You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Now this is more a rhetorical question than an actual one, given that I’ll now never find out the answer, but I’m curious anyway.
My Great Uncle (so, my mum’s Uncle) died a couple of weeks ago. I haven’t seen him for years and years and years, and never really knew him well at all. He was in his late 90’s and had no kids - the only family he had left was my mum.
Anyway, my mum (and, by default, my dad too) has spent a considerable amount of time over the last few years helping him out, visiting him at home, taking him shopping, cleaning, ironing, etc, etc.
And in the last 6 weeks or so of his life, she’s been busy visiting him in hospital, making sure he had everything he needed, dropping everything when the hospital called to say this is it (several times, often in the middle of the night), through to eventually arranging the funeral, clearing the house. That kind of thing. He’s relied on her a lot. And she’s had a bit of a rubbish Christmas, all being said.
Anyway, she’s just finished clearing the house and mentioned to me today that she needs to drop off the keys at the solicitors, because he’d “left everything to the RSPCA and the priest”.
Her words.
That includes the fairly big house, everything in it, and all savings and other assets.
I’m gutted for my mum. She's exhausted from it all. And then it ended just like that. I don’t know if she knew what was in his will beforehand, or if she’s only just found out. But I do know that even if she was aware that she wasn’t included, she’d have still been there to help him, and wouldn't have ever expected anything in return.
As, I guess, most people who are as kind as my mum is, would.
But I can’t help thinking… is not including any family in your will a common thing, or it it a bit of a dick move?
I can’t imagine having surviving family members that I get on well with and very much rely on, and then giving everything away to a “priest”.
Appreciate that’s it’s not always a black and white situation, but I just can’t figure it out.
Wow.
My Dad was a bit "gone" by the time he died, but luckily my older brother was made PoA early enough to ensure his will was sorted. Still, persuasion from 3rd parties can influence the older generation into making irrational decisions, as per your gt uncle. I suspect the priest had a chat. Could be wrong, but something similar could've happened to my old man.
Shame for your mum, and probably you down the line....
My aunt apparently remembered my sister and I :-). She had no children of her own
That does seem harsh on your mother. I can see why he might wanted to leave a portion to charity even a large portion with no children. But nothing seems harsh. The priest as an individual that does seem odd. I might be checking that with the relevant church......
I guess when he made the will has a big bearing on his thought process. If made say ten years ago when he was presumably relatively independent then maybe the RSPCA was his favoured option.
Leaving money to a priest does sound odd. If the money went to the Church that would be more understandable but to an individual it sounds very dubious. Do priests not have some code of conduct to follow in these situations?
Most people find it difficult to talk about death, wills etc. Not my brother in law and his wife. They have been pestering my wife's father about his will since his early 60's and have managed to persuade him to favour them in a 60:40 split - they cannot seem to wait for him to pop his clogs (sorry for off topic rant)
That's really pretty shit. I think I'd be having a free 30 minutes with a solicitor to see if there are grounds to contest. Got to be worth a phone call.
Who is executor to the will anyway? Normally it takes months to go through HMRC checks and probate before wills are even read.
The evil parasites that are the RSPCA will fight you for every penny though.
Yep the priest is odd one unless the priest was also their friend over a number of years but the RSPCA is very good. I would rather leave money to a charity than my family as the beneficiaries of the charity need the money more and are less fortunate.
I would rather leave money to a charity than my family as the beneficiaries of the charity need the money more and are less fortunate
The problem is that many charities (the RSPCA included) spend a dis-proportionate amount of money on paying salaries, paying for nice offices etc and very little of it goes back into helping those in need.
the french system doesn't allow for this - the percentage folks get is pretty much fixed, and includes shared assets even if the spouse is still alive (ie kids inherit half the house at that point in time).
My FIL changed his will before he died. Was a bit odd and 'unfair'. MIL, of course got savings and house etc etc as you would, but one sister got a £25k car, one got an ipad and laptop, and my wife got nothing.
MIL has her will equal shares to her daughters, but there won't be anything left as that's going towards care costs.
The flip side of this is that the expectation to be included in a will, or to be left with "something", is not a given. It's not like it's something you earn as you go through life. There are no rules on who gets what.
I expect zero from my parents when they go. I don't have a divine right to this, nor do my brothers, it's their estate and they can do what they want with it.
If he died without a will surely the government, or the land owner e.g. Duchy of Cornwall, would get all of it anyway?
I expect zero from my parents when they go. I don’t have a divine right to this, nor do my brothers, it’s their estate and they can do what they want with it.
I agree. I also find it odd that people expect an inheritance.
I agree. I also find it odd that people expect an inheritance.
So you wouldn't feel a little bit peeved if your parents were sitting on a big pile of cash and left it all to the Three Legged Blind Donkey Charity? Rather than helping you and your family have a better future?
If he died without a will surely the government, or the land owner e.g. Duchy of Cornwall, would get all of it anyway?
No it would pass to immediate next of kin.
I guess when he made the will has a big bearing on his thought process. If made say ten years ago when he was presumably relatively independent then maybe the RSPCA was his favoured option.
That was my gut reaction also - that he wrote it forever ago and never got around to updating it.
I agree. I also find it odd that people expect an inheritance.
I didn't *expect* an inheritance but I would have been very confused if I hadn't got one as I had very good relationships with both my parents and the modest amount I got (equally shared with my two brothers) meant we got to move into a slightly larger house with a garden at a time our little girls were needing secure outside space to play so it came in very helpful to us.
And my wife and I are already considering our children in what we do with regards to our property, pensions etc. Yes we could reach retirement, sell up and spunk it all away or give it to a charity where it could make a bit of a difference (I would always give to local charities, not the likes of RSPCA BTW) but personally we would rather be in a position to be able to help our children get on in life.
So you wouldn’t feel a little bit peeved if your parents were sitting on a big pile of cash and left it all to the Three Legged Blind Donkey Charity? Rather than helping you and your family have a better future?
This
That was my gut reaction also – that he wrote it forever ago and never got around to updating it.
Very much so, a lot of people put off making a will and even less update them.
So you wouldn’t feel a little bit peeved if your parents were sitting on a big pile of cash and left it all to the Three Legged Blind Donkey Charity? Rather than helping you and your family have a better future?
At least you’ll know you weren’t their favourite.
The problem is that many charities (the RSPCA included) spend a dis-proportionate amount of money on paying salaries, paying for nice offices etc and very little of it goes back into helping those in need.
bullshit
Rather than helping you and your family have a better future?
Personally I'd rather they did that when they were alive, and if they didn't I wouldn't suddenly expect a change of heart after their death (Not personal experience, mine were fine). Inheritance in this country needs a bit of a shake up, in fact people's attitude to money and property in general.
I feel for your mum, but you can't expect an inheritance.
I am an only child, and slowly becoming main carer for my parents. As I understand it, I'm the sole beneficiary of their will at the moment. But care costs may eventually eat up all of that, or our disagreements over Brexit may mean they decide to leave it their grandchildren, or the dogs home, or the woman who runs their favourite tea shop*, so I'm not "hoping" I'll end up with something.
*the tea shop owner is a distinct possibility actually 😄
The problem is that many charities (the RSPCA included) spend a dis-proportionate amount of money on paying salaries, paying for nice offices etc and very little of it goes back into helping those in need.
Yes, imagine, paying market rates for the charity sector, which are far below normal market rates in other sectors for equivalent roles, to enable things to be done by the charity.
Anyway, I guess it depends how your mum's finances are. If I had a decent pension, house paid off etc. then it wouldn't bother me one bit if a childless sibling decided to give the lot to charity.
Might raise my eyebrow a bit if it was the priest he left it to, but again if they had a greater need it wouldn't hugely upset me. I'd hope they would have a chat with me about it beforehand though.
Personally I’d rather they did that when they were alive,
Bit difficult if, like many, the bulk of their wealth is in the house they live in.
If it doesn't already exist, id like to see some law come into force whereby if the direct descendants of the deceased are claiming benefits (and perhaps step-children too), giving them x% trumps whatever is in the will.
The above is not going to benefit me, as far as I'm aware!
I guess any legal route would depend on whether your mum has the appetite to pursue and would want to appear mercenary. If there’s no mention of her or any family in the will, she may be able to follow that route- or you as a great nephew if she didn’t.
IIRC when Peter Sellars died he had changed his will so his kids from an earlier marriage got a token £100 and his current wife that didn’t get on well with them got the bulk. They tried to challenge the will but as they were expressly mentioned there was no recourse. Had they not been referenced there was the possibility of making a successful claim.
Obviously that was in the late 70s/ early 80s so things could be different these days and a niece may not be as direct a relation as a child.
Bit of naivety about charities in this thread. Remember Oxfam? They're not all as good as gold.
Anyway, my Dad has made abundantly clear my sister and I are getting nothing from his will - it's going to his new wife and the child he's had with her. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little bit peeved, but I've not let it affect our relationship. Money really does bring out the worst in a lot of people...
bullshit
Thank you for your reasoned response backed up as it was with proof that my statement was, indeed, bullshit.
Maybe him and the priest were in love?
Personally I’d rather they did that when they were alive
But often wealth is tied up in property which is then released upon the sale after the deaths of the parents.
I guess when he made the will has a big bearing on his thought process
My first thought as well.
Just yesterday there was something in the news about a will be overruled, A woman who seemed to make a habit of getting into relationships with elderly rich women with the same name even had the second inheritance overruled in favour of the son who had been left nothing. It was a bit more complex due to arguments over the way a trust fund had been drawn up but wills are not absolute and can be challenged.
Anyway, my Dad has made abundantly clear my sister and I are getting nothing from his will – it’s going to his new wife and the child he’s had with her.
In Scots Law you can’t disinherit your children or your spouse *
*Terms and conditions apply
The flip side of this is that the expectation to be included in a will, or to be left with “something”, is not a given.
In Scotland it kinda is. See above
If it doesn’t already exist, id like to see some law come into force whereby if the direct descendants of the deceased are claiming benefits (and perhaps step-children too), giving them x% trumps whatever is in the will.
Personally I think inheritance tax should be MUCH higher. like 80%+ (and close the loopholes).
It's probably the only tax you could raise to 100% and not penalize anyone. At best you're going to spend it on a bigger house and just pass it on to your kids keeping them in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. At worst you spend it on coke/hookers/a camper van/yachts and there's nothing left.
Ok so the idea of getting a windfall when your parents die is sort of nice, but it just keeps the middle classes and above in the middle class and above.
Anyway, my Dad has made abundantly clear my sister and I are getting nothing from his will – it’s going to his new wife and the child he’s had with her. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a little bit peeved, but I’ve not let it affect our relationship. Money really does bring out the worst in a lot of people…
Yeah, I'd be very peeved if one of my parents had done this, and wouldn't dream of doing it to my children despite having split with their mother.
Personally I think inheritance tax should be MUCH higher. like 80%+ (and close the loopholes).
It’s probably the only tax you could raise to 100% and not penalize anyone. At best you’re going to spend it on a bigger house and just pass it on to your kids keeping them in the lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed. At worst you spend it on coke/hookers/a camper van/yachts and there’s nothing left.
Ok so the idea of getting a windfall when your parents die is sort of nice, but it just keeps the middle classes and above in the middle class and above.
So that money going back to the Treasury would be directly fed back to those in need? There's wishful thinking and then there's pure fantasy.
No it would pass to immediate next of kin.
I forgot that bit, in the absence of a next of kin it goes to UK plc
I can understand some people being annoyed if their parents gave all their cash to RSPCA or some other organisation but... it is their money and they can do whatever they want with it.
Just because your parents have assets, they are their assets, not yours. That's life.
What do I do with mine? If both me and my other half die there is hundreds of thousands to be distributed. I have no children. My parents do not need it, my sister does not need it. I don't see why my nephews should get rich not t'missus nephews and nieces none of who we have seen for a decade
We have set it up so nieces and nephews get a few thousand each as do some friends. A big all expenses paid party and the rest in trust for education / a start in life for descendants of our parents.
What do I do with mine?
Perchy’s Home for Bewildered Panthers.
What do I do with mine? If both me and my other half die there is hundreds of thousands to be distributed. I have no children.
I’ve always liked you T`J and agree with your view on helmets.
We have set it up so nieces and nephews get a few thousand each as do some friends. A big all expenses paid party and the rest in trust for education / a start in life for descendants of our parents.
Lovely move.
Surely it is should be Perchy’s Home for Rewilding Panthers in the Highlands
tjagain
Member
What do I do with mine? If both me and my other half die there is hundreds of thousands
Hello my favourite STWer!!
How much is tied up in Putoline stocks?
Surely it is should be Perchy’s Home for Rewilding Panthers in the Highlands
Maybe. I’m somewhat bewildered of late
Three Legged Blind Donkey Charity?
A wonky sanctuary
+1 for its his money/estate to do what he likes with it. If I ever have anything left it will be going to a charity of my choosing. I don’t expect anything to come to me from my Nan + Parents when they go, yes a nice bonus if there is but not counting on it. I take care of my Nan because I love her and want her to have best quality of life that she has remaining, not because I see £££ in front of my eyes
*edit* TJ my fees are quite reasonable if you want me to spread your ashes on a Munro somewhere
I feel for your mum, but you can’t expect an inheritance.
Doesn't sound to me like she did.
*edit* TJ my fees are quite reasonable if you want me to spread your ashes on a Munro somewhere
Other dry cleaners are available
Whoa. This blew up.
I was a bit hesitant to post this because I thought it might make me sound bitter that nothing was coming in my (or my mum’s) direction. That’s certainly not the case, and I know for sure that’s not the case for my mum either. She doesn’t need an inheritance at all, and was certainly not expecting one. She’s a good person.
I guess my point was that if it was me who was dying and I had family ‘supporting’ me then I like to think I’d want to return that help in whatever form I could.
I’m not sure I could live with myself knowing that my family is giving up a lot of time and energy looking after me, and that I’m going to thank them by giving everything I’ve got to... a priest.
Dunno. Just trying to figure out what he might have been thinking. Hence the rhetorical question.
Maybe he did write the will years ago and just never got round to changing it. Simple as that.
Guess we’ll never know.
Maybe if you’re dying the last thing on your mind is “I wonder if my will is up to date”
The evil parasites that are the RSPCA will fight you for every penny though.
I believe Charities have a legal duty laid upon them by the Charity Commission to safeguard their income by litigating disputes of this kind. They have no choice in the matter.
Up to a point both my wife and I feel that part of our role is to make sure that after we die, our children get something from us that helps them in life. If it’s enough to pay a chunk of their mortgage or similar - so much the better. I would hope that our children as they get older, would expect an equal share of our estate from us - minus some charitable donations etc.
Obviously, although pretty comfortable - we are not hugely wealthy. If we had a likely more sizeable estate, we would probably a). Make more charitable bequests and; b). Pay inheritance tax - which hopefully might help the less well off.
Maybe him and the priest were in love?
or even just particularly long standing friends.
If I had just one niece who was a grown adult with their own children (who barely even know me, and I haven't seen for years), and that niece was in a relatively comfortable financial position [mortgage paid, pension coming in - what do they actually need more money for] I might well be thinking that a close friend who perhaps has little was "more deserving". I have no idea how close the priest was, not what your mother's financial position is - but its possible that he thought she would do nothing with it, and in turn it would just become yours. Now given the choice between the money going to a great nephew who I haven't seen in years and barely knew or going to a good friend, who probably doesn't have much in the way of assets (priests tend to live in accommodation provided by the church) I could see it being a relatively rational decision.
Had he known how much he would rely on your mother in the last six weeks of his life he might have seen it differently. But that is only about 0.1% of his whole life, so you have to balance that, against friends and charities that he's associated with for many decades. Indeed if he was actually very close to the priest for 40 yrs and had left it all to your mum, then the priest might well be posting on SingleChurchWorld saying he felt she had just popped up in the last few months to get her inheritance.
I hate the way inheritance means that the lucky keep their offspring lucky, and so on - ensuring that someones prospects in life, and even their children's are in part linked to their grandparents financial prudence, and not living too long. As life expectancy increases it seems to me that the people most likely to inherit are themselves likely getting older and less likely to have their lives radically improved by a lump sum - so why not give it to someone who would.
Perchy is right - but the limitation is only to the moveable property - given that usually the biggest part of the estate is the heritable property you can still make sure your kids know you resent them / their choice of partner! There is however nothing to stop you disinheriting your niece, even in Scotland.
Maybe if you’re dying the last thing on your mind is “I wonder if my will is up to date”
It’s been my experience with dying people that ‘putting their affairs in order’ is actually quite high on their list of priorities.
id like to see some law come into force whereby if the direct descendants of the deceased are claiming benefits (and perhaps step-children too), giving them x% trumps whatever is in the will.
Nice idea but perhaps over-simplistic. It rather assumes that everyone gets on with their family and the kids aren't wrong 'uns. Would you want hundreds of thousands of pounds automatically going to an estranged son with an extensive criminal record and a raging Class A habit who you kicked out of the house twenty years ago?
As life expectancy increases it seems to me that the people most likely to inherit are themselves likely getting older and less likely to have their lives radically improved by a lump sum
Aside from the house you're in, there are means of transferring your money other than just "death." In that situation, why not pass on some of the inheritance earlier whilst you can still watch your kids / grandchildren enjoy it? Pay for University tuition fees or a family holiday maybe.
Maybe if you’re dying the last thing on your mind is “I wonder if my will is up to date”
Some don’t have time, they don’t have the capacity or indeed just don’t give it a thought.
Or maybe to avoid arguments of who got more then others they dump it outside the family.
Random (unpleasant) thought and it'd be hard to prove but, is it possible he was persuaded into doing what he did?
@poly - that all makes sense and sounds perfectly rational. You’ve assumed/described my mum’s financial position pretty accurately, and I hadn’t really considered the situation in this way. Thanks.
So that money going back to the Treasury would be directly fed back to those in need? There’s wishful thinking and then there’s pure fantasy.
Nope, but those governments* made sure you were born safely, educated, fed and housed if you fell on hard times, provided infrastructure for you to make money, kept you safe, paid you a pension through old age, and kept you alive as long as practicable.
Doesnt need to be hypothecated into social welfare to do more good than perpetuate a middle class.
Which would be better, a few percent more on income tax stifling everyones spending power. Or cutting a massively unequally distributed windfall?
*of varying colours and enthusiasm for raising taxes and spending money.
I believe Charities have a legal duty laid upon them by the Charity Commission to safeguard their income by litigating disputes of this kind. They have no choice in the matter.
I'm not sure its quite as clear cut as that. Trustees have a duty to safeguard the assets bit they do have a choice, because at the very least they need to balance the potential cost of the litigation well as all the other downsides of litigation (time, effort, reputation, impact on future donations etc). The commission has guidance for trustees - it could be read to be pretty much against taking litigation in all but the most extreme cases (when you'd think those advising the other side might be advising their client not to fight it).
. However if there is a seemingly valid will that leaves half of an estate including a "large house" to a large charity like the RSPCA its difficult to see why they would not expect the executor to perform their duties.
Perchy is right – but the limitation is only to the moveable property ......There is however nothing to stop you disinheriting your niece, even in Scotland.
Those are the T&C’s I mentioned
I m pretty sure I heard on r4 moneybox a similar story where all the inheritance went to a charity, the charity refunded it. I ll have a search but it would have been in the last 2 years. I assume it was due to the charity knowing it could be challenged successfully.
If it were me I would seek legal advice, the marketing by charities to clearly pensioners to remember them in their wills is clearly questionable.
Sorry I cannot remember the precise podcast but it was deffo r4 so moneybox or moneybox live. Usually pretty reliable.
OP, is it possible your Great Uncle asked your mum whether she wanted to be in the will, and she refused as she didn't need the money (and didn't want to appear to be in it for the wrong reason?)
My parents looked after my dad's Aunt and Uncle for their last few years. Dad was their executor, and they both did an awful lot for the elders. It was mentioned they were going to be in another copy of the will, and my parents declined. Don't need the money, and were doing it for family anyway. Nice position to be in and all that.
OP, is it possible your Great Uncle asked your mum whether she wanted to be in the will, and she refused as she didn’t need the money (and didn’t want to appear to be in it for the wrong reason?)
Yep, that’s absolutely possible, too. My wife actually suggested exactly this earlier this evening.
Sounds like your folks were in a similar position to mine.
Random (unpleasant) thought and it’d be hard to prove but, is it possible he was persuaded into doing what he did?
Like the first reply said. I know my dad nearly was persuaded by a wrongun.
tjagain
Member
What do I do with mine? If both me and my other half die there is hundreds of thousands to be distributed.
Cake?
My mother recently had her will rewritten to change the bit where, if I were to die before her, my share of her estate would not be split equally between 'my children', as it previously said, but now names my step-daughter and my two boys as getting a third each. Just to make it crystal clear that she expects it to be shared between all three of them, not just my natural children. Which I think is very thoughtful of her. I would hope the boys would come to that conclusion by themselves, but you never know do you...
Our elderly neighbour expired last year, he was very clear in his will that his immediate family (brothers etc) wouldn't get a penny (historic family fall out) and it went to his niece, god daughter, a few friends and then the RNLI and a Hospital Charity.
We helped with the house clearance and some of his immediate family turned up to "help", as in look around for bits and pieces they wanted and got everybody to sort the old photos out for them. As soon as they got what they wanted they buggered off and left the rest of us to finish the work so I can see why they weren't included in the will.
I believe Charities have a legal duty laid upon them by the Charity Commission to safeguard their income by litigating disputes of this kind. They have no choice in the matter.I’m not sure its quite as clear cut as that. Trustees have a duty to safeguard the assets bit they do have a choice, because at the very least they need to balance the potential cost of the litigation well as all the other downsides of litigation (time, effort, reputation, impact on future donations etc). The commission has guidance for trustees – it could be read to be pretty much against taking litigation in all but the most extreme cases (when you’d think those advising the other side might be advising their client not to fight it).
. However if there is a seemingly valid will that leaves half of an estate including a “large house” to a large charity like the RSPCA its difficult to see why they would not expect the executor to perform their duties.
With respect, I think you're both looking at this down the wrong end of the telescope: the fundamental duty of trustees is to the beneficiaries of the charity and their best interests. Income and assets are just vehicles for that. Crucially, this is not necessarily going to be the same as what is in the best interest of the charity. So that's the basis for trustees judging that, if someone's left them a couple of £million house in a will, they are duty bound to receive it since the aggrieved relative isn't who they are there to serve.
Other times the judgement is different and might change: a few years ago the trustees of, I think, the Royal British Legion felt similarly duty bound to accept a donation from the BNP. Until it all kicked off and they changed their minds and sent the cheque back, having reached the judgement that the reputational damage which was being incurred was more deleterious to the interests of their beneficiaries than the value of the donation. But they would have been acting improperly (arguably) if they'd rejected it because they found it distasteful personally - it wasn't their money after all, they hold assets in trust for their beneficiaries.
EDIT: Dunno what I've cocked up with the nested quotes, sorry about that.
Nope, but those governments* made sure you were born safely, educated, fed and housed if you fell on hard times, provided infrastructure for you to make money, kept you safe, paid you a pension through old age, and kept you alive as long as practicable.
Doesnt need to be hypothecated into social welfare to do more good than perpetuate a middle class.
Which would be better, a few percent more on income tax stifling everyones spending power. Or cutting a massively unequally distributed windfall?
Do you think that 100% tax back to the treasury would be measurably better than money given to the families of people that earned what they had? Money that those people will then spend (ie, like myself - I bought a house which attracted sale/purchase costs and the ongoing cost of maintaining and upgrading - I have directly paid many local tradesmen significant sums, much more than they would have got had my parents have to give their lives’ effort back to the Treasury.
My mum died last year and left some money after paying out a fair chunk of care costs. The money I got left in the will I gave to my cousin who had done lots for my mum over the last few years of her life and deserved the money much more than me.
Even the Milibands got a judge to rewrite a will to avoid inheritance tax.....
If she is miffed she can get legal advice.
RSPCA specifically target legacies so read into that what you will. They do go to court to defend their income.
Priest could be similar, just because he is a "man of God" doesn't mean he doesn't want a comfortable retirement
It's very, very unlikely to happen but there is a strong case for 100% inheritance tax.
+ You would create a massive incentive for the living to use their assets productively and not sit on piles of cash*
+ It'd do wonders for social mobility. I've never quite managed to square the circle of why the Tories love the idea of individuals striving to improve their lot with the transfer of vast amounts of unearned wealth.
+ Could be used to reduce other regressive taxes like VAT
*It would be genuinely transformative. As an example, there are 20 houses on my road. All 3 or 4 large family houses, 10 of them occupied by elderly people on their own. At the moment they're stuck - there's nowhere for them to go and no incentive to go. Introduce 100% inheritance and suddenly you'll have folk clamouring to downsize, the market you would hope would start delivering better retirement accommodation and family homes start becoming available. This would be a massive economic stimulus and have huge societal benefits. Old people no longer rattling about in unsuitable homes that they can't maintain while sitting on a pile of cash, waiting to die.
Inheritance tax is one of those things where our political system is failing us - there's a consensus among all main parties that it can't be changed but it can and it would be good. I have no idea why people with no money or wealth in family accept it really.
Agreed that the Tory ideas of individuals' responsibility for their situation and the ease of passing on wealth are so incompatible as to be a joke (and yet sucked up by their voters).
t rather assumes that everyone gets on with their family and the kids aren’t wrong ‘uns. Would you want hundreds of thousands of pounds automatically going to an estranged son with an extensive criminal record and a raging Class A habit who you kicked out of the house twenty years ago?
Nice view you have of people on benefits there Cougar.
I've seen legal claims for contested wills in a professional capacity and they always turn very nasty and usually do not have the outcome the claimant wants.
I think in this position your parents have no chance as they were not and never were financially dependent on your uncle so they don't have (as far as I am aware) any legal grounds to contest unless they feel your uncle was coerced into changing his will. If he hadn't changed it reasonably close to his death there wouldn't be much chance of this.
As to the money side - I've lost out on two significant inheritances - one my gran's and one my dad's but I've not contested either. In fact on my dad's - as it was under French law - I specifically signed the lot over to his wife as to otherwise would have truly left her in the shit.
I had no 'right' to the money and whilst it would have really helped me out at the time there's bigger battles to fight in life.
Do you think that 100% tax back to the treasury would be measurably better than money given to the families of people that earned what they had? Money that those people will then spend (ie, like myself – I bought a house which attracted sale/purchase costs and the ongoing cost of maintaining and upgrading – I have directly paid many local tradesmen significant sums, much more than they would have got had my parents have to give their lives’ effort back to the Treasury.
I think you illustrated the point perfectly by pointing out that your family earnt it. You didnt, you just won the conception lottery.
This is not a personal attack on you. Its an argument against a system that keeps rich families rich.
And yes I absolutely do think it would be better. The treasury has a book to balance, in this case were arguing whether a minority of the well off should be taxed on an unearned windfall Vs the majority being taxed on their income.
Finger in the air, back ofna fag packet calculation, making no allowances for care costs etc. On average everyone has half a house, some people dont, some people have several buy to lets, so on average 1 house per dying couple. About £270k, or £1.5k per year per person (average life expectancy somewhere in the 80s, so divide the house price by 160). The equivelent of putting about 3p on the basic rate of income tax. Thats a huge difference.
My aunt appointed my mum (her SIL) as executer of the estate, it came as a surprise to my mum as my aunt had a brother but no children but she often looked after my brother and I when we were little. However my mum had a good friendship with her and had helped her out and visited regularly as she had always been in poor health, the brother didn't and they hadn't seen each other for over a year.
We didn't know she had any assets and wouldn't have expected anything anyway. It came as a surprise to find out that she had a sizeable estate and that she wasn't leaving it to her brother. She had donated the lot to Cancer Research! We all thought that was brilliant and hadn't expected such benevolence which would benefit millions. The brother wasn't so impressed and wanted to contest it, we were told that there was no chance as charities do persue aggressively. I'm so proud of my aunt
I think in this position your parents have no chance
There’s no question of whether anyone’s going to contest it. No-one’s miffed, or expecting any kind of payout. I just found the situation as described in my OP a bit weird - but then I’ve had very little experience of family bereavements... all my grandparents lived into their late 90’s.
I think this kind of things are quite common and thats why there has been a radio and TV campaign about it.
Lets talk about money i think it was called.My guess is it is the typical British reserve thing , talking about money , income , savings and ultimatly wills and the bequeths (sp) therein.
It is a difficult subject because you have to say you are going to die and leave behind some things , and possibly money. No one really wants those life expectancy defining conversations as they are going to mostly be with your own parents , who raised you and have been there , then won'tbe around anymore.
Yes , it is strange that the OP relative left money to his priest , but if he has been there for years and they became friends then maybe not so strange
This should serve as a reminder to all of us over 40s to get a will sorted out. November is the best time as it's WillAid month.
It's also important to check/update your will every 5 years due to changing circumstances, attitudes etc.
Additionally, power of attorney should be considered too. I don't want to depress you but if you had a nasty crash with a significant head injury, who would make the decisions for you that meet your wishes?
Stay safe kids!
This should serve as a reminder to all of us over 40s to get a will sorted out. November is the best time as it’s WillAid month.
For anyone who has any form of assets or relationships and in particular kids should have a will. It's not just the over 40's who die sometimes...
t rather assumes that everyone gets on with their family and the kids aren’t wrong ‘uns. Would you want hundreds of thousands of pounds automatically going to an estranged son with an extensive criminal record and a raging Class A habit who you kicked out of the house twenty years ago?
Nice view you have of people on benefits there Cougar.
WHAT? I don't think Cougar even mentioned people on benefits. That was you that made that connection wasn't it?