Per Stirpes, Does this phrase often appear in retirement plans? Options

[Bird]

You prefer antisocialism to socialism?

I don't know what antisocialism is, or whether you were just making a wisecrack. Sorry.

If anyone cares, my concern stems from the (unstated but obvious) premise in the attachment that there is something "unfair" or wrong about allocating less to a grandchild of a prolific parent than to a grandchild of a less-prolific parent.

[MexDomer]

I don't know what antisocialism is, or whether you were just making a wisecrack. Sorry.

If anyone cares, my concern stems from the (unstated but obvious) premise in the attachment that there is something "unfair" or wrong about allocating less to a grandchild of a prolific parent than to a grandchild of a less-prolific parent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that phile's comment was another intellectually insulting wisecrack; a common theme in many of his/her posts but something that most are unfortunately familiar with. I only wanted to add, why should the law take anything into account other than complete and utter fairness/equality? There is nothing unfair or wrong about allocating less to a grandchild of a more prolific parent, in fact it makes perfect sense from a logical/rational standpoint. However, in my opinion this not something intestacy laws should take into account; Default rules should inject as few additional factual considerations as possible.

[Steelerfan]

This issue can occur even where there is no pre-deceasing taker. This acually happened to me. I had an Aunt on my father's side who left 1/2 of her estate to my cousins (my father's sister's kids) of which there are 4 and the other 1/2 to me and my 2 sisters (three of us). The will did not say per stirpes and so me and my sisters got more than each of my cousins. They asked us to have the will re-drawn for equality and we all said no. I think they still hate me to this day. I don't know what the answer is, but to me the Point is that you better draft it the way you want it or else accept the result of the default rule.

[J Simmons]

The 'modern' right-of-representation (not all of them) statutes give equal amounts to the representatives of each generation, e.g., each grandchild of a deceased child being put on the same footing regardless of whether a child of a more or less prolific deceased child.

The rationale I've heard for this development rather than the pure per stirpes is that given today's longevity, grandparents often have more of a direct relationship with grandchildren, now that their lives overlap more. A grandchild is not just the child of a child anymore. For this reason, the modern approach has started to take hold.

The lessen to take from all this, however, is that whatever the wishes of the grandparent, they be made clear, using terminology that is understood and not confusing, both in designations of death beneficiaries and in testamentary instruments.

This post has been edited by J Simmons: Mar 31 2008, 05:13 PM

[Mike Preston]

Silly me, and I always thought that it was intended to provide benefits only to those next of kin with a particular STD.

[GMK]

A very interesting thread. Thanks.

We suggest that people list names and percentages whenever possible, because distributions will be delayed if we have to figure out who's left to split the benefit.

(Is it true you can get stirpes by sharing dirty ladles? Maybe only oral stirpes.)

[QDROphile]

MexDomer:

I don't know how to ask what you mean by "intellectually insulting" without fear of insulting you.

I thought Bird was adding some humor to his comment, and thereby make it more interesting, by using a term (socialism) in an unexpected context. Perhaps that is what some might call a wisecrack. I thought he or she might like to extend the game, and maybe expand on the substance of the comment by responding to the proffered foil, which was also in an unexpected context. Bird tentatively recognized the wisecrack response for what it was, chose not to continue to play in the same vein, but did take the opportunity to expand on the substance of the comment. Since Bird did not appear to take offense, I hope that none was taken where none was intended. I was not insulted that the exchange of wisecracks terminated after one round. Perhaps you can help my social development (at the risk of social-ism) by explaining where the insult was. I understand the "intellectual" part and make no apologies for it. "Intellectual" is all over this forum and gives it its value, both in substance and pleasure of discourse. Perhaps your explanation will allow me see the virtue of your gratutious intercession. Lest I insult you mistakenly, only your first sentence is gratutitious. The remainder is an appropriate addition to that part of the discusssion.

[MexDomer]

MexDomer:

I don't know how to ask what you mean by "intellectually insulting" without fear of insulting you.

I thought Bird was adding some humor to his comment, and thereby make it more interesting, by using a term (socialism) in an unexpected context. Perhaps that is what some might call a wisecrack. I thought he or she might like to extend the game, and maybe expand on the substance of the comment by responding to the proffered foil, which was also in an unexpected context. Bird tentatively recognized the wisecrack response for what it was, chose not to continue to play in the same vein, but did take the opportunity to expand on the substance of the comment. Since Bird did not appear to take offense, I hope that none was taken where none was intended. I was not insulted that the exchange of wisecracks terminated after one round. Perhaps you can help my social development (at the risk of social-ism) by explaining where the insult was" part and make n. I understand the "intellectualo apologies for it. "Intellectual" is all over this forum and gives it its value, both in substance and pleasure of discourse. Perhaps your explanation will allow me see the virtue of your gratutious intercession. Lest I insult you mistakenly, only your first sentence is gratutitious. The remainder is an appropriate addition to that part of the discusssion.

Mr. 'phile you certainly are a very long-winded fellow! Nonetheless sir, I've read a number of your posts, and the tone of the one to which I was responding had the same pompous arrogance that accompanies many of your responses. Maybe the intent to insult wasn't there, but given the general tone of the vast majority of your posts, the assumption was fair; maybe the assumption, though seemingly incorrect, is something to ponder, no?

Now, while it would certainly behove you to learn some internet ettiquette, I packed neither a lunch nor a dinner....and as I insinuated above, upon reading many of your posts, it's clear I would need both. However, I'm confident that someone who prides themselves in their intelligence as you will easily figure it out. God Speed.

[GMK]

I love these Boards. One place the experts are too serious. Another place they're having too much fun.

FWIW, I'll keep reading Bird and QDROphile.

But meanwhile, we are now reviewing beneficiary elections to be certain we know what participants want if they specified per stirpes. It's all useful. No fooling.