5 ms·

Suing you to the extent of having to pay back whatever your father passed on to you, at least what's left of it would be reasonable, don't you think?

by meed2000 6y ago

sokoloff 6y ago
No, I do not. If my grandfather left my father $X, my father left me $Y, at the very most the maximum would have to be the lesser of $X and $Y, decremented by the full cost of answering the lawsuit. This is problematic from a variety of practical angles, though, not just mathematical ones. It seems like something the forensic accounting lobby would salivate over. Should I be forced to defend a lawsuit because my great^6 grandfather owned slaves? (As far as I know, none did.) That’s more abhorrent than legally dumping chemicals that today’s common sense says should have been done differently.
- dubcanada 6y ago
  But if you grandfather lost all of $X, your father would not have any of $Y (based entirely on $X being an amount they got from business dealings and $Y being a smaller amount which came from $X).
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    That strikes me as non-sensical. My father had his own earning, creating, and saving abilities.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      Subtract it from what he would have earned if he had dumped the cash into an index fund, and we may find that his earning, creating and saving abilities were negative. His only profitable skill may have been having a father who dealt in slaves.
- dathinab 6y ago
  Yes. The only think which could in anyway get close to legality would be to: - Legally hold a case against whoever did it and win it. (Can even legally have a case against a dead person?) This requires thinks to have been illegal when done. - Requiring that (likely dead) person to pay a fine based on existing law. - Arguing that whoever accepted an inheritance did inherit the fine, too. But as far as I know every point of this list has many legally questionable aspects. But what you MUST NOT do under any circumstances in a state of law is to not base judgement on law but arbitrary "I feel like this should be done" arguments. This is also why it's of upmost importance to fast adapt laws make them general instead of specific and not put any loop holes in them. Because then you can judge people to some degree even if they do something bad even if that specific think wasn't explicitly forbidden. (E.g. based on a generic law which makes any form of causing environmental damage in a context where it's reasonable to assume it the person should have been aware illegal. Sure you need some threshold, too. Else driving your care is illegal.)
  - toast0 6y ago
    I'm sure you could have a civil case against a dead person's estate. Although, my understanding is it's legally and logistically challenging to reopen an estate after it has been settled. I don't see how you could have a criminal trail against a dead person in the US, without violating the sixth amendment. It would be impossible to inform the deceased of the charges, etc.
darkcha0s 6y ago
Yes let us just start collective punishment, because we have such a justice boner. Jesus christ, sometimes HN has some wild opinions. Just to be absolutely clear -- it's not reasonable, and what you're suggesting is literally how North Korea handles crime. "Oh but you know here it's different" -- you're setting a precedent which, if allowed, would mean your family members could face jail time for crimes YOU commit.
- CJefferson 6y ago
  No-one is talking about putting people in jail, but also (in my opinion), someone shouldn't get to inherit millions of dollars just because their grandfather committed some terrible crime -- inheritance should not be a right, when the original money was acquired illegally.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >No-one is talking about putting people in jail, but also (in my opinion) Every law, no matter how small and well-meaning, has implicit threat of prison behind it. You can't be so naïve as to believe that this enforcement action won't result in prison for some, destroyed lives for others, and because laws and enforcement are man-made, there's also a guarantee that your dragnet will punish some innocents, and let some guilty go (maybe because they can afford great lawyers and/or bribes). And of course, because this would be a very controversial measure, it would be highly politicized.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      > Every law, no matter how small and well-meaning, has implicit threat of prison behind it. If someone doesn't comply with the court, but that would be a crime committed by the child, not the parent.
    - eesmith 6y ago
      Why do people keep making this claim? There are plenty of laws which don't have an implicit threat of prison behind it. Here's one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/1 . Quoting Wikipedia: "This is a U.S. federal law, but only suggests voluntary customs for handling of the American flag and was never intended to be enforceable. The code uses non-binding language like "should" and "custom" throughout and does not prescribe any penalties for failure to follow the guidelines." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code
ByteJockey 6y ago
No. No I do not think that's reasonable. Having a period after death for the government to bring charges against the estate seems reasonable. We already have this, but I could see a reasonable person arguing to make it a longer period. I think it's unreasonable for the same reason getting rid of all statutes of limitations would be unreasonable. At some point, you have to let people stop looking over their shoulder. Society doesn't work very well when you incentivize people to dig up century old dirt on their enemies.

Suing you to the extent of having to pay back whatever your father passed on to you, at least what's left of it would be reasonable, don't you think?

sokoloff 6y ago

No, I do not. If my grandfather left my father $X, my father left me $Y, at the very most the maximum would have to be the lesser of $X and $Y, decremented by the full cost of answering the lawsuit. This is problematic from a variety of practical angles, though, not just mathematical ones. It seems like something the forensic accounting lobby would salivate over. Should I be forced to defend a lawsuit because my great^6 grandfather owned slaves? (As far as I know, none did.) That’s more abhorrent than legally dumping chemicals that today’s common sense says should have been done differently.

dubcanada 6y ago
But if you grandfather lost all of $X, your father would not have any of $Y (based entirely on $X being an amount they got from business dealings and $Y being a smaller amount which came from $X).
- sokoloff 6y ago
  That strikes me as non-sensical. My father had his own earning, creating, and saving abilities.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    Subtract it from what he would have earned if he had dumped the cash into an index fund, and we may find that his earning, creating and saving abilities were negative. His only profitable skill may have been having a father who dealt in slaves.
dathinab 6y ago
Yes. The only think which could in anyway get close to legality would be to: - Legally hold a case against whoever did it and win it. (Can even legally have a case against a dead person?) This requires thinks to have been illegal when done. - Requiring that (likely dead) person to pay a fine based on existing law. - Arguing that whoever accepted an inheritance did inherit the fine, too. But as far as I know every point of this list has many legally questionable aspects. But what you MUST NOT do under any circumstances in a state of law is to not base judgement on law but arbitrary "I feel like this should be done" arguments. This is also why it's of upmost importance to fast adapt laws make them general instead of specific and not put any loop holes in them. Because then you can judge people to some degree even if they do something bad even if that specific think wasn't explicitly forbidden. (E.g. based on a generic law which makes any form of causing environmental damage in a context where it's reasonable to assume it the person should have been aware illegal. Sure you need some threshold, too. Else driving your care is illegal.)
- toast0 6y ago
  I'm sure you could have a civil case against a dead person's estate. Although, my understanding is it's legally and logistically challenging to reopen an estate after it has been settled. I don't see how you could have a criminal trail against a dead person in the US, without violating the sixth amendment. It would be impossible to inform the deceased of the charges, etc.

darkcha0s 6y ago

Yes let us just start collective punishment, because we have such a justice boner. Jesus christ, sometimes HN has some wild opinions. Just to be absolutely clear -- it's not reasonable, and what you're suggesting is literally how North Korea handles crime. "Oh but you know here it's different" -- you're setting a precedent which, if allowed, would mean your family members could face jail time for crimes YOU commit.

CJefferson 6y ago
No-one is talking about putting people in jail, but also (in my opinion), someone shouldn't get to inherit millions of dollars just because their grandfather committed some terrible crime -- inheritance should not be a right, when the original money was acquired illegally.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >No-one is talking about putting people in jail, but also (in my opinion) Every law, no matter how small and well-meaning, has implicit threat of prison behind it. You can't be so naïve as to believe that this enforcement action won't result in prison for some, destroyed lives for others, and because laws and enforcement are man-made, there's also a guarantee that your dragnet will punish some innocents, and let some guilty go (maybe because they can afford great lawyers and/or bribes). And of course, because this would be a very controversial measure, it would be highly politicized.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    > Every law, no matter how small and well-meaning, has implicit threat of prison behind it. If someone doesn't comply with the court, but that would be a crime committed by the child, not the parent.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    Why do people keep making this claim? There are plenty of laws which don't have an implicit threat of prison behind it. Here's one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/1 . Quoting Wikipedia: "This is a U.S. federal law, but only suggests voluntary customs for handling of the American flag and was never intended to be enforceable. The code uses non-binding language like "should" and "custom" throughout and does not prescribe any penalties for failure to follow the guidelines." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code

ByteJockey 6y ago

No. No I do not think that's reasonable. Having a period after death for the government to bring charges against the estate seems reasonable. We already have this, but I could see a reasonable person arguing to make it a longer period. I think it's unreasonable for the same reason getting rid of all statutes of limitations would be unreasonable. At some point, you have to let people stop looking over their shoulder. Society doesn't work very well when you incentivize people to dig up century old dirt on their enemies.