Fun Stuff > CHATTER

financial independence

<< < (15/18) > >>

tania:
i inherited $20,000 from my grandparents when they died but all i did with it was put it in a savings account and go "man, that takes care of all my grad school worries."
donating it to charity would be nice too but i just have too much financial anxiety to do that. personally, i consider going to school and getting a degree that will allow me to have a lot of influence in whatever career i choose to pursue a much more worthwhile investment of time and money than just handing it over to someone else because i feel guilty for having it. money itself doesn't really solve anything, it's what you do with it that makes the biggest difference in the long run.

pilsner:

--- Quote from: calenlass on 25 Jul 2008, 05:23 ---Don't you inherit debt in the UK, too? I mean, I realise that in the US that means there is a lot of money that just disappears when someone dies, and a lot of money lenders that just end up sucking it up and cutting their losses, but basically if someone leaves debts their estate is liquidated to pay for it and if the estate (personal wealth, life insurance, actual house-estate, etc) is not enough, it just kind of goes away. At least, I am pretty sure that's what happens. It might be more complicated legally.

--- End quote ---

Britain, like the US and Canada, has a system where the estate of the deceased is assigned to an administrator designated in the will, or if there was no will (ie. the deceased died "intestate") to a living relative or court appointed administrator.  If the deceased has debts outstanding, the administrator of the estate will generally pay the debts out of the assets of the estate.  It is possible in most jurisdictions to voluntarily assume the debts of the deceased (although the creditors will generally have to agree to it), however the practice of forcing the children to pay for the estate of the parents was abandoned in the 19th century.  Along with, you know, debtor's prison.  As you said, if the debts are greater than the assets and no one opts to assume them, they disappear with the liquidation of the estate.

On the other hand, if your spouse has debts they didn't tell you about and you have an estate in common (depends on the jurisdiction) it is still possible in some jurisdictions to end up on the hook if they pass away.  Hence the title of my upcoming screenplay "Don't Marry A Gambling Addict in Texas".

Finally, to Social Bacon, you've been misinformed.  No one can force you to take the money.  From your description, it appears that your grandfather left the money in trust.  Once the trust opens, you can renounce your inheritance (assuming that you can't renounce it right now which would depend on your jurisdiction) and in the most likely scenario (again depending on jurisdiction) the money will be split up according to a complicated formula among the remaining heirs.

Jimmy the Squid:
I still think you're better off giving the money to charity if you don't want it. Make an anonymous donation and just forget about it if you don't actually want the money (I would totally take the money, but then I have no problem with accepting things like that). At least then it might have a chance of doing something good. If you do deny it then it will just go to other people who "didn't earn it" and it doesn't sound like you are fond of that idea either.

evernew:

--- Quote from: Social Bacon on 24 Jul 2008, 12:24 ---This is the attitude I *hate.* How can you believe that you deserve a comfortable life because someone you know had one? That robs the millions of people that will work harder than you but live less well. If you want to accept inheritance then feel free to do so, but try to do good in the world rather than just live off the backs of others and feel good yourself.

--- End quote ---

How do you know they work harder?
And true equality will never happen. Someone is always a fuckbag and either gets ahead or gets what they deserve.

True equality would mean you throwing out all the earthly possessions you have until you are on par with the global average. But that would be silly, wouldn't it?

And you quoted me saying that I do NGO work and have done so for all my adult and most of my adolescent life. If that's not doing good in the world then what is? I think getting involved is better than dropping money into a charity. Plus, if you've read my post as I assume you have because you aimed at everything I said and made it look bad - I've worked for one entire year full-time. And I'm done with school. And I'm 22. Try finding people in my country that get it done and tell me how many you found. Hint: it's not many.

The inheritance / deserving or undeserving has been covered. But to clarify: My parents did not disown people to get rich and neither did anyone in the last 10 generations. Instead, my ancestors have been disowned. Arguing against inheritance (aside from royalty which I believe must die like common beggars and petty thieves) is arguing against the free will of what to do with your money. You pick your mating partner based on the optimum you can achieve for your children. Genetic imperative. In a world completely ruled by money, it is not only logical but inevitable that my parents will try to give me the optimum they can achieve. It may be unfair but it's the way it is.

Justice is great but impractical. And arguing on an internet forum will not change it. The fact that you have a) the internet at your disposal and b) enough time to argue about it means that you are way more privileged than the average world citizen. Which is because you were born in a fortunate country to parents that saw fit that you survive and get educated etc.
You'd have to give all that away if you truly opposed the notion of inheritance. Just saying.

This is the last thing I want to say about this. There are more important things to worry about for both of us.

jhocking:
What a bizarre argument to be having.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page