Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Hello Mother. Hello Father. Have I got a deal for you!

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Hello Mother. Hello Father. Have I got a deal for you!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Hello Mother. Hello Father. Have I got a deal for you!
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Works best I think.

In reply to: Hello Mother. Hello Father. Have I got a deal for you!

Setting up a trust, which YOU control till death is a good way to transfer wealth and avoid some inheritance and estate taxes, but mainly for the wealthy. Since most states and the federal government are quite lenient on how much property can be inherited before taxes kick in, for many people it's not worth it. Where it's increasingly used is where the parent doesn't want to use their own funds in a spend down during a long illness toward death, but prefers to leave that to their offspring while going onto the Medicaid rolls and making taxpayers foot the bill, and any medical payments that are due after death can't be collected on without managing to "bust the trust". States have various methods to deal with this, some have several years "look backs" on financial transactions which they have the power to undo. The federal govt also passed the Estate Recovery Act which allows them to take property to pay the govt back after death, and can force a sale on a home if the person is now single and they can't express a wish to return home in the future.

Some people use bank security boxes to put money in so their inheritors can get it afterwards. I suppose one could install a large heavy safe that is fixed in concrete floor in their home and relatives could open it after they were gone and distribute it without probate or record. The whole problem with the above is funds don't grow during that period time, although one could store the excess funds as gold coin bought at their cheapest such as Canadian maple leafs, or American Eagles. Kuggerands were popular for that at one time too.

Personally, I think the parents should have started distributing any excess wealth as "gifts" over the years as they were older, that way there is less at inheritance time, but even that can be problematic if gift forms were filed with the IRS over those years, since anything above 11,000 per year is charged against the amount allowed to be inherited free from taxes.

The biggest problem is for legacy property that produces income, such as real estate rentals, family owned farms, family owned businesses. Most of those would have already been incorporated, but shares transferred after death would still be counted as inheritance.

Basically, in my opinion, the governments, both federal and state, need to get over their socialist corruptions and quit taxing the dead who wish to pass on their and ancestor's life work to their inheritors, who actually are the ones who most deserve it.

Collapse -
Something needs to be done about ...

In reply to: Works best I think.

... transferring assets so as to avoid the costs of longterm care. I do not want to see a surviving spouse left penniless or worse (with a heap of medical bills unable to pay). I also don't want to pass liability onto adult children who have no control over the care decisions made by their parents. BUT, I do believe that part of the reason we save for old age is to be able to afford care when the time comes. I have shared that my folks have done well for themselves with the investments made. Some of that is luck -- their home alone is worth quite a bit due to the explosion of property values. But I don't see any reason that the taxpayer should pay for their longterm medical care when, for example, a reverse mortgage could fund several years of such for both of them. Some might portray that as a sob story should the entire value of their home be eaten up by such, but I wouldn't, rather I would be glad that my parents were well enough off to have such care funded from assets. At the very least, before establishing trusts, long term care insurance should be required to be purchased.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) More Government programs ! womb to the tomb !

In reply to: Something needs to be done about ...

Collapse -
I agree. I don't think people should be able to hide or hold

In reply to: Something needs to be done about ...

back those assets although many scheme to do just that.

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.