http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us...hp&oref=slogin

This seems pretty warped. Should the government step in and intervene? What is the correct solution for what seems like an obvious imbalance?

Given past rulings regarding this woman's estate, it seems overwhelming likely that the authorities will eventually find a way to get themselves involved, given that we are dealing with a sum this giant:

Apparently the part of the will that was reported in the first quote is just a "mission statement" of her wishes which is an expression of her intentions rather than a set of legally binding instructions, ie, what she said is different than explicitly giving instructions on how exactly it should be spent. However, the article says that "longstanding laws favor adherence to a donor’s intent, and the mission statement is the only clear expression of Mrs. Helmsley’s charitable intentions. That will make it hard for her trustees, as well as the probate court and state charity regulators, to ignore".

So, if you were in charge, would you feel compelled to come up with a resolution and some sort of redivision, or would you tell the people in charge of her trust to see that all of it goes to the benefit of dogs? (The likely possibilities would be things like shelters for abandoned dogs, the ASPCA, vet hospitals and vet schools). Play God, people.

wat

[censored] like this must be like [censored] Christmas for statists.

The "correct solution" is for the trustees to arrange for the care of her dogs to the best of their ability given the assets of the estate. When the dogs die then they can think about transferring the estate to next-of-kin or what have you.

Oh, I didn't read your last paragraph--was already shocked to the point I had to close the thread.

I'd definitely thief the 5bill and do something that otherwise wouldn't be done by this magical market. Probably invest a million or two into something dog related and split the rest between solar/wind/hydro plants and a large endowment for her almamater to be spent on renewable energy. And no I'm not an environmentalist.

I think the money is being left to the general care and welfare of all dogs, rather than specific ones she owns

I think you are correct after re-reading this. In that case the trustees should invest in dog-related businesses, donate to dog-related charities, fund dog-related research efforts, etc. What other option is there?

Agreed. I would also confiscate and liquidate all of your possessions for the same purpose.

If she had a few million, put it to the dogs. But she has five thousand millions for Allah's sake.

borovoselo's net worth is under the Robin Hood threshold LDO.

When I clicked on this, I though her own dogs were going to be become billionaires.

If she wants her fortune to go to dogs and prepares a valid will instructing so, it goes to dogs. Is this really up for debate? Are there people with the viewpoint that if someone makes what they view as a crazy (but valid) will, it should not be upheld?

Me.

It's her money, why can't she do what she wants with it? She was the one that said only the poor pay taxes, right?

Not sure if thats a level or not, but.

**** that. If she gave away it other people/institutions that's fine. But donating 5 BILLION to dogs? Na na, repo that ****.

In a totally unrelated development,I will be launching my charity, the Federation of International Dog Owners(FIDO) by the time this court case gets resolved in a few years. Our goals will be the eradication of canine cancer, rolling back the pooper scooper laws, and establishing collar-free roaming zones in all public parks. I care.

What law is she breaking by giving this money to dog welfare?

I can go ahead and say that's a clear, none, so are you saying our society need a law placing an upper limit on how much you can give to dog welfare? What should that upper limit be? Should it be a strict ceiling or proportion of your estate?

Like $5/person max. Seriously. There are bigger fish to fry.

Also, it should be illegal to waste time posting on 2+2 when you could be frying bigger fish, like working at a soup kitchen.

Stop moving the goalposts.

what?

I knew clicking on this thread was a mistake.

I suppose the market will fix this?

By fix, you mean eliminate the comfortable high paying jobs that his chauffer, cooks, and various babysitters currently have?

Yes.

EDIT: Don't you and your AC brethren despise war/keynesianism because the jobs it creates have no actual utility? or something along those, dont nit please.