But it also depends on how the trust is created. I have no idea how TrustEgg establishes the trusts, but many people set up trust funds for their children - but name the child as an alternate beneficiary, after themselves. So, if I set up a fund for my child - the trust fund would be mine until I died. Assuming I was still alive while my kid was at college, the trust fund would be mine and not hers.
Trusts allow for advanced estate planning that some can use to minimize tax burden on death. For most of the country, and most of my clients, current exemptions are high enough that this isn't a concern (federally $5 million for individuals, $10 million for a married couple). Here in Montana we don't have a state estate tax, but be sure to check your local laws.
Aside from tax issues, the primary benefit of a trust is the ability to exercise additional control over your property and assets after your death. Wills generally just say who to give how much to. Understandably, many parents think that handing over their entire life savings to a 16 year old is a bad idea. A trust can let you leave someone else (a Trustee) in charge of the money until your child is older and (hopefully) more responsible. One of the largest challenges in most estate planning is that we don't know when you're going to die and we don't know what your assets will look like when you do. In this way, a trust can mitigate one problem of dying with children.
You can exercise a lot more control than that with a Trust, but I find most people are just worried about handing a huge lump sum of assets over to a young kid, and the cocaine fueled spending spree that might follow.
The downsides of a trust vary depending on the type of trust. In its most basic form, you're still looking at additional set up costs. From there, the restrictions can go up to include limited and restricted access to the assets in the trust, administrative overhead, and time to manage the assets. Very few of my clients opt for the trust, even though all those with minor children could benefit from it.
The Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (referenced in this thread) aims to solve some of the problems of a trust by allowing for ad hoc creation at the time of transfer. You don't have to set as much up, since it's mostly statutory. It's a great tool, and (at least in Montana) underused.
The feds conduct ongoing child porn investigations, not just passive enforcement. Once someone with CP is found, the feds often try to seize the provider in order to collect information on other offenders, which in turn leads to further arrests/prosecutions. And the cycle continues. I used to think Child Porn was rare. I was wrong.
Teller (of Penn and Teller) gives a definition of magic that I really like: "The theatrical linking of a cause with an effect that has no basis in physical reality, but that -- in our hearts -- ought to."
Seems to me that part of being a hacker is the ability to create despite restrictions. Embracing obstacles, and in doing so overcoming them. Maybe by remove the pre-existing boundaries, you remove part of what makes a hack so great.
By simply removing the obstacle (traditional schooling in this case), doesn't that cheapen the creation? Put another way, if hacking is the status-quo, is it still hacking?
As a law student, I can attest to the fact that a great deal of Westlaw's value comes from the content they add. However, almost all of that value is derived from the texts of the cases themselves (in fact, all of it other than the search engine - which is fantastic compared to the alternatives [see findlaw.com another West product]). Westlaw provides overall synopses of cases, brief summaries of a case's points of law, and the ability to easily see any cases that cite the one you are reading (and if they do so positively or negatively).
Aside from the search engine, I wonder if most of this couldn't be replicated by some sort of a wiki. Given a complete collection of the texts and enough knowledgeable, willing volunteers - could Westlaw be replicated?