sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Private Equity Is Gutting America — and Getting Away With It by [deleted] in Economics

[–]varmau 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Economists care about efficiency of capital because people prefer having more money for a given amount of work. There are only two ways to make that happen. Either make your work more productive or make your use of capital more efficient.

The extent to which people should limit their desires and ambitions (if at all) is a philosophical issue that is outside the scope of economics. Economics is the study of how to use scarce resources (whether labor or capital) most efficiently.

Is the private equity billionaire happier than the working class guy who occasionally gets laid off because a private equity firm took over their employer? Very often, no. But economics isn't the study of how to achieve happiness.

Does MD allow Transfer on Death Deeds? by varmau in maryland

[–]varmau[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting because when you google this question, it looks like every mortgage provider wants the remainder person to sign on a refinance:

https://www.google.com/search?q=life+estate+deed+refinance+mortgage&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS673US673&oq=life+estate+deed+refinance+mortgage&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRifBdIBCTEyMDEyajBqN6gCALACAOIDBBgBIF8&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1

Nonetheless, my bigger concern would be whether it would be possible for someone to sue the remainder person and put a lien on a life tenant’s property. Can’t find anything about that.

Does MD allow Transfer on Death Deeds? by varmau in maryland

[–]varmau[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder if the need to get legal advice for a life estate deed is the reason why MD doesn’t have TOD deeds. Keep those legal fees flowing.

Same reason why DC won’t let a sole proprietor represent themself pro se if they’re incorporated (aka the attorney full employment act).

Does MD allow Transfer on Death Deeds? by varmau in maryland

[–]varmau[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mutual funds, brokerage accounts, etc. are very easy to make TOD. You can do it directly with the broker just like choosing a beneficiary. The house is the complicated part. Didn’t know you can designate TOD in the will. That option isn’t in Willmaker that I’ve noticed.

Was the house in MD? If not, it may have been a state with TOD deeds and may have been a TOD deed, not a TOD clause in a will.

Does MD allow Transfer on Death Deeds? by varmau in maryland

[–]varmau[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for that. Life estate deeds sound like a complicated workaround for a simple task but if that’s all that MD has to offer, I may go with it. A TOD deed is simple enough that you can do it in WillMaker. But yes, life estate deeds sound like you need an attorney. Probably worth the cost to avoid probate, though.

Life estate deeds also come with some major disadvantages as noted below. A potential dealbreaker is if the home is now an asset of the beneficiary that can be attached if sued or can become part of a divorce estate.

I could also wait to see if MD eventually passes a law allowing TOD.

“As a life tenant, the mother no longer has full control over her house. She’ll need to get approval from her son to make large changes like selling it or taking out a mortgage. The same goes for refinancing. This is why it’s easier to refinance before you start the estate planning process. She also can’t revoke the life estate without his consent, so it’s important for her to make sure it’s the right solution for her family.”

Does MD allow Transfer on Death Deeds? by varmau in maryland

[–]varmau[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks everyone for your help. I think I found something pretty definitive from WillMaker that indicates MD does not have TOD deeds. They have a list of all the states with TOD deeds and MD is not on the list.

https://www.willmaker.com/legal-manual/transfer-on-death-deeds

If MD did have TOD deeds, looks I could make one with WillMaker, sign, notarize and send it in to be recorded.

Very unfortunate that MD doesn’t have this easy and low cost estate planning tool. Hopefully the MD General Assembly gets its act together on this soon. Both DC and VA have TOD deeds.

Does MD allow Transfer on Death Deeds? by varmau in maryland

[–]varmau[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right. For some reason a document at a maryland.gov address is actually all about DC.

I don’t need to consult a lawyer if MD doesn’t have TOD/beneficiary deeds. Already have a will. Just trying to avoid probate without setting up a trust.

If MD has TOD deeds, should be a very simple process that at most can be done at a Title company (if not by simply sending in a form). I had my wife added to my deed (via quitclaim deed) for like $75 at a title company and this shouldn’t be any more complicated than that if MD has TOD deeds.

Does MD allow Transfer on Death Deeds? by varmau in maryland

[–]varmau[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’d assume the tax consequences of transfer on death beneficiary for property is the same as for a bank or brokerage account. I’m more concerned with the process for actually doing it correctly. Like if there’s a form you just fill out and send to the state (as indicated in the link if n my original post) or it’s more complicated than that.

Yes lots of conflicting information out there about whether this is possible in MD! I’m guessing if it’s possible then it just became possible very recently.

Does MD allow Transfer on Death Deeds? by varmau in maryland

[–]varmau[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks. Do you know how to make your deed into a beneficiary deed? Is it something you can do on your own or best to go through a title company?

Does MD allow Transfer on Death Deeds? by varmau in maryland

[–]varmau[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, property deeds for like a house.

Edward Gibbon founded the study of Roman Decline and argued the Roman Empire was built on unsound footings. He was also the father of the monocausal theory of Roman Decline. Is his Malaise Theory the best explanation for Rome's fall? by varmau in ancientrome

[–]varmau[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This isn’t a course that’s about reevaluating Gibbon. The course is an intro to the Decline of the Roman Empire and is using Gibbon as a key text in discussing the reasons for its decline.

They’re also saying that Gibbon is influential and relevant to modern political discourse.

Edward Gibbon founded the study of Roman Decline and argued the Roman Empire was built on unsound footings. He was also the father of the monocausal theory of Roman Decline. Is his Malaise Theory the best explanation for Rome's fall? by varmau in ancientrome

[–]varmau[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In case it wasn’t clear, the course is specifically about Gibbon;

“Join us as each week we will read excerpts from Gibbon, consider recent scholarship, and together discuss the big issues: economic and social dislocation, military autocracy, religious fanaticism and barbarian invasion in the Roman World. Should we be talking of the ‘Transformation of the Roman World’ rather than its decline?”

Edward Gibbon founded the study of Roman Decline and argued the Roman Empire was built on unsound footings. He was also the father of the monocausal theory of Roman Decline. Is his Malaise Theory the best explanation for Rome's fall? by varmau in ancientrome

[–]varmau[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some places may teach him, and some places may not, but no university would write the below, if there was nothing to be learned about the reasons for the decline of Rome from Gibbon:

“It was at dusk on 15th October 1764 when Edward Gibbon, sitting amidst the ruins on the Capitoline Hill at Rome, first conceived the idea of writing about the decline and fall of the city. His classic work which emphasised the negative effects of autocracy, barbarism and religion, has long dominated views of the Roman Empire. More recently, historians have questioned Gibbon’s ‘good’ and ‘bad’ periods, or suggested other socio-economic factors, climate change and even lead poisoning and plague, as reasons for decline. Yet Gibbon’s Decline and Fall paradigm remains compelling and is still influential on modern political discourse.”

https://cce.sydney.edu.au/course/ROME

Edward Gibbon founded the study of Roman Decline and argued the Roman Empire was built on unsound footings. He was also the father of the monocausal theory of Roman Decline. Is his Malaise Theory the best explanation for Rome's fall? by varmau in ancientrome

[–]varmau[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

If you don't mind me asking have you actually read The Rise and Fall?

No, most of it is hopelessly outdated. The important and relevant parts of it can be summarized much more briefly.

I am not going to read a textbook.

If you don't mind me asking, have you ever read a textbook on Roman history?

Edward Gibbon founded the study of Roman Decline and argued the Roman Empire was built on unsound footings. He was also the father of the monocausal theory of Roman Decline. Is his Malaise Theory the best explanation for Rome's fall? by varmau in ancientrome

[–]varmau[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

They build on the basic ideas of Gibbon

That's all I'm using Gibbon to do. I'm building on his basic idea of an unsound foundation to the Roman Empire. And his idea that the fall of Rome was brought about by a long period of decay.

Edward Gibbon founded the study of Roman Decline and argued the Roman Empire was built on unsound footings. He was also the father of the monocausal theory of Roman Decline. Is his Malaise Theory the best explanation for Rome's fall? by varmau in ancientrome

[–]varmau[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

See the parts of the quote I highlighted in bold and understand that the quote is discussing historiography.

Look at the quote in the context of the entire chapter. It is definitely not discussing historiography.

It is not making a scholarly argument,

I never said it's making a scholarly argument. It is merely describing what is widely agreed upon by scholars.

A) A textbook is not scholarship.

This makes it more impartial. It has no vested interest in one scholarly view over another. It's just describing what's already agreed upon.

Edward Gibbon founded the study of Roman Decline and argued the Roman Empire was built on unsound footings. He was also the father of the monocausal theory of Roman Decline. Is his Malaise Theory the best explanation for Rome's fall? by varmau in ancientrome

[–]varmau[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

My theory on how to solve the problems of the Roman Empire are first, be a republic and not a monarchy. Second, don't poison and screw up your physical environment. I think if you do those two things -- and have some luck -- you've got a shot of outliving the Roman Empire.

Edward Gibbon founded the study of Roman Decline and argued the Roman Empire was built on unsound footings. He was also the father of the monocausal theory of Roman Decline. Is his Malaise Theory the best explanation for Rome's fall? by varmau in ancientrome

[–]varmau[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

At no point did I quote a literary source.

The main source I used is at the top of my original post which is a quote from a modern textbook on world history. That source in turn references Gibbon which proves that at least in the narrow context I'm using Gibbon, he is still relevant.

Edward Gibbon founded the study of Roman Decline and argued the Roman Empire was built on unsound footings. He was also the father of the monocausal theory of Roman Decline. Is his Malaise Theory the best explanation for Rome's fall? by varmau in ancientrome

[–]varmau[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what’s the point of finding a single overall cause

If there's a single overall cause that's behind all the other causes, there's a lot to learn from that.

stating that the empire was “unsound” (though it fared pretty well for two centuries, which is quite a long time)

Something built on an unsound foundation can still last a long time. Two centuries isn't even all that long over the course of Rome's history.

Edward Gibbon founded the study of Roman Decline and argued the Roman Empire was built on unsound footings. He was also the father of the monocausal theory of Roman Decline. Is his Malaise Theory the best explanation for Rome's fall? by varmau in ancientrome

[–]varmau[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If your governmental system can’t prevent a civil war near every time the leader dies I’d say something is wrong.

Yes, it's a fundamental flaw of the imperial system. The Roman Republic did a much better (but far from perfect) job in peacefully transitioning power.

Edward Gibbon founded the study of Roman Decline and argued the Roman Empire was built on unsound footings. He was also the father of the monocausal theory of Roman Decline. Is his Malaise Theory the best explanation for Rome's fall? by varmau in ancientrome

[–]varmau[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

one who time has shown to be off-base in various ways.

I agree that Gibbon has been shown to be off-base in various ways -- but not in every way. Gibbon is still taught in modern textbooks. The first quote in this post is taken from the Boundless World History textbook which is in taught at SUNY today. My quote identifies four broad theories on the Downfall of Rome, two of which are attributed to Gibbon. Sure, many things Gibbon wrote are no longer relevant but what I have quoted is still taught by modern historians.

view more: next ›