Vince O'Connor in the spotlight
It looks like even the Town Manager may support my "Motion To Dismiss" Vince O'Connor's Articles 6 & 7 coming up at the June 2 Special Town Meeting.
You would think a guy who spends most of his free time on the arcane minutia of zoning and other local government ordinances would have checked state law for procedural ground rules.
Makes you wonder what other major mistakes he made in putting together the wording of those articles, which require a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting.
20 comments:
Who is this guy?
Looks like being in prison got the best of Vince.
If he has a trust fund, why the hell do we have to pay his rent for him?
Larry: Why don't you propose a town ordinance -- a tax on trust funds. It is no less illegal than his "handful of cash" and that is being done. So have a trust fund tax to match it.
After all, isn't it "unfair" for people with trust funds to use resources intended for those who are poor and destitute?
How do you one he has a trust fund?
Everyone "knows" he has a trust fund. They way you have a trust fund AND qualify for subsidized housing is to have a "Supplemental Needs Trust" which shields your assets from consideration from government benefits. And how you qualify for a supplemental needs trust is:
"A Supplemental Needs Trust enables a person under a physical or mental disability, or an individual with a chronic or acquired illness, to have, held in Trust for his or her benefit, an unlimited amount of assets. In a properly-drafted Supplemental Needs Trust, those assets are not considered countable assets for purposes of qualification for certain governmental benefits.
Such benefits may include Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, vocational rehabilitation, subsidized housing, and other benefits based upon need. For purposes of a Supplemental Needs Trust, an individual is considered impoverished if his or her personal assets are less than $2,000.00.
A Supplemental Needs Trust provides for supplemental and extra care over and above that which the government provides."
Anon 9:36 p.m
How 'bout you getting a life? Go for a walk. Call a sick friend. Visit a homebound person. Write a letter to a relative who hasn't heard from you in awhile.
Find a way to contribute to another life, instead of engaging in idle speculation.
But...idle speculation is what we're all here for, nes't-pas my little petunia?
Otherwise, take yourself back to watchinggrassgrow.com or whatever the fuck else won't offend your delicate sensibilities.
Ed, we can smell your posts a mile away. Just be grateful that there is no tax on blowhard, know-it-alls that don't even live in Amherst but feel compelled to meddle in everyone's business.
"Idle speculation is what we're all here for"
Yep.
But what if
Vinny
leaves
the garden???
"Caw caw caw!"
Oh-my-god,
they're coming Vinny!
THEY'RE COMING!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXWZrwAHxPM
-Squealing Squeaky Squeaks
The issue I have with many in Amherst, Vince only being one, is the hypocrisy.
They decry "White Male Privilege" and want *me* to sacrifice *my* ambitions & aspirations so that others (who have neither worked as hard nor for as long) can benefit in my stead. These "White Liberals" have already "got theirs" -- notice how they aren't giving *theirs* up for this "social justice" stuff.
What's even more infuriating are the White Males with trust funds who decry the very "White Privilege" that *they* (and not I) enjoy. Yet even more infuriating are those who *then* have the chutzpah to live on various forms of public assistance notwithstanding their often quite-substantial assets.
Ever notice how nothing Vince proposes will ever cost *him* anything?
Ed, do you live in Amherst?
Ed aren't you white. If so you also benefit from white privilege.
And you clearly have no clue how a SN trust works. The beneficiary of a SN trust has no control over distributions from the trust. Those are solely up to the discretion of the trustee.
If so you also benefit from white privilege
In what dimension of fantasy do you exist?!?!?!?
And maybe we need to change the law so if you have large assets, YOU pay for your own stuff, not the rest of us.
Ed you show by your last comment that you don't know a thing about SN trusts. Someone who is a beneficiary of a SN trust does not own the assets in the trust and NEVER owned them. The SN trust was funded by someone else. It's time you stopped commenting on something you clearly know nothing about.
Someone who is a beneficiary of a SN trust does not own the assets in the trust
The government has the right to tax assets regardless of who owns them -- they just need to write a law permitting themselves to do so. (ObamaNocare comes to mind...)
The government has the right/ability to intercept money being provided to an individual by another individual or entity -- I've personally seen the IRS do this at a real estate closing, I believe it is also done for unpaid child support.
BOTTOM LINE:
(1)There is a trust which is providing funds to the individual. An individual whose housing and other necessary expenses are currently provided at public expense.
(2) Everything the person needs to survive is being paid for by the public -- the SN trust funds luxuries which are not necessary for the individual's basic substance & survival. If they were, then those without such a trust wouldn't be able to survive -- and they clearly do.
(3) The money currently being provided the individual is real money -- which could instead be used to fund the individual's necessities so that the public doesn't have to do so.
(4) The government could intercept all disbursements from the SN trust and use them toward providing a portion of the more critical sustenance & survival needs that the government currently funds.
(5) Reality is that the government wouldn't even need to do this -- it need merely reduce its own payments in the amount of all funds provided by the SN trust and if the individual himself/herself/itself didn't choose to pay for the more basic needs, then take over management of the individual's finances via a competency hearing.
(6) Reality is that all of the above COULD BE DONE with the passage of appropriate enabling legislation.
Now people may not choose to set up SN trusts were this to happen, but that is a completely different issue.
Ed you show by your last comment that you don't know a thing about SN trusts.
I was defining "assets" as the payments from the SN trust and not the assets of the trust itself. The basic "assets & liabilities" balance sheet, but in terms of an individual's own finances.
Even if the trustee has total discretion over both the sum of money the trust will provide the individual *and* what may be purchased with it, even if the individual never is involved in the transaction and only receives the benefit thereof -- this is still money being provided to that person.
One doesn't have to know a damn thing about SN trust to understand the above concept.
And I'll add one more thing here -- if there weren't some inherent tax benefit to setting up a trust, no one would ever bother doing it. Instead, they would simply write a check to the person (or vendor) and pay for everything with post-tax dollars. Upon death, they'd do so via their will.
I also don't have to understand how my computer works to know it does....
Again Ed you show you don't have a clue about SN trusts and the reason people set them up for people. Just keep on talking. Every time you post on this topic you show your ignorance.
SN trusts and the reason people set them up for people.
Nor do I particularly much care.
They are a vehicle for getting money to someone while not having that money counted towards the person's eligibility for governmental benefits (aka "handouts"). I have a problem with that...
Ed, isn't that how you support your unemployed ass, via handouts?
Post a Comment