Why is it that people are so desperate to own houses?

FATBALLZ

B_Blank wrote: »

They dont deserve the money. They didnt earn it. I believe people should get out of life what they put into it. NOT happen to get out of it what they get via luck of birth.

How you can not agree with the principle of people getting out of life what they put into it is beyond me. And its against all your other views on care home payments etc.

It seems bizarre to you and me, but I've had this argument before, and was shocked to realise I was in a minority of one in the camp of people who believed that people should as far as possible, start from a level playing field, and get out of life what they put in.

It's ironic really, as one of the key 'comeback' arguments from these old inheritance obsessed people is that our generation should be pleased house prices are astronomical as we will inherit a lot one day. As if we should be pleased to go back to some sort of feudal system where wealth and status is determined on a hereditary basis, and social mobility and meritocracy has died a death.

birkee

[QUOTE B Blank]

They dont deserve the money. They didnt earn it. I believe people should get out of life what they put into it. NOT happen to get out of it what they get via luck of birth.

How you can not agree with the principle of people getting out of life what they put into it is beyond me. And its against all your other views on care home payments etc.[/QUOTE]

There's YOUR double standards again!
What about all those living on Social Security?
We'll stop that lot for start. And why give family allowance to help people who can't pay for the kids they have?
Giving your assets (taken off you) to the state won't help THEM pay less tax will it?

You get out what you put in?
Care to tell us how many people are going to starve to death when you get your way?

p.s. I/we got nothing by accident of birth, it's all entirely self generated. And for all that effort, it's to be taken from us. :eek:

You are just plain pompous and don't think things through.

B_Blank

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Yes exactly, so the only person it could be considered unfair to is actually dead, so it's hard to argue a case for doing away with IHT. It certainly isn't unfair to somebody getting a massive unearned windfall that they aren't getting a slightly bigger massive unearned windfall.

Yup. Exactly. Its only "unfair" to the person who is dead. You cant take your money with you people. They are dead so nobody has a right to that money. It should go to the state who can use it to fund lower income tax rates or something else to help society.

aliasojo

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Talking in a generalised sense, it is morally better for the money to go to the state so that the money could be used to give a better start, and more level playing field, for all the young people of society.

I disagree with you so much on that, I'm afraid.

I think it would be morally wrong for people to slog their guts out all their lives in order to improve their standard of living and that of their children, only for their assets to be taken at point of death and distributed to all, including the offspring of those who don't work (but could) or strive to better their own situations.

Even taking my own son as an example, I would still think it wrong if Mr & Mrs (rich) Bloggs down the road died together in a car crash and their estate was removed from their own children and was divvied up so my lad could benefit. It would be just wrong. He was not their responsibility in life, why should he be in death?

B_Blank

FATBALLZ wrote: »

It seems bizarre to you and me, but I've had this argument before, and was shocked to realise I was in a minority of one in the camp of people who believed that people should as far as possible, start from a level playing field, and get out of life what they put in.

It's ironic really, as one of the key 'comeback' arguments from these old inheritance obsessed people is that our generation should be pleased house prices are astronomical as we will inherit a lot one day. As if we should be pleased to go back to some sort of feudal system where wealth and status is determined on a hereditary basis, and social mobility and meritocracy has died a death.

Good post. We believe that people should get out of life what they themselves earn. Its hard to argue with that point, and nobody has made a compelling arguement against it in this thread yet.

B_Blank

birkee wrote: »

B_Blank wrote: »

There's YOUR double standards again!
What about all those living on Social Security?
We'll stop that lot for start. And why give family allowance to help people who can't pay for the kids they have?
Giving your assets (taken off you) to the state won't help THEM pay less tax will it?

You get out what you put in?
Care to tell us how many people are going to starve to death when you get your way?

p.s. I/we got nothing by accident of birth, it's all entirely self generated. And for all that effort, it's to be taken from us. :eek:

You are just plain pompous and don't think things through.

I dont think you understand this whole death concept. It wont matter to you because you will be dead. So it wont be "taken away" from you because you will be dead. D-E-A-D. Get it? You will already have no money. You will be dead.

birkee

B_Blank wrote: »

Good post. We believe that people should get out of life what they themselves earn. Its hard to argue with that point, and nobody has made a compelling arguement against it in this thread yet.

Did you not bother to read my post #105?

B_Blank

aliasojo wrote: »

I disagree with you so much on that, I'm afraid.

I think it would be morally wrong for people to slog their guts out all their lives in order to improve their standard of living and that of their children, only for their assets to be taken at point of death and distributed to all, including the offspring of those who don't work (but could) or strive to better their own situations.

Even taking my own son as an example, I would still think it wrong if Mr & Mrs (rich) Bloggs down the road died together in a car crash and their estate was removed from their own children and was divvied up so my lad could benefit. It would be just wrong. He was not their responsibility in life, why should he be in death?

But your children deserve your money no more than any child or person deserves your money. Let them stand on their own two feet and see what life brings for them. If you are wealthy you will of already given them a stable background and good schooling/univiersity they need to thrive.

birkee

B_Blank wrote: »

birkee wrote: »

I dont think you understand this whole death concept. It wont matter to you because you will be dead. So it wont be "taken away" from you because you will be dead. D-E-A-D. Get it? You will already have no money. You will be dead.

You rob my family, you rob ME of what was mine.

B_Blank

birkee wrote: »

Did you not bother to read my post #105?

I did read it. Your assumption is that your children are somehow more deserving than the children of a layabout because of your hard work. That is simply not the case. You are 1 individual and your children are different people. They have no right to your earnings.