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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

volver

Ach, it was only a matter of time....

No, I don't have kids. So how could I possibly understand?

Theresa May didn't have kids.

And that awful Andrea Leadsom suggested in an interview that "being a mother" gave her more stake in the future than childfree Theresa. I wonder if anyone ever challenged Angela Merkel similarly? I'm sure she'd have had an appropriate reply - as she did when it was put to her that she dressed rather plainly...

Nearly every gyny consultant and specialist I've ever seen, doesn't have a vagina - yet, miraculously, manages to do the job - and the last one, he was kindness itself! Who knew!

I have seen many examples of people my age 70+ whose parents scrimped and scraped, in the process depriving themselves, in order to leave their children some money. Many of them inherited whilst in their late 50s, early 60s and what did they do with it? They bought a more expensive, or had a cruise or two or maybe even bought home if they were lucky.

I am child free and my money, if there's any left, will go to charities. I will probably leave some legacies to my nieces and nephews, if I happen to live in England at the time. Living in France there's not a lot of point because they would suffer 60% tax on the bequest.

I wish people would stop saying how they worked and remember that a large proportion of their wealth will have come from the increase in property values which was outside their control.

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.

You're not the first person to tell me I don't understand, because I don't have kids, and you won't be the last.

My perspective is that I'm not constrained by sentimental ideas of parenthood. Who's to say which of us is right?

volver

Ach, it was only a matter of time....

No, I don't have kids. So how could I possibly understand?

Well it seems that you don’t.

Germanshepherdsmum

*growstuff*, I’m talking about what happens to my assets when I die. Why on earth should everything I have worked for be redistributed when I die so that every baby can have an equal (financial) start? Is that what I worked for? Other people’s kids who can use or waste my earnings as they choose? No, I worked for myself and my child and paid a lot of tax along the way which I imagine has gone a fair way to help a lot of people. And they will have another nice chunk when I die but nowhere near the 100% you would like - otherwise why would I have bothered? Could have done a low paid job or even stayed at home, claimed benefits and made no financial contribution to society couldn’t I? Where’s the incentive to work your arse off?

The problem is Gsm that there are people working their arse off who can barely make ends meet because the job they have is low paid. These unfortunately are actually the people who hold our society together, they are the carers, the nursery nurses, the health care assistants and the hundreds of other people who provide care and support and without whom nothing would function. If we had a society that paid people a proper wage for these jobs you might have a point. But while we have such huge inequalities with people whose contribution to society is minimal but whose financial gain is huge, and others who contribute hugely but for little financial reward, the idea that this is acceptable is insupportable. Add to that the fact that these are the group who contribute a larger portion of their income in tax, because most tax now is indirect tax and the inequality continues. 26% of the income of the lowest paid goes on tax and 15% of the richest. How can that be right?
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/adhocs/005778directandindirecttaxesasapercentageofgrossincomeforallhouseholdsbyquintilegroupfinancialyearending2015

Casdon

‘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.’

Your final paragraph went too far for me, and I’m a Labour voter DaisyAnne. If you had qualified it by saying ‘the present Tory Government’ rather than ‘Tory Voters’ I would have agreed, but condemning everybody who votes Tory, most of whom aren’t thinking deeply about what it stands for is OTT.

Don't you mean it is over the top for you Casdon? I doubt you have been elected to speak for everyone.

The Tories have been in power for 12 years. People can see what they do. They vote for them. They also come on here and tell us what they expect and it certainly isn't greater equality of outcome - or not if they have to go without in any way.

We are responsible for how we vote. Responsible for ourselves and responsible for those damaged by the outcome of those votes. Brexiteers are responsible for Brexit - otherwise who is? So he/she/they who voted a Tory government in are also responsible and we have heard just how self-centered that vote was time and time again.

Can anyone show any good that has come out of this government?

Ach, it was only a matter of time....

No, I don't have kids. So how could I possibly understand?