A change in the way people own property?

Cakeguts

Regarding the information on renting what no one seems to have researched is how many people are renting more expensive properties than they need to. It seems to me that if someone is paying £675 per month for a 3 bed house in an area where you can get one for £495 per month that must be from choice? So people are choosing to pay more for rented houses than they need to which means that the renting is from choice?

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

Total UK wealth is over £10 trillion net and growing

Those who own that wealth today will die in time and it will pass to those who do not own it

See of you can figure out at what rate this wealth is transfered.

Sure. I'm not suggesting a lot of money isn't going to go to a lot of people. However, whatever numbers and things you want to throw out, it doesn't change the fact that you have to have the money in the first place in order to give it to someone.

If you have 10 people in an economy, representing 1 person from every 10th percentile as per the link I provided. Person 10 has 1.25 million, person 9 has 500k, person 8 280k, person 7 200k, person 6 150k, person 5 100k, person 4 50k, person 3 20k, person 2 and 1 nothing.

The top 4 of those people will leave something north of 200k. This will perhaps then be split between siblings etc. For the other 60% of the economy, things don't look so great. They are certainly not going to be receiving 256k each! These figures aren't made up - these are facts I have linked to.

Your supposition seems to be that wealth is equally distributed. Because we have £10 trillion in wealth in the country, then simply divide that by people and everyone gets 256k. This seems to be something you can't get your head around? Your basic example of 20 million in each age range and all of them receiving huge payouts demonstrates this. Of those 20 million, maybe 4 million will get big payouts? Another 4 million a decent sum? The other 12 million? They can't magic up a cool half million from thin air!

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Sure. I'm not suggesting a lot of money isn't going to go to a lot of people. However, whatever numbers and things you want to throw out, it doesn't change the fact that you have to have the money in the first place in order to give it to someone.

If you have 10 people in an economy, representing 1 person from every 10th percentile as per the link I provided. Person 10 has 1.25 million, person 9 has 500k, person 8 280k, person 7 200k, person 6 150k, person 5 100k, person 4 50k, person 3 20k, person 2 and 1 nothing.

The top 4 of those people will leave something north of 200k. This will perhaps then be split between siblings etc. For the other 60% of the economy, things don't look so great. They are certainly not going to be receiving 256k each! These figures aren't made up - these are facts I have linked to.

Your supposition seems to be that wealth is equally distributed. Because we have £10 trillion in wealth in the country, then simply divide that by people and everyone gets 256k. This seems to be something you can't get your head around? Your basic example of 20 million in each age range and all of them receiving huge payouts demonstrates this. Of those 20 million, maybe 4 million will get big payouts? Another 4 million a decent sum? The other 12 million? They can't magic up a cool half million from thin air!

Your understanding of the stats is terrible you have concluded that 12/20 = 60% get close to nothing that is plain wrong.

While you can argue that some forms of wealth are concentrated, eg share ownership outside of pension, other forms eg housing are very widely spread

Around 70% of the older folk own their own homes mostly outright that means close to 70% will leave at least a house worth of wealth.

One of your problems is looking at GDP on a nominal basis when PPP is more important
What i mean is sure someone living in zone 1-2 London leaves a house and so does someone living in stoke. In both instances the kid gets free housing via an Inheritence but you are crying that its all uneven the kid in zone 1 London got a £2m house while the kid in stoke got a £0.1 million house. What I am saying is that in both instances the kids got free housing.
The rich get bigger Inheritences but they tend to live in more expensive areas.
The less Rich get smaller inheritences but it goes further in stoke

I would put the figure who get little to no inheritences at 30% of the population but even for them there is a 70% chance their partner gets an Inheritences which they will benefit from

Something on the order of £6 trillion gets given to the 70% of the middle group of 20 million persons.

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

Your understanding of the stats is terrible you have concluded that 12/20 = 60% get close to nothing that is plain wrong.

While you can argue that some forms of wealth are concentrated, eg share ownership outside of pension, other forms eg housing are very widely spread

Around 70% of the older folk own their own homes mostly outright that means close to 70% will leave at least a house worth of wealth.

One of your problems is looking at GDP on a nominal basis when PPP is more important
What i mean is sure someone living in zone 1-2 London leaves a house and so does someone living in stoke. In both instances the kid gets free housing via an Inheritence but you are crying that its all uneven the kid in zone 1 London got a £2m house while the kid in stoke got a £0.1 million house. What I am saying is that in both instances the kids got free housing.
The rich get bigger Inheritences but they tend to live in more expensive areas.
The less Rich get smaller inheritences but it goes further in stoke

I would put the figure who get little to no inheritences at 30% of the population but even for them there is a 70% chance their partner gets an Inheritences which they will benefit from

Something on the order of £6 trillion gets given to the 70% of the middle group of 20 million persons.

Cool story. So, can you then elaborate on:

GreatApe wrote: »

Average UK born woman has less than 2 kids. I can't be bothered to check right now but for argument sake let's say 1.75 kids

The average Inheritences pot is about 50% house 50% other (pension savings land art shares securities bonds etc)

If you want to take £224k as the average house. Double it and you have around £448k pot divided to 1.75 kids = £256k each kid

Maybe once you have explained where the average person in the UK finds £500k from, you can go on to enlighten me about:

GreatApe wrote: »

Roughly speaking British born kids will get around quarter of a million each in inherited wealth. Yes I am aware some will get little to none but a lot of British born kids get very significant sums

Do those people in Stoke with their 100k house find 400k in gold coins somewhere?

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Cool story. So, can you then elaborate on:

Maybe once you have explained where the average person in the UK finds £500k from, you can go on to enlighten me about:

Do those people in Stoke with their 100k house find 400k in gold coins somewhere?

The mean average in gifted/inherited wealth across the population is ~£300,000 assuming £6 trillion gifted over 20 million persons. If you exclude the bottom 30% and assume they get little the mean average of the remaining 14 million is £430,000 which is £6 trillion over 14 million persons. UK born Brits are more likely to receive than migrants.

Of course those in London generally get more and those in Stoke get less.
Median average will also lower than mean average

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

The mean average in gifted/inherited wealth across the population is ~£300,000 assuming £6 trillion gifted over 20 million persons. If you exclude the bottom 30% and assume they get little the mean average of the remaining 14 million is £430,000 which is £6 trillion over 14 million persons. UK born Brits are more likely to receive than migrants.

Of course those in London generally get more and those in Stoke get less.
Median average will also lower than mean average

Have a re-read of that and count the number of times you have used the words assume and exclude. We then of course have to make a huge assumption about migrants - they're all poor etc despite me putting up figures not long ago showing that they earn pretty much the same / slightly more than UK born citizens.

I realise I have more hope of seeing Elvis ontop of a flying saucer than of you ever backing down on any of this, so there is little point in continuing. You carry on with your fantasy land that huge amounts of this country are rich, and let's get back on track with the thread if we can.

GreatApe

Also the way wealth is calculated by a lot of these social studies ignores income.
If I have a million pounds I can buy an an annuity for £40,000 a year
Before I buy the annuity my wealth is counted as £1m and after I buy it it is counted as £0 that is of course stupid.

It also means things like the state pension should be valued at ~£240k
If you count a 65 year old with nothing as poor you fail to account for his pension which has a market value of close to a quarter of a million pounds. Likewise a teachers pension of £35k a year has a market value of close to one million pounds.

When you do a NPV calculation of pensions the wealth gap falls

GreatApe

One of my old work friends had a transfer value calculation done a few weeks ago

They offered him £490,000 or its an annual pension of £16,500 (£1,350 per month)

If he keeps the pension he is poor by social 'science' studies. If he takes the transfer he is rich according to the same social studies. Yet financially the two options are the same he is no richer or poorer.

One of the reasons for a wide wealth gap is this nonsense of not valuing annuities and pensions on a NPV and valuing them as zero

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Have a re-read of that and count the number of times you have used the words assume and exclude. We then of course have to make a huge assumption about migrants - they're all poor etc despite me putting up figures not long ago showing that they earn pretty much the same / slightly more than UK born citizens.

I realise I have more hope of seeing Elvis ontop of a flying saucer than of you ever backing down on any of this, so there is little point in continuing. You carry on with your fantasy land that huge amounts of this country are rich, and let's get back on track with the thread if we can.

Q: what is the mean and median inherited/gifted wealth

Windy: I have no frqcking idea
GA: let's try and model it and come up with a reasonable estimate

You carry on with your fantasy land that huge amounts of this country are rich,

70% of the oldoes own their own homes and almost all outright. Something is going right!
You let your own circumstances of credit card debts in your late 30s cloud your judgement

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

Q: what is the mean and median inherited/gifted wealth

Windy: I have no frqcking idea
GA: let's try and model it and come up with a reasonable estimate



70% of the oldoes own their own homes and almost all outright. Something is going right!
You let your own circumstances of credit card debts in your late 30s cloud your judgement

I just don't have the energy or the will to bother with you anymore, much like the vast majority of this board. You can't even make an attempted put down make sense, let alone anything scientific. I know, dust out the good old credit card debt thing - that'll have him crying / make my point about superiority of thought. I've got my first new years resolution - not bothering to engage with you any further on here.