What are your plans for your stash after you're dead?

[arebelspy]

Where do I fit into your poll?  I've been the only vocal defender of leaving an inheritance to your kids, but the vast majority of my stash is going to charity. 

I voted for kids and charity, but that clearly conceals my intentions in this thread.

The majority of your stache is going to charity?  Option 2: "Have Kids, Stache Mostly Going to Charity"

Seems pretty clearly worded to me, and you voted that way, so I guess I don't understand your question.

[Cassie]

It will be interesting to see the results if a lot of people vote.

[sol]

I guess I don't understand your question.

I guess it wasn't clearly articulated.  What bearing does this poll have on our ongoing discussion of whether or not it is appropriate to leave any inheritance at all, of any size, to any of your kids?  Because most of this thread has been people saying you shouldn't leave anything, but the poll asks where you will leave most.

We've spent several pages discussing whether it is more moral to leave your kids exactly nothing than it is to leave them something.  That's a question this poll doesn't address.  Is my question clearer now?

I think the intent of the person requesting the poll was to help determine if his suspicions are correct that people without kids are more likely to suggest leaving nothing to kids.  Once you become a parent, your perspective on this whole us vs them charity debate changes.  Your kids suddenly become the most important thing in the world to you, more important than other kids even if those kids are worse off.

All of this discussion about how you should always support the least fortunate seems counter to basic human nature.  Do you not root for anyone to win the superbowl (or world cup or whatever) just because we're all one big happy human family and no one should have to lose?  Or do you pick a team to support, knowing full well that other people will suffer if your team is victorious?  My kids are like my team, and I root for them to succeed.

[arebelspy]

I guess I don't understand your question.

I guess it wasn't clearly articulated.  What bearing does this poll have on our ongoing discussion of whether or not it is appropriate to leave any inheritance at all, of any size, to any of your kids?  Because most of this thread has been people saying you shouldn't leave anything, but the poll asks where you will leave most.

We've spent several pages discussing whether it is more moral to leave your kids exactly nothing than it is to leave them something.  That's a question this poll doesn't address.  Is my question clearer now?

This poll isn't intended to address that.  Several people said it was going to their kids.  Several people said charity.

As of this writing, the people voting "kids" have 40% going mostly to descendants, 60% mostly to charity (though a very small sample size, 2 and 3, respectively). So clearly it's a relevant question even just asking for where the majority is going, even if it lumps in "some to kids, most to charity" like you into the "have kids, charity" group.

The question was what are you going to do with your stache when you die?

Since obviously it could be multiple things, I went with "where will most of it go."

I think the intent of the person requesting the poll was to help determine if his suspicions are correct that people without kids are more likely to suggest leaving nothing to kids.  Once you become a parent, your perspective on this whole us vs them charity debate changes.  Your kids suddenly become the most important thing in the world to you, more important than other kids even if those kids are worse off.

I don't know what the intent of the person asking for the poll was, I just read the request and implemented it, trying to be helpful.

The intent in my mind, was to split all the people saying "charity" between the kids and no kids ones, so we could see if it was all no kids ones saying "charity" or not, and this poll gets to that.

Feel free to start your own poll, I don't care much either way, I just went with the first thought I had to differentiate what I thought they were asking.  Didn't spend any time puzzling over possible intent.  :)

All of this discussion about how you should always support the least fortunate seems counter to basic human nature.  Do you not root for anyone to win the superbowl (or world cup or whatever) just because we're all one big happy human family and no one should have to lose?  Or do you pick a team to support, knowing full well that other people will suffer if your team is victorious?  My kids are like my team, and I root for them to succeed.

It's not an either/or situation.  Your kids can succeed AND so can the others.

And if your kids have already succeeded and don't need the inheritance at all, why not help others succeed as well?

[Astatine]

I'm pretty sure I don't fit in the poll. I'm estranged from my family. Our will (if we both die) has it 50:50 split between DH's family and some of our friends. Ages range from his parents down to 2 young kids of our friends.

Edit: I guess the last option is the one that sort of fits.

[arebelspy]

I'm pretty sure I don't fit in the poll. I'm estranged from my family. Our will (if we both die) has it 50:50 split between DH's family and some of our friends. Ages range from his parents down to 2 young kids of our friends.

Edit: I guess the last option is the one that sort of fits.

Yup, last option.

The poll is basically split into choose first: Kids/No Kids.

And once you choose that you choose stache is mostly going to: Descendants, Charity, Other.

If you're splitting it 50/50 between kids and charity, or charity and other, or whatever, you don't have to vote or you can vote however you feel like.  :)

[Mmm_Donuts]

How do you define charity? If I set up a foundation for the arts, is that a charity, or "other?"

Edit: I just voted for "mostly charity..." It'll probably be a combo of family, charity, and helping artists.

[brooklynguy]

I guess it wasn't clearly articulated.  What bearing does this poll have on our ongoing discussion of whether or not it is appropriate to leave any inheritance at all, of any size, to any of your kids?  Because most of this thread has been people saying you shouldn't leave anything, but the poll asks where you will leave most.

We've spent several pages discussing whether it is more moral to leave your kids exactly nothing than it is to leave them something.  That's a question this poll doesn't address.  Is my question clearer now?

Yup, the results of the poll are only relevant for answering the question originally posed in this thread ("what will we do with our stashes when we're dead?"), but not for purposes of answering the related question that we've actually been primarily discussing ("what should we do with our stashes when we're dead?").

I think the intent of the person requesting the poll was to help determine if his suspicions are correct that people without kids are more likely to suggest leaving nothing to kids.  Once you become a parent, your perspective on this whole us vs them charity debate changes.  Your kids suddenly become the most important thing in the world to you, more important than other kids even if those kids are worse off.

All of this discussion about how you should always support the least fortunate seems counter to basic human nature.  Do you not root for anyone to win the superbowl (or world cup or whatever) just because we're all one big happy human family and no one should have to lose?  Or do you pick a team to support, knowing full well that other people will suffer if your team is victorious?  My kids are like my team, and I root for them to succeed.

I don't think anyone here doubts the fact that parents have a natural impulse to favor their own children over others.  As the parent of two young children myself, I certainly don't.

But we haven't been discussing the naturalness, or the understandability, or even the acceptability, of indulging that impulse in the context of deciding how to bequeath your estate--we've been discussing the morality of doing so.  And I find it impossible to believe than anyone can seriously dispute the relative immorality of leaving one's stash to one's own descendants, irrespective of their own station in life, versus using it for a self-evidently greater good (which leads me to believe that we must have been talking past each other).

I'll once again invoke the variation of the trolley problem I referenced earlier:

There is a runaway trolley filled with passengers barreling down the railway tracks.  Ahead, on the tracks, there is a person tied up and unable to move.  The trolley is headed straight for him. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever.  If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that this set of tracks leads to an unfinished bridge over a gaping canyon.  You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the person tied up on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley over the cliff where it will kill the dozens of people on the trolley.  Which is the correct choice?

It seems that the answer is unquestionably to do nothing.  If we introduce a new fact into the scenario--that the person tied up on the tracks is your child--does that change the answer?  In my view, doing nothing is still the morally correct choice.  Mind you, it's probably not what I would actually choose to do in that scenario, but that's because my love for my children overrides my moral integrity, not because sending dozens of innocent people to their deaths in order to save the life of one of my own children is the morally correct decision.

And if I can recognize that allowing my own child to die in order to save the lives of a few dozen random strangers is the more moral decision in that situation, then I sure as hell can recognize that allowing my own child to simply forgo an unneeded monetary inheritance in order to save the lives of countless random strangers (or insert your other societal good of choice) is the more moral decision when it comes to bequeathing my estate.

[Cathy]

Did they specify their wishes were to go to their great-great-great-great-grandkid through their great-great-great-grandkid (who got it from their...)?  Or was it just for their kid, to do as they saw fit? ... Further, if that WAS their wish, why didn't they set it up like that, in a trust, with X to their kids, then the rest grows, then Y goes to grandkids out of that, then the rest grows, the Z goes to great grandkids, etc.? ...

Maybe they had to contend with the rule against perpetuities (*) (in those jurisdictions where it still exists). According to a treatise on English law, the rationale for this rule was precisely to prevent the sort of indefinite control of property from beyond the grave described above:

The law regulates dispositions fettering the future alienation, devolution or enjoyment of property. It does so because of considerations of public policy. Although the principle of private ownership requires that an owner of property is to have power to dispose as he thinks fit, either during life or on death, of his whole interest in the property he owns, public policy requires that the power should not be abused. Accordingly, from early times, the law has discouraged dispositions of property which either impose restrictions on future alienations of that property, or fetter to an unreasonable extent its future devolution or enjoyment.

Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol 80 (2013), ¶ 1 (footnote omitted) [free link not available].

The common law rules have been modified or abolished in many jurisdictions.

((*) Note: I have not read the linked Wikipedia article closely and it probably contains tons of errors. It is provided for informational purposes only. Do not rely on it for estate planning purposes. I do not endorse it. I express no view on the accuracy of its contents.)

[sol]

I find it impossible to believe than anyone can seriously dispute the relative immorality of leaving one's stash to one's own descendants, irrespective of their own station in life, versus using it for a self-evidently greater good (which leads me to believe that we must have been talking past each other).

Is it also immoral of me to have bought my wife a Christmas present?  Surely she doesn't really need anything more than someone else needs food and shelter.

And why stop your argument there?  Was it also immoral of me to marry her in the first place, rather than one of the billion other wonderful and loving women who surely would have also made great life partners for me, and who would have benefited in a material way from a marriage to me more than she did considering she already had a job and a means of support?

Do you see where I'm going here?  I'm not really disputing that people who suffer deserve our attention more than people who don't, which is what you and rebs seem to be suggesting is the only moral choice.  I'm disputing that we are each obligated to only consider the greatest need when making every decision in life, including things like who to marry and how many kids to have and then how to raise them.  You are allowed to live your life in your own way, and that freedom necessitates that someone else's needs will go unmet.

I don't consider myself immoral just because I married a woman who already had a job, rather than one who could have been lifted out of poverty by marrying me.
I don't consider myself immoral for having children with her, instead of adopting orphans from a war-torn region.
I don't consider myself immoral for providing my family with Christmas gifts, instead of just telling them that I donated all of our money to charity this year because they really have more than enough already by virtue of having been born white Americans.
And I won't consider myself immoral if I continue to financially support my children past the age of 18, for example by helping with college tuition or the down payment on a house or yes, even leaving them an inheritance that will comfortably cover my funeral bills.

I sure as hell can recognize that allowing my own child to simply forgo an unneeded monetary inheritance in order to save the lives of countless random strangers (or insert your other societal good of choice) is the more moral decision when it comes to bequeathing my estate.

Sure, I can realize it too.  I'm still not going to leave them with nothing.  I also realize that everything I have ever done in my life, every single decision I have made since gaining sentience, has been less that the most moral decision I could have made.  That's how life works.  Going to school was less moral than working in a food bank, but I wanted an education so I made the immoral choice.  Buying a bicycle (and then a car) was less moral than forsaking my future transportation needs in order to donate those funds to a homeless person.  Starting a family with a successful and competent woman was less moral than moving to Haiti and adopting a family with no means of support.  Hell, writing this post was less moral than going door to door singing Christmas carols for my neighbors, which I could totally be doing right this very instant instead of writing this while checking the clock and realizing I really need to get to sleep.  I don't regret any of these immoral decisions, and I wouldn't change them if I had it all to do over again despite how immoral they are, were, and will be tomorrow.

[arebelspy]

It's a spectrum, from more moral to less.

It's not a binary on/off that switches from "moral" to "immoral."

Is buying your wife a Christmas present less moral on the spectrum than feeding a starving child with that money?  I'd say so.  But it's more moral, say, than buying a bottle of booze with that money, dumping it over a homeless person, and lighting them on fire.

Is me spending time and attention on my daughter less moral than spending it on helping many others?  Yes.  But hard to resist biology.  Is being FI less moral than earning to give?  Yes. But hard to resist being selfish.

Is it more moral to leave the stache to charity on your death, despite favoring your child (who is well off already)?    We think so, yes.

It's a constant struggle to act as morally as we could/should.  We strive to move towards better.

[Bertram]

Well, clearly everybody who advocates higher moral standards than me is clearly a Hypocrite who himself has done things less than 100% morally perfect, so it's nonsensical to try to follow their higher moral standards. Whereas my moral standards are an acceptable trade-off in real life. Why is that so hard to understand?

;)

[Cassie]

I think it is important to help people now while you are alive. No that doesn't mean giving the poor all your $ but helping worthwhile causes, etc. The railroad track analogy was interesting.  However, it doesn't change my mind that people can do both-give some to their kids and some to charity.  It does not have to be an all or nothing situation. It is not immoral to leave $ to your kids. I am surprised that people are even saying that.

[arebelspy]

It is not immoral to leave $ to your kids. I am surprised that people are even saying that.

Not a single person said that.

It's not immoral.

It is, however, likely less moral than what you could do with it.  See my post two above yours.

[brooklynguy]

It is not immoral to leave $ to your kids. I am surprised that people are even saying that.

No one is saying that, because, as Rebs just once again clarified, we're not saying all of the various decision options can be bifurcated into two discrete and uniform categories of "moral" and "immoral" -- instead, they fall along a continuous spectrum ranging from "least moral" to "most moral."

Also, I've tried (but perhaps failed) to be clear that I fault no one (except myself) for failing to make the best possible moral decision in this specific context, and certainly not for failing the impossible task of making the best possible moral decision in every context.  I wouldn't presume to judge anyone's decision but my own on this highly personal matter, just as I wouldn't presume to judge anyone else for choosing to procreate rather than adopt, use funds to buy Christmas presents for their kids rather than donate those funds to charity, spend time debating ethics on the internet rather than use that time to go out and do greater good in the world, or work one more year and donate half the proceeds to charity rather than work fifty more years and donate all the proceeds to charity.

With every decision we make, we have to draw the line somewhere, and in virtually every case it will fall somewhere short of "absolute pinnacle of the moral spectrum."  But, in each case, the process of making that choice consciously and deliberately requires examination and reflection upon where each possible decision option falls on the scale of morality.  As his extended body of posts in the forum makes clear, sol, more than most of us, is wont to engage in that process.  I'm just trying to do my part to continue that tradition.

[HAPPYINAZ]

This whole discussion of the spectrum of morality reminds me of an article my husband and I read years ago.  There is a guy who tries to live as moral a life as possible by doing the most good for those in need.  This included donating a kidney to someone he didn't know simply because they needed it and he had two.  He basically asserts that we all allow others to die (I believe he said we were murderers) if we fail to donate a kidney to someone who needs it.  It's a simple choice to him....someone needs something to live that you have and yet you do not need it to live...so you give it to them so they can live.  Wow, that's on the high end of the moral spectrum, don't you think?  I wonder how many people have ever lived a life that moral. 

[Cassie]

The problem I see with giving a kidney to a stranger is what if you need it down the road. Sometimes things happen and now you are dependent on getting one from someone else.  I am really for organ donation upon death because so many people are dying needlessly and you don't need your organs once you are dead.  I certainly think that man was highly unselfish.

[arebelspy]

The problem I see with giving a kidney to a stranger is what if you need it down the road. Sometimes things happen and now you are dependent on getting one from someone else.  I am really for organ donation upon death because so many people are dying needlessly and you don't need your organs once you are dead.  I certainly think that man was highly unselfish.

Sure, and the same can be said of any charity--"what if I need it down the road?"

BrooklynGuy's larger point, however, was about the spectrum of morality.  All of us (hopefully) strive to do our best.

Hopefully by engaging in discussions and thinking about such things, we can refine what that means to us individually, and reflect on our current behaviors and actions and decide if we're living in line with our values, or if we can maybe do a bit more.

I know I live pretty damn selfishly, but I'm working on changing that, at least to the extent that I can right now.  And I hope, and work towards trying to make the amount of altruism I do larger in the future.

[Cassie]

I think most of us live somewhat selfishly to some degree. I also know people that never concern themselves with helping others, giving $ to charity, etc which I think is sad.  Mother Theresa is probably an exception:))  Like most things balance is key. Although, if I give away my $ and need it in the future it is not as bad as giving away my kidney and needing it.  We have spent a ton of $ this year traveling to fulfill bucket wish lists and I know if that $ was donated to a good charity it would have helped a lot but we were selfish and I am fine with that. I agree that it is important to examine the big issues in life. That is the only way to continue to grow as individuals.

[Landlord2015]

Wow seems sol has backed down to charity. Certainly not my path. Currently I am uncle to my brothers familys children. Unless I get children of my own they will inherit me.

Originally I was going to post this:
sol : I have to agree with you. You are not greedy or Evil in my eyes.

I have same policy as you. IF I will not get children then my brothers family children (currently2 sons one is 2 years old and the other one is 3 years old) will most likely inherit me. I can even makea testament in advance decades before I likely die. Blood is thicker then water!

Arabelspy: Unfortunately once again we do not agree though I have nothing personally against you. Starving children? I could not care less about starving children in other countries. A childs life is not more worth then an elder for that matter in my eyes.

Generally about charity:
Look I do not condemn people who give to charity everyone can help what they want example:
Amnesty
Green Peace
Red Cross
Now I do know for a fact that some of the above examples will raise hatred in people, but it is subjective taste. Greenpeace is about environmental issues etc.

I believe much of the hatred is due to the fact that people feel organisations are corrupted orthat a large portion of the money will not reach their target but I believe in those cases that is more due to the corruption in the target country.

I will not start a debate about the above organisations and my feeling towards them are rather neutral.

[Bertram]

And yet again, I am amazed at how close- and short-minded your views are even after you have read this thread. This is specifically NOT about what your position is, but how you describe the supposed opposing viewpoints, basically caricaturing them into straw men.
 
- For example why bother to argue against the problem of big charities to support your viewpoint, when there have already been plenty of discussions and links about other types of charity that do not have the drawbacks you describe (example: http://www.givewell.org/about/givewell-overview#whatdowedo).
- For example why say things like "You are not greedy or Evil in my eyes." when just about everybody here has made clear that he would not think less of anybody preferring to leave to his kin rather than to charity because it is the more understandable/natural/easy thing to do, even when they objectively think they should give to charity.

I get the impression that you purposely trying to poison some discussions that most of the time I'll simply tune out threads where you start responding. And that's even without considering all the prostitution talk... I really think it would help if you'd take  some minimal time to reflect on what you're writing before publishing each and every thought that pops into your head. I don't even think you understand some of what you're writing... "I could not care less about starving children in other countries." - really? I mean, is that literally what you think and feel? Is it now really necessary to demonstrate that this cannot possibly the case? What's the worth in having that kind of discussion?

[Landlord2015]

Bertram considering your personal attack it is not even worth responding to. Sorry you don't get my respect with your post.

"Greedy"is not an accusation I hear very often, and I'm a little surprised to hear it come from you.

Well nobody has said Sol is evil, but it is clear that he feels more or less attacked and I was trying to defend Sol.

About this starving children thing. In a perfect world there would be Utopia no starving children in any country. As it is I am not saying we are near Dystopia goverment, but I find a global Utopia to be an unrealistic dream.

I am not responsible for all the worlds children. Now what people want to help is subjective taste some are for example hardcore environmentalist and think nature should be protected and the list goes on.

I did give my answer I will give my heritance to descendats either mine or my brothers who have already 2 children. If you are not happy with my answer, well then that it is not my problem.

[arebelspy]

About this starving children thing. In a perfect world there would be Utopia no starving children in any country. As it is I am not saying we are near Dystopia goverment, but I find a global Utopia to be an unrealistic dream.

Maybe a utopia is unrealistic, for now, but couldn't you lessen someone's suffering, today?

I am not responsible for all the worlds children.

You certainly aren't responsible.  No one has an obligation to help others.

But I think it's nice when they do, and I'm sure the helped person sure appreciates it.  :)

[Landlord2015]

About this starving children thing. In a perfect world there would be Utopia no starving children in any country. As it is I am not saying we are near Dystopia goverment, but I find a global Utopia to be an unrealistic dream.

Maybe a utopia is unrealistic, for now, but couldn't you lessen someone's suffering, today?

I am not responsible for all the worlds children.

You certainly aren't responsible.  No one has an obligation to help others.

But I think it's nice when they do, and I'm sure the helped person sure appreciates it.  :)

I am not saying it is wrong doing charity and whatever subject it could be a local school or whatever it is subjective taste. I have said not said that I never give to charity.

You can donate for example monthly or donate randomly a small sum. However I understood this thread as more of giving all your fortune and that can be a huge sum. First for me comes blood i.e relatives.

In addition I am not a millionaire. I found out by the way that Bertram is from Norway. That figures it out. Norway people are generally more wealthy then many other Europeans. However me personally might be wealthy as an average Norway person, but that is a wild guess since I don't have any facts exactly how wealthy average an adult Norway person is.

All I am saying if you are a very wealthy it is more easy to give to charity and yes I admit I am greedy and not wealthy enough in my eyes. However I am reasonable greedy i.e not doing illegal or nor hurting people on purpose.

[arebelspy]

Totally stealing that phrase.

"I am reasonable greedy!"

:)

[Landlord2015]

Totally stealing that phrase.

"I am reasonable greedy!"

:)

Well you know that other thread where had link to a story that some rich multimillionaire dude bought the stocks to some medicine company. Shortly after that he increased with huge amount the medicine price.

That is what I call hurting people and not something I would be willing to do even if it would be legal.

[arebelspy]

Totally stealing that phrase.

"I am reasonable greedy!"

:)

Well you know that other thread where had link to a story that some rich multimillionaire dude bought the stocks to some medicine company. Shortly after that he increased with huge amount the medicine price.

That is what I call hurting people and not something I would be willing to do even if it would be legal.

He got a lot of bad press over that, but it was very much overplayed, I actually don't think he's as bad as he came off/the media tried to portray him.  Of course, he recently got in trouble for fraud, so I don't think he's a great guy either, I just think clickbait headlines made that incident seem much worse than it was.

[MisterTwoForty]

Mine will be willed to the grand kids via trust funds.  The wife and I talked about this on our drive to family Christmas Eve.  Our kids will be able to handle money just fine and not need any help.  We'll put the left over stache money into trust funds for the grand kids with access at 25 y/o with the following stipulations:

College Graduate or a stable working career
Track record of good financial decisions

All of this will be verified via our 3rd party trust administrator. 

[arebelspy]

I guess I don't understand your question.

I guess it wasn't clearly articulated.  What bearing does this poll have on our ongoing discussion of whether or not it is appropriate to leave any inheritance at all, of any size, to any of your kids?  Because most of this thread has been people saying you shouldn't leave anything, but the poll asks where you will leave most.

Apparently we were just the vocal minority.  Right now it's 15-4 for parents giving money mostly to descendants, rather than charity.  3 of the four are (presumably): me, you, and BrooklynGuy. So other than that, it's 15-1.  Apparently BG and I didn't convince anyone.  :)

[deborah]

Don't be disheartened ARS, I'm sure this thread has been thought provoking for many. Possibly not in the ways some intended. For example, the argument that someone else is from Norway and they're richer there! The "richness" or otherwise of almost every country represented in the Mustashian community is very similar when you consider it against the poverty of most places in the world. I am lucky to live in a country where the GINI co-efficient is better than some other "rich" countries, although the Nordic countries have us all beaten.

Even here there are subclasses who get less. As in most "settled" places the indigenous population is definitely poorer than the rest of us, and has far worse health outcomes and opportunities. When I visited the US, I was appalled to see streets of homeless people (my niece pointed out that they were all black) in the centre of LA. The gypsies in Europe also appear to be worse off than the rest of the population, whereever they live. So if people want to leave their stash (however little) to their own country, there are always other people in their own country who are not rich and do not have many opportunities. But claiming you are not rich (or won't be when you die) if you are mustashian in an OECD country just doesn't cut it.

[brooklynguy]

Well, perhaps we planted a seed in a mind or two that will take root in the future.

Even if not, I think it was a discussion worth having.

I watched Inside Llewyn Davis for the second time last night.  In his review of that movie in the NY Times, A.O. Scott made the following insightful observation, which seems relevant to the discussion we all had here, and can even almost be said to apply to it:

We are, as a species, ridiculous: vain, ugly, selfish and self-deluding. But somehow, some of our attempts to take stock of this condition — our songs and stories and moving pictures, old and new — manage to be beautiful, even sublime.

[Cassie]

I have found this discussion very interesting and glad we had it.  I am not against immigrants but I am one of those people that would prefer to help those that are poor in my country now.  I think many on this forum give to charity from what I have read which is great.  It is also interesting how we each have our favorite populations and mine are animals and homeless while other value children in other countries, etc.  I think when discussing matters of great importance that the only thing that will change someone's mind is time. As we age we sometimes change our minds about important things and arguing with someone never seems to produce that same result. 

[arebelspy]

Well, perhaps we planted a seed in a mind or two that will take root in the future.

Even if not, I think it was a discussion worth having.

I agree.  I got something out of it at least. Thanks to everyone who participated for giving your thoughts.  :)

[Landlord2015]

I am not against immigrants but I am one of those people that would prefer to help those that are poor in my country now.

Well there we go... my political party that is the second biggest political party in my country is against refugee immigrants who come lazy to my country and only get unemployed. The difference USA is not carebear society as my country is for the poor. Due to bad economics my party is mostly against immigrants.

However as charity lets say in theory there comes a dude saying you get 2 million dollars on the condition that you can keep one million, but MUST give one million to charity what would I then donate the one million?

Hard question, but likely a few different charity purposes, but environmental comes in mind quickly. I am not exactly what you would call green party(first problem I am PRO nuclear power), but I did like the message in Avatar(2009) movie to save the planet.

[Mmm_Donuts]

Are any of you familiar with Peter Singer's writing? Every so often I come back to this article about charity, and how people in first world countries making decent salaries could easily end world poverty with minimal discomfort to themselves or their lifestyles. He's created a sliding scale of donations that could basically save the world, if only everyone in the top 10% of earners would participate. And he gives a good argument as to why we should.

The article is called, "What should a billionaire give, and what should you?" --

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20061217.htm

[arebelspy]

Singer is great.  His book The Life You Can Save is worth reading for anyone interested in these topics.

[iris lily]

In the US if you are under age 25 you have to prove you are independent of your parents to get financial aid if they have $.  Previously rich people were setting their kids up in apartments and paying their rent for a year so they could qualify.  That ended a number of years ago.  For those of you that want to financially abandon your kids at 18 you are young and I hope by the time the kid is 18 you will have changed your mind.  I know personally I have changed my mind on many things as I got older. Also  it does not have to be an all or nothing situation.  You can split your $ between charity and children. If I was the grandparent left with the $ and the decision that is how I would solve the problem if my child died and wanted it all donated but left the final decision to me and I would not feel bad about it at all.

agreed. I can't imagine cutting off all financial support at 18 for my children. Being well aware of Millionaire Next Door research, I still would offer help unless the 18 year old was incredibly mature and also distainful of my help and then sure,the kid would get nothing! Haha.

But I feel it's my responsibility to get the child successfully launched, and 18 is too young. That arbitrary age is not one I agree to.,Probably my arbitrary launch age where I withdraw 100% of support is closer to age 25. Honestly, I just know that my child would not be mature enough at 18 to take on all life issues.

I would want my kid to have skin in the game for the college years, so they would work, possibly live at home (making it less of a joyride) and they would have responsibilities outside of school.

I would want my kid to understand, at a deep level, that any financial help she gets from me is entirely at my descretion. She ain't entitled to anything. I can yank monetary help whenever I feel like it.

And I would want my child to understand there is no inheritance from me to count on. It's my money and I Would like to spend it in ways I see fit.

[arebelspy]

Of course it depends on the individual child.

But I think people give "children" much too little credit.

I'd aim for more like 16 or 17, and assume 18 will be more like average.  If it has to be 25, or 40, so be it.

But I wouldn't make that "Plan A," is my point.  Assume (and aim for, and make steps towards) them being a competent, self-sufficient, independent adult by then, and adjust as necessary.  Versus assuming they'll need your help into their mid-20s.  Seems better, to me, to set strong goals, rather than poor ones, in everything--child rearing being no different.

When I set high bars for my students' maturity, behavior, academic success, etc., guess what? They achieved them.  :)

(And, of course, that was the vast majority, but there are always exceptions, and you work with the individual child.)

[Herbert Derp]

The idea I think about the most is taking my money with me when I die. I don't believe in an afterlife, so what I mean is I will give everything to the U.S. Treasury. Just as my ashes will return to the Earth, my money would return to the governing body which gave it value. Not sure if the plan would work though.

Edit: looks like it is possible https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

[arebelspy]

Hah.  That will rile some people's feathers.

I feel like it could do a lot more good for people than the drop in the bucket there, but if that's what you want to do, more power to you.  :)

[Herbert Derp]

I guess I don't really see it as any different than people in the past who had their valuables burned with them on their funeral pyre. But I kind of doubt I'll go this route, there's a very long time to go before I write a will.

[arebelspy]

I guess I don't really see it as any different than people in the past who had their valuables burned with them on their funeral pyre. But I kind of doubt I'll go this route, there's a very long time to go before I write a will.

Sure.  And I mean, you could literally do that too.  I just think that was wasteful as well.

[Tabaxus]

Spouse and I are sitting down to do the first iteration of our will this month, so timely.

No kids yet, and there may never be, but I think we fall pretty solidly in the "some to kids, most to charity":

$X/person will go to funding a college fund for kids/grandkids.  $X is whatever is reasonably necessary for 4 years at an in-state flagship school.  Incidentally, this is the same rule we're going to apply if we have kids and don't die before they're college age:  You get in-state tuition from us, but that's it.

$X will go to funding a college fund for my godson; that funding will be secondary to college funding for kids (grandkids won't be relevant, because funding for godson will only be relevant for another 10 years or so).

If we have any family with special needs that aren't being covered by medicaid and the like, we'll fund trusts for those family members.

Our personal property will be divided among people that we think would want it.

Everything else goes to a charity TBD.

[ender]

I think the discussion earlier was a bit simplistic, in comparing "give to kid vs giving to charity."

I disagree with giving everything to children without stipulations or a plan/timeframe, pretty strongly. I have no interest in ruining their lives by dumping wealth on others.

Any "gifting to decedents" would be much more explicitly dedicated for specific purposes. For example, I think it'd be a good thing to pay for part of (or all?) of college for any kids/grandkids. Ideally, perhaps having a 1:1 match type of thing. Or otherwise set it up to encourage them to adopt good behaviors. Or perhaps if there are special needs family members/decedents in the future setting up something in order to provide for their needs.

So, if the question is, "when I die give everything to kids or to charity" it's hard to say which I'd pick. Realistically it's likely to be a combination and will most certainly include some language preventing, for example, kids inheriting 1M at age 25 and being able to do whatever they want with it.

[Leisured]

It is horses for courses. Parents who die in their eighties will have children in their fifties, so the parents can assess how financially responsible the children are, and can adjust their will accordingly. Charity is largely irrelevant, unless the children are financially irresponsible. The parents give to charity during their lifetime, and their children, if responsible, willl get an inheritance, and will also give to charity.

I have investments, but also superannuation, which will revert to my wife when I die, and will expire when she dies. We do not have children, and we have about 21 potential beneficiaries, about a third in Australia, and two thirds in the Philippines, where wife comes from, so the per person payout will not be large.

If there are doubts about the financial responsibility of the children, I presume it is possible to draw up a will specifying that the benefit be used to pay off a mortgage and a student loan.

[Bertram]

A question to those that prefer giving mostly or only to their kids: If we assume they are financially responsible and they don't encounter major problems in life, they will be on their own path to FI when they receive their sizable inheritance. Via this mechanism the inheritance will grow considerably through the generations, at least on average if you consider the usual birthrate of 1,8 (which I think is much lower for high earners). Anyway my question is what your view is on this accumulating pilot of money. Should it keep accumulating indefinitely? Or do you "hope" that there will be irresponsible kids along the way, so that their parents get to do something different with the money than passing it down?

My worry would be the inevitable risk of lifestyle inflation. When you have lots of money lying around and you worked hard all your life, you're going to do some nice things for yourself "for once", which is certainly OK. But the kids growing up will see it, and they'll have a lot more money lying around and they'll (maybe) have worked a little less for it, and they're going to do nice things for themselves - maybe a bit more, maybe a bit earlier. The thing is - these types of changes only ever go in one direction. Hardly anybody will live more frugally than what they experienced growing up as long as there is enough money around that it is not necessary to do so. Yes, having the goal of FI means a lot of people live more frugally, but if you didn't have that goal and you could be reasonably certain that you'll have enough until you die and then some - would you reduce your standard of living? So, what's your view on the increasing pile of money and the risk of lifestyle inflation over the generations?

[onehair]

Part to my children and grandchildren part to charity.  if there is anything to leave...I don't know which charity just yet there are so many ones I like....

[shadowmoss]

I'm 60(ish) and single and childless.  My Mom, who is 84, is first beneficiary and set officially so on most legal forms.  My best friend, who happens to be older than I, is executer and beneficiary of anything left if Mom is already gone.  This helps me to make sure I keep cleaning up my life so that she doesn't have a lot to deal with, and helps her because she figures she won't really have to deal with it (being older than I).  She has similar priorities, such that I know she will take care of any animals I have and take care of Mom in a responsible way if I go early.  Once circumstances change, I'll change my will to reflect what is going on at that point.  It was made when I was heading off to Central America to handle things if I ended up dead while down there.  It still reflects how I want things to be handled.  Younger cousins may get the money if/when I change things in 10 or 20 years when they are old enough for me to judge the situation.

[Cassie]

I am a big believer in helping your kids when they are in their 20's and struggling and probably by the time they are older they won't need the $.  I don't mean spoiling them but I can remember when we were young and had 3 little kids with one in cloth diapers and our dryer died-ugh!  My FIL bought us a new one. It is little things like that I never forgot and do for my kids when they really need it.  It was not a dire necessity but it sure made my life much better and less work. My FIL was a very frugal person that believed in helping kids when they need it and not to wait until you die.

[PhilB]

A question to those that prefer giving mostly or only to their kids: If we assume they are financially responsible and they don't encounter major problems in life, they will be on their own path to FI when they receive their sizable inheritance. Via this mechanism the inheritance will grow considerably through the generations, at least on average if you consider the usual birthrate of 1,8 (which I think is much lower for high earners). Anyway my question is what your view is on this accumulating pilot of money. Should it keep accumulating indefinitely? Or do you "hope" that there will be irresponsible kids along the way, so that their parents get to do something different with the money than passing it down?

My worry would be the inevitable risk of lifestyle inflation. When you have lots of money lying around and you worked hard all your life, you're going to do some nice things for yourself "for once", which is certainly OK. But the kids growing up will see it, and they'll have a lot more money lying around and they'll (maybe) have worked a little less for it, and they're going to do nice things for themselves - maybe a bit more, maybe a bit earlier. The thing is - these types of changes only ever go in one direction. Hardly anybody will live more frugally than what they experienced growing up as long as there is enough money around that it is not necessary to do so. Yes, having the goal of FI means a lot of people live more frugally, but if you didn't have that goal and you could be reasonably certain that you'll have enough until you die and then some - would you reduce your standard of living? So, what's your view on the increasing pile of money and the risk of lifestyle inflation over the generations?

The inheritance only grows through the generations if the children of mustachians intermarry.  If their spouses are children of the un-stached masses then it shrinks unless they do something themselves to replenish it.  It's similar to the aristocracy only marrying other aristocrats to avoid diluting their capital.  I'm certainly not assuming that my boys will marry money (but I won't complain if they do!)
I grew up pretty poor myself on a UK council estate, but was lucky enough to end up with a good (free) education and a well paying job.  My kids may not have the same amount of luck (they certainly won't get a free university education or access to as good pension schemes as me) so I'm putting in a few extra years post FI to build a stache that will get them and future generations the kind of headstart that will make FI that much more achievable.  It won't be so much that they would be instantly FI though so if they do fall victim of lifestyle inflation it will be very clear to them that it will be at the expense of later FI and then the choice will be up to them.  Of course, the fact that they are still at school and so I couldn't go travelling even if I did retire may also be a major factor in why I'm still working!