Jump to content

This Forum


TheTool

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply
They are both old, and they are both going to die, so what does it matter either way?

 

Joe's family will be able to fend for themselves without an inheritance, if he was the right example to them.

 

We're all going to die - some quite soon.

 

But it's HIS money. He's paid tax on it and over a period of time a lot more tax than Fred and if he wants to leave his wealth to his own family if they need it or not, , to the Home of Rest for Old Horses, or to the Chinese Communist Party it's HIS money and it should be up to him how it is used after his death.

 

Joe has already paid more for the same provisions that he needs in common with Fred, and yet he is now being double penalised simply for working harder, paying more tax, and looking after himself.

 

That has simply got to be immoral and certainly not according to natural justice.

 

On the other hand it is typical of Socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should Joe not also get the same care as Fred and also get it free. Joe has actually paid far more for it already.

 

Why stop there Rog. Why not just tell us how you really think that Joe should get better treatment because he paid for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should Joe not also get the same care as Fred and also get it free. Joe has actually paid far more for it already.

 

Why stop there Rog. Why not just tell us how you really think that Joe should get better treatment because he paid for it.

 

No, not better, just the same and under the same terms.

 

If Joe wants BETTER treatment then the option should be open for him to get it - but pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beacuse Rog, there is not enough money available to fund the care of old people, especially now as mentioned people are living longer and longer.

 

My old Aunt is in a Nursing home and had to sell her house to fund it. So? She doesn't need it. Her care costs £600+ per week, how on earth could the Government (us) afford to pay for everyone's care at these sort of prices? It's only fair that if you have the money, you pay. If you don't, you're not gonna be chucked on the street, so you get free care. Yes this is socialism, and it's a lot better than any other way.

 

The Gov lets you keep a certain amount (I think £20K?) - but as for inheritance - you make your own way in life. What your dear old Ma worked for is NOT yours.

 

It's the only way.

 

My own intentions are to work 'til I decide to retire, then sell my house and live off the proceeds along with my (if I get one at all) pension. If I am unfortunate enough to go into a home (KILL me first please) then what's left will be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Gov lets you keep a certain amount (I think £20K?)

Lets you keep indeed. That's damned generous.

 

but as for inheritance - you make your own way in life.

That should be up to whoever has saved the money in the first place.

 

What your dear old Ma worked for is NOT yours.

It's not the government's either. It's your old Ma's to do with as she chooses - or should be.

 

Rules for some and rules for others eh Alex? Do as I say and not as I'll do.

 

Nice to see the new sensitive generation coming along ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life insurance can be bought for a number of reasons. Usually someone will buy life insurance to pay off their mortgage in the event that they die prematurely and their spouse would'nt be left to try and find the rest of the money to pay off the mortgage.

 

Stav.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's HIS money.  He's paid tax on it and over a period of time a  lot more tax than Fred and if he wants to leave his wealth to his own family if they need it or not, , to the Home of Rest for Old Horses, or to the Chinese Communist Party it's HIS money and it should be up to him how it is used after his death.

 

Joe  has already paid more for the same provisions that he needs in common with Fred, and yet he is now  being double penalised simply for working harder, paying more tax, and looking after himself.

 

 

Good point, but unfortunately it isn't alway so clear cut as to the reason about benefits, costs and tax rates etc etc.

 

However also using your example, it is typical of todays society that a lot of people are more concerned/blinkered about their own welfare and would quite happily see others suffer on their own without the offer of help.

 

I think it is depressing that people in general seem to be very materialistic nowadays and don't appear to have much regard for community spirit etc,etc

 

So much for the strong and healthy looking out for the weak and the frail...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for voluntary euthanasia - given the choice of incontinence, mental stupor and the inability to look after myself, I personally would rather be dead.

 

Cheap and cheerful :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...