In the news

Would it not only be a zero-sum game if each £1 was valued equally by all participants? Diminishing marginal returns applies here.

The tricky thing about inheritance tax is that resourceful members of the middle- and upper classes can find ways of getting around it. Gifting property to heirs before they croak it being the obvious method.
From my personal observations inheritance tax only really bites the ones that didn't around get to plan these things in advance of dying, and those people are not necessarily the wealthiest members of society.
Inheritance has limited effect as a social leveller - but it could still be argued to be fair in other ways of course.

Also:
@spiderpie Your argument did imply a zero-sum game. Yes, this is putting words in your mouth, which is rhetorically sound in this case.

Ah thanks - v helpful

"So to bring it back around to the actual point: To say that someone "earns" something suggests that they gain it deservedly. To me that seems to ignore the realities of how they got to be in such a privileged position, and suggests that the person at the bottom equally deserves to be there."

And there you have the issue right there: Some people really DO think we have full control of our lives and if it goes titsup we deserve it, and that people who got massive inheritance and can live of the interest equally deserve it. That's of course taking it to the extreme.

I don't mind others having more, but I can't stand people who just want to work being left out as wages are too low, housing is too expensive, studying is too expensive, in other words the whole social mobility is going to pot as some people are unwilling to share their pot.

Quite a few rich people are of course not like that, but the current Tory lot is, and they're selling public assets (eg OUR STUFF) with no gains to us and gains to them (like it's just THEIR stuff)

A young boy has been killed while riding a hoverboard:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/boy-15-hit-by-bus-and-killed-while-riding-hoverboard-a3135241.html

not necessarily the wealthiest members of society.

They do have estates worth over £650,000, however...

It's funny you know, before I won the lottery I used to think everything was always someone else fault, never really looked at myself to see what I could do but after I got those millions I really got some time to think and realised that you really get what you deserve in life. So I really worked hard investing in the property market and have managed to double my initial investment to 6 million in just 5 years. All it took is a bit of dedication and, dare I say it, hard work.

I really think you lot should a long hard look in the mirror and stop blaming others.

Well my point is that broadly for one person to succeed, there are inevitably a large number who have to fail.

But you are choosing extreme phrases to make everything sound more dramatic.

If you used the national lottery as a simple example. Someone wins the jackpot. They succeed. All those who didn't fail. But that failer is fairly minimal. Most people would probably describe that as not winning.

If the majority of people lived on enough to provide basic essentials, plus some luxuries/treats, and access to social services why does it really matter how the 1% live? And more to the point does that constitute failer?

(assuming we accept your point is correct in the first place)

I really think you lot should a long hard look in the mirror and stop blaming others.

Except the forrins, that is.

Is anyone here really that hard up? I have more money than I used to, having got better at my job and found more work, but spend alot of time still wishing I had more. It's human nature to want to continually improve one's lot. Many of the super rich, like Mark Zuckerberg etc, are self-made. I would hate to have Zuckerberg's life, or career. If money was really my sole aim in life I'd probably have made more. I try to remind myself of that when I have useless feelings of envy.

Except the forrins, that is.

My argument wasn't necessarily tied to the current UK model of inheritance tax.
I wrote "my observations" to account for the models of income tax in other countries where it applies to lower wealth brackets as well.

Yup, agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment.
I work a job which I mostly quite like, and which as a freelancer allows me to work far less than most of my friends. I've got friends who earn far more than I do, but they work 50-60 hour weeks, every week, and often have marital disagreements due to having to bring home work at the weekend. Or they have exciting drink and drug habits to release the pressure valve.
If I've one complaint, it's that my job ties me to London. In order to persue the dream of living in the countryside/mountains, I need to find an entirely new way to make monies.

I'm not sure what we're struggling with here.

If you get paid a salary, that salary is calculated to ensure that someone else makes money from your work.

That doesn't imply a zero-sum game. It implies that we live within a system which encourages (or necessitates) exploitation at almost every level.

So to bring it back around to the actual point: To say that someone "earns" something suggests that they gain it deservedly. To me that seems to ignore the realities of how they got to be in such a privileged position, and suggests that the person at the bottom equally deserves to be there.

You don't have to agree and I'll happily be proven wrong, but don't put words in my mouth.

I think you are going to have to show your working on this one, as it sounds a lot like prejudice with no basis. As you say, happy to change that position when you provide some evidence.

Lets use, as a working example, a post-grad course lecturer.

He or she works for a University and earns £50,000/year.

I'd suggest that he or she "earns" their money by lecturing, marking, etc etc.

Whether that's deserved or not would be measurable by their performance - how many students give the course a good rating, pass their exams etc.

The realities of how the lecturer gained their position would probably number amongst them a course of study, passing exams, writing a thesis etc etc.

In your version of the world, which does sound rather a lot like a zero sum game, they've also ground the faces of the poor into the dirt and taken money (almost) directly from their pockets.

My question is how?

My argument wasn't necessarily tied to the current UK model of inheritance tax.

My argument wasn't necessarily not flippant.

Irrespectively, and perhaps something to consider - Even with inheritance tax, as an inheritor, you are probably always going to be net better off than you were before inheriting something and paying tax on it (notwithstanding edge cases and abject lack of planning).

The opportunity cost on unrealised gains of inheritance tax for those with less to begin with may well be greater, however.

Looks like no conclusion to the Muhaydin Mire trial at the Old Bailey today - adjourned until March.

1 Attachment

• court15.tiff

The opportunity cost on unrealised gains of inheritance tax for those with less to begin with may well be greater, however.

this sentence totally lost me...

Yup, agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment.

Can you explain to me what the sentiment is?

My sentimentt was there's no point being upset about some people having alot more money than you, and if you dont figure this out you'll end up wanting more money you're whole life and never feeling satisfied.

Is anyone here really that hard up?

It made sense to me when I wrote it.

Now, not so much.

Ignoring the mathematical impossibility how is the division of wealth not basically a zero sum game?

Take your job for example. Do you in fact believe that if your boss increased his salary by £1m and there was no impact on profitability then all the other staff in the company could also get pay rises? They could not. It had to come from somewhere.

Wealth is basically finite after population and innovation is factored.

Except sovereign governments can print more money if they want. They just have to be careful not to print too much.

This is pretty patronising but demonstrates quite aptly what spiderpie is getting at:
http://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/

Not actually true. Printing money causes inflation.

When something goes up something else goes down.