Inheritance treated as a 'hand out'

Who is making the "loss with inheritance VS no loss and no inheritance" argument?? Has this ever actually happened to you? Or are you just pushing a pathetic straw man argument.

I don't begrudge anyone an inheritance and I don't feel jealous because to get that money they've lost someone, but. When there is no money in your family you lose someone anyway. Inheritance money can be a huge difference to someone's life and so it is a privilege. Not one you've asked for or sought or necessarily wanted but it is something that most of us who lose our loved ones don't get. Would it make it easier? Would you grieve less? No, of course not, but it's not nothing.

I agree, very disrespectful. You'll find thr people making those comments are highly jealous, and probably don't have the same inheritance so that is the reason for their remarks.

See I dont see the difference in saying "at least you have the house" to "at least you don't need to worry about a roof over your head". Both are minimising the persons loss and implying they are in some way lucky. You can think it. People can think anything. And it may well be true. But I don't think it's right to say either of those things to someone. Regardless of whether or not there's an inheritance why don't you just leave it at "oh that's a shame." I wouldn't say to someone who's lost a sibling well at least you have another one after one died. And if someone suffers from secondary infertility saying well at least you have one child. (And I'm sure plenty of people who can't been able to have kids at all may think this, me included at times, but you don't say it. It minimises the other persons sadness and isn't necessary.) I think in cases of death, people shouldn't really try and find a bright side. It doesn't really help.

Spot on. I didn't get an inheritance when my Dad died and my friend did when her mum passed away, we were both earning minimum wage at the time. It never even crossed my mind that money would make my situation better or that she was 'fortunate'. If another person feels differently then of course their opinion is equally valid and should be respected. It's a bit like saying my grief would have been far worse if I'd have been born with just one arm and got no inheritance.

I’ll eventually inherit half of my parents house/money. I adore my parents and I can’t even think about losing them without getting upset, however any money I eventually receive will be gratefully received and I’ll see it as a massive privilege. Of course I’d trade it all for extra time with them but ultimately the natural order is that we’ll outlive our parents.

I'm reading that differently. By sweat to earn I'm imagining eg a first generation immigrant scrimping and working overtime to buy a modest home so they had something to pass on to their children. Sweat implying hard work and earnt wealth rather than inherited wealth. Of course there are zlso many hardworking people who dint manage to accumulate much at all through no fault of their own.

See I dont see the difference in saying "at least you have the house" to "at least you don't need to worry about a roof over your head". Both are minimising the persons loss and implying they are in some way lucky. You can think it. People can think anything. And it may well be true. But I don't think it's right to say either of those things to someone. Regardless of whether or not there's an inheritance why don't you just leave it at "oh that's a shame." I wouldn't say to someone who's lost a sibling well at least you have another one after one died. And if someone suffers from secondary infertility saying well at least you have one child. (And I'm sure plenty of people who can't been able to have kids at all may think this, me included at times, but you don't say it. It minimises the other persons sadness and isn't necessary.) I think in cases of death, people shouldn't really try and find a bright side. It doesn't really help.

I think this one is on you and you're being over sensitive and judgemental. On the whole I'd say most people don't imply it's a great deal as if in some way you've swapped a loved one for money. I'm sure it happens but it's not something I've personally experienced or heard of. Most people would much prefer that person to still be in the
I think it would be insensitive to respond to someone who's just told you their last parent has died with 'oh that's a shame. Never mind though, you have the house' ....but I've never heard that.
I think it's fine to say 'oh luckily he had a good pension/insurance' or 'well at least you don't have to worry about a roof over your head.' No one's implying you prefer the money to your husband.
My widowed mum will likely leave her home to me and my sister. I'll be pleased to get that money. It will help me out enormously....but it won't stop me wishing my mum was still around.

When people say that they may well have the benefit of a significant inheritance "but losing your parents is a terrible price to pay"... Please remember that those of us who don't benefit from any kind of inheritance still suffer the pain of losing our parents... Our children lose treasured grandparents... To have a life changing financial gift left behind is indeed a massive advantage for many people, please don't minimise that.

Yeah it can cause bad feeling. Mr Monkey's mum died suddenly when he was in his early twenties. She didn't have much but she did have a very decent death in service benefit from her work.

Turned out she nominated their youngest brother (who was 18 at the time). As a not very mature 18 year old he blew some of it on living it up for a few years but did use the rest as a house deposit so got on the housing ladder a lot younger than the rest. It has caused a lot of resentment over the years with the other 4 siblings as he likes to say how hard he worked for his house unlike the siblings who don't own. It is particularly painful for one sister who due to illness is now on benefits and privately rents.

No one knows why their mum made the decision she did but it has poisoned the family.

Mr Monkey tries to stay out of it as we have our own life and are lucky enough to have decent jobs and own a nice flat in London.

@Birch101 but it is luck-the beneficiaries might work hard etc etc but it’s purely down to chance that they were born to people who had enough to leave. As opposed to those who weren’t. My friends’ kids will inherit a lot-one of them is unemployed and lives off his parents and the other works in a cafe. They’ll end up being millionaires-nothing to do with their hard work but purely who their parents are.

If my relative was sufficiently wealthy that they were able to live their life to the full, pay to have their care needs adequately met and for any other extras that made their life comfortable AND leave a legacy, then that would be wonderful.
However, the thought of the previous generation working every hour God sends, scrimping, saving, sacrificing (aka on here as 'being sensible') worrying that the cost of having the heating on or paying for care was depleting their money, all with their legacy in mind is actually quite upsetting.
As for leaving their money to charity, well provided it wasn't a gesture of spite or control, and was based in a genuine desire for their money to help those needing it, that's entirely to be respected.
Would I rather have a sizeable handout that the money go to a donkey sanctuary? Of course I would. Otherwise I'd donate all my own spare cash to help donkeys, but im not that altruistic. But would I be gnashing my teeth about how unfair it was? No. It's their money, their choice.

I will have an inheritance. My mum was raised hand to mouth in a large family and she became a primary school teacher (so not lucrative by anymeans) my bonus dad also raised in a large family just getting by and became a bus mechanic (again no large wage checks in his life). Before anyone thinks oh but what about my bio dad (school caretaker and will have no financial inheritance)
My inheritance comes from their hard work, smart financial planning (stocks, pensions, ISA, life insurance, only having 2 children, low key holidays, 2nd hand simple cars, no lavish life style, etc)
I was looking at life insurance yesterday and the options to provide my child with a lump sum when I pass away - I'm a part time NHS admin worker

My point is inheritance whilst yes financially advantageous is not reserved for high earners, and the suggestion it was luck would offend me and them too. My parents worked, earned, saved to provide and my inheritance is down to their choices and sacrifices.

Yabu. I don't tend to believe that many people would give all the thousands back for one more hug. It doesn't mean they aren't grieving or loved the person but money especially lots of it has a strange effect on people.
Loads of people already spending their inheritance in their head.
I saw how weird and nasty people were around money and death years ago and decided to create my own wealth. It doesn't mean I don't want my inheritance though because that is more than money.

Can I put another spin on this ? (Probably needs a new thread on its own to be fair)

Would you feel cheated if a parent/grandparent was quite well off and you found out they DIDN'T leave you anything other than a token amount?

As has been said previously, most people would gladly forego their inheritance for a few more years with their loved one. My dad died 20 years ago and left everything to me, and nothing to my 2 sisters. His argument for this was that they didn't make any attempt to keep in touch with him, in fact one of them had not had any contact at all with any of us since she left home about 25 years earlier. (I didn't know where she lived but I did know, via a friend, where she worked) She still has a massive chip on her shoulder about this. To be honest it's been more of a burden than a blessing. The money wasn't an earth shattering amount, not enough to change my life, so it was invested. It is my intention to pass most of this onto my grandchildren.

Most people who haven't much money dream about what they'd do with an inheritance but the sad realisation is that it can cause more problems than it solves. I'm talking here of fairly modest amounts, say between £25K -100K. Sure, it can give you a step up on the housing ladder, but what about those in poorer circumstances who don't earn enough for a modest mortgage regardless of a hefty deposit. Or those whose benefits stop because of the amount of savings they have. A smaller amount might buy a decent car or pay for a nice holiday etc but it's not going to change your life.

Receiving any windfall is nice, whatever the source, and dreaming about what to spend it on is part of the joy. But if your parent/grandparent thought the money would be better given to charity, would you feel cheated?

Oh give over OP. Of course it's lucky/a windfall/a privilege to be left lots of money no matter how tragic the circumstances!!! Everyone will die, not everyone will leave a large sum of money for their families to benefit from.

I haven't got the idea anywhere. I said the opposite- that loving children surely would want that. All the loving children I know do.
My point was in response to the suggestion of people working their fingers to the bone all their lives to provide inheritance. If they work excessively for this purpose, I think its a shame given that would hopefully not be what their beneficiaries would have wanted.

I'd have thought loving children would want their psrents to enjoy their own wealth, and perhaps work a little less hard, even if that meant they would inherit less.

Wherever have you got the idea that people don't want to their parent's to enjoy the money they worked hard for? DH and I are both from working class backgrounds and inheritances aren't something either of our parents received or something we grew up expecting to be a thing. I keep telling my Mum to spend her money, that I don't want it, but she finds it hard to decide what is 'worth wasting her money on'. That's because she grew up poor and in the days where you don't ask for help and also the ridiculous idea that accepting benefits from the Goverment was considered shameful for some reason. You would sooner go without eating. The things she considers not worth 'wasting' money on are always things the majority of people would consider to be basic necessities in life like replacing a broken boiler so she can have access to running hot water. It's like a mental block for many people of her generation who grew up with very little therefore had to develop excellent budgeting skills to survive.

We must be very selfish. We worked to provide ourselves with financial security, we’ve saved for potential care home fees and we spend our income on living a nice
life. If there’s anything left when we die our kids will get a windfall, if not they won’t. I can’t say I’m particularly bothered either way - I’ll be dead.

I'd imagine it was a combination of wanting to enjoy their lives and provide for their dependent families. Hopefully leaving money for adult children who are capable of working themselves didn't cause them to strive beyond their capacity or sacrifice too much of their own comfort. I'd have thought loving children would want their psrents to enjoy their own wealth, and perhaps work a little less hard, even if that meant they would inherit less.

I wonder why such people worked so hard. Might it be that they wanted to leave some of their hard earned money to make life easier for their children. This is a pretty universal human instinct often ignored by the envious and chancellors of the exchequer.

I deal with probate as my career. The majority of people would give every penny up to have their loved ones back. Then there’s the other group who are calling for their inheritance before the person has even been buried. “Nout queer as folk”

OK, please identify the other periods in UK history where house prices have increased in the same way as they have in the last 40 years, both in real terms and in relation to median wages.

Of course it's luck! People don't get to choose who their parents are are. A child is lucky if their parents are well off and able to save.

A child whose parents are not well off or able to save hasn't done anything wrong, but they are put at a disadvantage in life.

Plus, not everybody's parents worked hard. In some cases, wealth is passed down over multiple generations, which gives each generation an advantage over others. Such as wealth generated from the slave trade

Additionally, what has happened to property prices in the UK over the last few decades is absolutely not an established trend and very much a new one. It goes way beyond the normal advantages of owning land that you mention, and certainly isn't like the 50s and 60s.

I strongly disagree if you look at a graph of house prices in the UK since the 50s, there's a very obvious steep upward trend. Of course you get some slight peaks and troughs but that's true of any investment, that's how investments work. I'm not sure pretending otherwise is particularly helpful to anyone. My house is now worth pretty much what I predicted it would be now when I bought it 10 years ago. It's easy enough to learn how this works by looking on Rightmove, which shows you house price histories. Housing is always going to be in demand and a sound investment as is food, clothing and utilities basically anything people are using on a day to day basis.

Every generation has times of recession and inflation, this is nothing new and yes life is harder at some stages due to the overall state of the economy. There's a clear argument that economics and budgeting should be better taught in school, I'm not sure why it isn't. ?