It is super difficult to ask deceased people what they actually wanted.
In respect for the dead person, we absolutely have to carry out their will.
It might be there there is a brother somewhere that feels hurt. But we really don't know if the deceased one really wished that his early crush should have the money.
What we can do, however, is to make sure we update our wills.
> In respect for the dead person, we absolutely have to carry out their will.
We trust judges when they decide to send people to prison for decades, so I don't see why we shouldn't trust them if they decide that this will is probably a mistake.
We don't trust judges. We trust the process they follow. A judge is not a God, why we have a hierarchy to redo judgments (lift a decision to a higher court).
Also, IMHO judging a person for something they did not do is amongst the worst things that can happen in a society. This is also why there is a principle of rather letting 10 guilty people go free rather than convicting a single innocent person.
I don't know. If the case is not discussed in court, we will never know. This is why we should not blindly follow a will out of respect of the dead person, because there may be evidence this is just a mistake.
That is literally debatable. The definition of legitimately in this case is literally not clear and quite arguable. You have merely picked a side, not pointed out some obvious definitive truth.
The ex legitimately has a claim. The strength of the claim is still to be decided.
If the process by which one becomes a beneficiary is swiss cheese, that does matter.
That changes the strength of the very word beneficiary in the statement "beneficiary until proven otherwise". It's now only "maybe beneficiary until proven otherwise."
In other words, arguable, requiring to be determined.
You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now.
Beneficiary until proven otherwise. That sounds precise. If you are in poor belief that you really are not the beneficiary, I would take care spending the money!
That is how it always has been.
The tax agency can come back 5 years later and ammend You tax filling.
The same here. You announce who the beneficiary is (the ex girlfriend), someone challenges that, but that does not change the beneficiary until the decision has been made.
I don't really see other ways it could work?
> You're not the thing until proven otherwise, the thing has to be proven in the first place now.
You misunderstand. You are the thing until proven otherwise.
Ah yes. We had license for public broadcasters tried in Denmark. Turned out that it resembled a tax. There is this law, that only the official tax agency can collect taxes, and now license for public broadcasting is collected over the tax.
Regardless, this seems to be a form thing.
Also, I am quite sure that the law is a bit more formal than cannot collect unfair taxes (in what case, all taxes collected on me are unfair, but taxes collected on them are fair)
Could as well say that too little development into synthetic meats hinders human progress.
It is not that we can not grow enough food for humans. It is that we feed all the food to unethically treated animals in large warehouses, only to dig them down when the meat is unprofitable (looking at you, Australia).
My bet is that we increase agriculture free land, and utilize what we grow much better.
> Bond traders are tilting dovish again, piling into wagers that would benefit from a faster pace of Federal Reserve interest rate cuts as Treasuries rally.
> “The next move that the Fed is going to make is ultimately going to be one that protects the strength of the labor market, rather than one that in which they need to be fighting inflation,” Kelsey Berro, fixed-income portfolio manager at JPMorgan Asset Management, told Bloomberg Television Tuesday. “We do think that inflation generally is under control.
A complete aside: I am wondering what the end game here is. If money are totally reducible to labor, but we just don't need labor anymore? Will we merely go one with negative interest and qe?
I a high interest environment we will see more compression. Ie. Fewer multiples between the lowest paid people and the highest paid people (median for a role).
The pay is largely going to be set by demand. But also: The sector has been ramping up salaries since the mid aughts, and I've found different people have different ideas of what the inflection point was in technology where it become prestigious/highly paid.
For me, I feel like things really heated up in the the 2010s. But there are others who I think would walk away from this industry if they got paid, adjusted for inflation, like it was 2015. As someone who cut their teeth in the wake of the dotcom crash, I look at the early 2010s as the halcyon days even tho pay got A LOT better - but I feel like that period struck a really good balance. If all you know is the white-hot market of 2019-2021 I suppose everything else looks like a massive downgrade.
(Not implying any of this relates to your experience, just giving my 2 cents)
In respect for the dead person, we absolutely have to carry out their will.
It might be there there is a brother somewhere that feels hurt. But we really don't know if the deceased one really wished that his early crush should have the money.
What we can do, however, is to make sure we update our wills.
reply