from years and disdaining the lived experience of others, so I understand why the 4-syllable answer is often reached for instead.

I always find it fascinating when people say, "I don't see why it's fair that I should have to pay X tax - I already paid tax on my income once already and why should I be penalised for being successful?!" Obviously no-one wants to pay tax at any point, but we live in a society, a rising tide lifts all boats, and taxes need to be paid in order for the country to work. If the choice is between not having something that's a social good, or not having it, surely it's a good idea to have the tax and for it to fall on those who are struggling the least? Do people's children **need** a £2m inheritance rather than a £1.5m inheritance, and do they **need** that more than we need bursaries to train medical staff?

In answer to your two questions, I'll take the last one first. It's a symptom of the biggest problem afflicting our nation - inequality and the consolidation of wealth and opportunity. The economic crashes, austerity, COVID, and the rapid advance of technology have exacerbated it, and it's only going to get worse, as people with familial wealth succeed and those without are left trapped. That's not to mention that an angry, under-educated populace with a sense of grievance about a rigged system are ripe targets for populists, who won't exactly be interested in undoing said rigged system, given they benefit from it.

As for the first, take your pick. Free university tuition. Bursaries for training in key jobs like nursing and medicine. A functioning NHS, rather than our current 2-tier system where if you want to get seen promptly, you need to go private. Bills that were a fraction of the average salary. Being able to buy a house for under £20k. Investment in infrastructure. Third places. I could go on, but I'd rather not.

Puja

[Banquo]

All sounds a bit shut up boomer to me. I'm not going to apologise/be retrospectively penalised for providing for my kids, nor saving for my own house and pension (no parental help if that's germane)....and surprising as it may seem, that was not without considerable sacrifice nor working really hard- nor do I see why I should pay my taxes when I'm alive, then whatever's left just passes to the state when I'm gone (if that's your proposal). Not much of an incentive to save really.
Must confess though, I did misinterpret your original comment on inheritance tax- you were unable to understand why kids should have the right to money etc from their parents, rather than why parents saved to provide for their kids. That's such a different start point I probably wouldn't have started

I do have two questions though- what did I take for granted that isn't available now, and to WT " inheritance tax here is a symptom not a cause - and the very fact it's a concern is another symptom"....symptoms of what?

It's not really, "Okay Boomer," it's more, "Please acknowledge that being a Boomer means you have a perspective, not **the** perspective that comes only from the wisdom of years and that, just as there are things other generations don't know which you do, you will have some fairly sizeable blind spots yourself." That's not really as pithy though, and probably harder to reach for when someone is frustrated by a Boomer asserting authority from years and disdaining the lived experience of others, so I understand why the 4-syllable answer is often reached for instead.

I always find it fascinating when people say, "I don't see why it's fair that I should have to pay X tax - I already paid tax on my income once already and why should I be penalised for being successful?!" Obviously no-one wants to pay tax at any point, but we live in a society, a rising tide lifts all boats, and taxes need to be paid in order for the country to work. If the choice is between not having something that's a social good, or not having it, surely it's a good idea to have the tax and for it to fall on those who are struggling the least? Do people's children **need** a £2m inheritance rather than a £1.5m inheritance, and do they **need** that more than we need bursaries to train medical staff?

In answer to your two questions, I'll take the last one first. It's a symptom of the biggest problem afflicting our nation - inequality and the consolidation of wealth and opportunity. The economic crashes, austerity, COVID, and the rapid advance of technology have exacerbated it, and it's only going to get worse, as people with familial wealth succeed and those without are left trapped. That's not to mention that an angry, under-educated populace with a sense of grievance about a rigged system are ripe targets for populists, who won't exactly be interested in undoing said rigged system, given they benefit from it.

As for the first, take your pick. Free university tuition. Bursaries for training in key jobs like nursing and medicine. A functioning NHS, rather than our current 2-tier system where if you want to get seen promptly, you need to go private. Bills that were a fraction of the average salary. Being able to buy a house for under £20k. Investment in infrastructure. Third places. I could go on, but I'd rather not.

Puja

As I said much earlier, I gave you a perspective clearly saying it wasn’t right or wrong. You talked about not getting this perspective so that’s what you got, but seemed to take that as saying you had no right to opine, and I certainly did not disdain your lived experience (though you appeared to disdain my experience of the 80's onwards). Not the case, I just don’t agree with you.
The only (or a a big part of) answer that seems to occur to many folks to fix the ills of the nation, seems to be to draw deeper into the extensive well of goodwill and cash from those who are and have been tapped up heavily already and hope some government will fix it using said cash. I’m fucked off with it as have seen many cycles. If you can’t see that multiple bites of the tax cherry on the same people breaks the social contract with the most compliant and actually generous section of tax payers then that’s one of the issues. The mantra of you are wealthier than I deem acceptable so I’ll decide the excess and take it off you doesn’t sound fun.

University education and loans isn’t a terrible way of solving the problem presented by making tertiary education almost a right- wont go into that; most students of my era - a whole lot less obvs- came out with a lot of unsubsidised debt in fairness. I agree on medical bursaries- tied to NHS tenure. The NHS has changed a lot and isn’t fit for purpose, but was a challenge even when I were a nipper etc- treatment quality and breadth was appalling compared to today. Not sure a £20k house is a reasonable ask
Just to maybe cheer you up about today- through most of my life I’ve not been able to take for granted- short and off the top of my head…security of employment (employees rights almost zero a lot of the time), no discrimination at work, minority rights, gay marriage, extension of life through cancer, heart etc treatment) I know you can’t fathom it but life in many aspects remains better for an awful lot more people than for much of my existence- and I’ve funded a lot of it . But it’s true, since 2008 been far from ideal with post Brexit feeling shitty- and all shittiness magnified by the medium we are presently using; my kids are however very positive, optimistic, altruistic and trying to make the world a better place so fingers crossed

[Stom]

All sounds a bit shut up boomer to me. I'm not going to apologise/be retrospectively penalised for providing for my kids, nor saving for my own house and pension (no parental help if that's germane)....and surprising as it may seem, that was not without considerable sacrifice nor working really hard- nor do I see why I should pay my taxes when I'm alive, then whatever's left just passes to the state when I'm gone (if that's your proposal). Not much of an incentive to save really.
Must confess though, I did misinterpret your original comment on inheritance tax- you were unable to understand why kids should have the right to money etc from their parents, rather than why parents saved to provide for their kids. That's such a different start point I probably wouldn't have started

I do have two questions though- what did I take for granted that isn't available now, and to WT " inheritance tax here is a symptom not a cause - and the very fact it's a concern is another symptom"....symptoms of what?

It's not really, "Okay Boomer," it's more, "Please acknowledge that being a Boomer means you have a perspective, not **the** perspective that comes only from the wisdom of years and that, just as there are things other generations don't know which you do, you will have some fairly sizeable blind spots yourself." That's not really as pithy though, and probably harder to reach for when someone is frustrated by a Boomer asserting authority from years and disdaining the lived experience of others, so I understand why the 4-syllable answer is often reached for instead.

I always find it fascinating when people say, "I don't see why it's fair that I should have to pay X tax - I already paid tax on my income once already and why should I be penalised for being successful?!" Obviously no-one wants to pay tax at any point, but we live in a society, a rising tide lifts all boats, and taxes need to be paid in order for the country to work. If the choice is between not having something that's a social good, or not having it, surely it's a good idea to have the tax and for it to fall on those who are struggling the least? Do people's children **need** a £2m inheritance rather than a £1.5m inheritance, and do they **need** that more than we need bursaries to train medical staff?

In answer to your two questions, I'll take the last one first. It's a symptom of the biggest problem afflicting our nation - inequality and the consolidation of wealth and opportunity. The economic crashes, austerity, COVID, and the rapid advance of technology have exacerbated it, and it's only going to get worse, as people with familial wealth succeed and those without are left trapped. That's not to mention that an angry, under-educated populace with a sense of grievance about a rigged system are ripe targets for populists, who won't exactly be interested in undoing said rigged system, given they benefit from it.

As for the first, take your pick. Free university tuition. Bursaries for training in key jobs like nursing and medicine. A functioning NHS, rather than our current 2-tier system where if you want to get seen promptly, you need to go private. Bills that were a fraction of the average salary. Being able to buy a house for under £20k. Investment in infrastructure. Third places. I could go on, but I'd rather not.

Puja

As I said much earlier, I gave you a perspective clearly saying it wasn’t right or wrong. You talked about not getting this perspective so that’s what you got, but seemed to take that as saying you had no right to opine, and I certainly did not disdain your lived experience (though you appeared to disdain my experience of the 80's onwards). Not the case, I just don’t agree with you.
The only (or a a big part of) answer that seems to occur to many folks to fix the ills of the nation, seems to be to draw deeper into the extensive well of goodwill and cash from those who are and have been tapped up heavily already and hope some government will fix it using said cash. I’m fucked off with it as have seen many cycles. If you can’t see that multiple bites of the tax cherry on the same people breaks the social contract with the most compliant and actually generous section of tax payers then that’s one of the issues. The mantra of you are wealthier than I deem acceptable so I’ll decide the excess and take it off you doesn’t sound fun.

University education and loans isn’t a terrible way of solving the problem presented by making tertiary education almost a right- wont go into that; most students of my era - a whole lot less obvs- came out with a lot of unsubsidised debt in fairness. I agree on medical bursaries- tied to NHS tenure. The NHS has changed a lot and isn’t fit for purpose, but was a challenge even when I were a nipper etc- treatment quality and breadth was appalling compared to today. Not sure a £20k house is a reasonable ask
Just to maybe cheer you up about today- through most of my life I’ve not been able to take for granted- short and off the top of my head…security of employment (employees rights almost zero a lot of the time), no discrimination at work, minority rights, gay marriage, extension of life through cancer, heart etc treatment) I know you can’t fathom it but life in many aspects remains better for an awful lot more people than for much of my existence- and I’ve funded a lot of it . But it’s true, since 2008 been far from ideal with post Brexit feeling shitty- and all shittiness magnified by the medium we are presently using; my kids are however very positive, optimistic, altruistic and trying to make the world a better place so fingers crossed

Just FYI, my parents' first house was £10k. In Hounslow. And they could sell it for £60k 18 months later, and buy their current home for £100k with a 25 year mortgage on £40k...and that home is now worth upward of £1.2m.

The wealth inequality problem generationally is massive.

On your point about taxation. I agree and I don't. I don't think it's fair to tax normal people inheritance tax. But the property is then exempt from capital gains tax if sold for the same value. Which is...fair, I think.

The problem is with the very wealthy. The way the financial system has gone, anyone with wealth can basically live without spending a penny. They can let their wealth accumulate, get better deals with the banks because they have assets, and grow their wealth exponentially while the average joe is left to rot.

THAT should be taxed. We've clashed before because of the impact it would have on pensions, but increasing dividend tax is a must do for me. It would absolutely be the first thing I do.

[morepork]

“Extensive well of goodwill “. Seriously? Altruistic trickle down. Come on…

[Banquo]

“Extensive well of goodwill “. Seriously? Altruistic trickle down. Come on…

There is a lot of goodwill in my lived middle class experience- admittedly the trickle down bit is more forced in some cases . Cynical fckr, must be USA seeping in.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Rachel Reeves sows the seeds of the next financial crash. When you undo the regulations born of the last crash it's just a matter if time before the next one comes along.

Is it really likely that financial regs are too tight after 14 years of the Tories? But the City lobbyists told Rachel so it must be true.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... sion-house

[Puja]

"Trickle-down benefits to consumers". Aye, right.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

"Trickle-down benefits to consumers". Aye, right.

Puja

Sure, a tiny amount trickles down. But much more sucks up.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Starmer's purges of the Labour left look to be bringing about a total split in the left and the final nail in his electoral chances.

In a Find Out Now poll, the hypothetical (but not for long?) Corbyn-Sultana party of the left gets 15% of the vote, matching Labour (by taking 5% off it). It also takes 5% off the Greens, halving their vote. This is both funny and tragic. Farage will dominate under FPTP, surely (by total guesswork on my part) getting over 500 seats?

-------------------- Before After Change
Conservative----- 16% 17% 1%
Labour----------- 21% 15% -5%
Liberal Democrat- 11% 9% -2%
Reform UK-------- 34% 34% 0%
Green Party------- 11% 5% -5%
Scottish National-- 3% 2% -1%
Plaid Cymru--------- 1% 1% 0%
Other--------------- 4% 1% -2%
Corbyn-Sultana--- 0% 15% 15%
(NB there are rounding differences above...)

Tragic stuff which would make a more broad-church Labour leadership change course and take the purged left back. But Starmer won't do that. He will carry on in the same way because a shift to the left is impossible for him. Best hope is that he is forced out although that could give us Streeting (possibly worse than Starmer) or Rayner (an improvement but she will have to swim against a heavy current of anti-working class and misogyninist sentiment in the media).

It's tragic too for the Greens, wiping out any recent gains for them. But they are much to blame for this for hiding how left-wing they are, leaving another party to fill that niche. It does leave them with an option though (more possible under new leadership perhaps?) - joining forces with the Corbyn-Sultana party - for 20% of the vote (second place).

Another possibility (but very unlikely) is that this will push Starmer to introduce PR - the only means by which Farage could be kept from government (although that would hinge on the Tories doing the right thing ). His rich backers won't like it (they want a single winner they can bribe efficiently - they don't care that much who it is), but it could happen.

https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/hypothetical-vi-polling/
https://www.lbc.co.uk/politics/uk-polit ... r-polling/

Hilariously complacent, Neo-Blairiste piece from the New Statesman (included for ):
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2 ... ir-starmer

[Son of Mathonwy]

Rachel Reeves sows the seeds of the next financial crash. When you undo the regulations born of the last crash it's just a matter if time before the next one comes along.

Is it really likely that financial regs are too tight after 14 years of the Tories? But the City lobbyists told Rachel so it must be true.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... sion-house

Why this is happening . . .
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-m ... -takeover/

[Puja]

Hilariously complacent, Neo-Blairiste piece from the New Statesman (included for ):
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2 ... ir-starmer

Wow. That's... spectacularly divorced from reality.

New party not even launched yet, and that author knows everything about their policies and aims. Also loving the conclusion that it'll pander to the hordes of British-flag-hating BAME voters - quite apart from the quasi-Farage lumping together of 'dangerous minorities with loyalties to other nations', I'm impressed that he can think of no other reasons why people might be fucked off with Starmer.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

This guy is just toxic. He has to go.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -rebel-mps

[Son of Mathonwy]

Hilariously complacent, Neo-Blairiste piece from the New Statesman (included for ):
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2 ... ir-starmer

Wow. That's... spectacularly divorced from reality.

New party not even launched yet, and that author knows everything about their policies and aims. Also loving the conclusion that it'll pander to the hordes of British-flag-hating BAME voters - quite apart from the quasi-Farage lumping together of 'dangerous minorities with loyalties to other nations', I'm impressed that he can think of no other reasons why people might be fucked off with Starmer.

Puja

It's so over the top it's like a satire of what the Third Way, rightmost fringe of Labour might say. Like getting a glimpse into Wes Streeting's mind. Plus some genuine lunacy.

'Aversion to introspection'? Pot, kettle??
'Trotskyite millionaires, white-haired, nursing a sense of disappointment over how their side lost the Cold War' WTF??
'tired elephant stumbling around, being dragged down by hyenas'? Mate, Labour doesn't need any hyenas to drag it down, it's doing it all by itself.
Seriously, accusing the Greens and Corbyn-Sultana of not caring if Farage wins a landslide, because that would help their agenda??
Claiming that the new party 'will benefit hugely from First Past The Post' when, as a small party the opposite is obviously true.
'The acolytes of the progressive left . . . are itching for an election that can be presented as a referendum on multiculturalism' The far right wants this because it has no good arguments. The left would be mad to want this.
Apparently Corbyn-Sultana and the Greens will be infuriated that they've bounced Labour 'into the direction it should have taken long ago: focused on the Red Wall and the working class'. Really? So because Labour is currently letting down the working class and might be force to do the right thing at last (ie what C-S would do), that will infuriate C-S? I think vindicate is the word he was looking for.
Then he says 'Labour must also finally raise taxes'. What, like the C-S party (and the Greens) will obviously do in order to increase spending? So Labour is wrong and C-S is right?
And nothing positive about C-S's opposition to genocide, or Labour's support of it. Just talk of pro-Palestine extremism and conspiracy theories of October 7th.

It's as mad as a Telegraph article, just in a different way.