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

aliasojo

B_Blank wrote: »

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.

You clearly aren't taking the time to read posts.

My son is disabled and dependent on us.

B_Blank

birkee wrote: »

B_Blank wrote: »

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

You cant rob a dead person. Thats impossible. Your family will be fine. They just have to work towards success themselves. This would end the alot of problems in our society.

B_Blank

aliasojo wrote: »

You clearly aren't taking the time to read posts.

My son is disabled and dependent on us.

I did read it. But that is not the issue. He is still not entitled to your money. The state can provide for him. Thats how it would have to be.

FATBALLZ

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?

We appear to differ in our opinions of where parental responsibility begins and ends. I believe parents should strive to ensure their kids have a happy and secure upbringing, that they should be given every opportunity available to develop their talents, and by the time they hit adulthood they should be well on their way to being well rounded people ready to make their way in the world.

What I don't accept is that it is the role of parents to ensure that their kids are financially set up for life on the back of efforts made by other people (their parents). To be honest if your main concern as a parent is to ensure that your kids inherit a shedload of dosh all that personal development stuff during childhood starts to seem a bit superfluous.

birkee

B_Blank wrote: »

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.

You clearly DID NOT read it!
What will you do about all those on Social Security. They starve because you say "you should get out what you put in".

My children ARE more deserving, because they are useful members of society, and won't waste it on drink, drugs, fags and gambling like the layabouts. And, they are paying tax to keep the layabouts in food.
Just where WOULD you target my money?

aliasojo

FATBALLZ wrote: »

...... by the time they hit adulthood they should be well on their way to being well rounded people ready to make their way in the world.

To be honest if your main concern as a parent is to ensure that your kids inherit a shedload of dosh all that personal development stuff during childhood starts to seem a bit superfluous.

Again, I refer you to my post above stating my son is disabled and dependent.

B_Blank wrote: »

I did read it. But that is not the issue. He is still not entitled to your money. The state can provide for him. Thats how it would have to be.

Are you aware of how much care charges are?

My son is 28. If he lived to 70, he would cost the state a small fortune during his lifetime. How can that possibly be better than him inheriting our house where he could live unitl his death, with some (much cheaper) help.

Your argument seems very flawed to me.

birkee

aliasojo wrote: »

Again, I refer you to my post above stating my son is disabled and dependent.



Are you aware of how much care charges are?

My son is 28. If he lived to 70, he would cost the state a small fortune during his lifetime. How can that possibly be better than him inheriting our house where he could live unitl his death, with some (much cheaper) help.

Your argument seems very flawed to me.

B Blank doesn't give a toss, he just wants your estate :T

B_Blank

birkee wrote: »

You clearly DID NOT read it!
What will you do about all those on Social Security. They starve because you say "you should get out what you put in".

My children ARE more deserving, because they are useful members of society, and won't waste it on drink, drugs, fags and gambling like the layabouts. And, they are paying tax to keep the layabouts in food.
Just where WOULD you target my money?

Firstly, the moment you die it isnt your money anymore. So lets just settle that.

I would target the money on lower income tax rates. SO your children will benefit greatly if they are hard workers. On the other hand, these children who are wasters will not benefit from these lower income tax rates.

So work will pay, and your children will get out what they put in.

If your child was a druggie/bum etc. then they wont get your money and will get out what they put into life. In short it will remove the unfairness some have by being born into poor backgrounds when compared to people who are left a large legacy.

I would also remove inheritance tax if the money was left to a fully registered charity in the UK.

B_Blank

aliasojo wrote: »

Again, I refer you to my post above stating my son is disabled and dependent.



Are you aware of how much care charges are?

My son is 28. If he lived to 70, he would cost the state a small fortune during his lifetime. How can that possibly be better than him inheriting our house where he could live unitl his death, with some (much cheaper) help.

Your argument seems very flawed to me.

Your thinking within the current system. The state would provide care for him. its that simple.

What about the disabled child WITHOUT a house to be left to him? Or is he not as deserving as your son? With my system, both will be supported equally well within a well run system.

Cleaver

B_Blank wrote: »

What about the disabled child WITHOUT a house to be left to him? Or is he not as deserving as your son? With my system, both will be supported equally well within a well run system.

Who would you trust to manage a well run system? The government?