I think that the bodies in Gunther von Hagens' BodyWorlds exhibit should be posed to represent the sins the people committed in life.
Allof the sins? I'd love to see what yours would look like.
Not all at once. Maybe the main, most easily recognizable ones. Mine would probably be gluttony, represented by my body lying face down in a gutter in a pool of my own sick, a clove cigarette in my mouth, a Big Mac in one hand and a Guinness in the other, and a hypodermic needle sticking out of a bum cheek.
@ Hank, you are incorrect in your assumptions. I have worked Estates before and, based on the which State the people concerned live in, the next of kin can be held responsible for the debts. Moreover, if a person owns a home and the mortgage on the home is greater than the value of the home (a not so rare occurrence at this time) and the other assets of the deceased do not cover the excess amount of debt and selling the home would not generate the missing revenue, then the next of kin will likely have to eat that expense or relinquish the home to foreclosure (which then can effect their finances/credit).
Baloney. My next of kin would only be liable if they signed up to be on the debt in the first place. If I die, my wife is stuck with the debts we incurred, so I have insurance. If my wife and I and our son all get killed, neither our parents nor my brothers nor any of our other relatives would be liable to pay any of our debts. Our house may well end up as a foreclosure if the estate didn't cover the mortgage, but since was our house in the first place, it is no loss to them. Their credit would be quite intact; ours would suffer, but we wouldn't care, being dead.
You don't inherit your next of kin's debt without signing up for it in advance. That would be monstrous.
Debt acquired after marriage is marital debt. Both spouses are jointly and severally liable for it. If you acquire some medical bills and then die, your spouse is going to have to figure it out.
Agreed, but that is not the case for someone like Scott (the example I was referring to). He is (I believe) unmarried. If Scott (or any single person) dies, his creditors will have to take it up with the estate or lump it. His folks, for example, would not be on the hook.
Unless he gets some idiot to co-sign on something. Then they would indeed owe the money.
@ Hank, you are incorrect in your assumptions. I have worked Estates before and, based on the which State the people concerned live in, the next of kin can be held responsible for the debts. Moreover, if a person owns a home and the mortgage on the home is greater than the value of the home (a not so rare occurrence at this time) and the other assets of the deceased do not cover the excess amount of debt and selling the home would not generate the missing revenue, then the next of kin will likely have to eat that expense or relinquish the home to foreclosure (which then can effect their finances/credit).
Baloney. My next of kin would only be liable if they signed up to be on the debt in the first place. If I die, my wife is stuck with the debts we incurred, so I have insurance. If my wife and I and our son all get killed, neither our parents nor my brothers nor any of our other relatives would be liable to pay any of our debts. Our house may well end up as a foreclosure if the estate didn't cover the mortgage, but since wasourhouse in the first place, it is no loss tothem. Their credit would be quite intact; ours would suffer, but we wouldn't care, being dead. You don't inherit your next of kin's debt without signing up for it in advance. That would be monstrous. PS: Cremation for me.
Sorry, my wording was poor and I am not being clear enough. When I say next of kin, I mean the people that are inheriting the estate. They become financially responsible for seeing that the estate pays off the debts. You are correct that the debts do not become their financial burden beyond the estate; however, if houses have negative equity, legal fees mount, legal battles ensue over what portions of the estate go to pay off which debt (in the case that there is not enough to pay off all creditors) and the like are beyond the estate's capability, taxes, etc. then the ensuing financial burdens combined with any funeral (cremation, etc.) costs not covered by the estate can be crushing. Moreover, if someone passes and they have any dependents, life insurance will help to see them through the loss of income.
"Are you sure wrapping him in last week's newspaper and taking him in the dump is the way you want to go?" "Damnit man, this is Scott Ruben! He wouldn't have it any other way."
"Are you sure wrapping him in last week's newspaper and taking him in the dump is the way you want to go?" "Damnit man, this is Scott Ruben!He wouldn't have it any other way."
All the smart young people are going to want to do that. Funeral Homes and Cremation Parlors are only for stupid old people.
In the event of my death my kidneys will be used for science. HungryJoe will get my lungs and liver, to outlive Scott even longer. If HungryJoe, and Scott, are already dead, Churba can have them. Yupa can have my brain...
My assets should be liquidated and donated to the 10 worst good causes out there.
If not, I'll die with no assets and massive debt, and leave my estate to my enemies. ^_~
I have the free life insurance my company provides, but I would never purchase additional coverage. Even $25 a month seems a waste: that's a really nice lunch every month. Or, it's money saved/invested and gaining interest. If I had been able to put all of the money I've paid in my life for car insurance instead into an interest bearing savings account, I'd have enough money in there to buy several new cars by this point.
That's what we need. An insurance company that invests your premiums, pays your claims out of your investment, and bills you for any negative balance caused by stupidity.
That's what we need. An insurance company that invests your premiums, pays your claims out of your investment, and bills you for any negative balance caused by stupidity.
This works, but also it doesn't work. What insurance does is protect from the incredibly rare scenario that say, you crash into someone else's Ferrari. For 99% of people, if you just invested your insurance premiums, you would come out on top because incredibly rare disasters like that are rare. However, that 1% of people who have that really bad thing happen to them, and it's guaranteed to happen to somebody, will be fuuuucked. So with insurance, basically everyone pools their money, doesn't get a return, but eliminates all their risk.
Ideally I do think that there should be no mandatory insurance. If some people want to eliminate risk, go nuts. If other people want to invest and keep the risk, good for them too.
Of course, there's always the unsolved problem. What happens if a poor person with no money crashes into your Porsche? You've got no insurance, and that poor, perhaps illegal immigrant, person has no money to extract. What then?
Of course, there's always the unsolved problem. What happens if a poor person with no money crashes into your Porsche? You've got no insurance, and that poor, perhaps illegal immigrant, person has no money to extract. What then?
That is the risk. If you have enough to take care of catastrophic events, then there is essentially no risk. If you don't have enough and you opt out of insurance, you accept the risk that you may be bankrupted by an accident.
Of course, there's always the unsolved problem. What happens if a poor person with no money crashes into your Porsche? You've got no insurance, and that poor, perhaps illegal immigrant, person has no money to extract. What then?
It's not at all an unsolved problem. You buy yourself another Porsche.
Of course, there's always the unsolved problem. What happens if a poor person with no money crashes into your Porsche? You've got no insurance, and that poor, perhaps illegal immigrant, person has no money to extract. What then?
Roman-style slavery goes back into effect? Indentured servitude?
That is why in many states, the only thing required is that you have liability insurance. As long as you have liability, you often don't have to have anything else. That way the person you crash into isn't fucked. The government doesn't care if YOU can pay for your OWN injuries. They just don't want you fucking over someone else who's innocent.
Comments
You don't inherit your next of kin's debt without signing up for it in advance. That would be monstrous.
PS: Cremation for me.
Unless he gets some idiot to co-sign on something. Then they would indeed owe the money.
"Damnit man, this is Scott Ruben! He wouldn't have it any other way."
My assets should be liquidated and donated to the 10 worst good causes out there.
"You mean cremated and then dispersed?"
"No."
I have the free life insurance my company provides, but I would never purchase additional coverage. Even $25 a month seems a waste: that's a really nice lunch every month. Or, it's money saved/invested and gaining interest. If I had been able to put all of the money I've paid in my life for car insurance instead into an interest bearing savings account, I'd have enough money in there to buy several new cars by this point.
That's what we need. An insurance company that invests your premiums, pays your claims out of your investment, and bills you for any negative balance caused by stupidity.
Ideally I do think that there should be no mandatory insurance. If some people want to eliminate risk, go nuts. If other people want to invest and keep the risk, good for them too.
Of course, there's always the unsolved problem. What happens if a poor person with no money crashes into your Porsche? You've got no insurance, and that poor, perhaps illegal immigrant, person has no money to extract. What then?