This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Student Finance and inheritance
- Does inheritance affect my student loan?
- [Official Thread] Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to deliver Autumn Statement on Wednesday
- Unearned income
- 2020 - 5 wasted years, what could have been?
- Aqa a level biology paper 3 2023
- How are you planning to buy your first house?
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Explain Liss truss policies to me
- Council tax exemption- multiple addresses
- Urgent tudors help
- Hi, would anyone please be able to give me feedback on my practice LNAT essay?
- Will buying and owning a house affect my student finance?
- how to prove that a recessive allele is NOT sex-linked?
- Genetics Problem - 12.5?
- Captain Tom's daughter defends decision to keep book profits
- My mum wants me to buy us a house
- Pensions and Student Finance
- 2023 King's Speech
- i want to read more diverse/different
Inheritance tax.
Currently, inheritance tax stands at 40% on all the deceased's estate over £285,000. This allows people who have done no work, or anything else to deserve it, to profit purely because their parents had money.
How is it just that some people stand to gain a large windfall purely because of who they are, and who they were born to.
If inheritance tax was reformed, it would create a level playing field between people if all classes and backgrounds, making the UK a fairer, more equal society.
I propose that inheritance tax be increased to 100%, with the exception of one family house (up to a certain value, and that has been in the family for a certain number of years, as yet undecided).
As well as encouraging equality among the people of the UK, it would also allow the government to decrease otgher taxes, such as income tax, in order to encourage hard work among the population; preciesly the opposite of what inheritance tax is doing now.
Anyone agree?
How is it just that some people stand to gain a large windfall purely because of who they are, and who they were born to.
If inheritance tax was reformed, it would create a level playing field between people if all classes and backgrounds, making the UK a fairer, more equal society.
I propose that inheritance tax be increased to 100%, with the exception of one family house (up to a certain value, and that has been in the family for a certain number of years, as yet undecided).
As well as encouraging equality among the people of the UK, it would also allow the government to decrease otgher taxes, such as income tax, in order to encourage hard work among the population; preciesly the opposite of what inheritance tax is doing now.
Anyone agree?
Scroll to see replies
So when your parents go I assume you will be happy to get nothing and give it to the government? It knows how to spend your money better than you do 
.
People will always have advantages. ALL people, because money is not the only advantage giver. Take someone with an IQ of 250, and someone with an IQ of 100. Give the later an inheritance. Guarantee the former will make better of him/herself. So should we lobotomise those more intelligent? It would make us all more equal right?
What about people who are taller? Some would say that is an advantage. Should we lop of their legs at the shins? We'd all be more equal then. Those naturally stronger should be put in boxes to stunt their growth, this would make us all of an equal strength and stature!
Sod it. When people are born immediately put them in a government administered home, in which they all get the same, EVERYTHING the same. Take any measure necessary in the name of equality. Sounds great doesn't it?
Even with the most extreme measures, equality can never exist. IMO it shouldn't exist.
In your first sentence you make the grand assumption anyone who gets an inheritance doesn't deserve it. This obviously isn't true. Why shouldn't parents who have worked hard have the right to give their children a leg up? Level playing fields don't exist. Do you wish for the government to define average bands for all human variables, and then force the population into said band?
Are you so sure what you propose would encourage better work ethics? If I knew any money I made and saved would be given to the government when I die, I'd probably work less, as I'd be getting less out of said work.
.People will always have advantages. ALL people, because money is not the only advantage giver. Take someone with an IQ of 250, and someone with an IQ of 100. Give the later an inheritance. Guarantee the former will make better of him/herself. So should we lobotomise those more intelligent? It would make us all more equal right?
What about people who are taller? Some would say that is an advantage. Should we lop of their legs at the shins? We'd all be more equal then. Those naturally stronger should be put in boxes to stunt their growth, this would make us all of an equal strength and stature!
Sod it. When people are born immediately put them in a government administered home, in which they all get the same, EVERYTHING the same. Take any measure necessary in the name of equality. Sounds great doesn't it?
Even with the most extreme measures, equality can never exist. IMO it shouldn't exist.
In your first sentence you make the grand assumption anyone who gets an inheritance doesn't deserve it. This obviously isn't true. Why shouldn't parents who have worked hard have the right to give their children a leg up? Level playing fields don't exist. Do you wish for the government to define average bands for all human variables, and then force the population into said band?
Are you so sure what you propose would encourage better work ethics? If I knew any money I made and saved would be given to the government when I die, I'd probably work less, as I'd be getting less out of said work.
thegreatstupendo
Currently, inheritance tax stands at 40% on all the deceased's estate over £285,000. This allows people who have done no work, or anything else to deserve it, to profit purely because their parents had money.
How is it just that some people stand to gain a large windfall purely because of who they are, and who they were born to.
If inheritance tax was reformed, it would create a level playing field between people if all classes and backgrounds, making the UK a fairer, more equal society.
I propose that inheritance tax be increased to 100%, with the exception of one family house (up to a certain value, and that has been in the family for a certain number of years, as yet undecided).
As well as encouraging equality among the people of the UK, it would also allow the government to decrease otgher taxes, such as income tax, in order to encourage hard work among the population; preciesly the opposite of what inheritance tax is doing now.
Anyone agree?
How is it just that some people stand to gain a large windfall purely because of who they are, and who they were born to.
If inheritance tax was reformed, it would create a level playing field between people if all classes and backgrounds, making the UK a fairer, more equal society.
I propose that inheritance tax be increased to 100%, with the exception of one family house (up to a certain value, and that has been in the family for a certain number of years, as yet undecided).
As well as encouraging equality among the people of the UK, it would also allow the government to decrease otgher taxes, such as income tax, in order to encourage hard work among the population; preciesly the opposite of what inheritance tax is doing now.
Anyone agree?
No.
For the same reason I don't think we should break peoples legs because some people can't walk.
Do you propose banning any sort of gift-giving too? After all, no one has earned that. Or cap pay for jobs when you think people have become unworthy of their salary?
It's ridiculous. Personally I'd rather be taxed after I die than when I'm alive - perhaps the choice should be there - but still, stripping people of the ability to upkeep their property and standard of living is terrible.
It's ridiculous. Personally I'd rather be taxed after I die than when I'm alive - perhaps the choice should be there - but still, stripping people of the ability to upkeep their property and standard of living is terrible.
It's a ****ing morally abhorrent tax and an area which the Government has absolutely no right to legislate on.
Well, no-one agrees with me, and I haven't properly thought it through yet, ah well.
thegreatstupendo
Currently, inheritance tax stands at 40% on all the deceased's estate over £285,000. This allows people who have done no work, or anything else to deserve it, to profit purely because their parents had money.
How is it just that some people stand to gain a large windfall purely because of who they are, and who they were born to.
If inheritance tax was reformed, it would create a level playing field between people if all classes and backgrounds, making the UK a fairer, more equal society.
I propose that inheritance tax be increased to 100%, with the exception of one family house (up to a certain value, and that has been in the family for a certain number of years, as yet undecided).
As well as encouraging equality among the people of the UK, it would also allow the government to decrease otgher taxes, such as income tax, in order to encourage hard work among the population; preciesly the opposite of what inheritance tax is doing now.
Anyone agree?
How is it just that some people stand to gain a large windfall purely because of who they are, and who they were born to.
If inheritance tax was reformed, it would create a level playing field between people if all classes and backgrounds, making the UK a fairer, more equal society.
I propose that inheritance tax be increased to 100%, with the exception of one family house (up to a certain value, and that has been in the family for a certain number of years, as yet undecided).
As well as encouraging equality among the people of the UK, it would also allow the government to decrease otgher taxes, such as income tax, in order to encourage hard work among the population; preciesly the opposite of what inheritance tax is doing now.
Anyone agree?
I don't care if the person recieving the money hasn't done any work, or doesn't 'deserve' it (how do you even judge that) because that money belongs to to whoever died and whatever is done with the money should be up to them (in their will of course) becuse it is their property. I don't see how you can justify taking someones property simply because you judge that a person doesn't deserve it (how and who judges this?), and it's not like that money dissapears. It sits in banks and creates liquidity so that other people cant take loans, finance businesses and is largely used for investment and philanthropy.
Should we ban the lottery? I don't see how the winner deserves the money, they could be someone sitting on their ass all day on the dole. As Lib said, do we stop gift giving? After all, if you want real equality, shouldn't the money redistributed rather than spent on something as frivolous as a gift?
I really don't see how it can possibly be justifiable to take (steal, really) a persons money once they've died (money they've already been taxed on) just to contribute to some fabled equality, which I can't see happening ever, and I can't see being furthered by a death tax (and which wouldn't make any real difference to quality if, as you suggested, you reduced income tax as well).
Inheritance taxes are one of the largest disincentives to ambition and innovation. What's the point in expanding your business when you have more money than you can spend before you die? They slow the economy, reduce the number of start-ups and incentivise employment over job creation (consequently suppressing wages).
Not to mention, of course, the obvious infringements on individual freedom. Some people gain a large amount of utility from ensuring the financial security of their children.
Not to mention, of course, the obvious infringements on individual freedom. Some people gain a large amount of utility from ensuring the financial security of their children.
I don't agree at all, inheritance tax was originally brought in to affect only the very rich as the houses affected were VERY expensive for the day. They haven't bothered to tweak it at all for changing money 'value' or the rise in house prices! As a result, normal families are affected by it these days. I think a family's possessions should stay in the family. It seems rather like robbing the dead.
Bunthulu, you miss the premise really of the moral reasons for inheritence tax. Even if they didn't exist at the time the law was made, they do now.
Why should it stay in the family? What my father earns is not what i earned. Why should i be given the extreme benefit of two houses and a heap of restaurants just because my dad owns them? While alive, he can choose what he wants to do with the property, and how much benefit i get out of them. When dead, some will go to the government, for the benefit of all, and i still get the benefit of some of it( which incidentally i don't particularly deserve anyway).
You say t affects "normal" families? Thats rubbish. Someone with a house worth around £300,000 isn't what i would consider to be a noraml family, if you are taking normal to mean not rich. The average wage here is around £25,000. To have property that expensive would make you well-off. And the well-off have enough benefits anyway, without their children simply taking everything their parents owned, further adding to the inequality we suffer. Those who argue that its tough there is no equality. Fair point. But this is supposed to be a meritocratic country. Meritocracy means earning what you possess.
Why should it stay in the family? What my father earns is not what i earned. Why should i be given the extreme benefit of two houses and a heap of restaurants just because my dad owns them? While alive, he can choose what he wants to do with the property, and how much benefit i get out of them. When dead, some will go to the government, for the benefit of all, and i still get the benefit of some of it( which incidentally i don't particularly deserve anyway).
You say t affects "normal" families? Thats rubbish. Someone with a house worth around £300,000 isn't what i would consider to be a noraml family, if you are taking normal to mean not rich. The average wage here is around £25,000. To have property that expensive would make you well-off. And the well-off have enough benefits anyway, without their children simply taking everything their parents owned, further adding to the inequality we suffer. Those who argue that its tough there is no equality. Fair point. But this is supposed to be a meritocratic country. Meritocracy means earning what you possess.
cottonmouth
Bunthulu, you miss the premise really of the moral reasons for inheritence tax. Even if they didn't exist at the time the law was made, they do now.
Why should it stay in the family? What my father earns is not what i earned. Why should i be given the extreme benefit of two houses and a heap of restaurants just because my dad owns them? While alive, he can choose what he wants to do with the property, and how much benefit i get out of them. When dead, some will go to the government, for the benefit of all, and i still get the benefit of some of it( which incidentally i don't particularly deserve anyway).
You say t affects "normal" families? Thats rubbish. Someone with a house worth around £300,000 isn't what i would consider to be a noraml family, if you are taking normal to mean not rich. The average wage here is around £25,000. To have property that expensive would make you well-off. And the well-off have enough benefits anyway, without their children simply taking everything their parents owned, further adding to the inequality we suffer. Those who argue that its tough there is no equality. Fair point. But this is supposed to be a meritocratic country. Meritocracy means earning what you possess.
Why should it stay in the family? What my father earns is not what i earned. Why should i be given the extreme benefit of two houses and a heap of restaurants just because my dad owns them? While alive, he can choose what he wants to do with the property, and how much benefit i get out of them. When dead, some will go to the government, for the benefit of all, and i still get the benefit of some of it( which incidentally i don't particularly deserve anyway).
You say t affects "normal" families? Thats rubbish. Someone with a house worth around £300,000 isn't what i would consider to be a noraml family, if you are taking normal to mean not rich. The average wage here is around £25,000. To have property that expensive would make you well-off. And the well-off have enough benefits anyway, without their children simply taking everything their parents owned, further adding to the inequality we suffer. Those who argue that its tough there is no equality. Fair point. But this is supposed to be a meritocratic country. Meritocracy means earning what you possess.
You can live in a rich area and not be rich though, what if you got the house as a family in the 20's, and then it was a poor area? You still live there, but you aren't rich. You can afford the mortgage on a 300g house earning 25-35g a year. Depends how highly you value a house above other possible spending opportunities!
If your father coped it (which I hope he doesn't anytime soon) would you truly be happy for all his work to essentially be meaningless? E.g. it only helped him & his family whilst he was alive?
IMO people should have the right to help their families and friends above people they don't know. Many people give a proportion of their inheritance to charity. Give it to the government and this doesn't happen.
It makes me laugh that you've just established yourself to be of a higher class than me too! Not at you, just at the irony of it
.tehjonny
You can live in a rich area and not be rich though, what if you got the house as a family in the 20's, and then it was a poor area? You still live there, but you aren't rich. You can afford the mortgage on a 300g house earning 25-35g a year. Depends how highly you value a house above other possible spending opportunities!
If your father coped it (which I hope he doesn't anytime soon) would you truly be happy for all his work to essentially be meaningless? E.g. it only helped him & his family whilst he was alive?
IMO people should have the right to help their families and friends above people they don't know.
If your father coped it (which I hope he doesn't anytime soon) would you truly be happy for all his work to essentially be meaningless? E.g. it only helped him & his family whilst he was alive?
IMO people should have the right to help their families and friends above people they don't know.
Well if the value of your house has risen so much. then thats lucky! You would still be left with a wopping great wad of cash that you wouldn't otherwise have had when it came to paying the inheritance tax. You just wouldn't be allowed to claim ALL of it.
Yes, i would be happy. Despite the fact that i would have more than enough anyway, for more "normal" families, the point of working in your life is to provide for yourself and the family. The obligation doesn't stretch to when the person dies. His work wouldn't be meaningless. It was fulfilling when he was alive, and now it will give me som money, and will benefit the country by going into the tax pot.
And get real. Theoretically, maybe you could mortgage a house that price with such a small wage. But who the hell would? And what companies wuld really allow it?
cottonmouth
Well if the value of your house has risen so much. then thats lucky! You would still be left with a wopping great wad of cash that you wouldn't otherwise have had when it came to paying the inheritance tax. You just wouldn't be allowed to claim ALL of it.
Yes, i would be happy. Despite the fact that i would have more than enough anyway, for more "normal" families, the point of working in your life is to provide for yourself and the family. The obligation doesn't stretch to when the person dies. His work wouldn't be meaningless. It was fulfilling when he was alive, and now it will give me som money, and will benefit the country by going into the tax pot.
And get real. Theoretically, maybe you could mortgage a house that price with such a small wage. But who the hell would? And what companies wuld really allow it?
Yes, i would be happy. Despite the fact that i would have more than enough anyway, for more "normal" families, the point of working in your life is to provide for yourself and the family. The obligation doesn't stretch to when the person dies. His work wouldn't be meaningless. It was fulfilling when he was alive, and now it will give me som money, and will benefit the country by going into the tax pot.
And get real. Theoretically, maybe you could mortgage a house that price with such a small wage. But who the hell would? And what companies wuld really allow it?
I'm sorry to say cottonmouth, but many people support homes worth more than that on 25k a year. Many people would. Many people have to.
Anyways that is for another debate really.
So you agree with the present system of part taxation on inheritance over 285,000? Or would you rather a 40% tax on an inheritance regardless of worth?
tehjonny
I'm sorry to say cottonmouth, but many people support homes worth more than that on 25k a year. Many people would. Many people have to.
Anyways that is for another debate really.
So you agree with the present system of part taxation on inheritance over 285,000? Or would you rather a 40% tax on an inheritance regardless of worth?
Anyways that is for another debate really.
So you agree with the present system of part taxation on inheritance over 285,000? Or would you rather a 40% tax on an inheritance regardless of worth?
I don't believe the first part is true. I'd love some statistics on the matter, but as you say, its anothere debate. In any case, i bet if there are such cases, it will be that their house prices rose after they started a mortgage, so more has been paid off prior to the house-rising price.
Or, that a lot of the mortgage had been paid off already, and so they don't need a highly paid job to keep up payments. i refuse to believe it is the case that people BEGIN a mortgage on a £300,000 house on a wage of £25,000. The vaery basic rule is that for a single person, you need to be earning a quarter of the house price to get a mortgage for it, or a third if there are two incomes. Thats the basic standing, which of course is then elaborated on and stretched depending on the company.
Haha all the idiots looking at it from only one perspective. Some people on here are as dumb as **** or jealous of people with money.
Firstly, consider what the person who has died would want. Of course the immature morons on here have no experience of having children and probably no experience of love, when you have children/ grow up a bit we can talk. Otherwise please return to your hovel, stop embarrassing yourself and admit that you will never become powerful with such a small brain.
Secondly, and this one goes out to the communists (read, people with no brain at all), why are you jealous of people with money? That is so pathetic. Seriously, the opportunities are available. Do some hard work FOR ONCE IN YOUR MISERABLE LITTLE LIFE and you will earn more than the average. Stop going to protests and get a ****ing job you lazy sods.
Keep IHT the same, although as City Bound said it does have limitations the tax must come from somewhere.
Firstly, consider what the person who has died would want. Of course the immature morons on here have no experience of having children and probably no experience of love, when you have children/ grow up a bit we can talk. Otherwise please return to your hovel, stop embarrassing yourself and admit that you will never become powerful with such a small brain.
Secondly, and this one goes out to the communists (read, people with no brain at all), why are you jealous of people with money? That is so pathetic. Seriously, the opportunities are available. Do some hard work FOR ONCE IN YOUR MISERABLE LITTLE LIFE and you will earn more than the average. Stop going to protests and get a ****ing job you lazy sods.
Keep IHT the same, although as City Bound said it does have limitations the tax must come from somewhere.
The_Bear
Haha all the idiots looking at it from only one perspective. Some people on here are as dumb as **** or jealous of people with money.
Firstly, consider what the person who has died would want. Of course the immature morons on here have no experience of having children and probably no experience of love, when you have children/ grow up a bit we can talk. Otherwise please return to your hovel, stop embarrassing yourself and admit that you will never become powerful with such a small brain.
Secondly, and this one goes out to the communists (read, people with no brain at all), why are you jealous of people with money? That is so pathetic. Seriously, the opportunities are available. Do some hard work FOR ONCE IN YOUR MISERABLE LITTLE LIFE and you will earn more than the average. Stop going to protests and get a ****ing job you lazy sods.
Keep IHT the same, although as City Bound said it does have limitations the tax must come from somewhere.
Firstly, consider what the person who has died would want. Of course the immature morons on here have no experience of having children and probably no experience of love, when you have children/ grow up a bit we can talk. Otherwise please return to your hovel, stop embarrassing yourself and admit that you will never become powerful with such a small brain.
Secondly, and this one goes out to the communists (read, people with no brain at all), why are you jealous of people with money? That is so pathetic. Seriously, the opportunities are available. Do some hard work FOR ONCE IN YOUR MISERABLE LITTLE LIFE and you will earn more than the average. Stop going to protests and get a ****ing job you lazy sods.
Keep IHT the same, although as City Bound said it does have limitations the tax must come from somewhere.
You are an offensive cretin, for a start. Stop attacking personalities, its very boring and very childish. We know you like to portray a "controversial persona" while on here, but it's wearing thin.
And HA! "DO some hard work"- That is the ****ing key! Do your OWN work for your OWN gain. Dont expect mummy and daddy to give it all to you when they pop their clogs.
cottonmouth
I don't believe the first part is true. I'd love some statistics on the matter, but as you say, its anothere debate. In any case, i bet if there are such cases, it will be that their house prices rose after they started a mortgage, so more has been paid off prior to the house-rising price.
Or, that a lot of the mortgage had been paid off already, and so they don't need a highly paid job to keep up payments. i refuse to believe it is the case that people BEGIN a mortgage on a £300,000 house on a wage of £25,000. The vaery basic rule is that for a single person, you need to be earning a quarter of the house price to get a mortgage for it, or a third if there are two incomes. Thats the basic standing, which of course is then elaborated on and stretched depending on the company.
Or, that a lot of the mortgage had been paid off already, and so they don't need a highly paid job to keep up payments. i refuse to believe it is the case that people BEGIN a mortgage on a £300,000 house on a wage of £25,000. The vaery basic rule is that for a single person, you need to be earning a quarter of the house price to get a mortgage for it, or a third if there are two incomes. Thats the basic standing, which of course is then elaborated on and stretched depending on the company.
It would be interesting to see if this will hold true in future years though. The way house prices rise as compared to wages. I'm sure many people now have friends starting out on a hazardous financial route with housing because they can't stay under their parents roof forever!
cottonmouth
Well if the value of your house has risen so much. then thats lucky! You would still be left with a wopping great wad of cash that you wouldn't otherwise have had when it came to paying the inheritance tax. You just wouldn't be allowed to claim ALL of it.
What a stupid point. A house is an investment as much as anything else, and if it's value rises that's a benefit the owner of the house should have for investing his or her own money in that house, and even if theoretically someone buys a house not thinking that it's value will go up, it's still their money and I don't see how or why anyone else should reap the rewards of that investment. It's a ridiculous claim to make.
What about investments made in smaller businesses that suddenly explodes and becomes huge. Is that luck? Does the investor not have a right to whatever he claims? It was his money, he took the risk, not the government, not society, he did, and he should reap the benefits of that.
And if that investor wants to pass down all of the wealth he earned after he dies to his children, why should anyone be able to take that money away. To say that because he's dead he doesn't have a full right to his money makes about as much sense and is as moral as robbing his grave.
Yes, i would be happy. Despite the fact that i would have more than enough anyway, for more "normal" families, the point of working in your life is to provide for yourself and the family. The obligation doesn't stretch to when the person dies. His work wouldn't be meaningless. It was fulfilling when he was alive, and now it will give me som money, and will benefit the country by going into the tax pot.
There is no obligation for anyone to support their family, but people make a choice to do that. To say that parents don't have to support their families after death is to miss the whole point. They want to support their families, and the might want to give a certain amount of security to their family if they die earlier or simply pass wealth to their children and give the children they worked for a better life for themselves. That is the parents choice and it is the parents money.
Even if the benefitiaries of a will have done nothing to derserve the money, why does the government deserve it any more?
Also, all these sorts of measures only really affect the average middle class person, the super-rich have always and will continue to find ways around IHT, and the poor fall under set threshold. Hardly equality, though why such an objective of equality is desirable no-one has yet to explain.
Also, all these sorts of measures only really affect the average middle class person, the super-rich have always and will continue to find ways around IHT, and the poor fall under set threshold. Hardly equality, though why such an objective of equality is desirable no-one has yet to explain.
Related discussions
- Student Finance and inheritance
- Does inheritance affect my student loan?
- [Official Thread] Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to deliver Autumn Statement on Wednesday
- Unearned income
- 2020 - 5 wasted years, what could have been?
- Aqa a level biology paper 3 2023
- How are you planning to buy your first house?
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Explain Liss truss policies to me
- Council tax exemption- multiple addresses
- Urgent tudors help
- Hi, would anyone please be able to give me feedback on my practice LNAT essay?
- Will buying and owning a house affect my student finance?
- how to prove that a recessive allele is NOT sex-linked?
- Genetics Problem - 12.5?
- Captain Tom's daughter defends decision to keep book profits
- My mum wants me to buy us a house
- Pensions and Student Finance
- 2023 King's Speech
- i want to read more diverse/different
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
