Miscellaneous desk
< January 25	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 26[edit]

Law: Is there any legal system in which the dead can inherit?[edit]

For example: A boy, whose divorced parents are alive, has already died. Once one parent - having assets - dies, can the dead boy - inherit the assets - and consequently pass them on to the other parent (although the parents are divorced), in any legal system? HOTmag (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the literal sense, it wouldn't be logical. Let's call A the owner of the property who has died, and B is the putative heir, who has also died. In a legal system where B would be able to inherit, it must recognise the dead as being able to hold property. But if the dead can hold property, why would A's property be passed on? It would just stay with A. So you wouldn't have inheritance at all.

Or, are you asking a more nuanced question? Let's say A is the testator and B is the designated heir. A dies but B has already died (or dies after A's death but before the estate is distributed). You could ask, at that point do you transfer the property to B's estate to be distributed according to B's will or intestacy rules, or do you treat A as intestate because B is already dead? I can see how different legal systems might come up with different answers. But is that what you are asking? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking from a practical point of view, rather than from a logical one, so I really meant the second option you've suggested. Just to make things simpler, let's assume no will has been made, so the intestacy rules only - should be applied. Now let's have a look at the following case: A boy, whose divorced parents are alive, has already died. Once one parent - having assets - dies, can the dead boy - inherit the assets - and consequently pass them on to the other parent (although the parents are divorced), in any legal system? HOTmag (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Swedish law, in the above situation the grandchildren of the deceased would inherit. You could take it to mean that the dead child inherits and immediately passes the assets on to his or her children, but it's not correct to say that the dead child inherits anything. Both in inheritance law and tax law the inheritance is considered to pass directly to the grandchildren. (I don't think "bequeath" is the right word here, since to me it implies a deliberate action.) If there are no grandchildren (or grand-grandchildren etc.) the inheritance goes to the parents or siblings of the deceased and so on. In the situation you describe with the divorced parents the other parent won't inherit, except by testament of the deceased. Sjö (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the Swedish law is not the legal system I'm looking for.

Btw, by "child" I meant a boy/girl, i.e. a very young person who has no children. Due to your response, I've replaced "child" by "boy", and "bequeath" by "pass on" (thanks). HOTmag (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the Philippines, where divorce is (often) not recognised, but that wouldn't be via the boy. There might be jurisdictions where the divorced partner can make a claim against the estate, but I don't know of any where the dead boy would be a factor in the claim. Dbfirs 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can think of one example. Chinese law (both People's Republic of China and Republic of China) have a concept of "inheritance by subrogation", which works in that way, i.e. if the first heir dies earlier, it is that heir's heirs, rather than the deceased's second heir, who steps into the shoes of the first heir. However, the application of the doctrine is limited. It only applies to the children of the deceased and their descendants. So if the child is already dead, I think it would be the grandchildren who inherit, rather than that child's divorced surviving parent. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passing the assets on to the grandchildren, whether in the Chinese Law or in the Common Law or in the Continental Law or whatever, does not prove that their dead parent really "inherits". That's why I'm talking about a "boy" rather than about a "child": As far as I know - no boy can have any children, so if the assets had been passed on to the boy's divorced surviving parent - this could have proven that the dead boy had really "inherited" (probably). HOTmag (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passing the assets on to the grandchildren, does not prove that their dead parent really "inherits", because they would have inherited anyways - even if no will had been made. That's why I'm talking about a "boy" rather than about a "child": As far as I know - no boy can have any children, so if the assets had been passed on to the boy's divorced surviving parent - this could have proven that the dead boy had really "inherited" (probably). HOTmag (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you mean by "proof" that the dead child inherited. Although the Chinese law operates in the same way as continental law, in legal doctrine it works differently. In legal terms, the child's rights are subrogated to the child's heirs; the grandchildren inherit because they have been subrogated, not because they are themselves primary heirs. It so happens that in Chinese law this right of subrogation extends only to the child's children, but as a matter of law it is subrogation nonetheless - the statute says so in black and white. Had the right of subrogation extended to the heir's parents, legally speaking the mechanism would be no different. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) This seems to be getting offtopic but I guess it depends what you mean by "boy". Under many definitions a 13 or 12 year old male would be considered a child or boy and there have definitely been reports of boys that age becoming fathers. There's much more likely to be doubt over the father than the mother. so it's difficult to be certain which ones are true, but it's likely some are. (E.g. although I'm not sure if we can trust the various sources, this case claims DNA tests [1].) While puberty generally begins at an older age for boys, we are talking about averages here. It's possible some cases like [2] had DNA tests to, it's just not part of the public record which is intentionally slim. In any case, if the person doesn't have children than it doesn't matter whether they are a boy or a 80 year old women based on what you seem to be asking. Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Population uncertainty[edit]

The US Census Bureau, the Population Reference Bureau, and the United Nations all publish estimates of current total world population. At present, these estimates agree within about 1.3% (100 million people). That seems remarkable narrow given that the undercount in the US Census alone was previously estimated at nearly 2% [3], and many countries probably put less effort into demographics than the US does. In the recent past there were other population estimates that disagreed by as much as 15%. Do any of the organizations estimating total world population provide an official estimate of their uncertainty in determining the global population? If so, is it possible to say which countries contribute the most to the total uncertainty in global population? (Presumably due to a combination of large population and relatively poor accounting.) Dragons flight (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those results are suspiciously similar. The question you should be asking yourself here is whether these agencies are in fact relying on the exact same underlying data. If they are, then you'd expect them to have the exact same answers - and now we have to explain the 1.3% discrepency. Those kinds of small differences could simply be due to the exact way they use that data - or perhaps on the date they picked it up. Suppose (for example) some countries had reported current population data and others had somehow missed the deadline when the UN picked up the numbers - then the late data arrives and the Population Reference Bureau have better numbers. Since each agency only reports annually - you could see how they could be 'off' by a percent or so. SteveBaker (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not all that surprising that estimates of the world population have a lower relative uncertainty than national population estimates. If you add 100 quantities with the same Standard deviation, each quantity having a 10% uncertainty, the total will have an uncertainty of just 1%. This is because errors tend to cancel each other out statistically. - Lindert (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's assuming the quantities are of similar magnitude. If China or India's population is out by 10% that won't cancel out easily. jnestorius^(talk) 20:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but even then the effect is significant. If there were just six countries the size of India with a 10% uncertainty, the total (about 7.7. Billion) would have a 4% uncertainty. I used a simple example, but of course reality is more complex. If there is systematic undercounting or overcounting instead of random errors, that will not cancel out. - Lindert (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we are able to produce a reasonable estimate of the census undercount should raise a flag or two in your head about the assumptions underlying your question. The US census is a bit of a funny beast. It's counts are produced first by sending out mail-in forms to every residence, and then following up door-to-door and in-person to any non-responding households. This produces pretty good coverage, but it's not perfect. You're never going to get 100% of the people. The working poor, migrant workers, the homeless, and some visible minorities (especially African Americans) tend to fall through the cracks most often. For reasons philosophical and political, the Census Bureau is sharply limited in the amount of correction it can make in its raw counts, even though it knows that the numbers being produced are short.

Using more advanced statistical sampling methods than the Census Bureau is permitted to employ, it's possible to come up with a pretty good estimate of the Census' undercount and produce a much more accurate calculation of the US' true population. (Why doesn't the Bureau do this? Simple. Census numbers are used to apportion seats in the US Congress and in state legislatures, as well as to allocate funds for some government programs. What ought to be a straightforward mathematical exercise, then, becomes fraught with politics. The historically undercounted groups tend to skew Democrat.) In any case, then, you get two numbers to choose from: the known-undercounted Census number and the actual number of people.

The question becomes how do the named organizations produce their estimates of world population? Do they just rely on the numbers produced by each country's local Census Bureau equivalents? Or do they start from those numbers and apply corrections based on knowledge of how those numbers were generated and/or additional independent sampling? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of Living in Poland[edit]

Hello. I'm a 25 year old Indian woman who is thinking of moving to Poland. I've been doing some research on the internet regarding the cost of living in Polish cities, and it would be wonderful if someone on this reference desk could tell me what a middle-tier working woman (staying in a single-room apartment or a studio) should be prepared to spend per month for a comfortable life. I'm fresh out of college, and my requirements aren't much. I need to save up for further studies in the future. What is a reasonable monthly expenditure for such a person? Thanks in advance! (The city I'm looking at in particular is Gdansk.) 103.18.75.48 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have family already in Poland who you would be moving to live with, or a job offer from a Polish employer willing to sponsor a work permit? I don't think you would be granted a residence permit otherwise. If you have the right to live in Poland, this forum thread gives some comments on living costs: [4] 94.12.81.251 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear the type of Visa you need is for the Schengen Area, to enter Poland, see Visa policy of the Schengen Area. You may need more if you plan to stay for a long time, and even more permissions if you plan to work.--Lgriot (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a job offer from a Polish employer, who will be taking care of my visa and work permit. I need to have a good idea of the cost of living to evaluate the salary I am being offered. Thanks. 103.18.75.48 (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until somebody who knows comes along, our List of European countries by average wage shows that the 2014 average wage in Poland was Euro 8,278.27 after tax, considerably lower than in Western Europe where it was around 35,000. That may be because it's cheaper to live there or because the average Polish worker earns a minimal wage. The truth probably lies inbetween. Alansplodge (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help you somewhat. 1 Złoty (PLN) is currently worth about 16.5 Rupees. Kind regards ✦ _hugarheimur 22:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]