Things that I find mildly irritating v.2

[Stadler]

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Coronavirus thread, but I am sick of watching shows with people on their computers talking to me. I get it. I appreciate the content, and many shows have done a great job keeping us entertained. I suppose it's necessary.

One of the sports talk shows I watch at night finally has one of the hosts IN THE STUDIO! About damned time.

I've been going to work every fucking day, and you mean to tell me that one or two hosts can't sit in a fucking studio and do a show??

Brother, I am WITH you.  It's been habit for over a decade (probably more) that I watch the nightly local news for weather (I'm a weather junkie, it seems).   I've not watched the news for weeks now.   I just can't do it.   (It was fascinating, for about two days, seeing where these people lived, though.  ).

And to pile on, I'm sorry, I get it, we need levity, but the gags about the people that can't use Zoom have NOT aged well. 

[pg1067]

This one is so simple and universal that I'm sure it's been mentioned previously, but here it is:

People who don't know to use fucking apostrophes!  You do not need an apostrophe for every word that ends in an "s"!!!  "I got over 1,000 follower's on Instagram!"  "Remember when your parent's used to do this?"   GAAAAAAAAHHAHHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!!

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

I can see why that bother's you.

[lordxizor]

We're trying to finally put together a will, which we should have done a decade ago. I got access to free software through my job, so we're just using that. It's irritating because there are so many people you have to choose for things. We know my sister would get the kids, but do we put her in charge of the money the kids inherit as well? I know people would say it should be someone different, but if I trust her with my kids, wouldn't I trust her with my money? Also choosing who would get to pull the plug if we're vegetables is difficult. So many contingencies to think about. I know we should pay a lawyer to do all of this, and hopefully we will someday, but for now I just want to get the quick and dirty version done.

[Cool Chris]

I just started looking in to creating our wills/estate planning.

[pg1067]

We're trying to finally put together a will, which we should have done a decade ago. I got access to free software through my job, so we're just using that. It's irritating because there are so many people you have to choose for things.

Well...that's kinda the whole point of estate planning.   

We know my sister would get the kids, but do we put her in charge of the money the kids inherit as well? I know people would say it should be someone different, but if I trust her with my kids, wouldn't I trust her with my money?

A couple things here despite my assumption that these are rhetorical questions.

First, I don't know how old your kids are, but the likelihood that both you and your wife will die before they reach 18 is pretty low, so keep in mind that you're planning for something that isn't likely ever to happen.

Second, you can nominate a guardian for your kids, but you can't truly dictate that in the same way that you can dictate what happens to your assets.  Virtually every court will give guardianship to an otherwise apparently competent adult whom both parents have designated in their wills (plural), but it's ultimately up to the court.

As far as designating the proposed guardian also to be trustee of the trust you set up to hold assets for the kids, I'm curious why you think that "people would say it should be someone different."  There's no inherent reason to designate different folks and, in fact, designating different folks significantly increases the potential expense and risk of litigation over disputes.  As you mentioned, if you trust someone to take care of your kids, why not let the same person safeguard the money.  Of course, there may be situations where the proposed guardian isn't good with money and would benefit from oversight from someone else, but that's a case by case decision.

I know we should pay a lawyer to do all of this, and hopefully we will someday, but for now I just want to get the quick and dirty version done.

Not unreasonable.  If you've got a home or other substantial assets, you'll definitely want an attorney.

[lordxizor]

We know my sister would get the kids, but do we put her in charge of the money the kids inherit as well? I know people would say it should be someone different, but if I trust her with my kids, wouldn't I trust her with my money?

A couple things here despite my assumption that these are rhetorical questions.

First, I don't know how old your kids are, but the likelihood that both you and your wife will die before they reach 18 is pretty low, so keep in mind that you're planning for something that isn't likely ever to happen.

Second, you can nominate a guardian for your kids, but you can't truly dictate that in the same way that you can dictate what happens to your assets.  Virtually every court will give guardianship to an otherwise apparently competent adult whom both parents have designated in their wills (plural), but it's ultimately up to the court.

As far as designating the proposed guardian also to be trustee of the trust you set up to hold assets for the kids, I'm curious why you think that "people would say it should be someone different."  There's no inherent reason to designate different folks and, in fact, designating different folks significantly increases the potential expense and risk of litigation over disputes.  As you mentioned, if you trust someone to take care of your kids, why not let the same person safeguard the money.  Of course, there may be situations where the proposed guardian isn't good with money and would benefit from oversight from someone else, but that's a case by case decision.

We're the designated guardians for my sister's kids and she said their lawyer told them to have a different person in charge of the money. I don't recall off hand who it is, but it's not me. I suppose that's to prevent me from using the money selfishly while neglecting the kids. But again, I trust my sister to do the right thing with my kids and money.

[pg1067]

We're the designated guardians for my sister's kids and she said their lawyer told them to have a different person in charge of the money. I don't recall off hand who it is, but it's not me. I suppose that's to prevent me from using the money selfishly while neglecting the kids. But again, I trust my sister to do the right thing with my kids and money.

Interesting.  I'd be curious to know the thinking behind that recommendation.  As I mentioned, it makes sense in some cases, but to use it as the default approach strikes me as quite odd.

[lordxizor]

We're the designated guardians for my sister's kids and she said their lawyer told them to have a different person in charge of the money. I don't recall off hand who it is, but it's not me. I suppose that's to prevent me from using the money selfishly while neglecting the kids. But again, I trust my sister to do the right thing with my kids and money.

Interesting.  I'd be curious to know the thinking behind that recommendation.  As I mentioned, it makes sense in some cases, but to use it as the default approach strikes me as quite odd.

My understanding is that it is the recommended default suggestion that a lawyer would make. I know I've heard it before. But I'm hardly an expert so I may be wrong.

[bosk1]

When I did estate planning work, I NEVER made that recommendation.  As PG pointed out, there could be good reasons in specific circumstances.  But as a rule, I wouldn't.

[Stadler]

I can see why that bother's you.

You little devil, you.   

[pg1067]

We're the designated guardians for my sister's kids and she said their lawyer told them to have a different person in charge of the money. I don't recall off hand who it is, but it's not me. I suppose that's to prevent me from using the money selfishly while neglecting the kids. But again, I trust my sister to do the right thing with my kids and money.

Interesting.  I'd be curious to know the thinking behind that recommendation.  As I mentioned, it makes sense in some cases, but to use it as the default approach strikes me as quite odd.

My understanding is that it is the recommended default suggestion that a lawyer would make. I know I've heard it before. But I'm hardly an expert so I may be wrong.

It's possible that there's something unique about your state's laws that make this a "default" recommendation there.

[lordxizor]

Could be. It also could be that the lawyers just say that and then offer their services to manage the money, for a small fee of course

[Stadler]

I'm not sure that's the plan.  T&E is not a big money-maker at the levels we're talking about.   Maybe the lawyer that's doing Jeff Bezos' will and estate planning is making some bank, but not the local person doing a will for a house (which likely transfers by deed), a car and a couple of retirement accounts (that likely have beneficiaries specified under the plan).   

[Northern Lion]

When my wife and I did our trust last year we have guardians and back up guardians for our children, and we did the same with who takes care of our money.  But we have it in our trust that our money and assets will be divided evenly between all our children, so the money aspect is pretty strait forward.  We did pick different family members for each.  It wasn't a requirement, but we did it as to not place the entire burden on one family member.

[lordxizor]

We debated on back up guardians and ended up not putting any in. Hard enough to find one person that we'd trust to raise our kids similarly to how we'd want, much less two. It's so unlikely to ever happen that we decided it wasn't worth the mental effort to figure it out. I debated doing a trust versus just a will, but the software wan't super clear on the benefits in my situation. I think down the road when we have more (and more complicated) assets it may make sense. That's definitely when we'd get a lawyer involved.

[Northern Lion]

It was explained to me that a trust is more legally binding than a will and has more protection against government or private interest intrusion.  Apparently a will used to be all that was needed, but then lawyers who then got elected messed that up over time and watered it down so now a trust is now what a will used to be, kind of.

[pg1067]

It was explained to me that a trust is more legally binding than a will and has more protection against government or private interest intrusion.  Apparently a will used to be all that was needed, but then lawyers who then got elected messed that up over time and watered it down so now a trust is now what a will used to be, kind of.

I assume whomever "explained" that to you was someone who has a chip on his/her shoulder as it relates to lawyers.

A will is a document by which a person (called the testator) can dictate the disposition of his/her assets (after payment of debt) after death.  A will covers all of one's assets other than those that are:  (1) held jointly with another person with the right of survivorship; (2) held in trust; and (3) held in an account that designates a pay-on-death beneficiary.  Most married couples own their homes a joint tenants with the right of survivorship (or something else called tenants by the entirety), and most bank, investment and retirement accounts have (or are able to have) designated pay-on-death beneficiaries.

A trust is a legal mechanism whereby one person (the trustee) holds the property of someone else (the trustor or settlor) for the benefit of a benefit of someone else (the trustor could also be, and often is, also the trustee and beneficiary).  A trust can be, and often is, used for estate planning, but it can be used in many other contexts.  The primary reason why most folks create trusts is to avoid formal probate of their estates (and the potential expense that goes along with it).

It is not even remotely true that "a trust is more legally binding than a will."  As far as "protection against government or private interest intrusion," most (but not all) trusts are administered without any court involvement, but trusts often are entities subject to the same governmental regulation that individuals and business entities are subject to (e.g., trusts are subject to income tax and often at a much higher rate than most individuals).  Not really sure what "private interest intrusion" might mean.  The sentence starting with the word "Apparently" is based on a near total lack of understanding of the subject (and I assume you're just relaying what someone told you).

[Stadler]

Nicely done.  "What he said."   

[The Walrus]

Sodium. I find sodium mildly irritating.

My old man got a dehydrator last week and made a ton of beef jerky. And it's delicious and awesome and I can't stop eating it. I initially thought my caffeine addiction was causing my hypertension/chest tightness (and it probably was), but after eating a bit too much of it over the last couple days, I had more chest tightness and spiked blood pressure today. I've been eating a lot healthier this month, but I'll be 30 next year and I guess this is another sign that I'm no longer a kid. Damn you, sodium!

[jingle.boy]

[Stadler]

Mildy irritating:  the "new" (it's probably years old, but new to me! Get off my lawn!) trend of adding "right now" to the end of a question/statement.  "Are you kidding me RIGHT NOW?"   "Are you serious RIGHT NOW?"   What, as opposed to 12 seconds from now?  Or tomorrow?   I get it, the implication is, "now is the wrong time" but still.  it's annoying right now.

And of course I meant, get off my lawn, right now.

[KevShmev]

Mildy irritating:  the "new" (it's probably years old, but new to me! Get off my lawn!) trend of adding "right now" to the end of a question/statement.  "Are you kidding me RIGHT NOW?"   "Are you serious RIGHT NOW?"   What, as opposed to 12 seconds from now?  Or tomorrow?   I get it, the implication is, "now is the wrong time" but still.  it's annoying right now.

And of course I meant, get off my lawn, right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMV-fenGP1g

[Northern Lion]

It was explained to me that a trust is more legally binding than a will and has more protection against government or private interest intrusion.  Apparently a will used to be all that was needed, but then lawyers who then got elected messed that up over time and watered it down so now a trust is now what a will used to be, kind of.

I assume whomever "explained" that to you was someone who has a chip on his/her shoulder as it relates to lawyers.

A will is a document by which a person (called the testator) can dictate the disposition of his/her assets (after payment of debt) after death.  A will covers all of one's assets other than those that are:  (1) held jointly with another person with the right of survivorship; (2) held in trust; and (3) held in an account that designates a pay-on-death beneficiary.  Most married couples own their homes a joint tenants with the right of survivorship (or something else called tenants by the entirety), and most bank, investment and retirement accounts have (or are able to have) designated pay-on-death beneficiaries.

A trust is a legal mechanism whereby one person (the trustee) holds the property of someone else (the trustor or settlor) for the benefit of a benefit of someone else (the trustor could also be, and often is, also the trustee and beneficiary).  A trust can be, and often is, used for estate planning, but it can be used in many other contexts.  The primary reason why most folks create trusts is to avoid formal probate of their estates (and the potential expense that goes along with it).

It is not even remotely true that "a trust is more legally binding than a will."  As far as "protection against government or private interest intrusion," most (but not all) trusts are administered without any court involvement, but trusts often are entities subject to the same governmental regulation that individuals and business entities are subject to (e.g., trusts are subject to income tax and often at a much higher rate than most individuals).  Not really sure what "private interest intrusion" might mean.  The sentence starting with the word "Apparently" is based on a near total lack of understanding of the subject (and I assume you're just relaying what someone told you).

  well, a lawyer explained it to me that way.  But I also may have misunderstood.  But thanks for the explanation, you certainly did much better than me 

[Chino]

Pretty sure I threw my stimulus money in the garbage last week. This whole time I've been expecting a check from the fed and have been keeping an eye out. Apparently it's not a check. It's on a prepaid debit card that looks identical to the 100 or so other cards that show up in the mail every year, trying to get me to open accounts and whatnot. To make matters worse, the company the fed chose to send these out is sending them out in completely blank/white envelopes, and thousands of people are throwing them away because they look like every other piece of junk mail in existence. My sister threw hers out too. She opened it and thought it was a scam. What the hell?

I mean, my tax returns show up in an over-sized, brightly colored envelope with the statue of liberty on it. I would have thought stimulus money would have been in something a little more identifiable. Now I get the pleasure of doing something I was hoping to never have to do.... get on hold and try to talk to someone at the IRS.

[The Walrus]

Pretty sure I threw my stimulus money in the garbage last week. This whole time I've been expecting a check from the fed and have been keeping an eye out. Apparently it's not a check. It's on a prepaid debit card that looks identical to the 100 or so other cards that show up in the mail every year, trying to get me to open accounts and whatnot. To make matters worse, the company the fed chose to send these out is sending them out in completely blank/white envelopes, and thousands of people are throwing them away because they look like every other piece of junk mail in existence. My sister threw hers out too. She opened it and thought it was a scam. What the hell?

I mean, my tax returns show up in an over-sized, brightly colored envelope with the statue of liberty on it. I would have thought stimulus money would have been in something a little more identifiable. Now I get the pleasure of doing something I was hoping to never have to do.... get on hold and try to talk to someone at the IRS.

That's... weird. Everyone I know got the check, looks just like the tax refund check (brightly colored, statue of liberty on it). Never heard of the card.

[pg1067]

Pretty sure I threw my stimulus money in the garbage last week. This whole time I've been expecting a check from the fed and have been keeping an eye out. Apparently it's not a check. It's on a prepaid debit card that looks identical to the 100 or so other cards that show up in the mail every year, trying to get me to open accounts and whatnot. To make matters worse, the company the fed chose to send these out is sending them out in completely blank/white envelopes, and thousands of people are throwing them away because they look like every other piece of junk mail in existence. My sister threw hers out too. She opened it and thought it was a scam. What the hell?

I mean, my tax returns show up in an over-sized, brightly colored envelope with the statue of liberty on it. I would have thought stimulus money would have been in something a little more identifiable. Now I get the pleasure of doing something I was hoping to never have to do.... get on hold and try to talk to someone at the IRS.

That's... weird. Everyone I know got the check, looks just like the tax refund check (brightly colored, statue of liberty on it). Never heard of the card.

Yeah...I haven't heard anything about prepaid cards.  Mine got direct deposited into my bank account.

By the way, throwing away solicitations for credit cards is a great way to get one's identity stolen.  Stuff like that needs to be shredded.

[Chino]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/irs-coronavirus-stimulus-prepaid-cards-plain-envelopes-not-junk-mail

The IRS is in the process of sending out about 4 million economic impact payments loaded onto prepaid debit cards – but Americans may not recognize the stimulus cash when they see it.

The cards will arrive in a “plain envelope” from "Money Network Cardholder Services," the IRS said.

Unsuspecting individuals could mistake the envelope for junk mail or even a credit card promotion, especially since many people are likely not aware their payment will be arriving on a prepaid card instead of in the form of a check.

People cannot choose to have their payments sent this way. These 4 million individuals, who did not have direct deposit information on file with the tax agency, were selected by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service.

The Visa name appears on the front of the card, and MetaBank – the Treasury Department’s financial agent – appears on the bank. That may further confuse individuals who do not hold an account with Visa and who are unfamiliar with MetaBank.

“If you receive a card that looks like this, please do not throw it away,” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau requested in an informational web video.

One sign you may have missed your card in the mail is if you receive a letter from the IRS, signed by President Trump, which details how much money you should have received.

These letters were expected to be sent two weeks after the economic impact payments.

[pg1067]

I got that letter, which referred to a payment to be made, late last week -- despite the stimulus payment having been deposited in my bank account several weeks ago.  Gotta love how the federal government works.

[The Walrus]

I got that letter, which referred to a payment to be made, late last week -- despite the stimulus payment having been deposited in my bank account several weeks ago.  Gotta love how the federal government works.

Same. My letter was like a month late. Just got it Saturday!

[Kotowboy]

I don't understand how memes / buzzwords spread so quickly.

It's like I see a new joke literally once on twitter or something - then by the end of the next day - everyone is using it.

And they all already know what it means and the context etc.

it's like a hive mind.

[IDontNotDoThings]

I don't understand how memes / buzzwords spread so quickly.

It's like I see a new joke literally once on twitter or something - then by the end of the next day - everyone is using it.

And they all already know what it means and the context etc.

it's like a hive mind.

[Northern Lion]

Yeah, I can confirm that the IRS is sending the stimulus payments in debit card now.  If you accidentally tossed in the garbage there is a number, or a form? on the IRS website than you can call/fill out to have the old one canceled and a new one sent back out to you.  Got to love the government

[Bolsters]

Over here (Australia), they just deposited the stimulus money directly into our bank accounts.

[JayOctavarium]

Over here (Australia), they just deposited the stimulus money directly into our bank accounts.

They were doing that if you received income tax returns in the last 2 years. Those who didn't had to go onto a website and input their info. My GF and I did it at the same time... Same address. Same Bank Account. They elected to mail her a check and deposit mine directly. Makes no sense. I'm not sure why they are doing the Debit Cards now. Must be for people without banks?