UK Affordability still very good

Windofchange

ukcarper wrote: »

Not only that but a large number of those estates will be from one partner to the others in fact that probably accounts for most of the estates over IHT threshold that don't pay tax.

Yup. It's pretty much his way though - let's take some data, discard half of it, make some numbers up and then confuse the heck out of everyone until they just give up, which is the point I am at now.

You can't fix stupid.

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

yes baggage of wind not everyone dies with an estate worth reporting, however does that diminish the fact that 200,000 people each and every year leave at least £100,000 estates?

Also afaik a lot of the estates that are not reported will be transfers from/to husband/wife which are exempt

And here we go again. Tell me that the ONS and LSE are wrong?

From the ONS 2013:

1.6 million adults (3.6%) had received an inheritance valued at £1,000 or more in the two years preceding being surveyed. Although half of inheritors received less than £10,000, one in ten inherited £125,000 or more.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_333036.pdf

From a 2011 LSE report:

"As can be seen from the statistics of this table inheritances are extremely concentrated: the top 1 per cent of inheritors received about 15 per cent of the total inherited wealth, while the top 5 and 10 per cent received 43 and 66 per cent of the total respectively."

http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper148.pdf

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

Some do but what has that got to do with affordablity for FTBs

Some portion will go to FTBs directly or indirectly

Also 78% of the estates left by women and 56% by men on that table were widows or people who never married so it is not as you suggested passing assets from wife/husband to wife/husband

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

And here we go again. Tell me that the ONS and LSE are wrong?

From the ONS 2013:

1.6 million adults (3.6%) had received an inheritance valued at £1,000 or more in the two years preceding being surveyed. Although half of inheritors received less than £10,000, one in ten inherited £125,000 or more.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_333036.pdf

From a 2011 LSE report:

"As can be seen from the statistics of this table inheritances are extremely concentrated: the top 1 per cent of inheritors received about 15 per cent of the total inherited wealth, while the top 5 and 10 per cent received 43 and 66 per cent of the total respectively."

http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper148.pdf

why wont you accept the table I posted it is from the government own tax department they dont make !!!! up

Your link is probably right but your conclusion is crap

If I leave an estate of £1 million and give £900,000 to my kids and then leave 100 people £1k each like friends and distant relatives you would cry oh look everyone recieves nothing only a few rich get the bulk.

Look at the table for the actual data it shows more than 200,000 estates each year worth over £100,000 each. Estates can be split and often probably are between 2+ inheritors. So you can say 400,000 people receive £50,000

Do I need to post another video of a toad explaining statistics to you?

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

why wont you accept the table I posted it is from the government own tax department they dont make !!!! up

Your link is probably right but your conclusion is crap

If I leave an estate of £1 million and give £900,000 to my kids and then leave 100 people £1k each like friends and distant relatives you would cry oh look everyone recieves nothing only a few rich get the bulk.

Look at the table for the actual data it shows more than 200,000 estates each year worth over £100,000 each. Estates can be split and often probably are between 2+ inheritors. So you can say 400,000 people receive £50,000

Do I need to post another video of a toad explaining statistics to you?

This is what I said before. He is not capable of Understanding given he did not even know what median was. So what's the point of him being in this discussion. He's just polluting this whole discussion. Although it is also quite funny to see.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

And here we go again. Tell me that the ONS and LSE are wrong?

I think it is correct but your reading and conclusion is !!!!

From the ONS 2013:

1.6 million adults (3.6%) had received an inheritance valued at £1,000 or more in the two years preceding being surveyed. Although half of inheritors received less than £10,000, one in ten inherited £125,000 or more.

If you split estates into 2.5 pots of gold then estates worth £300,000+ will only count as inheritences of £125,000 or more and it shows about 85,000 such estates for 2013 worth £300,000+

your post says 1 in 10 inherited £125,000 or more so 1.6 million 10% of that is 160,000 people over 2 years = 80,000 people per year

So the two match. no f surprise there

Whats wrong is that you conclude only 10% receiving inheritances as insignificant when what the data actually is suggesting is that people leave large lump sums to their kids and lots of little bits for friends and family

Like I keep saying you likely failed your GCSE math paper and your talking to someone who scored 100% pass marks on some university mathematics papers and yet you seem to think you know better

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_333036.pdf

From a 2011 LSE report:

"As can be seen from the statistics of this table inheritances are extremely concentrated: the top 1 per cent of inheritors received about 15 per cent of the total inherited wealth, while the top 5 and 10 per cent received 43 and 66 per cent of the total respectively."

http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper148.pdf

I assume if you read the full paper it will highlight what I just said, that people leave the bulk to kids and a lot of small bits to friends and more distant family. So if you take a snapshot of 2 years you will see what that report says. Look on a 30 year timeframe and you will find what I have said. That about half the population recieve significant sums, and probably a larger number of insignificant sums.

economic

So there we have it. We can all agree house prices are not in a bubble and outside of London they are cheap or affordable. And in London they are expensive but affordable. It comes down to luck/inheritances as well whilst some can afford London property on their own wage.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

And here we go again. Tell me that the ONS and LSE are wrong?

http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper148.pdf

Wind baggage I do not intend to read the LSE report at this time of night but a quick skim says its based on data of a sample of 3800 people so your crying that this sample is better data than the actual tax office data of actual estates left? Good luck

GreatApe

At some point I will dig up the census data which is going to show that smaller properties are rented at a higher proportion and larger properties primarily owned.

What this will bring up is the fact that if you want higher ownership you are going to need FTBs to buy small properties that they do not particularly want to buy

eg 87% of 4 bedroom properties are owner owner, 74% of 3 bedroom properties are owner while 20% of 1 bedrooms are owner

economic

GreatApe - if you were in your early 30s and could do whatever you wanted to do, what would you do?