Inequality between generations

[Bletchleyite]

Completely agree - though as a graduate tax it would be paid rather than written off by many, I'd suggest that it could probably afford to be lower than 9%.

It wouldn't be unfair as a concept but would require reimbursement of loan payments already paid to be fair to all.

 

[ChrisC]

I am not even that old but there is a generational difference. Someone who is 20 today seems a lot less "world wise" than I was at 20. They seem to live very empty and superficial lives governed by what some simpleton "influencer" tells them.

I think I’ve now got to the age where I find it difficult to understand what an influencer actually is. I keep reading and hearing about influencers but know nothing about them. I always thought throughout my life that I was young in outlook for my age and tried to keep up with things. As I get closer to reaching the age of 70 I’m beginning to feel older and less in touch with the younger generation.

 

[35B]

This is a very apt point also. Somebody mentioned up thread about influencers being the modern equivalent of magazines. This is true to certain degree. However social media has amplified this and also brings about an increased amount of keeping up with the Jones'People see someone else their age going on holiday to Dubai and think they must be failing in life because they aren't holidaying in Dubai. But they fail to take into account the whole set of circumstances.

I made that comment. Having grown up before the internet and social media, and having teenage kids who use it heavily (I think well!), and hold influencers in some contempt, I am not sure the difference is as great as argued. The pressure to keep with the Jones' did then exist, as it does now. There may be a difference of degree in that influence but, if so, it is because of the immediacy of modern communications rather than the fact of their existence.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==

It wouldn't be unfair as a concept but would require reimbursement of loan payments already paid to be fair to all.

Possibly - though I think there's also a lot to be said for a concept of "fix forward".

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think I’ve now got to the age where I find it difficult to understand what an influencer actually is. I keep reading and hearing about influencers but know nothing about them.

They are people who make a living by being paid to be photographed whilst visiting luxury locations or wearing luxury clothing (or, indeed, both).

The only difference is that they post their photos to Instagram or TikTok rather than having them printed in Tatler or Vogue.

Think of them as models. A bit like how Jean Shrimton or Pattie Boyd were paid to be photographed visiting luxury locations whilst wearing luxury clothes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==

It wouldn't be unfair as a concept but would require reimbursement of loan payments already paid to be fair to all.

The exact figures depend on when you took the loan out, but student loan repayments (except the very old mortgage-style loans) are based on a percentage of your income and not on how much you borrowed. Most borrowers will never repay all of what they borrowed because of all the interest which is applied to the loan.

If you repaid them the money they'd paid towards the loan but then applied a retrospective tax, they'd be in exactly the same position. The only ones who'd suffer would be those who have repaid their student loan in full. Not many of the post-2012 cohort will have done because of the amounts involved.

You couldn't easily fix the issue backwards, more going forward set it so that any new graduate has to pay a tax rather than going through the motions of pretending to loan them money and pretending to make them repay it. Or at least make the interest 0% so that people have a fighting chance of repaying the capital balance.

 

[ainsworth74]

I am not even that old but there is a generational difference. Someone who is 20 today seems a lot less "world wise" than I was at 20. They seem to live very empty and superficial lives governed by what some simpleton "influencer" tells them.

50p (what, I'm not made of money I'm a Millennial! ) says that when you were 20 people were saying the same thing about your peers!

 

[AlterEgo]

Indeed. A 55" flat screen 4K smart TV can be found on Amazon for £250 today, including wall mounting installation. The previous generations wanted TVs, but in today's prices the cost was many times higher. The US tracks TV prices in their consumer price index and between 1950 and 2026 the average rate of TV price inflation was -6.5% per year.

Indeed, it isn't about who is and isn't materialistic. In my view Gen Z are one of the least materialistic generations and prefer experiences to materialistic things. Naturally, it is usually boomers who talk about how privileged younger generations are to have smartphones and televisions "I didn't have that", so tell me who is attaching status to materialistic possessions there!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==

More generally, though, I see a lot of the comparisons being made not because they're practical, but as a moral criticism of "the youth of today", from a position in which understanding and empathy seem remarkably absent. I find that odd when today's youth live in the world that their parents and grandparents have helped form.

Quite.

 

[ainsworth74]

There are always going to be poor and rich people. There is always going to be people better off because of what their parents had. That is life. There is a limit to how that can or should be levelled up. We are not born equal, or ever equal in life.

But it is important that, to the greatest extent practical, we ensure that people have an equal opportunity to succeed. We cannot force equality but we must strive to ensure that some kid born in Grangetown in Middlesbrough (amongst the most deprived areas in England) has as much of a chance as we can give them of being successful and getting to go to a tremendous university like Durham or Oxford. We waste so much potential and incur so much extra costs if we don't try to make sure that people have those opportunities.

We'll never achieve equal outcomes, as you say that's life. But too often it feels like we people who argue "there will always be winners and losers" are happy to write-off people and indeed entire regions through no fault of their own and simply because they're poor and from an unpopular deprived area. If we don't try and improve those situations then we have to accept that these areas will always just generate an underclass of poor people who will need vast amounts of state support in benefits, health spending, social services spending and so and so on.

Its the perennial thing that crops up when people say there are too many people going to university these days (they might even be right, we could certainly do with more people in trades). Whose children would those people prefer didn't go to university? It never seems to be the kids from leafy and well to-do suburbs that they expect to give up on university....

 

[91104]

What caused house prices to explode in the late 90s early 00s? My experience was I bought my first home in 1996 during the dying days of John Majors government in an unfashionable part of London for £50k at the age of 21. Although I wasn’t earning great money then as was still under British Rail on a low basic topped up with overtime I got a 5% deposit together,didn’t need no parental assistance (not like they could’ve helped me anyway) and was easy enough to get a mortgage. Then after Tony Blair became PM the value of my house kept going up and up. Pre rightmove days there was a time looking through the estate agent ads in the local paper where they seemed to be going up £3k a week and when I sold 6 years later for £153k I’d trebled my money. But I don’t recall any major events that caused the prices to rocket so steeply in a such a short time. Just remember thinking to myself I’m glad I bought when I did otherwise I’d struggle now.

 

[35B]

But it is important that, to the greatest extent practical, we ensure that people have an equal opportunity to succeed. We cannot force equality but we must strive to ensure that some kid born in Grangetown in Middlesbrough (amongst the most deprived areas in England) has as much of a chance as we can give them of being successful and getting to go to a tremendous university like Durham or Oxford. We waste so much potential and incur so much extra costs if we don't try to make sure that people have those opportunities.

We'll never achieve equal outcomes, as you say that's life. But too often it feels like we people who argue "there will always be winners and losers" are happy to write-off people and indeed entire regions through no fault of their own and simply because they're poor and from an unpopular deprived area. If we don't try and improve those situations then we have to accept that these areas will always just generate an underclass of poor people who will need vast amounts of state support in benefits, health spending, social services spending and so and so on.

Its the perennial thing that crops up when people say there are too many people going to university these days (they might even be right, we could certainly do with more people in trades). Whose children would those people prefer didn't go to university? It never seems to be the kids from leafy and well to-do suburbs that they expect to give up on university....

On the contrary, I think accepting that there will always be winners and losers is vital - many of the issues stem from the assumption that all must have prizes. I've two kids who were turned down for study at Cambridge, after interview - that's hard. But the response is to look after them, not to try to change the rules so that they can't be disappointed.

There's a lot that can be done about levelling up, by giving people opportunities and helping them to take them. But if snobbery is a problem (and it is), so is its opposite - I've lost count of the number of times people have made "not for the likes of me" type comments, holding themselves back and denying themselves opportunity. Not for nothing was Beveridge especially concerned about Ignorance as the greatest of the 5 giants.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==

What caused house prices to explode in the late 90s early 00s? My experience was I bought my first home in 1996 during the dying days of John Majors government in an unfashionable part of London for £50k at the age of 21. Although I wasn’t earning great money then as was still under British Rail on a low basic topped up with overtime I got a 5% deposit together,didn’t need no parental assistance (not like they could’ve helped me anyway) and was easy enough to get a mortgage. Then after Tony Blair became PM the value of my house kept going up and up. Pre rightmove days there was a time looking through the estate agent ads in the local paper where they seemed to be going up £3k a week and when I sold 6 years later for £153k I’d trebled my money. But I don’t recall any major events that caused the prices to rocket so steeply in a such a short time. Just remember thinking to myself I’m glad I bought when I did otherwise I’d struggle now.

Social change. I grew up in SW London, and house prices went through the roof in that period (and have kept rising). There were more and more jobs for young professionals, and the sort of small houses in Zones 2 and 3 became ultra-desirable. From spare spaces and little old ladies whose parents had bought their houses new when I was a small kid, the neighbours all changed and I started seeing Porsches, Lotuses and Range Rovers on the street - over just a few years.

 

[andrewgs]

I must recommend this lecture on the topic which quantifies much of the comments on this thread.

 

[ChrisC]

They are people who make a living by being paid to be photographed whilst visiting luxury locations or wearing luxury clothing (or, indeed, both).

The only difference is that they post their photos to Instagram or TikTok rather than having them printed in Tatler or Vogue.

Think of them as models. A bit like how Jean Shrimton or Pattie Boyd were paid to be photographed visiting luxury locations whilst wearing luxury clothes.

Thank you for that. It does explain it a bit. I suppose not using Instagram and TikTok is partly why I know nothing about them.

I haven’t always been behind the times. When I first qualified as a teacher in 1978 and started working in a primary school, I was responsible for introducing the first BBC computer, complete with its cassette player to slowly load the programs. I was the only member of staff who had ever seen a computer before and I knew how to switch it on! How things have changed in the last 50 years.

 

[RT4038]

What caused house prices to explode in the late 90s early 00s? My experience was I bought my first home in 1996 during the dying days of John Majors government in an unfashionable part of London for £50k at the age of 21. Although I wasn’t earning great money then as was still under British Rail on a low basic topped up with overtime I got a 5% deposit together,didn’t need no parental assistance (not like they could’ve helped me anyway) and was easy enough to get a mortgage. Then after Tony Blair became PM the value of my house kept going up and up. Pre rightmove days there was a time looking through the estate agent ads in the local paper where they seemed to be going up £3k a week and when I sold 6 years later for £153k I’d trebled my money. But I don’t recall any major events that caused the prices to rocket so steeply in a such a short time. Just remember thinking to myself I’m glad I bought when I did otherwise I’d struggle now.

I think it started at the time when Building Societies / Banks changed the rules and allowed two partners salaries to be considered when calculating the maximum amount of a mortgage. Hitherto this had only been one. This released an enormous amount of money into the housing market. The first few people were able to buy much bigger/better houses, but then, as markets do, prices started rising as the money was there to pay. Over the years the building societies/banks further relaxed how much could be borrowed, so what was 3.5 times one persons salary has risen to ? 10 times a joint salary (or something like that).

The Banks have also had larger and larger sums to be loaned out, as private pensions and Insurances have grown in number and value - the money has got to be lent somewhere in order to get a return.

 

[jfollows]

MIRAS - Mortgate Interest tax Relief At Source - played a part too, didn’t it, especially when unmarried couples could claim double the relief until 1998.

It also made interest-only mortgages more attractive; they’re pretty much deprecated now other than for rental property, although they have other advantages which suited me.

 

[ainsworth74]

On the contrary, I think accepting that there will always be winners and losers is vital - many of the issues stem from the assumption that all must have prizes. I've two kids who were turned down for study at Cambridge, after interview - that's hard. But the response is to look after them, not to try to change the rules so that they can't be disappointed.

Well yes I'm not trying to imply that there will be no winners or losers ever (until that fully automated luxury space communism kicks off anyway ). Simply that it seems to me to be extremely unhealthy for society in general to take the the view that "There are some people who will just have to suffer poor life outcomes because their parents had poor life outcomes and there's nothing we can do to improve there lot in life. It is what it is.".

There will, of course, be people who have poor outcomes in their life either through no fault of their own (the proverbial happens) or the actions of outsiders. But we have to at least try and ensure that no matter how terrible your start in life that you are at least given the opportunity to succeed just as much as someone who had all the advantages possible. But...

There's a lot that can be done about levelling up, by giving people opportunities and helping them to take them. But if snobbery is a problem (and it is), so is its opposite - I've lost count of the number of times people have made "not for the likes of me" type comments, holding themselves back and denying themselves opportunity. Not for nothing was Beveridge especially concerned about Ignorance as the greatest of the 5 giants.

...I agree that this certainly is also problem. As is the "crab bucket" mentality that can also infect people and causes them to try and drag those who are successful back down "Oh look at clever clogs here thinking he's better than us because he's got A* (or whatever they are these days) on his GCSEs".

 

[RT4038]

But it is important that, to the greatest extent practical, we ensure that people have an equal opportunity to succeed. We cannot force equality but we must strive to ensure that some kid born in Grangetown in Middlesbrough (amongst the most deprived areas in England) has as much of a chance as we can give them of being successful and getting to go to a tremendous university like Durham or Oxford. We waste so much potential and incur so much extra costs if we don't try to make sure that people have those opportunities.

My Uncle, from the most deprived part of Bootle, one of three siblings and son of a Liverpool Corporation bus driver with mental health issues, passed the 11+, went to the local Grammar School, got a scholarship in the mid fifties to go to Cambridge University and rose to the pinnacle of his profession. This at a time when less than 5% of children went to University. Grangetown needn't be any hold back (except of course we don't have State Grammar Schools in most areas, and the brightest kids are more likely to be held back to level up with the others in a Comprehensive....., which there will be a lot more of in Grangetown than Nunthorpe?)

There will, of course, be people who have poor outcomes in their life either through no fault of their own (the proverbial happens) or the actions of outsiders. But we have to at least try and ensure that no matter how terrible your start in life that you are at least given the opportunity to succeed just as much as someone who had all the advantages possible. But...

Or their own actions ..... But of course no-one wants to blame themselves for making poor life choices (it's either not their fault or the 'actions of outsiders'). And of course, how supportive your parents are is also a major factor.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==

Its the perennial thing that crops up when people say there are too many people going to university these days (they might even be right, we could certainly do with more people in trades). Whose children would those people prefer didn't go to university? It never seems to be the kids from leafy and well to-do suburbs that they expect to give up on university....

Those who are not clever enough ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

On the contrary, I think accepting that there will always be winners and losers is vital - many of the issues stem from the assumption that all must have prizes. I've two kids who were turned down for study at Cambridge, after interview - that's hard. But the response is to look after them, not to try to change the rules so that they can't be disappointed.

I don't think that anyone really has an issue with there being winners and losers. People do have an issue with whether there is a true meritocracy when it comes to deciding who are the winners and who are the losers.

You mention Cambridge entrance interviews, yet Trinity Hall has recently (and controversially) decided to actively target students at the richest public schools as they are the ones who have the "expertise and interests that align well with the intellectual demands of the subjects." Apparently, any attempt to contextualise academic performance at school is "reverse discrimination."

It is a tough one to balance and I have been on both sides of it. I come from a state school in Bradford, I'm the first person in my entire family to go to university, I had the best A'Level results in my school that year. I got into Durham, but with an offer that was clearly contextualised.

But I went to Durham, read law and politics, and got a 2.2. I then went to work at a university in London and I know, beyond all doubt, that I would have got at least a 2.1 at that university for the same standard of work.

But apparently we must pretend that degrees from all universities are made equal.

There's a lot that can be done about levelling up, by giving people opportunities and helping them to take them. But if snobbery is a problem (and it is), so is its opposite - I've lost count of the number of times people have made "not for the likes of me" type comments, holding themselves back and denying themselves opportunity

People holding themselves back is the flipside of the snobbery coin, though. If people are made to feel like they don't belong somewhere then they won't put themselves forward, even if they would have the talent to manage in that situation.

Comments such as those from Trinity Hall, Cambridge, will be interpreted as telling poorer students that they don't belong in the big fancy university. So of course they will think twice before putting themselves forward. It takes a strong person to put themselves into a position where they don't think they'll be wanted.

Certainly at Durham I wasn't always made to feel like I belonged there, more than once were pointed comments made to me by professors about quota students or similar. My state-school background friends at Oxford reported similar (although, oddly, my public-school background friends did not).

 

[35B]

I think it started at the time when Building Societies / Banks changed the rules and allowed two partners salaries to be considered when calculating the maximum amount of a mortgage. Hitherto this had only been one. This released an enormous amount of money into the housing market. The first few people were able to buy much bigger/better houses, but then, as markets do, prices started rising as the money was there to pay. Over the years the building societies/banks further relaxed how much could be borrowed, so what was 3.5 times one persons salary has risen to ? 10 times a joint salary (or something like that).

The Banks have also had larger and larger sums to be loaned out, as private pensions and Insurances have grown in number and value - the money has got to be lent somewhere in order to get a return.

The loan value has risen, but not that much - but a key change (for good and ill) has been that both partners' incomes are considered. That was liberating at one time, but now creates a trap where property relies on two incomes to be "affordable"

 

[ainsworth74]

My Uncle, from the most deprived part of Bootle, one of three siblings and son of a Liverpool Corporation bus driver with mental health issues, passed the 11+, went to the local Grammar School, got a scholarship in the mid fifties to go to Cambridge University and rose to the pinnacle of his profession. This at a time when less than 5% of children went to University.

And I hope he knew how well he did for himself. That cannot have been an easy path to success and he deserves a lot of credit for that.

Grangetown needn't be any hold back (except of course we don't have State Grammar Schools in most areas, and the brightest kids are more likely to be held back to level up with the others in a Comprehensive....., which there will be a lot more of in Grangetown than Nunthorpe?)

I'm involved in a primary school whose catchment area includes Grangetown and we're at pains to ensure that a) all the children at the very least hit their age related expectations (indeed most of them do and often outperform national averages for non-disadvantaged children) and b) those children who can excel are pushed to achieve the best that they can (a work in progress however).

What is most disheartening is that we know those kids who we've got from being at tremendously low base (far below their peers at the same age in a better area) up to the same level as their peers (or better) then go off to secondary schools which seem to uniformly fail them miserably. But we are doing our bit to make sure that education, at least whilst they're at primary school, is no barrier.

Or their own actions ..... But of course no-one wants to blame themselves for making poor life choices (it's either not their fault or the 'actions of outsiders').

Yes I did of course mean "...either through no fault of their own (the proverbial happens) or their own actions." but managed to bungle my drafting of that sentence quite comprehensively!

And of course, how supportive your parents are is also a major factor.

Indeed, that is often a key factor. As I said I'm certainly not trying to argue that we ensure that everyone has the same outcome from life. That is impossible. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make sure people have, to the extent we can provide, the same opportunities even when their background sets them up to fail.

Those who are not clever enough ?

I mean ideally but the way we're structuring Student Finance makes it much harder for poorer but clever students to go to University. They're the ones that are going to have to take out maximum maintenance loans (no grants at all of course) and who are going to have to split more of their time between working to make ends meet and studying. Whilst their peers from wealthier backgrounds will be able to rely on more family support. Thus adding a barrier even for the clever students.

So it's easy to say that we should reduce the numbers that attend university (though I'm not convinced that we want a less well educated population in a globally competitive world) but those that propose such things don't tend to back that up by saying "But we'll make sure that the level of financial support that's available for those that do go is such that financial considerations will never be a factor".

 

[35B]

I'm involved in a primary school whose catchment area includes Grangetown and we're at pains to ensure that a) all the children at the very least hit their age related expectations (indeed most of them do and often outperform national averages for non-disadvantaged children) and b) those children who can excel are pushed to achieve the best that they can (a work in progress however).

What is most disheartening is that we know those kids who we've got from being at tremendously low base (far below their peers at the same age in a better area) up to the same level as their peers (or better) then go off to secondary schools which seem to uniformly fail them miserably. But we are doing our bit to make sure that education, at least whilst they're at primary school, is no barrier.

What your school is achieving is admirable, and the failures of the secondary schools to maintain that progress a disgrace.

So it's easy to say that we should reduce the numbers that attend university (though I'm not convinced that we want a less well educated population in a globally competitive world) but those that propose such things don't tend to back that up by saying "But we'll make sure that the level of financial support that's available for those that do go is such that financial considerations will never be a factor".

The support needs to be a lot more than just financial - there's a big cultural gap to consider.

We absolutely should not waste this talent. It's easy for me - I know I've got university educated ancestors back to at least the 18th century, and I grew up in an environment where books and education were taken as read. Those without that start deserve the support, and I knew plenty at university who were every bit my equal despite a very different background (or do I mean because?).

However, I do wonder whether the 50% target for university is wise, or focused. The boundaries between education and training are wide and blurry, and I fear that we push too many people through education when actually training is more appropriate. But then I'd argue for saying that medical schools shouldn't be conferring degrees...

 

[Senex]

I think it started at the time when Building Societies / Banks changed the rules and allowed two partners salaries to be considered when calculating the maximum amount of a mortgage. Hitherto this had only been one. This released an enormous amount of money into the housing market. The first few people were able to buy much bigger/better houses, but then, as markets do, prices started rising as the money was there to pay. Over the years the building societies/banks further relaxed how much could be borrowed, so what was 3.5 times one persons salary has risen to ? 10 times a joint salary (or something like that).

The Banks have also had larger and larger sums to be loaned out, as private pensions and Insurances have grown in number and value - the money has got to be lent somewhere in order to get a return.

I think it was even tighter, wasn't it? The figure that I remember was just three times the one salary, and that only when you already had a deposit of a certain percentage (I forget what) — certainly no 100% loans. Then you had to have some record of saving with the building society you were aiming to borrow from, plus there were also "queues" with the societies for mortgages (i.e. you were told you could have a mortgage, but not for so many weeks/months).

 

[Railwaycat]

Yes, and politicians are bad here too, being generous to pensioners. Let's be honest many pensioners are not hard up, over 1m pensioners pay tax at 40%, and another 7.8m earn enough to pay basic rate tax. (HMRC data)


I know many people didn't like Margaret Thatcher, and her policies broke some historic communities. But at least she did what she said, and kept in same direction for 10-15 years so some sectors could grow. The current Government flip flops, and reverses policies every few weeks discouraging investment in business and jobs.

And what do you think "wealthy" pensioners do with their cash? We spend it, in cafes, restaurants, pubs, visitor attractions etc. Without our trade, hospitality would really be down the pan.

As for Thatcher, that evil witch's sell off policies, whether it be water, power, council housing is still hurting the country today. She made a massive gamble with peoples lives sending the task force to the Falklands (after sending the wrong message to Argentina with the proposal to withdraw the Endurance), it was only Argentinian inexperience (the bomb settings if I remember rightly) that prevented a disaster for our forces.

 

[35B]

Yes, and politicians are bad here too, being generous to pensioners. Let's be honest many pensioners are not hard up, over 1m pensioners pay tax at 40%, and another 7.8m earn enough to pay basic rate tax. (HMRC data)

National minimum wage gives a full time income of about £23k. Basic rate income tax kicks in at less than £13k. While some pensioners are pretty well off, using basic rate as a measure overstates it significantly.

 

[TravelDream]

An interesting thread which raises some really important issues.

I am not sure Britain is unique in this regard, but the UK has been run in a manner that is against younger people's interests for quite some time. Perhaps that's a result of voter turnout, but young people's issues like the unaffordability of housing or the ridiculous student loan system are very serious ones which get less political awareness and news coverage than even nonsense non-issues affecting older people like the WASPI women.

People seem to forget it causes a huge range of other issues too.

Young ambitious people can't afford a house so live in a houseshare. Do you think they are more/ less likely to get married in this case? How about having children/ starting families? It's a massively anti-natalist policy.
I don't have kids and don't particularly want them, but I realise the government needs to both encourage and help people start families for the good of the country.

I cook from scratch when I can because I have more control over what goes into it. It's definitely healthier. I bulk it out with other things, like cooking bacon lardons and mushrooms (look away now Italians). It's possibly even a couple of quid cheaper. Maybe a bit more if I go heavier on the pasta and lighter on the meat ragu sauce. But it is certainly not a life-changing amount of money.

The secret of cooking from scratch whilst working a full time job is batch cooking.
I make plenty of curries and stews and then freeze them to eat in the following week or two. Often they taste better the second time around.
I find it to be highly cost effective and not that difficult on time.
The lasagne example can easily be done more cheaply than that ready meal.
Use 500g of mixed beef-pork. Bulk out with plenty of finely diced vegetables (tomato, onion, garlic, carrot, celery (and with apologies to the Italians, mushrooms, courgette, bell pepper, squash, spinach etc etc.).
No need for an expensive Dolmio jar - the tomato sauce can easily be made with fresh tomatoes/ tinned tomatoes.
Serve with a side of steamed vegetables/ salad. Often I use frozen vegetables and just chuck them in the oven on a tray with the lasagne for 10 mins.
Suddenly the price per portion plummets.

I do this it's a real issue nowadays that as the years go on, fewer and fewer people have basic cooking skills.

There are always going to be poor and rich people. There is always going to be people better off because of what their parents had. That is life. There is a limit to how that can or should be levelled up. We are not born equal, or ever equal in life. Don't go to University if you don't have the motivation and effort to work and pay off the loan. I work with a youngster who went to Uni to do a Criminology degree. Racked up £70k debt. Does a Criminology degree but doesn't want to work for the Police! Did a Crown Court ushers job for a few months but didn't like that. Now doing an admin job, keeping the salary under the minimum amount to start paying off the loan. What a waste.

A real issue. The education system in the UK is not unlike a conveyor belt funneling kids to university.
In reality, university isn't for everyone and there are many options young people have.

Though the debt thing is terrible nonetheless and I am glad it is finally getting some media attention.

Even on minimum wage, he will need to make repayments by 2030 as the repayment thresholds have been frozen. Hopefully, pressure will be put on the government and there will be yet another u-turn.

 

[Starmill]

I've always tried to gently point out to my family that I'm unlikely to be having any kids of my own, and I don't feel the need to consider any inheritance in turn. I would prefer they all spend any money they have in whatever way they think best while they still have the opportunity to do so. I agree with the common suggestion made above though that sending it immediately downstream is the best option for those who do have or are preparing to have children.

 

[WAB]

Certainly at Durham I wasn't always made to feel like I belonged there, more than once were pointed comments made to me by professors about quota students or similar. My state-school background friends at Oxford reported similar (although, oddly, my public-school background friends did not).

I remember ruling Durham out after a bunch of rahs were complaining in the JCR that there were too many state-school students visiting on an open day...

 

[RT4038]

An interesting thread which raises some really important issues.

I am not sure Britain is unique in this regard, but the UK has been run in a manner that is against younger people's interests for quite some time. Perhaps that's a result of voter turnout, but young people's issues like the unaffordability of housing or the ridiculous student loan system are very serious ones which get less political awareness and news coverage than even nonsense non-issues affecting older people like the WASPI women.

I don't think young people in other countries finish education and move straight into their own houses either? Perhaps there is an expectation gap here? How 'ridiculous' the student loan system is will depend on what side of the fence you are sitting:

• The country cannot afford to have 50% of young people attending university at taxpayer expense.
• Going to University should be a privilege, not a 'hoot', a rite of passage, a means of leaving home and/or deferring entry into the working world funded by society in general
• University graduates should be earning more in their working life; it is only fair on those who have not gone to University for some of those additional earnings to pay for the investment made by society in their education.
• There needs to be some serious disincentive for the student not to waste the investment - either by running up larger costs than necessary (going to a Uni far away rather than one they could commute from home to) or not persuing a career that uses the investment. This includes doing courses for which there is little or no ongoing need in society.

Now whether the current student loan system is the best way to do this I do not know, but I haven't seen any better suggestion in principle yet.

Young ambitious people can't afford a house so live in a houseshare. Do you think they are more/ less likely to get married in this case? How about having children/ starting families? It's a massively anti-natalist policy.
I don't have kids and don't particularly want them, but I realise the government needs to both encourage and help people start families for the good of the country.

I am not sure it is anti-natalist. More like 'deferred natalist', as it probably encourages people to start a family later, when they can afford a house. Which means that the children are more likely to get their inheritance when they need it, rather than my case of relatively young parents at my birth and I'm over state pension age with a parent still alive. (which is lovely - I'd rather have that than the possible windfall!)

And I hope he knew how well he did for himself. That cannot have been an easy path to success and he deserves a lot of credit for that.

I'm involved in a primary school whose catchment area includes Grangetown and we're at pains to ensure that a) all the children at the very least hit their age related expectations (indeed most of them do and often outperform national averages for non-disadvantaged children) and b) those children who can excel are pushed to achieve the best that they can (a work in progress however).

What is most disheartening is that we know those kids who we've got from being at tremendously low base (far below their peers at the same age in a better area) up to the same level as their peers (or better) then go off to secondary schools which seem to uniformly fail them miserably. But we are doing our bit to make sure that education, at least whilst they're at primary school, is no barrier.

This is very laudable. Your comments on Secondary education raises a lot more issues that need to be addressed, particularly the dragging down of the best achievers by their peers.

I mean ideally but the way we're structuring Student Finance makes it much harder for poorer but clever students to go to University. They're the ones that are going to have to take out maximum maintenance loans (no grants at all of course) and who are going to have to split more of their time between working to make ends meet and studying. Whilst their peers from wealthier backgrounds will be able to rely on more family support. Thus adding a barrier even for the clever students.

So it's easy to say that we should reduce the numbers that attend university (though I'm not convinced that we want a less well educated population in a globally competitive world) but those that propose such things don't tend to back that up by saying "But we'll make sure that the level of financial support that's available for those that do go is such that financial considerations will never be a factor".

I think the difficulty is how to structure student finance to incentivise effective use of taxpayer investment in the people, help those who need it most without the scheme actually benefitting those from the leafy suburbs (as you put it) the most.

 

[sor]

And what do you think "wealthy" pensioners do with their cash? We spend it, in cafes, restaurants, pubs, visitor attractions etc. Without our trade, hospitality would really be down the pan.

They also hoard it, and I use that word advisedly. Recently a relative asked my dad and brother for help setting up online banking, and in the process they saw his bank balance. Let's just say that between actual cash and the property he owns in a desirable SW city, the future inheritor (someone in that relative's own family) will be having a *very* nice time of it after IHT is paid. Not bad for someone who has been retired for about as long as I've been alive and spent most of his career in the prison service.

Your argument isn't a great reason to justify the ever increasing share of the pie that goes on pensioner benefits such as the triple locked state pension and especially on WFP. Parlicularly when it's funded by debt and by taxing today's working population. My tax incentives to save into a DC pension are being taken away for this...

 

[jfollows]

I do this it's a real issue nowadays that as the years go on, fewer and fewer people have basic cooking skills.


A real issue. The education system in the UK is not unlike a conveyor belt funneling kids to university.
In reality, university isn't for everyone and there are many options young people have.

I agree with both of these.

My education got me to Oxford and Imperial College, but I couldn’t cook. Learning how to (eventually) transformed my life. Which side of a chicken is breast side up? How do you dice an onion? Simple, but I didn’t have a clue. I’m fine now!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==

They also hoard it, and I use that word advisedly. Recently a relative asked my dad and brother for help setting up online banking, and in the process they saw his bank balance. Let's just say that between actual cash and the property he owns in a desirable SW city, the future inheritor (someone in that relative's own family) will be having a *very* nice time of it after IHT is paid. Not bad for someone who has been retired for about as long as I've been alive and spent most of his career in the prison service.

I hoard money, in a way, but my bank balance tends towards zero when possible, and I don’t use a high street bank savings account. I invest on a high risk strategy, and I spend it. If I need a new car, I will realise some money from investments and buy one.
I had a friend, still alive but no longer a friend, who kept his money in a high street bank account. Everyone is different.
But most of us who are older do not want to have to scrimp and save again, if we are lucky enough not to have to. I planned my retirement long ago, but change my plans when I need to. I understand the motivation to hoard, but think it can be done more cleverly than many do. I don’t care about what happens with my money when I die, though, and it seems to me that too many do, but I guess that’s personal.

 

[35B]

I don't think young people in other countries finish education and move straight into their own houses either? Perhaps there is an expectation gap here? How 'ridiculous' the student loan system is will depend on what side of the fence you are sitting:

• The country cannot afford to have 50% of young people attending university at taxpayer expense.
• Going to University should be a privilege, not a 'hoot', a rite of passage, a means of leaving home and/or deferring entry into the working world funded by society in general
• University graduates should be earning more in their working life; it is only fair on those who have not gone to University for some of those additional earnings to pay for the investment made by society in their education.
• There needs to be some serious disincentive for the student not to waste the investment - either by running up larger costs than necessary (going to a Uni far away rather than one they could commute from home to) or not persuing a career that uses the investment. This includes doing courses for which there is little or no ongoing need in society.

Now whether the current student loan system is the best way to do this I do not know, but I haven't seen any better suggestion in principle yet.

I am not sure it is anti-natalist. More like 'deferred natalist', as it probably encourages people to start a family later, when they can afford a house. Which means that the children are more likely to get their inheritance when they need it, rather than my case of relatively young parents at my birth and I'm over state pension age with a parent still alive. (which is lovely - I'd rather have that than the possible windfall!)

I think the difficulty is how to structure student finance to incentivise effective use of taxpayer investment in the people, help those who need it most without the scheme actually benefitting those from the leafy suburbs (as you put it) the most.

There’s a lot to agree with here’s but also some stereotypes that are problematic.

From my experience as a student, going away to university is an important part of the experience. It is not just a training course, but operates as a whole experience where part of the learning is about being somewhere new. That does play into the “university as finishing” school idea, but is also an important part of the equity. If people are expected to stay local, that deprives people of choice if “local” means that there isn’t actually the right course nearby. My son is reading music; there is no good music degree within commuting distance - should he be denied the opportunity to study because of that?

That then leads into the question of earnings. Averages conceal details, and the assumption that a degree will mean higher earnings denies the reality that there can be lower paid jobs where a degree is of value because of the wider skills it teaches - and that’s before we discuss professions like nursing that require degrees but pay peanuts.

Finally, there’s the question of expectations post-university. No one expects to be able to buy a house straight from university, but the current setup makes that seem impossible. That has impacts. One is about how old people are when they have children, but that’s really just a symptom of being invested in society and feeling settled. Currently, many people feel insecure in their 20s and 30s, and that is dangerous for society.

We need to acknowledge that part of this is our investment in our future, and that the deal needs to be balanced.

 

[Railwaycat]

They also hoard it, and I use that word advisedly. Recently a relative asked my dad and brother for help setting up online banking, and in the process they saw his bank balance. Let's just say that between actual cash and the property he owns in a desirable SW city, the future inheritor (someone in that relative's own family) will be having a *very* nice time of it after IHT is paid. Not bad for someone who has been retired for about as long as I've been alive and spent most of his career in the prison service.

Your argument isn't a great reason to justify the ever increasing share of the pie that goes on pensioner benefits such as the triple locked state pension and especially on WFP. Parlicularly when it's funded by debt and by taxing today's working population. My tax incentives to save into a DC pension are being taken away for this...

One example of a hoarder isn't representative of the pensioner community - what's more representative is the numbers that frequent cafes midweek (especially garden centres) - squeeze that group and you will soon find unemployment going up (business closures), benefits going up and tax take coming down. Don't underestimate the grey pound:

Why the 'Grey Pound' is Shaping the UK's Future

The UK's aging population, and the combined wealth of individuals over 65 – often referred to as the "grey pound" – is fundamentally reshaping the - Discover articles on Retirement. Updated on April 30, 2025.

britwealth.com

"The UK’s aging population, and the combined wealth of individuals over 65 – often referred to as the “grey pound” – is fundamentally reshaping the nation’s economic and social landscape. This demographic shift impacts everything from healthcare provision and housing demand to pension systems and workforce dynamics, presenting both significant challenges and exciting opportunities for the future.

"The term “grey pound” simply refers to the collective spending power of older generations. It’s a vast and growing economic force. Consider this: according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the number of people aged 65 and over in the UK is projected to continue to increase, reaching over 13 million by 2030. These individuals often possess considerable assets, including property, savings, and pensions accumulated over a lifetime of work. This concentration of wealth creates a powerful consumer base with distinct needs and preferences, driving demand in specific sectors."

That said, I do think that the old age pension should be locked at the rate it is when someone starts to pay 40%, and maybe reduced gradually (perhaps by the rate of inflation) for every maybe £10000 "other income" increase (but that would be complicated).