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

aliasojo

Ah, must have missed that bit.

FTBFun

B_Blank wrote: »

Yup. Totally agree. I, also, figure to inherit alot of money. It could be close a million but prob at least £500k.

It doesn't look like this does it? Watch out for that.

B_Blank

birkee wrote: »

"You should get out of life what you put into it" ?
You've said it many times.
It seems very clear though, that you have not answered my question earlier.
What about those living on Social Security?
Are you going to starve them to death?

See.... you don't believe that at all! You just want things to be the way YOU want them. Tough....nobody else out there cares.

Not at all, because social security is a basic human right and need.

Inheriting £100k from you parents isnt a basic human right/need.

Inheritance is a terrible thing. It rewards people on the basis of who they happen to be and not what they happen to achieve in life.

Mrs_Arcanum

B_Blank wrote: »

Not at all, because social security is a basic human right and need.

Inheriting £100k from you parents isnt a basic human right/need.

Inheritance is a terrible thing. It rewards people on the basis of who they happen to be and not what they happen to achieve in life.

If everyone took advantage of social security the country would grind to a halt. Thankfully there are those who are happy to work & pay TAXES to fund those who cannot. Preventing people from leaving something to their relatives is not the way to achieve an inclusive society. Nor is it a practical way of funding social security. People have a need to pass things on. Whether this is property, art, good genes or wisdom it matters not. Taking away an achievable legacy to fund the wastrels is not the way to bring prosperity and improve living standards. Merely a very good way of reducing everyone to the same low level.

That also presumes there are no achievers out there. Inheritances would soon run out as a means to move on in life as they are usually shared out amongst descendents. By the time it is passed on to 3 or more relatives what may have been a nice little house becomes just a good deposit for the beneficiaries. So in this way the money moves round.

Personally without my inheritance (shared with 3 others & a bank) I would be living in rented accommodation, financially unable to buy due to the high local prices but would be deemed too well off for Social Housing. Brilliant.

In the past the large estates were often left to one person alone (along with huge death duties and crippling repair bills). So what happens to all the siblings - they got off their backsides and made their own fortunes.

FATBALLZ

damanpunk wrote: »

Classic thread.

Some people may get an inheritance that they haven't 'earned', oh noes this is unfair! It's life though so just like high house prices, deal with it.

Cool, thats an infallible argument, I'll remember that next time that charity collector bothers me in Tesco.

"Life is unfair, some people die of cancer in agony/starve to death in poverty/can't access clean water and get horrible diseases, deal with it".

Interesting morality.

FATBALLZ

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

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.

As Blank points out, this is a ridiculous contradictory load of nonsense. I can't believe even the people who agree with inheritance thanked this post.

B_Blank

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

If everyone took advantage of social security the country would grind to a halt. Thankfully there are those who are happy to work & pay TAXES to fund those who cannot. Preventing people from leaving something to their relatives is not the way to achieve an inclusive society. Nor is it a practical way of funding social security. People have a need to pass things on. Whether this is property, art, good genes or wisdom it matters not. Taking away an achievable legacy to fund the wastrels is not the way to bring prosperity and improve living standards. Merely a very good way of reducing everyone to the same low level.

That also presumes there are no achievers out there. Inheritances would soon run out as a means to move on in life as they are usually shared out amongst descendents. By the time it is passed on to 3 or more relatives what may have been a nice little house becomes just a good deposit for the beneficiaries. So in this way the money moves round.

Personally without my inheritance (shared with 3 others & a bank) I would be living in rented accommodation, financially unable to buy due to the high local prices but would be deemed too well off for Social Housing. Brilliant.

In the past the large estates were often left to one person alone (along with huge death duties and crippling repair bills). So what happens to all the siblings - they got off their backsides and made their own fortunes.

You do raise good points. And I do, of course, recognise the practical problems with raising inheritance tax to be something around 90% for everyone. However, you also have to remember that this money doesnt run out from generation to generation. That is why great estates are still in the families or various dukes/wealthy people. Money makes money, so any money inherited can be invested and sustain itself down generations.

I guess we fundamentally disagree on whether ones children DESERVE the money that one has earnt through life. I say not.

birkee

B_Blank wrote: »

Not at all, because social security is a basic human right and need.

Inheriting £100k from you parents isnt a basic human right/need.

Inheritance is a terrible thing. It rewards people on the basis of who they happen to be and not what they happen to achieve in life.

You tell ME, where people have the right to make ME work to support my family AND people who don't work?
What about MY human rights?.... I'm not their slave!!

Social Security is charity work inflicted on the productive via taxes, for the benefit of those going through a difficult time, OR, as seems to be more the case these days, to support the idle in a way of life.

How you equate human rights with the right to be a shiftless waster is beyond most of us. WE have a right to expect them to make some contribution towards their own support. We don't expect to see unemployed drinking, smoking, gambling, or indulging in any other extravagances that takes money out of someone elses pocket.

Ask yourself... how much time a week does a working man put in, to support people he doesn't know. Involuntarily!
Slavery was abolished in the 1800's.

birkee

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Cool, thats an infallible argument, I'll remember that next time that charity collector bothers me in Tesco.

"Life is unfair, some people die of cancer in agony/starve to death in poverty/can't access clean water and get horrible diseases, deal with it".

Interesting morality.

That's hypocrasy!
How many charity collectors do you turn away?

There are sufficient charities collecting these day, to clear the bank accounts of every person on here. They don't want contributions any more, they want access to your bank account to help themselves.

We have to choose the charities we will support, and turn the rest away.

Oh look, there's another 4 charity bags through my door this morning,.... that's 10 this week so far. Ah well, they're useful bin liners. I suppose I could pop down the High Street and buy some, but not ONE of those charity shops sell them. I'll just have to wait until I jump in the car and go to the supermarket and fight my way through the charity collectors and get them there.
Hope we don't get too many door knockers this week either.

Your theoretical morality, is streets away from reallity.
I've had five siblings die with cancer so far, but you want me to supply water to Africa or be classed as immoral by you?
What about lifeboats? people volunteering for dangerous unpaid work and saving lives, but you want me to send food to war torn Ethiopia? They CAN stop killing each other voluntarily.

Just wondering where your morality ends, or where your infinite supply of charity donation money comes from.

birkee

B_Blank wrote: »

You do raise good points. And I do, of course, recognise the practical problems with raising inheritance tax to be something around 90% for everyone. However, you also have to remember that this money doesnt run out from generation to generation. That is why great estates are still in the families or various dukes/wealthy people. Money makes money, so any money inherited can be invested and sustain itself down generations.

I guess we fundamentally disagree on whether ones children DESERVE the money that one has earnt through life. I say not.

Don't you mean the properties of the National Trust?
People like you have cleaned out most of those who used to inherit the sort of properties you describe.
Any left, probably belong to Arab Sheiks, who pay no taxes in this country.
So who do you want? Duke Snotforall paying some tax, or an Arab Sheik paying none?