In every jurisdiction I know of if you inherit and live in it as your main residence you don’t need to pay. If you just inherit to rent it out and make money why shouldn’t you pay something for that like it were cash.
If your house is worth more than 500k and you're inheriting from your parents, otherwise 325k. That's a pretty absurd amount of money to be getting tax free. Like, assuming 50% marginal you'd need to earn 1mn to get that post tax.
The home you have lived in and shared with your parents for, 27 years (the current and increasing average "moving out of home" age), could be considered as much yours as theirs.
You are not "earning" something you are continuing to "own" something that was already yours, shared with people who were here and are no longer here.
> The home you have lived in and shared with your parents for, 27 years (the current and increasing average "moving out of home" age), could be considered as much yours as theirs.
I only spent about twenty two years in my parent's house (well less, because we moved), but you're making an emotive argument while I was arguing more from a data-driven point of view.
The Irish inheritance tax is more generous to children (325k euro per child is tax free), but even in the UK, my three siblings and I would have paid zero tax. And our inheritance is quite large, lots of people in the UK & Ireland inherit much less.
Like, the ONS data[0] (which covers 2014-16) suggests that most inheritences go to the top quintile in terms of income (which anecdotally matches my experience) so this is a tiny, tiny problem in societal terms.
I get that inheritance tax is very emotive (particularly around family homes), but given that the vast majority of wealth is in property (except for that of the 0.1%), then I think inheritance tax is a pretty good one, and am happy that it's something that my kids will have to worry about, assuming we're lucky enough to leave them anything.
For context, I regard inherited wealth as mostly unfair, as the children of successful people have often had lots of advantages afforded to them already, so I'm not sure why those advantages should compound over generations.
Note: the ONS statistics are weird, talking about inheritances and gifts interchangeably and the numbers seem far too low. Figure 7 shows the unfairness clearly, IMO.
Over the weekend I had it extract and Analyse Little but Fierce, a simplified and kid friendly DnD 5e and extract markdown files that help me DMing for my kids. Then it Analyse No, thank you evil as I want to base the setting on it but with LBF rules. And then have the markdown turn into nice looking pdfs. Claude code is so much more than coding and it’s amazing.
> You don't own the music. You can't share it, use your own software to analyze, shuffle, remix it, etc
I'm a consumer of music, not a creator so I don't care that I don't own it. There are tons of ways creators can analyze, shuffle, remix or do whatever with it, but as a pure consumer Spotify is simply much better for me than CDs. I never cared about owning Music, CDs were always just a transport Medium so I can listen to the music.
> But now there's Hulu, Disney+, Amazon Prime, HBO Go, Showtime Anytime, Peacock Premium, etc. Except now instead of one easy to use interface to access it all, it's spread out all over the place and inconsistent as hell. And more expensive!
They aren't though because you can be selective and cancel anytime and resubscribe. And you can watch exactly what you want at any time compared to cable. As a consumer it is way better because there is way more choice and competition at the moment.
Good article from blog gets published, people keep reading other articles in the blog and more stuff makes it to the frontpage. Happens from time to time.
While I don't disagree that we shouldn't strive for maintainbility, things like medical software, airplane software or similar highly tested mission critical pieces are specifically built to last for that long. Nobody is going to pay us to build a WebShop to last for 20 years, thats just not a necessity when getting it out quick is so much more important from a business perspective than making it last forever.
> That’s often unobtainable with modern software development because we rely so much on things that change too often, but it doesn’t have to be that way
The reason we rely on things that change often is because we want to leverage them to get products out faster. Many different layers of that (as every tech stack is essentially a product by someone) and we have lots of updates to deal with. The flipside of slow moving projects is bugs might not be fixed or new helpful features might not be coming in, meaning you have to build it yourself.
As a community we know and have known how to build mission critical software for decades, but we actively often decide not to do it because it isn't that important compared to other factors.
So interestingly - the web shops you’re talking about do want to maintain their client data, and do expect it to be available “forever,” somewhere. The payment processors absolutely do at a minimum. Some of those layers are highly hardened.
While the particular Etsy clone or t-shirt of the day, or customized shower curtain site will certainly come and go, it’d be an entirely different problem if visa, PayPal, stripe, swipe, or whatever payment processor packed it up and went home at random.
We need the foundations/infrastructure to be built to last. People need to identify which kind of software they're making and treat the infrastructure as unchanging. Changes in the basement need to be carefully considered with a default stance of rejecting them unless justified by reasoning that has a time horizon of many years.
I have to be honest I do believe Node.js will be around for a long time. The improvements over the past few years have been vast thanks to the ever improving standards and all the major cloud companies are heavily invested. It has the world's largest public package registry as well (not that the sheer quantity means you can always find a high quality library).
I've only recently switched after years of scepticism but for the sort of stuff I do it's more than good enough. It has its warts but so does every language that's stuck around.
I don't necessarily think that the the language or the core thing won't stick around. But unless you force people to really decide which packages they require, you end up with an unaudited mess of packages (basically with every package - or is anyone really creating portable, stable apps of a relevant size based on the core node environment ...)
But to be honest it is in the interest of the other countries who want the EU to stay to make this really really hard on the UK. And the UK has almost no leverage (or has none to be precise).
So while I absolutely hate to see it happen because I've got lots of friends in the UK, this is either going to hurt badly (hard Brexit), or the UK will simply lose any ability to shape the future of the EU while accepting most of its rules. Don't see any middle ground as the middle ground would massively hurt all other EU countries so its not going to happen.
> Joins were good for the smaller websites, but they don't scale
Most sites do not have to scale beyond this limitation (or can use database followers to throw a bit of money at the problem). Providing Google as an example is a bit exaggerated as almost nothing in the world has the scaling needs that google has.
Russia 1918, France in the revolution for example. Also what happens all over Europe with right wing parties tearing apart the EU based on fear created in part by inequality
over Europe with right wing parties tearing apart the EU based on fear created in part by inequality
that is due to concerns over immigration , not wealth inequality
Russia 1918
this had to do with famine and massive unemployment as a consequence of ww1, not merely wealth inequality. America is a long way from being as bad as Russia was in 1918. The Great Depression is far worse than anything now, yet there was no civil unrest in America.
French revolution
Wealth inequality was just a single factor, all. France was in financial crisis due to debt from various wars, causing high taxes and food shortages, again, which are problems America does not have.
Literally repeating past failures (and successes!) is rare throughout history so direct comparisons are not necessarily going to be useful for determining likelihoods of future events.
In modern America, we don’t have food shortages but we do have housing shortages resulting in high living costs, different health problems than the early 20th century folks, lack of jobs for the lesser / inappropriately educated, high consumer debt, student loans, etc. that contribute to the misery index. The misery, however, gets offset by the sheer glut of passive entertainment leisure options the world has never seen before in history. After all, who cares if we’re living longer if we’re feeling worse throughout it?
Not saying things are worse than the Depression at all, just saying we’re always going to be comparing apples to oranges as we go from different historical periods so looking at primarily economic factors may have limited utility even in looking at sociopolitical problems.
> that is due to concerns over immigration , not wealth inequality
I don't think that's true, at least not in France, the regions voting massively far right are the old industrial regions abandoned by the globalisation, not the ones where the immigration is actually going.
