Your point is invalid. The problem in your examples was not in doing trusts, it was in how they were written. It's like saying it wasn't a good idea, but the problem is they weren't signed or witnessed. The devil is in the details, Maybe you would feel better if I change it to the BEST solution.
Obviously the only perfect solution is a trust, but financial institutions have minimums over $1M, and of course there is a fee that will cut into the net heirs receive. You might consider setting up some joint accounts with only your kids as beneficiaries. She could of course change that after you die, but the intent would be clear and perhaps honored. I do not have a stepmother issue, but am concerned about a child squandering the inheritance rather than saving it for retirement. My solution on a wing and a prayer is providing some of the inheritance at death, but another chunk that they have agreed in writing to save until age 61 then take out the balance on a 20 yr schedule. Maybe they will and maybe they won't, but hopefully they will think twice before violating our agreement. At least there is a specific framework.
Hope springs eternal. The only good thing about your plan is that you will never know the final chapter. I believe one of the authors you cited is the one from earlier this week who was disinherited by her stepmother. We can't predict the future including how people will act. A simple plan buster is if you die, your wife gives PoA to a child when she should or shouldn't, then the kid takes your stash. A child could also influence their parent to change the will because they need it more than your child does.
For initial planning purposes I'm comfortable saying there is no state that provides equivalency to layers of relatives. Instead there is a pecking order of succession, so if no one is in the first layer then it goes to the next, etc. Your siblings would never have parity with your children. This all pertains to there being no will (intestate).There are laws that protect spouses and minor children regardless of what is in a will.
Since estate matters are all governed by state laws, be careful with comments in a discussion as this. I heard a MD attorney say on a radio show that an ostracized relative (or anyone else) should never be mentioned in a will because it gives the person standing in court even though their reference is negative. That gives them a foot in the door to at least create an annoyance so legal cost and delay. Regardless of the state, consider adding a phrase about carefully considering who would and not be an heir so those included and excluded have been carefully chosen - so specifically not naming the bum. Also note that probate courts tend to be "courts of equity" vs rigid, so if concerned about this issue, one might consider using a revocable trust for holding assets since following a Trust is not subject to probate. It is unfortunate we cannot say what we want and why without potential adverse consequences, but such is the case.
I am not an accountant, but doubt that all of a nonrefundable entry fee is deductible as a medical expense since it presumably is for other things only or in part. Assume the same is true for the monthly fee. Also remember that itemizing deductions only starts after 7.5% of taxable income, and you lose the standard deduction when itemize. Finally, I believe that it would be impossible for normal citizens to understand and evaluate the financial statement of a CCRC because it would require knowing future costs as well as related income, details of all financing, etc. Certainly know that the more the debt, the more the risk as well as probable interest expense being passed on to residents. At a minimum, consider that for-profit facilities have a profit incentive (duh!), whereas nonprofits do not. However, also look at the experience and credibility of sponsoring entity behind the single purpose entity that owns the facility.
While they validated your decision, they can't be considered unbiased - if you didn't repair they would lose the income. However, Hondas have a great record, and for low usage it makes no sense to pay a lot to upgrade, so I would have done the same, but not for same reason.
This reminds me that when I began my baking career in early '70s there was flurry of new headquarter buildings being built. It was as if all CEOs had building envy" trying to have the biggest and fanciest building. As buildings were completed and the decade progressed, it became evident that all those banks that spent money on glitz underperformed the others. It was evident that their attention was diverted away from better objectives of operational efficiencies and customer relations.
Comments
Your point is invalid. The problem in your examples was not in doing trusts, it was in how they were written. It's like saying it wasn't a good idea, but the problem is they weren't signed or witnessed. The devil is in the details, Maybe you would feel better if I change it to the BEST solution.
Post: Letting Go
Link to comment from July 27, 2025
Obviously the only perfect solution is a trust, but financial institutions have minimums over $1M, and of course there is a fee that will cut into the net heirs receive. You might consider setting up some joint accounts with only your kids as beneficiaries. She could of course change that after you die, but the intent would be clear and perhaps honored. I do not have a stepmother issue, but am concerned about a child squandering the inheritance rather than saving it for retirement. My solution on a wing and a prayer is providing some of the inheritance at death, but another chunk that they have agreed in writing to save until age 61 then take out the balance on a 20 yr schedule. Maybe they will and maybe they won't, but hopefully they will think twice before violating our agreement. At least there is a specific framework.
Post: Letting Go
Link to comment from July 26, 2025
Hope springs eternal. The only good thing about your plan is that you will never know the final chapter. I believe one of the authors you cited is the one from earlier this week who was disinherited by her stepmother. We can't predict the future including how people will act. A simple plan buster is if you die, your wife gives PoA to a child when she should or shouldn't, then the kid takes your stash. A child could also influence their parent to change the will because they need it more than your child does.
Post: Letting Go
Link to comment from July 26, 2025
For initial planning purposes I'm comfortable saying there is no state that provides equivalency to layers of relatives. Instead there is a pecking order of succession, so if no one is in the first layer then it goes to the next, etc. Your siblings would never have parity with your children. This all pertains to there being no will (intestate).There are laws that protect spouses and minor children regardless of what is in a will.
Post: Estrangement & Estates
Link to comment from July 19, 2025
If not a deadbeat then perforce my comment would not be applicable.
Post: Estrangement & Estates
Link to comment from July 19, 2025
If we decide to not reward a deadbeat then we should be remembered for making a wise decision.
Post: Estrangement & Estates
Link to comment from July 14, 2025
Since estate matters are all governed by state laws, be careful with comments in a discussion as this. I heard a MD attorney say on a radio show that an ostracized relative (or anyone else) should never be mentioned in a will because it gives the person standing in court even though their reference is negative. That gives them a foot in the door to at least create an annoyance so legal cost and delay. Regardless of the state, consider adding a phrase about carefully considering who would and not be an heir so those included and excluded have been carefully chosen - so specifically not naming the bum. Also note that probate courts tend to be "courts of equity" vs rigid, so if concerned about this issue, one might consider using a revocable trust for holding assets since following a Trust is not subject to probate. It is unfortunate we cannot say what we want and why without potential adverse consequences, but such is the case.
Post: Estrangement & Estates
Link to comment from July 14, 2025
I am not an accountant, but doubt that all of a nonrefundable entry fee is deductible as a medical expense since it presumably is for other things only or in part. Assume the same is true for the monthly fee. Also remember that itemizing deductions only starts after 7.5% of taxable income, and you lose the standard deduction when itemize. Finally, I believe that it would be impossible for normal citizens to understand and evaluate the financial statement of a CCRC because it would require knowing future costs as well as related income, details of all financing, etc. Certainly know that the more the debt, the more the risk as well as probable interest expense being passed on to residents. At a minimum, consider that for-profit facilities have a profit incentive (duh!), whereas nonprofits do not. However, also look at the experience and credibility of sponsoring entity behind the single purpose entity that owns the facility.
Post: Bankruptcies in continuing care
Link to comment from July 14, 2025
While they validated your decision, they can't be considered unbiased - if you didn't repair they would lose the income. However, Hondas have a great record, and for low usage it makes no sense to pay a lot to upgrade, so I would have done the same, but not for same reason.
Post: How have you decided when it’s worth it to fix an old car?
Link to comment from May 24, 2025
This reminds me that when I began my baking career in early '70s there was flurry of new headquarter buildings being built. It was as if all CEOs had building envy" trying to have the biggest and fanciest building. As buildings were completed and the decade progressed, it became evident that all those banks that spent money on glitz underperformed the others. It was evident that their attention was diverted away from better objectives of operational efficiencies and customer relations.
Post: Give It Away Already
Link to comment from March 12, 2025