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

birkee

Scummy Landlords,.... scummy Bankers.....
You are responsible for yourselves.
We'll have "Thank god people will rent to me", then
"Thank god we've got a mortgage to buy our own."
Just remember, that both viewpoints are GLAD of scummy Landlords and Bankers when they're homeless.
Not all of them are "scummy" and to lump all of them together is unfair, and says your judgement is irrelevant.

dtsazza

B_Blank wrote: »

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

I think that's the crux of the argument really. I agree that you can't continue to own it in any reasonable fashion, and so it needs to be someone else's money - but then the question is whose? And in my view, since it was your money, it could/should be dispersed according to your wishes.

Looking at it another way, if you were told you had a month to live or something, so you didn't need say £10,000 in a savings account any more, who would you choose to give it to? Or equivalently, who would it give you the most pleasure to see have it?

I agree that some people would choose for the money to go to charity (or something similar) so that a large number of people benefit by small amounts. Others (if the amount is large enough) may fund something specific such as a library or bridge, along a similar principle. Most people, I think, would give it to people they know (friends and family) and who they consider deserving.


So that's my view on the issue. If I were, for some reason, forced to give a lump sum of assets to other people during my life, I'm not ashamed to say it would go to my wife/children/friends, with the balances reliant on who I considered most deserving. I would not choose to give it to a random person on the street, nor would I choose to give it to HMRC so that the government can use it on a project of debious virtue.

I make no apologies for those choices, nor do I consider this view particularly unusual. As others have pointed out, my goal would be to ensure that those I knew to be conscientious would attain financial independence through my gift; of course my family will be first and foremost in this regard.

And just as this is what I'd want to be done during my life, this is what I would will to be done after my life. I don't consider the fact that I'm recently dead to reduce the influence I should have on my estate - after all, you've got to distribute it according to someone's wishes, and there are no others with anywhere near as much claim to legitimacy.

FATBALLZ

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

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.

That's because you think everyone has the same though process as you - ie only having opinions that also agree with their own self-interest. I'll probably inherit more than most people my age will. But I'm not so blinkered as to think it is my right to have things better than someone else who may well work harder and put more into society than me.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

FATBALLZ wrote: »

That's because you think everyone has the same though process as you - ie only having opinions that also agree with their own self-interest. I'll probably inherit more than most people my age will. But I'm not so blinkered as to think it is my right to have things better than someone else who may well work harder and put more into society than me.

If they work harder surely they should have just as much if not more than you then.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
I assume you will be giving your inheritance to the state as you would'nt want to be as greedy and as money grabbing as the rest of us who prefer to take care of our own with funds we rightfully own.
I thought not.

No one gives you a helping hand in this life,you have to look after yourself and your own.
I've never yet had a handout,why should I be expected to supplement others when I have a family of my own who deserves anything we have more.
They may not need it but they deserve it.
I'd have my assets burned before giving them to the state.

ceridwen

You and me both on that one Mrs Tittlemouse - ie I'd have my assets burnt before the State got them.

I only have a very modest level house, etc - so think this is fair.

If I had a "luxury lifestyle" (ie mansion or 2nd home...) then it would be understandable that the State wanted some and I would accept it as fair enough. But - for someone with only a very "ordinary person in the street" standard (one that I've had to work long and hard to get) - then..nope it wouldnt be fair.

There is just a weensy snag to burning my assets down though - I'd end up with the fire spreading to my neighbours - so couldnt do so because of that:(

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

Does'nt matter if I was the richest person in the world Ceridwen,I'd still expect my assets to be distributed between who I choose.
No one has any right to any of it and its nobody elses business.
I did'nt realise we had become a communist country but with the views I read on here recently its obvious we're fast becoming one.
Always laugh at how views like this surface when times get hard.

Mrs_Arcanum

Having the state take your assets upon your death is a lovely way to disincentiveise ANY form of ownership. No point running a successful family business to hand down the generations. No point having property as the state takes all. The state will soon run out of money when they own all the businesses & property and then have to maintain them. After all what would be the point of owning anything designed to last beyond a lifetime.

birkee

Yeh.....they all want to share yours till everybody is as down as themselves, but when they win the lottery, the hypocrits show forth. Then again, why would we have a lottery? It has no point.

Maybe a rich relative in the USA dies and leaves them a fortune, and then they get accused of treason for having unlicenced funds.
Most of the proponents of sharing someone elses, are simply incapable of thinking things through.
You know what I mean? "One level thinking."
It occurred to me last night, when I heard the news that Jag / LR were to build a new engine plant near Wolverhampton, and the joy that was expressed that X number of jobs will be created.
Well, at the moment, they buy engines from Ford, so what happens to the Ford workers when the J/LR order is cancelled?
Still,..... double shuffling of information, keeps the unthinking happy.

PasturesNew

CLAPTON wrote: »

and if the money runs out they stay in their chosen care home with the state paying

Not quite, been looking into this for real this week. If the money runs out -and- if the home is on the Council's approved list -and- if you (family) are prepared to dip your hands into your pocket to make up the difference, THEN they can stay in the home and the state pays. But, all their income/pensions/etc are also removed/kept by the state, except £20/week 'pocket money'.

CLAPTON

PasturesNew wrote: »

Not quite, been looking into this for real this week. If the money runs out -and- if the home is on the Council's approved list -and- if you (family) are prepared to dip your hands into your pocket to make up the difference, THEN they can stay in the home and the state pays. But, all their income/pensions/etc are also removed/kept by the state, except £20/week 'pocket money'.

well, my experience of the situation is when the money runs out the people stay in the care home
maybe the practice varies from place to place