K-Mart is better. I take batteries back to them regulary
that aren't even broken - just claim they won't charge
and they give you new ones. One need never have a
battery in one's yacht that is over a year old.


wrote in message ...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 07:43:15 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote:

The few times I've worn out or broken a Craftsman tool I've just taken it into a Sears and
asked for a new one - never had a hassle. If some other brand would give a lifetime
warranty that included theft (and didn't require a receipt!) I'd gladly switch.


I once took a screwdriver back to Sears that was BROKEN IN THREE
PIECES and they handed me a new one. It was clearly abuse, but they
just smiled and replaced it.

BB

-j


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Because ultimately crap cost you more. If you buy
quality, you only have to do that once.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:59:24 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Craftsman are crap. Get some real tools.

What for? I don't do real work.




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Beers!

However, when you get older and (God forbid!) have children, you may start to
think of
estate transfer. In that case the issues are different, and it becomes
important to
balance holdings, and to set up trust funds to maximize the amount that stays
in the
family.

You clearly know very little about estate transfers. By splitting the holdings
you pay far more in taxes if a transfer is made. You also fail to realize that
financial history comes into play. Suzzy's is perfect. Mine is not.

RB

On 09 Jul 2003 13:52:12 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

However, when you get older and (God forbid!) have children, you may start to
think of
estate transfer. In that case the issues are different, and it becomes
important to
balance holdings, and to set up trust funds to maximize the amount that stays
in the
family.

You clearly know very little about estate transfers. By splitting the holdings
you pay far more in taxes if a transfer is made. You also fail to realize that
financial history comes into play. Suzzy's is perfect. Mine is not.

RB

Does she give you an allowance? I really doubt that estate
considerations are of paramount importance to you two. In any event,
you don't live in a community property state, so she owns the boat and
is nice enough to let you crew, so you should be happy. At some
point, perhaps, one of the bitter women may let you take the wheel.
Now this "half price" business is starting to make some sense. You
should more accurately refer to the boat as "free".

Each person receives an exemption - it was $600,000 and is now $1,000,000. (It actually
ramps up to 3.5 mil, then drops back to 1 mil in 2011, I think.) If all the assets are
in one person's name, the other effectively waives this exemption. This blunder could cost
your heirs a million bucks or more.

However, I'm sure Suzzy's lawyers are feeding you this nonsense about "tax profiles" to
save her a bundle of money.


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
However, when you get older and (God forbid!) have children, you may start to
think of
estate transfer. In that case the issues are different, and it becomes
important to
balance holdings, and to set up trust funds to maximize the amount that stays
in the
family.

You clearly know very little about estate transfers. By splitting the holdings
you pay far more in taxes if a transfer is made. You also fail to realize that
financial history comes into play. Suzzy's is perfect. Mine is not.

RB

I once took a screwdriver back to Sears that was BROKEN IN THREE
PIECES and they handed me a new one. It was clearly abuse, but they
just smiled and replaced it.

I've returned a shovel. It's a hand tool!
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Jeff...that is all generally true, but do you really think it applies
to someone who spends all his time crowing about his stereo and the
boat his "wife" owns? Bob is hoping to crack the "five figure" net
worth barrier at some point. It is looking more and more apparent
that Bob has a rather checkered credit history. When people want
assets in their spouses names, it is usually because of creditors
lurking about in hopes of getting paid. Bob said "he bought the car
and she bought the boat." Big surprise. A car is usually exempt from
the claims of creditors whereas a boat would not be exempt.

I really don't think "estate planning" was the reason that Suzzy
bought the boat and it is in her name, but in any event, it is nice
that Bob has a boat to sail on, even if it is not his

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:27:14 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote:

Each person receives an exemption - it was $600,000 and is now $1,000,000. (It actually
ramps up to 3.5 mil, then drops back to 1 mil in 2011, I think.) If all the assets are
in one person's name, the other effectively waives this exemption. This blunder could cost
your heirs a million bucks or more.

However, I'm sure Suzzy's lawyers are feeding you this nonsense about "tax profiles" to
save her a bundle of money.


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
However, when you get older and (God forbid!) have children, you may start to
think of
estate transfer. In that case the issues are different, and it becomes
important to
balance holdings, and to set up trust funds to maximize the amount that stays
in the
family.

You clearly know very little about estate transfers. By splitting the holdings
you pay far more in taxes if a transfer is made. You also fail to realize that
financial history comes into play. Suzzy's is perfect. Mine is not.

RB

but in any event, it is nice
that Bob has a boat to sail on, even if it is not his

Yup...and a nicer one coming very soon!

RB

It must be awful to sail a boat you're unhappy with.

Your situation is truly sad.

SV

"Bobsprit" wrote

Yup...and a nicer one coming very soon!

RB

When people want
assets in their spouses names, it is usually because of creditors
lurking about in hopes of getting paid. Bob said "he bought the car
and she bought the boat." Big surprise. A car is usually exempt from
the claims of creditors whereas a boat would not be exempt.

Not 100% untrue. Luxury items in my name would be dangerous for me at present.
I'm in the middle of an estate audit due to a recent death.
Since most of you have no real money and none to inherit you know nothing of
this or what flags the IRS systems.

RB

On 09 Jul 2003 14:47:09 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

When people want
assets in their spouses names, it is usually because of creditors
lurking about in hopes of getting paid. Bob said "he bought the car
and she bought the boat." Big surprise. A car is usually exempt from
the claims of creditors whereas a boat would not be exempt.

Not 100% untrue. Luxury items in my name would be dangerous for me at present.
I'm in the middle of an estate audit due to a recent death.
Since most of you have no real money and none to inherit you know nothing of
this or what flags the IRS systems.

RB

Oh, please. Nothing in the IRS is red flagged by the purchase of a
$20K boat. Further, an individual is not subjected to an "estate
audit". Estates are audited, but rarely, as most estates are not
taxable. You may well owe the IRS for back taxes, but I rather doubt
it is "estate related" as estate distributions are not taxable to the
recipients and the assets of the recipients aren't part of an "estate
audit". Unless you were the executor and attempted to screw the IRS
out of some of their "death taxes" that the democrats love so much,
you would have nothing to fear