The Lemon Fool

AWOL wrote:In Scotland the law doesn't permit disinheriting and I must say that for all the downsides of this approach it seams farest.

Whilst I can see a point in a legal provision for "dependents", with the average age of death at around 80, it is very unlikely that anyone's offspring will still be "dependents" by the time they snuff it.

Gryff

might be 80s in England
Scotland not as high, in fact very shocking
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/news/2021 ... -decreases
Yes I know offspring won't be dependent

gryffron wrote:

AWOL wrote:In Scotland the law doesn't permit disinheriting and I must say that for all the downsides of this approach it seams farest.

Whilst I can see a point in a legal provision for "dependents", with the average age of death at around 80, it is very unlikely that anyone's offspring will still be "dependents" by the time they snuff it.

Gryff

I am not sure I understand the specific point you are making here. If it is that they won't inherit as they aren't "children" they will as they are "issue".

If it is that the children will not require support then that's not the legal question, however it cannot be assumed in all cases. Some people require lifelong external financial support, and it could be argued that it's unnatural for a family not to share wealth, regardless our state is not generous in supporting the disadvantaged so the system assumes that it is fairest to share. Most parents would not wish their surviving children to have less from life than they had. Allowing property to be passed on the one hand seams unreasonable, on the other enables parents to provide a home for offspring that may not be capable of acquiring their own or may be disturbed by the forced change.

I have tried to answer the points that I imagine you may have been raising but if I have missed the point, a common occurrence for me, then please do explain.

Dod101 wrote:Yes. If there is a surviving spouse and children of the marriage, the spouse and the children (as a class) are each entitled to 1/3rd of the movable estate. The final 1/3rd stays with estate itself and is distributed according to the Will. That applies irrespective of what the Will says and the beneficiaries have the option of accepting the terms of the Will or taking their legal rights. As I keep being reminded, consideration is being given to changing this in law but no conclusion has yet been reached.

Do you know if this division includes jointly held assets? For example, if the spouses share a joint bank account, does this all go to the survivor, or is it counted as part of the movable estate to be "thirded"?

Scott.

AWOL

I think that I was told that one thought was to require proof of dependency but that of course has difficulties in itself. I do not think that it was being proposed simply to abolish any legal right. However my solicitor said that the most likely outcome would simply be to leave the situation unchanged.

I will ask next time I am speaking to her. I am due a meeting anyway.

Dod

swill453 wrote:

Dod101 wrote:Yes. If there is a surviving spouse and children of the marriage, the spouse and the children (as a class) are each entitled to 1/3rd of the movable estate. The final 1/3rd stays with estate itself and is distributed according to the Will. That applies irrespective of what the Will says and the beneficiaries have the option of accepting the terms of the Will or taking their legal rights. As I keep being reminded, consideration is being given to changing this in law but no conclusion has yet been reached.

Do you know if this division includes jointly held assets? For example, if the spouses share a joint bank account, does this all go to the survivor, or is it counted as part of the movable estate to be "thirded"?

Scott.

We do not in Scotland have the concept of tenants in common as far as heritable property is concerned, that is what we call a house for instance but I do not know if the same applies to movable property. Logically the bank account would be held 50/50 just as a house in joint names is and so the deceased's 50% would go into the 'movable estate' pot. I do not though know that since as I am now on my own a joint account is unlikely and I have never needed to know.

On the subject of dependent offspring, as it happens, an uncle, my father's brother, had Down's syndrome or something like that such that he stayed at home throughout his parents' lives and when they died around the age of 80 or so he had to go into a home, so that would be an example of dependency. My grandfather left a considerable sum to look after this son, because he was relatively young when they died, around 43 or so (probably the cause of his affliction in the first place, a 'late' baby). He did not in fact survive very long after that anyway but these things happen.

Dod

Dod101 wrote:AWOL

I think that I was told that one thought was to require proof of dependency but that of course has difficulties in itself. I do not think that it was being proposed simply to abolish any legal right. However my solicitor said that the most likely outcome would simply be to leave the situation unchanged.

I will ask next time I am speaking to her. I am due a meeting anyway.

Dod

I suppose they could maybe look at the requirements for trusts for vulnerable people as a model. I often wonder what the running costs for trusts are. That's always put me off looking into them too closely.

To return to the original topic I think rich people have a different issue when they talk about not saddling their offspring with the curse of wealth. Those with more modest potential bequests are unlikely to view them as corrupting. Doubly so if they've ever had financial hardship in their lives. First world problems!

Since this thread started I have tried to pay more attention to what the rich have said and Daniel Craig it would seem has never said he would leave his children nothing as seems to have been reported but rather not very far from scrumpyjack's £5 million, nearer $10 million and Bill Gates has said something similar but predictably rather more.

Dod

I can see arguments for and against leaving the lot to my kids. My bigger concern is not leaving 40% to the government.

Exactly....
IHT really grates
You have used money you have already paid tax on to better yourself and your family
and when you kick the bucket it's bad enough to be taxed again but not even at your marginal rate

Dod101 wrote:Since this thread started I have tried to pay more attention to what the rich have said and Daniel Craig it would seem has never said he would leave his children nothing as seems to have been reported but rather not very far from scrumpyjack's £5 million, nearer $10 million and Bill Gates has said something similar but predictably rather more.

Yes, the whole premise of the thread was based on a tabloid headline, which is never a great idea

Lead to some interesting discussion though.

Scott.

pje16 wrote:might be 80s in England
Scotland not as high, in fact very shocking
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/news/2021 ... -decreases
Yes I know offspring won't be dependent

It's not that different...you are quoting Healthy Life Expectancy. Not more than a couple of years difference between UK and Scottish numbers.

John

Sorry John, I didn't notice that
Why does google return Health for Scotland and Life for England
when you search for for the same and just change the country

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... expectancy

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... expectancy

pje16 wrote:Sorry John, I didn't notice that
Why does google return Health for Scotland and Life for England
when you search for for the same and just change the country

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... expectancy

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... expectancy

Yes that is strange...I'm sure someone can invent a conspiracy theory to explain it

John

that's google for you
Searching is always bit hit and miss, not surprsing considering the billions of sites out there