No country for young men — UK generation gap widens

CLAPTON

kwmlondon wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm not convinced. I don't know your kids and I have no opinion about them, but I think you're probably a bit biased and I'm not sure I'd trust your beliefs about their education over evidence-based policy.

the secretaries of state for education (including Thatcher ) for the last 65 years, have all supported evidence - based policies.

strangely these evidence bases policies have changed every few years as the secretaries changed

strangely too, is seems that these UK evidences - based policies differ from those equally evidenced based policies in other equally advanced countries

anyone with more that a couple of brain cells might reflect on these two bits of evidence based information and draw intelligent and true conclusions or maybe they wouldn't.


you may well believe that big brother knows best but I don't

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

Of course what's best for your children is to send them to a private or priveleged school, but it's not what's best for society in general.
Also I don't accept that parent's know what's best for their children, just look at vaccination rates.

What is good for society in general is a matter of opinion

labour, tories, libdems, snp, communists, greens, muslims, catholics etc all have different views on what is best for society

which particular sect do you believe has a monopoly of truth?

antrobus

kwmlondon wrote: »

That's a bit out of context though isn't it? ...

What on earth do you mean a "bit out of context"?

The context is the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

posh*spice

kwmlondon wrote: »

Second, I'd drastically increase inheritance tax.

So you're a communist.....

Inheritance Tax is a Communist Tax. Marx and Engels stated in The Communist Manifesto that number 3 or their 10 measures which "in the most advanced countries" would be "pretty generally applicable" was "Abolition of all right of inheritance."


I've paid tax on everything I've earned all my life. Why do I have to pay tax again on my death? People should be able to pass on the fruits of their lifetime's endeavours to whomever they want.


If the threshold had kept in line with house-price inflation, it would be £425,000. It is deliberately being kept low to entrap more people -- a stealth tax to clobber the lower middle class!.

posh*spice

CLAPTON wrote: »

you may well believe that big brother knows best but I don't

Especially when he's Michael "idiot" Gove.

ruggedtoast

The reality is, ignoring hyperbole about tin baths and iPhones for now, that for many boomers the passage of their lives is progressing like this.

Go to school.
Leave school without qualifications.
Get an apprenticeship
Show up to work regularly
Buy a house on one salary
Keep showing up for work
Become a millionaire, half millionaire or quarter millionaire due to rampant house price inflation
Retire with a raft of non means tested state benefits the like of which no generation before them has known and no generation after them will get.

The fact that its the two generations immediately below them who are having to fund their benefits , as well as deal with the realities of boomer housing policies, is the cause of the acrimony we keep reading about.

Physics

posh*spice wrote: »

Why do I have to pay tax again on my death?

You don't. The inheritor does, because it's income.

CLAPTON

Physics wrote: »

You don't. The inheritor does, because it's income.

there is no 'because' as income isn't always taxed: in fact is it the only gift that is taxed in the UK.

it's taxed because it's taxed.

stator

posh*spice wrote: »

If the threshold had kept in line with house-price inflation, it would be £425,000.

Why on earth would it keep track with house price inflation?

This obsession with leaving a house for your "children" is bizarre. Especially considering your "children" will probably be 60+ by the time most of us die of old age.

shaggydoo

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Go to school.

And what was school like for most kids between 1945 and 1960?!

Most kids left school at 14 - whether they wanted to or not. The majority of schools were underfunded because the majority of schools were secondary mods. Class sizes were massive. Some kids even used slate and chalk to learn how to write - even in the 1950s.

Between 1945 and 1960 kids had to face horrendous diseases, like polio, because vaccines hadn't been invented.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Leave school without qualifications.

Do you think this generation liked being thrown out of school at 14? Don't you think they would have loved to have stayed on at school a bit longer?

Get an apprenticeship

There was also conscription until 1960.

Buy a house on one salary

Most women worked. My Mum worked in factory from 5 until 10 in the evening.

Become a millionaire, half millionaire or quarter millionaire due to rampant house price inflation

Of which you won't benefit - because you'll be dead by the time your house is sold.

Retire with a raft of non means tested state benefits the like of which no generation before them has known and no generation after them will get.

Seriously? How mean-spirited can you be?

I'm Generation X.