Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Osmium" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: I Feel Old Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:29:39 -0600 Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <9dcde262-7129-4a8f-b034-105b67d61cf5@googlegroups.com> <6tWdnbjxzYFrsgTLnZ2dnUU78UudnZ2d@giganews.com> <1708264937.474641608.336923.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net kRo1D6ENtVCn7JTNJnH6cAsqo9HhwYsKE0rBfEFj+lhhIkmfIJ Cancel-Lock: sha1:2wgyUPmcxx9WevLd/pduxqpdK1c= X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Xref: csiph.com alt.folklore.computers:156740 "Peter Flass" wrote: > Osmium wrote: >> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >> >>> The trustee must have access to the trust's funds in order to do his >>> job; that's why they're usually required to itemize everything they do, >>> which for any non-trivial trust will be audited by a third party. >>> >>> Fees paid to the trustee get itemized separately; for ones like this, >>> that's typically a flat 1-2% of net asset value per year specified in >>> the trust's construction. Beware any trust that allows the trustee to >>> increase his own compensation via "transaction fees", "expenses", etc. >> >> >> This seems to me like a pretty rarefied discussion. I have a vague idea >> of >> setting up a trust for someone else, an heir for example, who is young, >> incompetent or has bad judgment. Are there other reasons for having a >> trust? >> I have a sinking feeling that if I won a certain kind of some huge legal >> suit, a trust would be created for me to give everyone involved (except >> me) >> a warm, happy glow. >> >> I note that the 1% charge per year is 20 times the cost of the Vanguard >> Amazon 500 Index fund. And I assume the trustee pays someone else to do >> the >> actual work so he just pre-skims the base before doing anything >> especially >> useful for most ordinary people. >> >> > > We set up a trust and put our house and condo in it. If either of us > needs > long-term care this will keep the government's hands off of it. > Unfortunately we just did it recently, so we have to stay healthy for a > few > years. We're the trustees so no fee. The kind of legal settlement you're > talking about is, I think, a "structured settlement". I'm always seeing > ads by companies who will buy you out of these, guving you a lump sum but > taking a big hunk themselves. Now, *that*, I can understand. *You* can be destitute, a pauper, and go on Medicaid, meanwhile, your wife can buy you a new Rolls Royce. Not literally, but do whatever it takes to allow you full use of the car. Like telling you where it is and giving you the keys. Is this simply a side effect of laws with some reasonable intent? Digging into my memory the credit lines on some PBS shows sometimes include a mention of trusts, as in the John and Mary Doe Trust. That sounds like there might be some justification hidden in there somewhere. But I think that it is more common to refer to "Foundations". Are there some big trusts I might know of? For example, the Joe Kennedy Trust? From the description of your example, it seems like every married couple who has two nickels to rub together should have a trust. But they don't, what is the dark side of setting up a trust?