Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155734 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 320 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-01 13:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 12:05 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-02 04:41 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 11:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 17:14 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 15:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 11:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 18:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:24 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:12 -0700
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 16:56 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 14:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-03 23:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-04 07:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 16:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 11:41 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:37 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:11 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 16:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 16:23 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-03 17:30 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-04 14:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-06 19:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 21:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-01 22:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 15:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-02 00:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 06:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:34 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-02 14:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:28 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-03 10:00 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-17 08:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 11:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 12:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 18:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 18:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 15:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 19:23 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:58 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 15:53 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 11:26 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:24 +0100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:06 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-08 10:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:42 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 07:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-09 11:55 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:40 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:13 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-09 13:36 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-09 15:30 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-08 10:43 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 22:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 12:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:29 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 10:03 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 21:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:22 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 10:14 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-13 18:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 07:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 13:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:51 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:01 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 13:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-08 20:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-01-08 20:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:31 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-09 12:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:31 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 17:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-09 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 11:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 17:08 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:43 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 08:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 09:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 12:28 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 10:58 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:19 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 18:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 21:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 22:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:58 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 14:01 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-11 17:28 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:29 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:30 +0100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 10:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 19:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 06:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:08 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-04 14:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 17:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 01:27 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 11:18 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-13 19:05 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 20:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-14 14:09 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-15 14:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 09:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 17:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 09:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-15 17:44 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 12:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 12:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-19 15:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 19:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:44 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-15 15:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-16 08:58 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 23:51 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 16:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 17:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 08:03 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 08:29 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 03:38 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 02:11 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 14:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:22 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 05:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:00 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-18 03:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 16:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:39 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 04:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 16:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 11:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 18:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-16 17:23 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 13:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 20:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-16 14:53 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 05:43 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:19 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 19:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 22:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 16:12 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 12:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-17 10:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-17 15:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 05:14 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-16 14:09 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 15:19 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-15 19:29 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 14:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 05:17 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-14 13:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-05 04:44 -0400
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 11:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 17:04 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-04 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-02 15:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 15:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:31 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:06 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 07:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:11 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 20:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:43 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:21 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:10 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:26 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:57 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:46 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 13:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:35 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 00:15 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 19:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 12:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 21:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:51 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:35 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 17:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 07:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:39 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:42 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 19:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 12:35 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 20:54 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 23:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:38 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-07 07:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 21:47 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 12:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 08:12 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 13:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 08:15 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:29 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:52 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:34 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:39 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 20:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:37 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:25 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-02 21:35 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-03 15:17 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 05:09 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-01-02 07:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Louis Krupp <lkrupp@nospam.pssw.com.invalid> - 2016-01-02 01:44 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 13:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-02 09:11 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-02 11:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000
Page 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 03:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfva02F4q5nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156740 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message news:dfv2ejF2rl2U1@mid.individual.net... > "Peter Flass" wrote: > >> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> 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? Not dark side so much as downside. They do require rather more organisation than not bothering with one and more fees paid to legal parasites etc. Can be quite a bit simpler too, particularly not needing changes to wills as the detail changes. Some jurisdictions don’t have any real need to keep the govt hands off anything. Ours doesn’t even have any inheritance tax or death duties at all. We do see quite a few trusts for other reasons tho, primarily tax avoidance by the more wealthy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1852240015.474668719.509787.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156740 |
Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Peter Flass" wrote:
>
>> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> 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?
>
It's a bit harder go access the money. For example, I can sell my house
and buy another to go into the trust, or use the money to buy stock for the
trust, etc. I couldn't use the money to take a trip around the world
without dissolving ("collapsing") the trust.
--
Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 16:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7ehre$de1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156753 |
On 16-Jan-16 14:32, Peter Flass wrote:
> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>> From the description of your example, it seems like every married
>> couple who has two nickels to rub together should have a trust.
>> But they don't, what is the dark side of setting up a trust?
>
> It's a bit harder go access the money. For example, I can sell my
> house and buy another to go into the trust, or use the money to buy
> stock for the trust, etc. I couldn't use the money to take a trip
> around the world without dissolving ("collapsing") the trust.
That depends entirely on how the trust was constructed; typical living
trusts will allow the trustee/beneficiary to do nearly anything, and
since generally only the beneficiary can sue the trustee for breach of
trust anyway, it is effectively "anything goes" in practice. Other
types of trusts are an entirely different matter, though.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 16:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7eh18$as5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156740 |
On 16-Jan-16 08:29, Osmium wrote: > "Peter Flass" wrote: >> 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. ... > > 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. Probably not your wife, but your _trust_ could buy _itself_ a new car (or house, etc.) and let you, as the beneficiary, use it. > 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? The grantor, trustee and beneficiary being the same person wasn't what trusts were invented for*, but the results are perfectly logical. * Nobles heading off to the Crusades needed to give someone power to manage their estates--and be assured of getting it back if/when they returned. Their wives, being property themselves, weren't considered. > 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? One of the top reasons for setting up a trust is privacy; they aren't generally known except to people directly interacting with them. > 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? It costs time and money to set up a trust, and transactions as a trustee are a bit more complicated than doing them as yourself, so few bother unless they have a substantial amount to protect/hide. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 02:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <46WdnfJsO9TOZQfLnZ2dnUU78RGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156762 |
On 16/01/2016 22:45, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
{snip}
>
> It costs time and money to set up a trust, and transactions as a trustee
> are a bit more complicated than doing them as yourself, so few bother
> unless they have a substantial amount to protect/hide.
>
> S
>
A few years ago in the UK trusts went from being tax free to paying the
highest rate of income tax.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 14:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dg0ej3Fdo6lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156774 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:46WdnfJsO9TOZQfLnZ2dnUU78RGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 16/01/2016 22:45, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> {snip}
>
>>
>> It costs time and money to set up a trust, and transactions as a trustee
>> are a bit more complicated than doing them as yourself, so few bother
>> unless they have a substantial amount to protect/hide.
>>
> A few years ago in the UK trusts went from being tax free to paying the
> highest rate of income tax.
Trusts aren't just about the income tax rate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <BL-dnVJXzK8uPgbLnZ2dnUU78XUAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156777 |
On 17/01/2016 03:02, jack wrote:
>
>
> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:46WdnfJsO9TOZQfLnZ2dnUU78RGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 16/01/2016 22:45, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>>
>>> It costs time and money to set up a trust, and transactions as a trustee
>>> are a bit more complicated than doing them as yourself, so few bother
>>> unless they have a substantial amount to protect/hide.
>>>
>> A few years ago in the UK trusts went from being tax free to paying
>> the highest rate of income tax.
>
> Trusts aren't just about the income tax rate.
When the children pass 18 that is what they become about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 05:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dg24ncFqvulU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156824 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:BL-dnVJXzK8uPgbLnZ2dnUU78XUAAAAA@giganews.com...
> On 17/01/2016 03:02, jack wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:46WdnfJsO9TOZQfLnZ2dnUU78RGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 16/01/2016 22:45, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It costs time and money to set up a trust, and transactions as a
>>>> trustee
>>>> are a bit more complicated than doing them as yourself, so few bother
>>>> unless they have a substantial amount to protect/hide.
>>>>
>>> A few years ago in the UK trusts went from being tax free to paying
>>> the highest rate of income tax.
>>
>> Trusts aren't just about the income tax rate.
>
> When the children pass 18 that is what they become about.
That varies with the jurisdiction. And in many they are a lot more
about preventing the state from getting your assets when you can
no longer live at home and need to move into a nursing home etc.
And there are a lot more than just family trusts too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 15:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7gv8r$p2h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156824 |
On 17-Jan-16 08:22, Andrew Swallow wrote: > On 17/01/2016 03:02, jack wrote: >> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>> A few years ago in the UK trusts went from being tax free to >>> paying the highest rate of income tax. >> >> Trusts aren't just about the income tax rate. > > When the children pass 18 that is what they become about. Not entirely. Trusts are often used to protect minors from their parents (or whomever else was chosen to hold the funds), but they can also be used to protect adults from themselves. For instance, it is not uncommon for inheritance trusts to terminate when the beneficiary reaches age ~25, graduates college, gets married, or various other signs of maturity. For an adult who is not legally competent, the trust may not terminate until their death. Also, even if you're doing it to avoid taxes, it may be inheritance taxes, rather than income taxes, that you're seeking to avoid. And the rich often don't want their assets to become public via probate cases; trusts allow them to keep their wealth secret. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 03:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Eq-dnfMfPsuh_gHLnZ2dnUU78Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156862 |
On 17/01/2016 21:00, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 17-Jan-16 08:22, Andrew Swallow wrote: >> On 17/01/2016 03:02, jack wrote: >>> "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> A few years ago in the UK trusts went from being tax free to >>>> paying the highest rate of income tax. >>> >>> Trusts aren't just about the income tax rate. >> >> When the children pass 18 that is what they become about. > > Not entirely. Trusts are often used to protect minors from their > parents (or whomever else was chosen to hold the funds), but they can > also be used to protect adults from themselves. For instance, it is not > uncommon for inheritance trusts to terminate when the beneficiary > reaches age ~25, graduates college, gets married, or various other signs > of maturity. For an adult who is not legally competent, the trust may > not terminate until their death. > > Also, even if you're doing it to avoid taxes, it may be inheritance > taxes, rather than income taxes, that you're seeking to avoid. And the > rich often don't want their assets to become public via probate cases; > trusts allow them to keep their wealth secret. > > S > The taxman has twigged.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 16:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rc3qmc-k9u.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156740 |
In article <dfv2ejF2rl2U1@mid.individual.net>, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >"Peter Flass" wrote: > >> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> 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? Administration. Electing the trustees can be an issue in many jurisdictions. Inheritance. You will have to see to it that the trust carries forward to your heirs as you set it up. Lots of caveats here. You will lose posession of the assets that go into the trust forever. You cannot use them (usefully) as collateral for anything but dispositions on the hand of the trust, not for yourself. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 11:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn9mvcb.1af.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156775 |
On 2016-01-16, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > In article <dfv2ejF2rl2U1@mid.individual.net>, > Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >>"Peter Flass" wrote: >> >>> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>>> >>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? > > Administration. Electing the trustees can be an issue in many jurisdictions. > Inheritance. You will have to see to it that the trust carries forward to > your heirs as you set it up. Lots of caveats here. > > You will lose posession of the assets that go into the trust forever. You > cannot use them (usefully) as collateral for anything but dispositions on > the hand of the trust, not for yourself. > > -- mrr I remember a trust-like legal vehicle that was used to pass on a family business. It had the same flaw as Communism, no one gained by wworking harder, nobody was worse off when theey goofed off. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-18 04:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dg24n5FqvulU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156806 |
<mausg@mail.com> wrote in message news:slrnn9mvcb.1af.mausg@smaus.org... > On 2016-01-16, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >> In article <dfv2ejF2rl2U1@mid.individual.net>, >> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >>>"Peter Flass" wrote: >>> >>>> Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> "Stephen Sprunk" wrote: >>>>> >>>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? >> >> Administration. Electing the trustees can be an issue in many >> jurisdictions. >> Inheritance. You will have to see to it that the trust carries forward to >> your heirs as you set it up. Lots of caveats here. >> >> You will lose posession of the assets that go into the trust forever. You >> cannot use them (usefully) as collateral for anything but dispositions on >> the hand of the trust, not for yourself. >> >> -- mrr > > I remember a trust-like legal vehicle that was used to pass on a family > business. It had the same flaw as Communism, no one gained by wworking > harder, nobody was worse off when theey goofed off. Plenty did gain by working harder and lost by goofing off in small family business where everything you did was obvious to everyone. And the trust helped a lot with inheritance tax at some times in some jurisdictions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 16:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn9ks6f.18g.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156735 |
On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> 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. > I've thought of that myself, BUT: A person on local radio last week described how her mother, at the end of the housing boom here, availed of an offer that was common at that time, and got 180,000 roughly from the bank/whatever to live on, the bank to take over the house on her death. Now that lady has to move in with her married daughter, being over 90. The bank wants to take over her house, but house prices haven fallen, now want 300,000 from someone (Whatever the house makes , less (interest on 180,000)). Logic is a little fuzzy here, but my meaning should be clear. The original salesman can not be found, even besides that, financial wheezes like that are statute barred after 7 years here. The same deal was proposed to me, but I understood that it was sort of a bet, the bank betting that I wwould be dead before (x) years. It seems that it is really (heads I lose, tails you win). T'was ever so. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 11:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dfvccqF5ecnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156742 |
<mausg@mail.com> wrote: > A person on local radio last week described how her mother, at the end > of the housing boom here, availed of an offer that was common at that > time, > and got 180,000 roughly from the bank/whatever to live on, the bank to > take > over the house on her death. Now that lady has to move in with her married > daughter, being over 90. The bank wants to take over her house, but house > prices haven fallen, now want 300,000 from someone (Whatever the house > makes > , less (interest on 180,000)). Logic is a little fuzzy here, but my > meaning > should be clear. The original salesman can not be found, even besides > that, > financial wheezes like that are statute barred after 7 years here. The lady changed her mind, right? I assume she planned on living in the house till death, then changed her mind about that. That seems like a not unlikely outcome. I wonder if a lawyer would have helped her see this possibility. My guess is that a typical lawyer would immerse himself in the legal mumbo-jumbo and not have been any help at all. She should have talked this over with friends and relatives - but relatives could well be biased.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 18:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn9l3ct.2o9.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156748 |
On 2016-01-16, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: ><mausg@mail.com> wrote: > >> A person on local radio last week described how her mother, at the end >> of the housing boom here, availed of an offer that was common at that >> time, >> and got 180,000 roughly from the bank/whatever to live on, the bank to >> take >> over the house on her death. Now that lady has to move in with her married >> daughter, being over 90. The bank wants to take over her house, but house >> prices haven fallen, now want 300,000 from someone (Whatever the house >> makes >> , less (interest on 180,000)). Logic is a little fuzzy here, but my >> meaning >> should be clear. The original salesman can not be found, even besides >> that, >> financial wheezes like that are statute barred after 7 years here. > > The lady changed her mind, right? That was not stated. I think the problem is the amount the bank wants. People moving in with relatives generally never go home. > I assume she planned on living in the > house till death, then changed her mind about that. That seems like a not > unlikely outcome. Yes. > > I wonder if a lawyer would have helped her see this possibility. Probbaly, she never did that. Old people can be very silly. > My guess > is that a typical lawyer would immerse himself in the legal mumbo-jumbo and > not have been any help at all. She should have talked this over with friends > and relatives - but relatives could well be biased. > Yes. A similiar case was people who earned their living through contracts, and were persuaded take out `employ' insurance. It didn't apply, of course, but they were not even able to recover their payments. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 17:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601161715100.24588@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156748 |
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016, Osmium wrote: > <mausg@mail.com> wrote: > >> A person on local radio last week described how her mother, at the end >> of the housing boom here, availed of an offer that was common at that time, >> and got 180,000 roughly from the bank/whatever to live on, the bank to take >> over the house on her death. Now that lady has to move in with her married >> daughter, being over 90. The bank wants to take over her house, but house >> prices haven fallen, now want 300,000 from someone (Whatever the house >> makes >> , less (interest on 180,000)). Logic is a little fuzzy here, but my meaning >> should be clear. The original salesman can not be found, even besides that, >> financial wheezes like that are statute barred after 7 years here. > > The lady changed her mind, right? I assume she planned on living in the > house till death, then changed her mind about that. That seems like a not > unlikely outcome. > I suspect it's less about changing one's mind, but living longer than expected and circumstances thus changing. When my grandmother died in 1972, her house was put in trust for us three kids. I think everyone assumed my mother would die some day quietly, something you don't really think about. But she kept ticking, and after some years of odd events, it just seemed best to put her in a home. So we took the house out of trust. I hadn't really thought about that, the condition was it wsa in trust until we were all 21 or maybe 30 (I don't know) but only after my mother died. Nobody ever thought of a time when she'd be unable to live in the house, yet still have life to her. But there is reason to take it out of trust, instead of spending money on upkeep as they see fit, we have control of it. > I wonder if a lawyer would have helped her see this possibility. My > guess is that a typical lawyer would immerse himself in the legal > mumbo-jumbo and not have been any help at all. She should have talked > this over with friends and relatives - but relatives could well be > biased. > Maybe it was a bad move, but maybe it seemed a good move at the time. Get some income, but the use of the house. When people used to die earlier (a lot less medecine to keep them going) it would have been very reasonable. Unless you want the kids to have the house, you might as well get some return on it when you can make use of that money (or need to use that money). But people's lives keep getting extended, and the longer you live, the more likely you won't be able to live by yourself. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 13:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31044f9854f05268989e0b@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156742 |
In article <slrnn9ks6f.18g.mausg@smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says... > > On 2016-01-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> 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. > > > > I've thought of that myself, BUT: > > A person on local radio last week described how her mother, at the end > of the housing boom here, availed of an offer that was common at that time, > and got 180,000 roughly from the bank/whatever to live on, the bank to take > over the house on her death. Now that lady has to move in with her married > daughter, being over 90. The bank wants to take over her house, but house > prices haven fallen, now want 300,000 from someone (Whatever the house makes > , less (interest on 180,000)). Logic is a little fuzzy here, but my meaning > should be clear. The original salesman can not be found, even besides that, > financial wheezes like that are statute barred after 7 years here. > > The same deal was proposed to me, but I understood that it was sort of a bet, > the bank betting that I wwould be dead before (x) years. > > It seems that it is really (heads I lose, tails you win). T'was ever so. The original salesman doesn't have any real relevance unless he he had a financial interest other than his commission. There should be a contract somewhere, with what is owed to who under what circumstance spelled out in the contract.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 20:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160116205540.f3a10b72c36cd86b93399d76@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156749 |
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:01:52 -0500 "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > The original salesman doesn't have any real relevance unless he he had a > financial interest other than his commission. There should be a > contract somewhere, with what is owed to who under what circumstance > spelled out in the contract. Ome of the classes of problems resulting from the Celtic Tiger boom and subsequent bust is that during the boom there was a lot of "we'll sort out the paperwork later, just pass over the money and your good to go" going on. With the bust many of the parties involved in chains of deals of one kind or another went bust and paperwork that may or may not have existed can no longer be found. We were looking at one place going for an excellent price (one we could afford!) when the market was pretty much rock bottom. We went to make an offer for it only to be told that it was off the market temporarily while some paperwork was sorted out, it should be OK in a week or two. Another agent told us that the place was never going to be sold as it had been through a number of hands during the boom without all the proper traces and validations being done and now all the relevant paperwork was lost among several agents and solicitors none of whom were still in business, and in some cases had left the country without clearing up their bankrupt affairs. Apparently this was not an uncommon situation. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 14:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <idil9b12m7rbt61ga5pppsqoe5utqmihjb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #156757 |
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 20:55:40 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
[snip]
> We were looking at one place going for an excellent price (one we
>could afford!) when the market was pretty much rock bottom. We went to make
>an offer for it only to be told that it was off the market temporarily while
>some paperwork was sorted out, it should be OK in a week or two. Another
>agent told us that the place was never going to be sold as it had been
>through a number of hands during the boom without all the proper traces and
>validations being done and now all the relevant paperwork was lost among
>several agents and solicitors none of whom were still in business, and in
>some cases had left the country without clearing up their bankrupt affairs.
>Apparently this was not an uncommon situation.
How does such a situation get cleared up? Anyone answering,
please state which country you are answering for.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web