Subj : Re: Um...no comment? To : Angus McLeod From : Deuce Date : Tue Sep 13 2005 12:52 pm Re: Re: Um...no comment? By: Angus McLeod to Deuce on Tue Sep 13 2005 11:45:00 > > Because, many patriarchs don't trust their heirs to take care of them. I > > 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? Apparently you can't give the millions you have laying around to the Red Cross right now for some reason... probobly, you don't trust them to maintain your lifestyle. Do you realyl feel that the Red Cross would manage your business well? That they'd keep it going? Of course you don't. You just feel that after you're dead, you should still be able to give the business to someone incapable of running it. As for Gates, he should hand it over as soon as possible (oh wait, he did already... his heirs have large chunks of stock) As for the ones he retained for himself... those are HIS he uses them to live his chosen lifestyle that he earned. The heirs who already are millionares should be able to scrape by despite not becoming instant billionares upon Gates' death. As for your brother, does his current financial plans require his parents to die to make up his shortfall? Would anything prevent him from owning the company, but allowing your parents to handle the running of it for a salary? Is he the kind of person who would fire his parents, then run the company into the ground? If so then yes, he doesn't deserve anything from them. If, on the other hand, he'd happily draw a small salary himself as owner and leave running the business to your parents, there would be absolute no problems. Now to address your mind-numbingly idiotic question "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?" Apparently, in the Bahams, it is unaccaptable for a private individual to have an opinion on taxes, how they should be structured, collected, etc. Apparently all the various taxes are not some why of saying what other people should be allowed to do with their assets. I'll give you a list of words it would behoove you to look up in a dictionary: Opinion Debate Democracy Hypothetical And in closing, I'd suggest a google for "Whole Life Insurance" from http://www.imperiallife.bs/faqs.individual.lasso: Whole life insurance, the most traditional form of "permanent" insurance, can be kept in force for as long as you live. The face amount and the premium (the amount you pay for protection each year) are fixed at the time you buy your policy and stay the same even as you age. The policy's cash value grows at a fixed rate of return specified in the policy and can be used as collateral to borrow against your policy. (Aside: anyone else find it ironic that the ccTLD for Angus would be .bs?) --- þ Synchronet þ ``Penguins make tasty snacks'' .