Forum menu
Funkydunc - I see that issue as a conflict between what you want as best for your child and what is best for the population as a whole.
Inheritance across the population increases inequality. I say that as a person who has inherited and will inherit more. without the inheritance i would be in financial trouble and claiming benefits
But - it puts me in a very privileged position that many will never get to for no reason other than accident of birth
so our son could in theory get an estates in excess of £500k. In many ways we have chosen thats what we want to do with the money we have earned. Are you suggesting that is wrong to do that ?
Wrong for who?
It's not wrong for you, your wife or your son. ( and I'm planning on doing exactly the same thing)
But it's defo wrong for society.
and the vast majority of wealth is passed on to rich retirees or those on the cusp of retiring, already home-owners in their 50s or later.
Apparently the third largest 'lender' for houses is now the 'bank' of mum and dad. About half of all first time buyers now have help. That help averages £50k per first time buyer across 2021-24, making up 49% of first time buyers. I wonder how many manage to also hide that as gift and avoid inheritance or CGT?
Though this is a sad reflection on silly high property prices - and a cycle of both wealth being handed down the generations and house prices being propped up by those with more resources.
Arguably, the other 51% of the house buyers who save without bank of mum and dad are also better off than many as they will slowly own a property.
That then leaves those who cannot afford to buy a house -the 1 in 3 millennials who will rent for the rest of their lives.
Interesting to see who else it benefits, not just retaining doctors in the NHS it seems.
Inheritance across the population increases inequality.
I hope to leave a healthy inheritance to my 3 children. I don’t expect to receive anything from parents. So the money I have will be split into 3. Surely that is spreading my wealth out across the (very limited) population that I take direct responsibility for bringing into this world?
If I couldn’t do that due to some cap on estates does it not take away some of the reason why I choose to work rather than retire?
Getting rid of inheritance is the wrong approach, we need to tackle the other end of the issue, the affordability of wages vs cost of housing. We tackle that by restricting what people can borrow which will drive down house prices allowing people to get onto the housing ladder and build up some wealth. The current situation is just helping concentrate more wealth with fewer people, landlords, who make an income and gain assets whilst the people paying for that end up with nothing to show for it after 40 years of paying out.
PS not a dig at landlords, it's the government's responsibility to level the playing field so more people have the opportunity of building some wealth.
The most interesting point in that article was the following:
However, more than half of non-retired people with a pension pot worth more than £1m are in the private sector, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.
Whilst it may be bankers, and other executives in industry, remember the taper means that the bankers on large bonuses won't be the ones benefiting as they have a reduced allowance. Don't feel too sorry for them, there are other places to put their money. But it does speak to the value of Defined Benefit pensions in the public sector.
Less LL means higher rents. Which is precisely what is happening and which is punishing the poorest.
Once again, this thread highlights how much more complex fiscal policies are than just gggrrrrr "the rich".
Unintended consequences can easily make a decision backfire badly for those which it is supposed to help...
I would say we need both a serious reduction in property prices and a serious limit on inherited wealth if we want a fair and socaily mobile society.
the absurdity of property price is there for all to see. My flat when I bought it almost 30 years ago was 2.5 times my salary at the time. Its now worth 10 times the salary for that job
I now if I was starting again would not be able to buy property other than an ex council on a rough estate perhaps. Maybe not even that. thats no property within a good distance of my workplace. I would be a perpetual renter
Less LL means higher rents.
Unless we have rent controls and / or a major council or housing association building programme
Money isn't real. It's completely made up. Since abandoning the gold standard it has no relationship to any physical thing. And yet even the people who make it up, and who are supposed to regulate those who manipulate it, seen not really to understand how it works. So we get lots of unintended consequences every time we try to influence the way that money behaves. Reading this account of the financial crises of the last few decades it is really striking how little understanding banks, regulators and governments seem to have https://stephaniekelton.substack.com/p/magical-thinking-monetary-thinking
Mrs FD attend a conference last week for her speciality.
The work that this group of consultants do is very specialised and done in a handful of units through out the UK by small teams.
Quite a bit of the talk was about not being able to attract middle grade doctors to their rota's, and the only applicants for MG jobs being from oversees. Some units viability in the next 6-12 months was in question. One unit was suggesting that of 5 consultants, 2 were retiring early, and one was reducing hours. This would leave 2 doing the work of 5.
I asked Mrs FD why this is the case, the pinnacle of work in their specialty, and not being able to recruit. She just said people are burnt out, not respected, are not remunerated equitably for what they have to do. New doctors now starting off just see being a doctor as a job, not a vocation, I am guessing that the reduction in overall pay and conditions has removed that 'goodwill' that made people willing to class it as a vocation.