[embee]

As long as it doesn't degenerate into an argument based on envy, that no-one should be allowed to have more than anyone else, which is what it boils down to. That's essentially an argument for communism.
If one person works, invests, saves, and ends up with capital or money, we shouldn't argue that they can't be allowed to have it and even pass it on to their children just because someone else doesn't have the wealth.
Welfare and benefits already mean that folk with little resource and income get supported/subsidised (in effect) by those who do have resources, it's not as if there isn't some degree of redistribution via taxes and benefits. It may not be ideal nor working fairly, but the system is there in principle.

There is also a danger that this £86k issue is used to hide the real problem, which is the funding and management of social care.