UK Affordability still very good

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

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

So the ONS is correct.

GreatApe wrote: »

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

So basically in order to inherit over £125,000 you need to be born into the top 10% of the 50% who inherit something, therefore you need to be one of the 5% of people who inherit something meaningful? Again, you agree with me

GreatApe wrote: »

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

I think that's the first time you've levelled that accusation at me. I'm assuming it wasn't a very good university given your issues with comprehension to date.

GreatApe wrote: »

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.

This isn't like a lucky dip that gets passed around until everyone in the country inherits £125,000. You seem to be under the impression that half the population have relatives who are millionaires and can leave them big sums of money upon death.

As per the above, 5% of the population is in the correct socio-economic bracket to inherit a good lump sum. This 5% will stay largely the same. The money doesn't magically find it's way to a drug riddled council estate in Glasgow and they all inherit huge wealth. You just genuinely don't get it do you? You seem to think that ok, 5% of people inherit £125k, so then in two years time 10% of people will, and then in another 2 years time 15% of people will and so on and so on until you get to the point in 30 years where 50% of people have inherited £125k.


EDIT: LOL as UKCarper pointed out to you regarding the 5% of people lucky enough to inherit. You think you have proven affordability by saying 5% of the population get a nice lump sum. Care to address that one with your advanced mathematics!?

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

10% is not insignificant but if you have to be in that 10% of the 50% of people who receive an inheritance of any kind to be able to buy, property is not affordable.

What you are saying is property is affordable to 5% of people hardly a good definition of affordablity.

No that's not what I said I said baggage of winds 10% of 1.6 million is a set of data that includes 'proper' inheritences and also mini side inheritences.

If you look at the table I posted and extend it out 30 you will get a Much better idea of how inheritances play out. For instance 200,000 estates are left with £100k+ multiply that by 30 years and it shows that over a generation 6 million estates are left worth £100,000+

Since most estates are split between two primary inheritors (often the Two kids) that shows each generation 12 million 'kids' will inherit from their parents a figure of at least £50,000+ each

Where baggage winds analysis falls is that of the 7.5 million estates left each generation (250k estates x 30 years) many of the estates will have non primary beneficiaries. These people who inherit £500 from their great aunty twice removed will skew the data especially if you o my look at 2 years and take a sample of 3800.

Simply put each generation at least 12 million kids get a significant £50k+ inheritence. If you split the population into 3 you get about 22 million in each group. So 12/22 million that is more than half the population inherit significant sums

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

So the ONS is correct.



So basically in order to inherit over £125,000 you need to be born into the top 10% of the 50% who inherit something, therefore you need to be one of the 5% of people who inherit something meaningful? Again, you agree with me



I think that's the first time you've levelled that accusation at me. I'm assuming it wasn't a very good university given your issues with comprehension to date.



This isn't like a lucky dip that gets passed around until everyone in the country inherits £125,000. You seem to be under the impression that half the population have relatives who are millionaires and can leave them big sums of money upon death.

As per the above, 5% of the population is in the correct socio-economic bracket to inherit a good lump sum. This 5% will stay largely the same. The money doesn't magically find it's way to a drug riddled council estate in Glasgow and they all inherit huge wealth. You just genuinely don't get it do you? You seem to think that ok, 5% of people inherit £125k, so then in two years time 10% of people will, and then in another 2 years time 15% of people will and so on and so on until you get to the point in 30 years where 50% of people have inherited £125k.


EDIT: LOL as UKCarper pointed out to you regarding the 5% of people lucky enough to inherit. You think you have proven affordability by saying 5% of the population get a nice lump sum. Care to address that one with your advanced mathematics!?

I have already addressed this point multiple times and you are not getting it at all. The figure is over half the population get significant inheritances

Let me try in another way.

Yes let's say 5% in your 2 year snapshot got a significant inheritence. Guess what wait 2 years and ask the very same people what inheritences they got over this new 2 year period and another 5% get significant inheritences but not the same people. Multiply by 15 (2 years x 15 = 30 years or one generation and you get a figure of 55% inheriting significant sums (0.95^15 = 0.46 therefore 54% inherit) and look again at my estimate of 55% using the actual data on the table they both agree

So once more I total accept your report it says more or less what the table says which is that 55% over a 30 year period will I heritage significant sums. Your wrong analysis is to say look only 5% inherit a significant amount t over 2 years but looking at just 2 years is stupid.

If only you had a little more comprehension you would see all this

GreatApe

Why do you not accept significant inheritences its obvious you don't even need data or mathematics if you accept that most the older uk born generation maybe as much as 80% of them own their own homes mostly outright. So how can 80% of grandparents dying only result in 5% of the population receiving inheritences?

It doesn't take a genius to work this out but it takes a special kind of dumb to try and argue against it.

Pincher

Population reduction is what we need.

One child per couple. Extra babies are harvested for their stem cells.

Offer free euthanasia to the elderly, not free care homes.

Organ transplant from criminals, especially fly tippers, litterers and polluters.

Make people wear a time bomb when they enter the country.
A collar like in Battle Royale (Japanese movie).
That is your visa. If you over stay, it blows up.

Nobody wants to be the nasty enforcer, the one who says deport them and get called a racist. This way, they killed themselves.

It is therefore vital to extend your visa if you want to stay longer.

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

I have already addressed this point multiple times and you are not getting it at all. The figure is over half the population get significant inheritances

Let me try in another way.

Yes let's say 5% in your 2 year snapshot got a significant inheritence. Guess what wait 2 years and ask the very same people what inheritences they got over this new 2 year period and another 5% get significant inheritences but not the same people. Multiply by 15 (2 years x 15 = 30 years or one generation and you get a figure of 55% inheriting significant sums (0.95^15 = 0.46 therefore 54% inherit) and look again at my estimate of 55% using the actual data on the table they both agree

So once more I total accept your report it says more or less what the table says which is that 55% over a 30 year period will I heritage significant sums. Your wrong analysis is to say look only 5% inherit a significant amount t over 2 years but looking at just 2 years is stupid.

If only you had a little more comprehension you would see all this

Ok, I haven't got time for this today

What you are saying in essence is that in 30 years time 55% of the UK population will have inherited large wealth.

Stats are just that. They are a snapshot in time. You fall apart by trying to multiply the 5% every year.

You are old, you die. You pass a million or whatever to your children - 500k each lets say. That's you out of the equation and the wealth has transferred. They then grow up and do the same. Ok you say, well that wealth has quadrupled. with 4 grandchildren now having whatever.

In that 60 years however the population has also grown. People from lower incomes tend to have more children. So your 4 rich grandchildren now have 6 counterparts from the 9th decile (accountants, lawyers etc), 6 again maybe from the 8th decile (teachers, nurses etc), etc etc to the lowest 10% of society where the council estate has 5 children each, so 40 counterparts.

So, the percentage of people who are wealthy will still be around the 5 - 10% mark. Your basic maths might be right but your application of it to this argument is wrong.

You were arguing previously that every 2 years 80,000 or so people get over 50k. Well, actually this does prove my point quite nicely in that 80,000 x 15 is 2.4 million. If we take the ONS projected population for the UK in 25 years time of 75 million that means that:

2.4 million as a percentage of 75 million is 3.2%. So, your wealthy remain around 5%. This hasn't jumped to 55%. Get it?

economic

Inequality rises till the population rises up

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Ok, I haven't got time for this today

What you are saying in essence is that in 30 years time 55% of the UK population will have inherited large wealth.

Stats are just that. They are a snapshot in time. You fall apart by trying to multiply the 5% every year.

You are old, you die. You pass a million or whatever to your children - 500k each lets say. That's you out of the equation and the wealth has transferred. They then grow up and do the same. Ok you say, well that wealth has quadrupled. with 4 grandchildren now having whatever.

In that 60 years however the population has also grown. People from lower incomes tend to have more children. So your 4 rich grandchildren now have 6 counterparts from the 9th decile (accountants, lawyers etc), 6 again maybe from the 8th decile (teachers, nurses etc), etc etc to the lowest 10% of society where the council estate has 5 children each, so 40 counterparts.

So, the percentage of people who are wealthy will still be around the 5 - 10% mark. Your basic maths might be right but your application of it to this argument is wrong.

You were arguing previously that every 2 years 80,000 or so people get over 50k. Well, actually this does prove my point quite nicely in that 80,000 x 15 is 2.4 million. If we take the ONS projected population for the UK in 25 years time of 75 million that means that:

2.4 million as a percentage of 75 million is 3.2%. So, your wealthy remain around 5%. This hasn't jumped to 55%. Get it?

How does 15/20ths of grandparents owning their own home translate to 1/20th getting a significant inheritence?

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

How does 15/20ths of grandparents owning their own home translate to 1/20th getting a significant inheritence?

You defined significant. According to you that number is around £125k. Therefore you need rich grandparents. Nobody here is saying that you either get £125k or nothing. There is a scale.

The grandparents on my mothers side for instance died paupers. They lived in social housing all their life, and left my mum and her 3 siblings 10k they had saved from their pension.

The grandparents on my father's side who was a single child left a very substantial amount thanks to them owning three properties in London.

I am off out. I don't have the time to go digging. I would put money on the fact that if you found a chart with wealth distribution by percentile over however many years, it hasn't changed all that much from the top 10% owning a huge % of wealth, the next 10% owning slightly less etc etc down to the bottom 10% owning very little. If anything, the wealth gap has increased over the past few decades, so I would expect it to be even more skewed. I think from memory data I found a while back suggested the top 20% of the UK owns half the wealth. This is historical, this hasn't changed much in however many decades you want to go back through.

Your assertion that we go from 5% of people being rich to 55% of people being rich in 30 years is laughable. You should get a nobel peace prize if you can make that happen.

Other than Economic, every poster on here has issues with your numbers and data. It isn't just me. You can multiply, but what you are multiplying is littered with errors and assumptions.

Just above you have put:

"if you accept that most the older uk born generation maybe as much as 80% of them own their own homes mostly outright. So how can 80% of grandparents dying only result in 5% of the population receiving inheritances?"

If, maybe, perhaps. You now pull me up on these figures which are figures you have just made up. As UKCarper put to you "Show me some figures". As he put to Economic "I don't think you realise how silly you are making yourself look."

Inheritance will make a difference to the top 20% or so of society who will inherit the sums you are going on about. I'm in that top 10% for earnings, my dad was when he was my age, I will inherit a good sum assuming they keep their marbles. I'm not then going to give it away to someone on the council estate as opposed to my children. The wealth will stay in my family.

My counterpart on said council estate was born into poverty, lived in poverty and will die with nothing to give away.

And of course there will be everything in-between.

Regardless of how you twist things, the fact remains that unless a wholesale revolution takes place and we install a communist society, wealth will remain uneven, and therefore those who might buy a property with wealth in the future will remain in that 10 - 20% of society whose parents were rich / lucky enough to gift them a large sum.

I don't know how much clearer I can say this. Maybe someone else can have a go. I've got a toddlers birthday party to go to.

GreatApe

So how does 15/20ths of grandparents owning their own hones result in 1/20th receiving a significant inheritence?