Talk:Tontine

Edit summary

I goofed with the attributions and the editing summary, but it was me that made the most recent change to this page. In the M*A*S*H episode referenced, Col. Potter's inheritance was a case of rare brandy, not a bottle of wine.

Minor nitpick, I know. - Ransom 03:24, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Changes

I felt that "odd combination" was a pointless value judgement and removed it. The scheme did not seem odd to Tonti, nor for a few centuries thereafter. It seems odd now only because it is disused, and therefore quaint. In fact, I speculate that the scheme could have a resurgence: A group of new retirees pool a substantial portion of their resources. The early dividends aren't enough to live on, but they have other resources and part-time jobs. As the group grows older, members die, and the increased dividends make up for dwindling resources and increased medical costs. (Obviously, this speculation is inappropriate for inclusion in the article unless someone finds it in a journal somewhere.)

For the minor dispute over invention, I rely on [1], but I have seen the point elsewhere as well. Few claims of invention in that era are undisputed anyway.

Some businesses are owned by JTWROS and restrictions on sale, and this can result in the same moral hazard as a tontine. If anyone feels need of a specific reference, see newspaper coverage of the murder of one of the owners of the General Wayne Inn in Montomery County PA in 2002. I am sure other examples abound.

The proper place for reference to the movie, The Wrong Box, is in the article on the subject, so I removed the details, which I found distracting. Interested readers can click.

I also did some general copyediting, which I think improves clarity.

208.20.251.27 17:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Social Security?

Is Social Security a tontine? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 16:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The way I look at it, social security is basically the opposite of a tontine; in a tontine the contributions are made by and benefits are paid to a discrete and identifiable group of participants, while in social security the contributors and recipients are totally different groups of people. Also, the pool of recipients grows smaller in a tontine, thus concentrating the wealth among the survivors, while in social security the pool of recipients grows larger, thus diluting the wealth. -- Lazyanon 63.66.112.5 20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Social Security is definitely not like a tontine. What is being suggested is that a tontine can be tricked because the dividends payed out are a function of how long you live, so you choose someone who can live longer. Social Security has that feature in as much as we can choose actions that increase our lifespan and therefore increase the amount we receive from our pensions, but we can't choose the age we start receiving benefits at, which seemed to be the key trick of cheating the tontine, nor can we opt in or out of social security based on our expected lifespan. R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.189.65.129 (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ten Little Indians and the Tontine

I added The Wild Wild West entry as I had just watched TNOT Tottering Tontine the night before, and searched for the unfamiliar term. I added the detail about the episode becuase it touches so many other related plot device. Ten Little Indians is often the device used to display the collapse of a tontine, even if the object is not money.

WWW.RayBailey.net 24.51.30.131 22:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dwight Eisenhower

Many years ago I read that when Dwight Eisenhower was a cadet at the United States Military Academy, he and a couple of friends raised the considerable amount of five thousand dollars, to go the last among them who remained unmarried. All three were married within a year of graduation. I have no idea whether this is verifiable. J S Ayer 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Charles Bulfinch

Lynda Morgenroth's book Boston Firsts (Beacon Press, ISBN 978-0-8070-7132-8) credits a tontine scheme started by Boston architect Charles Bulfinch with building "the first architectural crescent in the U.S." (p. 107). Later known as the Tontine Crescent, it was located south of modern-day Franklin Street; nearby Arch Street memorializes the location of an arch which was part of the development. It was demolished in 1858. 121a0012 04:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Enough said. ;) 199.214.17.91 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, not enough said. Go on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.181.182 (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Kitty?"

What is the term "kitty" in the last paragraph of the "Concept" section referring to? The link implies that it's Ketamine, which makes little sense (and if that is the reference, a more direct link would be better). As far as I can tell there is nothing on the "Kitty" disambiguation page that has anything to do with money, but as I'm not familiar with the subject I can't say what the previous author intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.0.148 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a card playing term. It refers to the entire collection of money that everyone has contributed to.

I'd fix it, But that whole sentence confuses me. I don't see what savings clubs have to do with tontines, except that everyone contributes and one person benefits.

(Edit: According to Google, the primary definition is "A fund of money for communal use, made up of contributions from a group of people". Funny, I've only ever heard it in relation to certain card games.) APL (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Legality

With regard to "tontines have been banned in Britain[citation needed]", I can find nothing on http://www.legislation.gov.uk/all?text=tontine to say they are illegal, but various laws referring to their use, the implication being they are not illegal in the UK. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It also specifies they've been banned in the U.S., but I've been unable to find any federal law banning them. NY state and Louisiana have bans, but most states do not appear to, at least under familiar terminology. Perhaps they are banned by case law under obscure provisions of inheritance? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note with respect to the above question, that tontines and other forms of insurance-like instruments that involve an element of gambling on the life of an unrelated person violate the legal requirement that a beneficiary must have an insurable interest in the person whose life is insured. This has been true under British law since the enactment of the British Life Assurance Act of 1774,14 Geo. 3, c. 48, and also true as a matter of American common law, For an example of a succinct judicial description of the illegality of tontines in American law, see Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S. 775, 779 (1881).

I have taken the liberty of adding a citation to a reputable online primer on insurance law for this principle. See http://www.logos4me.com/Life%20Ins%20News/Insurable%20Interest%20Requirement.htm. Jkulhavy (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Fortune's Tontine

*Fortune's Tontine Tavern on Princes Street, Edinburgh, Scotland, was built in 1796, and was Edinburgh's first proper hotel. Matthew Fortune's father John had previously run Fortune's Tavern in Old Stamp Office Close in the High Street in the Old Town, a favourite of the upper classes. The tontine which owned this moved the business to the newly created and fashionable New Town. The five star Balmoral Hotel, built in 1902, stands on the site today.

The first of the citations indicates only it was in Old Stamp Office Close on the High Street, not Prince's Street. The second citation seems to be a dead page with nothing remaining. A map of circa 1800 visible here indicates that a hotel called Mackay's was standing in the Balmoral's spot but that the Tontine was nearby on the same street, and possibly within the bounds of the modern Balmoral, but there needs to probably be a better source on that.

--2601:8C3:8104:D6B0:4DF:A111:9AD2:2D9A (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm a total amateur here but I've come across several sources suggesting a Fortune's Tontine Tavern was present on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh. The Royal Highland Agricultural Society of Scotland was purportedly founded at a meeting here in 1784. Source: J. Davidson, The Royal Highland & Agricultural Society of Scotland: A Short History 1784–1984 (Edinburgh, 1984), 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.50.152 (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Error in Tontines in Pop Culture

There is a second novel called "Spacedoc"that wasn't written by S. L. Viehl. Thos is the one described in the article l wrote under the above heading . You aren't the only one to make such a mistake , Ransom .Glammazon (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

error in the introduction

The introduction says that the scheme is wound up when the last member dies. However the concept section says that the last surviving member inherits the assets. If this was so, wouldn't this mean that the scheme ends when one person is left? the explanation seems very unclear 61.68.80.242 (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the lede is correct, and the body of the article wrong: income continues to be distributed to all survivors, even to the point where there is only one; but when that last survivor dies, the scheme is wound up and the capital reverts to the organisers. I have now adjusted the text accordingly. In the alleged variant scheme (which possibly never existed outside the pages of fiction – we don't have a source for it, and it seems highly questionable) when the penultimate survivor dies, the scheme is wound up and the capital passes to the sole survivor. GrindtXX (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Point of winding up

This topic (see "error in the introduction" immediately above) has now come up again, as in this edit, Drinkllanito has altered the lede from "On the death of the last member, the scheme is wound up", to "... the death of the penultimate member" (while not changing the reference to "the death of the final investor" in the "Concept" section). As I say above, I'm pretty certain this is incorrect, and that the scheme normally continues until the death of the last member. Here are some quotes from Weir 1989: "The government's obligation ended only with the death of the last member of the group" (p. 96); "Payments would cease at the death of the last survivor in the class" (pp. 102–3); "the government payments ended division by division with the death of the last survivor within each division" (p. 105). I am therefore reverting to the former wording, and adding those references. The common arrangement in fictional schemes (e.g. Lloyd and Stevenson's The Wrong Box), because it supplies greater dramatic opportunities, is that the scheme continues until there is just one survivor, who receives the capital. If you have any knowledge of any real-life scheme in which that was the case, please supply details, and add the reference to the "Concept" section, where we have had a "citation needed" tag since October 2016. GrindtXX (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Lede

From the following quote can add to the lede.

"Life and property were insecure, the investment of small sums difficult, the usury laws stringent: how natural for men to look to immediate enjoyment, when provision for the future was surrounded by so many uncertainties!" page 485 Popular Science, Vol 19, August 1881, "The Origin and History of Life Insurance" 107.197.56.204 (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

References