News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by Someone on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @04:38AM (#11860856)
If you're unlucky, you end up with http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/29/world/a-120-year-lease-on-... (1995):

"Andre-Francois Raffray thought he had a great deal 30 years ago: He would pay a 90-year-old woman 2,500 francs (about $500) a month until she died, then move into her grand apartment in a town Vincent van Gogh once roamed.

But this Christmas, Mr. Raffray died at age 77, having laid out the equivalent of more than $184,000 for an apartment he never got to live in.

On the same day, Jeanne Calment, now listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the world's oldest person at 120, dined on foie gras, duck thighs, cheese and chocolate cake at her nursing home near the sought-after apartment in Arles, northwest of Marseilles in the south of France."

Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by gypsy_boots on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @09:44AM (#11862212)
I guess that is the risk for this approach. This could almost be the premise for an Edgar Allan Poe poem. It's almost too perfect
Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by hvm on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @06:50AM (#11861319)
So she lived in a nursing home for 10 years but still didn't let the guy live in the apartment? I know she had the right to it but come on...
Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by outside1234 on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @10:58AM (#11862648)
He has no rights to the house until she dies. This is perfectly within her contract with him.
Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by coldtea on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @01:05PM (#11863741)
Contract rights have nothing to do with the morality of this...
Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by dragonwriter on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @02:18PM (#11864321)
The morality is that he got exactly what she offered and exactly what he asked and paid for, and the arrangement was perfectly consensual. It would be immoral for him to demand more, without additional payment.

I fail to see anything immoral here.

Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by biot on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @02:01PM (#11864175)
The morality is already clearly established: in exchange for a very small monthly sum, you get the property when the owner dies. The property may be a dedicated rental unit already, so whether or not the owner lives there has no bearing. So it's not just _within_ the contract, it's the _purpose_ of the contract.
Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by coldtea on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @02:14PM (#11864290)
>The morality is already clearly established: in exchange for a very small monthly sum, you get the property when the owner dies.

That's, again, the contract. Seems some people can't tell between legal and moral, unless we talk about the 70s and segregation or something like that...

Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by timroy on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @02:34PM (#11864452)
No, I (and presumably the other posters) can tell the difference - I just disagree on the morality, partly because I think the legal aspects are related to the moral aspects.

The guy purchased the right to the house once the current owner dies, but you believe it's immoral for her to continue living in it, or renting it out, or loaning it to friends, while she is alive. I think it's immoral to demand the house while she's alive, since that wasn't the deal.

Sometimes legality and morality are widely separated, but here they seem related.

Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by Someone on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @04:42PM (#11865489)
It is a lottery with two participants that willingly took part in it. She won big, but if she had died the day after the contract was signed, he would have won big: he would have gotten the house for about $500. Would you suggest he should have paid her inheritance a lump sum if that would have happened?
Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by joshvm on Thursday June 09, 2016 @02:18PM (#11871251)
He would have had to make a down-payment on the house too. You pay e.g. half the total payment up front and then the remainder in monthly installments. Still, it would have been a quarter of the retail price, not half, in that case.
Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by coldtea on Thursday June 09, 2016 @10:03AM (#11869412)
I don't see much harm in "winning big" over somebody who just died. Being dead, it's not like she would have missed the money.

On the other hand, having someone pay tons of money and then die without anything to show for it, I do see, even if he "willingly signed into it".

There's also a threshold over which it should just be handed over. That such a threshold wasn't in the contract doesn't make it any less odious.

Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by Someone on Thursday June 09, 2016 @02:28PM (#11871318)
Her heirs would have disagreed. Consider the case where your mother owns a house and 'sells' it for $500 just before dying.

Also, I expect people buying such rights are generally well-off, and the people selling it to be relatively poor. After all, the buyer must be able to pay money on a house they cannot live in for an indeterminate period, and the seller typically chooses this construct to be ensured of both a roof over their head and money to live from for one's entire life, no matter how long that is.

The odds in this lottery get better every month for the buyer, so, assuming that the buyer can afford to buy into this, they should have no reason to want to get out of this.

Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by dopamean on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @01:22PM (#11863874)
You'd think the contract would say that in addition to being alive you have to actually live in the house as well. Otherwise you could just sublet it out and have someone else pay you for it while you live somewhere else. Seems kind of counter to the intention of the idea.
Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by mathattack on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @11:49AM (#11863028)
So she can get his payments, and money from a subletter? I guess it's part of the game.
Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by st3v3r on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @12:40PM (#11863519)
Yes, it is. It's still also her being a douche.
Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by tomp on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @06:58AM (#11861350)
If she wanted to give someone money, wouldn't it be better to give it to the poor?!
Re:Tontines may make sense despite their history of disrepute by teh_klev on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @10:35AM (#11862524)
HN discussion on that story from a wee while back:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11367422