What decisions could the UK actually take to avoid managed decline?

[Brubulus]

2 large new cities (around 250,000 homes), nationally planned with a relatively high density, 1 near Ashford on HS1, the other on Salisbury Plain. Built with some sort of DLR based light metro already in place and to a rapid schedule - 75% complete by 2030, any government costs can be met with the increase in revenue and housing benefit cost reductions. Regarding energy - just build nuclear reactors on every suitable site - major infrastructure planning to be done via a single decision planning process with no further reviews allowed to bring clarity to all involved - reducing the cost of financing these projects. Setting up a single national pension fund for all public sector workers that invests in the country and it's infrastructure would also improve financing.

 

[najaB]

So what's the difference now compared to say 30 years ago? Is it solely population growth, or something else?

Population growth, non-traditional family arrangements and the movement of people around the country as employment moved would be my guess as to the big three factors.

 

[nw1]

2 large new cities (around 250,000 homes), nationally planned with a relatively high density, 1 near Ashford on HS1, the other on Salisbury Plain.

The army don't need it anymore?

Built with some sort of DLR based light metro already in place and to a rapid schedule - 75% complete by 2030, any government costs can be met with the increase in revenue and housing benefit cost reductions. Regarding energy - just build nuclear reactors on every suitable site - major infrastructure planning to be done via a single decision planning process with no further reviews allowed to bring clarity to all involved - reducing the cost of financing these projects.

Controversial! Should we not be focusing on green energy sources as much as possible, certainly for new-build? (I am not proposing closing older power stations though - including coal-fired ones - as we still need them).

 

[CeeJ]

Deal with population growth in other ways, such as (perhaps financially) encouraging people to have less children. Or make the housing that is built, affordable housing with less of the premium £300,000+ developments which can only be afforded by the well-off in any case.

@HSTEd has covered this quite well, but the title of the thread is about ending managed decline. Trying to reduce childbirth rates (and presumably other forms of population growth, like immigration) will very much bring about managed decline. We can't afford to do it.

So what's the difference now compared to say 30 years ago? Is it solely population growth, or something else?

Not building enough to keep up demand so now we have a big backlog of people needing homes. Housbuilding dropped significantly in the 90s and 00s.

Salisbury Plain

I am having visions of a mega-city centred around Stonehenge.

 

[HSTEd]

So what's the difference now compared to say 30 years ago? Is it solely population growth, or something else?

Population was about 67.7 million in 2021, in 1991 it was 57.4 million. Increase of ten million people or so.

In addition, reduction in married couples living togeter, reduction in average number of children per household (the size of a household has shrunk so the same number of people make up more households) and other connected factors.

Finally, housing stock has become woefully decoupled from economic reality and shortages are now so acute that they are starting to meaningfully impact the economy itself.

 

[nw1]

Population was about 67.7 million in 2021, in 1991 it was 57.4 million. Increase of ten million people or so.

In addition, reduction in married couples living togeter, reduction in average number of children per household (the size of a household has shrunk so the same number of people make up more households) and other connected factors.

Finally, housing stock has become woefully decoupled from economic reality and shortages are now so acute that they are starting to meaningfully impact the economy itself.

OK fair enough, I do see there are problems but I would hope that building is done in a way which respects the environment and green spaces, and isn't just driven by what locations can net the building companies the most profit.

 

[HSTEd]

The army don't need it anymore?

Arguably the army has far too many training areas for its modern size!

Given it has Cape Wrath, the training area in the Suffield Block in Alberta and a training area in Oman, I doubt it needs Salisbury Plain too.

The only reason the MoD retains it is it doesn't have to pay anything for it

 

[Brubulus]

Controversial! Should we not be focusing on green energy sources as much as possible?

Nuclear doesn't produce co2, and will deliver a consistent amount of energy unlike wind and solar... Spending billions on batteries and transmission infrastructure gets rid of it's cost advantage. Also committing to build a significant number of them will drive down cost - like high speed rail.

 

[yorksrob]

In order to meaningfully impact development we'd need to do a hell of a lot more than simply make good the existing crushing housing shortage!

Even in the non-London South East, only 10% of land is developed or so.


What about the poor who support this lifestyle and are packed into slum-like conditions because not enough housing exists?

Reduction in child numbers will justm ake our problems even worse, since we have to get enough working age people to support the huge cohort of economically inactive pensioners that will be an expensive deadweight on the economy from now on.
By mid century, on current trends, a quarter of the entire population will be pensioners and we will have nowhere near enough children to keep the working age population up to support them.

Either you need more workers from children or from immigration, you can't escape this unless you abolish the state pension and require the old to literally work until they drop.

What you have there is a ponzi scheme. Society can't just breed more people every generation as there won't be the resources to support everyone.

 

[nw1]

Arguably the army has far too many training areas for its modern size!

Given it has Cape Wrath, the training area in the Suffield Block in Alberta and a training area in Oman, I doubt it needs Salisbury Plain too.

The only reason the MoD retains it is it doesn't have to pay anything for it

Actually that could (perhaps) in that case, be a sensible solution. Or perhaps not - basically I can see pros and cons.

As Salisbury Plain has always basically been out-of-bounds, we wouldn't be really losing anything (in terms of countryside access) if they did build a large town on it. However one would have to also assess the more general environmental impact - for example is Salisbury Plain a haven for rare species because of its lack of public access?

 

[yorksrob]

So what's the difference now compared to say 30 years ago? Is it solely population growth, or something else?

There must be a reason why there is a need for more houses compared to the past, and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it to see if there is an alternative solution that would work.

If there is not, then I will admit there isn't an alternative solution.

I believe that there's a trend towards smaller family units, each requiring their own home. As a singleton, I'm part of this trend.

 

[HSTEd]

What you have there is a ponzi scheme. Society can't just breed more people every generation as there won't be the resources to support everyone.

It's a ponzi scheme if there is a limited supply of people to participate (which there aren't), and if the goal is ever greater exponential growth, which it isn't.

At this point the objective just has to be childbirth/immigration to 2.2 per woman, at which point the system can continue indefinitely once the painful demographic transition is completed.

The choice is between demographic transition to total collapse, or demographic transition to an equilibrium.

 

[nw1]

What you have there is a ponzi scheme. Society can't just breed more people every generation as there won't be the resources to support everyone.

This is the possible conflict that's coming out of this thread. It's all very well wanting increased growth - but do we perhaps need some degree of "slowing down" - in a way which will allow us to preserve jobs and public services - to deal with climate change and other environmental factors?

It's a difficult one. On the one hand lowering the birth rate will lower the population, require less development, and there would ultimately be less competition for jobs. But on the other hand, it would mean less tax income. But if the population was less, then less public spending would be needed, hence less tax income required. Swings and roundabouts, I guess.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2023 ==

Nuclear doesn't produce co2, and will deliver a consistent amount of energy unlike wind and solar... Spending billions on batteries and transmission infrastructure gets rid of it's cost advantage. Also committing to build a significant number of them will drive down cost - like high speed rail.

What do you do with the nuclear waste though? Granted nuclear is "probably" safe, as long as you are not in an earthquake zone, but dealing with the waste is presumably a problem.

 

[HSTEd]

It's a difficult one. On the one hand lowering the birth rate will lower the population, require less development, and there would ultimately be less competition for jobs. But on the other hand, it would mean less tax income. But if the population was less, then less public spending would be needed, hence less tax income required. Swings and roundabouts, I guess.

Ultimately the era of "competition of jobs" being a serious issue on a large scale is behind us.
We are now in a Japan-style labour tight economy, and can expect various changes in line with that.

Automation of food service is already trending towards the Japanese example.

What do you do with the nuclear waste though? Granted nuclear is "probably" safe, as long as you are not in an earthquake zone, but dealing with the waste is presumably a problem.

Well, as a nuclear engineer, the somewhat blase answer is that we dig a big hole, put the waste in the hole and never speak of it again.

The problem is that the cost of dealing with high level waste (like spent fuel and such) shrinks over time due to radioactive decay. The heat production in a repository is the primary driver of cost and, over the short-ish timescale, halves every 30 years or so.
So the cheapest thing to do abotu the waste is nothing for now, but given the difficulty of conveying this reality to the public it appears that we have no idea what to do. Total lack of government leadership on this topic doesn't help.

 

[nw1]

Ultimately the era of "competition of jobs" being a serious issue on a large scale is behind us.
We are now in a Japan-style labour tight economy, and can expect various changes in line with that.

Automation of food service is already trending towards the Japanese example.

Does this not make the problem worse though? Automation means less jobs available, and presumably even more competition for the jobs that are left.

(Incidentally, having spent some time overseas last year, automation seems to be more of an issue in the UK than in some other European countries, though I have not visited the other big economies, such as France and Germany, recently so I'm not really comparing like-for-like).

 

[Senex]

Both [ainsworth74 said: Thirteen years of austerity and Brexit will do that to a country.] caused by the Conservative Party. Vote them out and we can perhaps begin to move in the right direction. / Starmer might not be great, but he wuld be a step in the right direction.

Agreed completely about the causes. But there doesn't seem to be any clear, attractive, coherent, and practicable programme on offer from Starmer's Labour for us to vote FOR. Rather, it seems that at the next election we're going to be faced with the need to vote AGAINST the Tories to get them out (preferably for a very long time) rather than with something positive to vote in favour of.

 

[JamesT]

Does this not make the problem worse though? Automation means less jobs available, and presumably even more competition for the jobs that are left.

(Incidentally, having spent some time overseas last year, automation seems to be more of an issue in the UK than in some other European countries, though I have not visited the other big economies, such as France and Germany, recently so I'm not really comparing like-for-like).

As we currently have record low unemployment and employers struggling to fill vacancies, I don't think automating away some jobs is necessarily a problem. Getting the workforce trained up to fill the jobs that are available will be the key.

 

[geoffk]

Population was about 67.7 million in 2021, in 1991 it was 57.4 million. Increase of ten million people or so.

If we support families having fewer children and reduce immigration, then we end up like Japan, where 60% of the population is over 60 and the economy has been sluggish for years.

 

[deltic]

1) Raise the minimum wage by 50% to encourage greater automation and hence productivity - no-one in work should require benefits to survive - subsidising businesses to employ cheap labour is madness
2) Introduce formal and informal lifelong learning - we need to continue to learn new skills - give everyone up to three months paid leave every five years to learn an approved new skill
3) Change the education system so it is less about passing exams and more about learning curiosity and lifetime soft skills and to promote the idea that setting up your own business is just as good an idea as going on to college
4) Build more houses to higher standards - the density of housing in the UK is very low which mitigates against public transport use and more to unsustainable car use - the days of having your large back garden are gone
5) Invest heavily in R&D
6) Support and encourage real venture capitalism - ie supporting new start-ups and expanding small businesses not the leveraged takeover of large companies
7) Tax out of existence second homes and Airbnb lets in major cities except when it is just a room or two in an occupied home
8) Give the Competition Commission more teeth and break up major companies to drive increased competition
9) Reduce the number of councils and councilors as a way of reducing nimbyism. Small electorates mean a few active people can dissuade councilors from approving anything.
10) Devolve far more powers including tax raising powers to local government and provide significant financial rewards to councils for every house built in their area
11) Relocate Parliament to Bradford
12) Reintroduce Polytechnics and raise the status of technical disciplines to that of academic ones
13) While we are highly unlikely to rejoin the EU work to reduce non-tariff barriers far more
14) Compulsory purchase any property/land that has been empty for more than 12 months and release it on to the market for housing
15) Tax capital gains on house sales
16) Reduce inheritance tax thresholds to reduce the increasing wealth imbalance between property and non-property owners.
17) Abolish corporation tax - only people actually pay taxes - it will mean shareholders or employees will receive better returns that they will then pay tax on but could encourage more businesses to locate in the UK

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2023 ==

If we support families having fewer children and reduce immigration, then we end up like Japan, where 60% of the population is over 60 and the economy has been sluggish for years.

Its more like 35% of the population is over 60

 

[geoffk]

Its more like 35% of the population is over 60

My mistake, a third. 28% over 65 is a figure I found from this article https://www.prb.org/resources/countries-with-the-oldest-populations-in-the-world/
Still looks like the highest in the world, with Italy second.

 

[duncanp]

1) Raise the minimum wage by 50% to encourage greater automation and hence productivity - no-one in work should require benefits to survive - subsidising businesses to employ cheap labour is madness
2) Introduce formal and informal lifelong learning - we need to continue to learn new skills - give everyone up to three months paid leave every five years to learn an approved new skill
3) Change the education system so it is less about passing exams and more about learning curiosity and lifetime soft skills and to promote the idea that setting up your own business is just as good an idea as going on to college
4) Build more houses to higher standards - the density of housing in the UK is very low which mitigates against public transport use and more to unsustainable car use - the days of having your large back garden are gone
5) Invest heavily in R&D
6) Support and encourage real venture capitalism - ie supporting new start-ups and expanding small businesses not the leveraged takeover of large companies
7) Tax out of existence second homes and Airbnb lets in major cities except when it is just a room or two in an occupied home
8) Give the Competition Commission more teeth and break up major companies to drive increased competition
9) Reduce the number of councils and councilors as a way of reducing nimbyism. Small electorates mean a few active people can dissuade councilors from approving anything.
10) Devolve far more powers including tax raising powers to local government and provide significant financial rewards to councils for every house built in their area
11) Relocate Parliament to Bradford
12) Reintroduce Polytechnics and raise the status of technical disciplines to that of academic ones
13) While we are highly unlikely to rejoin the EU work to reduce non-tariff barriers far more
14) Compulsory purchase any property/land that has been empty for more than 12 months and release it on to the market for housing
15) Tax capital gains on house sales
16) Reduce inheritance tax thresholds to reduce the increasing wealth imbalance between property and non-property owners.
17) Abolish corporation tax - only people actually pay taxes - it will mean shareholders or employees will receive better returns that they will then pay tax on but could encourage more businesses to locate in the UK

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2023 ==


Its more like 35% of the population is over 60

• I fail to see how relocating parliament is going to make much difference. For one thing, if parliament was moved outside London, it would have to be in a city that has good communications with the rest of the UK, and the only two cities I can think of that fit those criteria are Birmingham and Manchester. The answer to the UK being too London centric is to devolve more power to the regions, but also give those regions fiscal devolution, so that they raise taxes if they want to spend more, and be accountable to the electorate for their decisions.
• You should be increasing inheritance tax thresholds, not reducing them. That way, people can pass more money on to their descendents, who will then find it easier to enter the property market, and thus be less reliant on the private rented sector.
• Taxing capital gains on house sales is likely to reduce the supply of housing for sale, thus pushing up the price. People who have gained money from the sale of their house will be less reliant on the state for future.
• if you abolish corporation tax, you have got to replace it with something, or cut public spending accordingly. One of the accusations against the likes of Amazon and Google is that they have paid far too little tax on their earnings, and overseas shareholders wouldn't necessarily be liable for UK dividend taxes.

 

[JonathanH]

You should be increasing inheritance tax thresholds, not reducing them. That way, people can pass more money on to their descendents, who will then find it easier to enter the property market, and thus be less reliant on the private rented sector.

I think the point is to try and 'level the playing field'. Families with property will continue to accumulate wealth and it will increasingly be out of reach of families without property, resulting in a growing divide.

If, for example, you went to the other extreme, and all property wealth reverted to the state on death, house prices would be lower because there would be less demand. The issue then becomes family members who live in a parental home at the time of death of their parents. There is no panacea.

Taxing capital gains on house sales is likely to reduce the supply of housing for sale, thus pushing up the price. People who have gained money from the sale of their house will be less reliant on the state for future.

It would be another barrier to people downsizing in old age, resulting in less supply.

 

[RT4038]

The reason housing is expensive is because there is not enough to go around!
It's simply supply and demand at work.

Desired number of households continues to climb faster than the housing stock, capping rents won't do anything but gum up the housing system and stop anyone who does not housing ever obtaining any.

I am not sure this is right. The reason housing is so expensive is because so many people have got sufficient money to pay the expensive prices. And plenty of people with portfolios of houses to rent out to others.

How is this so-called housing shortage manifesting itself? There is a lot of talk on this forum about the 'shortage' but there are not lots of people without places to live. Yes, they may not own the place they live, but there aren't people (excluding a very niche band generally with mental health problems, which is a different issue) living on the streets. Is there actually a shortage of accommodation, or is it that everyone who would like to own a house for themselves can't afford one, and that is called a shortage?

 

[Brubulus]

1) Raise the minimum wage by 50% to encourage greater automation and hence productivity - no-one in work should require benefits to survive - subsidising businesses to employ cheap labour is madness
2) Introduce formal and informal lifelong learning - we need to continue to learn new skills - give everyone up to three months paid leave every five years to learn an approved new skill
3) Change the education system so it is less about passing exams and more about learning curiosity and lifetime soft skills and to promote the idea that setting up your own business is just as good an idea as going on to college
4) Build more houses to higher standards - the density of housing in the UK is very low which mitigates against public transport use and more to unsustainable car use - the days of having your large back garden are gone
5) Invest heavily in R&D
6) Support and encourage real venture capitalism - ie supporting new start-ups and expanding small businesses not the leveraged takeover of large companies
7) Tax out of existence second homes and Airbnb lets in major cities except when it is just a room or two in an occupied home
8) Give the Competition Commission more teeth and break up major companies to drive increased competition
9) Reduce the number of councils and councilors as a way of reducing nimbyism. Small electorates mean a few active people can dissuade councilors from approving anything.
10) Devolve far more powers including tax raising powers to local government and provide significant financial rewards to councils for every house built in their area
11) Relocate Parliament to Bradford
12) Reintroduce Polytechnics and raise the status of technical disciplines to that of academic ones
13) While we are highly unlikely to rejoin the EU work to reduce non-tariff barriers far more
14) Compulsory purchase any property/land that has been empty for more than 12 months and release it on to the market for housing
15) Tax capital gains on house sales
16) Reduce inheritance tax thresholds to reduce the increasing wealth imbalance between property and non-property owners.
17) Abolish corporation tax - only people actually pay taxes - it will mean shareholders or employees will receive better returns that they will then pay tax on but could encourage more businesses to locate in the UK

Agree with much of this but 7,11,14,15 and 16 will be almost impossible. IHT should have effectively no exemptions but have a threshold of around £2-3million, to ensure that it is only paid by the very richest, with house prices kept reasonable through a far more relaxed planning system and state investment in new social housing when prices creep up. A state bank to give low interest loans to those with good buisness ideas/ startups would help combat the reluctance of regular banks to invest in risky small/nonexistent businesses.

• I fail to see how relocating parliament is going to make much difference. For one thing, if parliament was moved outside London, it would have to be in a city that has good communications with the rest of the UK, and the only two cities I can think of that fit those criteria are Birmingham and Manchester. The answer to the UK being too London centric is to devolve more power to the regions, but also give those regions fiscal devolution, so that they raise taxes if they want to spend more, and be accountable to the electorate for their decisions.

More layers of government tends to become expensive and inefficient. I can barely keep track of all the various authorities in Cambridgeshire alone. They can also all pass the blame around when something goes wrong. I would abolish all councils and other elected local authorities (with central agencies providing their services) but instead try to ensure that all central agencies have devolved structures that allow for sufficent local expertise.

• You should be increasing inheritance tax thresholds, not reducing them. That way, people can pass more money on to their descendents, who will then find it easier to enter the property market, and thus be less reliant on the private rented sector.

IHT should have effectively no exemptions but have a threshold of around £2-3million, to ensure that it is only paid by the very richest.

• Taxing capital gains on house sales is likely to reduce the supply of housing for sale, thus pushing up the price. People who have gained money from the sale of their house will be less reliant on the state for future.

Agree, stamp duty is another tax with a terrible effect on housing prices as it disincentives moving. A tax based on land value in urban areas would be a good way to encourage development and density - but safeguards in rural areas to keep farming and similar industries viable.

• if you abolish corporation tax, you have got to replace it with something, or cut public spending accordingly. One of the accusations against the likes of Amazon and Google is that they have paid far too little tax on their earnings, and overseas shareholders wouldn't necessarily be liable for UK dividend taxes.

Taxing money when it leaves the company, or stays within the company but leaves the country would allow businesses to keep the money they make for expansion and investment in the UK, and make the country a better place to do buisnes without harming revenue as much as other proposals.

 

[CeeJ]

I think the point is to try and 'level the playing field'. Families with property will continue to accumulate wealth and it will increasingly be out of reach of families without property, resulting in a growing divide.

One thing that confuses me is how trusts work. Can't work out how someone inheriting <£1 million will get hit by a tax bill, but the Duke of Westminster can inherit billions without paying anywhere the same rate of tax.

More layers of government tends to become expensive and inefficient. I can barely keep track of all the various authorities in Cambridgeshire alone. They can also all pass the blame around when something goes wrong. I would abolish all councils and other elected local authorities (with central agencies providing their services) but instead try to ensure that all central agencies have devolved structures that allow for sufficent local expertise.

While I agree that too many layers can be inefficient and blur the lines of efficiency, it's important to have local democracy with clear lines of accountability. Devolution is generally a good thing.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

See my signature at the bottom of my posts! Or in the original Latin, Treasury dēlenda est (the Treasury must be destroyed).

Devolved to the regions would be my hope for the treasury - centralized in London sends the wrong message and annoys people. Now that would be leveling up!

 

[simonw]

One thing that confuses me is how trusts work. Can't work out how someone inheriting <£1 million will get hit by a tax bill, but the Duke of Westminster can inherit billions without paying anywhere the same rate of tax.

While I agree that too many layers can be inefficient and blur the lines of efficiency, it's important to have local democracy with clear lines of accountability. Devolution is generally a good thing.

Because the Duke of Westminster doesn't inherit billions, he becomes a beneficiary of a trust.

Whether this is a good or a bad thing is a separate debste, albeit anyone can set up a trus t.

The person inheriting £1million doesn't get hit with a tax bill, the tax is levied on the estate of the person who died.

 

[HSTEd]

How is this so-called housing shortage manifesting itself? There is a lot of talk on this forum about the 'shortage' but there are not lots of people without places to live. Yes, they may not own the place they live, but there aren't people (excluding a very niche band generally with mental health problems, which is a different issue) living on the streets. Is there actually a shortage of accommodation, or is it that everyone who would like to own a house for themselves can't afford one, and that is called a shortage?

Housing shares between people not at University were a comparative rarity relatively recently.

Now you are lucky if a family unit gets a housing unit to itself before 30, possibly before 40. Hence the huge increase of people forced to live with their parents because they simply haven o reasonable alternative.

Ownership or not of the housing is not the issue, the problem is that there simply are not enough housing units for the number of desired households. People are being forced to pack into increasingly unsuitable accomodation by the runaway increase inp prices.
If this continues we will progress from 'merely' converting a two-up two-down into a three-or-four "bedroom" house in multiple occupation by 4-8 people, to professional workers forced into defacto barrack blocks with bunk beds.

Most people my age struggle to afford more than one room to their own and spend a huge portion of their income even to obtain that. People are increasingly willing to illegally live in sheds and the like because its the only way they can get reasonable housing provision.

Even if you believe that people have no right to reasonable amounts of housing space, this still causes huge economic distortion because people are forced to chose where they live based solely on the availability on housing - not where their best opportunities lie. This causes major reduction in aggregate economic output due to inefficient distribution of the workforce. Let alone the psychological impact of being forced to live (and increasingly work) in a single room

 

[deltic]

• I fail to see how relocating parliament is going to make much difference. For one thing, if parliament was moved outside London, it would have to be in a city that has good communications with the rest of the UK, and the only two cities I can think of that fit those criteria are Birmingham and Manchester. The answer to the UK being too London centric is to devolve more power to the regions, but also give those regions fiscal devolution, so that they raise taxes if they want to spend more, and be accountable to the electorate for their decisions.
• You should be increasing inheritance tax thresholds, not reducing them. That way, people can pass more money on to their descendents, who will then find it easier to enter the property market, and thus be less reliant on the private rented sector.
• Taxing capital gains on house sales is likely to reduce the supply of housing for sale, thus pushing up the price. People who have gained money from the sale of their house will be less reliant on the state for future.
• if you abolish corporation tax, you have got to replace it with something, or cut public spending accordingly. One of the accusations against the likes of Amazon and Google is that they have paid far too little tax on their earnings, and overseas shareholders wouldn't necessarily be liable for UK dividend taxes.

The whole point of relocating Parliament is to change attitudes in Government to left behind areas and improve communications to those areas
The whole point of decreasing the inheritance tax threshold is to prevent the build of wealth in those who already have wealth
Capital gains tax on housing prevents people thinking of property as an investment instead of a home
UK introduced a digital sales tax to address part of this issue - you can introduce a withholding tax for overseas residents

 

[CeeJ]

Because the Duke of Westminster doesn't inherit billions, he becomes a beneficiary of a trust.

Whether this is a good or a bad thing is a separate debste, albeit anyone can set up a trus t.

The person inheriting £1million doesn't get hit with a tax bill, the tax is levied on the estate of the person who died.

Sorry my post was badly worded. I do have a basic understanding of how it works, my point is that it’s fundamentally a bad (or at least, unfair) thing.