If you read the rest of my posts in this thread you’d notice that this is exactly my point.
Uh, no. My point is that if the law was changed tomorrow and my inheritance went to Uncle Sam, I’d be fine with that.
You’re not stuck with his bills. You can’t be held responsible for the debts owed by an estate - we were in the same position, and I paid zero dollars of my dad’s large debt. If someone’s telling you differently, get an inheritance lawyer.
The estate is stuck with his bills. The ex is getting the pension and life insurance, so she doesn’t have to pay them… but the estate does, which means it’s coming out of a_a’s cut.
Like I said, a_a needs to talk to an estate lawyer. Since she signed papers saying she was relinquishing claim to the insurance, it sounds like it should go to his children instead. She wouldn’t be liable for his debts anyway since they were divorced, assuming her name wasn’t on any of the credit cards or whatever.
I did read them. I’m not trying to convince you, I’m trying to illustrate the wrongness of your position for other readers.
Reassigning a bequeathal is not essentially different than seizing it, and a seizure after death is not essentially different than a seizure before.
That always seems to change when family heirlooms and mementos are in the picture.
How long can the estate hold an inheritor to something like that? If 20 years later, Junior retires to Florida, meets a Jewish woman his own age, and marries her, is there any waythe estate can demand its monkey back? Or suppose Junkior marries a Jewish girl, as the will directs him, but then divorces her years leater and marries a gentile?
After 20 years, I think the monkey would be dead. They don’t usually live that long.
No need to wait for the law to change. You can just check off the box on your tax forms which lets you make a gift to the federal government and give them your inheritance. That’s what you’re planning on, right?
People who recycle this stupid-ass argument unironically need to be punched in the face. No, you fucking idiot.
Way to make a difference.
Do you think taxes should be higher?
Nope.
So, you want the government to take your money, but you wouldn’t give it to them voluntarily? Sounds like some kind of kinky financial S&M thing. Good times.
Or, alternatively, it sounds like a grown up recognition of reality in the world, not a pathetic childish attempt at point scoring. An individual handing his inheritance over won’t alter anything, much the same as the idiotic bleating of “if you don’t like your tax cuts (which crippled the economy) give them back.” Giving them back does nothing if it is done by one person, two people, or even 10% of people. And because there are enough selfish tossers like you that will happily see the economy go down the shitter as long as you have your twinkies and premium cable, as well as plenty of people who will lie blatantly that they would give it back but won’t, then the adult recognition is that it is perfectly consistent to say “I think income tax rates should be higher” or “I think the government should tax estates more” without also having to voluntarily right checks to fund the required government spending that cheapskate cumstains seek to avoid funding.
For the record, I would also not give up Twinkies to save the economy. Sometimes, the price is just too high.
That’s bullshit. I guess none of you guys use CFL’s or recycle because there’s no law forcing everyone to do it, right?
Sometimes individual action works. Sometimes it doesn’t. The world is not as simply as your kindergarten mentality sees it.
I prefer Snowballs. The Hostess cake product, as opposed to the sexual act. Which I am not a fan of, at least not if it involves me.
Nonsense. Of course it makes an essential difference whether the law intervenes in the assignment of the property before or after the death of the original owner. After you’re dead, you don’t have any property.
It is, of course, absolutely correct that the law can’t tell you how to distribute your legally owned property while you’re alive (after taxes and other legal obligations, that is), since you are the undisputed legal owner of that property.
However, the second you join the choir invisible, you aren’t the undisputed owner of that property any more. In fact, you aren’t any kind of owner of that property anymore.
The owner(s) of that property are now the designated beneficiaries of your will, AND/OR other persons legally entitled to inherit from you, and/or the government if inheritance taxes apply. And there is no reason to consider any of those owners a priori “undisputed”.
If you don’t like that simple fact of life, the remedy is equally simple: don’t die. Problem solved.