Having been through the death of both my parents, my observation is that there is death industry engaged in a giant transfer of wealth from dying people to the medical establishment (who are already very wealthy).
Long term care insurance is a scam. Don't bother. They will find any excuse not to pay. You'll need to go to court or arbitration and the legal fees will eat up any settlement.
When it's my time, I plan to go expediently. No heroic measures, no experimental drug trials. I'd rather my kids inherit what I've worked for in my life than hospitals, doctors, or nursing homes.
The federal estate tax exemption amount is $11.7 million for individuals. Life insurance payments are not treated as taxable income, beneficiaries do not pay income tax on them.
Would you care to elaborate why? Estate tax (which IMO seems way too low in the US) makes it harder to accumulate generational wealth, and is a good way help prevent inequality.
Loving your children can be one of your chosen "ends."
What is abhorrent is when the government choses your ends, for you.
We should not want that.
We should not want government-forced sacrifice instead of giving an inheritance to a beloved person according to our own choices.
I would argue that people who want to ban inheritance love their "brothers" (random and probably non-deserving strangers) too much, and love their children too little.
Recieving an unearned $11.70 million untaxed income for free is the opposite of "our own ends" and "sacrifice". It sounds like you fetishize everyone else having a hard time but want to make a special exception for yourself and your kids.
The government forcing someone to give their estate to random strangers is absolutely a forced sacrifice. This is not me being poetic. I think we can agree on this. Do you not?
The question is, whether we want human sacrifice, or not. I think many people want that and would admit it openly. I, on the other hand, do not support human sacrifice.
> It sounds like you fetishize everyone else having a hard time
Do you want to have an honest intellectual discussion or do you want to try to advocate for your ideal system using emotionalism? Because obviously what you've said in this part has no intellectual content. Seems like you're on the border. Make a decision. Do you want to be rational, or not?
Can hiring only white people be one of my chosen "ends," which the government has no business interfering with? Can serving food to only white people be one of my chosen "ends"?
Yes. Freedom does not work if we are not also permitted to make irrational choices.
What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? That was true in my home state within living memory.
What if the state thinks it's irrational to not be a Christian?
What if the state thinks horses are "good enough," and cars are too dangerous to be allowed? Today's America would never allow the automobile to be invented. And Big Candle would probably lobby against the creation of lightbulbs.
Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Whether on the level of a single establishment, or a country. Rightly so. The civilized world--if there is one--will move on, and will help the discriminated relocate to free societies. (It's a shame we are not doing this for the Uigyurs--we should.)
I think we will respectfully depart there. I think there is, and hence, rights come from God. You don't think that, but it's such a fundamental difference that it's hard to go anywhere from there.
I'm curious what you would claim as evidence, if you are willing to share, even though, full disclaimer, I don't think talking about this sort of thing is within the realm of intellectual discourse.
Yes. You need an estate attorney to set it up properly but you can put all your assets into a trust with designated beneficiaries. This also has the advantage of greatly simplifying the probate process compared to a simple will. IANAL but I think this is because the trust does not "die" so all the assets the trust owns are excluded from probate.
> has the advantage of greatly simplifying the probate process
Which is why people do it.
I have seen no evidence that trusts can reduce inheritance taxes. It you have specific examples, I'd appreciate that. I've always been told by wealth management people that trusts are for managing inheritance, not for reducing taxes on it. Maybe I don't have good enough people.
"... An amount up to the estate tax exemption is placed into a trust ..."
Yeah - so not helpful!
Also says:
"... Shares of a privately held company that are assigned a low value are placed in the trust and allowed to grow, so that appreciation passes to the heirs tax-free..."
Yeah, but appreciation passes tax-free anyway. If your children inherit stocks from you, they get a cost basis step-up to the value of the stocks on the day of your death. The article is written as if this has something to do with the trust, but it doesn't.
Long term care insurance is a scam. Don't bother. They will find any excuse not to pay. You'll need to go to court or arbitration and the legal fees will eat up any settlement.
When it's my time, I plan to go expediently. No heroic measures, no experimental drug trials. I'd rather my kids inherit what I've worked for in my life than hospitals, doctors, or nursing homes.