Giving it away

[Shanky]

Food for thought

Anecdotally I have seen many posts which indicate there are those among us who plan to live to 90 or 100, withdraw substantially less than 3% from the nest egg and have LTC insurance. This would appear to be potentially two or three times as much as needed. When they do die, their relatives will be quite old as will their children, since they are living to be 100. Why not give half the portfolio away to the charities of their choice while they are alive to see the impact of the good works. It is a luxury to be in such a position, why not take advantage of it.

You do loose a bit of control and most of the enjoyment your $$$ provides once you are gone.

[haha]

I would say give it to a miser like many of us. We know how to love money and accord it proper respect, care and attention. Some of those needy folks may not.

Ha

[Alan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I would say give it to a miser like many of us. We know how to love money and accord it proper respect, care and attention. Some of those needy folks may not. Ha

+1

When we are 80 our kids will be early 50's and while our kids are very good with money it will be nice to help them retire early if we are doing as well as we hope. (they don't expect anything and have no idea what our finances are like, we just tell them we have good pensions)

[imoldernu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan +1 When we are 80 our kids will be early 50's and while our kids are very good with money it will be nice to help them retire early if we are doing as well as we hope. (they don't expect anything and have no idea what our finances are like, we just tell them we have good pensions)

+1... except for the pensions...
We're there already!

[MikeTN]

I gave a big check to my favorite college. I was not on their mailing list before this and now I receive mail regularly. It's subtle but they are spending a lot to cultivate me now and I presume until I die.

Better, perhaps to wait and put them in the will -- unless you like being "cultivated".

[travelover]

It ain't over 'til it's over. I tell prospective heirs that they may inherit a bunch or nothing depending on our long term care needs.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeTN I gave a big check to my favorite college. I was not on their mailing list before this and now I receive mail regularly. It's subtle but they are spending a lot to cultivate me now and I presume until I die. Better, perhaps to wait and put them in the will -- unless you like being "cultivated".

I like that idea. Is there a checklist where you can request conjugal visits from suitably attractive lady Vols?

[Danmar]

Agree that based on many posts here, quite a few of us will leave sizeable estates. I intend to help only daughter out quite a bit while we are alive but that will still leave a lot. I may buy annuities when older and that could soak some of the excess up. That would be the time that we finalize any further charitable gifts. Still it is hard to imagine that our lovely daughter won't be a very wealthy woman at some point. Fine by me.

[Khan]

I am giving away money while I am alive. Am setting up accounts so my caretaker/spouse will inherit most. If he dies first I will look for another caretaker and will leave all to him/her.

[bondi688]

There is always your favorite uncle, Samuel.

[robnplunder]

My only child is a starving artist. Although he is independent and does not want any financial support, he will be my charity case if I have anything left over. That won't stop me from trying to deplete all my asset before I die. I'd like to believe it will help the US economy ...

[mod edit]

[MBAustin]

Ways to avoid annoying "cultivation":
- use a donor advised fund and give anonymously
- talk to the development officer personally and let them know that if you receive more than one piece of mail or phone call per year (or whatever your tolerance level is), they will never get another penny from you

[MasterBlaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shanky Food for thought Anecdotally I have seen many posts which indicate there are those among us who plan to live to 90 or 100, withdraw substantially less than 3% from the nest egg and have LTC insurance. This would appear to be potentially two or three times as much as needed. When they do die, their relatives will be quite old as will their children, since they are living to be 100. Why not give half the portfolio away to the charities of their choice while they are alive to see the impact of the good works. It is a luxury to be in such a position, why not take advantage of it. You do loose a bit of control and most of the enjoyment your $$$ provides once you are gone.

A Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT) would be a much better option to give your money away. The charity gets the remainder of what's left after you go, you (or you and spouse, or you, spouse, and children) get lifetime income and a current tax break.

[Gill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster A Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT) would be a much better option to give your money away. The charity gets the remainder of what's left after you go, you (or you and spouse, or you, spouse, and children) get lifetime income and a current tax break.

Keep in mind a charitable remainder trust does not give you lifetime "income" but rather a fixed percentage or a fixed dollar amount annually. Also, this generally applies to larger amounts and there are legal fees involved in setting up the trust.
Bruce

[dtbach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster A Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT) would be a much better option to give your money away. The charity gets the remainder of what's left after you go, you (or you and spouse, or you, spouse, and children) get lifetime income and a current tax break.

I've looked into these but they generally want much more than I am willing to allot from my portfolio. Less than a Mil you really can't do it.

[HFWR]

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Give It Away [Official Music Video] - YouTube

[GrayHare]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtbach I've looked into these but they generally want much more than I am willing to allot from my portfolio. Less than a Mil you really can't do it.

Why not? AFAIK, the reverse is true since at higher amounts you won't be able to deduct all the contribution in one year unless you have correspondingly high income that year.

[steelyman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster A Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT) would be a much better option to give your money away. The charity gets the remainder of what's left after you go, you (or you and spouse, or you, spouse, and children) get lifetime income and a current tax break.

I have only been thinking about this recently. I would like to split assets between family, reputable organizations after I head down the trail of the lonesome pine.

I thought I could establish a revocable living trust with specifics. Is that greatly different from a charitable remainder trust?

[dtbach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrayHare Why not? AFAIK, the reverse is true since at higher amounts you won't be able to deduct all the contribution in one year unless you have correspondingly high income that year.

because they didn't want anything less than about a mil, and then if less the costs were much higher. This is for the 2 charities I looked into, so can't say that it is true for others.

[donheff]

We may very well do something along those lines if there is enough remaining. But that depends on how much is remaining and how big the pool or heirs has become. I wonder though about people who stopped working when they had "enough" and plan to spend their portfolio down to nothing prompting others who saved longer to give their pots away.