this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
314 points (96.4% liked)

World News

39110 readers
2413 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

You know the Bank of Mum and Dad when you see it: it’s your friend who seems broke, but always has a safety net, or who suddenly (but discreetly) acquires the deposit for a home. It’s those who stayed with their parents while they saved for a flat, or stuck it out in a profession they were passionate about even though the wages are chronically low. It’s those who do not need to consider the financial costs of having children. It’s those whose grandparents are covering nursery or university fees, with the Bank of Grandma and Grandad already driving an economic wedge between different cohorts in generations Alpha (born between 2010 and 2024) and Z (born in the late 1990s and early 2000s).

This is the picture we know, but the Bank of Mum and Dad is not just a luxury confined to the 1% – it is also evident in families like mine. I grew up in a working-class household and was the first person in my family to get a degree, but it was the fact my parents had scrimped in the 1980s to purchase properties in London (and allowed me to crash in one throughout my 20s) that has arguably been the true source of opportunities in my life.

In recent years, we have rightly widened the conversation about privilege in society. And yet how honest are we about one of the most obvious forces shaping anyone under 45: the presence or absence of a parental safety net? The truth is that we live in an inheritocracy. If you’ve grown up in the 21st century, your opportunities are increasingly determined by your access to the Bank of Mum and Dad, rather than by what you earn or learn. The economic roots of this story go back to the 1980s, but it accelerated after the 2008 financial crisis, as private wealth soared and wage growth stalled. In the 2020s, rather than a meritocracy – where hard work pays off – we have evolved into an inheritocracy, based on family wealth.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Blackmist 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

We have never lived in a meritocracy. That is just some bullshit billionaires will tell you while you work yourself into an early grave.

And here's some free life advice: If you can stand to be around your parents once you reach early adulthood, continue to live with them. Life is cheaper in groups. Pay some rent and your share, but you'll find it a lot easier to save money for your own place when some leech landlord isn't funnelling all your hard earned money off to their own retirement fund.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yes and no. Back in the 50s-90s you could really either live cheaply or work hard and get ahead with some skill and some luck.

Now you can't really do either.

Ask ppl in their 80s if they ever worried about their kids being able to make a living by hard work alone and they'll tell you no every time.

That opportunity to get ahead by hard work is gone... But it used to be there for everyone

[–] Woht24@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That opportunity to get ahead by hard work is gone

I think this is really bullshit. It's harder than it was, absolutely. But you can do it, it just takes sacrifices which people these days seem to want none of.

You always hear about people's grand/parents moving to some town and starting a life. And it's viewed romantically but in reality, it was likely a sacrifice.

Earning $15k above the median salary with a partner earning minimum wage, I managed to save enough for a house deposit in about 18 months. With nothing but a diploma I got in 12 months. It sucked, I never went out, cooked nearly every night and had very few indulgences. I moved over an hour away from where I grew up and I had no help. This is in one of the top 10 expensive property cities in the world.

It can be done, don't be so negative.

[–] filister@lemmy.world 0 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Ah yes, remind me when was that. And now adjust your past income for inflation, and take into consideration the rents and the real estate prices and tell us if you could do the same now.

We all know the answer.

[–] Woht24@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

It was in 2022.

You clearly don't know shit. But continue waffling about how hard life is, it might get you somewhere one day.

[–] filister@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

And you obviously are living in a very cheap area, where this is doable. I am living in an area where a flat costs 200 - 250 monthly average salaries, and guess what people have to pay rent and eat. So be my guest and calculate how someone can buy here?

But yes, continue being toxic and think you have invented life and we the plebs know nothing of it.

[–] Horsey@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

The only friends I have, including myself, that own their home are those with dead parents.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I know of other situations. Sometimes they give well still alive to avoid the taxes, haha.

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Own as in with a mortgage or own outright? Different things...

[–] ChexMax@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

I have friends with mortgages. They can't have kids though because it takes two incomes and then they can't afford childcare AND a mortgage

[–] Horsey@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Either. The contrast I’m making is that the large majority of people my age that I know are renting. It’s not until windfall that it’s possible to buy property.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

I bought my first home half with money I’d saved by working, and half with some money I inherited from my grandparents. I was also able to buy with only 10% down because it was 2005, leading up to the sub-prime mortgage scandal, and they were giving out mortgages very easily.

Fast forward some years.

I reluctantly rented my place out for a couple of years because I needed to move myself and the mortgage was underwater following the 2006 crash caused by all those sub prime mortgages. I rented to a nice couple and although I gave them a very attractive rent and treated them as well as possible, there was no question that their rent money got me through that housing crisis and eventually allowed me to sell at a significant profit instead of losing my ass.

When I sold, I offered my renters a deal to move out. They took it, and said that they were buying their own place as they had inherited a small amount recently.

For me this was a perfect example of how, just because my grandparents died a few years before theirs, I was their landlord and not the other way around. I got protection for my investment on their dollar. And once they too got the benefit of inheritance, they were able to graduate to the next level themselves.

Years later I’ve remained a homeowner and am sitting on multiple millions in equity from all the appreciation during that time. My remaining mortgage payments are about 1/3 of what it would cost to rent the same home. My wife’s younger siblings, by contrast, can’t even afford to buy under any circumstances because the market is so high. And of course lending standards are much more strict now.

For me this is a perfect example of generational advantage. Here I am sitting pretty just because I’m 10 years older than them, while they have to move out of state just to get a start.

Anyone who thinks this is a fair and equal opportunity economy is a damn fool. As long as you are competing against people who have advantages you don’t, it doesn’t matter whether your theoretical opportunities are equal. You’re going to lose and wind up in servitude of those who won.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I'm in this picture, and I do not like it. Well, okay, it's better than not being in this picture. When I die I'm going to give as much as possible to charity, for what it's worth.

This is the picture we know, but the Bank of Mum and Dad is not just a luxury confined to the 1% – it is also evident in families like mine. I grew up in a working-class household and was the first person in my family to get a degree, but it was the fact my parents had scrimped in the 1980s to purchase properties in London (and allowed me to crash in one throughout my 20s) that has arguably been the true source of opportunities in my life.

Hate to break it to the author, but that sounds like somebody who started in the (upper?) middle class, and now is in the 5% at least. That's properties plural, in London. C'mon, everyone with money points to someone they know that's the next digit up so they can be just average. I find that tacky.

Edit: Okay, I actually read the article. The author points that out themselves:

But is this really the true story? Or have I just fed you a “working-class done good” tale, because that’s how I attempt to justify my own exceedingly privileged position? One academic investigation into the Bank of Mum and Dad found that its beneficiaries tend to frame this considerable financial support not in terms of their own individual privilege, but as evidence of their parents’ hard work and upward mobility. Whereas once parents lived vicariously through their children’s successes, now it seems their kids live vicariously through their parents’ struggles. And there lies the problem.

I'd also like to draw attention to this bit, which really resonates:

Young people’s frustration is so pronounced these days because this reality runs contrary to what we were told growing up. Then the message was, work hard, get a degree and you will be rewarded.

I literally don't know of anyone this actually worked for, at least at the current stage of our lives. What were the teachers smoking?

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Well, wages are shit and prices are unjustifiably high. So yeah, you fall to the safety net or the ground.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 7 points 1 week ago

I was able to migrate over to work and study because my family paid for the trip and even though the deal was that I were to work and be by myself I could always call to ask for emergency money. I did that twice, one for paying for my college inscription and other for rent. Without that I wouldn't had the comfortable life I have today.

Gonna be honest, income inequality is awful in America, but this post feels more like sour grapes.

[–] spector@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago

Nice to finally see someone talk about this. Every time I see those popular posts on reddit litigating how good their boomer parents have it, all I can hear is cry-bragging about how wealthy they are.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

you all might. my folks were never that well off. my mom had to work cashier jobs the first 5 years of me and my sis life and those jobs were chumpchange even then

[–] maplebar@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It’s those who stayed with their parents while they saved for a flat, or stuck it out in a profession they were passionate about even though the wages are chronically low.

This part in particular I find to be a strange thing to complain about... Like, some people have the option of living with their parents, so what..?

This fantasy that everyone moves out of their parents' house and becomes totally independent the day they turn 18 is just another bullshit American dream that has little basis in reality. If you happen to have the privilege of your empty childhood bedroom in your parents house, and you have a good enough relationship with your family to make it work while you follow a vocation or save up money for later, that's not something to be ashamed of--it's making the best of your circumstances and being smart with how you spend money.

Remember kids: there's no magical stat bonus for adult dignity in giving half of your monthly wages to some asshole landlord if you don't have to, so don't let people shame you out of living with family in a multi-generational household like so many people do relatively happily in countries all over the world.

Yes, it's true that not everyone has that privilege (a good relationship with their parents, an extra bedroom to sleep in, etc.), but as long as you're contributing (financially or otherwise) to the shared household in some way, there's no more shame in living with your parents than their is living with non-family roommates, a spouse, or whatever.

I think most people, whether they've experienced it or not, would agree that the privilege of living with your parents isn't exactly a luxury or an ideal way to live, but there really is no shame in it. If you're a good person who works hard and are only able to save up enough money to work towards your goals because you save money on rent by living with family, doing something like saving up for a house is still a big achievement and nobody should try to take that away from you.

Imagine being butthurt about people who live with their fucking parents and not laser-focused on the fact that a 0.1% of people have 99.9% of the money in society. It's fucking nuts.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 49 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (21 children)

People should always have access to essentials, and I count an affordable reliable roof over their head as one of those things. But are we ever going to be able to change the fact that someone on the receiving end of three generations of doing moderately well in life is going to be massively more advantaged that someone whose parents were 4th and 5th in large poor families?

Someone's parents having even a modest home with a spare room in London puts them at a massive advantage over their peers who have to privately rent. But aside from ensuring the fundamentals are in place of affordable accessible homes, is there really any realistic way of nullifying that advantage and is it even right to do so?

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Your post points to the answer.

If people’s absolute essentials could be guaranteed: housing, healthcare, education, and food, then all the “advantages” would only affect the bonus region above that where wealth and privilege reside.

The problem is that it’s very possible for those life essentials to be threatened because other people have wealth and privilege.

If there was just a floor on this damn thing we could stop talking about all this. But American culture dictates that that floor must be squarely below the point of dignity and deprivation, so that people don’t get comfortable. Because we can’t have that. Ever. Because it’s a moral hazard to the soul. Unless you’re born rich. Then you can have comfort for free, and there’s magically no moral hazard to your soul somehow.

[–] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 43 points 1 week ago (1 children)

aside from ensuring the fundamentals are in place of affordable accessible homes, is there really any realistic way of nullifying that advantage and is it even right to do so?

I don't think that's an aside, I think that's the key to solving a lot of problems with our current society. Give everyone a roof and enough nutritious food, and most people can figure out how to live their lives from there. The problem is that the lack of housing and food options forces people into low paying jobs with no upward mobility, and continues the cycle of poverty.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] atro_city@fedia.io 44 points 1 week ago (6 children)

"Abolish inheritance"

But what about my inheritance

*sigh*

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Inheritance isn't the root problem. The problem is that the only people with any money are people who were able to save it decades ago. And that problem is because labor has been devalued, wages stagnated, and cost of living soared.

And all of that is because for the past 40 years or so, there has been more benefit to taking profits out of business than spending money within the business.

When you reach the top-tier income tax bracket, and the IRS starts taking 91% of your income beyond that level, $10,000 of business income is only worth $900 to you.

When your best employee wants a $10,000 raise, that money comes straight out of your "excess" earnings. It is $10,000 of your earnings that are not subject to taxation. Paying that $10,000 raise only costs you $900 once you reach that tax bracket.

But we don't have a 91% top-tier income tax bracket anymore. We had a punitively high top tier rate for most of the 20th century, but it got cut down in the 70's and slashed in the early 80's. Now, the top tier income tax bracket is just 37%. When you reach that bracket, giving your best employee a $10,000 raise takes $6700 out of your pocket, instead of just $900.

Reagan's views on the Laffer curve were correct: raising the tax rate beyond a certain point will actually reduce tax revenue. But tax revenue is not why we need the high rates. The benefit of high marginal tax rates comes from what business does to avoid them. We need to restore the business incentives that come with a punitively high top-tier income tax rate. We need businesses to increase their labor expenses to avoid that tier. Businesses should benefit the whole economy, not just the ownership class.

For similar reasons, we need taxes on registered securities, payable in shares of those securities. The shares collected as taxes will be liquidated in small lots over time, comprising no more than 1% of total traded volume, to limit their effect on the market. Exempt the first $10 million held by a natural person; tax everything above.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I mean, it's not that clear-cut. There's still people who have a nice job and save a lot of money, it's just a somewhat smaller group than there used to be, and at the same time the gap with non-nice jobs is larger. Furthermore, $900 is still $900, I question if some random shareholder really cares about a stranger's raise that much.

More redistribution would help the inequality problem, for obvious reasons, though. You're right about that. I also don't buy that nobody will do anything without a small chance of becoming a billionaire, or that billionaires are really hundreds of thousands of times smarter than the average person and we need them to be happy.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Furthermore, $900 is still $900, I question if some random shareholder really cares about a stranger's raise that much.

I'll rephrase. The shareholder in question has the option of spending $10,000 on their business, or giving Uncle Sam $9,100 and pocketing $900.

The shareholder in question gets a lot more bang for their buck by figuring out how to spend it than paying the tax and trying to keep it.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well, they have to pay the tax just the same on the 10,000 - or whatever it grows into - in the future. I don't see how it changes their tendency to invest rather than spend.

Looking at the empirical data, propensity to save was maybe double what it is now back then. It's an imperfect metric because it includes instruments other than stocks and all social classes, but that seems like less of a difference to me than you'd expect if this was driving it.

Like, again, the general concept isn't bad here, but I have to take issue with this specific argument.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well, they have to pay the tax just the same on the 10,000

If you pay a worker $10,000 to make a widget and sell it for $15,000, you pay taxes on $5,000, not $15,000.

If you give that worker a $5000 raise, you don't actually earn anything, and you don't pay taxes on that $15,000.

So what happens is that the billionaire starts counting everything he spends as an operating expense. Which is fine. Because he is spending the money, rather than taking it as profit and buying shares. Every cent he spends is a cent in the pocket of a worker, somewhere. Maybe he doesn't pay his own workers more. Maybe he hires an advertising firm, and they make some money. Maybe he buys a car "for business purposes", and the car manufacturer (and their workers) makes some money. Maybe he buys a private jet, or a yacht, and those manufacturers make some money. Maybe he throws a giant party, and the caterers, the DJ, the venue, and everyone else in the hospitality industry makes some money.

With a 37% top tier marginal tax rate, he can put $10,000 into the economy on products and services that he claims are business expenses, or he can take $6300 out of the economy and put it into stocks.

Wih a 91% top tier marginal tax rate, he can spend $10,000 on products and services that he says is related to business, or he can buy $900 worth of stock. Even his fraud now benefits the economy. His claim of personal expenses as business expenses still puts money into worker pockets. The victim of his fraud is the IRS, not the American public.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, but like, the value of the stock (for a billionaire) itself drops if you can't get dividends out of it as easily, so he's actually choosing between investing an effective $900 or getting $900 after tax.

Taxing billionares is the same as subsidising all non-billionares, from an investment viewpoint. Money isn't real, you can't make "the fundamentals" work better than optimally by moving it around like that.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, but like, the value of the stock (for a billionaire) itself drops if you can't get dividends out of it as easily, so he's actually choosing between investing an effective $900 or getting $900 after tax.

No. You forget what he is acquiring as "business" expenses. He's either spending $10,000 on "business" or $900 in personal investments.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That's sure not how I think about my own investing. I don't really care what happens inside an index fund, all I care about is how much money I can get out when I reach my horizon.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I feel pretty safe in assuming you are not a multi-billionaire. I also kinda doubt that you are the principal owner of a business that would come anywhere close to the top tier income tax bracket.

If those are reasonable assumptions, there is no reason why you should be thinking this way at all about your own investing.

I do know that I use 20% of my home exclusively for business purposes, and I count 20% of my housing costs as a business expense. That part of my home is paid out of my revenue (pre-tax) because it is a business expense, and the rest of it is paid out of my income (post-tax) because it is a personal expense.

I also know I have a fairly strong incentive to increase the area of my home dedicated to business purposes, and shrink the area I use personally. It's the same dollar payment on the same mortgage, the same real estate taxes, but now it's being made with pre-tax dollars, reducing my taxable income, and therefore my tax bill.

If my income tax rate was 91%, you can safely bet that I'd have no net income after my tax deductible business expenses. That's the entire purpose of a 91% top tier tax: Force them to actually spend their money, rather than hoarding it, and using it to hoard more.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 days ago

I suppose that means capital gains tax is lower in your jurisdiction than normal income tax?

For what it's worth, I'm poor as shit, and my investment account is there but pretty empty, haha.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 week ago (6 children)

My parents blew up any inheritance I would've ended up with due to bad decisions and shit luck.

Now my mom depends on me during her final years as we cruise the stars in a two-bedroom apartment.

A lot of my friends live together and share rent. Some with their parents, and a minority got hitched and live with a spouse. It seems like a lot of people depend on small family groups these days.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›