US & UK are poor societies with some very rich people.

I thought it a perfectly reasonable question Daisy. Perhaps I can liken it to the legal textbooks I bought when studying. All long since thrown away despite their (to me) eye watering cost because they quickly become out of date. The knowledge of the generation of lawyers before me is similarly obsolete.

MaizieD "The BoE has been quietly issuing money for decades to ensure that there is enough money in the economy (just as it says in the article). Why do you think that, despite population increases over the years, and increased prices and wages, there is still enough money in the economy to cover it all? It isn't because we've earned it from overseas trade (indeed, have we ever had a trade surplus? More exports than imports?) That's what the BoE Monetary Committee does. It not only controls interest rates, it decides how much new money is to be put into the economy. "

-- Sometimes I wonder if lend-lease (huge amount of money) and the 60+ yr payoff impacted or is still impacting the economy.

Just me, just a thought.

I've never had my nails done, ever. Neither have my children and I've never drank coffee

I entirely agree Norah. The way of life of many is not conducive to saving. Their choice (thankfully not my son’s choice) but they can’t enjoy the lifestyle and complain about being unable to save.

I make my own clothes

Norah

It wasn't the Duke who donated money to the NHS, it was the Westminster Foundation which is a registered charity set up in 1974. This would have been funded by the various family trusts or members of the family personally. It's possible that the charity receives some government funding for some of its work.

As well as cash, property, land and shares can be given to a charity and there is tax relief available for such gifts.

I'm sure that you are aware that in the UK the threshold for paying inheritance tax is £325,000. Above that threshold the rate of tax payable on estates is 40%. There are many reliefs available to taxpayers, such as if your home is left to your children. In that case, provided that your estate is worth £2million or less, the threshold will increase to £500,000.

The fact is the Grosvenors and others like them (such as the Vestey family) pay no where near as much tax as is paid by most of the population.

You ask if the Duke's assets were taxed how would that benefit anyone else? I'm not talking about a wealth tax but the avoidance of tax (perfectly legal) on assets by the transfer of those assets into trusts. Included in the various trusts would be the properties occupied by members of the Grosvenor family. Once held by a trust the assets do not belong to the individual. Trusts are for the benefit of future generations, to keep wealth within the family.

On the death of his father the present duke inherited £9.6 billion. That represents rather a lot of tax not benefiting the country.
The treatment of trusts and charities is highly complicated and my response is necessarily short and simplistic.

DaisyAnne, it was the way wrote your post, almost like demand and I did put down any qualifications before I came back to you, it’s just the way you came across and it sounded nasty.
GSM good to see you are keeping up with you legal information and I think I have explained to DaisyAnne that it was her tone. We are all experts in our own field.

I don't pretend to know about economics, but the concept of knowledge being time-dependent is interesting. Is it knowledge at all, if that it the case, or is it just a perspective?

If it is a perspective, then one point of view is neither better nor worse than another, and neither is objectively 'true'.

I must reiterate - yet again (no doubt some of you will be bored by this) The B of E was formed out of a group of merchants who lent money to the then king to enable him to fund a war against France at the end of the 17th C and the beginning of the 18thC. The Bank of Scotland, on the other hand, was set up mainly to help the expansion of Scottish businesses.

England, via the Bank has continued to borrow money, usually to fund wars. The National Debt grew with the Napoleonic Wars, was repaid and then grew again (and was repaid) with WW1 and WW2.

As Maizie said, this is done by issuing government stocks. People invested in those stocks and in returned were paid interest on their loans. Government stocks have been and still are, safe investments for individuals.

Simplistic again I'm afraid.

I have little expertise in this but interestingly, the British public, if I read correctly, still owns a considerable amount of the RBS after bail outs. For now, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimates that saving RBS cost the public £27 billion. Do Government stocks help with this?

Dinahmo I understand trusts.

I knew where the money came from, but I, prehaps wrongly, thought the Duke was involved. I understood Duke to be charitable.

I do understand the threshold for paying inheritance tax is £325,000. And above that threshold the rate of tax payable on estates is 40%.

Perhaps laws regarding trusts need to be revised? Perhaps the inheritance threshold needs to be revised, because of inflation in properties?

JaneJudge

I've never had my nails done, ever. Neither have my children and I've never drank coffee

You and your children obviously have no need to worry about my unspoken complaints about bad choices

I have my nails done for Christmas

I’ve never had my nails done either Jane. No beauty treatments. Had precisely two coffees from coffee shops in all the time I worked in London, both bought by someone else. Never been a frivolous spender.

I do wonder, often, if lend-lease still impacts the economy. I said such before on this thread, I really am curious.

Huge amount of money, such a long payback period, so much interest,

Germanshepherdsmum

I thought it a perfectly reasonable question Daisy. Perhaps I can liken it to the legal textbooks I bought when studying. All long since thrown away despite their (to me) eye watering cost because they quickly become out of date. The knowledge of the generation of lawyers before me is similarly obsolete.

It seemed reasonable to me for those reasons. If you put forward something or someone's knowledge to back an argument, then you really have to expect it to be challenged.

JaneJudge

I make my own clothes

This is beginning to sound strangely familiar. Monty Python's Four Yorkshiremen - that's it!

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Barmeyoldbat

DaisyAnne, it was the way wrote your post, almost like demand and I did put down any qualifications before I came back to you, it’s just the way you came across and it sounded nasty.
GSM good to see you are keeping up with you legal information and I think I have explained to DaisyAnne that it was her tone. We are all experts in our own field.

There is no tone on the internet, only in your reading of it.

We completed all our lend lease repayments in 2006. One of the achievments of Gordon Brown was that, under his stewardship, we finally paid off all our WW2 debt.

Norah

I do wonder, often, if lend-lease still impacts the economy. I said such before on this thread, I really am curious.

Huge amount of money, such a long payback period, so much interest,

I thought we'd paid it all back.

Lend- lease was a genuine borrow from the US. That was before we came off the gold standard and our currency generally had to be backed by gold and silver. We were very short of money because of financing the forces and equipment in WWII. We had to borrow. Since the gold standard has been abandoned any country with its own, sovereign currency can issue what it likes. Whether or not it is accepted globally is a question of trust, as the BoE article says.

What is termed 'borrowing' now is revenue from bond sales, Premium bonds and NSI accounts. Bonds are regarded as an investment by the people and institutions that buy them and they can also trade them for profit, so it's not quite the same as a straightforward 'lend'.

M0nica

We completed all our lend lease repayments in 2006. One of the achievments of Gordon Brown was that, under his stewardship, we finally paid off all our WW2 debt.

Yes, 61 years of huge payments. I merely wonder if that total in any way impacts the economy still - today.

I'm not wondering why the pay back, though I used to wonder the fairness of it all, just any lingering impact.

dlizi4

Had to run away from this thread and also gransnet, tyvm @Germanshepardsmum , your tone is quite frankly off ( i am being polite) Who peed on your porridge?

Do you need a HUG?

What exactly is your problem? No I don’t need a hug thanks, certainly not from someone who adopts that tine.

At this time of day one never knows whether drink(s) is involved GSM. Best to ignore.

Good advice Urms.