What is wrong with this idea?
April 14, 2023 7:07 PM Subscribe
Okay, smart people, poke holes in this Friday-night-cocktail-mediated crazy scheme: A lot of women didn't have kids and don't have anyone to whom they feel super compelled to leave their estate when they die. A lot of these same women really worry about old age care and see money as the only realistic solution. Why wouldn't it work for a group of these women to enter into a contract to leave their estates to the group, and whenever someone dies, the estate is divided equally among the members? Read on for additional scheming!
If they die with money, great--everyone gets a slice. If they die with nothing, fine--nobody is out anything. Say they get married and want to leave the group--fine, again, nobody is out anything. You can leave any time.
Because the estates are split among so many people, there's no real incentive to knock anyone off to get their money. There's not much administrative overhead because the costs of probate, if any, are borne by the estates.
Maybe you have some minimum asset threshold for joining the group so that it's not 90% people with zero assets and 10% people with assets, but in general this isn't really that big a deal because if you don't have anyone else to leave your stuff to, seems like the alternative is a charity, and if that's the case isn't this pretty much a charity, one that should be pretty close to your heart?
There must be something wrong with this idea or it seems like it would exist already.
If they die with money, great--everyone gets a slice. If they die with nothing, fine--nobody is out anything. Say they get married and want to leave the group--fine, again, nobody is out anything. You can leave any time.
Because the estates are split among so many people, there's no real incentive to knock anyone off to get their money. There's not much administrative overhead because the costs of probate, if any, are borne by the estates.
Maybe you have some minimum asset threshold for joining the group so that it's not 90% people with zero assets and 10% people with assets, but in general this isn't really that big a deal because if you don't have anyone else to leave your stuff to, seems like the alternative is a charity, and if that's the case isn't this pretty much a charity, one that should be pretty close to your heart?
There must be something wrong with this idea or it seems like it would exist already.
Response by poster: You'd need enough people in your personal insurance pool, otherwise the first person who needed exceptionally expensive end of life care would bankrupt everyone else.
No, that person just would die with nothing and nobody in the group would get anything. There is no obligation to care for anyone. It's just a contract to leave the group whatever's left when you die.
posted by HotToddy at 7:16 PM on April 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
No, that person just would die with nothing and nobody in the group would get anything. There is no obligation to care for anyone. It's just a contract to leave the group whatever's left when you die.
posted by HotToddy at 7:16 PM on April 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
If this group is all roughly the same age, how long would the members actually get to enjoy the benefit of the estates of those who die before they also die? There would be incentive for members to want other members to die young and with assets, not old and after they’ve spent their money on elder care.
posted by MadamM at 7:21 PM on April 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by MadamM at 7:21 PM on April 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
People. People are always the problem. They're never as rational and chill as they claim they'll be. And if everyone doesn't just outright quit to give their money to random folks they don't now hate, pretty soon someone would be thinking it needs bylaws and a corporate structure and wouldn't it really be best if it did good works during its members' lives and thus another charity is born and nobody can just get cash payouts because that's not an exempt purpose. (Ahem. I indeed may been given a few too many "cocktail-mediated crazy schemes" to try to make real over the years.)
Answering more in the hole-poking spirit,
Because the estates are split among so many people, there's no real incentive to knock anyone off to get their money.
Maybe there's no incentive to knock off any given person, but a particularly wealthy one is still worth something, and where the real money is at is in forming an internal cabal that systematically whittles down the competition to literally concentrate the wealth. (After that point it presumably turns on itself.) Or, even if nobody wants to outright murder anyone, it's still possible to try to influence the group norms away from expensive things (including extensive healthcare) and/or towards riskier behaviors.
Couple of other issues that come to mind:
One, why would any of the initial group want more people to join unless they think those people are likely to die first? Otherwise they're just splitting their estate with strangers instead of friends. But how many people who even strangers can identify as likely to die sooner can't think of anything else to do with their money?
Two, what prompts a young person to even seek out such a group? How many are thinking of estate planning, don't just want folks from their family of origin as their beneficiaries, and are comfortable essentially betting on a bunch of old people dying first?
I could see something like this being okay with truly close friends who just want one another to be their beneficiaries much as siblings might, but I don't think it scales.
posted by teremala at 8:00 PM on April 14, 2023 [14 favorites]
Answering more in the hole-poking spirit,
Because the estates are split among so many people, there's no real incentive to knock anyone off to get their money.
Maybe there's no incentive to knock off any given person, but a particularly wealthy one is still worth something, and where the real money is at is in forming an internal cabal that systematically whittles down the competition to literally concentrate the wealth. (After that point it presumably turns on itself.) Or, even if nobody wants to outright murder anyone, it's still possible to try to influence the group norms away from expensive things (including extensive healthcare) and/or towards riskier behaviors.
Couple of other issues that come to mind:
One, why would any of the initial group want more people to join unless they think those people are likely to die first? Otherwise they're just splitting their estate with strangers instead of friends. But how many people who even strangers can identify as likely to die sooner can't think of anything else to do with their money?
Two, what prompts a young person to even seek out such a group? How many are thinking of estate planning, don't just want folks from their family of origin as their beneficiaries, and are comfortable essentially betting on a bunch of old people dying first?
I could see something like this being okay with truly close friends who just want one another to be their beneficiaries much as siblings might, but I don't think it scales.
posted by teremala at 8:00 PM on April 14, 2023 [14 favorites]
Is part of the question how else to think about elder care/end of life care for people without kids? Because that's a great question but I don't want to be off-topic. (Also want to point out that kids are under no obligation to care for aging parents, and kids aren't entitled to an inheritance if the parents choose to do something else with their money.)
posted by bluedaisy at 8:31 PM on April 14, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by bluedaisy at 8:31 PM on April 14, 2023 [7 favorites]
Because the estates are split among so many people, there's no real incentive to knock anyone off to get their money.
What if you knocked off a lot of people to get their money? I'm thinking this is either a cult or a murder mystery movie plot.
posted by Toddles at 9:14 PM on April 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
What if you knocked off a lot of people to get their money? I'm thinking this is either a cult or a murder mystery movie plot.
posted by Toddles at 9:14 PM on April 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
Response by poster: bluedaisy, yes, go for it! That is indeed the underlying concern.
posted by HotToddy at 9:19 PM on April 14, 2023
posted by HotToddy at 9:19 PM on April 14, 2023
Is there some legal reason these people can't create an irrevocable trust with an amount at the beginning and with each of them a beneficiary? I don't know if a bunch of unrelated people can create a trust together.
posted by fiercekitten at 9:46 PM on April 14, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by fiercekitten at 9:46 PM on April 14, 2023 [2 favorites]
In the nineteenth century (i.e. before the genesis of State based pensions in the West in the progressive era and after WWI) there were an extraordinary diversity of these kinds of mutual-assistance financial arrangements, from basic life-insurance schemes, to Freemason societies, to loan societies and loan lotteries, to ones based on a trade or a workplace, or religion, or migration group.
The great drawback to all of them is that they work quite well at providing for people who already have money, who don't really need help and have little incentive to join, but don't work very well at all for poor people, who do.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 9:58 PM on April 14, 2023 [21 favorites]
The great drawback to all of them is that they work quite well at providing for people who already have money, who don't really need help and have little incentive to join, but don't work very well at all for poor people, who do.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 9:58 PM on April 14, 2023 [21 favorites]
People. People are always the problem. They're never as rational and chill as they claim they'll be.
For example there are the problems that come up with taxes: "I'm okay with my money going to those people, but not to those. Look at her, she's just blatantly sponging off the group! (There should be a work requirement!) Look at that other her, she's taking people's money and spending it on something totally antithetical to their values! (There should be ideological filtering!) Look at this other her - all her money is going to health treatments I don't really think she needs and a nursing home that's way more expensive than mine is! (There should be a set of approved care options other people are restricted to! (But not me!)) Look at that her - she's an opportunistic immigrant who stole my job and doesn't even share my language or my culture, and now my money's going to go to her?! (There should be identity requirements!)"
You need a really strong ideological or philosophical commitment to have everyone (or most members) continue to engage for years in something that on the one hand is truly voluntary and on the other hand requires them to make peace with a lot of things and actively ignore a lot of cases and accept that there are always going to be bad actors and people doing things with their money that they don't like. Sometimes religious or ideological communities sort of manage to do this to some extent as an expression of their principles, with frequent morale boosting and reminders about why the project is worthwhile, but (a) generally there's a lot of peer pressure and sometimes the threat of being left out of the community acting as enforcement, and (b) all too often these groups will also be careful to channel their resources only or mostly to those they feel are "deserving".
posted by trig at 1:09 AM on April 15, 2023 [7 favorites]
For example there are the problems that come up with taxes: "I'm okay with my money going to those people, but not to those. Look at her, she's just blatantly sponging off the group! (There should be a work requirement!) Look at that other her, she's taking people's money and spending it on something totally antithetical to their values! (There should be ideological filtering!) Look at this other her - all her money is going to health treatments I don't really think she needs and a nursing home that's way more expensive than mine is! (There should be a set of approved care options other people are restricted to! (But not me!)) Look at that her - she's an opportunistic immigrant who stole my job and doesn't even share my language or my culture, and now my money's going to go to her?! (There should be identity requirements!)"
You need a really strong ideological or philosophical commitment to have everyone (or most members) continue to engage for years in something that on the one hand is truly voluntary and on the other hand requires them to make peace with a lot of things and actively ignore a lot of cases and accept that there are always going to be bad actors and people doing things with their money that they don't like. Sometimes religious or ideological communities sort of manage to do this to some extent as an expression of their principles, with frequent morale boosting and reminders about why the project is worthwhile, but (a) generally there's a lot of peer pressure and sometimes the threat of being left out of the community acting as enforcement, and (b) all too often these groups will also be careful to channel their resources only or mostly to those they feel are "deserving".
posted by trig at 1:09 AM on April 15, 2023 [7 favorites]
And to follow on bluedaisy’s comment about how to think about inheritance and end-of-life or disability/illness care; it was one of the main premises of Thomas Piketty’s book that at the same time developed economies seem to be moving back towards societies based on inheritance, and ones in which wealth enough to guarantee a decent retirement can’t be gained through one’s working life, we’re also attacking the State means of providing for people outside the workforce (pensions, allowances etc.). These are problems of politics not financial technology.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 2:29 AM on April 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 2:29 AM on April 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
This is a lovely idea, and I would really like it to work, but I agree that people are the problem for all the reasons mentioned.
don't have anyone to whom they feel super compelled to leave their estate when they die
This doesn't mean there aren't people who feel entitled to the money. And it's not only death when they come out of the woodwork - it's also when a person develops dementia. I have bitter experience with this. I owned a house with my childless aunt. When she was in the early stages of dementia, unscrupulous relatives - estranged for 40 years – convinced her we were after her money. One obtained guardianship, and though I ultimately kept my house, it was years of legal hell while my cousin tried to convince the judge to let her sue me with my aunt's money. (Thank god for my wonderful lawyer, who pointed out that my aunt would have to live to 120 to need the money from her share.) My aunt intended for me to own the house outright upon her death, but once she had a guardian, her intentions did not protect me. If one of the women in this group develops dementia and needs a guardian, a judge might be more likely to give that position to a relative. And even if dementia and guardianship are never an issue, people do contest wills all the time.
Given your previous answers, it might seem OK to you because the people who would have inherited the money wouldn't be out anything anyway, but it seems to me like something that could breed resentment. Also, people do change wills. One of my grandmothers changed hers the last week of her life. Is there a system for making sure something like that doesn't happen?
posted by FencingGal at 4:03 AM on April 15, 2023 [6 favorites]
don't have anyone to whom they feel super compelled to leave their estate when they die
This doesn't mean there aren't people who feel entitled to the money. And it's not only death when they come out of the woodwork - it's also when a person develops dementia. I have bitter experience with this. I owned a house with my childless aunt. When she was in the early stages of dementia, unscrupulous relatives - estranged for 40 years – convinced her we were after her money. One obtained guardianship, and though I ultimately kept my house, it was years of legal hell while my cousin tried to convince the judge to let her sue me with my aunt's money. (Thank god for my wonderful lawyer, who pointed out that my aunt would have to live to 120 to need the money from her share.) My aunt intended for me to own the house outright upon her death, but once she had a guardian, her intentions did not protect me. If one of the women in this group develops dementia and needs a guardian, a judge might be more likely to give that position to a relative. And even if dementia and guardianship are never an issue, people do contest wills all the time.
Given your previous answers, it might seem OK to you because the people who would have inherited the money wouldn't be out anything anyway, but it seems to me like something that could breed resentment. Also, people do change wills. One of my grandmothers changed hers the last week of her life. Is there a system for making sure something like that doesn't happen?
posted by FencingGal at 4:03 AM on April 15, 2023 [6 favorites]
Incentivizes murder?
posted by Chitownfats at 4:20 AM on April 15, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Chitownfats at 4:20 AM on April 15, 2023 [3 favorites]
I feel as if, in the US at least, the health care system has gotten to the point where the first couple of serious illnesses, requirements for prolonged memory care or whatever could wipe out pretty much any amount of money.
There's another version of this that sometimes gets tossed around where a member or members of the group is a health care professional and can, shall we say, help people make an exit before they become committed to long-term treatment. Tons and tons of potential problems with this, clearly.
posted by BibiRose at 7:28 AM on April 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
There's another version of this that sometimes gets tossed around where a member or members of the group is a health care professional and can, shall we say, help people make an exit before they become committed to long-term treatment. Tons and tons of potential problems with this, clearly.
posted by BibiRose at 7:28 AM on April 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
Okay, here’s my take: I wouldn’t make it amount money and inheritances. I would focus on developing community. Use the resources you have (time and money) to invest in community. Specifically, try to find an intergenerational community. A co-housing situation with young families would be ideal. Aim for someplace walkable, near transit, grocery, library, etc.
And then really invest in people, not by promising them an inheritance - you don’t want them rooting for your death - but by investing in the relationships. Be a good neighbor, baby sit the kids, hang work in the community garden.
A nuclear family isn’t as good a support system as an intergenerational community with many people. So
Use those resources and become part of a community of people who care about you, not your money.
posted by bluedaisy at 7:48 AM on April 15, 2023 [10 favorites]
And then really invest in people, not by promising them an inheritance - you don’t want them rooting for your death - but by investing in the relationships. Be a good neighbor, baby sit the kids, hang work in the community garden.
A nuclear family isn’t as good a support system as an intergenerational community with many people. So
Use those resources and become part of a community of people who care about you, not your money.
posted by bluedaisy at 7:48 AM on April 15, 2023 [10 favorites]
One of the main benefits would actually be to pay for care at the end of life, when you are least able to care for yourself.
But one of the drawbacks of the scheme is the unpredictability. You have no idea how much money might come to you, or when it would be. Which makes planning for your own final decades or years very difficult.
Which makes me think that if this was actually a thing, there'd be an intermediary level of financial scheme created by some enterprising company, that would look at the people in your scheme, their worth, their estimated death dates, and then offer you a regular annuity of $x in exchange for any lump sums that would normally come to you. Whether this is a good or bad innovation is another matter, but I bet it would happen.
posted by fabius at 8:01 AM on April 15, 2023 [2 favorites]
But one of the drawbacks of the scheme is the unpredictability. You have no idea how much money might come to you, or when it would be. Which makes planning for your own final decades or years very difficult.
Which makes me think that if this was actually a thing, there'd be an intermediary level of financial scheme created by some enterprising company, that would look at the people in your scheme, their worth, their estimated death dates, and then offer you a regular annuity of $x in exchange for any lump sums that would normally come to you. Whether this is a good or bad innovation is another matter, but I bet it would happen.
posted by fabius at 8:01 AM on April 15, 2023 [2 favorites]
A problem with this scheme is: what happens when the last person dies? They might have inherited millions and will have left a will leaving it all to a bunch of dead people with no dependents.
A common option is to leave the residual money to charity but that can also result in will disputes between the charity and other beneficiaries or distant relatives.
posted by Lanark at 9:45 AM on April 15, 2023
A common option is to leave the residual money to charity but that can also result in will disputes between the charity and other beneficiaries or distant relatives.
posted by Lanark at 9:45 AM on April 15, 2023
Mod note: Several comments removed for several reasons.
1.OP, per the Ask Metafilter Guidelines, this is not a conversational space. Instead it's one where a problem is presented and people are invited to help solve the problem. So please refrain from repeatedly chiming in, and just hang back and listen.
2. What the OP is asking about is not a tontine, so please cease with the tontine derails.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:15 AM on April 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
1.OP, per the Ask Metafilter Guidelines, this is not a conversational space. Instead it's one where a problem is presented and people are invited to help solve the problem. So please refrain from repeatedly chiming in, and just hang back and listen.
2. What the OP is asking about is not a tontine, so please cease with the tontine derails.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:15 AM on April 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I think you're probably underestimating the money and effort that would be spent actually clearing and selling the estate. If there is someone who cares enough to do that, that person probably had a close enough relationship to be in the will. My guess is that the population you're talking about is smaller than you think - there are people who have nothing, which doesn't benefit the group, and people who have enough that they spend time finding a specific recipient like a charity for their wealth. Then in between are people with something to pass on, no one to pass it to, and ultimately the cost of paying people to deal with the estate eats up most of the wealth left behind.
posted by Emmy Rae at 12:27 PM on April 15, 2023
posted by Emmy Rae at 12:27 PM on April 15, 2023
Is part of the question how else to think about elder care/end of life care for people without kids?
To make this part work, I think it requires an ongoing community such as a monastery. So it isn't just a group of gals who are 67 now and fear what happens when they are 82. It's that members age, are cared for, and die as new members join to do the caring and so on.
Of course, Catholic monasteries (the model I am familiar with) aren't doing so well in population these days.
posted by Emmy Rae at 12:36 PM on April 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
To make this part work, I think it requires an ongoing community such as a monastery. So it isn't just a group of gals who are 67 now and fear what happens when they are 82. It's that members age, are cared for, and die as new members join to do the caring and so on.
Of course, Catholic monasteries (the model I am familiar with) aren't doing so well in population these days.
posted by Emmy Rae at 12:36 PM on April 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
Say they get married and want to leave the group--fine, again, nobody is out anything
Someone will do everything just shy of marriage, change their will, not tell the group, benefit from the other people's deaths, but then leave their estate to their not-quite-a-legal-spouse.
posted by The corpse in the library at 12:47 PM on April 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
Someone will do everything just shy of marriage, change their will, not tell the group, benefit from the other people's deaths, but then leave their estate to their not-quite-a-legal-spouse.
posted by The corpse in the library at 12:47 PM on April 15, 2023 [1 favorite]
What is proposed is much like a Friendly Society, so it may be of interest to look at those.
My question would be: suppose one or more members of the group do all the right paperwork, make the group their heirs and then die in debt? (Say, from medical expenses, long-term elder care or similar?) Is the group then liable? How many such deaths can the group absorb, and what happens when the threshold is exceeded? Does the group dissolve? do individual members declare bankruptcy? do the more well-off individuals cover the debt until they can't any more?
What if a member has signed up, benefited from others' bequests and then wants to leave the group? Do they have to pay back any assets they received as members? Is there a legal way to make them do that? If the assets are spent, are they then in debt to the group?
If there's a way to start such a group, there has to be a way to end it and an agreed point at which it ends. And there has to be a way for individual members to leave.
posted by Pallas Athena at 3:11 PM on April 15, 2023 [3 favorites]
My question would be: suppose one or more members of the group do all the right paperwork, make the group their heirs and then die in debt? (Say, from medical expenses, long-term elder care or similar?) Is the group then liable? How many such deaths can the group absorb, and what happens when the threshold is exceeded? Does the group dissolve? do individual members declare bankruptcy? do the more well-off individuals cover the debt until they can't any more?
What if a member has signed up, benefited from others' bequests and then wants to leave the group? Do they have to pay back any assets they received as members? Is there a legal way to make them do that? If the assets are spent, are they then in debt to the group?
If there's a way to start such a group, there has to be a way to end it and an agreed point at which it ends. And there has to be a way for individual members to leave.
posted by Pallas Athena at 3:11 PM on April 15, 2023 [3 favorites]
Maybe you have some minimum asset threshold for joining the group so that it's not 90% people with zero assets and 10% people with assets, but in general this isn't really that big a deal because if you don't have anyone else to leave your stuff to
Ok see, no, this is one of the biggest challenges. Hypothetical self-interested Person ABC would want to evaluate a membership application through the probability that ABC's potential share of the new person's assets (expected assets multiplied by the likelihood they'd die before ABC divided by number of members) would exceed the amount by which they'd reduce ABC's share of other estates. Meanwhile, Person XYZ who is well off and nearing the end of their life and more concerned about their legacy etc. might be thinking "if this is akin to charity, I want to make sure we are helping those who actually need a helping hand." Now ABC and XYZ can't agree on a set of membership guidelines. I love your idea and the fact that you'd think that everyone will view the money as a cool bonus, but people like ABC will start to feel entitled to some share.
Also very much this issue from Pallas Athena: "What if a member has signed up, benefited from others' bequests and then wants to leave the group? Do they have to pay back any assets they received as members?"
Finally, I think it's a little unlikely that lots of people won't have anyone they want to leave the money to. Don't they have best friends? Even if their friends all preceded them in death, wouldn't they have met some new people and have a sense of who most needs a helping hand?
posted by slidell at 7:16 AM on April 16, 2023
Ok see, no, this is one of the biggest challenges. Hypothetical self-interested Person ABC would want to evaluate a membership application through the probability that ABC's potential share of the new person's assets (expected assets multiplied by the likelihood they'd die before ABC divided by number of members) would exceed the amount by which they'd reduce ABC's share of other estates. Meanwhile, Person XYZ who is well off and nearing the end of their life and more concerned about their legacy etc. might be thinking "if this is akin to charity, I want to make sure we are helping those who actually need a helping hand." Now ABC and XYZ can't agree on a set of membership guidelines. I love your idea and the fact that you'd think that everyone will view the money as a cool bonus, but people like ABC will start to feel entitled to some share.
Also very much this issue from Pallas Athena: "What if a member has signed up, benefited from others' bequests and then wants to leave the group? Do they have to pay back any assets they received as members?"
Finally, I think it's a little unlikely that lots of people won't have anyone they want to leave the money to. Don't they have best friends? Even if their friends all preceded them in death, wouldn't they have met some new people and have a sense of who most needs a helping hand?
posted by slidell at 7:16 AM on April 16, 2023
Being of a certain age myself, I am aware of a number of groups of women who have done something similar. I am not sure about the inheritance part, but you might be able to learn more about the practicalities and legal arrangements by looking into some of these resources and others you can Google up:
AARP - House Sharing for Boomer Women
Jezebel - Older Ladies Living Together is an Awesome Trend
Facebook - Senior Women Living Together Discussion Group
Living Single - Is House Sharing a Good Method for Women in Retirement?
Sharing with Friends - Co-Housing for Older Women
Money - These Real-Life Golden Girls Moved in Together in their 60s
posted by Miko at 7:34 AM on April 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
AARP - House Sharing for Boomer Women
Jezebel - Older Ladies Living Together is an Awesome Trend
Facebook - Senior Women Living Together Discussion Group
Living Single - Is House Sharing a Good Method for Women in Retirement?
Sharing with Friends - Co-Housing for Older Women
Money - These Real-Life Golden Girls Moved in Together in their 60s
posted by Miko at 7:34 AM on April 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
I'm the demographic for this question, but the idea doesn't appeal to me in the abstract. Surprise windfalls aren't useful for future planning, which is where I'm currently at. There are charities I support already, and groups of people I could potentially leave money to ranging from family to friends to cousins I don't talk to.
Money is an imperfect way to (hopefully) get care, and the care is the part I worry about, and see other people needing help with. How to continue being active and independent as long as possible, and not mismanage myself into bankruptcy or a health crisis before someone notices and intervenes, and not get stuck in a particularly awful nursing home... If there are people I'd want to be well-cared for in their old age, I feel like I'd be helping them while I was alive first, and then taking steps to make sure they're okay when I'm gone.
posted by mersen at 8:02 AM on April 16, 2023
Money is an imperfect way to (hopefully) get care, and the care is the part I worry about, and see other people needing help with. How to continue being active and independent as long as possible, and not mismanage myself into bankruptcy or a health crisis before someone notices and intervenes, and not get stuck in a particularly awful nursing home... If there are people I'd want to be well-cared for in their old age, I feel like I'd be helping them while I was alive first, and then taking steps to make sure they're okay when I'm gone.
posted by mersen at 8:02 AM on April 16, 2023
Response by poster: There is so much I would love to clarify about this idea, but alas. I didn't realize which parts of it would be misunderstood. I love AskMe and wish we had a way of having this kind of question but allowing the asker to clear up misunderstandings. But anyway thanks everyone, that was fun!
posted by HotToddy at 8:52 PM on April 16, 2023
posted by HotToddy at 8:52 PM on April 16, 2023
« Older Late night/ early morning car service in Bilbao... | What is the thing you wish you knew during the... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
But in the abstract it seems like a lovely idea for sure. There was an article I read a while back (maybe in a FPP here) that was about some intentional communities and I recall there being a "buy-in" component to some of them. Even if the existing ones aren't exact matches with what you envision, seeing what they have done might help frame what is possible.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:13 PM on April 14, 2023