Snap General Election called

[Which Tyler]

Or the billions lost through tax avoidance / evasion of the wealthy, and corporations.
EG and IIRC, Starbucks famously paid £8.6M of UK tax over the course of a dozen years. Because they couldn't say what country payments were made in (but they could tell how much any specific Barrister sold)

Close the legal loopholes, and crack down on the illegal exploiters (Yes, I know - that sort of suggestion is why Brexit happened...)

[Son of Mathonwy]

The next worry is that Labour will go after special needs kids in their desperate search for revenue from disadvantaged groups.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ttee-chair

Heavens forfend that we look at plugging the tax gap with the billions made by the richest over the pandemic.

Puja

The tough choices Labour has to make never seem to involve that tough choice.

[paddy no 11]

What's the story with this capital flight out of London? Is it real or just a blip or an overblown news story?

[Son of Mathonwy]

What's the story with this capital flight out of London? Is it real or just a blip or an overblown news story?

Who knows what the truth is? It would be nice to take the heat off the London housing market though.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/j ... ing-the-uk

[Puja]

What's the story with this capital flight out of London? Is it real or just a blip or an overblown news story?

Who knows what the truth is? It would be nice to take the heat off the London housing market though.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/j ... ing-the-uk

"A report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research found that if a quarter of non-doms left the UK, the net gain to the Treasury would be zero. That research was commissioned by Andrew Barclay, the co-founder of the property platform Yopa, grandson of one of the billionaire Barclay brothers.

Barclay now runs the Land of Opportunity Campaign, a lobbying effort that intends to recreate Britain’s economy in the image of the US."

There we are.

Puja

[Danno]

No amount of money is ever enough for these filthy c***s. Tax them to hell and back

[Which Tyler]

No amount of money is ever enough for these filthy c***s. Send them to hell and tax their estate

FTFY

[Puja]

I've never understood the outrage over inheritance tax. People seem to feel entitled to their parents' money, like it's something that's owed to them. I can understand in terms of a family home or a dependent spouse, but grown children, with their own lucrative careers, being outraged that they might only get £3 million instead of £4 million, because "my family earned that money, so that means it should all come to me!"

Surely the idea is that you should earn your own money, no?

Puja

[Danno]

I've never understood the outrage over inheritance tax. People seem to feel entitled to their parents' money, like it's something that's owed to them. I can understand in terms of a family home or a dependent spouse, but grown children, with their own lucrative careers, being outraged that they might only get £3 million instead of £4 million, because "my family earned that money, so that means it should all come to me!"

Surely the idea is that you should earn your own money, no?

Puja

It's not as if the threshold at which IHT is payable isn't plenty generous in the first place. And then the rates are pathetic when it consists of totally unearned income/assets

[Son of Mathonwy]

I've never understood the outrage over inheritance tax. People seem to feel entitled to their parents' money, like it's something that's owed to them. I can understand in terms of a family home or a dependent spouse, but grown children, with their own lucrative careers, being outraged that they might only get £3 million instead of £4 million, because "my family earned that money, so that means it should all come to me!"

Surely the idea is that you should earn your own money, no?

Puja

It's not as if the threshold at which IHT is payable isn't plenty generous in the first place. And then the rates are pathetic when it consists of totally unearned income/assets

I can understand why people don't like inheritance tax but it comes down to what sort of society we want to have, one where your birth decides what sort of life you get (and wealth and power accumulates in families) or one where everyone gets to live a decent life. No brainer really, if you have a bit of empathy or have heard of the veil of ignorance.

[Stom]

Because, generally, it's going to hit the middle class the most (again). That's the problem with nearly all "wealth" taxes proposed, they are made to hit the middle class the most, and the middle class are the guys who feel like they get shat on every single time (not without reason).

Now, I'm not saying that inheritance tax is bad, in fact I think it should exist quite strictly. But I think it can only exist as part of a wider tax strategy that taxes investments and assets. If an asset can be used as collateral to get a very good deal on a loan, that asset should be eligible for tax. Every year it is available to you as collateral.

[Puja]

Because, generally, it's going to hit the middle class the most (again). That's the problem with nearly all "wealth" taxes proposed, they are made to hit the middle class the most, and the middle class are the guys who feel like they get shat on every single time (not without reason).

Now, I'm not saying that inheritance tax is bad, in fact I think it should exist quite strictly. But I think it can only exist as part of a wider tax strategy that taxes investments and assets. If an asset can be used as collateral to get a very good deal on a loan, that asset should be eligible for tax. Every year it is available to you as collateral.

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

[Banquo]

Because, generally, it's going to hit the middle class the most (again). That's the problem with nearly all "wealth" taxes proposed, they are made to hit the middle class the most, and the middle class are the guys who feel like they get shat on every single time (not without reason).

Now, I'm not saying that inheritance tax is bad, in fact I think it should exist quite strictly. But I think it can only exist as part of a wider tax strategy that taxes investments and assets. If an asset can be used as collateral to get a very good deal on a loan, that asset should be eligible for tax. Every year it is available to you as collateral.

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

[Puja]

Because, generally, it's going to hit the middle class the most (again). That's the problem with nearly all "wealth" taxes proposed, they are made to hit the middle class the most, and the middle class are the guys who feel like they get shat on every single time (not without reason).

Now, I'm not saying that inheritance tax is bad, in fact I think it should exist quite strictly. But I think it can only exist as part of a wider tax strategy that taxes investments and assets. If an asset can be used as collateral to get a very good deal on a loan, that asset should be eligible for tax. Every year it is available to you as collateral.

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

Fair enough, but then your generation has very little idea of the era that I grew up in (as a 1980s Millennial, for info), nor of the era that Gens Z and Alpha have grown up in - does that mean you're not allowed to opine on what we do? Big, if true.

I still don't understand why your grown kids need your wealth though once you're dead. Do they not have jobs of their own?

Puja

[Stom]

Because, generally, it's going to hit the middle class the most (again). That's the problem with nearly all "wealth" taxes proposed, they are made to hit the middle class the most, and the middle class are the guys who feel like they get shat on every single time (not without reason).

Now, I'm not saying that inheritance tax is bad, in fact I think it should exist quite strictly. But I think it can only exist as part of a wider tax strategy that taxes investments and assets. If an asset can be used as collateral to get a very good deal on a loan, that asset should be eligible for tax. Every year it is available to you as collateral.

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

Not just this, but it's the idea that: "We paid our taxes, we paid our due, and then you want to take it again". And we're not talking about HUGE sums here, it's the people who are sitting on homes worth £800k-£2m who get hardest hit. These are the places like what my parents own. They were not that expensive, comparatively. They've paid ever increasing council taxes on the house, with ever increasing costs of living, and they never earned more than £90k a year between them in the last few years before retirement.

It's hard to forget that house prices in and around London are so insane that a sudden bill on inheriting a property like that would cripple me. IF my parents both died, my sister and I would need to foot a bill exceeding £500k.

That is excessive, imo. We're not rich, we're far from it. Because inheritance tax hits the middle classes harder. And we're moving to a society where the middle classes don't really exist.

IF there was a lower cap, where 0 inheritance was paid on estates valued at £1m or £1.5m or less, and then everything on top of that was taxable...that I would understand.

[Stom]

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

Fair enough, but then your generation has very little idea of the era that I grew up in (as a 1980s Millennial, for info), nor of the era that Gens Z and Alpha have grown up in - does that mean you're not allowed to opine on what we do? Big, if true.

I still don't understand why your grown kids need your wealth though once you're dead. Do they not have jobs of their own?

Puja

I'm the same generation (age? 39) as you, so I understand it. And I still feel it's:

a) not partcularly fair.
b) not the thing that's going to "right the wrongs" of the tax system.
c) would be a lot better for a bottom cap.

Like most things, I firmly believe that wealth in those "middle class" levels should be encouraged. Those are the levels where you keep your money in the economy. You want more people to have that wealth in the range of £250k-£1.5m. And so when someone exits that bracket through death, you want their children to enter that bracket. Neither my sister nor I are in that bracket, even though we own our own homes, because the mortgage takes away most of that (and in my case I'm in Hungary, too).

So, as with everything, I would only start taxing inheritance on assets valued over £1m or £1.5m or some other number that has had a bit more thought gone into it.2

Someone shouldn't be able to inherit a £20m mansion tax free. But then they use trusts to get around it. So I would close those loopholes.

But in it's current form, it is unfair.

[Donny osmond]

Because, generally, it's going to hit the middle class the most (again). That's the problem with nearly all "wealth" taxes proposed, they are made to hit the middle class the most, and the middle class are the guys who feel like they get shat on every single time (not without reason).

Now, I'm not saying that inheritance tax is bad, in fact I think it should exist quite strictly. But I think it can only exist as part of a wider tax strategy that taxes investments and assets. If an asset can be used as collateral to get a very good deal on a loan, that asset should be eligible for tax. Every year it is available to you as collateral.

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

Yeah, this, entirely. Parents are allowed to spend money on their kids while they're alive, but if you have the misfortune to die then your loved ones can gtf and the state can swallow whatever is left into the black hole of public debt? Nah you're alright thanks.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Can't see any downside to this:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ampaigners

Google providing services for free. Yeah, that sounds not worrying at all.

I predict that Peter Kyle will be in a nicely paid job at Google a few years from now.

[Banquo]

But why are they entitled to their parents' money? That's the bit I don't emotionally understand. Why does a family member working hard and earning loads (or not working hard and earning loads, in the case of landlords) mean that you deserve to get a windfall if they kick the bucket?

Puja

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

Fair enough, but then your generation has very little idea of the era that I grew up in (as a 1980s Millennial, for info), nor of the era that Gens Z and Alpha have grown up in - does that mean you're not allowed to opine on what we do? Big, if true.

I still don't understand why your grown kids need your wealth though once you're dead. Do they not have jobs of their own?

Puja

I said nada about your right to opine, you just said you didn’t understand why folks saved for their kids. I’m just giving you a clue why. No right or wrong. Though I was actually alive when you were born and have my own kids, so have a little teeny bit of a view
And yes my kids work very hard- charity sector and primary teacher but really none of your business tbh

[Puja]

My parents came from nothing (in money terms, my grandparents on my mum's side complete legends ), inherited nothing, and wanted to make sure we had something so scrimped and saved until they could afford a house and start a family (in their 30's), then carried on working hard to fund their relatively austere lifestyle and to provide for us (plus make sure we had something to pass on, as I do)- that hard work killed my dad when I was 13. Your generation has little idea of the era they grew up and lived in (big wars, rationing etc etc), nor much of one about the era I grew up in. Plus an expectation from parents that we would look after them when they grew old.

That's my lived experience young uns. Its kind of generational hard wiring.

Fair enough, but then your generation has very little idea of the era that I grew up in (as a 1980s Millennial, for info), nor of the era that Gens Z and Alpha have grown up in - does that mean you're not allowed to opine on what we do? Big, if true.

I still don't understand why your grown kids need your wealth though once you're dead. Do they not have jobs of their own?

Puja

I'm the same generation (age? 39) as you, so I understand it. And I still feel it's:

a) not partcularly fair.
b) not the thing that's going to "right the wrongs" of the tax system.
c) would be a lot better for a bottom cap.

Like most things, I firmly believe that wealth in those "middle class" levels should be encouraged. Those are the levels where you keep your money in the economy. You want more people to have that wealth in the range of £250k-£1.5m. And so when someone exits that bracket through death, you want their children to enter that bracket. Neither my sister nor I are in that bracket, even though we own our own homes, because the mortgage takes away most of that (and in my case I'm in Hungary, too).

So, as with everything, I would only start taxing inheritance on assets valued over £1m or £1.5m or some other number that has had a bit more thought gone into it.2

Someone shouldn't be able to inherit a £20m mansion tax free. But then they use trusts to get around it. So I would close those loopholes.

But in it's current form, it is unfair.

Agreed that it's not set up correctly as things stand in a lot of respects - a single person who didn't own a property gets £325k tax-free, whereas someone whose husband died 20 years ago and who has a property gets to pass on £1m tax-free is bananas and is designed around the assumption of a life escalator of one marriage, own a home, have kids, that isn't everyone's experience nowadays and yet is still continuously represented in the tax system in this country. Plus, as you said, trusts make a mockery of it.

I said nada about your right to opine, you just said you didn’t understand why folks saved for their kids. I’m just giving you a clue why. No right or wrong. Though I was actually alive when you were born and have my own kids, so have a little teeny bit of a view
And yes my kids work very hard- charity sector and primary teacher but really none of your business tbh

I would indeed describe it as a teeny bit of a view that you have - second hand comes a very distant second place to actual lived experience. I understand very much why people save for their kids, but I can't save for my kids in the same way you saved for yours. I won't get a pension like you will. The only reason that I have a house is because I am lucky enough to come from family who could help me financially. I am incredibly lucky, and I am still struggling.

And around me, I'm watching my children's future nation being whittled away by austerity and lack of investment, with things that you took for granted deemed too expensive to maintain.

I work in financial services, and I find it utterly bizarre how many of my clients openly admit to planning their finances around the assumption of their promised inheritance - I don't want a country where so many people's plans of future financial stability require surviving until their parents die (especially now assisted dying is legalised!)! This goes doubly for the fact that my job means that the sample of people that I speak to tends to skew middle-class - if we have a country built around inheritances, then we have a country where we're condemning a large number to continual generational poverty. I will inherit money from my parents at some point and it will likely be the only hope I have of a decent retirement - people who don't get an inheritance might just get to not retire at all and I'm really not okay with that being our country.

Puja

[Puja]

Can't see any downside to this:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ampaigners

Google providing services for free. Yeah, that sounds not worrying at all.

I predict that Peter Kyle will be in a nicely paid job at Google a few years from now.

It's the old saying of the internet - if you're not paying for a product, it's because you are the product.

Puja

[Stom]

Fair enough, but then your generation has very little idea of the era that I grew up in (as a 1980s Millennial, for info), nor of the era that Gens Z and Alpha have grown up in - does that mean you're not allowed to opine on what we do? Big, if true.

I still don't understand why your grown kids need your wealth though once you're dead. Do they not have jobs of their own?

Puja

I'm the same generation (age? 39) as you, so I understand it. And I still feel it's:

a) not partcularly fair.
b) not the thing that's going to "right the wrongs" of the tax system.
c) would be a lot better for a bottom cap.

Like most things, I firmly believe that wealth in those "middle class" levels should be encouraged. Those are the levels where you keep your money in the economy. You want more people to have that wealth in the range of £250k-£1.5m. And so when someone exits that bracket through death, you want their children to enter that bracket. Neither my sister nor I are in that bracket, even though we own our own homes, because the mortgage takes away most of that (and in my case I'm in Hungary, too).

So, as with everything, I would only start taxing inheritance on assets valued over £1m or £1.5m or some other number that has had a bit more thought gone into it.2

Someone shouldn't be able to inherit a £20m mansion tax free. But then they use trusts to get around it. So I would close those loopholes.

But in it's current form, it is unfair.

Agreed that it's not set up correctly as things stand in a lot of respects - a single person who didn't own a property gets £325k tax-free, whereas someone whose husband died 20 years ago and who has a property gets to pass on £1m tax-free is bananas and is designed around the assumption of a life escalator of one marriage, own a home, have kids, that isn't everyone's experience nowadays and yet is still continuously represented in the tax system in this country. Plus, as you said, trusts make a mockery of it.

I said nada about your right to opine, you just said you didn’t understand why folks saved for their kids. I’m just giving you a clue why. No right or wrong. Though I was actually alive when you were born and have my own kids, so have a little teeny bit of a view
And yes my kids work very hard- charity sector and primary teacher but really none of your business tbh

I would indeed describe it as a teeny bit of a view that you have - second hand comes a very distant second place to actual lived experience. I understand very much why people save for their kids, but I can't save for my kids in the same way you saved for yours. I won't get a pension like you will. The only reason that I have a house is because I am lucky enough to come from family who could help me financially. I am incredibly lucky, and I am still struggling.

And around me, I'm watching my children's future nation being whittled away by austerity and lack of investment, with things that you took for granted deemed too expensive to maintain.

I work in financial services, and I find it utterly bizarre how many of my clients openly admit to planning their finances around the assumption of their promised inheritance - I don't want a country where so many people's plans of future financial stability require surviving until their parents die (especially now assisted dying is legalised!)! This goes doubly for the fact that my job means that the sample of people that I speak to tends to skew middle-class - if we have a country built around inheritances, then we have a country where we're condemning a large number to continual generational poverty. I will inherit money from my parents at some point and it will likely be the only hope I have of a decent retirement - people who don't get an inheritance might just get to not retire at all and I'm really not okay with that being our country.

Puja

You make a great point. But one that shows that the entire system is broken, not necessarily inheritance tax.

Our situation isn’t because of inheritance tax, it’s because of wages, house prices, declining public services, the rise of monopolies/oligopolies…

I don’t see inheritance tax as a big problem when taken in relation to these things. But I do see trusts as a big problem, and think they should be outlawed. If average Joe didn’t have access to it, it shouldn’t be available.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The Welfare bill went through final reading yesterday. Gotta say I've lost track of what the hell is still in it. I hope I can trust last week's Labour rebels that the bill isn't too taxic now . . . but I have a sneaking suspicion that new PIP claimants will still get shafted next year after the Timms review.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... lfare-bill

[Which Tyler]

I would indeed describe it as a teeny bit of a view that you have - second hand comes a very distant second place to actual lived experience. I understand very much why people save for their kids, but I can't save for my kids in the same way you saved for yours. I won't get a pension like you will. The only reason that I have a house is because I am lucky enough to come from family who could help me financially. I am incredibly lucky, and I am still struggling.

And around me, I'm watching my children's future nation being whittled away by austerity and lack of investment, with things that you took for granted deemed too expensive to maintain.

I work in financial services, and I find it utterly bizarre how many of my clients openly admit to planning their finances around the assumption of their promised inheritance - I don't want a country where so many people's plans of future financial stability require surviving until their parents die (especially now assisted dying is legalised!)! This goes doubly for the fact that my job means that the sample of people that I speak to tends to skew middle-class - if we have a country built around inheritances, then we have a country where we're condemning a large number to continual generational poverty. I will inherit money from my parents at some point and it will likely be the only hope I have of a decent retirement - people who don't get an inheritance might just get to not retire at all and I'm really not okay with that being our country.

And yes, inheritance tax here is a symptom not a cause - and the very fact it's a concern is another symptom

[Banquo]

Fair enough, but then your generation has very little idea of the era that I grew up in (as a 1980s Millennial, for info), nor of the era that Gens Z and Alpha have grown up in - does that mean you're not allowed to opine on what we do? Big, if true.

I still don't understand why your grown kids need your wealth though once you're dead. Do they not have jobs of their own?

Puja

I'm the same generation (age? 39) as you, so I understand it. And I still feel it's:

a) not partcularly fair.
b) not the thing that's going to "right the wrongs" of the tax system.
c) would be a lot better for a bottom cap.

Like most things, I firmly believe that wealth in those "middle class" levels should be encouraged. Those are the levels where you keep your money in the economy. You want more people to have that wealth in the range of £250k-£1.5m. And so when someone exits that bracket through death, you want their children to enter that bracket. Neither my sister nor I are in that bracket, even though we own our own homes, because the mortgage takes away most of that (and in my case I'm in Hungary, too).

So, as with everything, I would only start taxing inheritance on assets valued over £1m or £1.5m or some other number that has had a bit more thought gone into it.2

Someone shouldn't be able to inherit a £20m mansion tax free. But then they use trusts to get around it. So I would close those loopholes.

But in it's current form, it is unfair.

Agreed that it's not set up correctly as things stand in a lot of respects - a single person who didn't own a property gets £325k tax-free, whereas someone whose husband died 20 years ago and who has a property gets to pass on £1m tax-free is bananas and is designed around the assumption of a life escalator of one marriage, own a home, have kids, that isn't everyone's experience nowadays and yet is still continuously represented in the tax system in this country. Plus, as you said, trusts make a mockery of it.

I said nada about your right to opine, you just said you didn’t understand why folks saved for their kids. I’m just giving you a clue why. No right or wrong. Though I was actually alive when you were born and have my own kids, so have a little teeny bit of a view
And yes my kids work very hard- charity sector and primary teacher but really none of your business tbh

I would indeed describe it as a teeny bit of a view that you have - second hand comes a very distant second place to actual lived experience. I understand very much why people save for their kids, but I can't save for my kids in the same way you saved for yours. I won't get a pension like you will. The only reason that I have a house is because I am lucky enough to come from family who could help me financially. I am incredibly lucky, and I am still struggling.

And around me, I'm watching my children's future nation being whittled away by austerity and lack of investment, with things that you took for granted deemed too expensive to maintain.

I work in financial services, and I find it utterly bizarre how many of my clients openly admit to planning their finances around the assumption of their promised inheritance - I don't want a country where so many people's plans of future financial stability require surviving until their parents die (especially now assisted dying is legalised!)! This goes doubly for the fact that my job means that the sample of people that I speak to tends to skew middle-class - if we have a country built around inheritances, then we have a country where we're condemning a large number to continual generational poverty. I will inherit money from my parents at some point and it will likely be the only hope I have of a decent retirement - people who don't get an inheritance might just get to not retire at all and I'm really not okay with that being our country.

Puja

All sounds a bit shut up boomer to me. I'm not going to apologise/be retrospectively penalised for providing for my kids, nor saving for my own house and pension (no parental help if that's germane)....and surprising as it may seem, that was not without considerable sacrifice nor working really hard- nor do I see why I should pay my taxes when I'm alive, then whatever's left just passes to the state when I'm gone (if that's your proposal). Not much of an incentive to save really.
Must confess though, I did misinterpret your original comment on inheritance tax- you were unable to understand why kids should have the right to money etc from their parents, rather than why parents saved to provide for their kids. That's such a different start point I probably wouldn't have started

I do have two questions though- what did I take for granted that isn't available now, and to WT " inheritance tax here is a symptom not a cause - and the very fact it's a concern is another symptom"....symptoms of what?