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

Glorianny "I don't think I said it altered your life. I said it was a deal not a completely altruistic donation.
It was also an attempt to keep the US out of the war.
I don't think it is anything to do with age. It's an interest in history and historic dealings. Young people are probably as unaware of it as they are many other historic events, but it isn't just the old who discuss such things."

Agreed. It wasn't altruistic, it was a way to keep the US out of the war a bit longer and off their land, or that was my dad's opinion.

I merely wondered if repaying was a big impact on our economy.

I am "old people" no debate there.

DaisyAnne

Glorianny

Although Lend-Lease was undoubtedly a programme that saved the UK, the idea that it was purely altruistic on the US side is not true. The US negotiated hard and theUK surrendered rights over many of the inventions and innovations they held. Things like radar, jet airplanes and other developments. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/may/05/secondworldwar.comment#:~:text=Between%20March%201941%20and%20September,year's%20UK%20gross%20national%20product.

The USA had to show they were being paid. Many in America didn't think it was "their" war. It was difficult to persuade them and would have been more so without the deal. I hate to think what would have happened if we hadn't.

However, I have never noticed paying for this altering my life. I cannot imagine my adult children have ever thought about it and my GCs - young adults - may well not be aware of it unless it came up in history lessons. They have their own problems which are as different from ours as ours were from our parent's.

I have a feeling that discussing Lend Lease is just an old person's conversation. Old people who believe tax pays for the state.

I don't think I said it altered your life. I said it was a deal not a completely altruistic donation.
It was also an attempt to keep the US out of the war.
I don't think it is anything to do with age. It's an interest in history and historic dealings. Young people are probably as unaware of it as they are many other historic events, but it isn't just the old who discuss such things.

Glorianny

Although Lend-Lease was undoubtedly a programme that saved the UK, the idea that it was purely altruistic on the US side is not true. The US negotiated hard and theUK surrendered rights over many of the inventions and innovations they held. Things like radar, jet airplanes and other developments. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/may/05/secondworldwar.comment#:~:text=Between%20March%201941%20and%20September,year's%20UK%20gross%20national%20product.

The USA had to show they were being paid. Many in America didn't think it was "their" war. It was difficult to persuade them and would have been more so without the deal. I hate to think what would have happened if we hadn't.

However, I have never noticed paying for this altering my life. I cannot imagine my adult children have ever thought about it and my GCs - young adults - may well not be aware of it unless it came up in history lessons. They have their own problems which are as different from ours as ours were from our parent's.

I have a feeling that discussing Lend Lease is just an old person's conversation. Old people who believe tax pays for the state.

growstuff

It was Marshall Plan money which was used to establish the NHS and the welfare state.

And, I understand, to keep our armed forces all over the world to try to hang on to the Empire.

Whereas other European countries used it to rebuild their infrastructure and manufacturing base.

It was Marshall Plan money which was used to establish the NHS and the welfare state.

Lend-Lease and the Marshall Plan were different. Lend-Lease was a wartime arrangement. The Marshall Plan was money given to countries in Western Europe as part of the European Recovery Program and didn't have to be repaid. The UK received more than any other country. The money played an important role in preventing the Soviet Union from having a greater influence in post-war Europe and achieving more political stability.

Although Lend-Lease was undoubtedly a programme that saved the UK, the idea that it was purely altruistic on the US side is not true. The US negotiated hard and theUK surrendered rights over many of the inventions and innovations they held. Things like radar, jet airplanes and other developments. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/may/05/secondworldwar.comment#:~:text=Between%20March%201941%20and%20September,year's%20UK%20gross%20national%20product.

Norah

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.

Inflation had reduced the impact of the loan, to pay it off another loan was taken out. $42m to the US, $11m to Canada, symbolic, not of great economic significance.
Whenever a loan matures or gets paid off if there is no time limit the UK always starts another loan, or increases QE.

DaisyAnne

JaneJudge

I make my own clothes

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

Norah on the contrary, without LendLease, this country would have collapsed into bankruptcy. the money was used to establish the Welfare State in the late 1940s, the NHS, the Education reforms and the nationalisation of totally bankrupt utilities like the railways and coal industry, and other utilities which were inless of a mess.

There is of course a question as to whether the money should have been used to rebuild and restore our industries, which is what it was intended for and which countries like France and Germany did and which meant that British industry fell behind other countries in the 1950s and 60s in innovation, productivity causing us the Balance of Payments issues we had over that period with constant devaluations against the dollar.

But I very much think that by the end of the war, where our determination to hang in, no matter what, was the reason the US funded us they way they did, meant that the while Eurpoean countries sprang from defeat and occupation with a renewed vigour to build their countries anew. in this country everyone including poiticians of all parties were so physically and mentally exhausted by the effort it had cost us to keep going, and keep the allies on board that they were just too exhausted for us to be able to build upindustry again so quickly and that spending it on the Welfare system was probably the right decision.

But whatever the decision, as a country, we would have been totally bankrupt without that money.

Good advice Urms.

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

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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

JaneJudge

I make my own clothes

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

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.

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’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 have my nails done for Christmas

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

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?