VK,

Thanks for elaborating on the blind trust definition. I knew that such a trust would not avoid taxes. But I did not know the definition of 'blind' applied to the beneficiaries' lack of involvement in the investments of the trust. My hypothetical on what I would do had to do with the second part of your explanation. Not letting anybody know I had that money. I would filter it through a trust.

So few people are qualified to handle a large sum of money that comes via windfall. The waters are shark infested. And the term "nouveau riche" can only begin to define the behavior of so many thrust into such situations. I remember reading about a guy who accepted the house instead of the money for that HGTV Dream House promotion. It was a nightmare. He was eaten alive by taxes and displacement. They should throw in legal and tax advice with those prizes. But they don't. It's all about the publicity.

Anyway, back to trusts and taxes. Not only did I not think the blind trust could avoid taxes, I also have been given the impression that trusts can sometimes engender even more taxes. When a trust is used for estate purposes, isn't income often spun through to the beneficiaries to be taxed at the individual rate rather than the trust rate. A different kind of trust. I know. But getting income out of the trust is the way it needs to work sometimes for tax purposes, as I understand it. But, of course, taxes get paid. I know that.

I know there are all kinds of trusts. I do not know a whole lot about any of them. But I do know that they have their purposes. And anyone charged with handling a serious amount of money needs to have sense enough to find out what the options are. But when that money comes totally from a windfall, completely unexpected, the emotion of the moment too often overrides good sense.

(You know. I just realized this thread is in Political. Uh Oh. I thought I was in the investment forum.)

Anyway, thanks for completing the definition of blind trust for me, VK.

Boomer