Seems like some life insurance could have helped mitigate the impact. That reminds me I should get some.

  • cecilkorik@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    5 months ago

    Sure, the RRSP savings got wiped out, but she now owns (presumably) at least a couple million in free and clear real estate that her parents previously owned (hence the capital gains tax) which she isn’t forced to sell because the taxes and probably any mortgage are fully paid so… what’s the issue? Enjoy your free houses lady, sorry about your loss, and if you’d rather have cash money instead of the houses, then sell them. They’re yours to do with as you please, and you can thank your parents for having enough savings to ensure you got them.

    You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Parents dying is a sad thing, and it’s not supposed to be winning the lottery. The inheritance is not supposed to fully cover your emotional loss or even make you financially whole. Many people don’t inherit anything from their parents and their house returns to the housing pool and their children continue to support themselves as they always have, and it’s not clear to me that this is in any way an unreasonable expectation to build a society on.

    I’m not totally against allowing some limited amount of generational wealth, but people’s expectations of it and the entitlement they feel to it are very out of touch.

    • iegod@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      No contest on these points. Everything was fair and above board by the government. What is unfortunate is that the couple that passed could not take the best tax advantage of their careful savings over their entire investment period. Some insurance would certainly have helped to protect that, again legal and above board.

        • iegod@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Definitely don’t appreciate those accusations, that’s unwarranted. Yes the math works in their favour overall. It’s a statistical model spread over their entire customer base. But the point of insurance is for when the unlikely happens, that’s why you have it. You hope you never need it, but it might happen. Don’t tell me you don’t have home/auto insurance; that’d be wild.

          Edit: Also, please remember the community this is. I think it’s prudent to discuss how insurance fits into the overall financial picture. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MiyapguxKbQ

          • cecilkorik@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            You’re right, it’s unwarranted. I’m just a bit frustrated with the state of the housing market, and insurance, and the whole economy really. Sorry for taking it out on you.

  • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    She expected her parent’s tax burden to dissappear because they died.

    No one can afford life insurance after age 60.