My Step Daughter Has Said Its Ok Because I Will Get Money When My Nan Dies.

[Guest Mr Parry]

I am alone in believing that the reintroduction of a form of National Service might provide breathing space from the general malaise that seems face the majority of youngsters in this country?

n Germany, they've got 12 months Army Service or 18 months Social Service. Mate of mine worked in a microbiology lab. Said it was well worth it. Another went into the Army. Really screwed him up.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Mr Parry

[A.steve]

In South Africa there was National Service until the early nineties. It matured people greatly and gave many direction which until then was lacking.

The same could be said for false imprisonment and torture. That doesn't make such a direction a great idea.

n Germany, they've got 12 months Army Service or 18 months Social Service. Mate of mine worked in a microbiology lab. Said it was well worth it. Another went into the Army. Really screwed him up.

I've got mates from across Europe - including Germany and Greece - both of which have military service. It certainly screwed up their lives. One was lucky enough to spend his time sweeping floors in a hospital - leaving him over 30 by the time he started work after subsequently getting his qualifications. Another 'avoided' the Greek infantry and spent a decade with his life-choices severely influenced by which options allowed compulsory recruitment to be delayed...

Coercion is seldom without significant negative consequences.

Edited July 14, 2008 by A.steve

[Quoth]

The same could be said for false imprisonment and torture. That doesn't make such a direction a great idea.

So you would prefer to see chavs imprisoned and tortured? In thinking about it...hmmm...

I'm not saying National Service is the answer to the issues this country faces. What I would say is that uniformed service does develop an individual's personal qualities (self discipline, self respect, pride, ability to work in a team, etc etc). Whether you get the same effect when that service is involuntary is debatable.

Regards,

Q

Edit - Because I can

Edited July 14, 2008 by Quoth

[A.steve]

So you would prefer to see chavs imprisoned and tortured? In thinking about it...hmmm...

I'm not saying National Service is the answer to the issues this country faces. What I would say is that uniformed service does develop an individual's personal qualities (self discipline, self respect, pride, ability to work in a team, etc etc). Whether you get the same effect when that service is involuntary debatable.

I'd like to see a statute that can be understood and enforced... where there is a black-and-white boundary on acceptable behaviour... rather than the current scales of grey which favours those with least social conscience.

One of the few things that the UK has going for it is a professional military. I am all for the idea that those who can benefit from uniformed service should be respected - and certainly back the idea that such people can be trained in an army, navy, police, fire-service or nursing context. The idea that all should receive such 'discipline' is, in my view, abusive and a disgusting breech of human rights.

Edited July 14, 2008 by A.steve

[Flatdog]

I hope so. It is a retarded idea. There is no foreign power to fight by running around with guns. It is classic deluded thinking - assuming that repeating the unpleasant responses to real problems in the past will somehow resolve an entirely unrelated problem today.

Raise interest rates, stamp-out fraud and simplify/eliminate bureaucratic burden. Little else is required, and just-about everything else done to "help" will simply make the situation worse.

I did say 'a form of National Service'

Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Youth_Service

Excerpt:

'In the 21st century, an increasing number of young people are enrolling in civilian or non-military national services, generally referred to as National Youth Services. Civilian national services have been instituted for varying reasons, such as to foster national unity; to make conscription more equitable; to provide young people with experience, perhaps to improve their employability; to achieve certain social objectives, such as helping poor people or the environment; or to allow students to fund their education. Civilian national services have been formed in over 30 countries.'

[A.steve]

'In the 21st century, an increasing number of young people are enrolling in civilian or non-military national services, generally referred to as National Youth Services. Civilian national services have been instituted for varying reasons, such as to foster national unity; to make conscription more equitable; to provide young people with experience, perhaps to improve their employability; to achieve certain social objectives, such as helping poor people or the environment; or to allow students to fund their education. Civilian national services have been formed in over 30 countries.'

I am opposed to conscription in any form - especially when there is no emergency to warrant it.

I think that planning social objectives is something we should be very sceptical about. All the top-trump "evil" dictators set out to implement some idealistically inspired social objective.

I have no especial objection to the sorts of activities in which some national services engage... but I am opposed to strategies to impose them on certain demographics because a (usually distinct) demographic feel that it would be "good for them."

Edited July 14, 2008 by A.steve

[Quoth]

I'd like to see a statute that can be understood and enforced... where there is a black-and-white boundary on acceptable behaviour... rather than the current scales of grey which favours those with least social conscience.

One of the few things that the UK has going for it is a professional military. I am all for the idea that those who can benefit from uniformed service should be respected - and certainly back the idea that such people can be trained in an army, navy, police, fire-service or nursing context. The idea that all should receive such 'discipline' is, in my view, abusive and a disgusting breech of human rights.

I agree that a compulsory national service regime for everyone would be extreme and create problems of its own. As you suggested in an earlier post people would invest a great deal of time trying to avoid doing their national service - time which could be used more productively. This also happened in South Africa - lots of people spending as much time as possible dragging out their studies!

I also agree that the service wouldn't necessarily have to be military. That said the military offers little lattitude to those that try and buck the system. In a softer environment individuals could get away with things they wouldn't get away with in the military. I always chuckle at the re-runs of "Bad Lads Army" when those anti-social 'hard men' misfits are reduced to blubbering wrecks in no time!

Regards,

Q

[Wait & See]

What you should be telling her is to try and find a reasonably secure job earning say 18k. She can stay at home for a few more years and save a nice big deposit and wait for property to crash to the floor.

18-20k will go along way in a few years (even with rampant inflation).

[otters]

As she is 19 I'm sure this is not a new issue, and your rant of "What are you going to do with your life?" came out of desperation. A lot of people are going to inherit something in the future , but it doesn't stop them from trying to earn a living now. Nan must have feelings for her to have made her a benificiary of her will. I'm sure she would be upset knowing that every day she stays alive is a disappointment for adopted gran daughter.

[A.steve]

As she is 19 I'm sure this is not a new issue, and your rant of "What are you going to do with your life?" came out of desperation. A lot of people are going to inherit something in the future , but it doesn't stop them from trying to earn a living now. Nan must have feelings for her to have made her a benificiary of her will. I'm sure she would be upset knowing that every day she stays alive is a disappointment for adopted gran daughter.

That's one interpretation - another is that she is getting on with her life without feeling the need to chase more cash than she needs to spend today. She might feel that establishing personal relationships is more important at this time in her life than putting a few thousand away... knowing that it will not be a significant proportion of her wealth once she inherits... hence, by pursuing her own life choices now she is comfortable knowing that it will not limit her life choices in the longer term.

It is just possible that this "immature" 19 year old clearly understands the world around her - and her (step)father is the one who is deluded - assuming that his previously chosen path through life is the only one that could work now.

[JoeDavola]

There's an interesting point being made here, about the future that young people see for themselves, or lack of it.

I'm 24, a graduate with a good degree in a reasonably good job (although still unable to buy a house of course), and I know loads of people who I went to school with, smart people who left a good grammar school with A-Levels who have dropped out of uni and just work 16-20 hours a week in Tesco to give them enough money to buy X-Box games and get pissed a few nights a week. They live with their parents, rent free, and have no aspirations of any sort for the forseeable future. I dare say one or two of them will be in exactly the same position when they're 30.

Now this could just be lazyness, but you have to ask yourself how much of it is a case of "why bother", when they see that even a 'good' wage won't enable you to be independant and have your own place and a decent quality of life - all they have to to is look at their friends who work full time and still live with mum and dad because everything is so expensive. So their just saying 'sod it' and getting on the way they did at 17 in their mid 20's.

Edited July 14, 2008 by JoeDavola

[otters]

That's one interpretation - another is that she is getting on with her life without feeling the need to chase more cash than she needs to spend today. She might feel that establishing personal relationships is more important at this time in her life than putting a few thousand away... knowing that it will not be a significant proportion of her wealth once she inherits... hence, by pursuing her own life choices now she is comfortable knowing that it will not limit her life choices in the longer term.

It is just possible that this "immature" 19 year old clearly understands the world around her - and her (step)father is the one who is deluded - assuming that his previously chosen path through life is the only one that could work now.

Firstly, she does not appear to be pursuing anything. As for trying to establish personal relationships, perhaps she could start with her family.

I was not advocating working to save, just to get some money to get out and enjoy herself, by the tone of her father she seems to just sit around watching TV, thats not much of a life. Still when grans gone she can have a 50" plasma, sky and all the popcorn she wants.

[A.steve]

Firstly, she does not appear to be pursuing anything. As for trying to establish personal relationships, perhaps she could start with her family.

I was not advocating working to save, just to get some money to get out and enjoy herself, by the tone of her father she seems to just sit around watching TV, thats not much of a life. Still when grans gone she can have a 50" plasma, sky and all the popcorn she wants.

I got the distinct impression that communications with her Dad were frosty as he disapproved... Assuming you are not fearful for your own safety, you don't need much money to enjoy yourself. Life isn't entirely about conspicuous consumption.

According to the information here, she was pursuing her boyfriend - and did not want to work away from the area in order to spend time with him instead.

I think that a lot of this is down to perception and presumption about what "appears" to be the case.

Edited July 14, 2008 by A.steve

[right_freds_dead]

Is this the norm for the younger generation.?

no.

most 'plucky' kids will leave home at 16 and head off to big school using huge loans to fund their own education and digs.

then they will graduate and take a highly taxed job to repay the student debt, while using any remaining income house sharing.

they will work a 50 hour week and the net pay will just about cover the outgoings and the loans. possibly a car or an occasional holiday.

the work load will continue to age 45 where they will get into even more mind numbing debt buying a first time home. all pay rises and bonus will be used for this.

they will sweat and make cutbacks throughout the years as they try to keep up the rising repayments.

after working until age 70 they will have the home taken away and replaced by costly local services home help, or be forced into a state-private home at £2000 per week.

so you see. some clever kids do make the effort to enter the accepted system and do win.

[wickywackywoo]

My step daughter who is 19 and very lazy and immature was asked the other night what the hell she planned on doing with her life by me.

The reply was "its ok because i will get money when my nan dies. I was furious at this and was horrified that someone is trying to plan their life with proceeds of someone dying...(the reason the grandkids get it is because we have enough money)

Is this the norm for the younger generation or was i right to be furious.?

Hello geoffk.

I think you are right to be furious, I would be as well.

This has been an interesting thread to read. Most of the replies seem to fit into three categories - 1. Those agreeing with you, 2. Those implying/stating that you are responsible for your daughter's attitude and 3. Those having a good whine about how tough life is for youngsters today and what choice do they have but to wait for their folks to die.

I don't agree that your daughters attitude is your fault. The fact you are furious says that you have certain standards that are not likely to have fluctutated over the years. Teenagers are influenced by many other things as somebody else pointed out, ie. TV and other media. Everybody knows of somebody lazy/useless where the parents are not. I do agree with some posters though that perhaps encouragement may be a wise course. Having said that, sometimes the truth and forcing people down the right road is the correct action. People will be lazy if you let them.

I don't agree it's MUCH harder today for youngsters than it has been in the past, although I think it is a little more difficult. I left home at 19 and promptly bought a flat right at the peak of the last boom. I got a joint three times income mortgage with my girlfriend (now wife). We both had to fiddle our salarys to get the mortgage. We spent the next three or four years eating beans on toast and working fulltime and evening jobs to make ends meet. It's always been tough when you start out.

I think it's true to say that there aren't as many opportunities today for youngsters. Wages have been depressed for ten years now. Opportunities for apprenticeships etc have all but disappeared with the influx of cheap labour. I see this in the big blue chips where I work. They used to take on dozens of new trainees every year into a well paid career. Now they fly over dozens of Indians instead because they are cheaper. I fear for my own childrens prospects if this lunacy doesn't get reversed.

Anyway, point is there are always options for those able to get off their @rses and stop whining. Youngsters may not be able to buy a house now but that will change radically over the coming years. If I was starting out, I'd be saving like crazy instead of whining.

I think you are doing the right thing in forcing your step-daughter into work. Even if it's at the bottom, it's a start. It's the best thing you can do for her in the long term. I've come a long way and I'm convinced it's largely because my parents were poor and were unable to give me anything. I was forced to make it happen or I'd end up with nothing. Have to remind my wife of this sometimes when she wants to splash cash at the kids, it's not good for them.

[guitarman001]

It seems pretty clear-cut to me; get her out and working. If I ever had kids (which I'm not), I'd tell them to make their own bloody fortune! A pretty apalling thing that this girl has said, and in truth, I hope she gets nothing. I have a sister who is the same and it's disgusting. Imagine if these youngsters never got a penny when their elders popped off, simply because the elders spent their own money on themselves. They'd be screwed! And rightly so! I have some friends who will be in the megabucks when their parents pop it; one was head of a bank and the other works in the oil industry. I'm having to make my own fortune, which is the way it should be, whereas they gloat on what they can get from mummy and daddy.

There's an entire generation of absolute wasters about now and it stinks.

[chichi]

I have a friend who is 35 and is waiting for his mum and her husband to die and leave him loads of money. And we're talking serious money. They've been very mean with him buying him a house and giving him a trust fund that doesn't pay him a living wage (only 20k I think)

*sighs*

It's sad.

The people with money should will it all away from the greedy lazy sods.

[right_freds_dead]

There's an entire generation of absolute wasters about now and it stinks.

i know. we call them nimby boomers.

[A.steve]

The people with money should will it all away from the greedy lazy sods.

I've a different suggestion - 90% inheritance tax and 80% "Gift" tax on all non-trivial sums. QED... abolish income tax; NI and corporation tax.

[Avon]

I thought it is worth correcting a few misconceptions. First, despite the fact we are coming to the end of a boom in professional jobs - education, legal, medical, accountancy - you can hardly say that the situation in 2008 is worse for a bright graduate than it was in the early/mid 1990s. Second, there are quite a few postgraduate grants out there across the disciplines - way more than in the 1990s - and because of changes in the regulations they are much more generous: typically, 13k tax free for 3/4 years. Third, bright and hard working students who do their sums right, and don't mind compromising choice of career, can often get a teaching job (especially, if they learn sciences or foreign languages or other subjects that Brits think it is beneath them). These jobs start at 35k nowadays, depending on location, and senior teachers can earn up to 100k if they go into management. By contrast, the average academic salary in my univ is 40k+ and there are several 30ish types on this in my vicinity. Fourth, and meanwhile, the average GP earns 100k with many earning much more. I could go on.

It seems to me that the real problem for the professional class is house prices: despite the recent outrageous increases in the basics thta are driving us all to Lidl, it's simply not true to say that the young professional of 2008 is much worse off than that of 1992. Ok, there's a lot of luck involved in getting a good start in your career but that's always been the case. If people think that times are hard now, not worth bothering to try, then god knows what they will be thinking in two years time...

[impatient_mug]

I thought it is worth correcting a few misconceptions. First, despite the fact we are coming to the end of a boom in professional jobs - education, legal, medical, accountancy - you can hardly say that the situation in 2008 is worse for a bright graduate than it was in the early/mid 1990s. Second, there are quite a few postgraduate grants out there across the disciplines - way more than in the 1990s - and because of changes in the regulations they are much more generous: typically, 13k tax free for 3/4 years. Third, bright and hard working students who do their sums right, and don't mind compromising choice of career, can often get a teaching job (especially, if they learn sciences or foreign languages or other subjects that Brits think it is beneath them). These jobs start at 35k nowadays, depending on location, and senior teachers can earn up to 100k if they go into management. By contrast, the average academic salary in my univ is 40k+ and there are several 30ish types on this in my vicinity. Fourth, and meanwhile, the average GP earns 100k with many earning much more. I could go on.

It seems to me that the real problem for the professional class is house prices: despite the recent outrageous increases in the basics thta are driving us all to Lidl, it's simply not true to say that the young professional of 2008 is much worse off than that of 1992. Ok, there's a lot of luck involved in getting a good start in your career but that's always been the case. If people think that times are hard now, not worth bothering to try, then god knows what they will be thinking in two years time...

With the exception of the University academics, all off the above jobs are state jobs. Who's going to do the actual work to allow the taxes to be collected to pay for them?

[A.steve]

Ok, there's a lot of luck involved in getting a good start in your career but that's always been the case. If people think that times are hard now, not worth bothering to try, then god knows what they will be thinking in two years time...

Now is a good time to hibernate; now is a good time to rest; now is not a good time to commit to anything.

People who talk about luck - outside the context of lotteries - usually do so because they are ignorant about the situation... they can't (or don't want to) explain why things happened.

Edited July 14, 2008 by A.steve

[Avon]

With the exception of the University academics, all off the above jobs are state jobs. Who's going to do the actual work to allow the taxes to be collected to pay for them?

I suppose University jobs are also state-jobs as well, since a lot of the funding comes from taxpayers (there's only one private University in England). But, accountants? Lawyers? It? Putting aside the 'real jobs' jibe, my point was that - although the future may be grim - young people using the boom years to form the opinion that there is no point studying/working to achieve a career job as there are none out there to obtain having been basing their opinions on dodgy grounds: (1) there are career jobs (2) a number of them easily pay enough to lead a decent life if you are content to rent and to give up on life because you can't buy is irrational; (3) the situation in 2008 is deteriorating, but is still no way worse than (eg) 1992, when droves of people with 2.1s and Masters Degrees were long-term unemployed through no fault of their own.

[cells]

I thought it is worth correcting a few misconceptions. First, despite the fact we are coming to the end of a boom in professional jobs - education, legal, medical, accountancy - you can hardly say that the situation in 2008 is worse for a bright graduate than it was in the early/mid 1990s. Second, there are quite a few postgraduate grants out there across the disciplines - way more than in the 1990s - and because of changes in the regulations they are much more generous: typically, 13k tax free for 3/4 years. Third, bright and hard working students who do their sums right, and don't mind compromising choice of career, can often get a teaching job (especially, if they learn sciences or foreign languages or other subjects that Brits think it is beneath them). These jobs start at 35k nowadays, depending on location, and senior teachers can earn up to 100k if they go into management. By contrast, the average academic salary in my univ is 40k+ and there are several 30ish types on this in my vicinity. Fourth, and meanwhile, the average GP earns 100k with many earning much more. I could go on.

It seems to me that the real problem for the professional class is house prices: despite the recent outrageous increases in the basics thta are driving us all to Lidl, it's simply not true to say that the young professional of 2008 is much worse off than that of 1992. Ok, there's a lot of luck involved in getting a good start in your career but that's always been the case. If people think that times are hard now, not worth bothering to try, then god knows what they will be thinking in two years time...

You still are missing everything, us "young ones" don’t want handouts. We just want to keep the fruits of our labour and be free to provide for ourselves.

Why I ask you, is 30% of our wage taken away directly to pay for nuclear subs we don’t want and Olympic games we don’t need or for an NHS i hate and NEVER EVER USE or to kill Arabs i have never met!??

why are we forced to pay over £3k a year for a fooking ROOOOM or over £6k for a house (12k if in the SE).

Lose the NIMBYism and build 5m more homes and rent prices will half (not to mention buying will also be cheaper)

Get rid of the extremely wasteful government spending and cut taxes by half.

Then a 20k wage goes from just being able to keep your head above water to a liveable good wage!

I repeat, how are the young ones to survive with a decent quality of life when they are FORCED to pay over inflated prices for everything from tax to rent to food to insurance to……….

[1888]

My step daughter who is 19 and very lazy and immature was asked the other night what the hell she planned on doing with her life by me.

The reply was "its ok because i will get money when my nan dies. I was furious at this and was horrified that someone is trying to plan their life with proceeds of someone dying...(the reason the grandkids get it is because we have enough money)

Is this the norm for the younger generation or was i right to be furious.?

I don't blame you for being angry

maybe if you could get a clause in her inheritance that

would make her earn a %age of what is coming to her

she would be more interested in doing something herself

If we do not learn what it takes to earn money

we cannot appreciate the value of it

Would be good if she was to" think" she was now getting nothing as well