Your defense of antitrust laws has definite merit, but the Rule Against Perpetuities? Seriously? RAP is a friggin' joke. It's not needed for a damn thing, which is good since most lawyers and judges don't even know how to apply it.
ADP beat today Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics -- “The job market is rip-roaring. The tight labor market continues to tighten.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/manufa...ngest-jobs-increase-in-three-years-1522845356
Really? What Armageddon is occurring in the states that have gotten rid of it or limited its application?
It takes a few generations for the results to occur... so we may not even see it in our lifetimes. It also may have no real consequnces in states like South Dakota... but you could probably do without a LOT of laws in South Dakota that are needed in states with more than in four people. However, I will point to feudal England and the fact that some people would LOVE to tie up their wealth in trusts where it would not get distributed out into the economy when idiot child, grandchild, great grandchild, etc. comes along. Just because it was a pain on the bar exam does not make it pointless! England already proved that a system where people rack up debt but can sit on vast wealth their creditor’s cannot touch does not work. Plus, as a general concept, dead people should not be able to control their wealth 360 years into the future. What makes sense in 2018 probably does not make sense in 2378.
In your example, are you claiming that lenders lend to an entity whose assets are in a trust, and then want to ***** about not being able to attach the assets in the event of default? Where do you get the idea that someone that earns their wealth should not be allowed to give it to whomever the wish, but the government has the right to come and take it by force? Last, the only wealth they may have that is not in the economy is their own unrealized gains. In order to acquire the asset, they had to pay someone at some point in the past. Hell, even on the unrealized gain on real estate assets, you have to pay tax.
A. America has had the rule against perpetuities for hundreds of years and has gotten along fine. It originated in the 16th century and is one of our protections against feudalism just like we disallow titles of nobility. B. Specifically, the rule forbids a person from creating future interests in property that would vest at a date beyond that of the lifetimes of those then living plus 21 years. Yes, they are allowed to give it to anyone living or anyone that will be born within 21 years of the deaths of people currently living. There is no need to tie up property in a trust for your great great great great grankids that may not even exist unless you are coming up with a feudalistic scheme. C. The government does not take ANYTHING by force. That is not what I am saying at all. All the rule against perpetuities does is make sure you leave your property to someone cognizable. The government is not taking ANYTHING away. D. A family can still choose to maintain and tie up their wealth, future generations just have to make that choice. The rule against perpetuities guarantees they will have a choice and they are not subject to the whims of an ancestor that died 400 years ago. E. The irony of republicans being against the rule against perpetuities is Lincoln fought a civil war against America having a feudal system... but I think even the far right, libertarian, feudalistic South was okay with the rule against perpetuities.
“The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it. Second, judges often had concerns about the dead being able to impose excessive limitations on the ownership and use of property by those still living. For this reason, the rule only allows will-makers to put contingencies on ownership upon the following generation plus 21 years. Lastly, the rule against perpetuities was sometimes used to prevent very large, possibly aristocratic estates from being kept in one family for more than one or two generations at a time.” ^ wikipedia gives a nice summary.
Got it- as it relates to the perpetuity issue. That makes sense. The debtor issue and wealth hoarding argument still seem weak, however.
The debt issue was a problem in the 16th century and you may be right about that it would not be the primary or a major problem with perpetuities today. Obviously, things are a lot different today. However, overall, I think it is a relatively good safeguard against past problems that has minimal impact on most people.... other than it being a pain in a** for future lawyers having to learn it for the bar exam.
I was thinking that lawyers just aren't going to get any sympathy for anything. They've earned that position. Hell, I don't even like the ones arguing on my behalf! On the other hand, they are a necessary middleman and there needs to be a system in place to settle disagreements.
It's been a long time, nearly 30 years since I dealt with the the rule against perpetuities, but as I recall, the general rule is that "no interest in property is valid unless it vests not later than 21 years plus the period of gestation, after some life in being or lives in being which exist at the time of the creation of the interest." When drafting trusts documents it is an important concept to remember. It was originally developed in England during the reign of Henry VIII because people with land and other wealth placed their property in trust and it was never taxed. Henery needed tax revenue and this common law rule was the result. It is a vesting concept to that someone has to eventually take your stuff and pay the tax on the inheritance or transfer of ownership. Today, the rule is part of the drafting of Wills, trusts and estates. Someone eventually pay the tax when property comes out of trust or estate solution. The anti-trust laws that came about at the beginning of the 20th century were based on preventing acquisitions by large companies to eliminate the competition and corner the market for sales of their goods. That's not an area I get involved in too often.
In fairness, @Mr. Deez agree on most things and are generally limited to arguing about Nikki Haley and confederate statues. Apparently the rule against perpetuities also divides us... and the other funny part on that is logically we should take the opposite posititons based on the statue debates.
HTown and BJ, You guys are talking like I don't know what the RAP is. I do. In fact, I was actually very good at applying RAP in law school. I was one of the students the prof called on to answer RAP questions and got all the points on the RAP question on the final. But was I really good at it, or did I have a professor who wrongly thought I was good at it but probably didn't know how to apply it any better than most Texas judges do? Considering that I was mostly a mediocre law student, the latter is more likely to be the truth. But with a rule like RAP, that's all that matters. The illusion that you know what you're talking about matters a lot more than whether you actually do. Either way, even if we weren't talking about a rule that is often arbitrary in practice, the purpose of the rule is to keep people from controlling their assets for "too long" (at least according to the government) after they've died. I get the point, but to be honest, that kind of policy priority is a little too similar to the policy priority associated with the estate tax (even though RAP doesn't actually take money from anybody like the estate tax does).
Dick-size? Oh, I get it now. I thought he was entertained by which lawyer could prove to be the biggest dork. My bad.
Illegal immigrant apprehensions at US-Mexico border hit highest levels since Trump took office "The number of migrants apprehended while trying to illegally enter the United States from Mexico skyrocketed to more than 50,000 people in March, the highest number since President Trump assumed office 14 months ago. New data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection showed 50,308 illegal immigrants were taken into custody at the southwest border last month, a nearly 40 percent increase from February's 36,695 reported apprehensions. Apprehensions have been known to jump from February to March due to warming weather and better conditions for migrants to travel from Central America to Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. However, last year, during Trump's first few months in office, about 23,500 illegal immigrants were detained in February, and that number dropped by 9,000 in March. * * * * The level of unaccompanied minors — those under 18 years of age who arrive at the border without a parent or guardian — also jumped to its highest in six months: 4,171. The second-highest month in fiscal year 2018, which started Oct. 1, 2017, was December, when 4,070 were reported. Family unit levels also peaked in March at 8,882.........." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...er-hit-highest-levels-since-trump-took-office
I have a problem with lucky-sperm-club people receiving vast sums without ever having done anything to earn/deserve it. I don't think the estate should be taxed on the givers side but I think it should be heavily taxed on the receivers side. If I were king for a day I put a significant tax on the amount you are able to receive via inheritance. I would exempt the first $4MM and then start taxing after that and get pretty aggressive on the tax as the amount goes up. We are supposed to be a meritocracy. We are supposed to be a country that provides equal opportunity and rewards individual effort. Getting a lucky-sperm-grant is contrary to those values. We should each produce and be compensated in relation to the value and production we create. A plan like the above would still allow a Buffet, Gates, etc still grow and amass as much as they want during their lifetime but would require than they spread the wealth upon their demise. $4MM to Suzie, 4 to Bobby, 4 to John...etc. I wouldn't hit the estate for heavy taxes but instead the recipient. This would encourage the capital/inheritance to be dished out in smaller amounts but to many more people. I think that is more consistent with a meritocracy and better for the country/economy overall. $4MM put into an annuity with even a 5% return would guarantee almost $250K per year for year even if a lazy offspring never did any other thing of value. That still allows you to provide for your children if that is your reason for acquiring your wealth.
First, if SH agrees with you concerning anything related to the economy, you need to reconsider your position. I'm serious. Second, you want to take the money from the earner and give it to someone else. How is that, basically, any different than being in the lucky sperm club? Do you just feel more comfortable with the government handing out money to their friends and voters? Third, and I have said this before, explain to me how someone having wealth negatively affects others. Does it prevent them from earning their own wealth somehow?
"North Korea tells the U.S. it is prepared to discuss denuclearization when Trump and Kim Jong Un meet" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-discuss-denuclearization.html#ixzz5C7EJ0TOp
In principle this is nice, but I think the same questions that were asked about the Iran deal need to be asked about any deal Trump makes with Kim. First, what will we have to give up? Will it be money? Will it be the removal of US forces in South Korea? Will it be technology of some kind? Second, how will any denuclearization be verified? The reason I don't get very excited one way or the other about this sort of deal is that we have no way to really know if a denuclearization is taking place. I wasn't a fan of the Iran deal, but though we certainly shouldn't have taken it in the shorts from Iran, I honestly can't conjure up a plausible alternative deal that would have truly guaranteed a denuclearized Iran. Nuclear weapons programs can be done covertly, and we don't trust the regimes that we're dealing with. (If we did trust them, then we wouldn't care if they had nuclear weapons.) So long as that's true we can't guarantee anybody's denuclearization. So almost no matter what deal Trump comes up with, I'm going to say the same thing about his deal that I said about the Iran deal. We need to be fully prepared for North Korea to remain a nuclear weapons power, just as we need to be prepared for Iran to become one. We still need troops in South Korea and Japan. We still need missile defense systems in the area. Any weakening of our defense posture will be foolish.
