From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 09:56:51 MDT
Phil wrote:
No one can legally bind a kid to such a contract.
However, having a viable personal trust with highly
valued shares would be a huge asset - much more so if
it caught on large scale - in getting further
capitalization to start a business, for example. A
kid could revoke his trust, but, barring unusual
circumstances such as criminally negligant trustees,
for example, he could expect to pay a high price in
terms of lost opportunities to acquire capitalization.
Few people would feel very generous toward someone
who had simply welched on the people who had invested
their hard-earned dollars in raising him or her, and
there would be public records that would follow such a
person.
Because part of the Trust shares allocations would
probably go to reimburse the parents for their efforts
on the kid's behalf, they would have a natural
interest in doing the best parenting job possible.
### Wow, I really like the idea! It looks like using the carrot, more than
the stick, which is definitely preferable as long as it works.
On the other hand, why not have both - a personal trust, pulling the kid and
the parents to economically viable outcomes, and a state stick to push the
truly negligent parents by demanding that they finance at least a basic
education, in case of insufficient investments by a trust, as well as a
safety net for orphans, and children of total derelicts physically unable to
pay.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:23 MST