Subj : Re: Um...no comment?
To   : Deuce
From : Angus McLeod
Date : Tue Sep 13 2005 11:45 am

  Re: Re: Um...no comment?
  By: Deuce to Angus McLeod on Tue Sep 13 2005 02:00:00

 >  > So what is the point in creating a law to sieze a large chunk of
 >  > everyone's assets at death, if they can simply side-step the law?
 > 
 > Because, many patriarchs don't trust their heirs to take care of them.  In s
 > cases, I firmly believe the heirs don't deserve anything.

That is a very stupid remark.  

The word 'heir' defines someone who inherits.  If I decide to leave my 
vast millions to the Red Cross, THEY are my heirs.  Now, should I sign 
over my millions to the Red Cross today?  Because after all, a man can die 
in many ways, not only of old age.  But if I sign over my business to the 
Red Cross today, how do I persue my business tomorrow?  At what age should 
Gates give his share of Microsoft over to his heirs?

Also, I don't trust my brother to manage a hotdog cart and not lose money.  
He had a stroke some years back and isn't 100%.  But I don't think that is 
grounds for you to claim that he doesn't DESERVE anything from our 
parents estate.

And in any case, by what stretch of the imagination does what *you* 
believe have any bearing on what *other* people should be allowed to do 
with their assets?

 > However, there's nothing stopping people from takeing out life insurance.

So you pay insurance premiums each year, and then at age 65 it matures 
(has anybody ever heard of life insurance that DOESN'T mature around 65?) 
giving your estate an extra chunk of cash for the government to rip off?


---
 þ Synchronet þ Generated automatically on The ANJO BBS

.