Well, one question that immediately comes to mind is how much (if at all) the funds to bequeathed have already been taxed before they arrived in the trust?

..

I actually thought there was a few good bits in that rant *Runner* but it degenerated a bit at the end i.m.o.

Let me ask you this? If, hypothetically, we could transport you to that place referred to as "The Garden of Eden" in the Bible, how much of a foul and polluted nature do you think you would have to breathe in?

..

Whilst I support the "what" of that which the green movement is trying to achieve I simply do not support the "how" and I am mindful of words that go something like "even a good thing can be bad if done in the wrong way and or at the wrong time."

I am opposed to the Carbon Tax and market based schemes which seeks to artificially inflate the the price of "dirty" energy in an attempt to provide a competitive advantage to "cleaner" forms of energy production.

Having said that, I prefer direct, swift and assertive action, which is to say, where and when it is technically feasible to push up renewables (and clearly it is in some places) to contribute and then ultimately maintain and sustain base load++ AND where and when you can migrate workers from one job into another solid and reliable "living wage" solution, then we should do so promptly and leave what we can of the fossil fuels in the ground.

Unfortunately, you are dealing with the

"Cult of the Dead Wood Pencil Fiddling Wig Parasite"

which is arguably the worst blight, pox and stone around the neck of this nation. I suggest that some of you need to be less concerned about those pensioners on $600 a fortnight and more concerned about those on $600+ per hour.

..

As for the ABC, well, it really is a pathetic, tin pot little service but the PoliTicks must be scrutinised by a legitimate intelligentsia i.m.o.

As for inheritance more generally, it really is a pitifully neglected area of the law, and that arguably by populist design.

You see, whilst inheritance is a state based issue, there is very little in the way of significant differences between them.

For example, it is common that there is a moral compulsion for those writing their wills to provide for those who most need it AND NOT whomsoever they please.

And when it comes to disputes, applicants need but evidence their financials at the time of the death of the relevant party and also at the time of their application, a bit about the relationship and the details of their employment by way of affidavit (wherein lies the hook) and lodge it, keeping in mind that the court may penalise you for being verbose and irrelevant (at least in W.A. when last I looked)

However, what usually happens, is that first one or more of the kids will start helping out the folks with their affairs, maybe an authority or a power attorney will be drawn up, a joint bank account will be opened, assets will be liquidated and dear old mum or dad will then be certified and locked up in one of these filthy holes some people call nursing homes and when they die, the death certificate will be taken to the bank and someone will run off with all the loot and not lodge probate.

Any aggrieved parties must then beware as it is not uncommon for some wig parasite or other to try and fleece you for a quick $100,000 for this simple task.

..

So, thinking about the NDIS, why should tax payers have to pay for those who need services if they have already been screwed over by their own family? (and you can bet that there is plenty of them)