[k8svet]

Maybe I'm just really ignorant but I don't totally understand how to mitigate the "risk" (?) of home ownership? For a few hundred dollars a year? Does this just refer to home owner's insurance, or something more?

I have (by my stnadards) a high NW, much of which is non-retirement accounts, but some of that is due to my having virtually zero non-monetary assets to my name. I guess I'm curious what I should be looking out for, if and when I pick a place to settle and purchase something.

I guess at the very least, this is something of a reminder that I should be purchasing decent traveler's insurance, especially in lieu of an American rent.

BTW, I appreciate you engaging me kindly, when I had somewhat glib replies earlier.

[K0balt]

Significant assets (anything over say, 10k in value) should probably be owned by a trust, corporation, or anonymous offshore LLC or foundation. (Escalating by value). The cost of doing this runs about 300-1000-3000 a year.

(complex, basically impenetrable systems that also can effectively shelter large sums of money and eliminate huge swaths of tax liability usually cost around 5-10k a year or so to maintain),

These systems of ownership/control protects these assets from risks such as personal or business liability, divorce court, bankruptcy, etc and at the more sophisticated levels can create cash sinks to eliminate vast swaths of tax exposure while tucking cash and other fungibles away in effectively untouchable zero-tax jurisdictions.

This is a system quietly utilised by virtually every international corporation as well as the vast majority of people with significant wealth. It is gravely underutilised by people of modest wealth. A trust provides very strong protection for multiple assets for less than 30 euros a month in many cases.

It’s worth noting the obvious, that one entity can hold many assets so that the cost is spread over your entire risk position.

You should speak to a financial advisor and also look into ways to charge off surplus cash reserves offshore if possible, though it’s possibly too late to do this in an ideal way to reduce your tax exposure.

The goal for fungibles is to move your profit centres offshore to better tax jurisdictions, and although this sounds complex, it’s not really that difficult.

An offshore can hold your IP, and your local can lease that IP from the offshore, absorbing the majority of your revenue, for example. Or you can set up a private insurance company so that all insurance costs go offshore. Offshore private retirement funds are a thing.

Offshore companies can hold assets that you then lease from them, such as real estate, vehicles, boats, planes, etc. They can be very profitable, tucking those profits away in tax-favourable jurisdictions while absorbing large chunks of discretionary revenue from your operations in less tax-favorable situations.

All of these can have tax advantages for avoiding taxes you don’t need to owe, and most of them create very very deep legal moats around the assets that you seek to benefit from.

The mechanisms for relinquishing legal ownership and direct control (therefore liability and vulnerability) while retaining the use and benefit from your assets are sophisticated and well established.

[sanderjd]

This is all very bad for our society. But maybe I do agree with you that more people of modest wealth should take advantage of it. This would make the problem more visible, and thus more likely to be fixed.

[Teever]

I've come to this counterintuitive solution too.

There are a lot of things that people do in society which I've declined to do as well because I feel that they're wrong but I've come to realize the way to make people stop doing those things is to just do them in a really oafish way so that the public sees how bad they are and hopefully they'll fix it.

[Mawr]

Fun fact: The equivalent concept in CS terms is "backpressure".

[K0balt]

I agree, especially in the case where only the wealthy are doing

[bruce511]

How far you go down the road of using structures for tax avoidance is up to you.

However it should be noted that the use of on-shore trusts to separate assets from risks and liabilities does not intrinsically have either a tax-saving goal, or a tax-saving effect (depending on your jurisdiction.)

Personally I make use of asset-protection structures, but in an on-shore context. I live here, I enjoy benefits here, and I'm happy to pay my share of taxes here.

My point is that offshore trust structures, and onshore trust structures (among other options) have very different use cases, tax implications, and costs. Use of one does not imply use of the other.

[K0balt]

Definitely. I certainly did not mean to conflate tax avoidance and asset protection, even though in some cases they go hand in hand. I apologise if I was confusing in my explanation.

[rblatz]

I assume you own your house instead of a trust owning your house. Start there

[k8svet]

(First, thanks for the hint. Looking into trusts in general has been on my todo list, but also) I guess I'll embrace the ignorance fully. What if I have a pile of money and no house, do I need a trust? What amount of money or (future) house do I need to justify a trust? What does the trust even do for me?

Or maybe a better question, where's the "oops I have a pile of money, now what" literature I should read?

[bruce511]

It's probably a good idea to talk to a financial advisor. You may need to talk to a few before you find someone who understands your goals and what is on offer. A good one will be able to explain in clear terms what each option accomplishes.

For me, the goal is to separate assets from liabilities. I own a business and that business has creditors, some of whom require me to be personally liable.

So any asset I own is "at risk". I'm not expecting a problem, but life happens sometimes.

If I have a house a creditor can force the business into bankruptcy, and my house can be lost. If the house is not in my name (say its in a trust, or perhaps my spouses name) then it's not "mine to give". In simple terms if I hold liabilities and my wife holds assets, (and we have a suitable marriage contract) then creditors can't take those assets.

Obviously making creditors whole is the goal, but that can be done well, or badly, depending on your juciness.

Everyone's situation is different. The legal framework is different in different places. Which us why you need an advisor in your country / state to assess your risks, and possible mitigations. Don't just take advice from the Internet, or even your buddies. You need to understand your goals and needs.

Trusts can be an important part of the equation, so that's sometimes a good starting point to evaluate advisors. Even if you don't need a trust you want to feel like the advisor understands them etc.

[chgs]

In the U.K a typical person will start a limited company which is limited by the assets it has, not factoring in the personal holdings of the directors.

However why would I give such a company credit unless it’s assets outstrip its liabilities?

[nothercastle]

In the USA you can’t get a limited loan. It’s theoretically possible but they don’t give them. All small business loans have a personal guarantee.

[bruce511]

Which is why its useful that you don't have personal assets.

[bruce511]

I'm guessing you're not a bank?

Banks (and other financial institutions) make loans all the time that are not necessarily backed with collateral. This is reflected in the interest rate that you pay.