Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

Thinking about the calls for better social mobility and the problems with thier statistical science on the subject as blown apart on radio 4 more or less this lunchtime, I have had a thought.

A big factor in social mobility is that money stays in a family for generations. If they are serious about improving social mobility, they should make inheritance tax 100% on the whole estate, ie people get nothing, maybe save, personal items. Its perfect. Everyday taxes could be a lot lower, oaps no longer worry about not selling thier house to fund care home fees. No one gets an unfair leg up from inheritance, families would find in very hard to build up much funds for the bank of mum and dad, social mobility would have more to do with ability than parentage. House prices shouldn't get out of control, no more inherited places being left empty or put out to rent.

Before you in telling me it wouldn't work, people would find ways around it, bla, bla, bla. I know. It is a flight of fancy that I just had to share, that is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about the calls for better social mobility and the problems with thier statistical science on the subject as blown apart on radio 4 more or less this lunchtime, I have had a thought.

A big factor in social mobility is that money stays in a family for generations. If they are serious about improving social mobility, they should make inheritance tax 100% on the whole estate, ie people get nothing, maybe save, personal items. Its perfect. Everyday taxes could be a lot lower, oaps no longer worry about not selling thier house to fund care home fees. No one gets an unfair leg up from inheritance, families would find in very hard to build up much funds for the bank of mum and dad, social mobility would have more to do with ability than parentage. House prices shouldn't get out of control, no more inherited places being left empty or put out to rent.

Before you in telling me it wouldn't work, people would find ways around it, bla, bla, bla. I know. It is a flight of fancy that I just had to share, that is all.

A big problem with that is everyone who stands to get an inheritance or hopes to get one ( not in the bag till the relative is in the box ) From a massive country estate down to a few £thousand , would be up in arms , which would give the powers that be no incentive to bring a law in like that .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big factor in social mobility is that money stays in a family for generations. If they are serious about improving social mobility, they should make inheritance tax 100%

You seem confused. Why exactly would allowing chavs to steal even more money from their betters be an improvement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to do it properly, you have to eliminate the all-important parental influence. Probably need to do it at birth, else some will get the unfair advantage of breastfeeding and its lifelong advantage of not tending to obesity.

Failing that, you accept it's not a fair world, and make the best of what there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've tried that. I believe it was called communism.

I am all for regressive taxation. Life isn't fair and levelling the playing field somewhat, through such policies as public funded quality universal education and a subsistence level benefits safety net (just food and a basic roof over your head - no one wants beggars on the streets, but no one wants life-long scroungers either), is a good thing.

However, denying a family unit the ability to pass on any financial success to the next generation is criminal and wrong, especially when the a great deal of the proceeds will be skimmed off by a corrupt/incompetent state.

Besides, it is typical that one generation makes the money, the next spends it and the next ends up back at the start like the generation that bore the children that made the money. Egro the free market sorts this out anyway without the stupid f4cking government f4cking things up even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about the calls for better social mobility and the problems with thier statistical science on the subject as blown apart on radio 4 more or less this lunchtime, I have had a thought.

A big factor in social mobility is that money stays in a family for generations. If they are serious about improving social mobility, they should make inheritance tax 100% on the whole estate, ie people get nothing, maybe save, personal items. Its perfect. Everyday taxes could be a lot lower, oaps no longer worry about not selling thier house to fund care home fees. No one gets an unfair leg up from inheritance, families would find in very hard to build up much funds for the bank of mum and dad, social mobility would have more to do with ability than parentage. House prices shouldn't get out of control, no more inherited places being left empty or put out to rent.

Before you in telling me it wouldn't work, people would find ways around it, bla, bla, bla. I know. It is a flight of fancy that I just had to share, that is all.

Why is social mobility about dragging the people at the top downwards?

Why don't we leave them alone and try to drag the people at the bottom upwards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it only makes sense to buy, if you can make a saving vs rent (and potential forced sale), or if you can guarantee it is passed onto to your children?

...or pay for your care home.... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big problem with that is everyone who stands to get an inheritance or hopes to get one ( not in the bag till the relative is in the box ) From a massive country estate down to a few £thousand , would be up in arms , which would give the powers that be no incentive to bring a law in like that .

A good reason to get rid of democracy. I find myself increasing peeved at the ability of people to vote for Jam today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is social mobility about dragging the people at the top downwards?

Why don't we leave them alone and try to drag the people at the bottom upwards?

In order to drag the poor up, we need to find the money from somewhere. The dead rich are an obvious and easy target.

At present a responsible couple that haven't overbred and have 2 kids can (without recourse to smart planning arrangements) leave £325,000 to each of these rich kids, free of tax.

A person who gets to inherit nothing from parents and who works 40 hours per week at £5.93ph (NMW) nets £10,749.39 pa in 2011/12. This will go up slightly with the raise in NMW to come into effect in October 2011.

It would take the poor parented MNW worker a day or two short of 30 years and 3 months to net the income a rich kid can get tax free.

In that time they would have paid £47,921 in income tax and 'ees NI.

This hardly seems like a fair system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about the calls for better social mobility and the problems with thier statistical science on the subject as blown apart on radio 4 more or less this lunchtime, I have had a thought.

A big factor in social mobility is that money stays in a family for generations. If they are serious about improving social mobility, they should make inheritance tax 100% on the whole estate, ie people get nothing, maybe save, personal items. Its perfect. Everyday taxes could be a lot lower, oaps no longer worry about not selling thier house to fund care home fees. No one gets an unfair leg up from inheritance, families would find in very hard to build up much funds for the bank of mum and dad, social mobility would have more to do with ability than parentage. House prices shouldn't get out of control, no more inherited places being left empty or put out to rent.

Before you in telling me it wouldn't work, people would find ways around it, bla, bla, bla. I know. It is a flight of fancy that I just had to share, that is all.

...and you have fallen into the hands of the statists. All the power will be removed from individuals and their families to the state. You also demotivate people from struggling to provide a better life for their kids. (As someone said above, it is called communism, and whilst an ideal for some, history shows us it doesn't work when humans are involved.)

The thing about social mobility is that there are winners and losers. What one needs is a good education system, such as the grammars etc., and that doesn't require stealing even more money from people, just eliminating all the pc and management ******** from our schools and making teaching a decent career. I had a decent state funded education, and there were many fewer support and management staff in the schools I went to than is now the norm. So, it isn't that more funds are required, but rather that something has gone wrong with the educational philosophy and management.

Eliminate social mobility coordinators and other waste, create an environment supportive of small businesses etc. instead of stealing even more from people which will only be spunked on fact finding missions to the Carribean by the local council executive.

Edited by Tiger Woods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to drag the poor up, we need to find the money from somewhere. The dead rich are an obvious and easy target.

At present a responsible couple that haven't overbred and have 2 kids can (without recourse to smart planning arrangements) leave £325,000 to each of these rich kids, free of tax.

A person who gets to inherit nothing from parents and who works 40 hours per week at £5.93ph (NMW) nets £10,749.39 pa in 2011/12. This will go up slightly with the raise in NMW to come into effect in October 2011.

It would take the poor parented MNW worker a day or two short of 30 years and 3 months to net the income a rich kid can get tax free.

In that time they would have paid £47,921 in income tax and 'ees NI.

This hardly seems like a fair system.

There are a lot of things in life that are not fair :

- Some people inherit more money than others

- Some people are taller than others

- Some people are more intelligent than others

- Some people are more talented than others

- Some people are harder working than others

- Some people are more motivated and ambitious than others

- Some people are thinner than others

- Some people are better looking than others

- Some people have parents who value education more than others

- Some people have parents who are more supportive than others

All of these factors materially influence the financial success of people over their lifetimes. We cannot socially engineer the differences in genetic code and chance out of our society. I am not yet convinced that IHT on already taxed income which will results in higher income taxes on investment income is fair when all of the other luck in nature and nurture is only taxed through the income tax system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and you have fallen into the hands of the statists. All the power will be removed from individuals and their families to the state. You also demotivate people from struggling to provide a better life for their kids. (As someone said above, it is called communism, and whilst an ideal for some, history shows us it doesn't work when humans are involved.)

The thing about social mobility is that there are winners and losers. What one needs is a good education system, such as the grammars etc., and that doesn't require stealing even more money from people, just eliminating all the pc and management ******** from our schools and making teaching a decent career. I had a decent state funded education, and there were many fewer support and management staff in the schools I went to than is now the norm. So, it isn't that more funds are required, but rather that something has gone wrong with the educational philosophy and management.

Eliminate social mobility coordinators and other waste, create an environment supportive of small businesses etc. instead of stealing even more from people which will only be spunked on fact finding missions to the Carribean by the local council executive.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about the calls for better social mobility and the problems with thier statistical science on the subject as blown apart on radio 4 more or less this lunchtime, I have had a thought.

A big factor in social mobility is that money stays in a family for generations. If they are serious about improving social mobility, they should make inheritance tax 100% on the whole estate, ie people get nothing, maybe save, personal items. Its perfect. Everyday taxes could be a lot lower, oaps no longer worry about not selling thier house to fund care home fees. No one gets an unfair leg up from inheritance, families would find in very hard to build up much funds for the bank of mum and dad, social mobility would have more to do with ability than parentage. House prices shouldn't get out of control, no more inherited places being left empty or put out to rent.

Before you in telling me it wouldn't work, people would find ways around it, bla, bla, bla. I know. It is a flight of fancy that I just had to share, that is all.

The sentence everyone seems to have ignored is 'everyday taxes could then be lower' I think you're right, there seems to be no discussion or debate about what taxes should be levied on. Bank taxes, financial transaction taxes were talked about immediately after the crisis, but will be forgotten. Property taxes and LVT have been discussed on here frequently, but seem an anathema to most people. People dislike of tax on unearned income seems to outweigh their dislike of tax on earned income. Tax on earned income is a tax on your skills, abilities, dedication, responsibility,innovation. Let's face it, all that's just hard work, people will much rather someone else do all that and pick up for themselves their unearned income from speculation, rent seeking, and inheritence.

If you're proposal went through, a caveat could be that people should be encouraged to avoid as much IHT as possible, by putting that capital to work outside the state before the tax was collected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend of mine's father is in oil and is MINTED. My friend saw little point in working too hard and has plainly stated that when his dad pops it, he will be able to live a better life (and pay off his huge mortgage). Compare to me... living at home with poor family, working my @rse off (and enjoying it) in engineering.. some savings but not enough yet.. probably wont start a family whereas my friend has.. I'm the richer person in terms of life experience I'd say, but I've had to do much harder for it, and refuse to have certain things whilst my mate will do as he pleases as he knows he's got big money coming to him. Bit of a bummer - I'd probably be in favour of something akin to the OP's suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend of mine's father is in oil and is MINTED. My friend saw little point in working too hard and has plainly stated that when his dad pops it, he will be able to live a better life (and pay off his huge mortgage). Compare to me... living at home with poor family, working my @rse off (and enjoying it) in engineering.. some savings but not enough yet.. probably wont start a family whereas my friend has.. I'm the richer person in terms of life experience I'd say, but I've had to do much harder for it, and refuse to have certain things whilst my mate will do as he pleases as he knows he's got big money coming to him. Bit of a bummer - I'd probably be in favour of something akin to the OP's suggestion.

Yeah I know what you're saying. Trouble is, this really does just sound like politics of envy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend of mine's father is in oil and is MINTED. My friend saw little point in working too hard and has plainly stated that when his dad pops it, he will be able to live a better life (and pay off his huge mortgage). Compare to me... living at home with poor family, working my @rse off (and enjoying it) in engineering.. some savings but not enough yet.. probably wont start a family whereas my friend has.. I'm the richer person in terms of life experience I'd say, but I've had to do much harder for it, and refuse to have certain things whilst my mate will do as he pleases as he knows he's got big money coming to him. Bit of a bummer - I'd probably be in favour of something akin to the OP's suggestion.

So the solution to your problems is to steal off his Dad?

Personally I don't care about the rest of the World combined as much as I do my kids and much of my economic activity now is to provide for them. Switch off the motive and the economic activity stops too, to nobodies benefit.

Improve your own situation and leave your friend to squander his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know what you're saying. Trouble is, this really does just sound like politics of envy.

I wont deny it is part envy, part anger. Some people sail through. If he didn't have it coming, would he have tried harder in life? I don't know. I just resent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and you have fallen into the hands of the statists. All the power will be removed from individuals and their families to the state. You also demotivate people from struggling to provide a better life for their kids. (As someone said above, it is called communism, and whilst an ideal for some, history shows us it doesn't work when humans are involved.)

The thing about social mobility is that there are winners and losers. What one needs is a good education system, such as the grammars etc., and that doesn't require stealing even more money from people, just eliminating all the pc and management ******** from our schools and making teaching a decent career. I had a decent state funded education, and there were many fewer support and management staff in the schools I went to than is now the norm. So, it isn't that more funds are required, but rather that something has gone wrong with the educational philosophy and management.

Eliminate social mobility coordinators and other waste, create an environment supportive of small businesses etc. instead of stealing even more from people which will only be spunked on fact finding missions to the Carribean by the local council executive.

although i agree about education there's a fair smattering of rubbish in there.

it's very well established that social mobility is worse in the UK than in most european countries, and vastly worse in the US than in europe.

'leaving it to the market' makes things, for second/third etc generations, less rather than more meritocratic. it's easy to see why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wont deny it is part envy, part anger. Some people sail through. If he didn't have it coming, would he have tried harder in life? I don't know. I just resent it.

That's not healthy, for you. Forget the envy and make your own way - it's the only way you'll be satisfied. If you have envy in you it'll not be purged by that evening out, you'll just move on to being envious of another friend who has more than you, perhaps because of some other perceived piece of good fortune. At what point do you stop taking stuff off others to sate the envy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Improve your own situation and leave your friend to squander his.

I will see how it pans out in future. He brings himself to the lowest common denominator at times... althought he hangs out with me (the pinnacle of intelligence and culture.... ;) ) he prefers to use language and behaviour akin to the gruff men he works with. I try to open his mind... and I know he thinks I'm probably a bit of afailure for not buying a place like he did. But I've travelled, have great job prospects, varied interests (guitar, learning German etc) and will likely work abroad and see a bit of the world. I think his money will go to paying off the mortgage. Which is huge (40 year mortgage on a new-build that looks like it'll fall apart in 40 years).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.