Relatives who just don't get it

[Fishindude]

Not a relative but a close friend story.   
Spent last weekend with a good buddy relaxing at my cabin, he's 58 years old been married a long time, and he shared the following unsolicited information.
* Before leaving went to get some money from ATM, but wasn't anything in the account so wife got him some cash somehow.
* They were upside down on last automobile, replaced it and now leasing a new car.
* One kid has over $200K in college loans and still not finished.
* They've lived in same house for 30+ years but still have a mortgage payment, due to re-fi's.

From outward appearance, this couple looks to be very successful; nice house, nice autos, clean cut, good kids, etc. but I'm guessing most everything they earn is going out the door in payments.
I'm hoping they have been participating heavily in 401K's because they aren't too far from retirement age.  Don't think either's job would have a pension.   

This is probably a snapshot of many American families.

[charis]

Not a relative but a close friend story.   
Spent last weekend with a good buddy relaxing at my cabin, he's 58 years old been married a long time, and he shared the following unsolicited information.
* Before leaving went to get some money from ATM, but wasn't anything in the account so wife got him some cash somehow.
* They were upside down on last automobile, replaced it and now leasing a new car.
* One kid has over $200K in college loans and still not finished.
* They've lived in same house for 30+ years but still have a mortgage payment, due to re-fi's.

From outward appearance, this couple looks to be very successful; nice house, nice autos, clean cut, good kids, etc. but I'm guessing most everything they earn is going out the door in payments.
I'm hoping they have been participating heavily in 401K's because they aren't too far from retirement age.  Don't think either's job would have a pension.   

This is probably a snapshot of many American families.

I have friends who could very well be this couple in 20+ years.  Bought a nice, expensive house in an expensive neighborhood (at the "high end" of their budget) a few years ago - mortgaged 90% even with selling their prior home (against which they took out home equity loans every couple of years). 

Based on comments over the past few years, it is clear that they have been basically living paycheck to paycheck.  One spouse recently took a pay cut and now there's talk of moving, ostensibly to a less expensive property (but not according to the listings they've showed me), just so they can afford current bills, including private school tuition. 

Not much cash or college savings to my knowledge.  The strain is also hurting their marriage but they cannot afford counseling at the moment.

[druth]

Not everyone saves on taxes from marriage. In fact, you could actually pay more taxes depending on income. If you have middle class income and each make equal pay, there is no savings or penalty on taxes.

And even when you are in the blue bands in that graph, where you are making significantly different incomes, you are probably missing out on a ton of government benefits by being married.

It might save us 3k in taxes to be married but the loss of my state health insurance would be a 5k+ burden.

[infogoon]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

[Feivel2000]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

Well, yes and no.
First of all, in Germany, we have a compulsory long-term care insurance. So every one is forced to prepare for long-term care in addition to the compulsory health insurance.
This insurance should, in theory, make sure, that an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

But, a nursing home space for someone with Pflegestufe (level of care needed) 3 will cost roughly 3165€ per month while the long-term care insurance maxes out at 2005€ per month. The difference has to be paid (ultimately) by the care receiver or his relatives.

First the spouse has to pay.
If at the time of the divorce the need for care is known, the obligation to support persists. Even if the illness is not known, there is something called "Unterhalt in Not" (support in need/misery) what could lead to an obligation to support the ex, even years after the divorce. (Unterhalt in Not can be excluded during the divorce process, but you need to know about it to exclude it...)

If the spouse can't pay (or when the care has consumed all available resources), the children have to pay for the care for their parents. This obligation persists, even if you hate your parents and haven't spoken to them for 30 years.

Of course, there are limits. E.g, as son or daughter you don't have to pay if your monthly disposable income is below 1800€ (3420 if married).
But this protected income can go down to 770€ per month, if the care receiver is your spouse.

So an elderly person in need for care could bankrupt their spouse.

TLDR;
In Germany we are forced to prepare for long-term care. The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year. If it's your spouse, it can bankrupt you.

[WranglerBowman]

At the in-laws last night for dinner and they mentioned that their dryer broke, said when they opened the door it fell to the floor.  Looked at it for 10 seconds saw that the hinge catch was no longer hitting the catch point, bent the hinge back a little so it would catch...door fixed.  They said "O thanks, but the new dryer is coming tomorrow...and we paid Sears to take the old one away".  I tried not to look down on them but now their perfectly good dryer will be going to the scrap yard... and it drives me nuts...why are people so damn wasteful...

[Feivel2000]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year.

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

But let me clarify: Only vertical relatives (grandparents <-> parents <-> children), not horizontal (brother/sister).

[AlanStache]

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Is complicated.  Should I contribute to the care of your parents when you could care for them?  This quickly gets into much larger questions.

[merula]

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Is complicated.  Should I contribute to the care of your parents when you could care for them?  This quickly gets into much larger questions.

This exists in the US, too, though. The Koch brothers and Warren Buffet are entitled to their Social Security and Medicare Part A benefits just like anyone else, subject to the requirements of those programs. Taxpayers also pay for lots of things for people who could afford them themselves: pensions for Congress aren't means tested, nor is continued Secret Service protection for former presidents and their families, despite the fact that all living former (and, heck, current) presidents could easily afford the cost of private security. (Except maybe Carter? He sold the peanut farm and I don't think he gets paid for Habitat For Humanity, so who knows?)

[wenchsenior]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year.

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Actually, there are a number of states with similar laws on the books, though usually not enforced, that allow the state or private nursing facilities to pursue forced payment from other relatives.  I read an article recently that speculated that as the U.S. population ages and the financial burden increases, more state might start trying to enforce these laws. 

Scary shit, indeed.

[MgoSam]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year.

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Actually, there are a number of states with similar laws on the books, though usually not enforced, that allow the state or private nursing facilities to pursue forced payment from other relatives.  I read an article recently that speculated that as the U.S. population ages and the financial burden increases, more state might start trying to enforce these laws. 

Scary shit, indeed.

I read a case where a guy provided a sperm sample to a lesbian couple with the agreement that he would have no parental rights or responsibilities. Well the couple later filed for welfare and the state went after him for back child support. The trial judge agreed with the state and threw out the agreement he had with the couple. Thankfully on appeal that was overturned.

[Feivel2000]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year.

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Actually, there are a number of states with similar laws on the books, though usually not enforced, that allow the state or private nursing facilities to pursue forced payment from other relatives.  I read an article recently that speculated that as the U.S. population ages and the financial burden increases, more state might start trying to enforce these laws. 

Scary shit, indeed.

I read a case where a guy provided a sperm sample to a lesbian couple with the agreement that he would have no parental rights or responsibilities. Well the couple later filed for welfare and the state went after him for back child support. The trial judge agreed with the state and threw out the agreement he had with the couple. Thankfully on appeal that was overturned.

Abuse is one reason why you would not have to pay.

Child support is not for the mother, it is for the child. So I can understand why the biological father could stay liable. Even though it's counter intuitive. It is probably the result of old laws from times when nobody had considered this constellation as a real possibility.

[Dicey]

At the in-laws last night for dinner and they mentioned that their dryer broke, said when they opened the door it fell to the floor.  Looked at it for 10 seconds saw that the hinge catch was no longer hitting the catch point, bent the hinge back a little so it would catch...door fixed.  They said "O thanks, but the new dryer is coming tomorrow...and we paid Sears to take the old one away".  I tried not to look down on them but now their perfectly good dryer will be going to the scrap yard... and it drives me nuts...why are people so damn wasteful...

Could you have paid them the disposal fee and then resold the unit for more yourself? Also, it's possible that Sears will refurbish/resell  or sell it to someone who will, so it may not be a complete waste after all.

[jinga nation]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year.

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Actually, there are a number of states with similar laws on the books, though usually not enforced, that allow the state or private nursing facilities to pursue forced payment from other relatives.  I read an article recently that speculated that as the U.S. population ages and the financial burden increases, more state might start trying to enforce these laws. 

Scary shit, indeed.

I read a case where a guy provided a sperm sample to a lesbian couple with the agreement that he would have no parental rights or responsibilities. Well the couple later filed for welfare and the state went after him for back child support. The trial judge agreed with the state and threw out the agreement he had with the couple. Thankfully on appeal that was overturned.

Abuse is one reason why you would not have to pay.

Child support is not for the mother, it is for the child. So I can understand why the biological father could stay liable. Even though it's counter intuitive. It is probably the result of old laws from times when nobody had considered this constellation as a real possibility.

Men need to stop giving their sperm away willy-nilly. Treat it like Intellectual Property.
(Pun intended in line above.)

[MgoSam]

That's why I am also surprised that you so easily get off the hook. In Germany, a pure legal divorce would not help you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand in Germany health care for an elderly person would not bankrupt their spouse.

The obligation to support relatives is broad and hard to dodge. Relatives who need care can cost you thousands of Euro per year.

That is horrifying. I'm so glad I can't be forced to care for anyone.

Actually, there are a number of states with similar laws on the books, though usually not enforced, that allow the state or private nursing facilities to pursue forced payment from other relatives.  I read an article recently that speculated that as the U.S. population ages and the financial burden increases, more state might start trying to enforce these laws. 

Scary shit, indeed.

I read a case where a guy provided a sperm sample to a lesbian couple with the agreement that he would have no parental rights or responsibilities. Well the couple later filed for welfare and the state went after him for back child support. The trial judge agreed with the state and threw out the agreement he had with the couple. Thankfully on appeal that was overturned.

Abuse is one reason why you would not have to pay.

Child support is not for the mother, it is for the child. So I can understand why the biological father could stay liable. Even though it's counter intuitive. It is probably the result of old laws from times when nobody had considered this constellation as a real possibility.

Men need to stop giving their sperm away willy-nilly. Treat it like Intellectual Property.
(Pun intended in line above.)

Do you think that male athletes should think of themselves as being like racehorses, and should charge a stud fee? I'm guessing it is a better plan than whatever athletes like Adrian Peterson and Antonio Cromartie have come up with.

[Raenia]

I read a case where a guy provided a sperm sample to a lesbian couple with the agreement that he would have no parental rights or responsibilities. Well the couple later filed for welfare and the state went after him for back child support. The trial judge agreed with the state and threw out the agreement he had with the couple. Thankfully on appeal that was overturned.

Abuse is one reason why you would not have to pay.

Child support is not for the mother, it is for the child. So I can understand why the biological father could stay liable. Even though it's counter intuitive. It is probably the result of old laws from times when nobody had considered this constellation as a real possibility.

That's really scary, glad to hear it was overturned - if it could happen in a case like this, then what about an adoption?  If you put a child up for adoption and the adopted parents run out of money, could this law allow them to go after the birth parents for money?

[Cadman]

Could you have paid them the disposal fee and then resold the unit for more yourself? Also, it's possible that Sears will refurbish/resell  or sell it to someone who will, so it may not be a complete waste after all.

That dryer is as good as scrap metal. Mom and pop stores will sometimes repair and resell, but it's too big a liability for the major chains. It's a damn shame.

[FireHiker]

At the in-laws last night for dinner and they mentioned that their dryer broke, said when they opened the door it fell to the floor.  Looked at it for 10 seconds saw that the hinge catch was no longer hitting the catch point, bent the hinge back a little so it would catch...door fixed.  They said "O thanks, but the new dryer is coming tomorrow...and we paid Sears to take the old one away".  I tried not to look down on them but now their perfectly good dryer will be going to the scrap yard... and it drives me nuts...why are people so damn wasteful...

My in-laws recently bought a new dryer because they were having problems with their old one...turned out they just needed to clean the dryer vent (i believe this was discovered when they also had problems with the new one...) Generally they are pretty smart with their money, but ugh, it was hard to bite my tongue on this one!

[former player]

That's really scary, glad to hear it was overturned - if it could happen in a case like this, then what about an adoption?  If you put a child up for adoption and the adopted parents run out of money, could this law allow them to go after the birth parents for money?

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

Paying for elder care has been a debate in the UK election.  I do think that, outside the entitlements from taxes that everyone gets, people who can afford their own care should pay for it, but with a sufficient safeguard as to minimum capital/income disregards for family members not to be left destitute.  I don't have a problem with the state paying for care but putting a lien on the spouse's house which becomes payable when the house is sold or the spouse moves.  I don't see that there is any entitlement to have the state pay for care in order to preserve an inheritance.

[MgoSam]

That's really scary, glad to hear it was overturned - if it could happen in a case like this, then what about an adoption?  If you put a child up for adoption and the adopted parents run out of money, could this law allow them to go after the birth parents for money?

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy. 

[ormaybemidgets]

That's really scary, glad to hear it was overturned - if it could happen in a case like this, then what about an adoption?  If you put a child up for adoption and the adopted parents run out of money, could this law allow them to go after the birth parents for money?

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy.

The original decision might have had something to do with the fact that they found the sperm donor on Craigslist, and no doctor was involved. I don't see a reason to think this would happen in the usual course of sperm donation.

[Raenia]

That's really scary, glad to hear it was overturned - if it could happen in a case like this, then what about an adoption?  If you put a child up for adoption and the adopted parents run out of money, could this law allow them to go after the birth parents for money?

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

So the couple in the case never adopted their child as a legal member of their family?  I suppose maybe they didn't think the paperwork was necessary since they had their own agreement, but that still wouldn't give the non-biological mother any parental rights.

[Reynold]

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy.

The original decision might have had something to do with the fact that they found the sperm donor on Craigslist, and no doctor was involved. I don't see a reason to think this would happen in the usual course of sperm donation.

If the judge can "disregard all written agreements" for the welfare of the child, I don't see why they couldn't still go after the sperm donor, or for that matter the birth parents of the adopted child.   Why would a written agreement involving a doctor be any different than one not involving a doctor?

[Cookie78]

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy.

The original decision might have had something to do with the fact that they found the sperm donor on Craigslist, and no doctor was involved. I don't see a reason to think this would happen in the usual course of sperm donation.

If the judge can "disregard all written agreements" for the welfare of the child, I don't see why they couldn't still go after the sperm donor, or for that matter the birth parents of the adopted child.   Why would a written agreement involving a doctor be any different than one not involving a doctor?

Bigger legal team?

[MgoSam]

That's really scary, glad to hear it was overturned - if it could happen in a case like this, then what about an adoption?  If you put a child up for adoption and the adopted parents run out of money, could this law allow them to go after the birth parents for money?

Once an adoption has gone through it changes the legal position: legally the child is the child of the adoptive family not the birth family, so no.

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy.

The original decision might have had something to do with the fact that they found the sperm donor on Craigslist, and no doctor was involved. I don't see a reason to think this would happen in the usual course of sperm donation.

I looked the case up and you are correct. It was because they didn't use a licensed physician.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article337100/Judge-rules-that-Kansan-who-provided-sperm-to-lesbian-couple-owes-child-support.html

That said I still think the judge's reasoning was wrong and am glad that it was overturned on appeal.

[mm1970]

I am really surprised to hear so many Americans have the opinion that in case of a serious illness, people should separate to save the assets, so one partner can enjoy life and hopefully have lots to pass on.
What happened to personal accountability and responsibility or "In good and in bad times".

I am not suggesting that I wouldn't probably think about cashing out all the profits from a marriage and let the community pay for medical aid for the love of my life, but still, I am pretty surprised how common this thinking is...

This is kind of a tough one.  I've seen it in person sometimes too.  Like my spouse's middle class grandparents "sold" their house to their kids for $1.  When it came time to go into a home, it was protected.  It was their only inheritance - what little money was left was taken by Medicaid.  There are interesting parts about it all, when it comes to philosophy.  Really wealthy people can set up trusts and such to protect assets, and are unlikely to end up in a Medicaid home also.

But in some cases, like ones mentioned on here - what of the surviving spouse?  The surviving spouse could live 10,20,30 years?  I don't know how it works, but could Medicaid take almost everything, leaving the surviving spouse in poverty?

I mean, I also understand the desire to leave money to your heirs.  I really do.  But dang it, what's the point of having the money if you aren't using it to make yourself comfortable in your old age?  Is it okay to burden ALL taxpayers to leave your kids money?  My parents are dead.  My stepfather is still living, and his estate is reasonably large but under a million.  Sure it would be awesome to inherit.  But if he's got another 10 years to live I'd *MUCH* rather he use his money to hire a cleaning person, someone to mow the lawn, and a nurse (he's in poor health).  And eventually, if he has to go into a home (that's not really done in my home town), I'd hope he'd use his money to at least live in a nice one.  10 years in a home would probably use up the majority of his estate.  But so what!  He earned that money, I didn't.

[AlanStache]

At the in-laws last night for dinner and they mentioned that their dryer broke, said when they opened the door it fell to the floor.  Looked at it for 10 seconds saw that the hinge catch was no longer hitting the catch point, bent the hinge back a little so it would catch...door fixed.  They said "O thanks, but the new dryer is coming tomorrow...and we paid Sears to take the old one away".  I tried not to look down on them but now their perfectly good dryer will be going to the scrap yard... and it drives me nuts...why are people so damn wasteful...

Could you have paid them the disposal fee and then resold the unit for more yourself? Also, it's possible that Sears will refurbish/resell  or sell it to someone who will, so it may not be a complete waste after all.

I got my washer/dryer from a guy that was a contractor for BestBuy to deliver appliances.  Seems lots of people are happy for him to 'dispose of' there nearly perfect 'old' appliances when they get new ones.  He then puts 10$ of parts into them and 20 minutes of time before selling them on CL.  300$ delivered & set up!

[BFGirl]

I am really surprised to hear so many Americans have the opinion that in case of a serious illness, people should separate to save the assets, so one partner can enjoy life and hopefully have lots to pass on.
What happened to personal accountability and responsibility or "In good and in bad times".

I am not suggesting that I wouldn't probably think about cashing out all the profits from a marriage and let the community pay for medical aid for the love of my life, but still, I am pretty surprised how common this thinking is...

This is kind of a tough one.  I've seen it in person sometimes too.  Like my spouse's middle class grandparents "sold" their house to their kids for $1.  When it came time to go into a home, it was protected.  It was their only inheritance - what little money was left was taken by Medicaid.  There are interesting parts about it all, when it comes to philosophy.  Really wealthy people can set up trusts and such to protect assets, and are unlikely to end up in a Medicaid home also.

But in some cases, like ones mentioned on here - what of the surviving spouse?  The surviving spouse could live 10,20,30 years?  I don't know how it works, but could Medicaid take almost everything, leaving the surviving spouse in poverty?

I mean, I also understand the desire to leave money to your heirs.  I really do.  But dang it, what's the point of having the money if you aren't using it to make yourself comfortable in your old age?  Is it okay to burden ALL taxpayers to leave your kids money?  My parents are dead.  My stepfather is still living, and his estate is reasonably large but under a million.  Sure it would be awesome to inherit.  But if he's got another 10 years to live I'd *MUCH* rather he use his money to hire a cleaning person, someone to mow the lawn, and a nurse (he's in poor health).  And eventually, if he has to go into a home (that's not really done in my home town), I'd hope he'd use his money to at least live in a nice one.  10 years in a home would probably use up the majority of his estate.  But so what!  He earned that money, I didn't.

Medicaid for long term care has an income test and a resources test.  The spouse still living in the community can keep all income in their name.  If the community spouse has little income, they can keep up to $3022 of the sick spouse's income.  I think the spouse living in the community gets to keep half of the joint resources (doesn't' matter if it is community or separate property) up to $120,900.  Everything else has to be spent down before Medicaid will pay for long term care for a sick spouse.  At least, this is how it works in my state.  Medicaid can go after the house later to recover the benefits paid.

So, yes...a spouse in the community could end up with very little left to live on for the rest of their lives if they didn't have much in the way of income.

[iris lily]

I am really surprised to hear so many Americans have the opinion that in case of a serious illness, people should separate to save the assets, so one partner can enjoy life and hopefully have lots to pass on.
What happened to personal accountability and responsibility or "In good and in bad times".

I am not suggesting that I wouldn't probably think about cashing out all the profits from a marriage and let the community pay for medical aid for the love of my life, but still, I am pretty surprised how common this thinking is...

This is kind of a tough one.  I've seen it in person sometimes too.  Like my spouse's middle class grandparents "sold" their house to their kids for $1.  When it came time to go into a home, it was protected.  It was their only inheritance - what little money was left was taken by Medicaid.  There are interesting parts about it all, when it comes to philosophy.  Really wealthy people can set up trusts and such to protect assets, and are unlikely to end up in a Medicaid home also.

But in some cases, like ones mentioned on here - what of the surviving spouse?  The surviving spouse could live 10,20,30 years?  I don't know how it works, but could Medicaid take almost everything, leaving the surviving spouse in poverty?...

Yes, sort of. Depends how you define "almost everything" and "poverty."

When I last looked into for me and DH, my state would allow him to keep $80,000 plus this house plus his separate income stream. It might let him keep IRAs in his name, not sure.

Of our total assets, that isnt much. But for him it would be enough.

I once semi-planned on the divorce option, splitting all of our assets down the middle, but I have si ce figured out that my income plus $500,000 would keep me in a nursing home for ten years. I doubt I would last beyond that.

[cheapass]

My bother in law is definitely a "relative who doesn't get it". We were talking about health insurance through our employers and he mentioned he usually pays a lot every year out of pocket before he hits his family deductible. Of course I suggested utilizing the HSA account.

His reply - "yeah but you gotta have money to live too"

What!!?! You're foregoing a 25% discount on your known annual costs just so you don't have to inconvenience yourself with planning ahead?

This is the same dude who, on Christmas morning, mentioned to me how he was going to be in debt for a long time after buying his kids a mountain of presents. Literally a mountain.

[Chris22]

At the in-laws last night for dinner and they mentioned that their dryer broke, said when they opened the door it fell to the floor.  Looked at it for 10 seconds saw that the hinge catch was no longer hitting the catch point, bent the hinge back a little so it would catch...door fixed.  They said "O thanks, but the new dryer is coming tomorrow...and we paid Sears to take the old one away".  I tried not to look down on them but now their perfectly good dryer will be going to the scrap yard... and it drives me nuts...why are people so damn wasteful...

Could you have paid them the disposal fee and then resold the unit for more yourself? Also, it's possible that Sears will refurbish/resell  or sell it to someone who will, so it may not be a complete waste after all.

I got my washer/dryer from a guy that was a contractor for BestBuy to deliver appliances.  Seems lots of people are happy for him to 'dispose of' there nearly perfect 'old' appliances when they get new ones.  He then puts 10$ of parts into them and 20 minutes of time before selling them on CL.  300$ delivered & set up!

I felt bad doing this recently.  My 10y/o washing machine broke (would often fail to spin or agitate so clothes weren't getting clean or dry).  I hopped on the internet to see if there was a clear-cut fix, and some googling said "no not really".  So I got some tools and went down to take it apart, but something stopped me.  We were days away from having a newborn baby (and the resulting laundry needs) and I figured at 10 years old, even if I fixed this, how long is it going to last?  It could be another 10 years, or it could be six months, or it could be that I threw $100 in parts at it and couldn't fix it.  So I said fuck it and spent $350 on a new one.  Had we not been about to have a newborn it would've been a different decision, but I just didn't need that stress right then.  Oh well. 

[Playing with Fire UK]

At the in-laws last night for dinner and they mentioned that their dryer broke, said when they opened the door it fell to the floor.  Looked at it for 10 seconds saw that the hinge catch was no longer hitting the catch point, bent the hinge back a little so it would catch...door fixed.  They said "O thanks, but the new dryer is coming tomorrow...and we paid Sears to take the old one away".  I tried not to look down on them but now their perfectly good dryer will be going to the scrap yard... and it drives me nuts...why are people so damn wasteful...

Could you have paid them the disposal fee and then resold the unit for more yourself? Also, it's possible that Sears will refurbish/resell  or sell it to someone who will, so it may not be a complete waste after all.

I got my washer/dryer from a guy that was a contractor for BestBuy to deliver appliances.  Seems lots of people are happy for him to 'dispose of' there nearly perfect 'old' appliances when they get new ones.  He then puts 10$ of parts into them and 20 minutes of time before selling them on CL.  300$ delivered & set up!

I felt bad doing this recently.  My 10y/o washing machine broke (would often fail to spin or agitate so clothes weren't getting clean or dry).  I hopped on the internet to see if there was a clear-cut fix, and some googling said "no not really".  So I got some tools and went down to take it apart, but something stopped me.  We were days away from having a newborn baby (and the resulting laundry needs) and I figured at 10 years old, even if I fixed this, how long is it going to last?  It could be another 10 years, or it could be six months, or it could be that I threw $100 in parts at it and couldn't fix it.  So I said fuck it and spent $350 on a new one.  Had we not been about to have a newborn it would've been a different decision, but I just didn't need that stress right then.  Oh well.

I absolve you of this behaviour. This is what money is for. For solving genuine problems for which money is the answer.

[Daleth]

If the judge can "disregard all written agreements" for the welfare of the child, I don't see why they couldn't still go after the sperm donor, or for that matter the birth parents of the adopted child.   Why would a written agreement involving a doctor be any different than one not involving a doctor?

After adoption, the birth parents have no legal connection to the child. They have no more financial responsibility for her than some random dude at the bus stop does.

As for written agreements, the point of requiring a doctor is to make sure of two things: (1) the conception really happened as donor conceptions do, via insemination rather than sex; and (2) the agreement predates the conception, so you know for sure that having the guy be only a sperm donor rather than a father really was their intention from the get-go, and they're not just trying to play the system by turning an "oops" pregnancy into an "I'll let you raise the kid by yourself with no hassle as long as you don't ask me for any money."

[Daleth]

Like my spouse's middle class grandparents "sold" their house to their kids for $1.  When it came time to go into a home, it was protected.  It was their only inheritance - what little money was left was taken by Medicaid.  There are interesting parts about it all, when it comes to philosophy.  Really wealthy people can set up trusts and such to protect assets, and are unlikely to end up in a Medicaid home also.

Medicaid has a five-year look-back provision. If your spouse's grandparents sold their house less than five years before needing to apply for Medicaid, that sale would've been overturned (or rather, the kids would've had to pay the home's value back to the grandparents, and the grandparents would've had to spend down that money before they qualified for Medicaid). The same is true of trusts and basically any transaction where money leaves the pockets of the person who later seeks Medicaid.

[Daleth]

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy.

It wouldn't destroy surrogacy at all. I haven't seen the decision but the news articles I saw said that the judge concluded both that the sperm donor wasn't the father, in part because he had little or no contact with the child, and that the mother's former partner was the other legal mother. So my guess is the ramifications of the decision are only relevant where the woman who gets pregnant with donor sperm has a spouse or partner she intends to be the co-parent. In other words once the kid has two legal parents (or people who should be considered legal parents), of whatever gender, the state can't go after a third person for child support.

As for surrogacy, the overwhelming majority of surrogacy in America is gestational surrogacy, meaning that the surrogate isn't the one whose eggs are used. The intended mother or an egg donor provides the eggs. That requires IVF; it's totally impossible to do without a doctor. So a case based on "there was no doctor involved so you're the dad" has no bearing on 99.99999% of the surrogacy cases out there.

[mm1970]

Like my spouse's middle class grandparents "sold" their house to their kids for $1.  When it came time to go into a home, it was protected.  It was their only inheritance - what little money was left was taken by Medicaid.  There are interesting parts about it all, when it comes to philosophy.  Really wealthy people can set up trusts and such to protect assets, and are unlikely to end up in a Medicaid home also.

Medicaid has a five-year look-back provision. If your spouse's grandparents sold their house less than five years before needing to apply for Medicaid, that sale would've been overturned (or rather, the kids would've had to pay the home's value back to the grandparents, and the grandparents would've had to spend down that money before they qualified for Medicaid). The same is true of trusts and basically any transaction where money leaves the pockets of the person who later seeks Medicaid.

It was way more than 5 years.  Probably at least 10, if not 20.

[Guava]

It appears relative's disability through her employer was cancelled. We don't know specifics about their situation but have been able to gather that they gross at least $15k between his job, her disability, and the child support payments they get. We are guessing her disability on the low end of $5k per month. They have no idea how to make ends meet. We live in a LCOL area. She only has 3 more years of child support. They never saw their impending financial disaster coming. They even recently refinanced their credit card debt into their mortgage...for the third time...

I am curious what will come next.

Well, that situation worked itself out and it turns out only her insurance was cancelled. They get to keep the paycheck. We thought this would scare them into savings more but we just found out they replaced a perfectly good truck (that we helped them get for a killer deal way below market value) for a newer diesel with higher miles. They don't even drive the truck they already had because shortly after the husband got a company vehicle. I guess some people will never learn...

[WranglerBowman]

At the in-laws last night for dinner and they mentioned that their dryer broke, said when they opened the door it fell to the floor.  Looked at it for 10 seconds saw that the hinge catch was no longer hitting the catch point, bent the hinge back a little so it would catch...door fixed.  They said "O thanks, but the new dryer is coming tomorrow...and we paid Sears to take the old one away".  I tried not to look down on them but now their perfectly good dryer will be going to the scrap yard... and it drives me nuts...why are people so damn wasteful...

Could you have paid them the disposal fee and then resold the unit for more yourself? Also, it's possible that Sears will refurbish/resell  or sell it to someone who will, so it may not be a complete waste after all.

I got my washer/dryer from a guy that was a contractor for BestBuy to deliver appliances.  Seems lots of people are happy for him to 'dispose of' there nearly perfect 'old' appliances when they get new ones.  He then puts 10$ of parts into them and 20 minutes of time before selling them on CL.  300$ delivered & set up!

I felt bad doing this recently.  My 10y/o washing machine broke (would often fail to spin or agitate so clothes weren't getting clean or dry).  I hopped on the internet to see if there was a clear-cut fix, and some googling said "no not really".  So I got some tools and went down to take it apart, but something stopped me.  We were days away from having a newborn baby (and the resulting laundry needs) and I figured at 10 years old, even if I fixed this, how long is it going to last?  It could be another 10 years, or it could be six months, or it could be that I threw $100 in parts at it and couldn't fix it.  So I said fuck it and spent $350 on a new one.  Had we not been about to have a newborn it would've been a different decision, but I just didn't need that stress right then.  Oh well.

I absolve you of this behaviour. This is what money is for. For solving genuine problems for which money is the answer.

Yes, I could have saved this dryer from the scrap yard but I have so much going on with work, a newborn, farming, a hundred hobbies, etc...  I needed to just let this one go, but it's still eating me up inside that it was wasted.  I just wanted to pick it up and list it for free so it goes to a good home and not the scrap yard.  I know someone would have been by within the hour to pick it up, I just literally don't have that time right now. 

To make the story even better the guys who "installed" the dryer did not connect the vent on the back so when MIL went to use it the hot humid air was filling her laundry room.  She called them about 2 hours after they installed it Friday morning and they said they couldn't get back to fix it till Tuesday...  I think they're kind of starting to understand why I do everything myself...

[Cassie]

Medicaid rules vary by state. It used to totally impoverish the surviving spouse but some protections have been added.

[iris lily]

Like my spouse's middle class grandparents "sold" their house to their kids for $1.  When it came time to go into a home, it was protected.  It was their only inheritance - what little money was left was taken by Medicaid.  There are interesting parts about it all, when it comes to philosophy.  Really wealthy people can set up trusts and such to protect assets, and are unlikely to end up in a Medicaid home also.

Medicaid has a five-year look-back provision. If your spouse's grandparents sold their house less than five years before needing to apply for Medicaid, that sale would've been overturned (or rather, the kids would've had to pay the home's value back to the grandparents, and the grandparents would've had to spend down that money before they qualified for Medicaid). The same is true of trusts and basically any transaction where money leaves the pockets of the person who later seeks Medicaid.

It was way more than 5 years.  Probably at least 10, if not 20.

Not all states act on taking assets. also, if it was that long ago the lookback period could have been different.Or non existant.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy.

It wouldn't destroy surrogacy at all. I haven't seen the decision but the news articles I saw said that the judge concluded both that the sperm donor wasn't the father, in part because he had little or no contact with the child, and that the mother's former partner was the other legal mother. So my guess is the ramifications of the decision are only relevant where the woman who gets pregnant with donor sperm has a spouse or partner she intends to be the co-parent. In other words once the kid has two legal parents (or people who should be considered legal parents), of whatever gender, the state can't go after a third person for child support.

As for surrogacy, the overwhelming majority of surrogacy in America is gestational surrogacy, meaning that the surrogate isn't the one whose eggs are used. The intended mother or an egg donor provides the eggs. That requires IVF; it's totally impossible to do without a doctor. So a case based on "there was no doctor involved so you're the dad" has no bearing on 99.99999% of the surrogacy cases out there.

Good news or bad news for poly groups, though?

[kayvent]

In the case about the sperm donor, the judge ruled that the welfare of the child exceeds any written agreements. I don't recall the reasoning the appeals court used to overturn the decision, but my guess is that they realized that this decision could destroy surrogacy.

It wouldn't destroy surrogacy at all. I haven't seen the decision but the news articles I saw said that the judge concluded both that the sperm donor wasn't the father, in part because he had little or no contact with the child, and that the mother's former partner was the other legal mother. So my guess is the ramifications of the decision are only relevant where the woman who gets pregnant with donor sperm has a spouse or partner she intends to be the co-parent. In other words once the kid has two legal parents (or people who should be considered legal parents), of whatever gender, the state can't go after a third person for child support.

As for surrogacy, the overwhelming majority of surrogacy in America is gestational surrogacy, meaning that the surrogate isn't the one whose eggs are used. The intended mother or an egg donor provides the eggs. That requires IVF; it's totally impossible to do without a doctor. So a case based on "there was no doctor involved so you're the dad" has no bearing on 99.99999% of the surrogacy cases out there.

Good news or bad news for poly groups, though?

Tangentially related. In my province of Canada if a man has primary custody, the biological mother doesn't work, and the biological mother has a husband or common-law partner who does, the spouse/partner of the non-custodial parent has to pay child support.

[BTDretire]

I just need to vent.....I have a brother who moved to a lower COL area to start a family - proceeded to buy a $300k McMansion because they "need" the space for said future family + "need" to be in the absolute best school district. This on top of owning 2 10 year old vehicles purchased a few years back with 10 year loans + over $100k in student loans  (but they will be forgiven in 20 years so it doesn't matter), $30k in CC debt. OMG!

They didn't even get approved for the full $300k mortgage because of debt + income levels (probably $90k a year combined) so they borrowed $100k from family (NOT ME!). I get heart palpitations thinking about their financial situation while they sip on $10 cocktails every weekend and splurge constantly on lattes.  How on earth did we come from the same family?

I feel this way about my sister (HOW are we related?) when it comes to finances. She and her husband just think it's an income problem. When I have tried to point out that it's primarily a spending problem, I get very little traction. The good news is, their income is on the upswing, they're getting caught up on bills and *should* be able to start paying back the 16k they owe me pretty soon... sigh. Let's hope that some shiny new thing or food delivery service doesn't take precedence.

 OH! you missed a chance to point out the 16K is one of the bills the need to get caught up on.

[BTDretire]

I mean, I also understand the desire to leave money to your heirs.  I really do.  But dang it, what's the point of having the money if you aren't using it to make yourself comfortable in your old age?  Is it okay to burden ALL taxpayers to leave your kids money? 

I understand and basically agree that you shouldn't be able shift the burden to taxpayers,
On the other hand,
What if you have two families that average $49,000 as yearly income, both families have two kids.
 Over 35 years one couple lives frugaly and saves $1.2 million, the other buys a higher cost home,
eats out often, vacations,  buys new cars,and spends their money on unneeded items.

 Why should the frugal family get any less government benefits than the wasteful family?
Why subsidize those that waste their income?

[Step37]

[quote author=Step37 link=topic=31172.msg1564963#msg1564963 date=1495679826

I feel this way about my sister (HOW are we related?) when it comes to finances. She and her husband just think it's an income problem. When I have tried to point out that it's primarily a spending problem, I get very little traction. The good news is, their income is on the upswing, they're getting caught up on bills and *should* be able to start paying back the 16k they owe me pretty soon... sigh. Let's hope that some shiny new thing or food delivery service doesn't take precedence.

 OH! you missed a chance to point out the 16K is one of the bills the need to get caught up on.
[/quote]

Haha! She actually asked me last week what the total amount they owe me is, so I know it's not forgotten. But yeah, almost two years now. They must be working on a plan... meanwhile, the interest accrues.

[kayvent]

I mean, I also understand the desire to leave money to your heirs.  I really do.  But dang it, what's the point of having the money if you aren't using it to make yourself comfortable in your old age?  Is it okay to burden ALL taxpayers to leave your kids money? 

I understand and basically agree that you shouldn't be able shift the burden to taxpayers,
On the other hand,
What if you have two families that average $49,000 as yearly income, both families have two kids.
 Over 35 years one couple lives frugaly and saves $1.2 million, the other buys a higher cost home,
eats out often, vacations,  buys new cars,and spends their money on unneeded items.

 Why should the frugal family get any less government benefits than the wasteful family?
Why subsidize those that waste their income?

Back in 2015 my provincial government released a budget that removed a certain benefit; basically they means tested an elderly medical care benefit. It didn't go over well and the government quickly reversed their decision.

It was a bad choice for the same reasons your listed, it penalized savers, and for me in particular I found it awful because without any notice a key part of the cost formula for retirees was changed.

[bigalsmith101]

It's our three year anniversary today. My in-laws stopped by while we were out and left a bottle of champagne and a card. Inside the card was a $100 MasterCard gift card. It costs $6 to activate it (they paid that fee). They are very generous, but why waste money that way??? Really. Just dumb.

[marielle]

It's our three year anniversary today. My in-laws stopped by while we were out and left a bottle of champagne and a card. Inside the card was a $100 MasterCard gift card. It costs $6 to activate it (they paid that fee). They are very generous, but why waste money that way??? Really. Just dumb.

My (future) in-laws did the same thing. My boyfriend and I each got a $50 visa giftcard for our birthdays, it was $6 each to activate. I don't get it, because they're already at the store and could just get cash back!? I think it's more about appearances to them, giving cash would seem "improper".

[RWD]

It's our three year anniversary today. My in-laws stopped by while we were out and left a bottle of champagne and a card. Inside the card was a $100 MasterCard gift card. It costs $6 to activate it (they paid that fee). They are very generous, but why waste money that way??? Really. Just dumb.

My (future) in-laws did the same thing. My boyfriend and I each got a $50 visa giftcard for our birthdays, it was $6 each to activate. I don't get it, because they're already at the store and could just get cash back!? I think it's more about appearances to them, giving cash would seem "improper".

Weird. You think it would be more impolite to essentially say: "We could have given you $56 but instead gave you $50 and burned the other $6."

[cheapass]

It's our three year anniversary today. My in-laws stopped by while we were out and left a bottle of champagne and a card. Inside the card was a $100 MasterCard gift card. It costs $6 to activate it (they paid that fee). They are very generous, but why waste money that way??? Really. Just dumb.

My (future) in-laws did the same thing. My boyfriend and I each got a $50 visa giftcard for our birthdays, it was $6 each to activate. I don't get it, because they're already at the store and could just get cash back!? I think it's more about appearances to them, giving cash would seem "improper".

Weird. You think it would be more impolite to essentially say: "We could have given you $56 but instead gave you $50 and burned the other $6."

I remember seeing a youtube video by a couple of economists who described how giving gifts in general is a very inefficient exercise. If a relative and I exchange gifts worth $50 and I receive something I would have only paid $20 or $25 or maybe $0 for, well shit I just lost money. It seems that giving gifts is more about the procedure and ritual than anything else.

Really, I'd just prefer to have cash. Or VTSAX. So I can grow my "freedom fund" faster.