Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm all for states freedom to enact laws specific to them, although this does seem too lenient in my mind.
Either way, what surprises me most is this paragraph:
"Among those in the know were the lawyers of Leona Helmsley, the legendarily mean hotel heiress, who coined the phrase “only the little people pay taxes”. When Helmsley died in 2007, she left $12m in trust for the care of her dog, a maltese called Trouble. Trouble dined on crab cakes and kobe beef, and the trust provided her with $8,000 a year for grooming and $100,000 for security guards, who protected her against kidnappings, as well as against reprisals from the people that she bit. When a New York court – not entirely unreasonably – decided to restrain this expenditure, trustees moved the trust to South Dakota, which had crafted “purpose trusts” with just such a client in mind. Other states impose limits on how a purpose trust can care for a pet, on the principle that perhaps there are better things to do with millions of dollars than groom a dog, but South Dakota takes no chances. The client is always right."
12million FOR A DOG?!?! Could you imagine being the security guard getting paid $100,000/yr to take care of a dog? Talk about dream job.
I'm all for states freedom to enact laws specific to them, although this does seem too lenient in my mind.
Either way, what surprises me most is this paragraph:
"Among those in the know were the lawyers of Leona Helmsley, the legendarily mean hotel heiress, who coined the phrase “only the little people pay taxes”. When Helmsley died in 2007, she left $12m in trust for the care of her dog, a maltese called Trouble. Trouble dined on crab cakes and kobe beef, and the trust provided her with $8,000 a year for grooming and $100,000 for security guards, who protected her against kidnappings, as well as against reprisals from the people that she bit. When a New York court – not entirely unreasonably – decided to restrain this expenditure, trustees moved the trust to South Dakota, which had crafted “purpose trusts” with just such a client in mind. Other states impose limits on how a purpose trust can care for a pet, on the principle that perhaps there are better things to do with millions of dollars than groom a dog, but South Dakota takes no chances. The client is always right."
12million FOR A DOG?!?! Could you imagine being the security guard getting paid $100,000/yr to take care of a dog? Talk about dream job.
I'd argue I need $250,000 or $300,000, even as a security guard.
Here in southern Arizona, it is common to see vehicles with South Dakota license plates in the October to April peak visitor season. I would guess most are like me, retired with a decent income but not in the ranks of the 1 percent. Many own a condo or mobile home here, or stay here in a large RV for several months to avoid the winter season in South Dakota. Many might not live at all in South Dakota, but just use it as a home address through a private mailbox service.
Well, there's a super-rich entity in South Dakota, but it's a corporation, not an individual - Citibank. They put their credit card operations there to get around state usury laws that limit the interest they can charge consumers on their balances.
I'm all for states freedom to enact laws specific to them, although this does seem too lenient in my mind.
Either way, what surprises me most is this paragraph:
"Among those in the know were the lawyers of Leona Helmsley, the legendarily mean hotel heiress, who coined the phrase “only the little people pay taxes”. When Helmsley died in 2007, she left $12m in trust for the care of her dog, a maltese called Trouble. Trouble dined on crab cakes and kobe beef, and the trust provided her with $8,000 a year for grooming and $100,000 for security guards, who protected her against kidnappings, as well as against reprisals from the people that she bit. When a New York court – not entirely unreasonably – decided to restrain this expenditure, trustees moved the trust to South Dakota, which had crafted “purpose trusts” with just such a client in mind. Other states impose limits on how a purpose trust can care for a pet, on the principle that perhaps there are better things to do with millions of dollars than groom a dog, but South Dakota takes no chances. The client is always right."
12million FOR A DOG?!?! Could you imagine being the security guard getting paid $100,000/yr to take care of a dog? Talk about dream job.
Where is the problem here?
It was her money to do with as she wished. Who are you to come around, and say "I disapprove of how your money is being spent, I am going to force it to be spent on my priorities"?
What, exactly, is your concern with that paragraph?
Here in southern Arizona, it is common to see vehicles with South Dakota license plates in the October to April peak visitor season. I would guess most are like me, retired with a decent income but not in the ranks of the 1 percent. Many own a condo or mobile home here, or stay here in a large RV for several months to avoid the winter season in South Dakota. Many might not live at all in South Dakota, but just use it as a home address through a private mailbox service.
Originally Posted by ChiGuy2.5 View Post
I'm all for states freedom to enact laws specific to them, although this does seem too lenient in my mind.
Either way, what surprises me most is this paragraph:
"Among those in the know were the lawyers of Leona Helmsley, the legendarily mean hotel heiress, who coined the phrase “only the little people pay taxes”. When Helmsley died in 2007, she left $12m in trust for the care of her dog, a maltese called Trouble. Trouble dined on crab cakes and kobe beef, and the trust provided her with $8,000 a year for grooming and $100,000 for security guards, who protected her against kidnappings, as well as against reprisals from the people that she bit. When a New York court – not entirely unreasonably – decided to restrain this expenditure, trustees moved the trust to South Dakota, which had crafted “purpose trusts” with just such a client in mind. Other states impose limits on how a purpose trust can care for a pet, on the principle that perhaps there are better things to do with millions of dollars than groom a dog, but South Dakota takes no chances. The client is always right."
12million FOR A DOG?!?! Could you imagine being the security guard getting paid $100,000/yr to take care of a dog? Talk about dream job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr
Where is the problem here?
It was her money to do with as she wished. Who are you to come around, and say "I disapprove of how your money is being spent, I am going to force it to be spent on my priorities"?
What, exactly, is your concern with that paragraph?
Yes, it is her money and she should have the right to decide how to spend it. Shame on New York and other states for not allowing the wishes of the deceased to be fulfilled.
And while we are talking about Leona, yes she had her quirks and eccentricities, but she left a lot of money to provide hospitals and health care for those who aren't as well off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
