UK - Pensioner incomes 'outstrip those of working families'

[McHrozni]

This is the interesting thing. In theory it is possible to provide an education as good as an oxbridge education at say Newcastle Uni or Swansea Uni so you could bring the level of the non elites up. But it still wouldn't be Oxbridge.

Thirty years later it could be on the same level though. All it takes is sufficiently high quality for a sufficiently long time.

Oxbridge is home of the elite because of reputation to a far greater extent than it is due to superior quality of education. They're one of the oldest universities in the world, of course they're going to be home of the elite. The only way to challenge that is to match their quality and wait for it to kick in. It takes a generation or more, but that's the only way to do it.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Thirty years later it could be on the same level though. All it takes is sufficiently high quality for a sufficiently long time.

Oxbridge is home of the elite because of reputation to a far greater extent than it is due to superior quality of education. They're one of the oldest universities in the world, of course they're going to be home of the elite. The only way to challenge that is to match their quality and wait for it to kick in. It takes a generation or more, but that's the only way to do it.

McHrozni

I'm sure there are plenty of universities offering as good an education as oxbridge currently. That changes nothing because the education is only a small part of oxbridge.

 

[Darat]

I'm sure there are plenty of universities offering as good an education as oxbridge currently. That changes nothing because the education is only a small part of oxbridge.

There's something else that often reinforces the advantages of an oxbridge education, and that is what will be assumed by you having oxford or Cambridge on your CV. And then there is simple bias, I know one bank that still seems to only ever employ oxbridge or LSE graduates (from the UK).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There's something else that often reinforces the advantages of an oxbridge education, and that is what will be assumed by you having oxford or Cambridge on your CV. And then there is simple bias, I know one bank that still seems to only ever employ oxbridge or LSE graduates (from the UK).

Absolutely. It's worrying just how much some of our biggest businesses and employers are anything but meritocracies

 

[3point14]

Absolutely. It's worrying just how much some of our biggest businesses and employers are anything but meritocracies

Ah, what's far more important is that they be 'our kind of people'.

 

[The Don]

Thirty years later it could be on the same level though. All it takes is sufficiently high quality for a sufficiently long time.

Oxbridge is home of the elite because of reputation to a far greater extent than it is due to superior quality of education. They're one of the oldest universities in the world, of course they're going to be home of the elite. The only way to challenge that is to match their quality and wait for it to kick in. It takes a generation or more, but that's the only way to do it.

McHrozni

.... and yet the net result of all the time, money and effort that has been spent on tertiary education have actually had the opposite effect and Oxbridge's reputation is enhanced (despite the fact that other universities offer better courses in particular subjects). In part this is because of an excellent "brand" and deliberate manipulation of brand value is a very tricky thing.

If you're offered 1000 CVs from candidates all of whom have good qualifications from decent universities, sometimes it's easier just to let the universities' admissions function thin the herd (and as 3point14 suggests, they also may be "our kind of people")

 

[Darat]

Ah, what's far more important is that they be 'our kind of people'.

And we know they are our kind of people because they went to oxbridge like we did, or their dad went to prep with your dad.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You may not accept the logic but empirically that's the way it turns out. Of course there are exceptions at both ends of the spectrum (rich kids who fritter it all away and poor kids who make good), but on average the chances of social and economic mobility are small, and reducing.

One example of this is the "old boy" network that comes from going to a good private school. Not only do you get a pretty good education, but it seems you also get easier access to a top university and in some professions it's who you know rather than what you know.

Of course that's a rather cartoonish example but a more realistic one is that in order to buy a house in a good school catchment area you need a fair chunk of money. Less well off parents end up sending their children to less good schools which handicaps them in the game of life from the start. Now of course you could make all schools "good" but decades of all kinds of education initiatives seem to show that it's not that easy.

I'd also mention, the 'freedom to fail'. The growth of unpaid internships to access certain careers. The ability to finance relevant but unfunded extra curricular activities, privileged access to work experience and impressive recomendations (extreme example, before David Cameron's interview at Conservative Central Office they received a phone call from Buckingham Palace recommending him).

 

[Matthew Best]

I don't understand the case for being able to inherit a 4-bed semi in Penge free of tax

Rather weirdly, I just inherited a 4-bed semi in Penge free of tax. The question is, how did you know?

 

[Darat]

Rather weirdly, I just inherited a 4-bed semi in Penge free of tax. The question is, how did you know?

Have you looked in the bushes?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'd also mention, the 'freedom to fail'. The growth of unpaid internships to access certain careers. The ability to finance relevant but unfunded extra curricular activities, privileged access to work experience and impressive recomendations (extreme example, before David Cameron's interview at Conservative Central Office they received a phone call from Buckingham Palace recommending him).

Yep. It's amazing how many things are becoming privileged cliques. Opportunity only for those who can afford it.

Things seem to be getting worse rather than better. Even entertainment seems to be going the same way.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Yep. It's amazing how many things are becoming privileged cliques. Opportunity only for those who can afford it.

Things seem to be getting worse rather than better. Even entertainment seems to be going the same way.

I think entertainment (and the media in general) is a really good example, go back a few decades and your prospective entertainer might be living in a council house (low rent, secure), in a reasonable job with fixed hours and performing in working men's clubs around it, low unemployment and easy access to benefits meant that when the time came to give up the day job they could afford to take that chance without failure being disastrous.

Within the media itself personal contacts have become more and more important, unpaid internships have become more important and generally located in London or other relatively expensive locations, the traditional training ground for print media (local newspapers) is massively diminished. Nick Cohen commented a while back that when he meets a new person in media circles with a familiar surname he nolonger bothers to ask "Oh, are you related to....?" as they almost invariably are.

The same thing can be seen in politics, whatever your opinion of unions they provided an alternate route into politics and a training ground for political skills. Unpaid researcher jobs (50% of commons researchers don't even get expenses) are now increasingly the gateway job to politics.

 

[McHrozni]

I'm sure there are plenty of universities offering as good an education as oxbridge currently. That changes nothing because the education is only a small part of oxbridge.

.... and yet the net result of all the time, money and effort that has been spent on tertiary education have actually had the opposite effect and Oxbridge's reputation is enhanced (despite the fact that other universities offer better courses in particular subjects). In part this is because of an excellent "brand" and deliberate manipulation of brand value is a very tricky thing.

If you're offered 1000 CVs from candidates all of whom have good qualifications from decent universities, sometimes it's easier just to let the universities' admissions function thin the herd (and as 3point14 suggests, they also may be "our kind of people")

Maybe. But how would a steep inheritance tax address this in any meaningful way?

If the best way to get into Oxbridge is for your parents to have studied there, a very steep inheritance tax would be more likely to make this even worse.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Maybe. But how would a steep inheritance tax address this in any meaningful way?

If the best way to get into Oxbridge is for your parents to have studied there, a very steep inheritance tax would be more likely to make this even worse.

McHrozni

With steep inheritance tax, then at least your prospects are significantly dependent on the success of your parents or grandparents. Without inheritance tax then that can go back generations.

If the money raised from inheritance taxes is also used to help address the "unlevelness" of the playing field (as was the case in the 50's and 60's) then there is a real chance of reversing the reduction in economic and social mobility. IMO both elements are necessary however, the constraining of privilege and the investment in the underprivileged.

 

[McHrozni]

With steep inheritance tax, then at least your prospects are significantly dependent on the success of your parents or grandparents. Without inheritance tax then that can go back generations.

If the money raised from inheritance taxes is also used to help address the "unlevelness" of the playing field (as was the case in the 50's and 60's) then there is a real chance of reversing the reduction in economic and social mobility. IMO both elements are necessary however, the constraining of privilege and the investment in the underprivileged.

Well, I certainly agree in investment in the underprivileged. This is undoubtedly a good thing for society overall. However I disagree that constraining the privileged is necessary or indeed beneficial, it may even be impossible to maintain over a long period of time. What's to stop the privileged from changing the rules of the game again? Not to mention that the privileged will always be able to transfer their wealth to their kin.

This sort of back and forth, if nothing else, wastes a lot of valuable political effort and time, which can be spent on something more productive.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Well, I certainly agree in investment in the underprivileged. This is undoubtedly a good thing for society overall. However I disagree that constraining the privileged is necessary or indeed beneficial, it may even be impossible to maintain over a long period of time. What's to stop the privileged from changing the rules of the game again? Not to mention that the privileged will always be able to transfer their wealth to their kin.

You claim that "the privileged will always be able to transfer their wealth to their kin" but that's not the experience when death duties were introduced and in particular it constrained the transfer of privilege well outside the main line.

Constraining the privileged is, IMO, desirable because otherwise you end up with the situation which has plagued the England and the UK for centuries, a prevalence of privileged nonentities in positions of power and authority. A situation which is getting worse after a brief period of getting better.

This sort of back and forth, if nothing else, wastes a lot of valuable political effort and time, which can be spent on something more productive.

McHrozni

Seems a poor argument for leaving an unacceptable status quo in place.

 

[McHrozni]

You claim that "the privileged will always be able to transfer their wealth to their kin" but that's not the experience when death duties were introduced and in particular it constrained the transfer of privilege well outside the main line.

I'm not saying there would be no effect, I'm saying that this:

Constraining the privileged is, IMO, desirable because otherwise you end up with the situation which has plagued the England and the UK for centuries, a prevalence of privileged nonentities in positions of power and authority. A situation which is getting worse after a brief period of getting better.

would merely happen again in due course. Inheritance tax isn't a silver bullet, it will not solve much by itself. At best it's a tool to raise money that can be invested into something that will improve society. It has merit in that aspect, possibly even significant merit, but simply taking money from the rich without giving far more attention as to how that money will be spent to improve the society rarely (if ever) produced positive results.

Seems a poor argument for leaving an unacceptable status quo in place.

I'm not saying that status quo should be maintained. I'm saying that there are good ways and bad ways to change the status quo. An action which takes a humongous amount of political effort to achieve should also give back a proportionally humongous payout. Inheritance tax doesn't do that, at best it produces fairly marginal improvements over several generations. Since it disproportionately impacts the elite, it will fight it tooth and nail, be it in parliament or on the Cayman islands or wherever. This too will be costly for society, and the costs will be visible quickly - far more so than the marginal gains you expect over a century or so.

I'm all for an inheritance tax that levies useful but not crippling amounts of money from the rich, and investing (not giving to, investing) that money in the underprivileged. The tax itself is easy to think out, this second point is where you need to work hard to ensure the money is well spent and you don't end up with simply another way of spending money to gain votes.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

Easiest way is not to have any inheritance tax. Let people inherit say up to the average annual salary and leave it at that.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Maybe. But how would a steep inheritance tax address this in any meaningful way?

I'm not sure it really would. As I said a steep inheritance tax seems like a good way to knock back down the families of those who drag themselves up in terms of wealth.

 

[Darat]

I would say sustain themselves via wealth.