Reply With QuoteI was trying to read this anecdote as a joke by some unknown comedian named Bjarne. I was like, hmmmmmmmm.Originally Posted by Adam Altmann
Exactly this. That's why our laws has the provision that 1/4 has to be shared between the spouse and all biological (or adopted) children (and of course we also have an estate tax). As Kalle mentioned this is not always problem free and whether 1/4 is the proper amount can be argued.
But since this law isn't unique and apparently even has parallels in US law I have a hard time understanding why people find the mere notion wholly reprehensible.
But of course it's also coupled with he childish "kill all lawyers"-rhetoric.
I was trying to read this anecdote as a joke by some unknown comedian named Bjarne. I was like, hmmmmmmmm.
About not being able to parcel out your estate(leaving aside minor children and taxes):
What I don't get is this idea that it's okay for you to do it while you're alive, but wrong after death. In other words, if right before you die you cut your wife and kids off and dispose of your assets, the state has no interest. But somehow if you do the exact same thing one day after your death through the use of a will, the state will jump in and say "Not so fast buddy, you still need to give these people a cut...".
How does that make sense?
Dude who gives a FUCK? Why do you give a fuck at all? Some asshole leaves money to his pets instead of his children and... what?
You're seriously using the one-in-a-million basket cases of inheritance stupidity to make a case for telling people what to do with the money their money after they die?
"Man you American people are so foreign, I cannot believe you don't regulate in some way every fucking facet of your existence so that extremely minor occurrences never repeat themselves, so I'm just going to go ahead and interpret your mild discontent as reprehensibility!"
Because dead people don't own stuff. Presumably while still alive an individual has a personal interest in maintaining and controlling personal assets. It would be unjust for the state to interfere in the control of an individuals private property. The moment a person dies, all of that private property is suddenly ownerless and it's up to society collectively to set the rules for the fair division of that property. Most societies are willing to respect the clearly expressed wishes of the deceased party to a certain degree, out of courtesy really since the deceased person is no longer a participating member of society (outside of certain Illinois voting districts), but there are other considerations. Society often wants a share outright and wants to be assured that potential dependents have been provided for so that the state doesn't have to do it. Hence estate taxes and legal provisions requiring that direct a certain amount of the estate pass to spouses and children.
I find it interesting that you interpreted those comments as anti-American when they were much more clearly directed to a particular (and ridiculous) viewpoint that a few people have embraced in this thread. America has laws for this stuff even if the anti-lawyer and anti-estate-laws crowd around here doesn't like them.
Since some US states have these provisions and some Americans, like Tortilla above, is making very much sense, this clearly isn't a case of nationality and you aren't speaking on behalf of everyone.
And with the amount of expletives and BIG LETTERS in use, I don't think my interpretation is off.
But you're misinterpreting my mild bewilderment as a dig on an entire nation.
What I find reprehensible is the notion of getting a portion of someone's money that you had nothing to do with in all of your adult life and didn't even like! There was no relationship there at all. What I don't understand is how any rational decent person could think this guy was entitled to some of his father's estate!
Bullshit. You specifically used "wholly reprehensible" as the viewpoint of people who said nothing more than that ioticus' father can give his money to whomever the fuck he wants. You clearly do love turning this into a nationality issue like you do in every fucking thread where you chime in on how backwards American laws are to foreign ones. It's passive aggressive and pretty fucking obvious at this point.
There is no anti-estate-laws crowd. There are a small handful of people that chimed in the estate law tax thread that wanted absolutely no tax, and I don't even see those people in this thread.
But since this thread has been pretty clear-cut and over for 5 pages, the only thing left is for three of you to turn this thread into that one so you can tell everyone else how "ridiculous" their opinions are. It's obvious as shit.
Dead wrong. It is NOT up to society to decide how to divide up a deceased person's assets. It is up to the person to set how he wants his assets divided before he passes. Once he does that, all decisions are made unless the guy has a change of heart and changes his will of his own free accord.
I guess you are one of those "it takes a village" kind of people? If a will is in place by a person of sound mind, "society" can go screw themselves. It's his decision and his alone.
Some people aren't high IQ nerd robots, and believe there is a bond between parents and children that neither should be able to entirely disavow.
Frankly, I'm with the nerd robots on this one. I don't, however, feign a complete lack of understanding of where laws prohibiting disinheritance come from or why they would be in place. There is an emotional, primal aspect of this, and plenty of people, I imagine, who do not believe you should be able to completely disinherit people that you voluntarily brought into this world who share your bloodline, etc.
I'll give you an example. Not too long ago, my mother found out that the person who was supposedly her father wasn't really her father. She in fact found out that some other person in town was. My mother was well into her 60s before she knew this. (There's nothing wrong with the guy, he didn't run out on my grandmother/mother, and in fact did not even know he was my mother's father himself until it was recently revealed.)
My mother wanted me to get close to him, because we were "blood relatives," etc. I have no real interest in this, because I haven't known this guy for the last roughly 40 years, and I'm not sure why he now should particularly become a special part of my life. Basically, I'm thinking the same equivalent as people are saying here. Yes, he's my grandfather, but we're not close, and the magical fact that we share genetics doesn't imply any worthy connection in its own right, particularly after 60+ years of not knowing.
But I don't pretend that other people think differently, or that they are complete idiots for doing so. Some people believe that bonds of blood are extremely important, and that neither person should have the right to just effectively disavow or ignore them.
Yeah, sorry. Been trying to post from my phone, and it's not working out.
I might go along with that if it was a minor child. Granted I don't know how old the OP is, but I don't think we are talking children here. Once he becomes an adult, all bets are off and the guy can do whatever he wants with his money. Going after a stranger's money, relative or not, is being an asshat.
Divorced, heed the words of the High One on inheritance:
"Let no man stint him and suffer need
of the wealth he has won in life;
oft is saved for a foe what was meant for a friend,
and much goes worse than one weens."
Better far that a father leave his son arms to hew their enemies and blood to be spilled should the battle go against them. For at Ragnarok we shall find that no man owns more than those two things.
No no, it was a very interesting experience for me. He built additions on his toolshed, yes, yes indeed.
If you don't want to leave money to your kid, don't father him. That's my view anyway.
There should be an equitable division of an estate between spouse and children (or parents, if you don't have any of those things), regardless of some dead person's wishes. Who gives a shit what a dead person thinks about anything?
I believe he said he was in his early 40s.
Also I agree with this, a person's property should be theirs to do with as they please. If they don't want to leave it to their children there should be no obligation.
My advice is to contact a lawyer, to see if there's any legal way to get at his money.
I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the woman in Washington State, 'It belongs to his wife.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican (and the woman in Washington State), 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man Virginia, 'It belongs to his children." I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... The Trust, a legal instrument where the dependents would not fear the taxman, where the trustees would not be bound by petty morality, Where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, the Trust can become yours as well.
We are in complete disagreement then. The moment a person dies they aren't "his" assets any more. Society can, and often does, respect the wishes of the deceased but they are under no obligation to do so. Dead people aren't members of society any more and don't have the rights of the living. There's nothing stopping a person from voluntarily giving away their stuff while they are alive, but the moment they die it's a different ballgame.
P.S. Apologies for going all P&R in an EE thread, but it was clear that the call to take the discussion to P&R didn't meet with approval all around.
I'd be curious to know the relationship people posting in this thread have with their parents and whether or not they have kids. Cause my gut instinct is that there is no way a parent should not want to leave something to their kids, especially if they haven't been there for them in life. I do think they should be obligated to leave something if there's something to give.
I don't have any kids, but I do have a terrible relationship with my absentee father! And I will totally go to a lawyer if I am ever in the OP's place.
This.
I guess that's a cultural thing, in France you have to leave something for your kids, you can't disinherit them. To me being a parent implies a responsability, even if your kids are grown ups and you don't like them very much. After all you decided to have the children, or at least to raise them.
On the other hand, in french legislation, children have to provide for their parents if they ever become penniless or dependant. That's tougher to admit, because you didn't actually chose to have parents, and some parents have been awful but I guess it's okay if you have the means.
I'm really baffled by the "you do what you want with your own money" angle. That sounds a bit childish, doesn't it ? Money isn't part of your intimate being or something, it's just social construction, and society has a right to regulate the way you use your money, especially when you're... dead...
But I guess that's because I'm a filthy european socialist...
I sent an email to my dad asking why he decided not to leave me an inheritance. It wasn't an angry letter, just asking politely.
I did add the fact that I have been helping his mom for years (she lives with me) and she shouldn't have to go to a nursing home.
I hope the email doesn't upset him, as that is not my intention, I would just like to know, although I can think of several reasons why he did what he did.
He's 42 apparently.
What the fuck? I think you are confusing your own opinion with the one true American holy truth or something, because there's no other logical way to assume that disagreeing with your viewpoint is a dig on America. As someone who happens to think your opinion on the topic is dead wrong I really wish you'd cut that shit out.
That's a fair point, I didn't phrase that well at all. What I meant was the folks who didn't like any estate laws that could in any way override a will. Apologies for being unclear.
Really, you're going to play the "society can do whatever it wants" card? Well that's true of everything if you're willing to complete ignore the laws of that society. Shit you only get to keep your stuff because society respects your right to own it, they're under no obligation. If some burly men take all your stuff and society doesn't do anything about it then what are you left with?
Society has codified how assets are to be handled in the case of death, they very much are "his" assets and the legal document "he" wrote describes exactly how they are to be dealt with. Society has pretty much accepted this as the way to handle such cases.
Well, fuck you too. At least your aggressiveness isn't passive. It's also not very interesting and since you obviously can't read, I'll just leave you and Divorced trying to shout people down instead of making actual arguments for your side.
I already stated this earlier in the thred, but will again. I am 50 years old and have a great relationship with my father. Having said that, I assume nothing when it comes to his estate which is of some considerable size. He's not a billionaire, but he was a pilot for Delta for almost 40 years and became the #3 pilot in the whole company. If he decides to leave everything to my stepmother, that is his choice and won't affect us at all. My relationship isn't based on what I get from him after he dies. It's about him only and my enjoyment out of spending time with him as it will come to an end long before I am ready for it to. My Dad is 76 and not in good health, so I visit him at least once a month (he lives three states away).
I have two adult daughters and they will certainly be in my will. I also have a great relationship with my kids even though I don't see them as often as I would prefer. Hell, I'd prefer they were still little girls and I was their hero, but all good things must come to an end.
I agree that fathers SHOULD leave parts of their estate to their kids in most cases. But I will say if my daughters wanted nothing to do with me over decades of time, if they said they didn't even like me publically, then I would probably leave them just some token item that might have nostalgic value, but not much financial value. Happily that is not the case with me.
But the OP does not like his father by his own admission and chose to not be in his father's life of his own free will. In my mind, he freely chose to not be in his father's will by his actions.
Oh ffs dude, really? You waited this long to add that fact?
I'm out of this thread!
Oh Jesus fuck are you serious? You are the worst story teller ever.
Also laying on the guilt trip to your dying dad ftw.
Posting Permissions