You know the Bank of Mum and Dad when you see it: it’s your friend who seems broke, but always has a safety net, or who suddenly (but discreetly) acquires the deposit for a home. It’s those who stayed with their parents while they saved for a flat, or stuck it out in a profession they were passionate about even though the wages are chronically low. It’s those who do not need to consider the financial costs of having children. It’s those whose grandparents are covering nursery or university fees, with the Bank of Grandma and Grandad already driving an economic wedge between different cohorts in generations Alpha (born between 2010 and 2024) and Z (born in the late 1990s and early 2000s).

This is the picture we know, but the Bank of Mum and Dad is not just a luxury confined to the 1% – it is also evident in families like mine. I grew up in a working-class household and was the first person in my family to get a degree, but it was the fact my parents had scrimped in the 1980s to purchase properties in London (and allowed me to crash in one throughout my 20s) that has arguably been the true source of opportunities in my life.

In recent years, we have rightly widened the conversation about privilege in society. And yet how honest are we about one of the most obvious forces shaping anyone under 45: the presence or absence of a parental safety net? The truth is that we live in an inheritocracy. If you’ve grown up in the 21st century, your opportunities are increasingly determined by your access to the Bank of Mum and Dad, rather than by what you earn or learn. The economic roots of this story go back to the 1980s, but it accelerated after the 2008 financial crisis, as private wealth soared and wage growth stalled. In the 2020s, rather than a meritocracy – where hard work pays off – we have evolved into an inheritocracy, based on family wealth.

  • bkr78658@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    I believe this is the main source of unfairness in my country. I have a good pay, but most of it goes for housing. So I live the same life as someone who works for a minimum wage if they inherited their home or can live with their parents.

    Even though I had to work and invest way more to get to my salary.

    But what is even worse is that in eyes of our government I am considered rich and I get no social benefits and I also pay way more taxes than those who are “poor”.

    • Sanguine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      They could be smart about it. No taxation on inheritance under 2 million (I’m pulling these #s from the sky). Anything over gets taxed progressively; if if these billionaires won’t pay up during life we can grab it on the way out.

      • Ithral@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 hours ago

        That’s already a thing. The estate tax only kicks in over 5mil. It’s typically dodged by putting all assets in trusts so that ownership never legally transfers it’s the trust that owns them. Trusts being a legal vehicle don’t die, and can have beneficiaries added and removed.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      That only accounts for a small portion of parental contribution and is easily avoidable by an early inheritance.

      • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Nobody bats an eye when you say, “early inheritance,” but everyone gets sooo upset when I murder my parents

  • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    People should always have access to essentials, and I count an affordable reliable roof over their head as one of those things. But are we ever going to be able to change the fact that someone on the receiving end of three generations of doing moderately well in life is going to be massively more advantaged that someone whose parents were 4th and 5th in large poor families?

    Someone’s parents having even a modest home with a spare room in London puts them at a massive advantage over their peers who have to privately rent. But aside from ensuring the fundamentals are in place of affordable accessible homes, is there really any realistic way of nullifying that advantage and is it even right to do so?

    • prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      6 hours ago

      aside from ensuring the fundamentals are in place of affordable accessible homes, is there really any realistic way of nullifying that advantage and is it even right to do so?

      I don’t think that’s an aside, I think that’s the key to solving a lot of problems with our current society. Give everyone a roof and enough nutritious food, and most people can figure out how to live their lives from there. The problem is that the lack of housing and food options forces people into low paying jobs with no upward mobility, and continues the cycle of poverty.

      • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I didn’t write that as “an aside”, I wrote “aside from”. You need to read it as “besides”. In the sense of “obviously this needs to be done fundamentally and as a priority, but besides that… etc”.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Why shouldn’t everyone have access to housing, food, education, tutoring, and transportation like those people who inherit from their parents?

      The social impact of engaged parents can’t be missed, but there’s no reason why there should be a material aspect.

      • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Because, fundamentally, most people work because it makes their life better than if they weren’t working.

        It we so heavily correct the system so that you get the same house whether your working or not, your kid goes to the same school whether your working or not, they get the same homework tutors whether your working or not, you have access to the same transport or car whether you work or not… you get the point.

        How many people would even turn up to work if it made no material difference to their life?

        But as soon as you allow people’s effort and choice to create an actual difference in the quality of their and their kids lives then you inevitably end up with inequality, because people make different choices, are motivated to work hard to different degrees. This gets compounded when some families simply build on the moderate success of the parents.

        Rather, isn’t the better option to just make sure that the “bottom” option is not inhumane and is actually basically alright. In fact, it should be as good as we can possibly make it. BUT then you have to allow that choice, hard work, sacrifice can possibly make a difference and people can improve their lot.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          38 minutes ago

          Such a rubbish stance. People want to be usefull. So if the basics are met companies will need to make sure they are not exploitative shitholes like they are now.

          Absolutely there is a risk, but this risk is created not by inherent lazyness of people but the shitty/dangerous/ unfulfilling/soul crushing jobs, shitty middle management, asshole atmosphere and the hustle required. You have the effect right but the cause wrong.

          This would in practice mean that shitty jobs need to pay a hell of a lot more… which is good. Then the MBAs can figure out if making the job less of a hellish place can cause them to pay less and where break-even is.