Category: Miscellany

Ask the Right Questions by Phil Runyon

10/31/2016

Ask the Right Questions

Most of us won’t ever run for public office, but that doesn’t mean we don’t engage in important public service. I venture to say that everyone reading this is now or has fairly recently been serving on a non-profit or municipal board or committee of some sort. And when we were asked to serve, our questions were usually, “How often are the meetings?” and “Do I have to ask people for money?” While those are still important questions, we should now be asking this one, too: “Does the organization have directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, and will it cover me for the things that might cause potential liability?” Actually, the last part of that question could be the most important, so don’t leave it out.

Here’s what I mean. Let’s say you’re on the board of a private school or day care center. Will the organization’s D&O policy cover you if suit is filed against the board because one of the teachers or caregivers molested a student or child, or sexually assaulted or harassed another employee? Will the policy cover you if the board is sued because the business manager filed fraudulent tax returns to cover up a history of misappropriating the organization’s funds - and will it keep you from having to make good personally on those obligations? Also, will the board have coverage if one of those employees is terminated and then files suit for wrongful termination? And if you’re sued personally - it happens frequently in these cases - will the policy provide you with legal representation and pay the fees – because we all know how expensive lawyers can be, right, even if we win?

Needless to say, there’s almost no chance that the person you pose these questions to will have the answers. Don’t let that deter you, though, and don’t settle for a squishy response that doesn’t really give you the information you need. No, I suggest you ask for a written explanation of coverage from the agent or carrier of the organization’s D&O policy – as I did when I asked Tim McMahon of the Bellows-Nichols Agency about all this. You’ll probably be doing the rest of the board a great service at the same time. Then, if you get the right answers, you’ll be good to go; you’ll have immediate cred for insightful brilliance; and you can serve with distinction and peace of mind. But if you don’t hear enough to put you at ease, either the organization can do something about it for the whole board’s benefit, or you can make your mark elsewhere. Either way, you’ll be ahead of the game.

Posted 10/31/2016 Misc.

The Conversation by Phil Runyon

6/10/2016

The Conversation

I hope your good weather activities are off to a fast start – and that all your hiking and biking are making estate planning less urgent, shall we say. On the upside, longevity authorities now predict that the first person to live to 150 has already been born. Still, as far as I know, mortality is holding constant at 100%.

Perhaps because of that last statistic, I often get asked whether I find it discouraging that despite all my best planning efforts, I end up losing most of my clients eventually. In the spirit of the campaign season, I usually dodge those questions by asking whether people have made the same inquiries of their physicians.

But let’s not dodge it here. Most of us have come to the realization that we’re not going to make medical history on the order of Methuselah; we just want our brief sojourn here to end the way we hope. That is, please let us die at home, in our own beds, with all our faculties intact, after a vigorous life and a nano period of decline, and with all our loved ones gathered around. Yet, the truth is that 80% of us will die in a medical institution of some sort, and at the end, 50% of us will be incapable of making decisions on our own behalf.

So what do we do to fight back? Well, we could all make sure we have a good, current health care directive, so that if we’re “out of it” near the end, our best interests are in the hands of people we trust to do the sorts of things we’d do for ourselves if we could. But you know that, and most of you have already taken that important step. (You’re in the minority, though, because nationally the percentage is just 25%.)

The problem is, even that’s not really enough. You need to have “The Conversation”, to use the term coined by Dr. Sanders Burstein of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Nashua (and probably others). In other words, you need to get a lot more specific about what you want than the basic choices given you in the canned documents the statute prescribes. Even our versions, which expand considerably on those selections, still aren’t enough.

You need to talk – a lot – with the person(s) who will be in charge if that unhoped-for time comes. Sure, it’s a conversation no one wants to have, which is why it happens so infrequently – like when you need to have that birds-and-bees talk with your teenager. So have it before the time comes, when you can still make dark, nursing home humor about it, even while being completely serious. And someone should be taking notes, including quotes, if possible. If you just can’t bring yourself to broach the issues, though, or if no one will sit down and listen (which is sometimes the case with family members in denial), then put it in writing for them and attach it to the official document. If we’re holding your directive in our safe, we’ll be happy to supplement it with your specific guidelines.

What am I really getting at, you say? Here’s my very brief stab at it: “I love to read history, follow my favorite teams, get together with my friends and family, and take walks on nice days, and I’ve always thought it important to feed myself and make private use of the bathroom. If it gets to where I can’t do the majority of those things, and I can’t decide about what to do myself, then I don’t want any efforts made to keep me going by medical procedures or drugs. I want nature just to take its course, and if it looks like that’s happening, I don’t want anyone to interfere with that process, except to keep me as comfy as possible. You may be reluctant not to do all you can to help me hang on, but that’s not what I want. Life here will already be over for me, so let me get on to wherever else I may be going. I sincerely appreciate all you’ll be doing for me, and I hope being clear about my wishes will put everyone's mind at ease.”

Not bad for a start; I actually feel better already.

Posted 06/10/2016 - Misc.

Another Planning Resolution by Phil Runyon

1/25/2016

Another Planning Resolution

In addition to resolving to being nicer people this year, let's also resolve to keep our planning documents in good order - and let's start with our trusts.

Many of us have trusts that say to use the assets for our children's or grandchildren's "health, maintenance, support and education" (HMSE) until they hit certain ages, and then to distribute what's left to them outright. Maybe the children (or a particular child) have already reached those ages but still need some oversight to use the assets responsibly. That might call for pushing the distributions out a little farther, or at least dividing them into two or more installments so poor choices at one age won't completely drain the tank. But consider . . . .

The HMSE standard for distributions can itself be problematic these days, in the event a child is faced with divorce. More and more courts (most recently in Massachusetts) are holding that trusts based on that standard can be valued and considered in property settlements with the child's soon-to-be-ex-spouse. The better plan in this judicial climate is to make distributions to or for the children completely discretionary by the trustee - so there's no quantifiable expectation of distributions at all. And to eliminate all specific ages for final distributions - so there's no way to compute (and award the ex-spouse) the present value of what may eventually be distributed. Needless to say, it's also important that the child not be his/her own trustee, or the court will see right through that arrangement - so consider using either an independent trustee or multiple trustees who would have to act by majority or unanimous consent. Of course, if you figure your kids just have to sink or swim at some point, then fine as long as you understand the issues.

While we're on trusteeship, consider this issue, as well. Many banks and brokerage firms have gotten extremely skittish and aren't willing to allow an agent to act for a trustee through the trustee's power of attorney - no matter what it says. That can cause real problems if you've gone to the trouble of titling all your assets in your trust's name (say, to avoid probate), but you're still the sole trustee. If you want a child or another agent to be able to act for or with you, you may need to appoint that agent as a co-trustee of the trust, or even to resign so the successor trustee can carry on for you.

This emphasizes how important the role of successor trusteeship can be, and why it's critical to make sure the ones you've designated are still right for the job. Maybe they've had health or financial setbacks of their own, or perhaps a new job has taken them several time zones away. Maybe if they're your contemporaries, you just need a new generation of trustees who can carry on as long as the trust is likely to be needed.

Finally, if your trust is more than 10 years old and hasn't had a recent physical, it's time for one. In addition to what I've already said, maybe the people or organizations you named as partial or contingent beneficiaries are no longer the apples of your eye; or perhaps the joint trust you have with your spouse says the surviving spouse can't make any revisions after you're gone, and now that seems like a good safety valve to include. And these are just the low-hanging fruit.

Posted 01/25/2016 EP

A Holiday Parable by Phil Runyon

12/22/2015

A Holiday Parable

Here's a story that might be useful to you or a family member or a close friend.

Many years ago I had a "senior" client who had become estranged from his daughters. They were upset because he'd married another woman several years after their mother died, and although their father's second wife was a fine person who did her best to embrace the family, the daughters would have none of it. They wouldn't speak to the new wife or even visit their father because "she" would be there. Finally, even the lines of written communication were severed.

The father was distraught by his daughters' reaction, which he viewed as extremely selfish. I heard his lament many times: Couldn't they see he wasn't replacing their mother, yet they were denying him the last smidgen of happiness he might have? Eventually, the situation also angered him, and he executed a new will that left the daughters out completely. I wrote the will the way he wanted it, but it always nagged at me that the outcome seemed more like a family tragedy than good planning.

A couple of years went by with no thaw in relations. Finally, I just called the father one day and asked whether I could contact the daughters and make a pitch for reconciliation. He said he would really appreciate that because he, too, had been feeling badly about where things stood. I called each of the daughters, and it was as if the floodgates had opened. They also felt terrible, as it turned out; they just didn't know where to start to repair the damage they'd done.

The story has a happy ending. The father eventually died, yes, but he and his daughters - and the new wife - made up in time.

The trouble is, this scenario repeats itself too often. Family members drift or break apart for any number of reasons. Sometimes they can't even remember exactly why. Then, as more time goes on, the ice thickens, and no one knows how to break through. Everyone worries that their overtures will be rebuffed, so no one picks up the phone and just says, "I'm sorry, let's fix things." Saying "I'm sorry" is critical, whether it's really your fault or not - and frankly, who cares at that point.

Anytime is the right time to make that call - but right now is the best time of all. No one held it against Scrooge that he did a 180 and became the lovable uncle. Bygones were forgotten, and no one looked back. In fact, being the one to break the ice not only feels really good, but it puts you squarely on the high ground, and may even short-list you for the Nobel Peace Prize - you could do worse than that.

Posted 12/22/2015 Misc.

Those Unavoidable Topics by Phil Runyon

12/1/2015

Those Unavoidable Topics

Remember several months ago when I explained how you might maximize your Social Security benefits with a technique called "file and suspend". It looked too good to be true then, and now Congress has said it is, starting in April of next year. So you do still have time to put it in place if you qualify, and if you're already reaping the benefits, they'll last up to 4 more years. To learn the ins and outs, though, I suggest you read my message on that topic and then contact your local Social Security office (I gave you the numbers) to see what your remaining options may be.

To some of you Gen X and Millennial folks, it may seem like all I talk about are senior and elder law issues. But remember, most of you still have parents, maybe even grandparents, and you need to know what to do when they need your help. Lately, I've seen a number of you really scrambling when you lost one of those senior partners and then had no idea what to do about it. That may be more their fault than yours, but you might have helped them create a better road map for you. So what to do? You can work with them on getting a form completed like the one I've attached here, or if you want to go more extensive and commercial, you can head to Amazon for The LastingMatters Organizer. Then you can start a lively discussion about all the important decisions that need to be made. By the way, at least 82% of people surveyed say writing down things for their families is important, but only 28% actually do it.

One of the "things" people should be clear about - that is, if they have any wishes at all - is the disposition of their actual selves. And unlike many post-mortem issues, like parceling out the family photos, this is one that needs to be attended to pretty quickly. There's lots of law on this subject, but let's just hit some high points. You can specify in writing who gets final custody of yourself, but it's probably not best to do it in your will, as that may not get dragged out for a week or two. Instead, one of those documents I mentioned in the last paragraph would be a much better place. If you don't say anything at all, the decisions default to your heirs in order of relationship - your spouse first, then your children, next your parents, then your siblings. If you're going with a funeral home, they know the drill, and while they get paid almost as much as lawyers, having someone else who can just take charge at a moment like that can be worth it (and I'm not being paid to say so). Even if you're not buying into the full array of services, however, the pros can handle "removal" and either arrange for burial or cremation. And if you're choosing the latter, you've also got the option of going straight to the Cremation Society of New Hampshire. One final point here: there's no law requiring embalming, no matter which option you pick, and there's no requirement that you be buried or cremated in any particular receptacle.

OK, let's assume all the final bodily arrangements have been made; then there's where you'll spend eternity (whatever you think that means). Clearly, a little guidance from you on that topic would be helpful, too. I mean, are you envisioning the family mausoleum at Mount Auburn, or under the venerable oak in the backyard that you climbed as a child? The former is easy, but the latter is also a possibility in New Hampshire; that is, unless your town has an ordinance against private burial sites. Better check it out, if that's what you have in mind. Even if that's allowed, though, you're required to notify the local cemetery trustees, and here's an important factor: if there's a burial site on your property - and that includes both bodily remains and urns of ashes - you're required to state that location in the deed when you transfer the property. Better mull that over before you make a final decision, as it could seriously impact the property's marketability, even way down the road. For more on all this, including increasingly popular "green" burials, you might check out nhfuneral.org.

Posted 12/01/2015 - Misc.

statement_of_personal_information.pdf
Download File

Social Security Untangled by Phil Runyon

6/19/2015

Social Security Untangled

Having just experienced the indignity of yet another birthday, and being well within the Boomer demographic - maybe not the Greatest Generation, but certainly the most numerous - I am reminded that many of us are wrestling with (or soon will be) how to maximize the payback for all those Social Security payroll deductions we've grumbled about during our working years.

First of all, for all of you who may have envisioned something like a Christmas club account (only a Boomer would remember those) with your name on it somewhere deep within the Treasury Department, that's not how it works. Or at the very least, if there ever was such an account, all your deposits have been withdrawn to pay the Greatest Generation its well-deserved benefits - and now it's the Gen X, Gen Y and Millennials who are carrying most of the funding burden.

If you're already 62, you've likely experienced all the bewildering choices about when to start calling in your Social Security IOUs - and unless there was a pressing need for the funds at that age, I hope you were able to hold your fire. The reason is that your benefits could continue to increase pretty dramatically right up to 70. Even if you could wait until "full retirement age" at 66 (that's what it is for most of us), your monthly check could be 25% greater than at 62; and if you could hold out until 70, your checks would grow a whopping 8% a year after 66. There aren't many other investments these days able to show that kind of guaranteed rate of return. Even if you started early, though, you may be able to salvage the situation by repaying those benefits and kick-starting the accrual process.

There are so many other wrinkles and potential goodies in the system that it's hard to cover more than a couple here. Take this one: If your spouse's own benefit is meager because of a poor earnings record over the years, he or she may be able to claim 50% of your benefit instead. Or this one: Even if you remarry after the death of a spouse, you may still be able to claim a benefit based on the former spouse's earnings record. Now let's say you're single due to divorce: If you were married for at least 10 years, you may still qualify for a benefit based on the former spouse's record, and if the ex dies first, you may be able to claim a survivor's benefit that's the same as what the decedent was receiving - and the same goes even if you've remarried after age 60. You may also be able to put a couple of these options together for yourself: If you're still working and don't want to claim your own benefit now, your spouse may be able to take his or her benefit, so you can claim a spousal benefit - and keep accruing benefits on your own record of earnings. OK, let's flip it: If you're still working past full retirement age (again, that's probably 66), you can apply for your own benefits, but then immediately suspend them, and your spouse can claim a benefit on your record - even so, you can continue to accrue benefits on your own earnings until 70.

And these are just the low-hanging fruit, albeit with many restrictions and limitations necessarily glossed over here. The best way to really understand and evaluate your options is to make an appointment with the Social Security office nearest you and to go in for a thorough consult. You can do a lot online these days, but there's no substitute for a face-to-face conversation on issues as complicated as these. You can reach the Keene office at 877-405-3651; the Manchester office at 866-814-5408; the Nashua office at 877-444-0134; and the Concord office at 888-397-9798.

Posted 06/19/2015 Misc.

An Important New Law by Phil Runyon

2/17/2015

An Important New Law

This is the time of year when new laws take effect, and I want to tell you about one of them that may pertain to lots of families. I'll preface this by saying that it's purely hypothetical information to advance your legal knowledge - and that I'm definitely not disparaging the reputation of any real person who may read this message. Disclaimers are an important legal tool.

To boil it down, the new law makes it a criminal offense to breach a fiduciary duty to, or to otherwise exploit, an elderly, disabled or impaired adult. The most likely way this might occur is for a guardian or the holder of a power of attorney to use the vulnerable person's resources for the guardian's or holder's personal advantage, So, the agent (that's what we'll call the fiduciary) might make a "loan" or "gift" to himself from the person's funds, or spend the person's funds on things that only benefit the agent - like a new bicycle or set of golf clubs that few people in wheelchairs could probably use. Sure, some powers of attorney allow the agent to make gifts, even to the agent (we often include those provisions), but an agent who actually does so is treading on very thin ice and had better proceed with extreme caution.

First of all, full disclosure - in writing - is an absolute must, not only to the person whose funds are involved (if he or she is competent to understand), but also to any other family members or eventual beneficiaries whose interests might be adversely affected. One common example is when an elderly person has established a history of making birthday or holiday gifts to family members, and the agent is perpetuating that practice. Not only should the gifts be comparable to those the person made herself, but there should be no gifts at all made unless there are still plenty of resources left to provide for the disabled person's care and needs.

In another message I wrote about entering into a care agreement with an elder, in order to help keep the person at home and perhaps to benefit a family member who may be providing the services. I emphasized the need for a clear, written agreement there, but it's also critical that the compensation paid be reasonable for the services provided. In other words, the agent may be running afoul of the new statute if he uses the elder's funds to pay his spouse or children way more than a third party would command to provide the same services.

And I can tell you from long and unpleasant experience that there's nothing that drives a nasty wedge between, say, the elder's agent and his or her siblings than to have the siblings decide that their inheritance is being depleted by the agent without their knowledge and for suspect or downright improper purposes. That may be a mouthful, but it's one you don't want to try to swallow. Plus, it's not only a scenario that might require the agent to disgorge all his ill-gotten gain - together with the attendant attorneys' fees of everyone else involved - but since January 1it might result in law enforcement consequences, as well.

One last point that might soften some of the intimidation I may have created: The new statute really just codifies the state of the law as it's always existed for fiduciaries - albeit adding some sharp teeth. It's not intended to punish agents doing the best they can for their elders, or to hold them personally responsible if decisions made carefully and in good faith simply don't pan out through no fault of the agent. Here's my rule of thumb when you're an agent and on the fence in one of these situations:
Is the decision you're about to make one that you'd want described on the front page of the local paper? If not, then you probably know what not to do.

Posted 02/17/2015 Misc.

A Caring Alternative by Phil Runyon

2/17/2015

A Caring Alternative

This message is about what more and more of us are trying to do to make life as pleasant as possible for our venerable but vulnerable elders. I'm sure nearly all of you have a family story about a beloved grandparent or crotchety old uncle who lived with you (or someone in your family) when you were a kid. That was the norm a generation or more ago, when the recourse to nursing homes was much less prevalent than it's become.

The paradigm seemed to shift in the '60s or '70s when both parents in a family had to leave home for work and there was no one left in the house all day to make sure the lovable oldster didn't fall or leave the stove on. The trouble is, even if a nursing home seems the only alternative, the cost of such care has exploded much like college tuition, and the tab for a year in an institutional residence can now top $100,000. Sure, there's Medicaid to pay the tuition if skilled nursing care is called for, but that usually requires the senior to deplete nearly all his or her assets first, or go through elaborate machinations to put those hard-earned assets out of their reach. Neither of those scenarios has ever looked appealing to me, for reasons that are pretty obvious.

So, what's the solution, if there is one? Clearly, if the elderly family member needs services we just can't provide at home - real medical procedures or care we're just not physically capable of handling - then the choices may be limited. But if we're just talking about making sure medications are being taken when they're prescribed, making sure diets are healthy and meals are being eaten, and ensuring that emergency services are called in should the need arise, then maybe home care is something we can handle. Still, if there's no one at home most of the day, maybe even those functions are more than we can safely provide for.

How about this, though. What if one of the family members who's been going to a job somewhere everyday decides to take on the job of caregiver him- or herself? And I don't mean just giving up that additional income, but getting paid to provide the home care. Nearly any way you cut it, that's bound to be less expensive than paying for institutional care, and it keeps the cost of care in the family instead of having it fly out the window. Not to mention the all-important goodwill factor.

So what's the catch? There's no real catch as long as you go about this process on a business-like, arms-length basis. That is, instead of pouring over the detailed care contract with a nursing facility, you yourself sign one with your senior family member. The contract comprehensively spells out all the services you're going to provide at home and sets a compensation rate that's generously comparable to what you'd pay a third party to come in for the same purposes. Then you both actually sign the agreement and keep it for later documentation, if that becomes necessary. When might that be, you say? Well, if it turns out that Mom or Grandpa can't stay with you right up to the end and really needs a nursing home at some point, you'll be able to establish that the funds received for your services were a contractual obligation and not just a monthly gratuity. If the former, then those payments won't be disqualifying gifts for Medicaid application purposes, but if the latter, then no matter how much value you've provided at home, those monthly stipends will be treated as voluntary gifts - and delay, perhaps for a significant period, the ability to qualify your elder statesperson for Medicaid benefits.

Yes, this is one area of the law where oral contracts, though often valid and enforceable under other circumstances, just won't cut the mustard. They have to be in writing and signed up - before the services are actually provided.

Posted 02/17/2015 - Misc.

Reversal of Fortune by Phil Runyon

2/9/2015

Reversal of Fortune

I've written before about the wonders of reverse mortgages, so take a look at our website for all the pros first - before I toss a thimble of cold water on this hot concept for cash-strapped seniors.

As Fred Thompson and Henry Winkler have told us, these mortgages are for the 62+ folks who have comfy homes that they don't want to give up, but who need additional income to keep up with their real estate taxes or other living expenses. The idea is that you get approved for a mortgage amount based on the value of your home and certain actuarial factors - then the lender pays you a monthly stipend for the rest of your life or until you decide you really do want/need to sell. At that point, whatever you've been paid, plus the interest the lender is charging (they're not doing this for free, no matter how wonderful Fred or Henry makes it sound), get repaid, like what would happen with a regular mortgage.

That all sounds fine, but what if you die while you still own the house and with a large reverse mortgage balance outstanding - and your spouse still needs a place to live? That can be a problem if only one of a couple owns the property and took out the mortgage just in the decedent's name. The obvious solution to that snag would be to make sure the mortgage is in both names, so the survivor can also stay at home, if so inclined.

Or more troubling, what if both parents are now gone, but there's a child who wants to keep the old homestead - maybe the child has been living there providing care for Mom or Pop? Can that child assume the mortgage and start making monthly payments? Unfortunately, somewhere in the fine print it clearly says no. So, unless the child can qualify for a new mortgage on his/her own - and pretty quickly - the child either has to sell, or Fred and Henry are going to drop the hammer and foreclose. That could not only dislocate a loyal but vulnerable child, but also result in a forced sale at a depressed price that wipes out whatever equity the property may have.

The key to avoiding these and other unanticipated results is to get the answers about likely scenarios before innocently signing up for a reverse mortgage and having the bottom fall out later on when there aren't any decent options. For example, before proceeding, try to determine whether anyone in the family is likely to want to keep the house once all the seniors are gone. If not, then the house will be sold anyhow and a reverse mortgage may make perfect sense after all. If so, however, it's important to discuss the situation with the lender before proceeding. Maybe instead of a reverse mortgage, it might make sense to consider a plain old equity line of credit that the lender would allow to be assumed by the interested offspring. Of course, if the lender commits to that, make sure they put it in writing, as your helpful loan officer will undoubtedly be working somewhere else when the time comes.
Posted 02/09/2015 Misc.

Help Most Effectively by Phil Runyon

10/16/2014

Help Most Effectively

While we certainly have plenty of people who are hurting for the basic necessities of life and health in our country, the extent of poverty and disease in Africa (our recent vacation destination) is orders of magnitude greater. That got me thinking about philanthropy in general, which I'm defining here as something more than our $100 to the local food pantry. Don't stop reading quite yet, though, even if that's your usual contribution level.

Still, I'm talking primarily to those of you who were able to underwrite your kids'/grandkids' school expenses (and have something left), or who may have sold a successful business or accumulated disposable assets from some other source that leaves you in a position to help out where help is needed. Clearly, the most direct way to make a difference is to do your research and find the non-profits that will make most efficient use of their funds for the purposes important to you. You can use Google as well as I can, but
charitywatch.org is one good place to start. OK, I'm circling in on the point now.

Instead of making a direct contribution, however, many people these days use so-called "donor advised funds" as the vehicles for getting their charitable deductions. They set up a DAF with someone like Fidelity or Schwab, get their year-end paperwork for tax return purposes, and promptly lose track of what's actually happening with the assets. The investment firm invests the resources, deducts a nice management fee each year, and may or may not actually make a distribution to a non-profit that's in dire need of those funds to provide its important services - because there's no legal obligation to do so in order for our generous philanthropists to get their full tax deductions. And the investment folks have an understandable disincentive to push the funds out to the service providers, because, let's
face it, distributions reduce their fees.

So, finally, the moral is this: If you want one of these investment firms to produce healthy returns for your offspring's eventual benefit or your own retirement, great. But if you want to help eliminate poverty in the U.S. or around the world, or help come up with a cure for cancer, ALS or Ebola, then find the organization that has those goals in its sights and fire your ammunition right at the target. If the gift horse is already out of the barn and into a DAF, then just make sure your investment firm distributes your resources where they're needed as quickly as possible.

When you see the difference that even modest gifts could make to people who have absolutely nothing or to those poised to conquer a deadly
adversary, it's hard to accept that there are billions languishing in DAF accounts that could help out immeasurably. Even if you're not in a position to be a philanthropist yourself, you can spread the word about where all the resources are bottled up. If enough people understand the situation, it might help get the law changed to ensure that all those funds actually do some good as soon as possible.

One footnote: I owe credit for opening my own eyes on this subject to my good friend Al Cantor, who's become a national spokesman on this topic.

Posted 10/16/2014 Misc.

<<Previous

Runyon Law Office, PLLC