"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me."

Germanshepherdsmum

I get where you’re coming from volver. People really shouldn’t expect everyone else to fund their care so that their children can inherit their home, that’s grossly unfair. As is deliberate deprivation of assets in an attempt to escape care costs. Completely immoral yet we regularly have people on GN gaily saying they have done it or intend to do so.

I don’t agree with the deliberate deprivation of assets - the care system is what it is, and everyone pays what they can. But I’ll tell you what I really don’t agree with, and that’s those people who self fund, being charged more, to fund those who can’t pay themselves. When a friend of ours was looking into full time care she was quoted £4000 a month for a care home. She was told that the council funded facilities at the home were exactly the same but were only £3000 a month and it’s standard practice in the industry apply this surcharge - which amounts to 25% - to offset funding for those who have no assets and who are council funded. When self funding sources are exhausted you are at the mercy of the council and likely to be moved to a cheaper home, so can someone please explain how it’s fair to gouge self funders to the tune of £12000 per year extra from their own hard earned assets ? The whole system needs a shake up and a proper tax levy on everyone to pay for care in later life and make it fairer for everyone.

DaisyAnne

Isn't it interesting that this started as a thread about how the rich are treated differently by this government and has now reached a point where a couple of people sound extremely suspicious and afraid of what others will do to their legacy?

Is there anyone on this forum who is rich? Some shout so loudly for them. The top 1% have an annual income of £688,228. The Sunaks are, I believe, in the top 0.001%.

What most people object to is wealth inequality rather than the existence of wealth. The increase in the inequality levels has been brought about by this government's different treatment of the poor and the rich. Why should the top 10% hold 43% of all the household wealth while 50% hold only 9%?

Those sounding slightly paranoid about what might happen to their money would feel safer, I believe, if we were a society of equals. No one expects total equality. However, I do not believe that one person's life is worth so much more than another's.

The Tories are selfish, entitled people who are happy to have more at the expense of those who have less. They justify this with their "I have worked hard" claims, ignoring the facts; others will have worked harder and in worse circumstances without being so well rewarded. It is no argument. They are not happy with simply having more than others; they want to increase that by continuing to take more off the poorest. I cannot see any sense of morality in this.

And taking more off the poorest is what’s being advocated by some on this thread. Typical Tory divide and rule - if we’re fighting among ourselves we’re leaving them alone.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

volver

GSM I think we all know now that you paid a lot of tax. So did I. A lot. In fact, you could probably say I worked my a**e off.

So I might ask, Is that what I worked for? Other people’s kids who can use or waste my earnings as they choose?

Yes. Yes it is. If I'm dead and don't need it, they can have it.

So no thought of looking after the ones you love then - just I’m dead so I don’t care if everything I worked for gets wasted’. I’m not buying it. It’s state robbery and thankfully it’ll never happen. See what’s happening here ? Instead of advocating a distribution of wealth at the top, where the real money is, we’re fighting about the average Joe not being able to pass on his assets to whoever he likes. Divide and rule, as I said upthread.

Look after them while you're alive, if you have to. Where I come from, the "Average Joe" doesn't worry about passing things on to his loved ones. He worries about putting food on the table tomorrow. Maybe our ideas of what makes an "Average Joe" don't quite match.

See, the difference is that I think making the world a better place for everybody isn't a waste.

Casdon

I did say your final paragraph went too far for me DaisyAnne, so yes, I made it clear that I was speaking for myself. I believe you missed the point I was making though. I’m not just referring to contributors on Gransnet, and I do think condemning all people who voted Tory is wrong. In an ideal world every voter would be interested, well informed and conscious of the impact of the decision they are making when they put their cross in the box, but that isn’t the reality.

I didn't miss it Casdon. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I am not going to disagree with you.

volver

Look after them while you're alive, if you have to. Where I come from, the "Average Joe" doesn't worry about passing things on to his loved ones. He worries about putting food on the table tomorrow. Maybe our ideas of what makes an "Average Joe" don't quite match.

See, the difference is that I think making the world a better place for everybody isn't a waste.

Some people haven’t got the means to look after loved ones while they’re alive. We’re not talking about rich people here - we’re talking about people who have scrimped and saved to make their lives better. It’s not a one size fits all scenario and in many cases, a modest property inheritance is all some people have to pass on to their children. To suggest that the state takes effectively confiscates everything you’ve worked for after you pass away and ‘redistributes’ it to the needy is a race to the bottom.

Making the World a better place for everyone is something for us all to strive for volver . Unfortunately I am yet to have confidence in any Governments promises to do so.

Which is why I am protective of what I have (all due taxes paid) and why I want to protect those in my family who are vulnerable by leaving them a legacy.

We also give all we are legally allowed to each year to AC and GC

Pammie1

volver

Look after them while you're alive, if you have to. Where I come from, the "Average Joe" doesn't worry about passing things on to his loved ones. He worries about putting food on the table tomorrow. Maybe our ideas of what makes an "Average Joe" don't quite match.

See, the difference is that I think making the world a better place for everybody isn't a waste.

Some people haven’t got the means to look after loved ones while they’re alive. We’re not talking about rich people here - we’re talking about people who have scrimped and saved to make their lives better. It’s not a one size fits all scenario and in many cases, a modest property inheritance is all some people have to pass on to their children. To suggest that the state takes effectively confiscates everything you’ve worked for after you pass away and ‘redistributes’ it to the needy is a race to the bottom.

Did you understand my post at all?

And taking more off the poorest is what’s being advocated by some on this thread. Typical Tory divide and rule - if we’re fighting among ourselves we’re leaving them alone. Pammie1 Sat 09-Apr-22 20:36:11

Indeed. It makes you wonder what the Rishi and wife story is covering up.

Thank you for your answer on the benefits. For some reason, I thought you had retired. I really dislike the "household" idea. I was shocked to find that a third person, living with one of the parents, can be asked for their financial details when a young person is seeking help to go to University. Rishi wants his wife to be seen as independent but not others, it seems.

For me it's just an example of how far removed from the realities of life some people are, that we should feel pity for people who can only hand on a modest property to their kids.

Let’s take off the rose tinted spex when we describe those citizens less well off than ourselves. Yes indeed there are hardworking, caring families finding it hard to scrape by and feeling worn down with the sheer weight of anxiety over money.

But just as rich people aren’t all nasty we have to remember that not all poor people are the salt of the earth. They too lie and steal, take drugs, can be vicious and mean.

There’s good and bad people on both sides of the financial divide.

Urmstongran

Let’s take off the rose tinted spex when we describe those citizens less well off than ourselves. Yes indeed there are hardworking, caring families finding it hard to scrape by and feeling worn down with the sheer weight of anxiety over money.

But just as rich people aren’t all nasty we have to remember that not all poor people are the salt of the earth. They too lie and steal, take drugs, can be vicious and mean.

There’s good and bad people on both sides of the financial divide.

Let’s take off the rose tinted spex when we describe those citizens less well off than ourselves. Yes indeed there are hardworking, caring families finding it hard to scrape by and feeling worn down with the sheer weight of anxiety over money.

Absolutely true. The problem is these - below...

not all poor people are the salt of the earth. They too lie and steal, take drugs, can be vicious and mean.

... are the ones that make the daily headlines in the popular press. Thereby giving the impression that - well, you don't need me to spell it out.

And then there are our own personal anecdotes, muddying the waters even more.

A well-run and efficient benefits system should be able to weed out the cheats and liars (mostly) but it costs time and money - and time is money. If a government doesn't want to commit to public spending, it will rely on 'dobbing in' and public opinion to do the job. And some newspapers are doing that job very well.

And that's the problem.

For the first time since Volver joined Gransnet (first time round included) I find myself agreeing with her on anything!!! I am widowed with two "children" - a daughter married with no children and a son who made a disastrous marriage but provided me with "the best grandson in the world". DH and I very much scrimped and saved in the 70/80's to give them the childhood and education that we hadn't had. DD & DSIL have good jobs, own their own home, etc and DS is in a completely different position. He and DGS live in our home town and I share/fund many days out, holidays, meals, car, etc with them and why not? I don't think there will be much left when I go, although I have set out a small trust fund which he might need for DGS, but I do have a house and if that is needed for my care I know my family will understand that is what has to be done. This has been an "interesting" thread seeing how many GNs view their life and position in it.

Nobody can put their hand on their hearts and be honest that they deserve what they have solely through their own hard work, although some smug people seem to have convinced themselves they do. Life is full of luck - and bad luck! People aren't born equal.

Nobody can change our genes. Some people are brighter than others, some people are better looking, others more talented, etc. However, we can mitigate the unequal starts that babies have - and that's what I'm suggesting. A rich country, which is what the UK is, should be able to afford for all its children to be well-educated, well-nourished, adequately housed and to have the means to take advantage of opportunities. Currently, many children in the UK don't have those chances - and some (many?) people in the country are prepared to invest in them.

Grayling I feel the same. My daughter is already better off then I am - and really did achieve that through her own hard work, not because she's had any financial help from her parents. She didn't have to have a private education to achieve stellar exam results and she was even the child of a single parent from the age of 8 and I burst with pride when I think what's she's achieved. She knows she won't inherit anything from me - I don't even have a house to leave her - and she's even told me to spend what I have on myself. Maybe not surprisingly, she's a staunch Labour supporter.

Pammie1

volver

Look after them while you're alive, if you have to. Where I come from, the "Average Joe" doesn't worry about passing things on to his loved ones. He worries about putting food on the table tomorrow. Maybe our ideas of what makes an "Average Joe" don't quite match.

See, the difference is that I think making the world a better place for everybody isn't a waste.

Some people haven’t got the means to look after loved ones while they’re alive. We’re not talking about rich people here - we’re talking about people who have scrimped and saved to make their lives better. It’s not a one size fits all scenario and in many cases, a modest property inheritance is all some people have to pass on to their children. To suggest that the state takes effectively confiscates everything you’ve worked for after you pass away and ‘redistributes’ it to the needy is a race to the bottom.

No, it's giving every baby the same chance.

Pammie1

volver

GSM I think we all know now that you paid a lot of tax. So did I. A lot. In fact, you could probably say I worked my a**e off.

So I might ask, Is that what I worked for? Other people’s kids who can use or waste my earnings as they choose?

Yes. Yes it is. If I'm dead and don't need it, they can have it.

So no thought of looking after the ones you love then - just I’m dead so I don’t care if everything I worked for gets wasted’. I’m not buying it. It’s state robbery and thankfully it’ll never happen. See what’s happening here ? Instead of advocating a distribution of wealth at the top, where the real money is, we’re fighting about the average Joe not being able to pass on his assets to whoever he likes. Divide and rule, as I said upthread.

I think very much of the ones I love. I don't have anything to pass on to mine, so I've given them what I could - my love.

volver

Pammie1

volver

Look after them while you're alive, if you have to. Where I come from, the "Average Joe" doesn't worry about passing things on to his loved ones. He worries about putting food on the table tomorrow. Maybe our ideas of what makes an "Average Joe" don't quite match.

See, the difference is that I think making the world a better place for everybody isn't a waste.

Some people haven’t got the means to look after loved ones while they’re alive. We’re not talking about rich people here - we’re talking about people who have scrimped and saved to make their lives better. It’s not a one size fits all scenario and in many cases, a modest property inheritance is all some people have to pass on to their children. To suggest that the state takes effectively confiscates everything you’ve worked for after you pass away and ‘redistributes’ it to the needy is a race to the bottom.

Did you understand my post at all?

I understood perfectly well thank you - did you understand mine ? You’re proposing what is effectively communism and it doesn’t work. Who overseas the redistribution of the wealth from confiscated property ? The government ? The same government that squanders our taxes instead of putting them to the common good ? It seems anyone who disagrees is judged as greedy and uncaring and I suspect, as others on the thread have, that it comes from envy. Rather than go for the real wealth, it’s easier to target those who have a little more than you. And yes, I can put hand on heart and say that the modest means I have are entirely because I and my partner worked for it. We weren’t handed anything and opportunities were as a result of hard work, not ‘luck’.

Every baby can have a chance without taking from the childless, the child free and/or those who have chosen to save rather than spend.

I couldn't agree more that the UK should do better by our children, and a lot more could be done to make life fairer for adults, too. But there is no need to take people's houses and savings to do it. A better tax system would redistribute wealth better, and more fairly, particularly if the proceeds went towards education and housing.

I firmly believe that people should be able to spend their money as they wish, and that it is not up to the government to dictate how they should live, or to encourage one lifestyle over another by taxing or confiscating their assets if they haven't spent it in accordance with a particular diktat.

Pammiel There is an element of luck in everything. You go for a job interview, its pouring with rain, your legs get splashed with mud and your hair is blown everywhere. You walk into the building and the panel can see you. That is enough to put you off your stride. That's bad luck.

You go to look at an absolute wreck of a house which is on view for 2 hours. The estate agent asks if you are interested and what your financial situation is. You tell them. two days later you get a phone call telling you that you can buy the house, if you want it. That's good luck.

Both happened to me in circumstances beyond my control.

growstuff As I stated upthread I have a grandson with severe autism and learning difficulties who may never be employable. Can you really not understand that I would want to leave an inheritance for him that would ensure a security and better standard of living than being on benefits? He didn't get an equal break at birth and his life now is not the same as most of his age group.
You say your daughter deserves her lot through hard work and stellar exam results, but she was obviously blessed with a high degree of intelligence. My grandson had no such luck, he will never, no matter how hard he works, be able to achieve like her.

I don't have anything to pass on to mine, so I've given them what I could - my love. I love my grandson very much. I wonder if you'd feel differently if you did have something to leave to your daughter and she was in my grandson's situation.

Dinahmo

Pammiel There is an element of luck in everything. You go for a job interview, its pouring with rain, your legs get splashed with mud and your hair is blown everywhere. You walk into the building and the panel can see you. That is enough to put you off your stride. That's bad luck.

You go to look at an absolute wreck of a house which is on view for 2 hours. The estate agent asks if you are interested and what your financial situation is. You tell them. two days later you get a phone call telling you that you can buy the house, if you want it. That's good luck.

Both happened to me in circumstances beyond my control.

You’re disabled and confined to a wheelchair but you know if you tell the prospective employer that, you’re not likely to get an interview. You go to the interview and spend most of it trying to convince the employer that you’re worth a shot. You get the job and spend the rest of your career slogging to keep up with your able bodied counterparts and end up doing ok, and managing to make a good life for yourself. That’s not luck, that’s from sheer hard work and determination. And people on here seem to think that that should be rewarded by confiscating everything you’ve worked for as soon as you pop your clogs and trusting that the government will ‘redistribute’ it fairly. I agree entirely with the above post from Doodledog. We can do better by our children without robbing from those who have worked hard. It’s nonsense.

growstuff says that, despite a life of hard work, she has little or nothing to leave when she dies and she advocates confiscation and redistribution by the State of everyone’s assets when they die. She is rightly proud of her daughter’s hard slog to achieve whilst decrying others for saying they too have worked hard for what they have and want to pass it to their children when they die. I suspect that if she had a house and savings to pass on to her children she would feel very differently. Her posts show real bitterness towards those whose work has enabled them to buy a house and amass some savings.

volver has no children or close family and who was brought up in poverty but was a high achiever and is a very intelligent woman seems not to understand the desire to leave something to your family. Again, if her family circumstances were different I suspect she would not be happy for the State to confiscate everything she has when she dies.
Evidence perhaps that our personal circumstances colour our feelings about the ability to leave an inheritance?

How do you know what I think GSM? Seriously, how? I'll tell my nieces, nephews, cousins and aunties that I have no close family, and that maybe I'm just a sad, bitter old woman with no love in her life.

Could you been any more insulting if you tried?

Are you Andrea Leadsome?

(ps - my SIL and her husband have "worked their arses" off in retail and the NHS their whole lives, don't own a house and have nothing to leave their children. I'll just tell them they should have tried harder.)