Structured Settlement – Guaranteed Income for those with Disabilities

May 19
08:22

2005

Charles Essmeier

Charles Essmeier

  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Share this article on Twitter
  • Share this article on Linkedin

Up until twenty years ago, anyone who won a lawsuit as a result of a claim ... worker’s ... wrongful death or accident had to accept a lump sum payment as their ... The payme

mediaimage

Up until twenty years ago,Structured Settlement – Guaranteed Income for those with Disabilities Articles anyone who won a lawsuit as a result of a claim involving worker’s compensation, wrongful death or accident had to accept a lump sum payment as their compensation. The payment would be intended to be invested, with the beneficiary living off of the proceeds for as long as their recovery was expected to take. In many cases, this type of settlement works fine, but in other cases, the results are a disaster.

It is difficult enough for someone who has been through the trauma of an accident or illness to have to adjust to a new lifestyle without having to also become an expert in the art of financial investing. If you have been active all of your life and you suddenly find yourself in a wheelchair and having to handle assets of several hundred thousand dollars or more, you could be overwhelmed. You could hire someone to handle the investments for you as well as the tax issues, but what if the person you hired wasn’t trustworthy? What if you hired a greedy relative who took all of the money? What if you hired someone incompetent?

These problems, and statistics that show that people who receive large sums as compensation for accident, injury, or wrongful death often spend all of their money in a short period of time, led to Congressional action in 1982 that amended the Federal tax code to allow for structured settlements. A structured settlement is simply an agreement between the responsible party and the injured party that the payments will be made over time, rather than in a lump sum. The two parties reach an agreement, the party responsible for payment purchases an annuity, usually through an insurance company, and the injured party will receive steady income over a period of years or even a lifetime.

The payments are adjusted for inflation; the sum of all of the payments will be greater than if the amount had been paid as a lump sum. Because the payments are purchased up front as an annuity, the paying party actually pays less than the sum of the payments, as well. The result is generally a win-win situation, with the injured party receiving a steady stream of income over as long a period of time as necessary, while the paying party does not have to worry about making monthly or annual payments.

While a structured settlement is not the ideal payment arrangement in all situations where a long term injury settlement occurs, it does work well in many cases where a lump sum payout might be undesirable.

Also From This Author

Home Loans – Identity Theft Protection Could Hurt Home Sales

Home Loans – Identity Theft Protection Could Hurt Home Sales

Identity theft has been a hot topic in the news during the last few years. Just a month or so ago, forty million credit card numbers were compromised due to a computer attack on a credit card processor. Consumers are rightly concerned, as it can take years to unravel the problems created when someone’s identity is stolen. New legislation in Texas and California, also proposed elsewhere, is designed to protect consumers by letting them put a “freeze” on their credit reports. Those in the real estate industry are worried, however, that doing so may make it difficult for some people to buy homes.
Debt Consolidation – How to Protect Your Credit Accounts from Theft

Debt Consolidation – How to Protect Your Credit Accounts from Theft

Last week, a security exploit at CardSystems Solutions, Inc, a credit card processor, may have allowed thieves to obtain as many as 40 million credit card numbers from unsuspecting victims. The theft was brought about though a virus introduced into the CardSystems that allowed external hackers to obtain access to the account information. Adding to the problem was the fact that CardSystems wasn’t supposed to have the account information at all. It appears that CardSystems “inappropriately” held onto the information after clearing the credit card transactions. At that point, the account information should have been deleted. CardSystems held onto the account information for supposed “research purposes.” Fortunately for those involved, the compromised information only included account numbers and not Social Security numbers, which would have assisted the thieves in identity theft scams. This latest security breach at a credit card processor outlines how anyone can be vulnerable to account or even identity theft. Is there anything that can be done about it?
New Bankruptcy Law – Targeting the Wrong People?

New Bankruptcy Law – Targeting the Wrong People?

Last April, President Bush enthusiastically signed into law the oddly-named Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act. This bill, representing the biggest overhaul of bankruptcy law in twenty-five years, was written in order to discourage “bankruptcy of convenience.” Proponents of the bill, which included the credit card industry, say that the bill is necessary in order to stop an avalanche of bankruptcy filings by drug users and compulsive shoppers and gamblers. The law makes it harder to have debts wiped away, requires credit counseling for those considering bankruptcy, and holds attorneys responsible for paperwork errors by their clients in bankruptcy cases. The net result will probably be chaos, as fewer attorneys will handle bankruptcy cases, credit counselors will raise their fees, and more consumers with problem debt will be clueless as to what they should do next. Adding to the confusion are some new statistics that suggest that a large number of bankruptcies that are thought to be personal are actually business bankruptcies. As a result, the new law may be unfairly targeting consumers for punishment when they are not actually the biggest part of the problem. Worse, it could be harming small businesses.