Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (157)

Ross sticks his head above the parapet and suggests that Poor Widows In Mansions would be doing themselves a huge favour if they traded down, as this would free up a lot of cash for cat food, and suggests that the Mansion Tax might be just the thing to nudge them into doing themselves such a favour.

The first Poor Widow Bogey is played within minutes, "But it's her house, where she and her husband raised their family. She's lived there 40-odd years. She's paid for it. Why should she move?", which Ross parries rather deftly.

Tolkein then ups the ante: "There's also the likelihood that the move will kill her. Uprooting at 75 will be traumatic in a way it won't be for someone in their 30s." Wow, that settles the matter then, doesn't it: "We can't have a Mansion Tax because it would be a death sentence for tens of thousands of Poor Widows In Mansions."

Crikey, nobody is suggesting that little old ladies be forced to schlepp all their heavy furniture themselves, there is such a thing as "removal companies", you know, and to minimise stress, maybe the rest of the family can put her up for a week while the actual move takes place, then all they have to do is drop her off at her new place, which need be no more than a few hundred yards from her old one, or a lot closer to whichever of her adult children cares most about her, eh? That sounds a lot less stressful than e.g. going into hospital, doesn't it?

Finally, we get this: "Why should she have to move? Her quality of life could go down, as well as up!" Let's try reverse logic, using Ross' own figures:

a) If your Elderly Relative owned a house worth £300,000 and had £500,000 in the bank, would you advise them to use every penny to trade up to an £800,000 house?

b) If you really feared that a move would kill your Elderly Relative, or that no amount of hundreds of thousands in the bank would enable them to improve their quality of life, is it too much to ask the potential heirs to pay the tax for her?