Surprise, surprise!

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by longboat, May 2, 2017.

  1. Harry Stottle

    Harry Stottle Screwfix Select

    I would be disappointed if I'd worked hard all my life and at the end of it I'd achieved net nothing. What's wrong in helping your children to achieve better things? I suspect those who say "I'm not bothered about the possibility that my mum and dad will not leave me anything" are only saying that, it's easy to act in a self righteous manner.
    Why should people who have worked hard and have assets have to forfeit them, when other people who have wasted their earnings be bailed out by the taxpayers?
    The solution is to make insurance for old age care compulsory, those who haven't made provision will have to accept very basic care.
  2. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    Thing is Harry, I said it and meant it too. I didn't contribute towards the payments dad made for his house. I didn't work hard for his house. Only thing that will bother me when he shuffles off this mortal coil is the fact that I shall no longer see him, nor will there be family get togethers with dad present. There'll be no more parties at his house and I won't be able to drink the beer he bought.

    Did you read the article in the news last week of the chap who won over £100 million on the lottery? His son took him to court to say his dad had to keep him, even though his dad had given him well over a million pounds out of his win, which he then proceeded to spend as quickly as he could. Greedy b'stard thought he was entitled to live off his father for the rest of his own life. Luckily the judge in the case saw sense and told him he was entitled to sweet FA.
    Still leaves the rest of us to pick up the bill for those who choose not to have insurance. How long before some OAP's take the government to court citing "Human Rights" if they only have "basic care" ? What do you consider "basic care"?
    Look at it this way,, People in prison get three meals a day, stay in heated accommodation during the winter. Have access to TV, Radio etc. There's a hell of a lot of OAP's would gladly swap places with people in prison. (and what exactly have the OAP's done wrong?)
  3. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    "achieve"? You're literally arguing against achievement. You're helping to reinforce to children that rewards come, not from their own efforts, but from the labours of others.

    Descendants winning the death lottery is not them achieving better things - it's practically feudal in its rejection of meritocracy.

    If you want your children to achieve better things then:
    • Teach them how to plaster a wall or fix a car.
    • Teach them calculus, or at least the basic arithmetic needed to balance their current account.
    • Teach them right from wrong.
    • Teach them the importance of integrity and hard work (and wealth through legacy seems counter to that work ethic).
    • Teach them that sitting around and hoping Mummy and Daddy's death will sort out their financial problems is a waste of their life.

    And based on that, I suspect you're a mean-spirited, cynical, curmudgeon; and your family only spend time with your misanthropic *** out of a sense of domestic obligation (or, if avarice is an inherited trait, perhaps they're greedily trying to get a line in your will).

    It seems suspecting the worst in people is easy isn't it? But not nice.

    I think JJ is acting in righteous manner. Not self righteous.

    A compulsory insurance?
    Almost like another... national insurance?
    Not so anti-tax now are you, not if it means missing out on a death windfall?
  4. Posts #462 and #463 really say it all. And quite perfectly.
    Dr Bodgit likes this.
  5. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    I really don't have an issue giving up my inheritance to my children in order that I can be looked after in my old age. its my money, to look after me. My children have no "right" to it, its not theirs and they have no automatic entitlement to it.

    This Tory policy could quite easily be a Labour policy, since its the most well off that will be "hit" (although after their death).
    Phil the Paver and btiw2 like this.
  6. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select

    It costs roughly 1/3 more per year to keep a prisoner then it costs to keep a pensioner, that's surely not right, is it.
  7. I'm surprised - 'cos some of these pensioners are well mental, innit.
  8. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    My mum in law had the best idea. Years ago she "sold" her house to the bank, to provide herself with an income in her old age. When she dies, the house belongs to the bank. Her children can only get her personal effects. I don't know what happens if she needs care in a care home/ nursing home setting though. I do wonder if the local clowncil would take the view that she's evaded the cost of care on purpose? (even though she "sold" the house to the bank around 20 odd years ago) (btw CLOWNCIL isn't a spelling mistake, as I'm sure it's actually run by clowns)
  9. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    Tell me about it DA.

Share This Page