LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok, i'll offer it up.

pblakeney said:

I predict that the "Millennial Civil War" will end when -
"This transfer will constitute the largest redistribution of wealth in human history. Generation X stands to inherit 57 percent of that $68.4 trillion; millennials will collect the bulk of the rest."
They will then switch to more preservative policies. As did the previous generations.

The problem with the inheritance, as the article points out, is that only a small proportion will inherit the majority of that. So there will be a whole load left with nothing while a small load have an awful lot.

That's life, parents to wanting to do the best for their kids. Same as throughout their lives, so goes much wider than just inheritance. I'm sure the underlying theme is is somehow Boomer connected though...

See paragraph 12 if you can't be bothered with reading whole thing .

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok, i'll offer it up.

pblakeney said:

I predict that the "Millennial Civil War" will end when -
"This transfer will constitute the largest redistribution of wealth in human history. Generation X stands to inherit 57 percent of that $68.4 trillion; millennials will collect the bulk of the rest."
They will then switch to more preservative policies. As did the previous generations.

The problem with the inheritance, as the article points out, is that only a small proportion will inherit the majority of that. So there will be a whole load left with nothing while a small load have an awful lot.

That's life, parents to wanting to do the best for their kids. Same as throughout their lives, so goes much wider than just inheritance. I'm sure the underlying theme is is somehow Boomer connected though...

See paragraph 12 if you can't be bothered with reading whole thing .

Already looked. The Boomer thing is inside Ricks head rather than the article (that said, I seem to be as well sometimes )

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok, i'll offer it up.

pblakeney said:

I predict that the "Millennial Civil War" will end when -
"This transfer will constitute the largest redistribution of wealth in human history. Generation X stands to inherit 57 percent of that $68.4 trillion; millennials will collect the bulk of the rest."
They will then switch to more preservative policies. As did the previous generations.

The problem with the inheritance, as the article points out, is that only a small proportion will inherit the majority of that. So there will be a whole load left with nothing while a small load have an awful lot.

That's life, parents to wanting to do the best for their kids. Same as throughout their lives, so goes much wider than just inheritance. I'm sure the underlying theme is is somehow Boomer connected though...

See paragraph 12 if you can't be bothered with reading whole thing .

Already looked. The Boomer thing is inside Ricks head rather than the article (that said, I seem to be as well sometimes )

For references to boomers, see paras 1, 3, 10, 11, 13, 16 and 22

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok, i'll offer it up.

pblakeney said:

I predict that the "Millennial Civil War" will end when -
"This transfer will constitute the largest redistribution of wealth in human history. Generation X stands to inherit 57 percent of that $68.4 trillion; millennials will collect the bulk of the rest."
They will then switch to more preservative policies. As did the previous generations.

The problem with the inheritance, as the article points out, is that only a small proportion will inherit the majority of that. So there will be a whole load left with nothing while a small load have an awful lot.

That's life, parents to wanting to do the best for their kids. Same as throughout their lives, so goes much wider than just inheritance. I'm sure the underlying theme is is somehow Boomer connected though...

See paragraph 12 if you can't be bothered with reading whole thing .

Already looked. The Boomer thing is inside Ricks head rather than the article (that said, I seem to be as well sometimes )

For references to boomers, see paras 1, 3, 10, 11, 13, 16 and 22

I really shouldn't have to spell this out to deny you todays centre leftie smartarse award; it was about everything being the Boomers fault that is in Ricks head. Good try though

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok, i'll offer it up.

pblakeney said:

I predict that the "Millennial Civil War" will end when -
"This transfer will constitute the largest redistribution of wealth in human history. Generation X stands to inherit 57 percent of that $68.4 trillion; millennials will collect the bulk of the rest."
They will then switch to more preservative policies. As did the previous generations.

The problem with the inheritance, as the article points out, is that only a small proportion will inherit the majority of that. So there will be a whole load left with nothing while a small load have an awful lot.

What's new?

The level of inequality. That's what's driving a large leftwards shift in younger people.

Look I didn't write the article so I'm not going to defend it but a lot of the answers are buried in there if you read it.

What's new? all sorts. It's all in there.

I sort of don't really understand what you argument is here. Do you think the increasing inequality is not a problem? Are you not interested in what drives politics amongst different types of people?

Do you think this is explaining something that has always happened, despite data to the contrary?

Jezyboy

I feel like America's social problems are not the UK's social problems.

rick_chasey

Jezyboy said:

I feel like America's social problems are not the UK's social problems.

The data suggests the same is happening in the UK.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok, i'll offer it up.

pblakeney said:

I predict that the "Millennial Civil War" will end when -
"This transfer will constitute the largest redistribution of wealth in human history. Generation X stands to inherit 57 percent of that $68.4 trillion; millennials will collect the bulk of the rest."
They will then switch to more preservative policies. As did the previous generations.

The problem with the inheritance, as the article points out, is that only a small proportion will inherit the majority of that. So there will be a whole load left with nothing while a small load have an awful lot.

That's life, parents to wanting to do the best for their kids. Same as throughout their lives, so goes much wider than just inheritance. I'm sure the underlying theme is is somehow Boomer connected though...

It's notable that thirty-somethings being gifted a 7-figure property by mum and dad is something of an 'emerging market'. It seems to be more about the parents tax planning than 'wanting the best'.

Inheritance tax planning is hardly new, although care home fee planning may be a bigger issue for many in future.

Less tax paid = more funds for kids.

I'm not sure how beneficial it is to them. It's not so much helping them onto the property ladder as just buying them a cherry picker. Whatever happened to standing on your own two feet.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok, i'll offer it up.

pblakeney said:

I predict that the "Millennial Civil War" will end when -
"This transfer will constitute the largest redistribution of wealth in human history. Generation X stands to inherit 57 percent of that $68.4 trillion; millennials will collect the bulk of the rest."
They will then switch to more preservative policies. As did the previous generations.

The problem with the inheritance, as the article points out, is that only a small proportion will inherit the majority of that. So there will be a whole load left with nothing while a small load have an awful lot.

That's life, parents to wanting to do the best for their kids. Same as throughout their lives, so goes much wider than just inheritance. I'm sure the underlying theme is is somehow Boomer connected though...

See paragraph 12 if you can't be bothered with reading whole thing .

Already looked. The Boomer thing is inside Ricks head rather than the article (that said, I seem to be as well sometimes )

For references to boomers, see paras 1, 3, 10, 11, 13, 16 and 22

I really shouldn't have to spell this out to deny you todays centre leftie smartarse award; it was about everything being the Boomers fault that is in Ricks head. Good try though

The article specifically says that he has been trying to reassure himself that "Our country’s exceptionally cruel brand of capitalism lived on bought-off boomers. It would not survive the rise of a debt-ridden generation with little taste for Fox News."

I'm not sure whether to be glad or upset that us Gen Xers who are going to get most of that lovely cash are pretty much ignored.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok, i'll offer it up.

pblakeney said:

I predict that the "Millennial Civil War" will end when -
"This transfer will constitute the largest redistribution of wealth in human history. Generation X stands to inherit 57 percent of that $68.4 trillion; millennials will collect the bulk of the rest."
They will then switch to more preservative policies. As did the previous generations.

The problem with the inheritance, as the article points out, is that only a small proportion will inherit the majority of that. So there will be a whole load left with nothing while a small load have an awful lot.

What's new?

The level of inequality. That's what's driving a large leftwards shift in younger people.

Look I didn't write the article so I'm not going to defend it but a lot of the answers are buried in there if you read it.

What's new? all sorts. It's all in there.

I sort of don't really understand what you argument is here. Do you think the increasing inequality is not a problem? Are you not interested in what drives politics amongst different types of people?

Do you think this is explaining something that has always happened, despite data to the contrary?

Yes, I think it is a problem, I just don't think that it is a new problem. I have been aware of it personally since Maggie. What we need is solutions, not clickbait.

rick_chasey

You think the article is clickbait?

I think you've missed the point. Fair enough.

Jezyboy

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

I feel like America's social problems are not the UK's social problems.

The data suggests the same is happening in the UK.

I think that a similar wealth distribution "thing" is happening, however, the political compasses of both countries are reasonably different. One has the NHS as its state religion, the other thinks that socialised health care would lead to Russian tanks parading down Times Square.

The UK still has a deference for fat posh public school idiots who bumble through life, America worships the cult of New Money (even if sometimes the money isn't that new).

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I got bored half way through.

It shouldn't be possible to return to Victorian style of wealth distribution because now everyone gets a vote. No idea if that is relevant to the article.

So did I but am on a very boring monthly call so went back to it twice and reached the end.

Bizarrely I am sure the author is trying to say that Rick needs to get over his theory that everything gets down to age.

My daughter was watching something the other night on Netflix that made me think about this. Every generation in their 20s are the radicals that are going to change the world that the older generations have messed up. The current "boomer" generation were probably far more radical and intent on changing the world back in the 60s than even the current bunch. I predict that in 50 years time the students will be bemoaning the oldies who have it all.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I got bored half way through.

It shouldn't be possible to return to Victorian style of wealth distribution because now everyone gets a vote. No idea if that is relevant to the article.

So did I but am on a very boring monthly call so went back to it twice and reached the end.

Bizarrely I am sure the author is trying to say that Rick needs to get over his theory that everything gets down to age.

My daughter was watching something the other night on Netflix that made me think about this. Every generation in their 20s are the radicals that are going to change the world that the older generations have messed up. The current "boomer" generation were probably far more radical and intent on changing the world back in the 60s than even the current bunch. I predict that in 50 years time the students will be bemoaning the oldies who have it all.

I think many boomers grew up worshipping the war heroes, but I can't imagine many thought that they were worse off for not being able to die in a war.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I got bored half way through.

It shouldn't be possible to return to Victorian style of wealth distribution because now everyone gets a vote. No idea if that is relevant to the article.

So did I but am on a very boring monthly call so went back to it twice and reached the end.

Bizarrely I am sure the author is trying to say that Rick needs to get over his theory that everything gets down to age.

My daughter was watching something the other night on Netflix that made me think about this. Every generation in their 20s are the radicals that are going to change the world that the older generations have messed up. The current "boomer" generation were probably far more radical and intent on changing the world back in the 60s than even the current bunch. I predict that in 50 years time the students will be bemoaning the oldies who have it all.

You've misunderstood.

The left-right split in politics is aligned with age and education.

That was not the case in the 60s, 7or 70s,or in the 80s, or in the 90s, or even in the 00s.

There are plenty of reasons for this.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I got bored half way through.

It shouldn't be possible to return to Victorian style of wealth distribution because now everyone gets a vote. No idea if that is relevant to the article.

So did I but am on a very boring monthly call so went back to it twice and reached the end.

Bizarrely I am sure the author is trying to say that Rick needs to get over his theory that everything gets down to age.

My daughter was watching something the other night on Netflix that made me think about this. Every generation in their 20s are the radicals that are going to change the world that the older generations have messed up. The current "boomer" generation were probably far more radical and intent on changing the world back in the 60s than even the current bunch. I predict that in 50 years time the students will be bemoaning the oldies who have it all.

You've misunderstood.

The left-right split in politics is aligned with age and education.

That was not the case in the 60s, 7or 70s,or in the 80s, or in the 90s, or even in the 00s.

There are plenty of reasons for this.

your artice says that age is a proxy for wealth and as the millennial cohort gets older and wealthier it will cease to be a unified voting bloc.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I got bored half way through.

It shouldn't be possible to return to Victorian style of wealth distribution because now everyone gets a vote. No idea if that is relevant to the article.

So did I but am on a very boring monthly call so went back to it twice and reached the end.

Bizarrely I am sure the author is trying to say that Rick needs to get over his theory that everything gets down to age.

My daughter was watching something the other night on Netflix that made me think about this. Every generation in their 20s are the radicals that are going to change the world that the older generations have messed up. The current "boomer" generation were probably far more radical and intent on changing the world back in the 60s than even the current bunch. I predict that in 50 years time the students will be bemoaning the oldies who have it all.

You've misunderstood.

The left-right split in politics is aligned with age and education.

That was not the case in the 60s, 7or 70s,or in the 80s, or in the 90s, or even in the 00s.

There are plenty of reasons for this.

your artice says that age is a proxy for wealth and as the millennial cohort gets older and wealthier it will cease to be a unified voting bloc.

Correct. I read it!

Implication being that the current correlation with age is mainly a function of wealth, rather than something else.

I know people are still getting their heads around the left-right young-old correlation, but this looking beyond that.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I got bored half way through.

It shouldn't be possible to return to Victorian style of wealth distribution because now everyone gets a vote. No idea if that is relevant to the article.

So did I but am on a very boring monthly call so went back to it twice and reached the end.

Bizarrely I am sure the author is trying to say that Rick needs to get over his theory that everything gets down to age.

My daughter was watching something the other night on Netflix that made me think about this. Every generation in their 20s are the radicals that are going to change the world that the older generations have messed up. The current "boomer" generation were probably far more radical and intent on changing the world back in the 60s than even the current bunch. I predict that in 50 years time the students will be bemoaning the oldies who have it all.

You've misunderstood.

The left-right split in politics is aligned with age and education.

That was not the case in the 60s, 7or 70s,or in the 80s, or in the 90s, or even in the 00s.

There are plenty of reasons for this.

your artice says that age is a proxy for wealth and as the millennial cohort gets older and wealthier it will cease to be a unified voting bloc.

Correct. I read it!

Implication being that the current correlation with age is mainly a function of wealth, rather than something else.

I know people are still getting their heads around the left-right young-old correlation, but this looking beyond that.

Schrodinger's point? you seem to be simultaneously agreeing whilst disagreeing with me

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I got bored half way through.

It shouldn't be possible to return to Victorian style of wealth distribution because now everyone gets a vote. No idea if that is relevant to the article.

So did I but am on a very boring monthly call so went back to it twice and reached the end.

Bizarrely I am sure the author is trying to say that Rick needs to get over his theory that everything gets down to age.

My daughter was watching something the other night on Netflix that made me think about this. Every generation in their 20s are the radicals that are going to change the world that the older generations have messed up. The current "boomer" generation were probably far more radical and intent on changing the world back in the 60s than even the current bunch. I predict that in 50 years time the students will be bemoaning the oldies who have it all.

You've misunderstood.

The left-right split in politics is aligned with age and education.

That was not the case in the 60s, 7or 70s,or in the 80s, or in the 90s, or even in the 00s.

There are plenty of reasons for this.

your artice says that age is a proxy for wealth and as the millennial cohort gets older and wealthier it will cease to be a unified voting bloc.

Correct. I read it!

Implication being that the current correlation with age is mainly a function of wealth, rather than something else.

I know people are still getting their heads around the left-right young-old correlation, but this looking beyond that.

Schrodinger's point? you seem to be simultaneously agreeing whilst disagreeing with me

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I'll give up discussing the article, as it's either sailed over people's heads if I'm being ungenerous or if I'm being generous they're engaging with a different point to the one I thought it was about.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I got bored half way through.

It shouldn't be possible to return to Victorian style of wealth distribution because now everyone gets a vote. No idea if that is relevant to the article.

So did I but am on a very boring monthly call so went back to it twice and reached the end.

Bizarrely I am sure the author is trying to say that Rick needs to get over his theory that everything gets down to age.

My daughter was watching something the other night on Netflix that made me think about this. Every generation in their 20s are the radicals that are going to change the world that the older generations have messed up. The current "boomer" generation were probably far more radical and intent on changing the world back in the 60s than even the current bunch. I predict that in 50 years time the students will be bemoaning the oldies who have it all.

You've misunderstood.

The left-right split in politics is aligned with age and education.

That was not the case in the 60s, 7or 70s,or in the 80s, or in the 90s, or even in the 00s.

There are plenty of reasons for this.

your artice says that age is a proxy for wealth and as the millennial cohort gets older and wealthier it will cease to be a unified voting bloc.

Correct. I read it!

Implication being that the current correlation with age is mainly a function of wealth, rather than something else.

I know people are still getting their heads around the left-right young-old correlation, but this looking beyond that.

It's interesting as I've always felt it's a wealth thing of sorts but from the point of view that left-wing socialism appeals to idealistic students until the harsh realities of life start to bite and they realise they are the ones who will have to pay for that ideology. When you're a student with no income taxing the "rich" sounds great, when you're a "hard working tax payer" (copyright Daily Mail) its less appealing to give away more of that money than you really have to.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok, i'll offer it up.

pblakeney said:

I predict that the "Millennial Civil War" will end when -
"This transfer will constitute the largest redistribution of wealth in human history. Generation X stands to inherit 57 percent of that $68.4 trillion; millennials will collect the bulk of the rest."
They will then switch to more preservative policies. As did the previous generations.

The problem with the inheritance, as the article points out, is that only a small proportion will inherit the majority of that. So there will be a whole load left with nothing while a small load have an awful lot.

That's life, parents to wanting to do the best for their kids. Same as throughout their lives, so goes much wider than just inheritance. I'm sure the underlying theme is is somehow Boomer connected though...

It's notable that thirty-somethings being gifted a 7-figure property by mum and dad is something of an 'emerging market'. It seems to be more about the parents tax planning than 'wanting the best'.

Inheritance tax planning is hardly new, although care home fee planning may be a bigger issue for many in future.

Less tax paid = more funds for kids.

I'm not sure how beneficial it is to them. It's not so much helping them onto the property ladder as just buying them a cherry picker. Whatever happened to standing on your own two feet.

I'm all for standing on your own two feet, but what parents do with their money is their choice.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ok, i'll offer it up.

pblakeney said:

I predict that the "Millennial Civil War" will end when -
"This transfer will constitute the largest redistribution of wealth in human history. Generation X stands to inherit 57 percent of that $68.4 trillion; millennials will collect the bulk of the rest."
They will then switch to more preservative policies. As did the previous generations.

The problem with the inheritance, as the article points out, is that only a small proportion will inherit the majority of that. So there will be a whole load left with nothing while a small load have an awful lot.

That's life, parents to wanting to do the best for their kids. Same as throughout their lives, so goes much wider than just inheritance. I'm sure the underlying theme is is somehow Boomer connected though...

See paragraph 12 if you can't be bothered with reading whole thing .

Already looked. The Boomer thing is inside Ricks head rather than the article (that said, I seem to be as well sometimes )

For references to boomers, see paras 1, 3, 10, 11, 13, 16 and 22

I really shouldn't have to spell this out to deny you todays centre leftie smartarse award; it was about everything being the Boomers fault that is in Ricks head. Good try though

The article specifically says that he has been trying to reassure himself that "Our country’s exceptionally cruel brand of capitalism lived on bought-off boomers. It would not survive the rise of a debt-ridden generation with little taste for Fox News."

I'm not sure whether to be glad or upset that us Gen Xers who are going to get most of that lovely cash are pretty much ignored.

Not sure how that shows they are at fault somehow.

kingstongraham

I guess if you don't see his characterisation of something done by boomers as "exceptionally cruel" being a criticism, we're just talking different languages. Fair enough.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

I guess if you don't see his characterisation of something done by boomers as "exceptionally cruel" being a criticism, we're just talking different languages. Fair enough.

Not sure where he get that from. It's not as if a load of Boomers sat in a smoke filled room a few decades back and worked out ways of shafting the next generation.

rjsterry

Harry Cole reporting that Johnson and Sunak are close to agreeing an at least 1% raise in NIC to fund social care. It's like Gordon Brown 2.0.

I suppose that once you have broken your manifesto once it's that much easier to do it again.

kingstongraham

That will be for the plan he had ready in 2019

"Newly appointed prime minister Boris Johnson has vowed to fix the UK’s social care crisis, which he promised would be one of his first actions as he takes office."

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

Harry Cole reporting that Johnson and Sunak are close to agreeing an at least 1% raise in NIC to fund social care. It's like Gordon Brown 2.0.

I suppose that once you have broken your manifesto once it's that much easier to do it again.

Is it right you don't pay NI on pension income?

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

Harry Cole reporting that Johnson and Sunak are close to agreeing an at least 1% raise in NIC to fund social care. It's like Gordon Brown 2.0.

I suppose that once you have broken your manifesto once it's that much easier to do it again.

Is it right you don't pay NI on pension income?

insane isn't it and annoyingly will be grist to RC's mill

the only hope is that they are about to integrate NI and income tax so pensioners pay the full whack.

rick_chasey

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

Harry Cole reporting that Johnson and Sunak are close to agreeing an at least 1% raise in NIC to fund social care. It's like Gordon Brown 2.0.

I suppose that once you have broken your manifesto once it's that much easier to do it again.

Is it right you don't pay NI on pension income?

correct.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

Harry Cole reporting that Johnson and Sunak are close to agreeing an at least 1% raise in NIC to fund social care. It's like Gordon Brown 2.0.

I suppose that once you have broken your manifesto once it's that much easier to do it again.

Is it right you don't pay NI on pension income?

insane isn't it and annoyingly will be grist to RC's mill

the only hope is that they are about to integrate NI and income tax so pensioners pay the full whack.

You don't pay it after pension age; pension income or employment income.