http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Is Buying A Hybrid Really Smart?? Was Re: How are u playing the gasoline
game? - 7 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/fbeb9906bdd8972d?hl=en
* Nephew running with the money - 16 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/edfc5e913ef45ab5?hl=en
* Wal-Mart will see even less of me now - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ffc3121fc1e38222?hl=en
* 1 hemorrhoid bleeding prednisone 2 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/59a97e8687a89c50?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is Buying A Hybrid Really Smart?? Was Re: How are u playing the
gasoline game?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/fbeb9906bdd8972d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 10:34 am
From: "Don K"
"Patient Guy" <sevisen.adam@gmailDOTHEREcom> wrote in message
news:Xns9A5B5B7FE8490UVAA@207.115.33.102...
>
> In other words, it will take exactly 6 years for the Prius owner to be
> able to laugh uncontrollably at the SUV driver and to be able to say that
> he's starting to realize those fuel savings.
If you made the comparison between similar vehicles,
(like hybrid Prius vs. gas Honda Civic), it would take much longer
to even be able to chuckle a little without a subsidy.
Don
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 10:55 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote
> Patient Guy <sevisen.adam@gmailDOTHEREcom> wrote
>> In other words, it will take exactly 6 years for the Prius owner to be able to laugh uncontrollably at the SUV driver
>> and to be able to say that he's starting to realize those fuel savings.
> If you made the comparison between similar vehicles,
> (like hybrid Prius vs. gas Honda Civic), it would take much longer to even be able to chuckle a little without a
> subsidy.
A Prius has more room inside it than a Civic.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 11:00 am
From: Patient Guy
"Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote in misc.consumers.frugal-living:
> "Patient Guy" <sevisen.adam@gmailDOTHEREcom> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A5B5B7FE8490UVAA@207.115.33.102...
>>
>> In other words, it will take exactly 6 years for the Prius owner to
>> be able to laugh uncontrollably at the SUV driver and to be able to
>> say that he's starting to realize those fuel savings.
>
> If you made the comparison between similar vehicles,
> (like hybrid Prius vs. gas Honda Civic), it would take much longer
> to even be able to chuckle a little without a subsidy.
So what type of owners are really buying these hybrids...people who say
they are helping the automakers "invest in green technology"? Is this just
a extra cost being paid to "feel good about being green" or is it abject
stupidity?
One thing I failed to factor in is the repair/overhaul/maintenance costs,
which are higher for the hybrid...what are the costs of battery replacement
among other major parts.
I wonder about these things because I just returned to the United States
after 15 years away---except for a 3-year period where I bought a used
Saturn to get around, only to find out the automatic transmission was full
of sawdust.
I will have get some wheels soon, and my net worth is effectively zero upon
re-patriation (all my net worth is back with my wife and kid overseas). I
am wondering if I should get something used (pre-owned) for maybe up to
$5000 or try to get credit on a new vehicle, gas or hybrid...now I am no
longer convinced the hybrid will pay off for me if I go new.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 11:36 am
From: max
In article <Xns9A5B6FEA6DD17UVAA@207.115.33.102>,
Patient Guy <sevisen.adam@gmailDOTHEREcom> wrote:
> One thing I failed to factor in is the repair/overhaul/maintenance costs,
> which are higher for the hybrid...what are the costs of battery replacement
> among other major parts.
somewhere aroud 5~8 years, plus, it might be worth talking about.
maybe, only maybe. Other than that, there's not any meaningful magical
differences to talk about.
A little googling quickly revealed that many of these batteries that
needed replacement simply needed a corroded terminal cleaned on one of
the cells.
So what you're really complaining about is shoddy/dishonest/incompetent
work by car dealerships addressing a problem the car owner could have
corrected in less than fifteen minutes with tools that fit in your shirt
pocket.
Big Deal.
.max
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 11:49 am
From: Ron Peterson
On Mar 7, 10:48 am, Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Since the beginning of the year, 10% alcohol has been required here,
> too. I noticed an immediate 8-10% drop in fuel mileage. That means
> that before the change, I would use 9 gallons of gasoline for my
> weekly driving and now I use almost 9 gallons of gasoline and 1 gallon
> of alcohol to go the same distance.
Gasohol has 3.1% less energy per gallon, so you should have done
better. Do you normally use premium gasoline? I was thinking that a
drop in octane rating could cause the drop in mpg.
--
Ron
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 12:11 pm
From: Jeff
Patient Guy wrote:
> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in misc.consumers.frugal-living:
>
>> In article
>> <e6c5c8ce-93fa-410f-ab12-b22c58d13fd8@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>> James <j0069bond@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> I also recently replaced my old car with a Toyota Prius because I fully
>> expect the price of gas to go even higher over the life of the car.
>
> I was just watching a Fox Noise early Saturday morning "cost of freedom"
> show, and one of their typically idiot analysts said that a hybrid costing
> $9000 more---does it?----means that the owner will not re-coup that cost
> in fuel savings presumbably over the life of the vehicle.
>
> I have been trying to make calculations to determine whether that is true.
>
> Assume you are comparing two car buyers. One buys the average gas guzzler
> on the road----an SUV that gets 15 mpg city mileage----and laughs
> uncontrollably at the other one who buys a hybrid---say a Prius getting 50
> mpg in the city. Assume that the Prius buyer paid $9000 more (don't
> forget to include taxes and govt fees here, and maybe interest on the
> loan, if any) for the vehicle (this is the analyst's statement...feel free
> to chime in with an alternate or true reality and mess with these
> figures). For the question below, you will need to also assume that both
> drivers put 15,000 miles annually on their vehicles, and also assume that
> the price of gas is the current price of gas, let's say $3.50 / gallon.
>
> The question before you is "how many months will it take for the Prius
> owner to realize the fuel savings for the additional $9000 he put into the
> vehicle?" You might also want to factor in a reasonable estimation of
> the depreciation/re-sale value of the Prius vs. the SUV.
>
> The Prius driver gets 35 mpg (= 50 - 15) more than the SUV driver.
>
> gal 35 miles year 12 months
> $9000 * ------- * --------- * ------------ * --------- = 72 months
> $3.50 gal 15,000 miles year
You math is wrong.
Let's look at what it actually costs to run each vehicle for 15,000
miles (1 year)
Prius (15,000 miles/ 50 mpg) * 3.50 = $1,050
SUV (15,000 / 15 mpg) * 3.50 = $3,500
Prius saving each year is $2450
or 3 2/3 years, not 6.
Jeff
>
> In other words, it will take exactly 6 years for the Prius owner to be
> able to laugh uncontrollably at the SUV driver and to be able to say that
> he's starting to realize those fuel savings.
>
> Of course, you can argue with the assumptions about the $9000 additional
> cost, the price of gasoline remaining steady, or the annual mileage use.
>
> Feel free to interject with what you may consider to be more realistic
> numbers here, or even an actual comparison!
>
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 12:21 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Patient Guy <sevisen.adam@gmailDOTHEREcom> wrote
> Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote
>> Patient Guy <sevisen.adam@gmailDOTHEREcom> wrote
>>> In other words, it will take exactly 6 years for the Prius owner
>>> to be able to laugh uncontrollably at the SUV driver and to be
>>> able to say that he's starting to realize those fuel savings.
>> If you made the comparison between similar vehicles,
>> (like hybrid Prius vs. gas Honda Civic), it would take much
>> longer to even be able to chuckle a little without a subsidy.
> So what type of owners are really buying these hybrids...
Basically those who are too stupid to be able to calculate the effect on the
environment and include the environmental costs of the battery technology they use.
> people who say they are helping the automakers "invest in green technology"?
Nope, they most do believe that they are helping the environment.
But are too stupid to realise that they would help it much more if they
didnt use a car at all, used public transport, or if that isnt feasible,
use an older fuel efficient car to the minimum necessary so there
is no environmental cost involved in making the new Prius etc.
> Is this just a extra cost being paid to "feel good about being green"
Thats certainly the case with many of them.
> or is it abject stupidity?
Not abject, just substantial stupidity with most of them.
> One thing I failed to factor in is the repair/overhaul/maintenance
> costs, which are higher for the hybrid...
That depends on how long you keep it for.
> what are the costs of battery replacement among other major parts.
Substantial, but most discard it before that is necessary.
> I wonder about these things because I just returned to the
> United States after 15 years away---except for a 3-year
> period where I bought a used Saturn to get around, only
> to find out the automatic transmission was full of sawdust.
> I will have get some wheels soon, and my net worth is effectively
> zero upon re-patriation (all my net worth is back with my wife and
> kid overseas). I am wondering if I should get something used
> (pre-owned) for maybe up to $5000
Thats basically the lowest cost motoring.
> or try to get credit on a new vehicle, gas or hybrid...
Thats never the cheapest route, but it is usually the least hassle.
> now I am no longer convinced the hybrid will pay off for me if I go new.
Yeah, they've never made sense value wise.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nephew running with the money
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/edfc5e913ef45ab5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 10:43 am
From: _
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:41:18 -0600, Logan Shaw wrote:
>
> To me, the most interesting question to ask about this situation is
> where the nephew got the idea that it was OK to refuse to give someone
> money that you currently possess but rightfully owe to them.
If they have a "right" to the money, they would/should have expressed it in
the contract with which they "lent" him the money. As is appears from your
original post, they gifted him the money, and now claim that it was a loan.
He claims the money was a gift. The right to the money will be determined
by a court (should it get that far) and if he has stronger evidence than
the other side, he will prevail. I would suggest that a written contract
carries more weight than a verbal one, especially if
a) the written contract is of a standard form; and
b) the verbal one is unwitnessed by any parties disinterested.
== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 10:51 am
From: catchme
Peter Crosland wrote:
> johnclayton_____ wrote:
>> A friend who is normally resident in the U.K., on the recent death of
>> his mother in Scotland arranged with his two sisters and the family
>> solicitor (in Scotland) to pay £100,000 to his nephew to 'reduce' the
>> inheritence tax they would have to pay because of the value of the
>> mother's house.
>> It was made clear to the Nephew by the mother's three children that
>> this money was *not permanently* given to him, and that he was
>> expected to pay it back at a later date.
>>
>> This understanding that he would pay it back, was also made clear to
>> the solicitor in Scotland who 'arranged' the transaction. The solicitor
>> also knew that this payment to the nephew was to *evade*
>> (avoid) paying the full inheritance tax.
>>
>> Surprise, surprise... the Nephew does not want to pay the money back.
>> He is now turning nasty and unco-operative. What advice might it
>> possible to give in this situation to try to recover some of this *stolen*
>> money? Thanks.
>
> It all sounds very doubtful. How exactly would "giving" this money reduce
> IHT? In any case all the parties including the solicitor have apparently
> conspired to defraud HMR&C. A not very good troll I think.
>
> Peter Crosland
>
> g6jns@yahoo.co.uk
>
>
im not familiar with inheritance taxes, as we dont have that here in Canada.
However, there are similiar schemes employed both legally ("offshore
investing"), and illegally ("money laundering")- the principal
difference is that the money in the first case is earned legally and the
principal is seeking a tax shelter, and in the second, the money was
earned from the sale of illegal goods and needs be invested in
'legitimate' business to be redirected to the principal at another date.
So, the nephew is a third party (read "offshore bank"), who was supposed
to return the money to the rightful owners at a certain date.
Problem is, this was all arranged in good faith- no documents drawn.
If it can be proven that he was given the money to be returned at a
later date, then you have no problem- unfortunately, the only proof
appears to be deceased.
What is to be determined is if there are any other witnesses who might
testify.
Again, I dont know about tax laws elsewhere, but in Canada we have the
right to arrange our affairs in such a way that we pay the least amount
of tax possible, notwithstanding current legislation.
This means that although the deceased might have arguably have committed
taxation fraud (which cannot be proven given that the deceased shall
forever be so, and one cannot convict someone of a crime for which they
cannot in any way be given the opportunity for a defence, for a decedent
cannot arrange a defence), to the inheritors the same may not be said-
in fact, from their standpoint i might suggest that the nephew was
merely lent a sum which he was to return at some later date, and the
heirs, who want the full estate, ask for the sum to be returned.
== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 10:51 am
From: "Rod Speed"
TJ <TJ@no.not> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> TJ <TJ@no.not> wrote:
>>> Logan Shaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> johnclayton_____ wrote:
>>>>> A friend who is normally resident in the U.K., on the recent death
>>>>> of his mother in Scotland arranged with his two sisters and the
>>>>> family solicitor (in Scotland) to pay £100,000 to his nephew to
>>>>> 'reduce' the inheritence tax they would have to pay because of the
>>>>> value of the mother's house. It was made clear to the Nephew by
>>>>> the mother's three children that
>>>>> this money was *not permanently* given to him, and that he was
>>>>> expected to pay it back at a later date.
>>>>>
>>>>> This understanding that he would pay it back, was also made clear
>>>>> to the solicitor in Scotland who 'arranged' the transaction. The
>>>>> solicitor also knew that this payment to the nephew was to *evade*
>>>>> (avoid) paying the full inheritance tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surprise, surprise... the Nephew does not want to pay the money
>>>>> back. He is now turning nasty and unco-operative. What advice
>>>>> might it possible to give in this situation to try to recover some
>>>>> of this *stolen*
>>>>> money?
>>>>
>>>> To me, the most interesting question to ask about this situation is
>>>> where the nephew got the idea that it was OK to refuse to give
>>>> someone money that you currently possess but rightfully owe to
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> Don't know how it works in the UK, but if the same thing happened in
>>> the US I doubt he would "rightfully" owe them a dime. (Morally
>>> would be a different issue) Most likely he got the idea from the
>>> family. They knowingly involved him in a scheme to fuck the
>>> government out of inheritance tax, so he took a page out of their
>>> book, and in the end, decided to fuck the relatives as well as the
>>> government. IANAL, but I think this would come under the "clean
>>> hands" rule of law which dictates that you can't sue anybody to
>>> recover ill-gotten gains. They certainly can't go after the nephew for the money without
>>> exposing their own guilt in trying to avoid taxes.
>>>
>>> I would think if the relatives have cause of action against ANYONE,
>>> it would be the "Solicitor" who assisted in creating the scam. But
>>> again, IANAL (I am not a lawyer) and even THAT would cause them to
>>> expose themselves as crooks.
>>>
>>> Bottom line IMO,
>>>
>>> Nephew: + 100K
>>> Relatives: 0
>>>
>>> Either that, or EVERYBODY goes to jail. :-)
>>
>> It isnt a jailable offense there.
>
> OK. Then EVERYBODY pays a fine? :-)
Nope, it would be very difficult to prove beyound reasonable doubt
that the nephew had knowingly taken part in any crime. So he'd
almost certainly get off scott free, and would get to keep the money.
== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 10:53 am
From: "Rod Speed"
TJ <TJ@no.not> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> johnclayton_____ <void95@voidacious.net> wrote:
>>
>>> A friend who is normally resident in the U.K., on the recent death
>>> of his mother in Scotland arranged with his two sisters and the
>>> family solicitor (in Scotland) to pay £100,000 to his nephew to
>>> 'reduce' the inheritence tax they would have to pay because of the
>>> value of the mother's house.
>>
>>> It was made clear to the Nephew by the mother's three children that
>>> this money was *not permanently* given to him, and that he was
>>> expected to pay it back at a later date.
>>
>>> This understanding that he would pay it back, was also made clear to
>>> the solicitor in Scotland who 'arranged' the transaction. The
>>> solicitor also knew that this payment to the nephew was to *evade*
>>> (avoid) paying the full inheritance tax.
>>
>>> Surprise, surprise... the Nephew does not want to pay the money
>>> back. He is now turning nasty and unco-operative. What advice
>>> might it possible to give in this situation to try to recover some
>>> of this *stolen* money?
>>
>> It aint stolen money, they were stupid enough to give it to him.
> It wasn't theirs to "give".
Yes it was.
> At least not until AFTER the taxes were paid on it.
Wrong again if the taxes werent due if he received it.
== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 10:54 am
From: "TJ"
_ wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:41:18 -0600, Logan Shaw wrote:
>
>>
>> To me, the most interesting question to ask about this situation is
>> where the nephew got the idea that it was OK to refuse to give
>> someone money that you currently possess but rightfully owe to them.
>
> If they have a "right" to the money, they would/should have expressed
> it in the contract with which they "lent" him the money. As is
> appears from your original post, they gifted him the money,
In an attempt to avoid paying taxes on it.
A VERY important part you left/snipped out, there.
Allow me to put it back:
"this payment to the nephew was to evade
(avoid) paying the full inheritance tax."
[...]
NOBODY other the government has a "right" to the 100K in question
unless/until the tax is paid on it. And maybe not even THEN, since there
was a willful (by all parties concerned) attempt to defraud whatever the
UK's version of the IRS is.
== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 11:00 am
From: "TJ"
Rod Speed wrote:
> TJ <TJ@no.not> wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> johnclayton_____ <void95@voidacious.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A friend who is normally resident in the U.K., on the recent death
>>>> of his mother in Scotland arranged with his two sisters and the
>>>> family solicitor (in Scotland) to pay £100,000 to his nephew to
>>>> 'reduce' the inheritence tax they would have to pay because of the
>>>> value of the mother's house.
>>>
>>>> It was made clear to the Nephew by the mother's three children that
>>>> this money was *not permanently* given to him, and that he was
>>>> expected to pay it back at a later date.
>>>
>>>> This understanding that he would pay it back, was also made clear
>>>> to the solicitor in Scotland who 'arranged' the transaction. The
>>>> solicitor also knew that this payment to the nephew was to *evade*
>>>> (avoid) paying the full inheritance tax.
>>>
>>>> Surprise, surprise... the Nephew does not want to pay the money
>>>> back. He is now turning nasty and unco-operative. What advice
>>>> might it possible to give in this situation to try to recover some
>>>> of this *stolen* money?
>>>
>>> It aint stolen money, they were stupid enough to give it to him.
>
>> It wasn't theirs to "give".
>
> Yes it was.
>
>> At least not until AFTER the taxes were paid on it.
>
> Wrong again if the taxes werent due if he received it.
I would think the inheritance was subject to taxation the *minute* it was
received by the aunts and uncle. IOW, BEFORE they "gifted it" to the
nephew. But once again, IANAL/solicitor.
== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 11:49 am
From: Logan Shaw
TJ wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> TJ <TJ@no.not> wrote:
>>> At least not until AFTER the taxes were paid on it.
>> Wrong again if the taxes werent due if he received it.
> I would think the inheritance was subject to taxation the *minute* it was
> received by the aunts and uncle. IOW, BEFORE they "gifted it" to the
> nephew. But once again, IANAL/solicitor.
I thought it was obvious in the first place what was going on
here. My assumption since the beginning of this thread has been
that there is some kind of threshold below which no inheritance
tax is due. The relatives crossed this threshold, and their idea
was for the mother to will the excess directly to the nephew, so
that they *never* had their hands on the money.
I just looked it up at
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cto/customerguide/page15.htm
and it says this:
The Inheritance Tax nil rate band is the amount of
the estate on which there is no Inheritance Tax to
pay. If the estate, including any assets held in
trust and gifts made within seven years of death,
is less than the nil rate band, no Inheritance
Tax will be due on it.
However, that actually sounds like it applies to the entire
estate (not the amount inherited by a single person), which
thus makes it sound like such a plan to shuffle around the
money wouldn't work. On the other hand, it looks like (and
of course IANAL/solicitor either) you can give money tax-free
before death, as long as it's 7 years before. But that seems
a little far-fetched to apply in this situation.
So I'm starting to agree with the people who've said such a
scheme, if anything, wouldn't work anyway, making this (even)
more likely to be a troll.
But of course, it's sort of a fun troll. Everybody likes to
see greedy, dishonest people hatch a scheme that later blows
up in their face. In fact, it's almost got sort of an urban
legendy morality tale aspect to it.
- Logan
== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 11:59 am
From: "Rod Speed"
TJ <TJ@no.not> wrote
> _ wrote:
>> Logan Shaw wrote
>>> To me, the most interesting question to ask about this situation is
>>> where the nephew got the idea that it was OK to refuse to give
>>> someone money that you currently possess but rightfully owe to them.
>> If they have a "right" to the money, they would/should have expressed
>> it in the contract with which they "lent" him the money. As is
>> appears from your original post, they gifted him the money,
> In an attempt to avoid paying taxes on it.
> A VERY important part you left/snipped out, there.
> Allow me to put it back:
> "this payment to the nephew was to evade
> (avoid) paying the full inheritance tax."
Not necessarily illegal to do that, if the tax law doesnt require
tax to be paid on what the nephew got. If the nephew chooses
not to return it, that isnt necessarily illegal either.
> [...]
> NOBODY other the government has a "right" to the 100K in question unless/until the tax is paid on it.
You dont know that, it depends on the detail of that inheritance tax.
If for example no tax is due if it ended up with the nephew, there was no tax to pay.
> And maybe not even THEN, since there was a willful (by all parties concerned) attempt to defraud> whatever the UK's
> version of the IRS is.
Its isnt an attempt to defraud if you choose to do it the way that tax isnt due.
== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 12:02 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
TJ <TJ@no.not> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> TJ <TJ@no.not> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> johnclayton_____ <void95@voidacious.net> wrote
>>>>> A friend who is normally resident in the U.K., on the recent death
>>>>> of his mother in Scotland arranged with his two sisters and the
>>>>> family solicitor (in Scotland) to pay £100,000 to his nephew to
>>>>> 'reduce' the inheritence tax they would have to pay because of the
>>>>> value of the mother's house.
>>>>> It was made clear to the Nephew by the mother's three children
>>>>> that this money was *not permanently* given to him, and that he
>>>>> was expected to pay it back at a later date.
>>>>> This understanding that he would pay it back, was also made clear
>>>>> to the solicitor in Scotland who 'arranged' the transaction. The
>>>>> solicitor also knew that this payment to the nephew was to *evade*
>>>>> (avoid) paying the full inheritance tax.
>>>>> Surprise, surprise... the Nephew does not want to pay the money
>>>>> back. He is now turning nasty and unco-operative. What advice
>>>>> might it possible to give in this situation to try to recover some
>>>>> of this *stolen* money?
>>>> It aint stolen money, they were stupid enough to give it to him.
>>> It wasn't theirs to "give".
>> Yes it was.
>>> At least not until AFTER the taxes were paid on it.
>> Wrong again if the taxes werent due if he received it.
> I would think the inheritance was subject to taxation the *minute* it was received by the aunts and uncle.
Its normally paid by the estate before the remainder is distributed.
> IOW, BEFORE they "gifted it" to the nephew.
You dont know that they did that. Its more likely it was 'gifted' to the nephew by whoever died.
> But once again, IANAL/solicitor.
Thats always been obvious.
== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 12:11 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> TJ wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> TJ <TJ@no.not> wrote:
>
>>>> At least not until AFTER the taxes were paid on it.
>
>>> Wrong again if the taxes werent due if he received it.
>
>> I would think the inheritance was subject to taxation the *minute*
>> it was received by the aunts and uncle. IOW, BEFORE they "gifted
>> it" to the nephew. But once again, IANAL/solicitor.
>
> I thought it was obvious in the first place what was going on
> here. My assumption since the beginning of this thread has been
> that there is some kind of threshold below which no inheritance
> tax is due. The relatives crossed this threshold, and their idea
> was for the mother to will the excess directly to the nephew, so
> that they *never* had their hands on the money.
>
> I just looked it up at
> http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cto/customerguide/page15.htm
> and it says this:
>
> The Inheritance Tax nil rate band is the amount of
> the estate on which there is no Inheritance Tax to
> pay. If the estate, including any assets held in
> trust and gifts made within seven years of death,
> is less than the nil rate band, no Inheritance
> Tax will be due on it.
> However, that actually sounds like it applies to the entire
> estate (not the amount inherited by a single person),
Yes, thats how inheritance tax works.
> which thus makes it sound like such a plan to shuffle around the money wouldn't work.
It would work if the excess that takes it over the nil rate
band is given to the nephew before the individual dies,
and so doesnt appear to qualify for any inheritance tax.
Its less clear if that giving was done before 7 years before death,
or whether they didnt bother to declare that so it wouldnt be counted.
> On the other hand, it looks like (and of course IANAL/solicitor either) you can give money tax-free before death, as
> long as it's 7 years before.
Yes, thats the way it works and what that bit you quoted says.
> But that seems a little far-fetched to apply in this situation.
Nope, its quite commonly done in a situation where inheritance tax would otherwise apply.
And it isnt even illegal to arrange to have it given back later either.
> So I'm starting to agree with the people who've said such a scheme, if anything, wouldn't work anyway,
Corse it does as long as the gifting is done 7 years before the death.
Corse it isnt always possible to get that right, they can die too early etc.
> making this (even) more likely to be a troll.
Its the sort of thing that does happen in jurisdictions that have that sort of inheritance tax.
You can see examples of the shit fight that eventuates in the courts in those jurisdictions.
> But of course, it's sort of a fun troll. Everybody likes to see greedy, dishonest people hatch a scheme that later
> blows up in their face.
Or just those that attempt to legally minimise the taxes that must be paid,
and it isnt always possible to organise it properly, particularly when it isnt
possible to be sure when you will die except when its by suicide etc.
> In fact, it's almost got sort of an urban legendy morality tale aspect to it.
It aint an urban legend, you can see the ones that end up in court when it all goes pear shaped.
== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 12:35 pm
From: Ronald Raygun
Rod Speed wrote:
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> TJ wrote:
>>
>> However, that actually sounds like it applies to the entire
>> estate (not the amount inherited by a single person),
>
> Yes, thats how inheritance tax works.
>
>> which thus makes it sound like such a plan to shuffle around the money
>> wouldn't work.
>
> It would work if the excess that takes it over the nil rate
> band is given to the nephew before the individual dies,
> and so doesnt appear to qualify for any inheritance tax.
No it would not work, unless the giving was done more than 7 years
prior to death.
> Its less clear if that giving was done before 7 years before death,
> or whether they didnt bother to declare that so it wouldnt be counted.
Read the OP again. It is quite explicit in stating that the payment
was made *on* (i.e. after) the mother's death.
>> On the other hand, it looks like (and of course IANAL/solicitor either)
>> you can give money tax-free before death, as long as it's 7 years before.
>
> Yes, thats the way it works and what that bit you quoted says.
>
>> But that seems a little far-fetched to apply in this situation.
>
> Nope, its quite commonly done in a situation where inheritance tax would
> otherwise apply.
>
> And it isnt even illegal to arrange to have it given back later either.
Yes it is, it would fall under the "gifts with reservation" rules, which
basically provide that such "temporary" gifts with strings attached simply
do not qualify for the tax exemption accorded to *real* gifts.
>> So I'm starting to agree with the people who've said such a scheme, if
>> anything, wouldn't work anyway,
>
> Corse it does as long as the gifting is done 7 years before the death.
But it wasn't.
>> making this (even) more likely to be a troll.
>
> Its the sort of thing that does happen in jurisdictions that have that
> sort of inheritance tax.
>
> You can see examples of the shit fight that eventuates in the courts in
> those jurisdictions.
Where there has been deliberate collusion to defraud the taxman, anyone
trying to use the courts in such an internecine wrangle would be an idiot,
unless they were very confident that they could refute any allegations of
being part of the collusion.
It should also be said that it's preposterous to suggest that the "family
solicitor" would willingly facilitate such an act of evasion, unless of
course there was something in it for him, and he was confident of being
able to conceal the crime. No solicitor would be daft enough to risk
his career unless the payoff was sufficient to set him up for life.
A measly few hundred k would hardly qualify.
== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 12:41 pm
From: "tim \(not at home\)"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63g9hbF27ftmkU1@mid.individual.net...
> TJ <TJ@no.not> wrote
>> _ wrote:
>>> Logan Shaw wrote
>
>>>> To me, the most interesting question to ask about this situation is
>>>> where the nephew got the idea that it was OK to refuse to give
>>>> someone money that you currently possess but rightfully owe to them.
>
>>> If they have a "right" to the money, they would/should have expressed
>>> it in the contract with which they "lent" him the money. As is
>>> appears from your original post, they gifted him the money,
>
>> In an attempt to avoid paying taxes on it.
>
>> A VERY important part you left/snipped out, there.
>
>> Allow me to put it back:
>
>> "this payment to the nephew was to evade
>> (avoid) paying the full inheritance tax."
>
> Not necessarily illegal to do that, if the tax law doesnt require
> tax to be paid on what the nephew got.
It does though[1]. Unless I misunderstood, the gift was made after death
and therefore forms part of the estate on which tax should be paid.
[1] for the pedant the tax is paid, by the estate, before the gift is made.
So technically the gift isn't taxed, but the existance of the funds sdid
create a liability.
tim
== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 12:44 pm
From: "tim \(not at home\)"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63ga7nF27d56oU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>
> It would work if the excess that takes it over the nil rate
> band is given to the nephew before the individual dies,
> and so doesnt appear to qualify for any inheritance tax.
>
> Its less clear if that giving was done before 7 years before death,
> or whether they didnt bother to declare that so it wouldnt be counted.
>
It seems somewhat unlikely that someone would *know* 7 years before a
person's death, that giving away an amount of money would save on IHT.
tim
== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 12:43 pm
From: chuck_ford_0098@webtv.net (Chuck Ford)
Maybe sell his organs...
As you can see I'm a mean spirited conservative....C
<html> <body bgcolor="white" text="black"><body></html>
== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 1:05 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
tim (not at home) <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> TJ <TJ@no.not> wrote
>>> _ wrote:
>>>> Logan Shaw wrote
>>>>> To me, the most interesting question to ask about this situation is where the nephew got the idea that it was OK
>>>>> to refuse to give
>>>>> someone money that you currently possess but rightfully owe to them.
>>>> If they have a "right" to the money, they would/should have
>>>> expressed it in the contract with which they "lent" him the money.
>>>> As is appears from your original post, they gifted him the money,
>>> In an attempt to avoid paying taxes on it.
>>> A VERY important part you left/snipped out, there.
>>> Allow me to put it back:
>>> "this payment to the nephew was to evade
>>> (avoid) paying the full inheritance tax."
>> Not necessarily illegal to do that, if the tax law doesnt require tax to be paid on what the nephew got.
> It does though[1].
We'll see...
> Unless I misunderstood, the gift was made after death
That wouldnt have avoided inheritance tax.
> and therefore forms part of the estate on which tax should be paid.
You dont know that either.
Its quite possible that the original post mangled the story on when it was gifted etc.
> [1] for the pedant the tax is paid, by the estate, before the gift is made.
Not just for the pendant, thats always true.
> So technically the gift isn't taxed, but the existance of the funds sdid create a liability.
You dont know that either.
== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 1:08 pm
From: "tim \(not at home\)"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63gddeF27csnrU1@mid.individual.net...
> tim (not at home) <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> TJ <TJ@no.not> wrote
>>>> _ wrote:
>>>>> Logan Shaw wrote
>
>>>>>> To me, the most interesting question to ask about this situation is
>>>>>> where the nephew got the idea that it was OK to refuse to give
>>>>>> someone money that you currently possess but rightfully owe to them.
>
>>>>> If they have a "right" to the money, they would/should have
>>>>> expressed it in the contract with which they "lent" him the money.
>>>>> As is appears from your original post, they gifted him the money,
>
>>>> In an attempt to avoid paying taxes on it.
>
>>>> A VERY important part you left/snipped out, there.
>
>>>> Allow me to put it back:
>
>>>> "this payment to the nephew was to evade
>>>> (avoid) paying the full inheritance tax."
>
>>> Not necessarily illegal to do that, if the tax law doesnt require tax to
>>> be paid on what the nephew got.
>
>> It does though[1].
>
> We'll see...
>
>> Unless I misunderstood, the gift was made after death
>
> That wouldnt have avoided inheritance tax.
I know, but that is the point.
tim
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wal-Mart will see even less of me now
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ffc3121fc1e38222?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 12:42 pm
From: "SpammersDie"
> Last year I was in a 99 cent store in New York. There was constant
> series of announcements such as " the lady in the brown skirt, please look
> behind you at the great selection of cosmetics" or" the boy with the
> Yankee cap, check those great CDs on aisle 4". Nice way to let customers
> know you are watching them.
And an even better way to ensure they will never get my business.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 1 hemorrhoid bleeding prednisone 2
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/59a97e8687a89c50?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 8 2008 12:44 pm
From: princesshikcs@gmail.com
Buy Prednissone
10 mg apotex prednisone
10 mg of prednisone for cough
10 mg prednisone
10 mg prednisone dose pack
100 mg prednisone lymphoma
1000 mg prednisone iv
10mg prednisone
10mg prednisone omline pharmacy
10mg prednisone online pharmacy
10mg prednisone online pharmacy no prescription
10ml prednisone
120mg prednisone and 100mg azathioprine
120mg prednisone and 100mg imuran
120mg prednisone and 50mg aymaran
120mg prednisone and 50mg imuran
20 america mg prednisone ship
20 mg need prednisone taper
20 mg prednisone
20 mg prednisone dosage
20 prednisone 10mg
20mg of prednisone
20mg per day of prednisone
20mg prednisone
40 mg prednisone low grade fever
40 mg prednisone side effects
40 mg prednisone sideeffects
40 milligram prednisone treatment for asthma
5 mg prednisone
5-day burst of prednisone
50 mg prednisone
50 mgs prednisone dosage for pleurisy
5mg canine prednisone
5mg prednisone
5mg prednisone effects
6-1 4 mg of prednisone
60 mg prednisone
60 mg prednisone daily
60mg prednisone and 50mg imuran
7 day prednisone schedule
a prednisone stomach
a safe alternative to prednisone
a website on prednisone
about prednisone
abrupt cessation prednisone effect
abs diet and prednisone
absorption prednisone inhibited antacids
abusing prednisone
acl and prednisone
acne from prednisone
acne prednisone
acth stimulation test and prednisone
action of prednisone
acutane and prednisone
acute cholecystitis and prednisone
acute lymphoblastic leukemia prednisone
acute trauma dog joints prednisone
addisonian crisis prednisone
addisons dog prednisone
administer prednisone in toddlers
adrenal disorder and prednisone
adrenal gland prednisone
adrenal glands and prednisone
adrenal glands prednisone
adrenal homeopathic support after prednisone
adrenal insufficiency after prednisone
adrenal insufficiency prednisone
adriamycin cytoxan oncovin prednisone vincristine
adult asthma treatment prednisone
advair and oral prednisone
advair and prednisone
advair diskus andits equivalent to prednisone
advanced side effects of prednisone
advantage of taking prednisone qod
adverse effects of prednisone
adverse effects of prednisone in cats
adverse effects of prednisone on dogs
adverse prednisone reaction
adverse reaction to methyl prednisone
adverse reaction to prednisone
adverse reaction to prednisone canine
adverse reactions from prednisone
adverse reactions of prednisone
advice on prednisone withdrawl
affect dog prednisone side
affect prednisone side
affects of prednisone
affects of prednisone for canine treatment
affects of prednisone on blood sugar
affects with prednisone
after effects of prednisone
after effects prednisone
after effects prednisone side stopping
after prednisone reversal vasectomy
agitation and prednisone
aiha prednisone dose
alanine transferase prednisone
alavert used with prednisone
albuterol and prednisone
albuterol prednisone still congested
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment