Deflation hurts debtors, benefits savers. Yet the Fed won’t let deflation happen, it will just print new money. That new money will pay off the Debt.
On a valid will, the courts will generally rule, even stupid conditions valid, as long as they are legal and don’t go against public policy.
Thus leaving the money to Joe, with the provision he assasinate the President, is not legal. Ore leaving money to Chicago to establish a park that only Chinese people can go into.
Public policy includes such things as name changes and remarriages. In both cases courts have thrown out conditions which say things like, “I agree to change my name.” Or “I agree never to remarry.” Those things have been ruled against public policy.
Some courts however haver ruled smaller term limits like “not to remarry within one year,” as acceptable others have thrown them out. But all agree “never to remarry” is far too restrictive.
Odd things that have been upheld were things as an 80 year old woman was left over $50,000 by her husband with the provision the wife use it only to go back to college.
The court ruled this was fine as the husband left her the rest of his money for her unrestricted use but that particular $50,000 was only to be used for college.
I mean what’s an 80 year old woman want with college? But because it wasn’t too restrictive against her, the court upheld it.
So basically if you put in your will, “I leave my assets to no one,” a court would have to decide if it should break the will and give it to someone contesting it or just let the government take it.
I wonder if the fellow (in that situation) could have moved all his assets to a living trust which did not name his wife as a beneficiary - effectively bypassing that law?
Re the OP: I would be very surprised if it were possible. Presuming there are no spouses to contend with, we have to presume the money is being held in a bank account or other financial instrument. If you leave it to “nobody”, it’d eventually fall under the state’s unclaimed accounts laws, which mean that eventually the gummint gets it all. A house would eventually get nabbed for lack of payment of taxes. Similarly other assets.
Could you convert all your assets to jewelry and precious stones, and have yourself buried with them? Your relatives couldn’t very well rob your grave, could they?
How is this better than simply makign the donation while alive?!? Was he desperate to make sure the estate got no tax advantages fromt he gift?
You could leave all the money to your dogs, and for the betterment of dog kind. But then the executors might team up with the courts to use ti on behalf of humans anyway: Hemlsley’s_Pooch_Disinherited
Probably not. The grave digger, on the other hand, could. Wasn’t there a story somewhat recently (maybe a few years ago, tops ?) about a grave digger who’d routinely dig up recent corpses to take whatever jewelry they’d been buried with ?
Note that destroying money doesn’t really accomplish the goal of not leaving your wealth to anyone because it reduces the supply of money and effectively makes everyone else’s money worth a bit more. Putting your money in a safe deposit box has the same effect. It’s like you left a little bit of money to everyone who holds whatever kind of currency it was.
To really screw people over, you need to take something that has intrinsic value and destroy it or otherwise devalue it. Burying gold at sea works because gold has more than fiat value.
[typo - meant to start a new thread]
I think you can, it’s called an annuity. When you go there’s nothing left. Your money is not given to someone when you die, but earlier and they support you until the moment of death then keep the rest, not as inheritance, but as fees. Like insurance premiums, and if you outlast your original payments, the annuity still supports you, and you have “won” the insurance bet.
Well, there’s something to be said for–30 years on–finally becoming interested in the articles.
HA no it doesn’t. Gold is (almost) useless, and burying it at sea is no better than burning your “fiat money.” But you’re onto a good point.
Buying something huge and destroying it is the bright plan of action.
Curses! I was going to use the gold that miser took to his watery grave to make some electronics, dental fillings and high-quality audio cables!
This thread reminds me of a joke:
An old miser is lying on his deathbed and thinking, “Who says you can’t take it with you?”
He calls in three trusted men: his doctor, his lawyer, and his priest. He gives them each an envelope with $30,000 cash in it and instructs them to throw it in with his casket at the funeral, so he can spend eternity with his money.
The man dies and at the funeral each of the three men throws in an envelope before they start shoveling the dirt in.
On the way home, the priest says “I can’t help but feel guilty and I want to confess something. I kept $10,000 from the envelope so my church could buy a new altar.”
The doctor says, “I have a confession too. I kept $20,000 so our practice could get a new x-ray machine. But we really needed a new machine.”
The lawyer acts shocked, and says “Gentlemen, I am ashamed of you!”
They look at him, incredulous, and say “Are you to tell us that you didn’t keep any of the money for yourself?”
“Absolutely not!” the lawyer says. “My envelope contained a check for the full amount.”
There are many industrial uses for gold, so even if you discount all of the cosmetic ones, gold is far from useless.
Nah, the lawyer takes the other two envelopes out of the casket, pockets the cash, and throws in a cheque for $90,000.
Plus, it’s shiny.
I’ve never heard of lawyers being so generous or bad at math.
Those uses consume so little gold that if we suddenly stopped hoarding it, there’d be enough to make bullets.
How about leaving it in a trust for something that will either happen far into the future after almost everyone has forgotten about it, or just will never happen? For the first one setup a trust that pays to the first person to be born on Pluto who must then fill out a form in Hebrew to apply for the trust. As for the second option a trust that pays to the first person that is able to free dive to the bottom of the Marianas Trench for 10 minutes, and while there fill out a form in Hebrew to apply for the trust.
Would the courts throw out the second one, but the first one isn’t because it is possible? Would they both be thrown out?
-Otanx
Why would he be bad at math? That’s the original amount doled out in the joke.