Don't wanna sound ominous but in our tiny little country (in Europe) there has been a change in legal practice that may influence inheritance a great deal.
If someone gets money from the state because unemployed then the country/state/municipality will claim money in that amount from any inheritance left to them or from them, or eg take the house. (This happened before for people in homes for the elderly too or eg someone with Down's Syndrome in a shared facility/home, though that kinda still made some sense, relatives still had the option to care for the elderly at home, and in some cases costs for care are not that small... though sometimes still exaggerated!!) It's new with regard to unemployment and such.
The way it was explained to me: if you get money support and your parents leave you a house, you'll still be able to live there, but after you die, your children/brothers or sisters/partner/other relatives will have a problem. (this can become important if you're one of the children/brothers and sisters/relatives too...)
The country and municipalities are kinda broke and need money... I understand that, and some people may have exploited the system, for anyone with kids it still doesn't seem 'fair'... Especially if you look at how much money our fair politicians and brave economists or 'tycoons' (super-turbo-capitalists) have wasted on stupid or unimportant things (like incinerators or non-eco-friendly public buildings or projects, or their own paychecks!!) or new yachts or $$$ sent to the 'tax-free havens' etc, while destroying companies and sending workers to the streets! (and not even paying them last paychecks!)
Do they want the kids of those workers to live in the streets then?? Or just expect everyone to 'rent' (and of course keep giving them money, yikes?!!) Would the poor no longer have right to property?? (This could become eerily close to homeless people in the streets in India-??) This can soon sound much like socialism/communism/turbo capitalism again-?? (There was no right of property in socialism/communism for a while..)
If you don't have any kids or relatives or stuff you could inherit with/from others, and don't plan any, or if you're rich enough to afford to 'pay off' the money (but then why would you be getting money assistance in the first place??) or if you live in a climate where you can live under a fig tree in peace, this may not seem like a big deal, but otherwise this can imo cause big problems.
Even if you have so much sa that you think this won't affect you, things can change in the future and you may end up with kids (or siblings/other relatives) and may wish to leave them something after you die.
The wording is that there is an option to not claim that money if the remaining relatives can't afford to pay, but the word 'can' can be misused... it has been already..
Before and even now, the wording has been 'can claim money to be repaid' too, and in practice some municipalities chose to claim the money after the people died, and some didn't. Now, word is that all will claim the money, and it is still uncertain if they will claim the money for before this was announced too... like if you got assistance a few years ago too.. (There is a law process right now, someone refused to pay, because it wasn't made known at the time, we are waiting what will happen...)
I don't know how it's like out there in the world, in other countries? Get informed and read everything before you sign any papers!! And do tell if you know anything!
If you desperately need money assistance of course this will probably not change your mind, but if you don't need it that much - THINK TWICE!!
If someone gets money from the state because unemployed then the country/state/municipality will claim money in that amount from any inheritance left to them or from them, or eg take the house. (This happened before for people in homes for the elderly too or eg someone with Down's Syndrome in a shared facility/home, though that kinda still made some sense, relatives still had the option to care for the elderly at home, and in some cases costs for care are not that small... though sometimes still exaggerated!!) It's new with regard to unemployment and such.
The way it was explained to me: if you get money support and your parents leave you a house, you'll still be able to live there, but after you die, your children/brothers or sisters/partner/other relatives will have a problem. (this can become important if you're one of the children/brothers and sisters/relatives too...)
The country and municipalities are kinda broke and need money... I understand that, and some people may have exploited the system, for anyone with kids it still doesn't seem 'fair'... Especially if you look at how much money our fair politicians and brave economists or 'tycoons' (super-turbo-capitalists) have wasted on stupid or unimportant things (like incinerators or non-eco-friendly public buildings or projects, or their own paychecks!!) or new yachts or $$$ sent to the 'tax-free havens' etc, while destroying companies and sending workers to the streets! (and not even paying them last paychecks!)
Do they want the kids of those workers to live in the streets then?? Or just expect everyone to 'rent' (and of course keep giving them money, yikes?!!) Would the poor no longer have right to property?? (This could become eerily close to homeless people in the streets in India-??) This can soon sound much like socialism/communism/turbo capitalism again-?? (There was no right of property in socialism/communism for a while..)
If you don't have any kids or relatives or stuff you could inherit with/from others, and don't plan any, or if you're rich enough to afford to 'pay off' the money (but then why would you be getting money assistance in the first place??) or if you live in a climate where you can live under a fig tree in peace, this may not seem like a big deal, but otherwise this can imo cause big problems.
Even if you have so much sa that you think this won't affect you, things can change in the future and you may end up with kids (or siblings/other relatives) and may wish to leave them something after you die.
The wording is that there is an option to not claim that money if the remaining relatives can't afford to pay, but the word 'can' can be misused... it has been already..
Before and even now, the wording has been 'can claim money to be repaid' too, and in practice some municipalities chose to claim the money after the people died, and some didn't. Now, word is that all will claim the money, and it is still uncertain if they will claim the money for before this was announced too... like if you got assistance a few years ago too.. (There is a law process right now, someone refused to pay, because it wasn't made known at the time, we are waiting what will happen...)
I don't know how it's like out there in the world, in other countries? Get informed and read everything before you sign any papers!! And do tell if you know anything!
If you desperately need money assistance of course this will probably not change your mind, but if you don't need it that much - THINK TWICE!!
Last edited: