An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

the vast majority of jobs today are not back breaking: do you think we should reward manual labour more that using our brains?

Gosh there's a conundrum.

Where would that leave you, Clapton?

cells

Conrad wrote: »

I agree with you Cells, so much vast wealth around, much of it quite hidden to officialdom.

I am sure there must be hidden wealth offshore and onshore but I was noting that there is a huge huge amount of legitimate open wealth not least in the form of inheritances and gifts

Inheritances 2013/14 look to be £72 billion. Its likely ~50% higher this year as the tax take is about 50% higher.

So ~£100 billion will be received by official inheritances this year.

That is before you consider trusts or gifts to avoid IHT or get a persons affairs in order before death.

ruggedtoast

BobQ wrote: »

The average person owns or has a mortgaged house.

When the average person dies some of their assets filter down to younger people.



True but the average person still owns their own home.



Whose fault is this unsecured borrowing. What are they buying with these funds (cars, ipads, holidays ?)



This has always been the case if people borrow rather than save.

The Tories are nasty people I agree, but many of the people over 25 spent most of the last decade borrowing more than they could afford to spend on things they did not need.

The Tories were elected because people did not vote for Labour after Blair was hounded out of office. He may have made mistakes but Labour would have been in a stonger position today had he remained, we most likely would not have voted to leave the EU either.

The Tories were elected because of people such as yourself taking Labour further and further to the left.



For what reason? Because they lacked the common sense to realise that a university education does not erase student debt or guarantee a better job.



Those with £60K of debt have it because they own a house or because they chose to borrow money rather than save up for what they want..




This is nothing new!!!! In any generation/society there are those who have more money than others. They tend to leave their money to other people who may or may not have money. It is life. Everyone has to make their way in life based on what they earn and what they are given. There is no right to inherit, right to be lucky.



This is also not new!!!!!!! Tories have always tried to conceal the concentration of wealth through trusts and offshore tax havens. There are very few economic systems that ensure that those who create wealth benefit as much as those who own the capital assets that are used to create the wealth. They usually come at a price.



Well spotted! This is of course new and never happened in the past century.

We need a strong opposition to win power to help the people you seem to want to help. Corbyn is unelectable.

The average person in your circle may own a home but this is not the case for the 45 and unders, who are seeing their dreams of home ownership fall markedly.

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-housing-and-home-ownership-in-the-uk/

Again, you are saying Corbyn is unelectable, but what you mean is that you won't vote for a Corbyn government. This is not quite the same thing, though is indicative to the level at which boomers are used to the government automatically reflecting their own perspectives.

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Thanks for letting us know. I'll share the good news with everyone who isn't a well off, property owning, resident of the home counties looking forward to a £120k to £3 million inheritance to pay off those sticky last 30 payments on the Audi.

Not a single one of whom you appear to know. Or even apparently believe exists.

This is what you are missing completely even though I have tried to explain it to you 10 times. These gifts and inheritences are not concentrated they are very widely spread

About 8 million estates per generation pass on inheritances leaving at least £15k in todays money about 6 million of those estates leave >£150k

If you look at the group leaving £150k or more that is 6 million estates. If they leave their estate to just 2 children that is 12 million recipients. If these 'children' age say 35-45 are in a relationship/married that means it benefits 24 million adults and if they have kids that is 48 million people.

So almost certainly this applies to at least half of all households as recipients and it looks more likely to be two thirds potentially more


Even people who are poor and from poor families will often benefit because the chances of marrying into inherited wealth is quite high.

and all this does not even take into account wealth transfers outside of inheritances, eg gifts and trusts.

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The average person in your circle may own a home but this is not the case for the 45 and unders, who are seeing their dreams of home ownership fall markedly.

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-housing-and-home-ownership-in-the-uk/

there are structural reasons why renting has increased and ownership has fallen. Its not solely down to price, which is why ownership has fallen in both the cheap areas (eg manchester) and the expensive areas

ruggedtoast

westernpromise wrote: »

No, it's not. It's a symptom that we live in a social democracy in which literally everything is paid for by the wealthy. People who aren't wealthy pay nothing, but some still feel entitled to more. Tough.

I think you need to get your argument sorted out. Because on the one hand you are saying that everyone who wants to be rich can be, and on the other hand you are complaining that:

"wealthier people already do pay more while most people either take out or net pay nothing"

Well which is it? Are we living in a glorious meritocracy, or one that actually fails "most people", because they work as hard or harder than the minority but never even earn enough to make a net contribution.

You can't have both.

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Thanks for letting us know. I'll share the good news with everyone who isn't a well off, property owning, resident of the home counties looking forward to a £120k to £3 million inheritance

Probably two thirds of households receive significant gifts and inheritances.

It is indeed harder for the 1/3rd who don't, but this 1/3rd are not going to be able to vote to take it off the 2/3rd

There is a way to ensure a lot more households receive inheritances. Sell the council stock to the social renters. Something you are probably against as you like poor people to stay that way

ruggedtoast

cells wrote: »

there are structural reasons why renting has increased and ownership has fallen. Its not solely down to price, which is why ownership has fallen in both the cheap areas (eg manchester) and the expensive areas

It is down to price.

Try private renting for a couple of years. Or even talking to someone who has done.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

I used the term back breaking as a substitute for lots of hard work. Could you really not figure that out?

indeed so

so would you reward clever productive people who a little lazy less than not very clever unproductive people who work hard?

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Gosh there's a conundrum.

Where would that leave you, Clapton?

it would leave one in the same place as you : a supporter of a loonie like corbyn who longs for the good old days of backbreaking work where people really appreciated trotskyite revolutionary rhetoric and all be supporters of IRA bombers and terrorists.