VeryMeanReversion

Members
  • Content Count

    238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About VeryMeanReversion

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

565 profile views
  1. Same for me. I've got two sports cars which I hardly use, now on the lookout for an LS460/600 as a reliable luxury barge. Air suspension, double-glazed windows and a 19-speaker Mark Levinson stereo should do the job. Spunko: We need a car-section.
  2. My in-laws get an exemption for low income and low savings. Since they have no mortgage and MrsVMR is their taxi, they have a higher disposable income than I do. I worked out that it was actually better to set some of their savings on fire to get the exemption which saves ~£1600 per year. Instead, they got a few things done on the house, paid some utility bills in advance and gave some £ away. With a bit more paperwork, employ yourself as an apprentice earning <£195/week to get a 50% discount. It appears that any accredited course is sufficient. Flower arranging would do. From the small print, only the apprenticeship wages count. Other income sources seem to be ignored. I see nothing in the apprenticeship agreement that stops you employing yourself for 1 minute a year and then paying yourself to do a cheap mickey mouse course. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apprenticeship-agreement-template Example application form for discount https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1263/apprentice_discount_form.pdf If you don't fancy that, there is always the mental impairment exemption.
  3. The return on minimum NI credits is so large, you would have to be 90%+ sure you wont get a state pension to make this approach sensible. It may also be inconsistent to expect no state pension but still expect 10% ER. If they can't pay pensions for the well off, they will have long since withdrawn the 10% rate. (I'm making use of the 10% ER but I don't expect it to last, plan on using it in the next five years and then I'm done).
  4. I don't know many regular drug users but most of those I know are stuffed. These people are now in their 50's. 1. Sister in laws has a half-brother. Took one E at a concert in his 40's. Now dribbling in a wheelchair. 2. Dads lodger is the heaviest cannabis user I know. Hasn't worked for years, depressed and utterly useless, incapable of doing anything. Drives whilst under the influence and still supplies drugs (previous jail time for this). 3. Friend at school. Mild cannabis user. Wasted a few years whilst using until he got his act together. Now doing well. 4. Sister in laws ex-boyfriend. Mild cannabis user. Has been sectioned a few times now. I could just know the unlucky ones but from my point of view, the odds aren't good. On the other hard, I know two alcoholics so I don't know what is worse. One is a wreck, the other turned their life around.
  5. From my research, the family court can take a trust into account when dividing up assets. e.g. https://www.taylorvinters.com/article/discretionary-trusts-do-they-provide-effective-asset-protection-from-divorce-11 The key seems to be that unless there is enough money for the needs of the spouse, anything is up for grabs. The more cynical among us will have already realised that there is never enough money. If equality is the aim, you need dowries to even it up (either way male<->female). You want 50/50 on the way out, lets start with 50/50 on the way in. Imagine dating sites that included a line for "net equity position" . You can then see the real price of what you are looking at And to swerve slightly back on topic, here is one definition of delusion. "A delusion is a firm and fixed belief based on inadequate grounds not amenable to rational argument or evidence to contrary, not in sync with regional, cultural and educational background" Given the contents of this thread, I propose that it's the men that are far more deluded than the women and this site should disappear in a puff of logic. i.e. The majority of women can get a date on a dating site within hours, scrapper birds or not. The majority of men can't but still persist with their delusion.
  6. As with the benefits system, the UK seems to be needs-based rather than "contribution-based". If she "needs" your house and you can be kicked out and live in the car, tough. Funny how a needs-based system creates lots of people with needs.
  7. Inheritance tax applies if the asset is in my name. He then has to raise up to 40% of the house value to stay in it. I suppose handing over 40% to the government is better than 50% to Miss Floozy. Also, I can't actually afford to buy a house, let alone two. What I can do is build one in the garden capable of splitting into two good-size semis. I renovated then doubled the size of my current house on a shoestring budget and already have the foundations done for a house in the garden (being used as a big garage at the moment). Imagine Miss Floozy and her new boyfriend laying claim to a house you built yourself. Rather than being a remote possibility, my experience/research shows it to be the most likely outcome unless proper precautions are taken. A work colleague has a similar problem. He has just inherited a house and he doesn't need the money so is considering passing it directly to his son. But if the son marries/divorces, most of it is gone, especially if it's to a pre-existing single mum. So the problem is "how can you provide a gift without that gift being subsequently subject to the family court". If the family court can claim it in future, I'm not giving it.
  8. Inheritance tax is the other issue. I don't want it included in my estate and taxed at 40%. Best guess is that I'll be over the asset limit by age 55 and the rest will be protected in a SIPP so IHT-free. After I'm dead, it's not my problem any more. I'll do what I can whilst I'm alive. I don't mind giving up control of an asset to a child, they can "steal" it for all I care and make it their problem. I just want to stop 50%+ of it being taken out of the family on the whim of Miss Floozy.
  9. Ten years ago, I worked with the father in this story. He got a new girlfriend after his marriage ended then his ex-wife killed his two kids as a retaliation. After it happened, he quit the job and moved away, don't know where he went after that. Killer mother jailed for 33 years Davina and Jasmine were killed with a kitchen knife A mother who murdered her two daughters as they slept has been jailed for life and must serve a minimum of 33 years. Rekha Kumari-Baker, 41, stabbed 16-year-old Davina 37 times and 13-year-old Jasmine 29 times at their home in Stretham, Cambridgeshire. Her ex-husband said the killings were "an act of calculated viciousness". The 33-year minimum sentence handed down at Cambridge Crown Court is one of the longest jail terms given to a woman in the UK in modern times. David Baker, Kumari-Baker's ex-husband, said he had been "robbed" of his daughters. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/8268632.stm
  10. New thread started in the Investing and Money area.
  11. Dulcolax is what you need for 1. 2. can be done only if assets sold quickly and quietly (e.g. webuyanyhouse.com type company at 20% off fair value) then run away. So only worth it if you have lots of equity and MrsDosbods is not on the deeds/mortgage. The only person I know to get away cheaply had his own business that was hard to value accurately. The official value was bugger all but funnily enough, it sold for a few million after the divorce. The ex-wife spent years fighting to get a share but lost.
  12. 1. Friends and family. 2. Matrimonial charge on the house which prevents it being sold, or even being remortgaged to pay for the funds to fight the divorce.
  13. Wrote this on the main dosbods thread but swissy wanted more info on a new thread. My eldest is 16, thinking of setting him up with his own house when he's 21/22 but I cant do it in his name as Miss Floozy can claim half or more at her convenience. I'm investigating workarounds. This may seem cynical but my cousin has just been stung for £100K+ after a 4-year marriage with no kids, basically the inheritance he had from his Dad has just gone to Miss Floozy. Optimum strategy may be to appear to have lots of assets and have the benefit of them but not actually own them in any way (including rights to them under trusts - which courts can take into account). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To give a bit more context, I've seen many examples in my extended family of the males getting completely stuffed. No females were ever worse off after a split, either keeping the house, getting lots of £ or marrying Mr Millionaire. 1. Top job, divorced, no job, stuffed for next 15 years. Worked back up, married, divorced, stuffed. Pretty blondes in swimsuits was his weakness. Paid for the private schooling for wife 2, several cars and a pension for her but they only lived together for months. 2. Good job, builds lovely house for wife, wife has affair. He's stuffed. 3. Married, has 3 kids. Wife has affair. He's stuffed. Moves to Cyprus to be able to afford somewhere to live. 4. Close to retirement, wife has affair. He's stuffed. My brother and I pay up so he can keep the house. 5. (original example). Married 4 years, no kids, got stuffed for £100K+. Became alcholic (rehab etc) but now turning it around (sober for a year and back in a good job) 6. First wife lovely but died, second wife tried to kill him (annulled), third wife lovely. After wife 3, has had a live-in house keeper that changed the locks and wouldn't let him back in. Then moved in her boyfriend! Police and council would do nothing. So he eventually broke back in and changed the locks again. To mitigate this, I've been investigating a bit of asset protection for the next in line. I initially though a discretionary trust could provide protection but courts can overrule this and assume it is an asset that can be divided up. Solicitors seems to love trusts for the fees they can generate but never seem to guarantee (assume liability) that they will actually work. So far, I've looked at building a house for kids but protecting it with these methods: 1. Load it up with legal charges so it will never have any equity in 2. "Right-to-buy-back" contract as long as I live that renders it worthless. 3. Ransom strip under my control that renders it worthless. Utilities will all come via my property. Can turn off the supply easily. 4. Not a freehold then a ridiculously high ground rent to render it worthless (no need for kids to actually pay it). 5. Make it an annex so its legally mine. Rent-free to my kids, Miss Floozy to be a lodger (minimum rights) Still working on it though.... inheritance tax considerations also come into play. For the purpose of equality, my daughter will need the same protection from Mr Chad. She has been issued with Stokies mugshot, just in case.
  14. She initially wanted £60K but kept spinning it out so he was ended up paying legal bills for both sides and a flat for her in London as it dragged on. Financially crippling. Most of his assets were gifts from parents before they were married.
  15. Now that's what I call brutal honesty. It's like watching nature in action. Calling Dimbleby..... Social constraints (mostly religion based) would have previously restricted this outcome. Individual freedom now results in the responsibility being dumped on the taxpayer and the beta-sucker-to-be-divorced. What's a responsible young beta to do these days? My eldest is 16, thinking of setting him up with his own house when he's 21/22 but I cant do it in his name as Miss Floozy can claim half or more at her convenience. I'm investigating workarounds. This may seem cynical but my cousin has just been stung for £100K+ after a 4-year marriage with no kids, basically the inheritance he had from his Dad has just gone to Miss Floozy. Optimum strategy may be to appear to have lots of assets and have the benefit of them but not actually own them in any way (including rights to them under trusts - which courts can take into account).