Drastic measures by first-time house buyers

[Peter103]

I think there must be a time when we say enough is enough so the child/adult learns to stand on their own 2 feet when we depart this fiscal realm!

The question is when, in my opinion Peter I think you may have reached that time [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

I know what you're saying, and she doesn't ever ask, so we only bought the d/washer and cooker, and a few hundred to keep her straight and make things a bit easier. I'm not sure if we'd ever reach a time when we wouldn't want to help our children, we're not rich, but we can afford it so it's no loss, and it's nice if you can.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

I agree totally. With interest rates about to rise, anyone pushing to their repayment limits could be in big trouble very quickly. It caught me out in the '80's.

The £67 a month I agree is neither here nor there when considering a mortgage loan, but he has been paying for some time and it could have been going towards a deposit.
I mentioned it previously because it is a debt that will have to be repaid eventually so I think it is valid.

Not necessarily.

 

[AMGeed]

Well my Father in Law really pushed the boat out for us so I have always felt obliged, however maybe providing help for a deposit releases that old fashioned obligation, comments here will be interesting..?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

The two were seperate issues for me. I didn't pay anywhere near the total cost of my daughters wedding and I made it known that I'd help when it came to getting a house.
If I hadn't helped out,they would probably have had to rent forever. House prices are rising faster than they could save and outside of London, living in this area is very expensive for the lowliest of properties.
What saddens me is that I expect to do it again when daughter # 2 decides its time to get hitched and get a house.

 

[AMGeed]

Not necessarily.

How so pray tell. I'm all ears

Please don't say Corbyn's vague promise is going to come to pass

 

[Deleted member 6183]

How so pray tell. I'm all ears

Please don't say Corbyn's vague promise is going to come to pass

More a question of when.

30 years from graduation, give or take.

At the paltry rate of repayment this will become reality for some .

 

[Darrell]

I know what you're saying, and she doesn't ever ask, so we only bought the d/washer and cooker, and a few hundred to keep her straight and make things a bit easier. I'm not sure if we'd ever reach a time when we wouldn't want to help our children, we're not rich, but we can afford it so it's no loss, and it's nice if you can.

All of my friends have inherited from their parents. Their parents never inherited anything from their parents because they were dirt poor living in Ireland.

One of my mates is a black cab driver and his wife works for BorderForce so they are hardly skint. They’ve got 5 or 6 years left on their morgage. It’s a big house with 5 beds and 4 bathrooms. It’s in London Colney.
Parents were old paddies. Dad worked on the railways and mum was a housewife. Had a little 3 bed house in Edgware. Dad died about 6 years ago, mum died 14 months ago. Matey & his bro just inherited £250,000 each.

I’d love to do that for my children.

 

[markjay]

All of my friends have inherited from their parents. Their parents never inherited anything from their parents because they were dirt poor living in Ireland.

One of my mates is a black cab driver and his wife works for BorderForce so they are hardly skint. They’ve got 5 or 6 years left on their morgage. It’s a big house with 5 beds and 4 bathrooms. It’s in London Colney.
Parents were old paddies. Dad worked on the railways and mum was a housewife. Had a little 3 bed house in Edgware. Dad died about 6 years ago, mum died 14 months ago. Matey & his bro just inherited £250,000 each.

I’d love to do that for my children.

Hope you get your wish.

It's an interesting beast, inheritance... Inheritance Tax is currently 40% (above the threshold), and there are those who advocate abolishing inheritance altogether... everything goes to the state. Some instinctively feel it is right and proper that you should leave your assets to your children, some think it's wrong and unfair for people to inherit money.

 

[Darrell]

Hope you get your wish.

It's an interesting beast, inheritance... Inheritance Tax is currently 40% (above the threshold), and there are those who advocate abolishing inheritance altogether... everything goes to the state. Some instinctively feel it is right and proper that you should leave your assets to your children, some think it's wrong and unfair for people to inherit money.

I’ve got a good feeling that the people who think it’s wrong and unfair are probably the people who stand to inherit sweet FA.
Without getting too political, why should the state have it. And waste it.

 

[E53AMG]

Hope you get your wish.

It's an interesting beast, inheritance... Inheritance Tax is currently 40% (above the threshold), and there are those who advocate abolishing inheritance altogether... everything goes to the state. Some instinctively feel it is right and proper that you should leave your assets to your children, some think it's wrong and unfair for people to inherit money.

Well if it all goes to the State the Royal Family are all stuffed and most farming families for starters [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[markjay]

Well if it all goes to the State the Royal Family are all stuffed and most farming families for starters [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

The Royal family will suffer the least compared to other wealthy families... the majority of their assests are only theirs in title. Can the Queen liquidate her assets and sell Buck House, or Hyde Park, or the Crown Jewels? Not really...... in practical terms, it all belongs to the state anyway.

 

[E53AMG]

The Royal family will suffer the least compared to other wealthy families... the majority of their assests are only theirs in title. Can the Queen liquidate her assets and sell Buck House, or Hyde Park, or the Crown Jewels? Not really...... in practical terms, it all belongs to the state anyway.

Duchy of Cornwall is inherited along with most Stately homes and farms, if they can no longer be inherited but sold to go to the State.....it will never happen

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[AMGeed]

I can just see the Crown Jewels on eBay

 

[markjay]

Duchy of Cornwall is inherited along with most Stately homes and farms, if they can no longer be inherited but sold to go to the State.....it will never happen

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Agreed, but it's a small fraction of their perceived wealth, most of it isnt really 'theirs'.

 

[Peter103]

When ordinary people who have worked, raised a family, paid their taxes, bought property, and over probably fifty or sixty years accumulated an amount of wealth, it is then deemed right to give quite a portion of whatevers left to the government it's just not cricket. It's the rich that get the pleasure and the poor that get the blame.

 

[Deleted96908]

There's no natural law that states assets or possessions can or should be maintained, to the benefit of others, after one's death. It's artificial. Not saying folks would or should reject the offer of inheritance, but to assume that there is some form of right, is wrong.

And it goes further. Once we start to look at post mortem (never-ending in the case of non mortal entities) arrangements, the problems of corporations comes into focus. Potentially they are never ending and because of this, present unfair competition to newer organisations trying to compete with these long established, multi generation, bodies. Not suggesting companies should be forced to die a natural death, like people, but at the very least, there should be an anti compete (longevity) tax levied against them, which subsidises new company formations, and in turn levels the playing field, as much possible. And if this is true for corporations, at the very least it suggests inheritance tax is not only fair, but necessary, and quite possibly doesn't go far enough.



.

 

[E53AMG]

There's no natural law that states assets or possessions can or should be maintained, to the benefit of others, after one's death. It's artificial. Not saying folks would or should reject the offer of inheritance, but to assume that there is some form of right, is wrong.

And it goes further. Once we start to look at post mortem (never-ending in the case of non mortal entities) arrangements, the problems of corporations comes into focus. Potentially they are never ending and because of this, present unfair competition to newer organisations trying to compete with these long established, multi generation, bodies. Not suggesting companies should be forced to die a natural death, like people, but at the very least, there should be an anti compete (longevity) tax levied against them, which subsidises new company formations, and in turn levels the playing field, as much possible. And if this is true for corporations, at the very least it suggests inheritance tax is not only fair, but necessary, and quite possibly doesn't go far enough.



.

Have you been on the wacky backy? [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[homersimpson]

Hope you get your wish.

It's an interesting beast, inheritance... Inheritance Tax is currently 40% (above the threshold), and there are those who advocate abolishing inheritance altogether... everything goes to the state. Some instinctively feel it is right and proper that you should leave your assets to your children, some think it's wrong and unfair for people to inherit money.

Very interesting.. Then one question that remains is are you actually helping your off spring/family by giving them such a large chunk of cash/property? I look at folk around me that receive regular hand outs from the family generation above them. They can end up being the most hopeless of all, unable to stand on their own two feet without going cap in hand all the time....

For me the incentive to get up in the morning and not turn into a lazy so and so is knowing I have to go to work to pay my way independant of those around me.. To receive large chunks of cash or handouts might negate that incentive...

However inheritance is a part of life and given the high level of home ownership it'll only become more common place.... Doesn't mean its a good thing though!!

 

[renault12ts]

Very interesting.. Then one question that remains is are you actually helping your off spring/family by giving them such a large chunk of cash/property? I look at folk around me that receive regular hand outs from the family generation above them. They can end up being the most hopeless of all, unable to stand on their own two feet without going cap in hand all the time....

For me the incentive to get up in the morning and not turn into a lazy so and so is knowing I have to go to work to pay my way independant of those around me.. To receive large chunks of cash or handouts might negate that incentive...

However inheritance is a part of life and given the high level of home ownership it'll only become more common place.... Doesn't mean its a good thing though!!

Latest figures suggest a big drop in home ownership in the younger generations.

Home ownership among young adults has 'collapsed', study finds

If inheritance was disallowed I wonder what effect that would have on the economy.

 

[E53AMG]

Very interesting.. Then one question that remains is are you actually helping your off spring/family by giving them such a large chunk of cash/property? I look at folk around me that receive regular hand outs from the family generation above them. They can end up being the most hopeless of all, unable to stand on their own two feet without going cap in hand all the time....

For me the incentive to get up in the morning and not turn into a lazy so and so is knowing I have to go to work to pay my way independant of those around me.. To receive large chunks of cash or handouts might negate that incentive...

However inheritance is a part of life and given the high level of home ownership it'll only become more common place.... Doesn't mean its a good thing though!!

The reality for most is that direct parental inheritance will come pretty late in life (over 50s for most with current life expectancies) and therefore the stand on your own 2 feet argument is not relevant, either they have or have not by that stage! It is likely to be used to supplement pension funds/quality of life in retirement, which is useful considering we have one of the worst state pensions in the western world and it can also enpower parents to assist their children onto the housing ladder....

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[markjay]

There's no natural law that states assets or possessions can or should be maintained, to the benefit of others, after one's death. It's artificial. Not saying folks would or should reject the offer of inheritance, but to assume that there is some form of right, is wrong...

On one hand, not allowing one to pass-on assets to one's children, can be detrimental to us as a society because it removes much of the motivation of individuals to work hard and achieve wealth - in essence the message is: work only as much as you need in order to have a comfortable life, anything beyond that is pointless and a waste of your time because it will be taken off you anyway. So this can lead to economic stagnation.

The above is also another reason of why Communism does not work - the removal of the right to private property undermines people's motivation to work any more than the minimum required of them by the state. The removal of inheritance rights risks doing the same in free societies.

But - on the other hand, inheritance is unfair because it can be seen as a punitive measure against the children, 'punishing' or 'rewarding' them for the failings or success of their parents.

The modern thinking in Western societies is that children should not suffer as result of their parents' mistakes. Single mothers receive benefits not as reward for their effort of raising a family single-handed, but because not providing the mothers with financial assistance could mean that the children will have to go without.

Equally, universities are asked to make special accommodations for people from poorer backgrounds, based on the assumption that wealthier parents were able to invest more in the their children's education, and that the child's future should not be jeopardised by his or her parents' circumstances.

This is in stark contrast to Victorian times, where wives and children often moved to live in prison with the father simply because they had nowhere else to stay once the breadwinner was imprisoned. It was just 150 or so years ago when it still seemed to us reasonable that any failing of the father should rightly affect his entire family.

But this is the essence of a free economy... people with money can buy nice houses, live in good neighbourhoods, and then pass-on their assets to their children. The idea is that these rewards will motivate people to work harder and better themselves.

But this is again perceived as unfair on the children whose parents did not do as well, through no fault of the children.