X-Message-Number: 3284 Date: 17 Oct 94 17:30:03 EDT From: John de Rivaz <> Subject: CRYONICS: Funding by Will and other methods Concerning Yvan Bozzonetti's posting on funding cryonics and Robert Ettinger's reply: I think Yvan's idea is to get some use from his money whilst alive and still make it available in a suitable form for funding cryonic suspension. I spent a lot of time once looking at the idea of borrowing funds to buy property, getting tax relief on the loan interest out of rent, and then allowing inflation to pay for the property. This concept was valid in the UK until the British Government "blundered" over cohabiting mortgages and poll tax causing a crash in the property market that may never fully recover for twenty years or so. Although politicians actually benefit from inflation, (it is a wealth tax invisible to the financially uneducated), they realise that it is not a vote winner, and therefore work steadily for a stable currency. One of the most powerful drivers of inflation is house prices, so if you can keep house prices constant then you stand a chance of keeping everything else down. I would imagine that if there was ever any sign of a powerful recovery in property prices then the government of the country concerned would put a stop to it. In fact, the "blunders" that lead to the collapse of the UK market may not have been blunders at all, but deliberate policy. Mrs (now Lady) Thatcher was very hostile to inflation, and she must have known the relationship between house prices and wages. Mark Plus (Society of Venturism) sent me a photocopy of an article from the Los Angeles Times concerning the problem of a town called Telluride, where house prices were so high that no one on a labourer's wage could afford to live there. The result was that the inhabitants had no access to low paid workers for jobs such as waiters-at-table etc. Those labourers who worked there lived in sheds or a shanty town, or commuted long distances, and were sullen and dissatisfied. Also, I found that it is not as easy to get loans (if you are self employed or employed on a low wage) as it seems. Reputable lenders usually require proof of income EXCLUDING rent from the proposed property, equal to a gross figure of one third of the sum to be borrowed. Anyone who has tried selling a house knows that it takes a long time and a lot of the proceeds can end up with lawyers and other professionals, especially if there are several aborted sales before the final one. On the positive side, I have always seen the advantage from the marketing side of making primary funding by a will available. But over the years I have become less favourably inclined towards it because it places too much reliance on accurate justice (as opposed to accurate law) from the legal system. A trust is much more secure. What I do think we need to see is a system set up with a *well known* mutual fund or other trust managers to fund cryonic suspension that provides the owner with an income as well as capital growth, together with the required protection from probate and taxation. The owner needs to see income as well as the security of cryonic protection. It may well be as an alternative proposal that someone will be attracted to a cryonics society that can provide investment expertise and such an investment will be cherished for the merits of its performance as much as anything else. Of course many people own the house they live in, and another path to funding could be to place a legal charge on their house, similar to the charge placed by mortgagors, to fund their suspension. A problem with this, though, is the difficulty if a couple is involved and the funds have to pay for the suspension of both. When the first is suspended, the second still wants to live in the house and the funds are therefore not available unless a loan is taken, and there may be insufficient funds to finance this, even if it can be raised. If wills or other less safe methods of funding are allowed, it makes sense to charge more for them and set aside so much out of each suspension for a disaster fund to pay for cases where the money doesn't come through. For example, if it is decided that one will in ten will fail, then make everyone applying for will funding cryonics pay 10% more and use all the 10%s for the failed one. Of course there would need to be safeguards to ensure that the system wasn't deliberately abused. There is also the possibility that people may initially join with will funding, but later get more enthusiastic about it all and adopt a more secure method. We need to look at ways of linking suspension fees to the "surplus wealth" that is left over when someone dies. Then we really can say that you risk nothing by opting for suspension rather than burning or rotting. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3284