We're doing alright, but not as well as last year

Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by Jislizard, Nov 11, 2014.

  1. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,717
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    But there are very strong reasons why direct and indirect family members would have been the most likely to have received the property of the dead person if the dead person had made out a will (which they didn't). The property has to go somewhere and as I said it is up to social norms to determine a peaceful standard. Not allowing the dependent widowed mother of three to obtain the wealth in her husband's name simply because he hadn't made out his will is crazy IMO.

    Separately, there is no reason for any debts to be transferred as the risk of default was agreed to in the original contract with the now dead person. Debt is not transferable without explicit consent (in which case it is a new contract).

    The Portugal norm seems fine for a willless person with no direct family or dependents even though it seems like a bit of a lottery.
     
  2. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
  3. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you dont know what the word means, the same as you dont know the meaning of freedom. You make your own definitions up.

    Look at a dictionary next time before you invent your own definitions for the English language, it would make this debate a lot easier to understand.

    Edit to add: and no doubt you'll want to argue about that too and twist those words so I've copied the definition of "entitlement" for you:


    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement

    And oops, there's mention of "law" in it.

    And oops, I googled it.

    And oops, you're off-topic.

    :|
     
  4. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,717
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    Does the "apply for bequest" situation apply to ALL estates of dead people? Can anyone apply or are there restrictions?

    Presumably people would simply not apply for anyone with a known net negative estate in which case the creditors just take the net loss like any other default.

    But what about the estates of people that are found to be a larger net negative than what the individual can afford? Eg. the dependent kids of parents who die in a car accident (who could be dependent because they are disabled rather than young)? Are they saddled with the debt or can they default even after they applied for a bequest (which they thought to be net positive but the housing market turned down massively during the period that the paperwork was being done like in 2008)?

    Separate to what the answers to those questions are, I struggle to see the benefit in a blind application process that seems to place creditors higher up in importance? Why would you knowingly have a system that could saddle people unrelated to existing debts with those debts in the event of a default (through death) without their explicit consent? Indeed, such an outcome seems like an injustice.

    In our/my system, if the estate is net negative, people can either take on those debts in full knowledge of the terms and conditions (in the event say that they wished to keep the family home and continue to repay the mortgage) - hence there is a new explicit contract - or they walk away and the creditor deals with the risk that they willingly agreed to with the dead person.

    On the other side, if the estate is net positive then we need a peaceful system for determining who has rights to the property. In our culture (and indeed I believe, most) people generally bequeath their possessions to people in the order of precedence that I listed. Hence, as a default assumption in the event of no will, I think it is reasonable.

    There is no double standard here as the people involved in the two sides of the equation are different groups. One side of the equation is a group of contracted creditors who voluntarily took on the risks of default. On the other side are the group of people that the deceased held most dear in their lives and who would generally have used their excess personal property to provide assistance to. Surely you can see the difference?
     
  5. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure what you mean by positive or negative appropriation (I think you are using incorrect terminology) but you have made it very clear that you are in favour of the wealthier having some of their property forcibly taken off them and given to the needy.

     
  6. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    You don't understand. With or without will, appropriation of other man's wealth is just wrong imo.

    You only think it's reasonable because you think of positive numbers. Think about the negative. Think for example of a person that says in his will "I wish to let all my debts to the person X". Would that be fair?


    That woman shall work no harder than a single mother with 3 children. Why would she need to "cheat" getting another person's wealth to face the challenge? How about the single mother (who has a similar challenge) be allowed to steal just because she has 3 children to feed also? That is just wrong.

    And funny that, whenever I speak about this matter, people come always with examples of someone having difficulties so that the bequest would be "well deserved". What about the wife of super rich, who never had to work in her life, and now that her husband is dead she becomes super rich? What about her children, who will never have to work in life also? That's really awesome. In Capitalism, there are people that will never have to work in order to make a living (and what a living!). Speaking about people that live at the expense of other's work, that reminds me of Communism. Two great systems, let me tell you. -_-'


    Even if you have direct family or dependents, you can state in advance you don't want any bequest from anybody and thus no one will bother you with debts (from others) to pay. But you won't get any wealth (from others) either. At least, there's no doublestandard.
     
  7. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    Surely you don't understand english. But since you know how to use Google, go search for the meaning of "context" and then read again my post paying special attention to the bolded and underlined parts. Oops!
     
  8. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
  9. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    1 - Yes, all estates. No restrictions, but the closest person to the dead man will get the bequest.
    2 - I'm not sure. Probably, the kids will have that debt to pay in the future.
    3 - Those creditors are not more important than say the ones of a business that goes from father to son after the father dies. The benefit is people becoming accountable for their actions (instead of having something to win and nothing to lose). If someone says "I will assume what remains in life of the dead man", they must do it in full, not just for the goodies.
    4 - "Why would you knowingly have a system that could saddle people unrelated to existing debts with those debts in the event of a default (through death) without their explicit consent? Indeed, such an outcome seems like an injustice."
    I have the same feeling about wealth, which is exactly the same thing but with a positive number instead of a negative.
    5 - Death does not necessarily mean a debt default. If there is a legacy (which is something I don't agree with, but anyway...) the debt is still valid and the new generation will pay it.
    6 - "Surely you can see the difference?"
    Sure I can. But the deceased isn't here anymore to provide assistance to. So the family shouldn't get their hands in money that has no will. What to fail to see is that I am against any wealth transfer. It shouldn't be allowed by law imo. If the dad wants to give a brand new car to his kid that just came to age, he should buy it and let his son drive it BUT the car would always belong to the father. If the son wants to own a car, how about working for it?
     
  10. Eureka Moments

    Eureka Moments Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    7,079
    Likes Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    bosis
    Thread should be renamed "Pedantic Semantics".
     
  11. Jislizard

    Jislizard Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,518
    Likes Received:
    639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Isn't that the problem with the current system though.

    You put together a load of laws to try and sort things out and then you get lawyers arguing on both sides over the individual meanings of each word used in the law.
     
  12. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    No, I'm not. I'm totally against confiscation of anybody's property. If you own something (a house, a car, etc.) the State should not take any of that from you. But if you earn something, the State may get part of it even before it gets into your hands (being yours). Or if you spend something, the State may get part of it even before the money getting into the hands of the seller (being his). Getting parts of ins and outs is proper taxation. Taking from belongings is confiscation and I'm not in favour of that at all.
     
  13. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    I'm not the one in denial. It was you who could never tell whether the definition I presented is right or wrong.

    Actually, the definition I presented (freedom = quantity and relevance of options) is the definition of all the definitions of freedom (and the one that can be measured). But I know, you are afraid of measuring things. How could you keep your demagogic speech then?
     
  14. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Link to your definition?

    Freedom is absence of restraint. Choices play a part in freedom, your premise though that freedom can be enhanced by introducing constraints in order to enhance choice is illogical as it counters the definition of freedom.
     
  15. col0016

    col0016 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Australia, Melbourne
    Phransisku- you don't believe people should be able to buy their kids brand new cars? How about second hand cars? How about a brand you new $11,000 small car vs a second hard Mercedes for $40,000? Should parents be allowed to buy their kid's clothing, food or bikes? Or should it be implied that this is all done with the understanding that none of it belongs to the kids and they'll have to pay for it when they get jobs?
     
  16. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again another illogical attempt to justify the theft of goods by the State. You're not very good at this are you?
     
  17. col0016

    col0016 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Australia, Melbourne
    If you don't believe in property fights, i.e the right to give your property to your kids, does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to donate to charity either?
     
  18. col0016

    col0016 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Australia, Melbourne
    Please provide links to dictionaries or legal definitions of freedom as being " the quantity and relevance of options" since apparently it is the definition of all definitions of freedom".

    Serious question, I don't really mind but are you trolling?
     
  19. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    Parents can buy whatever they want and let their kids (or anybody else) use it. None of it would belong to the kids so they would need to pay nothing.


    I do believe in property rights, I just don't believe in property transfers. YOUR things paid with YOUR money earned through YOUR work shouldn't go to anybody else. Am I the only one believing that everybody should create his own wealth?

    Regarding charity, of course you can let poor people use your stuff. But they should not sell it, once it's YOUR stuff, not theirs.
     
  20. renovator

    renovator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    6,989
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    QLD
    People can leave their money to whomever they please..its theirs .Are you trying to say that the rightful owner of that property can not do what they want with it ?

    Charity is about giving not loaning & once you have given it to them its their property to do as they please . Imo its wrong if they do but thats the way i see it .
     

Share This Page