9.9bn Quid, 0% tax. Tell me PH, How is this fair?

[Carl_Manchester]

Thorodin, generally speaking I do agree with you regarding economists but that is another thread. On this particular topic, as it does not traverse the economists general own goals regarding globalisation, GDP and so on, I think they are spot on.

I think you have missed an important point, you are basing 'aspiration' as an assumption. One which is linked to all the good things we like to see in our country, such as opportunity, prospects, well paid jobs and reasonable levels of entry into these areas of the economy.

As someone who grew up as a child through the early 80's and into the 90's I think its fair to have that assumption as its one that my parents passed onto me but actually became real through hard work.

What I am challenging here is that this assumption is no longer valid, wealth is too far concentrated at the top and aspiration is no longer a functioning mechanism to take someone off a council estate and into the higher levels of prosperity which is ultimately a big part of what a well functioning capitalist based system should do.

What the economist was saying is that none of this inheritence/gift discussion would be valid if the capital system was not malfunctioning. Because it is malfunctioning it is compounding a problem.

The best solution is to go back to the type of economic growth we saw in the last century and not the dead-man-walking type of economic growth we have at present. The easiest and simplest way to do this is to reverse some types of globalisation and this is what the Trump administration will attempt to do.

In the interim, if the bleeding is not stopped via legislation against Gift/Inheritence (and yes that includes bank of mum & dad etc.), aspiration will be just a word used on an internet forum to describe young people in China and not a real thing in the UK.

I would also add that in the 20th century, not only was inheriting wealth less of a societal issue due to the huge amount of new money and the inflation rates, people that did inherit the money were less capable of keeping it, in the modern day its far easier to keep the money and keep it growing at such a rate that it becomes self perpetuating.

[Zombie]

Sylvaforever said:

To the OP wtf has it to do with you anyway?

SJW'ing at its "finest"

Huh?

[Thorodin]

It's true that globalisation has accelerated growth, albeit selectively. The force behind this mirage is not the result of inherited personal wealth, far from it. Unfortunately the capitalisation we see today, and I am not an economist, is built entirely on accelerated and unsustainable debt. In a word: Ponzi. Even today, US courts have 'fined' European banks for mis-selling debt. I might be wrong but didn't Fanny Mae/Mac start all this with sleight of hand anyway? Are the Americans prosecuting their own banks? All this of course has nothing to do with the OP, merely background noise. As far as I can see, inherited wealth will possibly provide the capital for independent entrepreneurs to start up.

[Hosenbugler]

Thorodin said:

I Unfortunately the capitalisation we see today, and I am not an economist, is built entirely on accelerated and unsustainable debt. In a word: Ponzi. Even today, US courts have 'fined' European banks for mis-selling debt. I might be wrong but didn't Fanny Mae/Mac start all this with sleight of hand anyway? Are the Americans prosecuting their own banks?

They did indeed, Clinton enacted Carter's Communities Reinvestment act, which forced banks to lend to lenders on their on location via post code , as against ability to repay.

The act forced banks to do so much CRA, before they could do "good" business, said state clearing houses, Mae/Mac enforced this, via the cra legislation. This was why Clinton repealed the Glass Steagal act. Our very own ruinous toad Brown, mimicked similer, albeit by differing methadology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestme...

[Ms R.Saucy]

Impasse said:

What a wonderfully predictable sign-off paragraph by the author, Richard Murphy:

Murphy said:

To put it another way, 800 years of claims by an elite to be above the law applicable to everyone else so that wealth can remain in the hands of the few has to be brought to an end. And if now is not the time to do it, I am really not sure when it will be.

But he's right in a way. Now is not the time to redistribute wealth. It never will be. Inheritance tax should be abolished.

Ah the typical misunderstanding of the operation of Trusts for property ... Conveniently forgetting that for the trust to remain 'immune' from inheritance tax etc it has to demonstrate that it is operating in an legal and above board way ... Which in the case of great houses and the like means the income of the people living there from sources other than the trust has to be sufficient to meet the going rate ... and where various if the attempts to circumvent stuff over intentional deprivation of assets etc whether for inheritance tax or care costs tend to fall down.