Summary of Arguments on Wealth Preservation Trusts

Melody presented two points, so did Edward. One of each is the same, so we have 3 arguments against wealth preservation trusts:

1) The money should be used instead for research and other activities of current cryonics companies.

2) The creation of wealth preservation trusts will stimulate further public outrage related to cryonics.

3) The government will just steal it through future wealth taxation.

On #2, Charles mentioned in the other thread that individual trusts have already been done in one cryonics organization (I presume CryoCare?) and there was no public outrage. The Wall Street Journal's article about wealthy cryonicists doing so produced no public outrage.

On #3, I will say that it is rare that a government adopts a system of taxation on anything, that takes the entire principal of it. Plenty of it is left to still grow larger over the years. Nationalization done in some socialist countries is of course an exception. If Edward has already stated specific examples otherwise of any countries (such as in Europe) that have taken all of someone's wealth, I apologize for not following all the threads on this, mixed with other stuff.

That leaves us with #1, which BTW is an original argument by Ettinger over the years. IMO how anyone decides to divvy up their savings is their own business. I would of course hope that any wealthy cryonicist would not just sock it all away, but would consider the needs both of the cryonics organizations, and of their own families, as well.

FD