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

FATBALLZ

aliasojo wrote: »

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.

In that case your issue appears to be more to do with inefficient state funding of care, rather than inheritance. If the house went to the state, and the state allowed your son to live there for life, then it would be exactly the some outcome and state expense, except for your son not inheriting a valuable asset.

This approach could then be applied so that the disabled and dependent children of non-wealthy parents could have the same standard and cost of care, rather than just ignoring them, as you have done so.

B_Blank

FATBALLZ wrote: »

In that case your issue appears to be more to do with inefficient state funding of care, rather than inheritance. If the house went to the state, and the state allowed your son to live there for life, then it would be exactly the some outcome and state expense, except for your son not inheriting a valuable asset.

This approach could then be applied so that the disabled and dependent children of non-wealthy parents could have the same standard and cost of care, rather than just ignoring them, as you have done so.

Exactly. This answers cleavers question too.

Graham_Devon

Go no real idea what you lot are arguing about, but wanted to join in, so here I am.

Just wanted to say that no one, IMHO, deserves an inheritance any more than the next person. It's something thats very nice to be able to give if you are in a position to do so.

birkee

B_Blank wrote: »

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.

Have you found any state owned 'well run systems' yet?
Hasn't recent news about patient abuse and deaths given you pause for thought?

birkee

FATBALLZ wrote: »

In that case your issue appears to be more to do with inefficient state funding of care, rather than inheritance. If the house went to the state, and the state allowed your son to live there for life, then it would be exactly the some outcome and state expense, except for your son not inheriting a valuable asset.

This approach could then be applied so that the disabled and dependent children of non-wealthy parents could have the same standard and cost of care, rather than just ignoring them, as you have done so.

Really?
You don't think they would stick half a dozen other people in there with him, and then close it at the first excuse?
Reallity doesn't have much significance for some people does it?

B_Blank

birkee wrote: »

Have you found any state owned 'well run systems' yet?
Hasn't recent news about patient abuse and deaths given you pause for thought?

What sort of logic is that? The NHS sucks so I guess we should abolish that too? Some schools are bad so should we close all them?

You still havent answered the question about the disabled child from who doesnt have an inheritance to fall back on. Are you happy they are screwed?

The system will improve if people from more wealthy/powerful positions have a vested interest in them. They have no vested interest in the system as long as they can leave them an inheritance for private care.

FATBALLZ

birkee wrote: »

Really?
You don't think they would stick half a dozen other people in there with him, and then close it at the first excuse?
Reallity doesn't have much significance for some people does it?

I could equally use that logic to argue that I shouldn't pay any tax at all, because the government keep wasting the money.

birkee

B_Blank wrote: »

What sort of logic is that? The NHS sucks so I guess we should abolish that too? Some schools are bad so should we close all them?

You still havent answered the question about the disabled child from who doesnt have an inheritance to fall back on. Are you happy they are screwed?

The system will improve if people from more wealthy/powerful positions have a vested interest in them. They have no vested interest in the system as long as they can leave them an inheritance for private care.

Since you need it in print. The disabled child will be looked after just as he is now, but you want to charge those with an inheritance.
Your double standards are blindingly obvious.

B_Blank

birkee wrote: »

Since you need it in print. The disabled child will be looked after just as he is now, but you want to charge those with an inheritance.
Your double standards are blindingly obvious.

So you think the disabled child with wealthy parents is more deserving that the disabled child without wealthy parents then? I say they are equal, and deserve equal support.

aliasojo

FATBALLZ wrote: »

In that case your issue appears to be more to do with inefficient state funding of care, rather than inheritance. If the house went to the state, and the state allowed your son to live there for life, then it would be exactly the some outcome and state expense, except for your son not inheriting a valuable asset.

This approach could then be applied so that the disabled and dependent children of non-wealthy parents could have the same standard and cost of care, rather than just ignoring them, as you have done so.

What happens when successive governments decide to make changes? Already there are many many disabled people being disadvantaged by the benefits shake up. It's not about what is best for the individual, it's about what is best for their policies.

What happens when some government down the line in 30 years time decides all single disabled people are to be made to live in shelters of some sort and their assets immediately seized for the good of all? It's not beyond the realms of possibility.

The point I'm trying to make is that if the state get your assets, they also get your future to do with as they please, whether their policy is beneficial to you personally or not. You have no freedom, no choice, you are forever affected by their decisions. Have we had a government that has always made good decisions?

People work to provide some sort of stability and security for their kin so that there is no (or less) need to worry about the future. Obviously not all will be able to do so, but the answer to looking after poor disabled little orphan johnny isn't to take everyone else's assets and make us all even more dependent on the state.

The type of set up you describe strikes fear in my heart tbh.