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

birkee

FATBALLZ wrote: »

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

Sorry your logic eludes me.

The point was, someone left in the home their parent provided, or kick him out and put him into the state system.
Another suggested he could be left there for life, for the same benefits. He wouldn't be left in his own house period. They would clump them together for the cost savings.
What would you want for YOUR disabled child? His own home, or a state institution? No contest!

FATBALLZ

aliasojo wrote: »

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?

Obviously not, but I'm not suggesting the state takes the assets of those who have earned them, merely that it is irreconcilable with my ethics that some people should get what amounts to a free pass in life via inheritance to avoid the realities that people who don't have rich parents have to deal with.

aliasojo wrote: »

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

Undoubtedly less than the fear that those who do not have the resources to buy their kids out of the system currently face - not only are their kids going to be dependent on the state and politics, but as long as the rich can continue to buy their kids out of the system there will never be an incentive to make things better for them, as nobody in a position of power will have a vested interest in making sure state care is of good quality.

FATBALLZ

birkee wrote: »

Sorry your logic eludes me.

The point was, someone left in the home their parent provided, or kick him out and put him into the state system.
Another suggested he could be left there for life, for the same benefits. He wouldn't be left in his own house period. They would clump them together for the cost savings.
What would you want for YOUR disabled child? His own home, or a state institution? No contest!

Of course I would want the best for my child, and if that meant buying/leaving a house for them I would do my best to make that happen - as any decent parent would.

I'm not however going to sit here and defend inheritance as being a perfectly moral and fair mechanism for which my child, through luck, can have things better than another identical child with less wealthy/caring parents.

aliasojo

FATBALLZ wrote: »

.........it is irreconcilable with my ethics that some people should get what amounts to a free pass in life via inheritance to avoid the realities that people who don't have rich parents have to deal with.

I honestly do see your point, I just don't agree the way to deal with evening out the differences is to make us all come down to the lowest common denominator, i.e dependent on the state.

thistledome

B_Blank wrote: »

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.

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

Ah, that explains a lot. Your opinion is based on the assumption that you will be running this country single handed, i.e., a dictatorship.

You certainly wouldn't be voted in on a policy of the state confiscating everybody's earned wealth, thereby preventing their children from inheriting.

Fatballz, do you live in Mayfair or somewhere? You said in one post that you don't see why "children should be set up for life". Inheriting the family home (or the value or part-value of it) wouldn't be a life changing sum for most of us.

birkee

thistledome wrote: »

Ah, that explains a lot. Your opinion is based on the assumption that you will be running this country single handed, i.e., a dictatorship.

You certainly wouldn't be voted in on a policy of the state confiscating everybody's earned wealth, thereby preventing their children from inheriting.

Fatballz, do you live in Mayfair or somewhere? You said in one post that you don't see why "children should be set up for life". Inheriting the family home (or the value or part-value of it) wouldn't be a life changing sum for most of us.

It's a case that some people can't get their head round the fact that not everybody leaves a fortune.
A house shared between three children is a hand onto the property ladder for most, but SOME on here would confiscate it and share it amongst people who had no right to it. This of course, leaves your children as just more of the undeserving, depending on confiscation other peoples assets when they die to keep taxes down.
Lets just cut out the middle tier of dictatorship, and give it to our children when we die.

The proposal by others, would empty this country like a waste bin, leaving a country of welfare of dependants and immigrants.
Who pays for them then?
Then the immigrants all remember their origins again, and clear off home, because things have gone to pot here.

So hey! We have a country of welfare dependants, and nobody to pay into the pot to support them.
That's not the first cuckoo you hear, that's an eternal cuckoo.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

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?

I would'nt trust the state with anything which is why I have always made my own arrangements for everything.
Ok,so I'm lucky to be able to but thats partly because I refuse to rely on the state and we've always planned and realy strived toward independence.

aliasojo

birkee wrote: »

The proposal by others, would empty this country like a waste bin, leaving a country of welfare of dependants and immigrants.

Exactly. :T

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Obviously not, but I'm not suggesting the state takes the assets of those who have earned them, merely that it is irreconcilable with my ethics that some people should get what amounts to a free pass in life via inheritance to avoid the realities that people who don't have rich parents have to deal with.

So you think that just because you die you don't have any interest in your family anymore.
When we die my family will only be getting by means of inheritance what is rightfully theirs by the mere fact they are my children and anything we have is theirs anyway.
Anything we have was earned to look after OUR family and no one elses.
You must live in a very strange family to not feel the close committment and need to provide for your family in any eventuality.
I tend to find that individuals with views like yourself are the ones who have very little chance of benefitting by means of inheritance.
If I can't have it why should anyone else,so to speak.
People would only transfer their wealth early as some already do now if any right to inheritance was removed,and quite rightly.

birkee

They want you to go to your grave worrying about your childrens future.
Euthanasia the next step, because they need more money faster.