Inheritance - good or bad?

[pap]

Amazing thread, 99 posts now without having established as yet that free money and stuff cannot be anything other than a good number.

 

let's put it this way.If you were in line for an inheritance of say 500K£ in cash and assimilables, how many of you would refuse it or take it and give it all to charity.

 

That should sort the men from the boys.

 

I'll be honest and say that I'd take it. I would only actually get £430,000. Look out, everybody - pap's in the elite!

 

Truth is that'd get me a much better house and would put the kids through Uni. Hardly going to take over the world with it. The footprint of a decent manor.

 

Now if you asked me the same question and the figure was much higher, the answer would be different.

 

Let's go for a billion.

 

I can honestly say I'd give the vast majority away. I'd keep a few mil to see me through the rest of life, but the rest would be given away. Who needs a billion pounds to live?

[pap]

Sure, why not? You're just jealous. Are you happy that Tony Blair, to take just one example, has got filthy rich whilst screwing over the rest of us?

 

Let's start with the jealousy bit first, shall we? Looks fun.

 

I suppose jealousy is wanting to have what other people have, and I'll admit that there is an element to that, but almost certainly not in the way you think. I'm honestly not interested in most of the so-called trappings of success. It's a consumerist illusion, predicated on the false premise that the possession of material wealth is the gateway to happiness. So in terms of private jets and suchlike, I'm not jealous. I genuinely don't aspire to that lifestyle, so in that sense, I don't want what they have.

 

That said, it does f**king irk me that most of us spend our whole lives fighting to get a piece of this world while others have the lot handed to them on based on past glories, and it bothers me that we put these people's rights ahead of so many others to our collective detriment. So yep, I'll admit to a count of jealousy there.

 

Let's handle "why not?". How about a lack of mobility in planning and infrastructure projects? Or an artificially inflated housing market, based on a lack of supply and the myth that Britain is concreted over and has no space.

 

77% of the population live on just 5.8% of the land. Two thirds of it is owned by tiny fraction of the country's population. In 2001, roughly 8% of the country was classed as urban. We have thousands of people living in overcrowded accommodation, waiting for a house or being put up in crappy emergency B+Bs at the expense of the social security system, and we've got all this land going begging.

 

No land tax, plus we PAY wealthy landowners to pretend not to farm. That, my friend - is why not.

 

As for Tony Blair, of course I'm not happy. You're making the mistake of believing someone on the left wing is going to naturally venerate the leaders of the Labour Party. Not the case - I don't think it's too far a stretch to label him a war criminal. He should be pulled up before the Hague for the lies on Iraq, not raking millions from high-paying non-jobs and after dinner speeches.

Edited 25 April, 2012 by pap

[buctootim]

Amazing thread, 99 posts now without having established as yet that free money and stuff cannot be anything other than a good number.

 

let's put it this way.If you were in line for an inheritance of say 500K£ in cash and assimilables, how many of you would refuse it or take it and give it all to charity.

 

That should sort the men from the boys.

 

I'd take it. Ive also legally avoided tax before (albeit when I was getting divorced and was strapped for cash to buy a house to keep my two kids).

 

Would I take £10 billion if given to me? - yes absolutely. Would I lie to protect my child from jail? - yes almost certainly. Do I speed on occasion - yep.

 

It doesnt mean that the Government should enable tax avoidance, perjury and abolish speeding limits. Individuals will usually act logically in their own interests and those of their children. The government should act logically in the interests of all the people

[pap]

Lol, a good summary of ze delldayz.

 

Actually, Oscar Wilde wrote half that quip. It's important to be earnest.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I'd take it. Ive also legally avoided tax before (albeit when I was getting divorced and was strapped for cash to buy a house to keep my two kids).

 

Would I take £10 billion if given to me? - yes absolutely. Would I lie to protect my child from jail? - yes almost certainly. Do I speed on occasion - yep.

 

It doesnt mean that the Government should enable tax avoidance, perjury and abolish speeding limits. Individuals will usually act logically in their own interests and those of their children. The government should act logically in the interests of all the people

 

I apologise Buctotim for the way our debate degenerated into petty point scoring. We will have to agree to disagree. We are after all Saints fans.

[sperm_john]

the classic have's and have not's debate ...it never ends

[Whitey Grandad]

Let's start with the jealousy bit first, shall we? Looks fun.

 

I suppose jealousy is wanting to have what other people have, and I'll admit that there is an element to that, but almost certainly not in the way you think. I'm honestly not interested in most of the so-called trappings of success. It's a consumerist illusion, predicated on the false premise that the possession of material wealth is the gateway to happiness. So in terms of private jets and suchlike, I'm not jealous. I genuinely don't aspire to that lifestyle, so in that sense, I don't want what they have.

 

That said, it does f**king irk me that most of us spend our whole lives fighting to get a piece of this world while others have the lot handed to them on based on past glories, and it bothers me that we put these people's rights ahead of so many others to our collective detriment. So yep, I'll admit to a count of jealousy there.

 

Let's handle "why not?". How about a lack of mobility in planning and infrastructure projects? Or an artificially inflated housing market, based on a lack of supply and the myth that Britain is concreted over and has no space.

 

77% of the population live on just 5.8% of the land. Two thirds of it is owned by tiny fraction of the country's population. In 2001, roughly 8% of the country was classed as urban. We have thousands of people living in overcrowded accommodation, waiting for a house or being put up in crappy emergency B+Bs at the expense of the social security system, and we've got all this land going begging.

 

No land tax, plus we PAY wealthy landowners to pretend not to farm. That, my friend - is why not.

 

As for Tony Blair, of course I'm not happy. You're making the mistake of believing someone on the left wing is going to naturally venerate the leaders of the Labour Party. Not the case - I don't think it's too far a stretch to label him a war criminal. He should be pulled up before the Hague for the lies on Iraq, not raking millions from high-paying non-jobs and after dinner speeches.

 

The reason we're short of housing is because the country is grossly overcrowded, mainly due to net immigration although many would like to deny that. Another big factor is the increase in the number of single-parent families.

 

I only chose Tony Blair because he is an easy target. Instead of staying in politics and serving the community that put him where he is he buggered off at the first opportunity. There are plenty of others of all political hues.

 

I have no problem with anybody passing on wealth to their children. What really irks me is the number who have decided that they will live off the state, which basically means they are living off their fellow citizens.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'd take it. Ive also legally avoided tax before (albeit when I was getting divorced and was strapped for cash to buy a house to keep my two kids).

 

Would I take £10 billion if given to me? - yes absolutely. Would I lie to protect my child from jail? - yes almost certainly. Do I speed on occasion - yep.

 

It doesnt mean that the Government should enable tax avoidance, perjury and abolish speeding limits. Individuals will usually act logically in their own interests and those of their children. The government should act logically in the interests of all the people

 

Nothing wrong with tax avoidance. It's not even illegal.

[pap]

The reason we're short of housing is because the country is grossly overcrowded, mainly due to net immigration although many would like to deny that. Another big factor is the increase in the number of single-parent families.

 

I only chose Tony Blair because he is an easy target. Instead of staying in politics and serving the community that put him where he is he buggered off at the first opportunity. There are plenty of others of all political hues.

 

I have no problem with anybody passing on wealth to their children. What really irks me is the number who have decided that they will live off the state, which basically means they are living off their fellow citizens.

 

Due to recent government legislation, benefits are now capped at £26,000 per family. The recent BBC investigation into EU farm subsidies shows that some rich landowners are getting paid upwards of £1M a year to pretend not to farm. They are not doing anything for this money, apart from being lucky enough to own enough land to qualify.

 

So who is the bigger scrounger? The family of scrotes milking the maximum of £26,000 out of the benefits system, or the 889 landowners who got at least 10 times that each in EU subsidy payments? Per head, it is unquestionably the latter, yet you're looking down on the so-called scroungers, probably because like Tony Blair, they're an easy target.

 

You can blame single parent families and immigration all you want for gross overcrowding, but that really is quite difficult to maintain when you look at the 77% of population on 5.8% of the land figure. Where are you getting your figures from, exactly?

[Whitey Grandad]

Due to recent government legislation, benefits are now capped at £26,000 per family. The recent BBC investigation into EU farm subsidies shows that some rich landowners are getting paid upwards of £1M a year to pretend not to farm. They are not doing anything for this money, apart from being lucky enough to own enough land to qualify.

 

So who is the bigger scrounger? The family of scrotes milking the maximum of £26,000 out of the benefits system, or the 889 landowners who got at least 10 times that each in EU subsidy payments? Per head, it is unquestionably the latter, yet you're looking down on the so-called scroungers, probably because like Tony Blair, they're an easy target.

 

You can blame single parent families and immigration all you want for gross overcrowding, but that really is quite difficult to maintain when you look at the 77% of population on 5.8% of the land figure. Where are you getting your figures from, exactly?

 

The problem with the 'scroungers' is that there are so many of them. £26,000 take-home is a hell of a lot of money, there are plenty of hard-working families on much less than that.

 

As for overcrowding, the evidence is all around us. Official figures put the UK population at over 60 million but I remember when it was only 50 million. This figure is an underestimate. Some supermarket estimates put it at nearer 80 million. Immigration and emigration records at ports and airports stopped in the early 1960s so the government figure is a wet-fingered guess. I don't see why you quote 77% on 5.8% of the land? Cities are the most efficient method of housing people in high densities so you would expect something like that. There is not enough land in Britain (note that includes Scotland) to feed more than about 22 million people so spread us all out and we shall starve.

[pap]

The problem with the 'scroungers' is that there are so many of them. £26,000 take-home is a hell of a lot of money, there are plenty of hard-working families on much less than that.

 

As for overcrowding, the evidence is all around us. Official figures put the UK population at over 60 million but I remember when it was only 50 million. This figure is an underestimate. Some supermarket estimates put it at nearer 80 million. Immigration and emigration records at ports and airports stopped in the early 1960s so the government figure is a wet-fingered guess. I don't see why you quote 77% on 5.8% of the land? Cities are the most efficient method of housing people in high densities so you would expect something like that. There is not enough land in Britain (note that includes Scotland) to feed more than about 22 million people so spread us all out and we shall starve.

 

That's odd. I read recently that indicated that if push came to shove, we'd be 71% self-sufficient, which doesn't seem to square with your feeding 22 million people stat. Source?

[buctootim]

That's odd. I read recently that indicated that if push came to shove, we'd be 71% self-sufficient, which doesn't seem to square with your feeding 22 million people stat. Source?

 

Its ****** Pap. Made up to fit a view. Pretty common on here at present.

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/15/02/2011/125501/UK-self-sufficiency-in-food-how-bad-is-it.htm

[pap]

Its ****** Pap. Made up to fit a view. Pretty common on here at present.

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/15/02/2011/125501/UK-self-sufficiency-in-food-how-bad-is-it.htm

 

So we're 58% self-sufficient, but if we could be arsed to eat more British food, it'd be a lot more.

 

Might be an idea to get a new "fiction" section onto the forum.

[swannymere]

There was a scheme mooted by the Conservatives whereby on the day of your retirement, you could choose to pay a one off fee, £8,000 I think it was, and then if you ever needed residential care in the future the state would take care of it indefinitely. A bit of a gamble, but it keeps the house safe. I would certainly think about it when my time comes.

 

Which is daft, how long will £8k last in terms of care? 6 months? 12 months at the most. Should be nearer £100k.

[Whitey Grandad]

So we're 58% self-sufficient, but if we could be arsed to eat more British food, it'd be a lot more.

 

Might be an idea to get a new "fiction" section onto the forum.

 

58% of how many? I can't remember the exact figure, but it used to be held that you need about an acre and a half per person and we have a lot less than that. My figures date from a couple of decades ago and we have a lot more people in the country now.

[pap]

58% of how many? I can't remember the exact figure, but it used to be held that you need about an acre and a half per person and we have a lot less than that. My figures date from a couple of decades ago and we have a lot more people in the country now.

 

As in, if we had no imports tomorrow, 58% of people would still be fed using British food stocks. The figure for "how many people would actually live" is much higher. Government policy is to use trade to supplement food security and the EU common agricultural policy prevents a lot of farming that could be happening from going on.

 

It's difficult for me to accept arguments when they are qualified with "it used to be held", especially when the figures date from a couple of decades ago.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

As in, if we had no imports tomorrow, 58% of people would still be fed using British food stocks. The figure for "how many people would actually live" is much higher. Government policy is to use trade to supplement food security and the EU common agricultural policy prevents a lot of farming that could be happening from going on.

 

It's difficult for me to accept arguments when they are qualified with "it used to be held", especially when the figures date from a couple of decades ago.

 

If you noted the price of corn and meat at the moment then you will actually see that it is very much worth farming every inch at the moment. Once again you are using outdated thinking to garnish your argument Pap. Set Aside is now redundant.

[Whitey Grandad]

As in, if we had no imports tomorrow, 58% of people would still be fed using British food stocks. The figure for "how many people would actually live" is much higher. Government policy is to use trade to supplement food security and the EU common agricultural policy prevents a lot of farming that could be happening from going on.

 

It's difficult for me to accept arguments when they are qualified with "it used to be held", especially when the figures date from a couple of decades ago.

We were nowhere near self-sufficency even during the war when every scrap of land, including the parks, was being used and there was national food rationing.

[Whitey Grandad]

As in, if we had no imports tomorrow, 58% of people would still be fed using British food stocks. The figure for "how many people would actually live" is much higher. Government policy is to use trade to supplement food security and the EU common agricultural policy prevents a lot of farming that could be happening from going on.

 

It's difficult for me to accept arguments when they are qualified with "it used to be held", especially when the figures date from a couple of decades ago.

 

Of course it is, but that is what we were being told at the time.

[pap]

We were nowhere near self-sufficency even during the war when every scrap of land, including the parks, was being used and there was national food rationing.

 

Yeah, but to be honest - a lot has happened since the war, and a lot has happened in the past couple of decades, which is why I made the point about making assumptions based on the capability that existed then. Things move on.

 

Commercial hydroponics is now rapidly expanding after the Dutch made a success out of it, proven to produce stable and high yields. I am not a fan of GM crops or pesticides, but both have also contributed to higher yields. That's why it's nonsense to assume that food rationing during the war has anything to do with our current ability to feed ourselves.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yes, yields have improved but cannot continue at these levels or the fenlands will be a dust bowl and food grown on hydroponics has lower nutritional value, or taste for that matter.