inheritance, the story about the daughter who didn't

[h4rm0ny]

if this means we have to fork out benefits to the daughter then the supreme court got it wrong.

Whether or not the state has to pay benefits to someone is a poor way to determine right or wrong. In other news, family on dole starts squatting in wildman's home. Court finds in favour of the squatting family on grounds that the state no longer has to pay housing benefit!

 

[wildman]

Whether or not the state has to pay benefits to someone is a poor way to determine right or wrong. In other news, family on dole starts squatting in wildman's home. Court finds in favour of the squatting family on grounds that the state no longer has to pay housing benefit!

not remotely the same. The government see's to it that people have to flog their houses to pay for their own "residential care in homes" so why can't they do the same thing here with regards to allowing material wealth to be passed over to a family member to prevent excessive drain on tax payer resources ?

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I disagree. I am perfectly entitled to work towards things that will only be achieved after I die and human history is replete with examples of such. The concept of contracts and agreements being able to persist past death is vital. If it's impossible to set anything down to take effect after death, we have big problems.

What specifically in what you quoted do you disagree with?

I didnt mention anything about what you are entitled to do, just why people respect the wishes of the dead. If your contracts dont persist beyond death, it directly effects how you feel about your own life and death and in turn will cause problems as you say.

 

[UTmaniac]

Whether or not the state has to pay benefits to someone is a poor way to determine right or wrong.

I very much disagree, having decided to bring a child into the world, the first portion of her estate should ensure her child is not a burden on the state through benefits.

There is something very wrong if a multi-millionaire could have multiple children, who dies when their kids are of adult age and claiming multiple benefits, leaving all their millions to random charities and/or other people.

 

[Orifice]

if this means we have to fork out benefits to the daughter then the supreme court got it wrong.

The news article states the award was made in such a way she would maintain state benefits. So she's getting them regardless of the outcome.

The sum was increased by the appeal court in 2015 - £140,000 to buy her housing association property, and another £20,000 structured to allow her to keep her state benefits.

 

[Energize]

if this means we have to fork out benefits to the daughter then the supreme court got it wrong.

How many jobs will the charity create though? Could take a few people off benefits.

 

[Pudney]

The news article states the award was made in such a way she would maintain state benefits. So she's getting them regardless of the outcome.

Although the Supreme Court ruling makes clear that the Court of Appeal hadn't understood the law surrounding benefits properly and the amended award would have meant the loss of benefits.

 

[asim18]

I would in fact wager the damage to the taxpayer would be far greater by giving this woman £500k to spend on drugs, than having it invested in a company.

Not really. Charities aren't taxed, infact they can claim tax back on their donations. This is bad for the government but they have to do it to "look good".

The damage to the tax payer would be less if they gave £500k to her. Because they automatically gain something like half of it through inheritance tax, and then they gain another 20% through VAT.

So about £350k would have automatically gone to the government.

And then the other £150K would also greatly help the government because they need to keep drugs illegal so they can create pointless work for the police force.

 

[Orcish-Horde]

Given that grandparents have a legal right to contact with their grandchildren, it is only right that children and in turn grandchildren have a legal right to claim inheritance. Rights = Responsibility.

 

[Orcish-Horde]

.

 

[Energize]

Not really. Charities aren't taxed, infact they can claim tax back on their donations. This is bad for the government but they have to do it to "look good".

The damage to the tax payer would be less if they gave £500k to her. Because they automatically gain something like half of it through inheritance tax, and then they gain another 20% through VAT.

So about £350k would have automatically gone to the government.

And then the other £150K would also greatly help the government because they need to keep drugs illegal so they can create pointless work for the police force.

Charities create jobs which pay income tax, and because of the fact drugs are illegal they aren't taxed so the government will not see tax from the 500k she spends on coke.