Trellania wrote:"A statement lacking veracity, ambassador.
"No, it isn't. For one, a will is created by the decedent while law is created by a government entity, generally a legislature. Further, wills are governed by law, not vice versa, suggested an inherent subordination between the two that indicates a fundamental difference. Notably, a will is a private document that evades the probate process, which is another system established by law, indicating, again, a fundamental difference between the two. Ultimately, wills are the directive of an individual to dispose of property. Given that the two are, at their essential core, different, it is absolutely inane to conflate the two, especially when the 'dead hand' policy I describe is an essential policy consideration to justify imposing policy over wills. Pretending that the two are comparable by more than their general status as texts relevant to lawyers reveals a shocking ignorance of your own field."
OOC: In fact, lets just slap on to this statement as a further bolster that I've worked a spell as a wills and estates attorney and can tell you that the two are demonstrably different as a matter of substance, application, philosophy, and, yes, even policy.
This very proposal provides a method by which the will may be modified after the one who penned it is deceased. And the point of bringing it up is to highlight the hypocrisy in voicing complaint with the dead dictating to the living in one arena, but to be comfortable with it in another. Had you limited your argument to just the issue of modification, it would have merit worth discussion."
"Hardly. The entire point of policy is for the upkeep and general efficiency of society. THe point of a will is to further the interests of the decedent. Comparing the two, again, indicates an ignorance over the topic and, indeed, the very role of government in society."
"And your challenge is based on anecdotal evidence and the belief those anecdotes are powerful enough to dictate law to the international community.
"No, ambassador. I offered no factual evidence. I noted the counterpoint and observed that there was no evidence, either factual or based on analytical reasoning, to support the claim made. A subtle difference, but generally not too subtle for legal experts.
Absent evidence that your challenge has any foundation in reality, it is without any logical foundation for consideration and should be rejected as drivel. Especially when you reject the experiences of other nations as though your own is somehow a better judge of what is and is not real."
"I make little argument that I am a better judge of reality than others, ambassador, but it seems that I am the superior judge on how wills work based on your responses."
"No, ambassador. I was recognizing that the inherent differences of two nations compared to most may limit the reasonableness of their arguments as compared to what the average nation would be experiencing. There is feedback to be had, but it should not be of the kind that attempts to impose the wills of nations who are far from the standard on others. That is not how an organization like this should work."
"The World Assembly is essentially a direct democracy. The 'average' will always impose its assessment of policy on radical minorities. It is, in fact, the radical minorities that needn't be considered, as their power to resist is negligible."
OOC: It is amusing to RP an ambassador arguing that their own voice should have limited impact on an issue.
OOC: Amusing is not the term I'd use.
Daarwyrth wrote:Vyn Nysen: "Apologies, but do you mean to say there is a specific WA resolution on spillover trusts? I have sent out my aides to try to find a mention of "spillover trusts" but there seems to be no resolution that mentions it. Are we searching incorrectly or did you mean something entirely else with this statement, Ambassador?
"Spillover trusts are an alternate mechanism of disposing of property to wills. Your definition of will would include that mechanism by my reading, which would negatively effect those with such estate plans.
OOC: I have, like, three trusts, all of which would be bungled by this in the Real World(tm), but I admit that i have no idea if my use of the term is specific to the US only.
"Yet the hand that writes the will is not dead, Ambassador, otherwise they would have been no will.
"That is not how that term is used. The dead hand policy is meant to describe how the requirements of a will can manage property long after the death of the decedent, regardless of novel circumstances. This seems a particularly weak rejoinder."
The author of a will is alive during the process of its formation, and in most cases also has the ability to alter the will as time progresses. As such, wills aren't set in stone until their authors are deceased.
"Yes, this is generally the problem."
I find it difficult to imagine that the author of a will would not factor in existing circumstances during the formation of their will, and its subsequent alterations.
"This is, quite literally, the entire reason there exists a probate system in many states.
OOC: I think I have an 800 page textbook full of cases that prove the exact opposite of this is true!
And if circumstances are such that a living person would have trouble receiving the inheritance, then they have the right to refuse the inheritance, and thus assure that their needs are met. The proposal grants member states room to create an efficient system regarding inheritance, but it demands that such a system be put in place."
"I'm not certain, ambassador, why the system needs to exist if the system will circumvent the entire policy of disposition of property after death that you seek to impose. It is rather like banning whistling except where states allow it., which is the thrust of my complaint."
"You may have a point, Ambassador, yet the choice of the disposition of that wealth should be left to the individuals involved themselvesIf an individual has earned a fortune, I see little reason why that person shouldn't have the freedom to leave that wealth to an heir of their choice in a will.
"Leaving aside my personal beliefs on this, why? Why should the state permit waste at the expense of the living?"
The implementation of this right will ensure that all individuals will be in possession of the right to leave behind an inheritance, and this is not only about wealth. Imagine families of smaller means, yet with an heirloom of specific value. This right would ensure that in all cases, in all member states, an individual would be able to leave behind that heirloom to their children should they so choose. I feel the focus here is placed too much on larger concentrations of wealth, when in fact this proposal is meant to affect all individuals in member states, of modest means or not."
"Herein we find the problem with this approach. It is easy to cover this in terms of what a low-value estate of only a few hundred thousand greenbacks without looking to the multi-million greenback estates that are often the source of this contentious transfer. But your proposal makes no distinction between the two. And, indeed, couldn't, given that the line between the two is not an objective amount. Another reason this more properly belongs in the hands of member states and not the World Assembly. You cannot effectively craft a policy that is both effective and appropriately inclusive at this scale."
"What alternate interests are you thinking of, Ambassador? Why should the wealth of someone who has worked hard for it their entire lives be passed onto other interests, than for example the wellbeing of that individual's child?
"Initially, you assume any inherited wealth is itself something the inheritor earned through labor. For another, you assume, inherently in this aspect of your policy, that societal interests are, by definition, subordinate to the mere desires of the individual. This is not a universal truth, especially relative to property disposition."
A parent may be working hard to build up an estate to leave behind for their children, and if that is the intent of that parent, why should their wealth serve another interest than what they had intended it for?
"One may argue, ambassador, that the desires of one who is no longer alive are of less concern than the concerns of those still living."
I understand the need for social equality and to promote greater economic equality as well, yet taking the entire wealth of a person and redistributing it seems hardly fair.
"Here we again run into the question of scale. Under your conception, you are locked into an either-or arrangement, when individual states could readily make accommodations specific to their interests and values."
Yet that is why many nations impose inheritance taxes, to ensure that at least a portion of the wealth being inherited also is diverted to ensuring greater wellbeing for the whole of the state.
"Inheritance tax rarely helps the disowned child, the neglected spouse, or any number of scenarios where an individual with an equitable interest in the estate is left out, regardless of the interests of the state in ensuring those individuals are cared for or any reliance and sacrifice of that individual on the expectation of receiving a share.
OOC: to expand on that last part, the expectation of a surviving spouse who is disinherited despite his or her equitable expectation (say they were a caretaker in the twilight years) in favor of a child from a prior marriage is a very common point of litigation.
This proposal absolutely does not thwart a member nation's ability to impose such taxes onto inheritances, and so wider interests of public wellbeing can be served, without using an individual's entire wealth or estate for such."
"To the extent your proposal creates a right that does not exist, it either limits that right so much as to make your proposal toothless or it does it so aggressively as to wipe out any of the nuance domestic will and estate policies have been able to address. This is a matter best left entirely to individual states."