http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* If you were me would you have a will ? - 14 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0aa571729523508e?hl=en
* Dumb T Mobile prepaid question - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c0e5478775d0861f?hl=en
* walking boots-- which are good? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52b4735386145e8e?hl=en
* Silver Certificates , what are they "worth" - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fbb23ab177fa4f94?hl=en
* 1 Chicken, 17 Healthy Meals, $26 Bucks, No Mayo - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e58b86ddbcc9e172?hl=en
* dangit! forgot to mail in a $15 rebate!@#%*! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fd562028049385a5?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: If you were me would you have a will ?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0aa571729523508e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 8:52 am
From: Aardvark
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:46:51 +0000, Bod wrote:
>> Indeed. The thing *not* to do is appoint your bank or solicitor to be
>> an executor. If you do - then they end up being the biggest beneficiary
>> of the will!
>>
>> Kev
> >
> >
> >
> Why? How can they justify that?
The same way banks and solicitors justify everything they do.
--
"I can tell you how to become a millionaire in as much time as it takes
a woman to have a baby. One catch: the nine-month plan ends in a funeral."
Ice-T
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 9:03 am
From: "Ret."
Bod wrote:
> On 04/03/2010 16:45, Ret. wrote:
>> tim.... wrote:
>>> "Aardvark" <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in message
>>> news:hmok04$mj6$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:20:53 +0000, john mayfield wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I appoint as my executor and trustees my wife 'name'........ and
>>>>> my son
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure that beneficiaries of a will can be appointed
>>>> executors. Conflict of interest and all that.
>>>
>>> It's perfectly legal, and quite normal for the major beneficiary to
>>> be appointed executor,.
>>
>> Indeed. The thing *not* to do is appoint your bank or solicitor to
>> be an executor. If you do - then they end up being the biggest
>> beneficiary of the will!
>>
>> Kev
>>
>>
>
> Why? How can they justify that?
Because they are rip-off merchants. I tried to find a recent newspaper
article on the scandal but can't. This blog entry is pretty accurate
however:
"Well, I do know that one Bank charges 4.5% for the first �100,000, then
3.5% for the next �400,000, then 1.5% of the balance, �300 for each
beneficiary and �50 for each asset over �50.
So, if the estate was only worth �200, 000 say, it would have cost over
�8,000 with that Bank and I'd imagine that most would be much the same. That
might give you some idea."
Outrageous or what? Having executed two wills in recent years, the amount of
work required (for simple financial affairs) is not a great deal.
Kev
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 9:05 am
From: Big Les Wade
john mayfield <mayfield258@mail.invalid> posted
>I keep hearing that I should write a will. I'm 65 years old , living in a
>small terraced house in North London (u.k.) together with wife 61 years old
>and son 29 years old.
You should make a will so that (i) there is no doubt about what happens
when you die, thus saving everybody time and expense (ii) you don't
leave stuff to people you don't want to have it, which might happen if
you die intestate.
>The house is worth about just under 300K which is below the inheritence
>threshold and is owned jointly (tenants in common) with my wife. My total
>savings are small.
>
>When I die I would wish to leave it all the wife, and any amount to my son
>that enables him not to pay any inheritance tax.
If you leave your half of the house to your wife there won't be any
inheritance tax.
Think carefully before leaving any substantial legacy to your son. Your
wife may need all the cash she can find when she gets to old age.
snip
>Is this really all I need to do? In fact in my situation do I really even
>need to do this? Thanks for any advice.
It's pretty much OK. Do it, perhaps with the minor mods suggested by
others.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 9:11 am
From: Bod
On 04/03/2010 17:03, Ret. wrote:
> Bod wrote:
>> On 04/03/2010 16:45, Ret. wrote:
>>> tim.... wrote:
>>>> "Aardvark" <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in message
>>>> news:hmok04$mj6$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:20:53 +0000, john mayfield wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I appoint as my executor and trustees my wife 'name'........ and
>>>>>> my son
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not so sure that beneficiaries of a will can be appointed
>>>>> executors. Conflict of interest and all that.
>>>>
>>>> It's perfectly legal, and quite normal for the major beneficiary to
>>>> be appointed executor,.
>>>
>>> Indeed. The thing *not* to do is appoint your bank or solicitor to
>>> be an executor. If you do - then they end up being the biggest
>>> beneficiary of the will!
>>>
>>> Kev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why? How can they justify that?
>
> Because they are rip-off merchants. I tried to find a recent newspaper
> article on the scandal but can't. This blog entry is pretty accurate
> however:
>
> "Well, I do know that one Bank charges 4.5% for the first £100,000, then
> 3.5% for the next £400,000, then 1.5% of the balance, £300 for each
> beneficiary and £50 for each asset over £50.
> So, if the estate was only worth £200, 000 say, it would have cost over
> £8,000 with that Bank and I'd imagine that most would be much the same.
> That might give you some idea."
>
> Outrageous or what? Having executed two wills in recent years, the
> amount of work required (for simple financial affairs) is not a great deal.
>
> Kev
>
>
Yes, outrageous is the word.
Bod
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 9:14 am
From: "Rod Speed"
john mayfield wrote:
> I keep hearing that I should write a will. I'm 65 years old , living in a small terraced house in North London (u.k.)
> together with wife 61 years old and son 29 years old.
> The house is worth about just under 300K which is below the
> inheritence threshold and is owned jointly (tenants in common) with my wife. My total savings are small.
> When I die I would wish to leave it all the wife, and any amount to my son that enables him not to pay any inheritance
> tax.
Thats a bit unspecific. Not clear if you mean that you actually want
to leave as much as you can to your son so that he doesnt have to
pay any inheritance tax and the rest to your wife or what.
If that is what you want to do, you will need a will because
dying intestate wont necessarily deliver that result unless
your wife is prepared to do exactly what you want, and
its unclear whether you wife operates like that or not.
And you really need to think about what you want to do if your
wife dies before you too. Presumably you want the son to get
the lot, even if that does mean he has to pay some inheritance tax.
> I guess thats a fairly common kind of family situation,
It isnt that common that the son still lives with the parents at that age.
> without any additional complications;
There always are a few, like whether your wife
agrees with the detail of what you want to do or not.
> so I thought it would be fairly easy to get advice on how to write a will.
Yes, it should be.
> On google I can get up to 7 million returns on my searches, but everyone I've looked at wants to make money out giving
> any advice.
Sure, but there are plenty who dont want any money too.
> With plenty of 'a bad will is worse than no will' kind of suggestions, thrown in.
Thats radically overstated with a situation as simple as yours.
> Is the advice that you *should* make a will really applicable to someone like myself?
Thats not completely clear given that you havent provided
all the information needed to answer that question.
If you are completely confident that your wife will do what you want
you dont really need a will, particularly if you dont care if your son
does have to pay some inheritance tax if your wife dies before you
and there is no real chance of you dying with rather more assets
than you have now and the inheritance tax level isnt changed.
> What would be any advantages to having a will?
The main one is that you would not then depend
on your wife agreeing with what you want to do.
> The nearest I have got so far to creating one is a bit of information
> I picked up, which says I can just write out roughly as follow:
It makes more sense to start with a free will kit for your country.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This will 'dated' .........by 'john........' of 'address'......
>
> I revoke all earlier wills and Codicils.
>
> I appoint as my executor and trustees my wife 'name'........ and my
> son .......
You really need to allow for what happens if they die before you
unless you dont care if the state gets all your money in that situation.
> I give my Estate and Possesions to my wife ............
> If she does not survive me I give my Estate and possisions to my son
> ......
That doesnt do what you say at the top with your
son unless the statement at the top is badly worded.
> Signed by ............. John 'my name'
>
> In our presence and attested by us in his presence and in the
> presence of each other.
>
> Witness 1. signature......., full name ......
> address......occupation......
> Witness 2. signature......., full name ......
> address......occupation......
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Is this really all I need to do?
Yes if you are happy with that quite different distribution to the one at the top.
> In fact in my situation do I really even need to do this?
Not really except if you want to say who gets everything if both your wife and your son die before you do.
> Thanks for any advice.
Even advice to shove your head up a dead bear's arse ?
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 9:19 am
From: Rick
john mayfield wrote:
> I keep hearing that I should write a will. I'm 65 years old , living in a
> small terraced house in North London (u.k.) together with wife 61 years old
> and son 29 years old.
>
> The house is worth about just under 300K which is below the inheritence
> threshold and is owned jointly (tenants in common) with my wife. My total
> savings are small.
>
> When I die I would wish to leave it all the wife, and any amount to my son
> that enables him not to pay any inheritance tax.
...
Yes you should make a will, but consider if you and wife die at the
"same time", e.g. car accident. To avoid forcing son to pay larger
inheritance tax than he can afford (before perhaps selling the main
asset, namely the house) you could with a lawyer's help, consider
putting the house in a trust.
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 9:23 am
From: "Rod Speed"
tmclone wrote:
> On Mar 4, 10:35 am, Aardvark <aardv...@youllnever.know> wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:20:53 +0000, john mayfield wrote:
>>> I appoint as my executor and trustees my wife 'name'........ and my
>>> son
>>
>> I'm not so sure that beneficiaries of a will can be appointed
>> executors. Conflict of interest and all that.
>>
> Of course they can (I'm in the USA). My mother was the executor for my
> father's estate in NC and I am the designated executor for hers in NY,
> when the time comes. I was elected because I'm local and my siblings
> are not.
> Since you have to provide documentation of all assets and their
> disposition to all beneficiaries as well as the gubmint (taxes),
> "conflict of interest" is irrelevant. If you fail to discharge your
> duties as executor you could be
> successfully sued by the other beneficiaries. Unless the estate is
> huge and/or very complicated the executor just has a ton of paperwork
> to sign and file. Having a lawyer or other paid person acting as
> executor is expensive and unnecessary for most estates. That said,
> every adult should have a will. Period. It will save tons of time and
> money. Otherwise your estate will have to pay attorney fees
Nope, not in that soggy little island.
> and have an extended probate period.
That wont necessarily matter tho since the beneficiarys just keep living in that house till its done etc.
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 9:32 am
From: "Ophelia"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7va844FaumU1@mid.individual.net...
> john mayfield wrote:
>
>> I keep hearing that I should write a will. I'm 65 years old , living in
>> a small terraced house in North London (u.k.) together with wife 61 years
>> old and son 29 years old.
>
>> The house is worth about just under 300K which is below the
>> inheritence threshold and is owned jointly (tenants in common) with my
>> wife. My total savings are small.
>
>> When I die I would wish to leave it all the wife, and any amount to my
>> son that enables him not to pay any inheritance tax.
>
> Thats a bit unspecific. Not clear if you mean that you actually want
> to leave as much as you can to your son so that he doesnt have to
> pay any inheritance tax and the rest to your wife or what.
>
> If that is what you want to do, you will need a will because
> dying intestate wont necessarily deliver that result unless
> your wife is prepared to do exactly what you want, and
> its unclear whether you wife operates like that or not.
>
> And you really need to think about what you want to do if your
> wife dies before you too. Presumably you want the son to get
> the lot, even if that does mean he has to pay some inheritance tax.
>
>> I guess thats a fairly common kind of family situation,
>
> It isnt that common that the son still lives with the parents at that age.
>
>> without any additional complications;
>
> There always are a few, like whether your wife
> agrees with the detail of what you want to do or not.
>
>> so I thought it would be fairly easy to get advice on how to write a
>> will.
>
> Yes, it should be.
>
>> On google I can get up to 7 million returns on my searches, but everyone
>> I've looked at wants to make money out giving any advice.
>
> Sure, but there are plenty who dont want any money too.
>
>> With plenty of 'a bad will is worse than no will' kind of suggestions,
>> thrown in.
>
> Thats radically overstated with a situation as simple as yours.
>
>> Is the advice that you *should* make a will really applicable to someone
>> like myself?
>
> Thats not completely clear given that you havent provided
> all the information needed to answer that question.
>
> If you are completely confident that your wife will do what you want
> you dont really need a will, particularly if you dont care if your son
> does have to pay some inheritance tax if your wife dies before you
> and there is no real chance of you dying with rather more assets
> than you have now and the inheritance tax level isnt changed.
>
>> What would be any advantages to having a will?
>
> The main one is that you would not then depend
> on your wife agreeing with what you want to do.
>
>> The nearest I have got so far to creating one is a bit of information
>> I picked up, which says I can just write out roughly as follow:
>
> It makes more sense to start with a free will kit for your country.
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> This will 'dated' .........by 'john........' of 'address'......
>>
>> I revoke all earlier wills and Codicils.
>>
>> I appoint as my executor and trustees my wife 'name'........ and my
>> son .......
>
> You really need to allow for what happens if they die before you
> unless you dont care if the state gets all your money in that situation.
>
>> I give my Estate and Possesions to my wife ............
>
>> If she does not survive me I give my Estate and possisions to my son
>> ......
>
> That doesnt do what you say at the top with your
> son unless the statement at the top is badly worded.
>
>> Signed by ............. John 'my name'
>>
>> In our presence and attested by us in his presence and in the
>> presence of each other.
>>
>> Witness 1. signature......., full name ......
>> address......occupation......
>> Witness 2. signature......., full name ......
>> address......occupation......
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Is this really all I need to do?
>
> Yes if you are happy with that quite different distribution to the one at
> the top.
>
>> In fact in my situation do I really even need to do this?
>
> Not really except if you want to say who gets everything if both your wife
> and your son die before you do.
>
>> Thanks for any advice.
>
> Even advice to shove your head up a dead bear's arse ?
OH come on!!! People like that chap come to uk.legal expecting help and
advice. That was uncalled for:(
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 10:04 am
From: Aardvark
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:32:31 +0000, Ophelia wrote:
>>> Thanks for any advice.
>>
>> Even advice to shove your head up a dead bear's arse ?
>
> OH come on!!! People like that chap come to uk.legal expecting help and
> advice. That was uncalled for
He was only trying to obtain clarification of a statement made by the
previous poster.
What's wrong with that?
You're not afraid that the previous poster might actually try to follow
that hypothetical advice, are you? Here in the UK it's very difficult to
acquire bears, dead or otherwise, and so if the advice was taken,
hypothetical or otherwise, its implementation would be nigh on impossible.
No ursine mammals were harmed in the writing of this post.
--
"I can tell you how to become a millionaire in as much time as it takes
a woman to have a baby. One catch: the nine-month plan ends in a funeral."
Ice-T
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 10:37 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Ophelia wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> john mayfield wrote
>>> I keep hearing that I should write a will. I'm 65 years old ,
>>> living in a small terraced house in North London (u.k.) together with wife 61 years old and son 29 years old.
>>> The house is worth about just under 300K which is below the
>>> inheritence threshold and is owned jointly (tenants in common) with my wife. My total savings are small.
>>> When I die I would wish to leave it all the wife, and any amount to my son that enables him not to pay any
>>> inheritance tax.
>> Thats a bit unspecific. Not clear if you mean that you actually want
>> to leave as much as you can to your son so that he doesnt have to
>> pay any inheritance tax and the rest to your wife or what.
>> If that is what you want to do, you will need a will because
>> dying intestate wont necessarily deliver that result unless
>> your wife is prepared to do exactly what you want, and
>> its unclear whether you wife operates like that or not.
>> And you really need to think about what you want to do if your
>> wife dies before you too. Presumably you want the son to get
>> the lot, even if that does mean he has to pay some inheritance tax.
>>> I guess thats a fairly common kind of family situation,
>> It isnt that common that the son still lives with the parents at that age.
>>> without any additional complications;
>> There always are a few, like whether your wife
>> agrees with the detail of what you want to do or not.
>>> so I thought it would be fairly easy to get advice on how to write a will.
>> Yes, it should be.
>>> On google I can get up to 7 million returns on my searches, but
>>> everyone I've looked at wants to make money out giving any advice.
>> Sure, but there are plenty who dont want any money too.
>>> With plenty of 'a bad will is worse than no will' kind of suggestions, thrown in.
>> Thats radically overstated with a situation as simple as yours.
>>> Is the advice that you *should* make a will really applicable to
>>> someone like myself?
>> Thats not completely clear given that you havent provided
>> all the information needed to answer that question.
>> If you are completely confident that your wife will do what you want
>> you dont really need a will, particularly if you dont care if your son does have to pay some inheritance tax if your
>> wife dies before you and there is no real chance of you dying with rather more assets
>> than you have now and the inheritance tax level isnt changed.
>>> What would be any advantages to having a will?
>> The main one is that you would not then depend
>> on your wife agreeing with what you want to do.
>>> The nearest I have got so far to creating one is a bit of information I picked up, which says I can just write out
>>> roughly as follow:
>> It makes more sense to start with a free will kit for your country.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> This will 'dated' .........by 'john........' of 'address'......
>>> I revoke all earlier wills and Codicils.
>>> I appoint as my executor and trustees my wife 'name'........ and my son .......
>> You really need to allow for what happens if they die before you
>> unless you dont care if the state gets all your money in that situation.
>>> I give my Estate and Possesions to my wife ............
>>> If she does not survive me I give my Estate and possisions to my son......
>> That doesnt do what you say at the top with your
>> son unless the statement at the top is badly worded.
>>> Signed by ............. John 'my name'
>>> In our presence and attested by us in his presence and in the
>>> presence of each other.
>>> Witness 1. signature......., full name ......
>>> address......occupation......
>>> Witness 2. signature......., full name ......
>>> address......occupation......
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Is this really all I need to do?
>> Yes if you are happy with that quite different distribution to the one at the top.
>>> In fact in my situation do I really even need to do this?
>> Not really except if you want to say who gets everything if both your wife and your son die before you do.
>>> Thanks for any advice.
>> Even advice to shove your head up a dead bear's arse ?
> OH come on!!! People like that chap come to uk.legal expecting help and advice.
And he got that.
> That was uncalled for:(
That was a joke, Joyce.
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 10:39 am
From: "Ophelia"
"Aardvark" <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in message
news:hmosnr$42k$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:32:31 +0000, Ophelia wrote:
>
>>>> Thanks for any advice.
>>>
>>> Even advice to shove your head up a dead bear's arse ?
>>
>> OH come on!!! People like that chap come to uk.legal expecting help and
>> advice. That was uncalled for
>
> He was only trying to obtain clarification of a statement made by the
> previous poster.
>
> What's wrong with that?
>
> You're not afraid that the previous poster might actually try to follow
> that hypothetical advice, are you? Here in the UK it's very difficult to
> acquire bears, dead or otherwise, and so if the advice was taken,
> hypothetical or otherwise, its implementation would be nigh on impossible.
>
> No ursine mammals were harmed in the writing of this post.
<g>
It was just the last comment, which someone unacustomed to usenet......
sigh... maybe he was not:(
I guess I am just an old softie...
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 10:49 am
From: "Ophelia"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7vacvjF8c7U1@mid.individual.net...
> Ophelia wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> john mayfield wrote
>
>>>> I keep hearing that I should write a will. I'm 65 years old ,
>>>> living in a small terraced house in North London (u.k.) together with
>>>> wife 61 years old and son 29 years old.
>
>>>> The house is worth about just under 300K which is below the
>>>> inheritence threshold and is owned jointly (tenants in common) with my
>>>> wife. My total savings are small.
>
>>>> When I die I would wish to leave it all the wife, and any amount to my
>>>> son that enables him not to pay any inheritance tax.
>
>>> Thats a bit unspecific. Not clear if you mean that you actually want
>>> to leave as much as you can to your son so that he doesnt have to
>>> pay any inheritance tax and the rest to your wife or what.
>
>>> If that is what you want to do, you will need a will because
>>> dying intestate wont necessarily deliver that result unless
>>> your wife is prepared to do exactly what you want, and
>>> its unclear whether you wife operates like that or not.
>
>>> And you really need to think about what you want to do if your
>>> wife dies before you too. Presumably you want the son to get
>>> the lot, even if that does mean he has to pay some inheritance tax.
>
>>>> I guess thats a fairly common kind of family situation,
>
>>> It isnt that common that the son still lives with the parents at that
>>> age.
>
>>>> without any additional complications;
>
>>> There always are a few, like whether your wife
>>> agrees with the detail of what you want to do or not.
>
>>>> so I thought it would be fairly easy to get advice on how to write a
>>>> will.
>
>>> Yes, it should be.
>
>>>> On google I can get up to 7 million returns on my searches, but
>>>> everyone I've looked at wants to make money out giving any advice.
>
>>> Sure, but there are plenty who dont want any money too.
>
>>>> With plenty of 'a bad will is worse than no will' kind of suggestions,
>>>> thrown in.
>
>>> Thats radically overstated with a situation as simple as yours.
>
>>>> Is the advice that you *should* make a will really applicable to
>>>> someone like myself?
>
>>> Thats not completely clear given that you havent provided
>>> all the information needed to answer that question.
>
>>> If you are completely confident that your wife will do what you want
>>> you dont really need a will, particularly if you dont care if your son
>>> does have to pay some inheritance tax if your wife dies before you and
>>> there is no real chance of you dying with rather more assets
>>> than you have now and the inheritance tax level isnt changed.
>
>>>> What would be any advantages to having a will?
>
>>> The main one is that you would not then depend
>>> on your wife agreeing with what you want to do.
>
>>>> The nearest I have got so far to creating one is a bit of information I
>>>> picked up, which says I can just write out roughly as follow:
>
>>> It makes more sense to start with a free will kit for your country.
>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>>> This will 'dated' .........by 'john........' of 'address'......
>
>>>> I revoke all earlier wills and Codicils.
>
>>>> I appoint as my executor and trustees my wife 'name'........ and my son
>>>> .......
>
>>> You really need to allow for what happens if they die before you
>>> unless you dont care if the state gets all your money in that situation.
>
>>>> I give my Estate and Possesions to my wife ............
>
>>>> If she does not survive me I give my Estate and possisions to my
>>>> son......
>
>>> That doesnt do what you say at the top with your
>>> son unless the statement at the top is badly worded.
>
>>>> Signed by ............. John 'my name'
>
>>>> In our presence and attested by us in his presence and in the
>>>> presence of each other.
>
>>>> Witness 1. signature......., full name ......
>>>> address......occupation......
>>>> Witness 2. signature......., full name ......
>>>> address......occupation......
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>>> Is this really all I need to do?
>
>>> Yes if you are happy with that quite different distribution to the one
>>> at the top.
>
>>>> In fact in my situation do I really even need to do this?
>
>>> Not really except if you want to say who gets everything if both your
>>> wife and your son die before you do.
>
>>>> Thanks for any advice.
>
>>> Even advice to shove your head up a dead bear's arse ?
>
>> OH come on!!! People like that chap come to uk.legal expecting help and
>> advice.
>
> And he got that.
>
>> That was uncalled for:(
>
> That was a joke, Joyce.
Hokay Mabel:)
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 10:55 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
john mayfield added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
>
> I keep hearing that I should write a will. I'm 65 years old ,
> living in a small terraced house in North London (u.k.) together
> with wife 61 years old and son 29 years old.
>
> The house is worth about just under 300K which is below the
> inheritence threshold and is owned jointly (tenants in common)
> with my wife. My total savings are small.
>
> When I die I would wish to leave it all the wife, and any amount
> to my son that enables him not to pay any inheritance tax.
>
> I guess thats a fairly common kind of family situation, without
> any additional complications; so I thought it would be fairly
> easy to get advice on how to write a will.
>
> On google I can get up to 7 million returns on my searches, but
> everyone I've looked at wants to make money out giving any
> advice. With plenty of 'a bad will is worse than no will' kind
> of suggestions, thrown in.
>
> Is the advice that you *should* make a will really applicable to
> someone like myself? What would be any advantages to having a
> will?
>
> The nearest I have got so far to creating one is a bit of
> information I picked up, which says I can just write out roughly
> as follow:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
> This will 'dated' .........by 'john........' of
> 'address'......
>
> I revoke all earlier wills and Codicils.
>
> I appoint as my executor and trustees my wife 'name'........ and
> my son .......
>
> I give my Estate and Possesions to my wife ............
>
> If she does not survive me I give my Estate and possisions to my
> son ......
>
I know nothing about UK law but in the US, everything automatically
goes to the spouse unless there is a pre-nup OR possessions and
money are kept separate, then a will would apply. In many/most
marriages, all assets are held jointly, so no probate is needed
when one spouse dies. Children are another matter. Sometimes
arguments break out.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government is best which governs least" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 10:58 am
From: "Martin"
"Rick" <rick0.merrill@gmail.com.lessspam> wrote in message
news:hmoq39$30u$3@news.eternal-september.org...
< snip >
> To avoid forcing son to pay larger
> inheritance tax than he can afford (before perhaps selling the main
> asset, namely the house) you could with a lawyer's help, consider
> putting the house in a trust.
Why bother? In the situation you contemplate, the first £650k is IHT-free.
Unless the OP's idea of "small savings" is something over £350k, there will
be no IHT liability.
The same pertains if they die at quite different times.
--
Martin
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dumb T Mobile prepaid question
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c0e5478775d0861f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 8:59 am
From: me@privacy.net
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>This is true. You must buy the $100 card. Or cut your losses now, and
>switch to PagePlus, a Verizon MVNO where the _most_ expensive minutes
>are 10 cents, and minutes go as low as 4 cents. Much better coverage
>too. But a yearly minimum of $30 ($10 every 120 days), rather than the
>T-Mobile minimum of $10 a year (for "Gold").
Point taken on PagePlus
But what I'm really thinking abt doing is buying an
unlocked Nokia GSM that also has WIFI built in and
using Skype for the times I'm in WIFI hotspot yet
having the T Mobile option when OUT of WIFI hotspot.
I am university student so around wifi spot a lot.
Would PagePlus still prove cheaper than above strategy
of WIFI use in your valued opinion?
Thanks
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 9:41 am
From: SMS
me@privacy.net wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is true. You must buy the $100 card. Or cut your losses now, and
>> switch to PagePlus, a Verizon MVNO where the _most_ expensive minutes
>> are 10 cents, and minutes go as low as 4 cents. Much better coverage
>> too. But a yearly minimum of $30 ($10 every 120 days), rather than the
>> T-Mobile minimum of $10 a year (for "Gold").
>
> Point taken on PagePlus
>
> But what I'm really thinking abt doing is buying an
> unlocked Nokia GSM that also has WIFI built in and
> using Skype for the times I'm in WIFI hotspot yet
> having the T Mobile option when OUT of WIFI hotspot.
>
> I am university student so around wifi spot a lot.
>
> Would PagePlus still prove cheaper than above strategy
> of WIFI use in your valued opinion?
If you use the phone very little with T-Mibile minutes, then it makes
sense to buy the $100 card to become "Gold," then buy the $10 card once
a year to keep the account active. It's the cheapest way to keep a
"glove box phone" active.
That's a good idea to use Skype over WiFi. You'll still pay a little
more than 2 cents per minute to call non-Skype phones though.
It's also going to be interesting to see what Google does with Gizmo,
which they purchased. Unlike Skype, you coud have used Gizmo at no
charge, but they aren't taking sign-ups anymore. I expect that they'll
soon integrate Gizmo into Google Voice, which will likely put Skype out
of business.
Of course you could do the same thing you're doing for Skype with a
phone on PagePlus, but it's more expensive to get a CDMA phone that will
support Skype.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 10:30 am
From: me@privacy.net
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Of course you could do the same thing you're doing for Skype with a
>phone on PagePlus, but it's more expensive to get a CDMA phone that will
>support Skype.
Yes.... that's an idea
I'm kind of wanting to stay prepaid (no
contract).....get lowest cost.... AND upgrade to a
smart phone
Hard to get all three at once but am trying.
Are there any low cost smart phones that have wifi but
work under PagePlus system?
The other reason Id like a wifi capable cell phone....
is being able to check email and surf net while in
between classes
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 10:31 am
From: "Rod Speed"
me@privacy.net wrote
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>> This is true. You must buy the $100 card. Or cut your losses now,
>> and switch to PagePlus, a Verizon MVNO where the _most_ expensive
>> minutes are 10 cents, and minutes go as low as 4 cents. Much better
>> coverage too. But a yearly minimum of $30 ($10 every 120 days),
>> rather than the T-Mobile minimum of $10 a year (for "Gold").
> Point taken on PagePlus
> But what I'm really thinking abt doing is buying an
> unlocked Nokia GSM that also has WIFI built in
> and using Skype for the times I'm in WIFI hotspot
Fring will do skype on most decent cellphones.
> yet having the T Mobile option when OUT of WIFI hotspot.
> I am university student so around wifi spot a lot.
> Would PagePlus still prove cheaper than above strategy of WIFI use in your valued opinion?
Hard for anyone to say because it isnt clear how often YOU can use wifi.
If its most of the time, wifi would certainly be cheaper.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 11:05 am
From: SMS
me@privacy.net wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course you could do the same thing you're doing for Skype with a
>> phone on PagePlus, but it's more expensive to get a CDMA phone that will
>> support Skype.
>
> Yes.... that's an idea
>
> I'm kind of wanting to stay prepaid (no
> contract).....get lowest cost.... AND upgrade to a
> smart phone
>
> Hard to get all three at once but am trying.
>
> Are there any low cost smart phones that have wifi but
> work under PagePlus system?
Yes/No. Recently Verizon stopped a bunch of smart phones from working on
PagePlus. See
"http://wiki.howardforums.com/index.php/Smartphone_Ban_FAQ". Apparently
Verizon was extremely upset over the PagePlus plans that include data
(not unlimited data, but 20MB or 50MB of data). They see these as a
direct threat to their business model.
So you might be better off with your original plan of a GSM smart phone
on T-Mobile.
> The other reason Id like a wifi capable cell phone....
> is being able to check email and surf net while in
> between classes
One really nice thing about PagePlus, that you don't get with T-Mobile,
is that you have data connectivity via 3G, albeit at $1.20/MB, when you
really need it. T-Mobile does not (yet) offer data on their prepaid
plans. I've spent less than $10 on 3G data on PagePlus in two years, but
there have been times while walking or cycling that it was really useful
to have 3G data access to look stuff up. Of course with a WiFi device
you could find the nearest Starbucks or other hotspot, but sometimes
that's not very convenient.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: walking boots-- which are good?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52b4735386145e8e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 9:51 am
From: hbol
>PeterC wrote: Just done a short (2 mile) walk to get a bus from the next village. In
> boots it takes about 28 - 29 minutes, but today I wore shoes (Merrill) for
> the first time for months and it took 27 minutes.
I have been following this thread wondering if anyone was ever going
to mention the Merrel brand. I have had a pair of Merrel boots
(hybrids) for about a year now and absolutely love them - and I might
mention that my leather Scarpa GTX have been collecting dust since I
got my Merrels. They are so comfortable, like wearing a pair of cozy
socks. I am more of a hill and glen walker than a mountaineer so I
can't attest to the latter. I didn't think that they, Merrels, would
be suitable for walking in snow and cold weather but I was wrong. They
are tough, have a great Vibram sole, Goretex lining, light as a
feather, and I have not found a leak in them so far. They are warm in
cold weather and cool in hot weather. If they only last a year, big
deal, I will go buy another pair. I got this pair for around £80 but I
see that they are now up to £100 - give or take.
I was up in Glen Esk on tuesday and shot a short video (2 mins)
wearing them in moderate snow conditions in the lower end of the hills
on the Fungle and Fir Mounths trail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?videos=p4QUodby52A&v=pI0PxKnYckM
haggisbag
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 10:03 am
From: SMS
hbol wrote:
<snip>
> I have been following this thread wondering if anyone was ever going
> to mention the Merrel brand. I have had a pair of Merrel boots
> (hybrids) for about a year now and absolutely love them - and I might
> mention that my leather Scarpa GTX have been collecting dust since I
> got my Merrels. They are so comfortable, like wearing a pair of cozy
> socks. I am more of a hill and glen walker than a mountaineer so I
> can't attest to the latter. I didn't think that they, Merrels, would
> be suitable for walking in snow and cold weather but I was wrong. They
> are tough, have a great Vibram sole, Goretex lining, light as a
> feather, and I have not found a leak in them so far. They are warm in
> cold weather and cool in hot weather. If they only last a year, big
> deal, I will go buy another pair. I got this pair for around £80 but I
> see that they are now up to £100 - give or take.
Merrell (not Merrel) has very good products. I've got some of their
nordic ski boot as well as some of their shoes.
As you found, with a Goretex lining and a Vibram sole, they'll be
waterproof and provide good traction. You probably wouldn't want to wear
these mountaineering, but for most hikes on good trails they're great,
and a lot lighter than full leather boots.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Silver Certificates , what are they "worth"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fbb23ab177fa4f94?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 9:56 am
From: "Lou"
"VFW" <georgeswk@toast.net> wrote in message
news:georgeswk-2F833E.21472403032010@news.toast.net...
> Someone tried to sell me a dollar "Silver Certificate" insisting they
> are worth more than a dollar. You can no longer trade them for silver.
> what would one be worth. What, they were last printed in 1934?
> --
> Money; What a Concept !
As legal tender, a dollar silver certificate is worth a dollar. Depending
on condition, there may be some numismatic value, but you'd have to sell it
to a collecter or dealer, you won't get more than a dollar from a bank. My
recollection is that silver certificates were last printed in the 1960's.
"Old" silver certificates (from the 1800's) may be worth considerably more
than face value.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 1 Chicken, 17 Healthy Meals, $26 Bucks, No Mayo
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e58b86ddbcc9e172?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 10:06 am
From: Cindy Hamilton
On Mar 3, 8:18 pm, "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
> "Pedro Marques" <pedroxa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4f6c2f96-9bbf-4a9a-a02f-0a47ab405cd0@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Here's the thing: sometimes, those dinners aren't the healthiest meals
> >in the world. There tend to be a lot of quesadillas and casseroles
> >whenever these type of posts pop up, not to mention chicken salads
> >drenched with full-fat mayo. Now, there's nothing wrong with this
> >whatsoever (except the mayo - blech), but I wanted to see if I could
> >put a healthier spin on it.
>
> Huh? FAT isn't the problem, SUGAR is. Carbs are bad, fat is good. Grains
> bad, fat good. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Neither carbs nor fats are good in excessive amounts. Moderation in
all things.
Frankly, I don't see what the OP has against mayonnaise. I had some
at lunchtime.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 10:26 am
From: tmclone
On Mar 4, 1:06 pm, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 8:18 pm, "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
>
> > "Pedro Marques" <pedroxa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4f6c2f96-9bbf-4a9a-a02f-0a47ab405cd0@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >Here's the thing: sometimes, those dinners aren't the healthiest meals
> > >in the world. There tend to be a lot of quesadillas and casseroles
> > >whenever these type of posts pop up, not to mention chicken salads
> > >drenched with full-fat mayo. Now, there's nothing wrong with this
> > >whatsoever (except the mayo - blech), but I wanted to see if I could
> > >put a healthier spin on it.
>
> > Huh? FAT isn't the problem, SUGAR is. Carbs are bad, fat is good. Grains
> > bad, fat good. Why is this so hard to grasp?
>
> Neither carbs nor fats are good in excessive amounts. Moderation in
> all things.
>
Of course, but most people don't seem to understand that more than 50
grams of carbs a day IS excessive. Most people eat mostly carbs and
just can't understand why they're so fat. The medical community hasn't
helped by touting "low-fat" as the solution. "Low-fat" is code for
high sugar. Hell, I've seen "low-fat" products which contain HFCS,
which should not be consumed by anyone in any quantity. HFCS is worse
than trans fats, and those have been banned.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: dangit! forgot to mail in a $15 rebate!@#%*!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fd562028049385a5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 4 2010 10:28 am
From: Zuke
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ohioguy wrote:
> Man, I'm kicking myself. For the first time in about 5 years, I put off
> sending in a rebate, and the allowed time expired - yesterday!
>
> It was a $15 ECS rebate from a newegg.com purchase. Rebate form said the
> rebate had to be postmarked within 18 days of purchase, and that 18 days was
> up yesterday.
>
> I sat down to fill everything out this afternoon, and realized there was no
> point to it.
>
> All I can offer as an excuse is that our new house is getting fixed up, and
> I've been spending a lot of time going up there to look over the work, and
> also to do a number of projects myself.
>
> Still, I'm annoyed at myself. Usually I do these rebates right away when
> they come.
>
15 bucks. I say sit it the time-out chair for half an hour.
==============================================================================
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