Who would be a millenial?

cells

lisyloo wrote: »

My family were discussing this very recently.
Inheritance will go to the children (currently 50 and 56) - this is a working class background.
There were many points of view discussed, but ultimately it's the parents decision.
There's a very real chance of there being nothing left.

you need to think more generally. Something like 100-200 billion a year is gifted or inherited. its a huge sum and a sum bigger than it ever had been.

cells

stator wrote: »

Not really. A lot of old people only have wealth in their houses and they stay in them until they die or move to a care home. If a care home their money evaporates.
So most working class people won't inherit anything at all until their parents die and many won't inherit anything at all. I'm not expecting anything.
The view from middle class suburbia may be completely different.

wealth trickles down due to the simple fact that people have more descendants in each generation.

A person might have 2 kids, 4 grandkids, 8 grand kids, 16 great grand kids....so that by 10 generations a person has 1000 living relatives.

Someone who leaves behind £1 billion pounds would find its greatly reduced to £1 million a head.

So the stock of wealth, at say £10 trillion and GROWING is not being depleted or being concentrated it will be spread out

michaels

cells wrote: »

wealth trickles down due to the simple fact that people have more descendants in each generation.

A person might have 2 kids, 4 grandkids, 8 grand kids, 16 great grand kids....so that by 10 generations a person has 1000 living relatives.

Someone who leaves behind £1 billion pounds would find its greatly reduced to £1 million a head.

So the stock of wealth, at say £10 trillion and GROWING is not being depleted or being concentrated it will be spread out

Without inward migration the population is at best static so your example would only work if there is social mobility in the choice of partners*.






* Although there is anecdotal evidence that the largest family sizes are seen at the top and bottom of the income distribution so perhaps there may be something to the theory.....

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

wealth trickles down due to the simple fact that people have more descendants in each generation.

A person might have 2 kids, 4 grandkids, 8 grand kids, 16 great grand kids....so that by 10 generations a person has 1000 living relatives.

Someone who leaves behind £1 billion pounds would find its greatly reduced to £1 million a head.

So the stock of wealth, at say £10 trillion and GROWING is not being depleted or being concentrated it will be spread out

each child has 2 parents
and has 4 grandparents
and has 8 great grand parents
and has 16 g.g. grandparent

so each person has at least 100,000 people to inherit from

stator

Cornucopia wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of looking forward to the worst case scenario here (same with leaving the EU).

Money spent on old-age care does not "evaporate". It may not come to the next generation as individuals, but it will be being spent in the economy. The notion that money spent is "lost" is not good economics. What happens is that it spreads through the economy - providing employment and company profits amongst other things.

We're talking about individual's well being, not the health of the economy. The money does disappear very quickly when you have to pay car home fees. And a lot of that money goes into paying people very low wages for very hard jobs, so it's not exactly making the country a better place either. The rest of the money goes on paying the debt invariably used to construct the care home.

Cornucopia

Do we know what proportion of the population will have long-care in old age?

stator wrote: »

We're talking about individual's well being, not the health of the economy.

Okay, but what if one threatens the other?

The money does disappear very quickly when you have to pay car home fees. And a lot of that money goes into paying people very low wages for very hard jobs, so it's not exactly making the country a better place either.

So you're saying that people shouldn't be given the care they need?

The rest of the money goes on paying the debt invariably used to construct the care
home.

It's the nature of many (possibly most) businesses, I'm afraid.

cells

michaels wrote: »

Without inward migration the population is at best static so your example would only work if there is social mobility in the choice of partners*.

* Although there is anecdotal evidence that the largest family sizes are seen at the top and bottom of the income distribution so perhaps there may be something to the theory.....

It would be an impossible task for the rich to only marry the rich and keep it up for multiple generations. In fact mathematically at some stage it would only be possible with inbreeding

Although it probably should be a important logical decision that people should make when looking for partners most people dont approaching finding a partner by trying to find a comparable close net worth match. There may be some degree of finding similar work pay scale partners but wealth is not about income. You can have for instance two teachers both on £35k a year but one is from a very wealthy background and will land £10m and the other gets nothing

ukcarper

stator wrote: »

When will they inherit money, when you're parents won't die until you're over 60?
Most people won't inherit much anyway. When your parents live in a care home for 20 years all their savings will be gone.

The article didn't even mention student debt, which is a lifetime paying a tax rate that is 9 percentage points higher than the older people who got a free education.

In my 20s I was paying 33% income tax and did not benefit from a university eduction. Isn't student debt written off after 30 years.

ukcarper

Isn't it possible that when Gen X'ers inherit thier boomer parents property they will use that to help thier children. I'm confident my children will do that if I thought they wouldn't I'd skip them and leave it straight to my grandchildren.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

In my 20s I was paying 33% income tax and did not benefit from a university eduction. Isn't student debt written off after 30 years.

as a matter of interest ; you were probably paying 33% tax plus 5% (or less NI) so max of 38%
as against 20% tax plus 12 % NI ie. 32% now
although thresholds etc have changed making comparisons difficult