CA CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, from Bullhead City AZ, disappeared in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019 #11

[al66pine]

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes.

Re the whole tax discussion, which I don't actually think is relevant, I just don't want to see wrong infomation put out there -- IMO we don't know how long ago BT's mother died nor how long ago she received the inheritance, which means we don't know what state BT was living in at the time.
Each state has their own rules about estate tax and inheritance tax. And the rules in place today might or might not have been the rules in place at the time.
State income tax is separate and IMO not applicable.

@Auntie Cipation
"...whole tax discussion, which I don't actually think is relevant..." Agreeing.
And the rest of your post. Agreeing.
Esp on this point >>>>"...I just don't want to see wrong infomation put out there"

Thanks for explicitly raising points about the 'known unknowns'* re estate & probate issues.

-----------------------------------------
* Thank you, Secretary Rumsfeld (There are known knowns - Wikipedia).

 

[deugirtni]

Here are some facts.

These are fact that can be discussed, even, because mods have said that what RT has stated in MSM can be discussed.

Fact #1:

RT gave his interview to Inside Edition on July 17th, and explained to everyone that the only scenario that makes sense if that she's been abducted because, "she WAS wearing a bikini, and she had a beer in her hand, and she was ahead of me, and she had to cross that road" ergo, someone must have taken her.

If, as some here have conjectured, RT latched onto the abduction scenario because it was a more "hopeful" scenario than her still being lost in the desert, then surely it would have made more sense for him to cling to the idea that a Good Samaritan had picked her up instead.

Heck, it would have even made more sense for him to imagine she hitchhiked out of the area herself.

RT is the one who pitched the abduction theory. Period.
That is a fact. RT said she was abducted. LE certainly didn't.
In fact, LE has categorically stated they do not think BT was abducted.

So there's that.

And then we also have his own words regarding this:

RT also stated that LE considers him the prime suspect, and that LE told him his polygraph showed he was being deceptive, but not to worry, on account of he "knows they aren't 100%" and he "hadn't slept the night before."

So there's that, too.

A lot of people apparently want to overlook those facts.

JMO.

RT never gave an interview to Inside Edition. Inside Edition acquired video from KNLV (Las Vegas news station). The reporter who hosted the piece did not even go to the Mojave, but did put in an introduction that was then used with the video acquired by the LV news station.

Just clarifying that RT has given only one interview (at his own home, inside and outside) to one reporter. You can contact Inside Edition, as I did, if you want more clarification. I also confirmed this with the Las Vegas news people.

Oddly, or not so oddly (if one doesn’t trust the media), Inside Edition claimed they conducted the interview with Rob.

In an interview with Inside Edition, Robert Thomas said he believes someone took Barbara when he lost sight of her during their hike.

"If anyone has her, I would just beg that they would release her, no questions asked," he said, becoming emotional. "I just want her back ...."

Husband of Woman Who Vanished During Mojave Desert Hike: 'I Just Want Her Back'

=
Yes, I realize that media keep reporting that "Inside Edition" conducted the interview. But they didn't. Unless of course they could get their camera into the scene at precisely the same angle as the Las Vegas reporter and they could get their reporter to stand in the same exact spot as that reporter.

If you look at the Inside Edition report carefully, you'll see that they never claim they were actually there. Or that they conducted the interview. Nor is anyone shown holding a mic. The LV reporter who did arrive at RT's house (Leah P). filed the story and her news station (understandably) sold the footage to Inside Edition. Inside Edition does little to know actual "reporting." They bracket stories and film introductions.

Those exact words (the ones you quoted) were spoken to Leah. So unless RT is actually a robot and can utter precisely the same words with precisely the same inflection while standing at the same time of day next to his RV, looking at exactly the same angle, it would be amazing. It led some here to theorize that RT had made up his story (because they really thought he managed to do the same exact interview twice).

But the LV station is affiliated with the same network as Inside Edition and I was told explicitly that the footage was sold to IE. Then, they gave it national visibility and framed it with an in studio host and an apparent "on scene" post. But if you believe that reporter is actually standing in the Mojave or anywhere near RT's house, I have a bridge to sell you.

Verifying such stories is part of what I do. Everyone was quite forthcoming with me (after checking with their bosses) about how the story was constructed.

It was one interview, not two. RT is not producing the exact same words on cue, standing in exactly the same position for two interviews.

Okay.
Here's the interview that aired on Inside Edition:

I wasn't standing in RT's living room when the interview happened, so I don't know which reporter interviewed him, or how many interviews he gave that day.

So, in the interest of factual accuracy, I'll gladly amend my earlier post:

In an interview that aired on Inside Edition on July 17th, RT explained to everyone that the only scenario that makes sense if that she's been abducted because, "she WAS wearing a bikini, and she had a beer in her hand, and she was ahead of me, and she had to cross that road" ergo, someone must have taken her.

RT also stated that LE considers him the prime suspect, and that LE told him his polygraph showed he was being deceptive, but not to worry, on account of he "knows they aren't 100%" and he "hadn't slept the night before."
_____________________________________
Personally, I don't care if RT said it one time or if he said it a hundred times.

The point is, these are RT's words.
On camera.
MSM sourced.

JMO.

I recall a post made by @PommyMommy when RT had been interviewed; I think PM transcribed RT's remarks from two clips, and the two were slightly different. So.. I'm confused.

 

[deugirtni]

Here is PommyMommy's post from the media thread:

RT's statements transcribed from both videos:

RT Interview #1
KTNV Channel 13 Las Vegas
July 15, 2019

:38 "By the time I took the picture, she was continuing on because she wanted to use the RV, and she rounded the corner, and I lost sight of her."

:51 "They had the, the, uh fire trucks out there, the ambulance, paramedics; they had the, the, they actually brought a dog team out later, they had the helicopter that was comin' in."

1:13 "My feeling is that she was picked up because she had to cross the highway. She was wearing a bikini and she had a beer in her hand."

1:28 "I just want my wife back. And, if somebody out there has her, which I feel somebody does, please, uh, drop her off in a safe place where uh, she can contact us. And, that's it."

1:52 "And, we always tell each other before we go to bed at night how much we love each other. So whoever has her, please release her. No questions asked."

RT Interview #2
July 17, 2019
Inside Edition

:20 "I would just beg that they would, uh, release her no questions asked. I just want her..." (doesn't finish his sentence)

:51 "I hollered her name and I waved my arms and I looked around the area and I saw that she wasn’t anywhere around. She didn't respond. then I got very panicky.”

1:12 "I feel that, uh, somebody picked her up, uh, because she was wearing a bikini, she had a beer in her hand, and she was ahead of me and she had to cross that road."

1:32 "The police consider me the prime suspect because it was just the two of us."

1:38 "Yes, I took a polygraph test. They told me that I was being deceptive. Now, I know that polygraphs aren't 100 percent, and I had not had any sleep."

1:53 "Absolutely not." (In response to being asked if he had anything to do with his wife's disappearance.)

2:00 "She is the love of my life. Come home, we're missing her."

AZ - AZ - Barbara Thomas, 69, Timeline, Media, Maps, *NO DISCUSSION*

and here are both videos:

RT's Interviews

At the 1:13 mark - 1st interview
"My feeling is that she was picked up. Because she had to cross the highway. She was wearing a bikini and she had a beer in her hand."

At the 1:12 mark - 2nd interview
"I feel that, uh, somebody picked her up, uh, because she was wearing a bikini, she had a beer in her hand, and she was ahead of me and she had to cross that road."

AZ - AZ - Barbara Thomas, 69, Timeline, Media, Maps, *NO DISCUSSION*

 

[deugirtni]

If only one interview and the one media took out portions of same interview to present as two separate interviews in which different things were said, how deceptive, and no wonder some high ranking politicians complain about 'fake news', imo.

 

[al66pine]

Probatable Assets

And it would only show probatable assets - so probably life insurance wouldn't show up.

@PaulR
Thanks for your post, which prompted me to think about other a/c's/assets/properties, designed to (and typically do) bypass probate court procedure:
1. Life insurance, death proceeds
2. IRA (traditional, Roth, SEP IRA, etc)
3. Pay on Death a/c's
4. Transfer on Death a/c's
5 Transfer on Death, Real Estate (in some states)
6. LLC's (some)
7. Tenancy by the Entirety
8. Joint Tenancy w Rights of Survivorship
jmo

 

[Seajay]

I’ve seen in other cases where a spouse will make suggestions as to what could have happened to their missing spouse as to direct the investigation in a certain way, or more importantly away from themselves. Not saying that is the case here.

There are only a hand full of things that could have happened to Barbara.

1) She got lost or disoriented on the trail on the way back to the RV and succumbed to the elements. Not likely because she wasn’t that far from her husband, according to him and something of her would have been found by now.

2) She was abducted in a vehicle because she was a lone woman, out in the middle of nowhere. Not warmed up to this one. There are a lot of vehicles that travel that Interstate, so to be unseen isn’t likely. No sign of her beer bottle/can dropped in the abduction.

3) She disappeared on her own, but without a phone and out in the middle of nowhere, a rendezvous would be hard to plan, since the stop in the turnout was suppose to be a spur of the moment thing.

4) She was killed by someone and thrown down a mine or buried in the desert or never made it to that turnout. Maybe an earlier one is where pictures of BT were taken.

All this is just my opinion.

So, any other possibilities of what logically could have happened to Barbara Thomas?

 

[MassGuy]

I’ve seen in other cases where a spouse will make suggestions as to what could have happened to their missing spouse as to direct the investigation in a certain way, or more importantly away from themselves. Not saying that is the case here.

There are only a hand full of things that could have happened to Barbara.

1) She got lost or disoriented on the trail on the way back to the RV and succumbed to the elements. Not likely because she wasn’t that far from her husband, according to him and something of her would have been found by now.

2) She was abducted in a vehicle because she was a lone woman, out in the middle of nowhere. Not warmed up to this one. There are a lot of vehicles that travel that Interstate, so to be unseen isn’t likely. No sign of her beer bottle/can dropped in the abduction.

3) She disappeared on her own, but without a phone and out in the middle of nowhere, a rendezvous would be hard to plan, since the stop in the turnout was suppose to be a spur of the moment thing.

4) She was killed by someone and thrown down a mine or buried in the desert or never made it to that turnout. Maybe an earlier one is where pictures of BT were taken.

So, any other possibilities of what logically could have happened to Barbara Thomas?

I don’t think you’ve missed any logical possibilities, and I completely agree with your reasoning.

#4 is where I’m at, and I don’t see that changing.

 

[Hair of the Dog]

With regard to any inherited monies, perhaps BT's mom had her assets in a trust of which BT became the sole trustee upon her death. This is a very popular way of passing on assets to avoid probate and inheritance tax.

Edited to add: Life insurance proceeds are not taxable either.

MOO

 

[PaulR]

With regard to any inherited monies, perhaps BT's mom had her assets in a trust of which BT became the sole trustee upon her death. This is a very popular way of passing on assets to avoid probate and inheritance tax.

Edited to add: Life insurance proceeds are not taxable either.

MOO

The thing about a trust is that very few people know what it's in the trust. The lawyer who drew it up, the trustor (person who created the trust), the trustee (the person who manages the trust - typically the trustor at first and then someone takes over this position when the trustor passes), and the beneficiaries. That's one of the ideas behind using a trust, privacy.

If BT's parents left BT everything in a trust, there's really no way anyone else in the family would know BT got everything. They of course would know that they didn't get anything, but the money could have gone to charity for all they knew. Unless BT talked about it - but VI said she lived modestly, and from what we know of her, she doesn't seem like the type to even bring this up.

 

[happyday]

I’ve seen in other cases where a spouse will make suggestions as to what could have happened to their missing spouse as to direct the investigation in a certain way, or more importantly away from themselves. Not saying that is the case here.

There are only a hand full of things that could have happened to Barbara.

1) She got lost or disoriented on the trail on the way back to the RV and succumbed to the elements. Not likely because she wasn’t that far from her husband, according to him and something of her would have been found by now.

2) She was abducted in a vehicle because she was a lone woman, out in the middle of nowhere. Not warmed up to this one. There are a lot of vehicles that travel that Interstate, so to be unseen isn’t likely. No sign of her beer bottle/can dropped in the abduction.

3) She disappeared on her own, but without a phone and out in the middle of nowhere, a rendezvous would be hard to plan, since the stop in the turnout was suppose to be a spur of the moment thing.

4) She was killed by someone and thrown down a mine or buried in the desert or never made it to that turnout. Maybe an earlier one is where pictures of BT were taken.

All this is just my opinion.

So, any other possibilities of what logically could have happened to Barbara Thomas?

#4 is just so obvious IMO

Sadly sometimes there really is the “perfect” crime.
MOO MOO MOO

 

[MsBetsy]

May not have any relevance, but I do not think this is true. Neither Arizona nor California have an estate tax, and federal estate tax has an exemption up to $11 million dollars. The only possible tax she might owe, IMO, is if the state her mother lived in has an inheritance tax.

Oops, sorry, I thought every state had inheritance tax.
I wish I lived somewhere where you actually got to keep all your inheritance.

 

[GordianKnot]

I’ve seen in other cases where a spouse will make suggestions as to what could have happened to their missing spouse as to direct the investigation in a certain way, or more importantly away from themselves. Not saying that is the case here.

There are only a hand full of things that could have happened to Barbara.

1) She got lost or disoriented on the trail on the way back to the RV and succumbed to the elements. Not likely because she wasn’t that far from her husband, according to him and something of her would have been found by now.

2) She was abducted in a vehicle because she was a lone woman, out in the middle of nowhere. Not warmed up to this one. There are a lot of vehicles that travel that Interstate, so to be unseen isn’t likely. No sign of her beer bottle/can dropped in the abduction.

3) She disappeared on her own, but without a phone and out in the middle of nowhere, a rendezvous would be hard to plan, since the stop in the turnout was suppose to be a spur of the moment thing.

4) She was killed by someone and thrown down a mine or buried in the desert or never made it to that turnout. Maybe an earlier one is where pictures of BT were taken.

All this is just my opinion.

So, any other possibilities of what logically could have happened to Barbara Thomas?

The Million Dollar Question.

Don't even need to phone a friend or ask the audience on this one.

#4. Final Answer.

JMO.

 

[al66pine]

Tax on BT's Inheritance from Mother's Estate?

....Another thing to keep in mind is that more than 40 percent would be taxed, so even it it was over a million dollars, after inheritance taxes it would be significantly less. Imo

@MsBetsy sbm. Glad to see you back today.
Repeating questions re above ^ asked last night in in post 835

It would be helpful for ^ post to give a source & link supporting a basis for the 'imo.'
Specifically, the post is saying "more than 40 percent would be taxed." So post is saying (indirectly) a government entity was/is imposing a tax. What government? Fed, state, city? <--- which one? Or was it a foreign gov't taxing an offshore a/c? If that happened, somebody got bum-doped on legal or tax advice.
Where did the 40% figure originate? And "over a million dollars" presumably as a bracket point/step?

Oops, sorry, I thought every state had inheritance tax. I wish I lived somewhere where you actually got to keep all your inheritance.

Repeating questions
Is ^ post your answer - you thought every state had inheritance tax and you thought for an $1,000,000+ inheritance the inheritance tax would be 40%. Based on ????

 

[10ofRods]

If only one interview and the one media took out portions of same interview to present as two separate interviews in which different things were said, how deceptive, and no wonder some high ranking politicians complain about 'fake news', imo.

Inside Edition doesn't consider itself "news," strictly speaking. They "investigate" news stories. They surely didn't get private interviews with Harry and Meghan following this week's major MSM coverage of the couple's unhappiness with the paparazzi. Inside Edition stringers (to me, they are paparazzi) hang out around L.A. (most in Malibu) whenever there's any kind of celebrity "thing" going on. They rarely make it on camera, themselves, as the 'stars' of the show get all that TV time.

The interview tape is longer than either of the two edited versions we've seen. RT did a couple of different "set-ups" for the interview and told the story more than once. One reason I contacted the station was to ask for a copy of the complete thing (denied) but did get a statement that they would be keeping the entire footage, as opposed to deleting it, which apparently they commonly do when a story is over. It seemed odd to me that two different camera crews would descend on RT's house by Monday afternoon, given the remote location of Bullhead City.

Anyway, it seems their head reporter has a career in "entertainment news," and to my way of thinking IE is something of a tabloid. I'm grateful they exist and cover stories like Barbara's (and I'm rather fond of entertainment news), but they don't do a lot of investigative work themselves, they typically aggregate stories.

This is why I keep saying "there is almost no journalism in the world." This pattern (look at the Daily Mail, world's largest purveyor of 'news') is worldwide. My own hometown has nary a single newspaper any longer, whereas it used to have two. USAToday aggregates police blotter articles and if there's something really big happening (huge fire) then the LA area news crews collect the footage and sell it worldwide.

It doesn't make the news "fake," it just means we aren't always sure who collected it. One of today's top stories on IE is about Tasmanian tigers and the writer is "Staff." As usual. The photo is from the Getty collection. I'm sure "Staff" changed a few words around from Tasmania's press release (and looks like they went to Wikipedia). It's not unusual for journalists to use encyclopedias, but it is rather new for so-called journalism not to give the individual names of whoever it was who "did" the piece (I can't quite call it "writing" the piece).

 

[MsBetsy]

Tax on BT's Inheritance from Mother's Estate?
@MsBetsy sbm. Glad to see you back today.
Repeating questions re above ^ asked last night in in post 835

It would be helpful for ^ post to give a source & link supporting a basis for the 'imo.'
Specifically, the post is saying "more than 40 percent would be taxed." So post is saying (indirectly) a government entity was/is imposing a tax. What government? Fed, state, city? <--- which one? Or was it a foreign gov't taxing an offshore a/c? If that happened, somebody got bum-doped on legal or tax advice.
Where did the 40% figure originate? And "over a million dollars" presumably as a bracket point/step?
Repeating questions
Is ^ post your answer - you thought every state had inheritance tax and you thought for an $1,000,000+ inheritance the inheritance tax would be 40%. Based on ????

Thanks, not sure if I'm really "back" because I was on the road before and now I'm sitting at the mechanic's waiting for my car.
The taxes were not the point of my post, I just thought of that as another example as to how we don't know the circumstances regarding the money that was inherited.
Anyway, what I was thinking of is income over 600,000 which I think the federal government tax is about 37% but it changes from year to year. (I thought it was more than 40% years ago.)
Anyway I had it backwards. The person passing on the money is taxed, so that would effect the amount of money the person they are leaving it to would receive.
This is why I think people "gift" a certain amount of money each year to whoever they are leaving it to, so that by the time they die, there is less money to be taxed.

Anyway, like I said, it really wasn't important, what I was trying to do was point out that we don't know how much was left to her, we don't know when, what they spent it on, or if there is any left.

So we really don't know if there is a "massive amount" of money that someone will benefit from if Barbara is deceased.

Imo

 

[DancingMuse]

=


Yes, I realize that media keep reporting that "Inside Edition" conducted the interview. But they didn't. Unless of course they could get their camera into the scene at precisely the same angle as the Las Vegas reporter and they could get their reporter to stand in the same exact spot as that reporter.
....<respectfully snipped>
It was one interview, not two. RT is not producing the exact same words on cue, standing in exactly the same position for two interviews.

Thank you @10ofRods for this explanation.
Always appreciate your detailed and well-thought-out posts.
Keep analyzing.

 

[LietKynes]

I’ve seen in other cases where a spouse will make suggestions as to what could have happened to their missing spouse as to direct the investigation in a certain way, or more importantly away from themselves. Not saying that is the case here.

There are only a hand full of things that could have happened to Barbara.

1) She got lost or disoriented on the trail on the way back to the RV and succumbed to the elements. Not likely because she wasn’t that far from her husband, according to him and something of her would have been found by now.

2) She was abducted in a vehicle because she was a lone woman, out in the middle of nowhere. Not warmed up to this one. There are a lot of vehicles that travel that Interstate, so to be unseen isn’t likely. No sign of her beer bottle/can dropped in the abduction.

3) She disappeared on her own, but without a phone and out in the middle of nowhere, a rendezvous would be hard to plan, since the stop in the turnout was suppose to be a spur of the moment thing.

4) She was killed by someone and thrown down a mine or buried in the desert or never made it to that turnout. Maybe an earlier one is where pictures of BT were taken.

All this is just my opinion.

So, any other possibilities of what logically could have happened to Barbara Thomas?

Having read nearly every post in this and previous threads, # 4 is the option that least strains credulity.

#'s 2 and 3 would be nice to consider, as then there's a possibility she's alive.
But the mental gymnastics required would tax the minds of most seasoned investigators.

Not saying there isn't always hope; as long as she's still missing.
We just don't know exactly what happened.

And the abduction theory was not provided by the media/reporters ; however one wants to interpret msm.
Reporters and msm have at times 'screwed up' mightily; but not in this case.
An interview was conducted , and (quoting from what's in msm ) ... "that's it."
End of story.
MOO

 

[LietKynes]

Inside Edition doesn't consider itself "news," strictly speaking. They "investigate" news stories. They surely didn't get private interviews with Harry and Meghan following this week's major MSM coverage of the couple's unhappiness with the paparazzi. Inside Edition stringers (to me, they are paparazzi) hang out around L.A. (most in Malibu) whenever there's any kind of celebrity "thing" going on. They rarely make it on camera, themselves, as the 'stars' of the show get all that TV time.

The interview tape is longer than either of the two edited versions we've seen. RT did a couple of different "set-ups" for the interview and told the story more than once. One reason I contacted the station was to ask for a copy of the complete thing (denied) but did get a statement that they would be keeping the entire footage, as opposed to deleting it, which apparently they commonly do when a story is over. It seemed odd to me that two different camera crews would descend on RT's house by Monday afternoon, given the remote location of Bullhead City.

Anyway, it seems their head reporter has a career in "entertainment news," and to my way of thinking IE is something of a tabloid. I'm grateful they exist and cover stories like Barbara's (and I'm rather fond of entertainment news), but they don't do a lot of investigative work themselves, they typically aggregate stories.

This is why I keep saying "there is almost no journalism in the world." This pattern (look at the Daily Mail, world's largest purveyor of 'news') is worldwide. My own hometown has nary a single newspaper any longer, whereas it used to have two. USAToday aggregates police blotter articles and if there's something really big happening (huge fire) then the LA area news crews collect the footage and sell it worldwide.

It doesn't make the news "fake," it just means we aren't always sure who collected it. One of today's top stories on IE is about Tasmanian tigers and the writer is "Staff." As usual. The photo is from the Getty collection. I'm sure "Staff" changed a few words around from Tasmania's press release (and looks like they went to Wikipedia). It's not unusual for journalists to use encyclopedias, but it is rather new for so-called journalism not to give the individual names of whoever it was who "did" the piece (I can't quite call it "writing" the piece).

A question : Wasn't there an interview taken from inside RT's home and one from outside ?
Or are you saying that one film crew interviewed RT, part of it indoors and part outside ?

So it was considered a single interview.
Which would make sense if it was the only tv station to interview him.
Tia.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Here is PommyMommy's post from the media thread:

RT's statements transcribed from both videos:

RT Interview #1
KTNV Channel 13 Las Vegas
July 15, 2019

:38 "By the time I took the picture, she was continuing on because she wanted to use the RV, and she rounded the corner, and I lost sight of her."

:51 "They had the, the, uh fire trucks out there, the ambulance, paramedics; they had the, the, they actually brought a dog team out later, they had the helicopter that was comin' in."

1:13 "My feeling is that she was picked up because she had to cross the highway. She was wearing a bikini and she had a beer in her hand."

1:28 "I just want my wife back. And, if somebody out there has her, which I feel somebody does, please, uh, drop her off in a safe place where uh, she can contact us. And, that's it."

1:52 "And, we always tell each other before we go to bed at night how much we love each other. So whoever has her, please release her. No questions asked."

RT Interview #2
July 17, 2019
Inside Edition

:20 "I would just beg that they would, uh, release her no questions asked. I just want her..." (doesn't finish his sentence)

:51 "I hollered her name and I waved my arms and I looked around the area and I saw that she wasn’t anywhere around. She didn't respond. then I got very panicky.”

1:12 "I feel that, uh, somebody picked her up, uh, because she was wearing a bikini, she had a beer in her hand, and she was ahead of me and she had to cross that road."

1:32 "The police consider me the prime suspect because it was just the two of us."

1:38 "Yes, I took a polygraph test. They told me that I was being deceptive. Now, I know that polygraphs aren't 100 percent, and I had not had any sleep."

1:53 "Absolutely not." (In response to being asked if he had anything to do with his wife's disappearance.)

2:00 "She is the love of my life. Come home, we're missing her."

AZ - AZ - Barbara Thomas, 69, Timeline, Media, Maps, *NO DISCUSSION*

and here are both videos:


AZ - AZ - Barbara Thomas, 69, Timeline, Media, Maps, *NO DISCUSSION*

Thanks for posting this. You know what I find really interesting is that we've spent the best part of 11 threads discussing these comments. We've analysed them and debated them upside down and inside out. When you see them written out, it's really just a few lines. Fascinating how they've lead to so much discussion. We are super debaters!

We really need some more factual info now. LE, if you're reading this, throw us a crumb or two please

 

[al66pine]

Thanks, not sure if I'm really "back" because I was on the road before and now I'm sitting at the mechanic's waiting for my car.
The taxes were not the point of my post, I just thought of that as another example as to how we don't know the circumstances regarding the money that was inherited.
Anyway, what I was thinking of is income over 600,000 which I think the federal government tax is about 37% but it changes from year to year. (I thought it was more than 40% years ago.)
Anyway I had it backwards. The person passing on the money is taxed, so that would effect the amount of money the person they are leaving it to would receive.
This is why I think people "gift" a certain amount of money each year to whoever they are leaving it to, so that by the time they die, there is less money to be taxed.
Anyway, like I said, it really wasn't important, what I was trying to do was point out that we don't know how much was left to her, we don't know when, what they spent it on, or if there is any left.
So we really don't know if there is a "massive amount" of money that someone will benefit from if Barbara is deceased.
Imo

@MsBetsy Acknowledging your post w a (quasi) response to my questions.
"The taxes were not the point of my post..."
"...it really wasn't important"
"Anyway I had it backwards..."

I'll leave it at that and try to move past it.