Til Death Do Us Part 2 2

[bernoulli]

On 7/24/2024 at 1:06 AM, Rick2you2 said:

I just wanted to mention that if someone dies without a will, the property passes by way of intestacy—legal rules dividing up who gets what. They are handled by an administrator appointed by the court, unless the decedent had designated an executor. Administrators have to get permission to act on everything through the court system, so things can take a really long time and create a burden on the survivors. I obviously don’t know your law, but if you have something similar, you may want to get something written up which designates your wife as the executor. In my case, my brother and I were co-executors, so we had the authority to do that. Then, when your wife faces the problem, it makes her handling of the estate much easier because she doesn’t always have to go to court. And yes, I plead guilty.

Not how it works where I come from. The executor is usually somebody's spouse, and if everybody agrees, a judge can issue a straightforward ruling about the division of assets. It is never hassle-free, but it only gets complicated if people fight over the spoils. Also, somebody can dispose of only 50% of their assets, as the rest MUST go to the spouse and children. If no will, then everything is divided by the same rules as the 50%. When my father died, it took all of five minutes for everybody to agree on how to divide his (meager) assets. Of course, the main issue is cataloging one's assets if somebody is wealthy. I am not, but my collection is also not small. I don't want to do it; neither does my family. They will have to do it after I am dead, or they can sell it wholesale however it pleases them (again, they are smarter than that but I am not in the business of raising from the dead to tell people what to do with their assets and their lives). 

If people here care about inventory management, keeping all receipts, entering spreadsheets, and other sorts of time-sinks, good for them. I buy stuff I like, ignore paperwork as much as possible, and enjoy what I have amassed. Bureaucracy destroys quality of life quicker than almost anything. 

I don't know many countries where wills allow people to dispose of ALL their assets. As we can see in the American case, it leads to a lot of infighting, children being disowned, older people being scammed out of all their assets, etc. 

In most countries, you can do almost everything you want with your property while you are alive (less so if you are really old, as governments aim to protect the elderly from scammers to varying degrees of success and annoyance), but you don't get to control people's lives after you are dead. 

The idea that people can create binding rules on what happens to their stuff for years or decades is absurd to most civilizations. You can die wealthy and be a control-freak manipulative person while alive, but you should stop at your grave.

 

Edited July 23 by bernoulli

[Bronty]

On 7/23/2024 at 4:30 PM, bernoulli said:

 

The idea that people can create binding rules on what happens to their stuff for years or decades is absurd to most civilizations. You can die wealthy and be a control-freak manipulative person while alive, but you should stop at your grave.

 

You can't get four people to agree on what to have for lunch let alone get an entire 'civilization' to agree on how to divide assets.

If it seems absurd to people, its surely because (and only because) they are simply used to different rules.

I don't think you can really say that one way or another is right or wrong.    In your scenario there are plenty of cases where wives or children will receive assets that perhaps they should not.    And in the American scenario plenty of cases where wives and children perhaps should receive assets, and they do not.

There is no 'correct' way to divide something up.    Only opinions on that.

Given that, I like the idea of full control for the decedent.    Their assets, their decision.     Perhaps they won't make the right decisions, but if left to the state there's no guarantee the state makes the 'right' decisions either.   Just arbitrary percentages according to someone else's idea of what was right or fair.

Simple example.    I have five children.   My wife predeceased me.    I liquidate all of my assets and give each of my five children 19% of my net worth today, so that I don't have to pass away for my children to receive the gift; so that I have the pleasure of giving away 95% of my net worth while I am still alive.    My children can enjoy the gift sooner, and the administration of my estate is greatly simplified.     There is 5% of my net worth in cash left over when I die.     Who the hell is the state to tell me I can't donate the full 5% to charity when I pass away?   And that I can only donate half of it?     I have already taken care of my loved ones.

And that's just one example.    Any situation you describe to me that involves fixed percentages I can come up with a scenario where a fixed percentage isn't the solution.   

I also understand your point about complete control sometimes leading to questionable results, but there is nothing half as simple as you portray about any of this.    Whatever system you choose (control by the state, or control by the decedent) there will inevitably be questionable results.    All in all, I think the fewer rules and percentages are forced on people, the better.     Its just not what you happen to be used to. 

Edited July 23 by Bronty

[Readcomix]

On 7/23/2024 at 12:08 PM, bernoulli said:

The idea that love is expressed through leaving somebody in whatever financial shape looks pretty American, and I firmly oppose it. You may believe that if you want, but I find it in poor taste that you believe other people should agree that love must be expressed through financial means. Ugh!

My family comprises adults who can choose to handle their finances how they see fit. Love has nothing to do with it. It seems you have misunderstood my post. They will get my help if they want, as long as they don't ask me to do all the hard work while they go on with their business. They know that. My wife is a lawyer. She won't be easily taken advantage of. @Rick2you2, who I think is a lawyer, got it right. People make lists of what they want and voila, problem solved. I think my family won't want anything, so they will sell my stuff and divide the money. If they choose to fight over money (which I doubt), so be it. Why should I adjudicate these issues before I die if they don't care about them? Again, I understand my position is unconventional, but to imply that I don't love my family because of this is absurd. I know many families fight over money. Mine don't. If they want to start after I die, I don't care. I will be dead.

 

 

This would probably be much more clear in a live discussion. I’m not saying that love must be expressed through financial means; I suggest that using one’s expertise to ease a problem for others (in this case, a financial problem) is an expression of love. And I am certainly not suggesting that you do not express your love to your family in myriad other ways; I of course have no way of knowing either way and it’s none of my business. 
I also don’t find bureaucracy much fun at all. I wouldn’t suggest full adjudication of your collectible assets, especially when the heirs are a competent group that is unlikely to bicker and you have no stomach for the effort. But a few brief points on paper (eg - “X,Y,Z constitute the most valuable pieces, worth your effort to sell individually, the rest you may as well get what you can most easily get for them” or somesuch) may be a minimal effort on your part that greatly diminishes their chances of getting ripped off.

Do what you want, of course. It’s just a different perspective, offered on an Internet forum discussion on a topic you jumped into. There’s no reason to suggest I’m tasteless or absurd, or to use American as a pejorative. 

[bernoulli]

On 7/24/2024 at 5:32 AM, Bronty said:

You can't get four people to agree on what to have for lunch let alone get an entire 'civilization' to agree on how to divide assets.

If it seems absurd to people, its surely because (and only because) they are simply used to different rules.

I don't think you can really say that one way or another is right or wrong.    In your scenario there are plenty of cases where wives or children will receive assets that perhaps they should not.    And in the American scenario plenty of cases where wives and children perhaps should receive assets, and they do not.

There is no 'correct' way to divide something up.    Only opinions on that.

Given that, I like the idea of full control for the decedent.    Their assets, their decision.     Perhaps they won't make the right decisions, but if left to the state there's no guarantee the state makes the 'right' decisions either.   Just arbitrary percentages according to someone else's idea of what was right or fair.

Simple example.    I have five children.   My wife predeceased me.    I liquidate all of my assets and give each of my five children 19% of my net worth today, so that I don't have to pass away for my children to receive the gift; so that I have the pleasure of giving away 95% of my net worth while I am still alive.    My children can enjoy the gift sooner, and the administration of my estate is greatly simplified.     There is 5% of my net worth in cash left over when I die.     Who the hell is the state to tell me I can't donate the full 5% to charity when I pass away?   And that I can only donate half of it?     I have already taken care of my loved ones.

And that's just one example.    Any situation you describe to me that involves fixed percentages I can come up with a scenario where a fixed percentage isn't the solution.   

I also understand your point about complete control sometimes leading to questionable results, but there is nothing half as simple as you portray about any of this.    Whatever system you choose (control by the state, or control by the decedent) there will inevitably be questionable results.    All in all, I think the fewer rules and percentages are forced on people, the better.     Its just not what you happen to be used to. 

Both gave very articulate responses and I have nothing to add. I take your responses in the spirit they are given, so thank you for that. As for using an American as a pejorative, you are already one of the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world. You can take a jab now and then. No major harm was intended. 

On 7/24/2024 at 6:44 AM, Readcomix said:

This would probably be much more clear in a live discussion. I’m not saying that love must be expressed through financial means; I suggest that using one’s expertise to ease a problem for others (in this case, a financial problem) is an expression of love. And I am certainly not suggesting that you do not express your love to your family in myriad other ways; I of course have no way of knowing either way and it’s none of my business. 
I also don’t find bureaucracy much fun at all. I wouldn’t suggest full adjudication of your collectible assets, especially when the heirs are a competent group that is unlikely to bicker and you have no stomach for the effort. But a few brief points on paper (eg - “X,Y,Z constitute the most valuable pieces, worth your effort to sell individually, the rest you may as well get what you can most easily get for them” or somesuch) may be a minimal effort on your part that greatly diminishes their chances of getting ripped off.

Do what you want, of course. It’s just a different perspective, offered on an Internet forum discussion on a topic you jumped into. There’s no reason to suggest I’m tasteless or absurd, or to use American as a pejorative. 

 

[Bronty]

On 7/24/2024 at 11:49 AM, bernoulli said:

Both gave very articulate responses and I have nothing to add. I take your responses in the spirit they are given, so thank you for that. As for using an American as a pejorative, you are already one of the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world. You can take a jab now and then. No major harm was intended. 

 

I'm not American