Inheritance not enough

Peter_Williams

Sea_Shell wrote: »

Hardly!! Just because someone may be financially independent and no longer needs to work... doesn't make them Upper Class!!:rotfl:

Well, no - because that obviously includes pensioners.
The difference is that the upper classes NEVER need to work - because they inherit assets that pay an income.

Hence the phrase, ''born with a silver spoon in the mouth'' - ie silver being a physical asset (although not one that pays an income - but you get the point.)

You could include the royal family as upper class - but as some of their wealth is due to forced taxation of others, I would classify them somewhat differently.

Peter_Williams

AdrianC wrote: »

The only people who really seem to give a toss about "class" any more are those who are proud to be at the bottom of it.

you're missing the point about asset price inflation relative to labour price.

Perhaps because you've been brainwashed by MSM drivel - I don't know.

AdrianC

Peter_Williams wrote: »

you're missing the point about asset price inflation relative to labour price.

No, I'm not. Because it's irrelevant to the point I made.

Perhaps because you've been brainwashed by MSM drivel - I don't know.

I like you, you're funny.

getmore4less

Some people are poor for a reason they spend everything they earn.

There have been plenty of opportunities since the war for families to build up the asset base to be self sufficient in property for future generations.

You only need 3 generations to own property to be independent of value changes.

There is nothing stopping people being the first in their family to work towards being weath generates for the future.

The last 40years have been a boom time to get from zero to serious wealthy relatively easier than any time in history in plenty of employment sectors.

Owain_Moneysaver

There are things you can do to use up the inheritance that won't be classed as deprivation of capital, although it depends on what is classed as reasonable by the DWP.

You can probably pay for driving lessons and get a modest car (or cars). You or your partner might be able to pay for childcare while you're at college or university getting qualifications that would improve your future earning power. If you're renting furnished you could use some money to buy reasonable furnishings and move to unfurnished (which is usually less rent, which is important if you lose Housing Benefit).

What you can't do is buy gold coins, works of art, or anything else that would still count as an asset.

onwards&upwards

AdrianC wrote: »

The only people who really seem to give a toss about "class" any more are those who are proud to be at the bottom of it.

Just not true, sadly.

Peter_Williams

getmore4less wrote: »

Some people are poor for a reason they spend everything they earn.

There have been plenty of opportunities since the war for families to build up the asset base to be self sufficient in property for future generations.

You only need 3 generations to own property to be independent of value changes.

There is nothing stopping people being the first in their family to work towards being weath generates for the future.

The last 40years have been a boom time to get from zero to serious wealthy relatively easier than any time in history in plenty of employment sectors.

Well I'm not sure about this.

The last 40-50 years has seen the wealth of Western populations decline, whilst China and India etc have become more wealthy.
You can see this in the flow of gold from West to East.
The UK has declined since it debased it's coinage in 1918 and 1946 (WW1, WW2).
The USA suffered the Nixon shock of 1971 (Vietnam / Cold Wars).
Then QE from 2008 (Iraq-Afghan wars).

Certainly 50 or 60 years ago most working class men earned enough that their wives didn't need to work. Plus there was less household debt.

Most hard assets such as houses or farmland are of limited supply. So when wages are debased by fiat currency, I don't see how wages can keep up with hard assets.

As the upper classes already own hard assets, they benefit from wars (which they start) and currency debasement (which results).

Gwendo40

AdrianC wrote: »

This is really one for the benefits board, but...

Yes.

If you have assets of your own, you don't need the social safety net - you can use your own assets, instead of the taxpayer having to provide for you.

The mistake you're making is regarding the benefits and TC/UC system to still be a ''safety net'' as was it's original remit.

It's now far closer to a form of Basic Income that people feel they are entitled to if they don't won't to work full time or choose to have children they can't afford.

AdrianC

Gwendo40 wrote: »

The mistake you're making is regarding the benefits and TC/UC system to still be a ''safety net'' as was it's original remit.

It's now far closer to a form of Basic Income that people feel they are entitled to if they don't won't to work full time or choose to have children they can't afford.

How people view something doesn't change what it is.

Cakeguts

Peter_Williams wrote: »

Well I'm not sure about this.

The last 40-50 years has seen the wealth of Western populations decline, whilst China and India etc have become more wealthy.
You can see this in the flow of gold from West to East.
The UK has declined since it debased it's coinage in 1918 and 1946 (WW1, WW2).
The USA suffered the Nixon shock of 1971 (Vietnam / Cold Wars).
Then QE from 2008 (Iraq-Afghan wars).

Certainly 50 or 60 years ago most working class men earned enough that their wives didn't need to work. Plus there was less household debt.

Most hard assets such as houses or farmland are of limited supply. So when wages are debased by fiat currency, I don't see how wages can keep up with hard assets.

As the upper classes already own hard assets, they benefit from wars (which they start) and currency debasement (which results).

50 or 60 years ago working class men did not own cars on finance, iphones on contracts. Many did not have fridges or washing machines and certainly not dishwashers. None of them had takeaway meals and they didn't ever eat out. There were no electrical appliances left on standby and electric lights were switched off if no one was in the room. There was no central heating you either had a coal fire and/ or you wore more clothes in the house. People didn't go on holiday they went to stay with a relative in a different part of the country getting their by either bus or train and then the relative came to stay with them. Children shared bedrooms.





Anyone is welcome to return to this way of life. There is no rule that you says that you have to own the latest gadget and buy it on credit. There is a good argument for most people who currently go to university and get into debt to study for degrees in nothing from universities that offer degrees in nothing not going and either going straight to work or getting an apprenticeship.



There is no rule that says you cannot wash your clothes by hand or buy fresh food and cook it at home.



Older people tend to have more money because they have gone without things that a lot of younger people think are necessary but which are actually only luxuries and if you can't afford the luxuries you don't buy them.