Anybody else uncomfortable about inheritance?

[El_Viajero]

So my wife and I recently realized we are way overdue for making a will. We're planning to go through with it soon. Anyway, as I was thinking about making a will, I also started thinking about the overall philosophy of inheritance. I'm not sure I want to leave my kid anything.

Clearly, I would leave my child my wealth were I to croak before he became an adult. I might also make exceptions if the kid, as an adult, was struggling through no fault of his own (rotten luck and such) or he was disabled or if there were other applicable circumstances – not sure how in the world you'd codify those contingencies into a will, but I guess that's what attorneys are for.

All in all, though, inherited wealth just seems wrong to me. If someone is capable of forging their way through the world, they should do so. In fact, I think it's a disservice to give them lots of money just so they can sit around and join the leisure class or, in the case of families whose wealth doesn't confer upon their children a leisure class status, obtain things they didn't have to labor for (a house, a car, a fat brokerage account, etc).

This is my opinion and you don't have to share it. Nobody is a bad person because they want to give their kids their money or because they accepted an inheritance for themselves. I'm simply wondering...

1. how common it is to feel as I do, and

2. if you feel the same way as I and have already made a will, what you decided to do with your estate

[Watchmaker]

I have no children, so this is a hypothetical situation for me. But I would certainly worry about the damage an inheritance could do to them, particularly if it was very large, they knew it was coming, or they got it while still young. That being said, I don't see an inherent (intentional pun) value in having to labor for things.  I think the value is in the understanding of money and its limitations that labor often gives us... but that can be learned in other ways as well.  I do not think tying our worth as humans to our ability to earn money is a healthy choice.

So, with those two competing thoughts, I think my plan would be (if they are still young) to leave them with an structured inheritance (trust, annuity, etc) that provides them with money every year, and to limit that amount to something that would cover basic living expenses. Once they were fully adults and had already made their own way in the world, I'd probably just leave them a lump sum of the remaining money.

In all cases, I wouldn't tell them details about any inheritance beforehand, although I would want them to know I was there to help them if they needed it.

[Schaefer Light]

It's important to consider that your "kid" may be nearing retirement himself before he even gets the inheritance.  One of my grandmothers is still alive, and my parents are both in their 60s and retired.  It's not like the money they may inherit from her is going to allow them to pursue lives of leisure.  They've already reached that stage by working and saving themselves.

I think it would be different if you were talking about leaving a million bucks to a 21 year old, though.  This is why it's important to update your will every few years.  Circumstances change.

[surfhb]

I would never leave "life changing" wealth to a child after my death.    I would leave a small legacy to assist them in life.    Life is tough and is not always fair...no matter how good, smart or how hard you work.   

However, the largest portion of my money will go to a cause to help those who found themselves with the short end of the stick.   Again.  Life is tough and is not always fair...no matter how good, smart or how hard you work.   

[2Cent]

The main problem comes when it is not clear who gets what. Money is easy, but things like a business or a house are much harder. Would you want your kid to get your house after your death? At which point is something not only yours but a family thing.

I see it more as a legacy. Where the generation after me will have it a bit better than me. They might have it a lot harder in many other areas. Obviously not to sit around and squander, but maybe they can take a bit more risk and not have to worry about making ends meet. I think the general consensus here is to primarily give your kids the best tools in life, but they have to do their own work. So the trick is to make some way the money is a tool for them.

I imagine I will help my kids with different things throughout their lives. Like education, wedding, kids, emergencies. Maybe there is a way to make it in case you die they get some different amounts at different moments in their lives. Like sending letters that get delivered at certain moments in their lives.

[ixtap]

I have friends who have decided, kid gets X, but the vast majority goes to charity. And that decision was made while the kid was struggling.

[PhilB]

In my view the whole moral quagmire around inheritance is driven by the fact that you get a completely different answer depending on from which direction you look at it.  From the point of view of the recipient, it is clearly unfair that some people should inherit large sums when others don't and it is a major driver of continuing inequality.  I would therefore have no problems if my parents decided to leave everything to charity.  From the point of view of a future donor, however, I should have a right to do whatever I want with the money I have saved, including helping those I love to have a better / easier life.
I don't think there will ever be a good way of squaring this circle, bu when they make me emperor of the world I'm going to change the rules on inheritance and make one single tax free allowance for inheritance apply at both ends - so if you use up 100% of the allowance by receiving inheritances you don't have any allowance left for giving inheritances when you die.

[Aggie1999]

Guess I am a bit heartless, but I question how "worthy" recipients would be, should I give my money to a charity. At least when giving it to someone you know you have some idea of the character of the person. I do believe kids in the US should not inherit any large sums of money until they are in their 40's at least. Of course not always possible.

[honeybbq]

I think there's a bit of difference between inheriting a 'normal' amount and a trust fund kid worth tens of millions.

I'm not sure what a 'typical' inheritance might be, but say a couple hundred thousand $$. The individual might be able to goof off for a few years, but they are not set for life.

Things I could see my kid doing with a typical inheritance that I would support:

- taking a year off to travel the world
- paying off a house
- going to medical school or law school
- funding their own children's college educations
- paying medical bills if something horrible were to happen
- contributing annually to a cause they believe in

I have to think that my kid will have their own work ethic and dreams and determinations that aren't going to be influenced by any potential inheritance they might receive. And because I mostly live below my means, I doubt unless I have an explicit conversation with them they'll have any idea how much I'm worth.

In my own situation, the amount I will "eventually" inherit from my parent will be completely irrelevant. It's not going to change who I am or what I do. I'm already financially stable and set as is.

[TheAnonOne]

My parents are pretty well off and could feasibly leave me with north of a million. Siblings and I are all in our 20s now but it doesn't seem to be affecting our life choices.

Chances are by the time I see any of it, it will be a sideshow compared to what I built myself.

[Apple_Tango]

I think that an inhertance is very different to an 18 year old than to a 40 year old. I think there should be no expectation of having an inheritance or receiving any money from anybody because so many seniors are already struggling. I would much rather have my mother save her money for herself to enjoy or use for healthcare later in life that watch her scrimp and go without in order to pass money onto me. However, when I was 18 she paid for 2 years of my college. That was incredibly helpful and it set me up to not be dependent on her now that I'm 26 and have no student loan debt.

I think giving extra money throughout life to children is much more effective and helpful. When I'm 36 I believe I will be FI, and a millionaire of my own doing. So I won't need money from my parents at that point. But I really really needed it when I was 18.

[Milizard]

I would very much like to help my kids over hurdles in their lives, especially as things seem to be getting harder and harder for people starting out at the bottom.  I feel much less inclined to set them up on east street, however.  That scenario doesn't look to be in the realm of possibility,  unfortunately.  It's good to have choices.  You should feel extremely fortunate to even have that option.

[CNM]

I'm not uncomfortable about it.  I intend to leave my son the majority my wealth when I die. He can decide whether he wants to keep it or donate it.  I suppose that things could change if he turned out to be a listless moocher but that would be so unlikely, given who his parents are.  :)

[TheWifeHalf]

I think Warren Buffet has a similar way of thinking.

The way the will is now, The Basenji Club of America gets $10,000 (we have a very good reason, if you want to know, just ask) and the rest to the kids.
Right now there's a million in traditional iras, with plans to move it to a Roth gradually (Roths are easier when inherited.)
Our goal is to not leave any more work than we have to.
When we're 70 and RMDs kick in, if things go like they have been, we'll be giving money gifts to the kids each year, I think the limit before trouble now is $14,000.
Our thinking, they all seem to be hardworking, intelligent, use common sense, and they have it so much harder now than we did 35 years ago.  Though they never gave any indication that they knew it, we had to give up quite a few kid related things as they were growing up so our retirement would be comfortable.
TheHusbandHalf and I got $80,000 from his Grandma a few months after we married (37 years ago) and almost that much when his mom died 15 years ago. Receiving that, at times when we were so glad to get it, made us tell each other back then, we'll do the same for our kids if we can. We kind of feel obligated to pass it on, similar to passing on the family heirlooms we received with the money.

I have DNA from my mom and dad that makes one believe I will live to my mid 90s. I don't know how much will be left, but the kids get it, and we are glad to give it to them. 
Not at all uncomfortable, wish I could be around to see their faces!

[mizzourah2006]

It's important to consider that your "kid" may be nearing retirement himself before he even gets the inheritance.  One of my grandmothers is still alive, and my parents are both in their 60s and retired.  It's not like the money they may inherit from her is going to allow them to pursue lives of leisure.  They've already reached that stage by working and saving themselves.

I think it would be different if you were talking about leaving a million bucks to a 21 year old, though.  This is why it's important to update your will every few years.  Circumstances change.

This is the way I think about it. My parents and my in-laws will likely leave us with near 7 figures (combined) when they pass, but if everything goes the way we would hope it goes my wife and I will be in our 60s or 70s and long retired before we see any of it. At that point it will more than likely be saved for our kids, who might get it when they are in their 60s. I would hope that my children don't plan on us dying as their retirement strategy.

[Sailor Sam]

I'm not personally uncomfortable giving all my wealth to my direct family. Currently that's my wife, a close friend, and my nieces and nephew. If I end up having kids, the money will be split evenly across that generation. Probably as 2 lump sums at 25 and 30. It will be a lot of money, but not life changing.

I donate 10% to charity each year. I'll keep that up as long as I live. I don't see any reason to feel guilty over leaving my estate to family.

[GnomeErcy]

I don't have kids yet, but my main thoughts:

1. It's your money. Do whatever the heck you want with it. If you want to donate it all, then donate it all.
2. I'd want a better life for my kids, and if money can do that, then I'd be happy to help. Hopefully I'd have raised kids who would want to contribute in a positive way to society, and sometimes having that financial flexibility can be all that's needed to make that difference.
3. If I raised a kid who was a general piece of crap and I thought money would make them lazy, I'd use that realization as an opportunity to try to talk with them about making a positive impact. Or not, and just leave the money to charity.
4. If my kid(s) were too young, I'd make some way they couldn't touch it, and/or donate most of it. Revise will later.
5. I can't imagine not wanting my kids to have a better, easier life than me. Hopefully I'd have raised them to have a strong work ethic and to find things they enjoy doing and provide value to others in some way, and benefit the lives of others as well.

Ultimately if I were to raise a decent human being I would have no hesitation of passing any of my wealth down to them.

[DumpTruck]

Yes, I am uncomfortable with the fact that my parents are not more wealthy. I exceed their income by leaps and bounds. Where is my inheritance???

JK. But ya, if I do have kids, they will be paying for their own college just like I did, they will build their own wealth just like I did.

Since my sister is disabled all my money will go to her if I die. Through my brother. Otherwise I would like to find a way to give it all to other disabled people.

[jlcnuke]

All in all, though, inherited wealth just seems wrong to me. If someone is capable of forging their way through the world, they should do so.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but my opinion is that this doesn't make much sense to me.

Barring a mental or physical disability, any child, of working age or better, from an average household in the US, is 'capable' of doing many things without their parent's help. Paying for college, buying their own food/clothes, paying rent, using the internet to learn about taxes, figuring out how to drive, learning to be responsible financially, and pretty much everything else that parents typically do and/or pay for them.

That a child could make their own mistakes and ruin their finances with credit cards, auto loans, etc is not a good reason (imo) to avoid helping them out so they don't have to go through such things. That they "can" pay money for rent when working a part-time job at 16 doesn't mean parents shouldn't financially support them still. My parents worked hard, in a large part, so that I could have a better life than they did. If I could leave enough money that any kids of mine would never have to worry about paying a mortgage payment, I'd be very happy to. If I could leave enough that they'd never have to work and could focus their entire life on volunteering and helping others and enjoying all this world has to offer, I'd find that a great way to spend/leave my money.

To each their own though.

[Undecided]

All in all, though, inherited wealth just seems wrong to me. If someone is capable of forging their way through the world, they should do so.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but my opinion is that this doesn't make much sense to me.

Barring a mental or physical disability, any child, of working age or better, from an average household in the US, is 'capable' of doing many things without their parent's help. Paying for college, buying their own food/clothes, paying rent, using the internet to learn about taxes, figuring out how to drive, learning to be responsible financially, and pretty much everything else that parents typically do and/or pay for them.

That a child could make their own mistakes and ruin their finances with credit cards, auto loans, etc is not a good reason (imo) to avoid helping them out so they don't have to go through such things. That they "can" pay money for rent when working a part-time job at 16 doesn't mean parents shouldn't financially support them still. My parents worked hard, in a large part, so that I could have a better life than they did. If I could leave enough money that any kids of mine would never have to worry about paying a mortgage payment, I'd be very happy to. If I could leave enough that they'd never have to work and could focus their entire life on volunteering and helping others and enjoying all this world has to offer, I'd find that a great way to spend/leave my money.

To each their own though.

I agree. Your parents' motivation has likely considered their legacy effect, like nearly all parents before them.

I think the combination of leaving one's children with substantial resources and a lack of appreciation for the opportunities that presents would be unfortunate, but I think raising one's children to recognize their privilege and apply it wisely can be very positive. I guess I'm a believer in noblesse oblige (freed of snobbery).

[NoraLenderbee]

The word "inheritance" seems to connote vast wealth for some posters. There's a lot of room between "nothing" and "enough to set them on easy street forever." Tens or even hundreds of thousands in an inheritance are not necessarily going to turn your adult child into a lazy parasite, especially if you've raised them to understand money and appreciate the value of hard work. 

[partgypsy]

In my view the whole moral quagmire around inheritance is driven by the fact that you get a completely different answer depending on from which direction you look at it.  From the point of view of the recipient, it is clearly unfair that some people should inherit large sums when others don't and it is a major driver of continuing inequality.  I would therefore have no problems if my parents decided to leave everything to charity.  From the point of view of a future donor, however, I should have a right to do whatever I want with the money I have saved, including helping those I love to have a better / easier life.
I don't think there will ever be a good way of squaring this circle, bu when they make me emperor of the world I'm going to change the rules on inheritance and make one single tax free allowance for inheritance apply at both ends - so if you use up 100% of the allowance by receiving inheritances you don't have any allowance left for giving inheritances when you die.

Your suggestion doesn't make any sense at all. So for example you receive a million dollars, it helps you, to the extent you have money left over. Your kids didn't get the same break you have, but then you can't gift them any of the money? I guess this is a sore spot for me, because both of my parents received inheritances which helped them do things like buy a house, invest in a business, but then spent or made not so great decisions, so now have no money.

I do agree it seems recipe for disaster to give a young person a large amount of money. It seems better to help with college, and maybe some installments of money when they are older and have already established their life and don't need to count on the money.  And most important teach or model self-sufficiency skills so they can make their own way and have that pride and respect in themselves.

[clutchy]

So my wife and I recently realized we are way overdue for making a will. We're planning to go through with it soon. Anyway, as I was thinking about making a will, I also started thinking about the overall philosophy of inheritance. I'm not sure I want to leave my kid anything.

Clearly, I would leave my child my wealth were I to croak before he became an adult. I might also make exceptions if the kid, as an adult, was struggling through no fault of his own (rotten luck and such) or he was disabled or if there were other applicable circumstances – not sure how in the world you'd codify those contingencies into a will, but I guess that's what attorneys are for.

All in all, though, inherited wealth just seems wrong to me. If someone is capable of forging their way through the world, they should do so. In fact, I think it's a disservice to give them lots of money just so they can sit around and join the leisure class or, in the case of families whose wealth doesn't confer upon their children a leisure class status, obtain things they didn't have to labor for (a house, a car, a fat brokerage account, etc).

This is my opinion and you don't have to share it. Nobody is a bad person because they want to give their kids their money or because they accepted an inheritance for themselves. I'm simply wondering...

1. how common it is to feel as I do, and

2. if you feel the same way as I and have already made a will, what you decided to do with your estate

I have mixed feelings about inheritance.  I think it's great that families can give their kids a leg up and that continues to snowball.  I look at my family's progression from generation to generation and realize the value is in education and ethics.  The income helps though and is maybe more a result of the education and ethos. 


I do have a problem with aristocratic type wealth.  It's not good for society or the individual. 


So I guess I have a threshold but I'm not sure what that threshold is.  $5M?

[marion10]

Having seen how expensive end of life care can be, particularly with dementia, I don't see my kids getting a particularly big sum if we live a long life. If we live into our 80s, they will be in their 60s.

[EricEng]

-My great grandparents and grandparents were dirt poor as in maids, coal miners, grunt labor.
-My parents went to college when it was cheap and  found solid middle class careers (20 years officer military) that helped them retire early while accumulating a few million nest egg through extremely frugal lifestyle.
-I grew up only child in a very tight household (see parents), but they paid for my college with scholarship help and jumping off money because my job as a child/teenager was to become educated and get to a higher paying career asap (engineer) vs burger flipping (high school job).  Now I'm in 30s with a family, moderate income, and a good size stash of my own making (with a bit of seed money when leaving college).

I'm grateful that they helped me launch well, but would also be a bit hurt if they gave it all to charity.  It feels like such a waste when that money could be used to improve the standard of living for their grandchildren and guarantee they had as good as start as me. Must we all pull ourselves up by the bootstraps in the hardest manner possible?  I thought the whole point of this site was to minimize time spent slaving away in office jobs when more time could be spent with family.  Is your own time the only one that matters?  I plan to leave all my stash to my children.

[CindyBS]

Something to keep in mind with kids is that they may have life altering medical conditions or other circumstances that severely limit their ability to make it out in the world.  And that may happen after you die.

I can imagine a scenario where an adult child gets into a serious car accident, or gets cancer and is unable to work.  If you were alive, you most likely would be helping them out financially.   If you are dead, and you have given all your money to charity or something - would you want them to be scraping by on disability?  This is especially important for younger adults who can lose the ability to work for the rest of their lives before being able to build up any substantial savings of their own and before earning enough social security credits to get a large disability benefit.  What if your grandchild is severely disabled and your money is the difference between whether a parent can stay home with him or buy adaptive equipment or an accessible house?

My son is a childhood cancer survivor and is at much greater risk for a secondary cancer as an adult.  If I die before that happens, I want him to use my money to focus completely on recovery, and if he is terminal - to buy as many days off work for him and his loved ones it can.

Another scenario - a war breaks out.  Would you want your kids to have enough money to buy safe passage anywhere? 

Lots of money can lead to laziness in kids.  But (and I speak from experience) when you are in all out crisis - lots of money buys lots of options, some of which can save your life.   Lots of money bought us options as we went through my son's illness, including allowing me to stop working completely to care for him.

[CoffeeR]

So my wife and I recently realized we are way overdue for making a will. We're planning to go through with it soon. Anyway, as I was thinking about making a will, I also started thinking about the overall philosophy of inheritance. I'm not sure I want to leave my kid anything.

It seems a lot of people agree with you. I find it amazing how many people on these forums have the "life is hard" attitude and "helping you will only hurt you in the end" kind of mentality.

As for me, I have no qualms leaving each of my kids close to 50% of whatever is left. I wish them well and I hope they make good choices. Maybe they will, maybe they will not. Maybe it will bless them, maybe it will not. Current indications are they will make good choices, but people change and sometimes money changes them. Now, there are circumstances that will change this (e.g. a kid has become a drug addict or a cult member, etc.), but overall, I will gladly leave them everything I have, even if I do not completely agree with all their choices.

[robartsd]

Since my sister is disabled all my money will go to her if I die. Through my brother. Otherwise I would like to find a way to give it all to other disabled people.

My mom wants anything she leaves to support my disabled sister. Upon discussing this idea with an estate planning lawyer friend, she learned that sister could have a big medicaid bill to pay if she had a windfall. So mom will likely set up a trust that will support sister for the remainder of her life - at end of sister's life any residual in the trust might be distributed between other siblings.

[PhilB]

In my view the whole moral quagmire around inheritance is driven by the fact that you get a completely different answer depending on from which direction you look at it.  From the point of view of the recipient, it is clearly unfair that some people should inherit large sums when others don't and it is a major driver of continuing inequality.  I would therefore have no problems if my parents decided to leave everything to charity.  From the point of view of a future donor, however, I should have a right to do whatever I want with the money I have saved, including helping those I love to have a better / easier life.
I don't think there will ever be a good way of squaring this circle, bu when they make me emperor of the world I'm going to change the rules on inheritance and make one single tax free allowance for inheritance apply at both ends - so if you use up 100% of the allowance by receiving inheritances you don't have any allowance left for giving inheritances when you die.

Your suggestion doesn't make any sense at all. So for example you receive a million dollars, it helps you, to the extent you have money left over. Your kids didn't get the same break you have, but then you can't gift them any of the money? I guess this is a sore spot for me, because both of my parents received inheritances which helped them do things like buy a house, invest in a business, but then spent or made not so great decisions, so now have no money.

I do agree it seems recipe for disaster to give a young person a large amount of money. It seems better to help with college, and maybe some installments of money when they are older and have already established their life and don't need to count on the money.  And most important teach or model self-sufficiency skills so they can make their own way and have that pride and respect in themselves.

The whole point is to try and distinguish between wealth you create (to be encouraged) and wealth you just inherit through a lucky choice of parent.  The latter needs to be taxed to avoid the creation of a self-perpetuating aristocracy with an ever increasing share of global wealth.

[surfhb]

So my wife and I recently realized we are way overdue for making a will. We're planning to go through with it soon. Anyway, as I was thinking about making a will, I also started thinking about the overall philosophy of inheritance. I'm not sure I want to leave my kid anything.

It seems a lot of people agree with you. I find it amazing how many people on these forums have the "life is hard" attitude and "helping you will only hurt you in the end" kind of mentality.

As for me, I have no qualms leaving each of my kids close to 50% of whatever is left. I wish them well and I hope they make good choices. Maybe they will, maybe they will not. Maybe it will bless them, maybe it will not. Current indications are they will make good choices, but people change and sometimes money changes them. Now, there are circumstances that will change this (e.g. a kid has become a drug addict or a cult member, etc.), but overall, I will gladly leave them everything I have, even if I do not completely agree with all their choices.

I agree.    Maybe your kids wont be as lucky as some of you have been (ie:  exploding real estate and stock market values) ?     I don't get why anyone would not want to make their kids life easier if they had the chance.   Weird but whatever....

[Bruinguy]

I was going to respond, but GnomeErcy summed my thoughts up pretty good, especially #5, and I do have kids. 

 (larege

I don't have kids yet, but my main thoughts:

1. It's your money. Do whatever the heck you want with it. If you want to donate it all, then donate it all.
2. I'd want a better life for my kids, and if money can do that, then I'd be happy to help. Hopefully I'd have raised kids who would want to contribute in a positive way to society, and sometimes having that financial flexibility can be all that's needed to make that difference.
3. If I raised a kid who was a general piece of crap and I thought money would make them lazy, I'd use that realization as an opportunity to try to talk with them about making a positive impact. Or not, and just leave the money to charity.
4. If my kid(s) were too young, I'd make some way they couldn't touch it, and/or donate most of it. Revise will later.
5. I can't imagine not wanting my kids to have a better, easier life than me. Hopefully I'd have raised them to have a strong work ethic and to find things they enjoy doing and provide value to others in some way, and benefit the lives of others as well.

Ultimately if I were to raise a decent human being I would have no hesitation of passing any of my wealth down to them.

[Llewellyn2006]

I don't understand why some people won't spend money because they "want to leave it for the kids". We don't have kids but we have nieces and nephews and we intend to spend every last dollar if we need to. Both my wife and I were brought up to save, plan and put money aside for a rainy day so I don't see why my relatives shouldn't do the same. Both of my nephews would just piss any inheritance up against the wall and my wife's nieces and nephews are already in a position where they probably won't need the money anyway.

Personally I'd leave it all to charity but my wife won't have a bar of that.

[frugalecon]

My spouse and I have no children, nor are we likely to, so the issue of leaving an estate to children is not likely to be material. That said, I have thought about it, because we have siblings and nieces and nephews, not all of whom are likely to lead easy lives. I guess my perspective is “moderation in all things.” In our current wills we do a mix of both, leaving to family and charity. I think the charity is important, both as a reflection of our values and as a statement to the other heirs, that the appropriate frame is wider than just family. But the family can also be important. I saw my parents inherit from aunts who never married and parents, and those gifts enabled things like owning a home and paying medical expenses. It made a big difference. I would be pleased to do that for some of the nieces or nephews.

I don’t believe I will ever inherit anything myself, nor do I need it. I feel fortunate that way.

Final point is that it is important to revisit these plans every five years or so. Your thinking might change!

[BudgetSlasher]

I've seen money given too early without restraints cause lasting damage. Mostly this damage is in the form of skills that where never developed and an appreciation for the worth of a dollar. It led to them spending money too freely not realizing how difficult it would be to make that kind of spending money later and when the money ran out it left them with a deficit in skills.

But, that was early in life. Money that comes later in life, well that is a different story. My parents are retired and are realizing that they over-saved for retirement several years into retirement. My grandmother is still alive at 93, any inheritance she leave my parents will have no impact on them.

While that is extreme, someone how is in their late 30s or 40s should also have developed a mindset that will not be corrupted by an inheritance (though there are plenty that would).

For even younger there are ways to leave money encumbered; a trust comes to mind, the money could be controlled and distributed by a responsible individual in line with you wishes (the children likely wouldn't even have to know the total amount). Education could be paid for and a cushion if hardships occurred they could be cushioned, without giving someone too young unfettered access to life altering sums of money. Presumably this would force them to develop the same skillsets and have a career to enjoy "the finer things in life." Ultimately the trust could terminate at a set age or even and the remaining assets could be given to the "child" or to another cause (if the goal of the trust was simply to see them through school/college).

All of the above is more focused on the impacts of a large sum of money on the children too early. Where I struggle is the line between assets or money belong to a person and they should be able to do as they please with them, up to and include giving them all to their children, versus the seeming unfairness of someone who was given their first car (or two); got their higher education paid for debt-free; and maybe got help with a down payment for their first home then getting another one or two comma sum just because they are in the lucky sperm club. (Obviously the extreme end of the inheritance spectrum).

[El_Viajero]

OP here. I'm humbled to have started a topic people actually find interesting! I usually hang out in the DIY section of the forum and ask questions about crawlspaces and plumbing.

There are too many of you to quote and respond to, so I'll just say this: Everyone has a very valuable and well-reasoned perspective here – even those of you who see things differently than I and plan to leave everything to their kids, circumstances be damned. I fully recognize that I'm one of the "weird" ones. Leaving your money to your children is considered normal. Ok.

A few things that might help you understand my position, all of which are anecdotal only:

1. I've personally seen people inherit lots of wealth and lead extremely vapid lives. Not hurting anything, but not contributing anything either. Obviously there are counterexamples out there, but my perspective has been shaped by what I've witnessed.

2. I have briefly been poor myself, at least per the U.S. government's definition of "poor." I dug myself out by working a crap part-time job while building my consulting business. I credit my success to my "hunger" to get out of poverty – it was having NOTHING that inspired me to work for SOMETHING. I believe there is value in this because I've lived it. Yes, other advantages helped a lot (I'm a white dude with a college degree living in a rich country – this ain't no Horatio Alger nonsense), but I never would have given enough of a shit to do anything worthwhile if I had wads of cash given to me for no reason.

3. Personally, I've grown lazier as I've acquired wealth. I've become too comfortable. I don't take business risks anymore (don't want to lose the money!). It's fantastic not to worry about money, but my money has also made my life kind of boring. My son will probably end up well off with or without my inheritance, but getting it might make him lazy and boring like his dad. It's a risk I don't want to take. I guess I'm setting myself up for, "If you're boring, that's your own fault" comments. Whatever. Fire away.

4. I suppose I've just got an anti-moocher streak in me that affects my view on inheritance. For example, my wife and I never asked our parents for help buying a house. Never occurred to us to do so. Actually, one of my wife's stepsisters did ask her parents for help (lots of help, actually) putting a down payment on her first home. It was provided. Both of us (the wife and I) found this appalling. You don't just get to have your own house because, oh... you want one and mom and dad can afford it.

5. The idea of inheriting money from my own parents makes me sick to my stomach. I'll definitely be giving it away, whatever "it" is. We're probably only talking the value of their home, which might end up being a small condo by the time the inheritance comes. Even so, it just seems absurd that I would get what they worked for without working for it myself. I've had opportunities and advantages in life. My son will have those advantages, too. But millions of others get dealt a shitty hand. Why would my grown, adult son deserve the money more than they?

If I haven't blown all my money on strippers and blow* by the time I kick the breathing habit, I'll probably give it away to people who need it. If my son doesn't need it (and he probably won't), he shouldn't get it.

May he live a long and prosperous life and experience the joy and the (healthy) struggle of building his own stash! Just like his dopey 'ol dad.

*It's a joke. Chill.

[Lmoot]

I don't see an issue if your kids have learned to respect money and are generally upstanding citizens. I find it odd to not want to leave your wealth for future generations for such ideological reasons like "I worked for it, so they need to also". Things are likely only going to get more expensive. Education, medical, travel, housing, retirement. As others mentioned, valuing life by your ability to generate money, is not a good look, or lesson for kids. There are many good things and causes I would pursue, or would be allowed to pursue if I had the means. But my life energy is currently being used up processing medical bills for a health insurance company , to pay the bills. Oh the good I am doing, the nobility. I am changing the world.

Give most of your wealth to charity...much of it will end up lining some higher up's pockets. I'd rather my family have most of my wealth, and set some aside for charities I support, rather than the other way around. I can understand if you don't think your heir will use the money in a way you would prefer, or you suspect it would destroy them, but if they have a solid character and foundation and support, money wouldn't change them so much as it would increase their options.

[PhilB]

I don't see an issue if your kids have learned to respect money and are generally upstanding citizens. I find it odd to not want to leave your wealth for future generations for such ideological reasons like "I worked for it, so they need to also". Things are likely only going to get more expensive. Education, medical, travel, housing, retirement. As others mentioned, valuing life by your ability to generate money, is not a good look, or lesson for kids. There are many good things and causes I would pursue, or would be allowed to pursue if I had the means. But my life energy is currently being used up processing medical bills for a health insurance company , to pay the bills. Oh the good I am doing, the nobility. I am changing the world.

+1
For me, one of the basic tenets of mustachianism is that there are too many better things you can do with your life to waste most of it 'working for the man'.  I therefore find it strange that so many here (not just on this thread) seem to have the attitude that their kids need to learn to do exactly that because it's somehow character building. 

[El_Viajero]

I therefore find it strange that so many here (not just on this thread) seem to have the attitude that their kids need to learn to do exactly that because it's somehow character building.

Working for what you've got helps you understand the freedom that money gets you. You appreciate it more because you know what it means not to have it – to not have that freedom, to not have the ability to spend your time engaged in meaningful tasks (work?).

In other words, it's possible to believe that there is virtue in laboring for your wealth AND believe that money buys you the freedom to spend your time doing great thing as opposed to buying Ferraris. One might even argue that a person is less likely to blow the money on a Ferrari had he or she worked hard to earn that money. Yes, work is a character building activity.

And you don't have to do it "for the man." I own my own consulting business. Learning how to make money outside the paradigm of traditional employment was an incredibly empowering experience that forced me to become smarter about (and appreciative of) my finances.

[Lmoot]

I therefore find it strange that so many here (not just on this thread) seem to have the attitude that their kids need to learn to do exactly that because it's somehow character building.

Working for what you've got helps you understand the freedom that money gets you. You appreciate it more because you know what it means not to have it – to not have that freedom, to not have the ability to spend your time engaged in meaningful tasks (work?).

In other words, it's possible to believe that there is virtue in laboring for your wealth AND believe that money buys you the freedom to spend your time doing great thing as opposed to buying Ferraris. One might even argue that a person is less likely to blow the money on a Ferrari had he or she worked hard to earn that money. Yes, work is a character building activity.

And you don't have to do it "for the man." I own my own consulting business. Learning how to make money outside the paradigm of traditional employment was an incredibly empowering experience that forced me to become smarter about (and appreciative of) my finances.

 I do not believe this. Some people will spend all the money they have, whether it's a lot or a little (you don't need to be rich to do this). It's a mentality thing. There are many wealthy people who do not hold a formal job, who do good in the world. Who volunteer. Who become scholars. Who take on causes that the rest of us are too busy earning a living to take on.  There are people doing good in the world who don't get paid by a singular entity, but subsist on grants… Money given to them to pursue their life's work. Work that could benefit society as a whole. We have swerved too far onto the capitalistic side, where we are making things and valuing things based on what they can do for our economy, rather than what they can do for us, the world.

 I do not know your family, so I'm not saying this to argue for one way or the other, not that it is my place anyway. I just want to challenge your belief that having to work, means you would appreciate things more. People, depending on their character, will work whether they have to or not. As a species we are driven to. Some of our modern culture and habits have tempered that, but there are plenty of can doers still out there. In fact, I truly believe I would be more busy if I didn't have to work. I'm not some genius, but given the chance I would like to think that I would be able to think of ways to solve problems, in my family, in my own community, and other parts of the world. Many of these foundations and charities that you want to donate to are started by a wealthy family, who's money was passed down generation by generation.

[oldtoyota]

I believe it wrecks children if they receive the money at too young an age. If they are mature in their 30s and 40s--and have careers and have earned money--then I think it's safer to leave them some at that age. With a trust, you can have them receive part at, say, age 30 with other payments when you direct--maybe 35 and 40, for instance.

The answer depends, in part, upon the maturity level of your child.

In general, I think it works well for parents to educate their children about money. While you do not have to tell them how much you have, you can show them how a mortgage works or talk about banks and loans (and the good and bad of loans) and other such topics so they learn bit by bit over time.

[ixtap]

I believe it wrecks children if they receive the money at too young an age. If they are mature in their 30s and 40s--and have careers and have earned money--then I think it's safer to leave them some at that age. With a trust, you can have them receive part at, say, age 30 with other payments when you direct--maybe 35 and 40, for instance.

The answer depends, in part, upon the maturity level of your child.

In general, I think it works well for parents to educate their children about money. While you do not have to tell them how much you have, you can show them how a mortgage works or talk about banks and loans (and the good and bad of loans) and other such topics so they learn bit by bit over time.

So it is OK to leave money to people who don't need it?

[kanga1622]

I think a lot of it would depend on the personality of the child/children. Some kids will absolutely blow the money. Others will pay off their mortgage, invest, put aside for retirement, pay off student loans, etc.

For us, we figure if the kids are underage any money will be managed well to help pay for their living expenses and give them money toward a college education. If the kids are adults, we should have a good sense of how they would handle a windfall and can choose to leave it to the kids or to a charitable organization.

[MrThatsDifferent]

I’m wrestling with this. Currently it likes like the SO and I won’t have kids. Not ideal but not much we can do. If I don’t die in the next 5 years I’ll have a healthy bit to leave behind. I feel like my family, the ones I would leave it to are financially irresponsible and would waste it frivolously. I’d be happy paying for education, but that’s it. Most likely I’ll set up some trust that will give scholarships. If we had kids, I’d want to pay for their education and give them a kickstart amount of $200k and then have them run the charitable trust or be a part of it. If I’ve done my job right, they won’t need all my money but I don’t think anyone should be in debt because of education.

[maizefolk]

It's interesting to look at the language and personal stories people on both sides of this use to describe their decisions. With the risks of over generalizing drastically it appears like a lot of the anti-inheritance folks emphasize how they built themselves up from nothing to where they are today, while the pro-inheritance folks emphasize the hard work and sacrifice their own parents and grandparents put in to make sure they got the best shot at success in their own life possible.

Assuming you like the person you are today, it makes sense that if you think building yourself up from zero made you that person you'd want to replicate that experience for your children, and if you think the help and sacrifice from family in your early years gave you opportunities you never otherwise would have had, you'd also want to replicate that experience for your children.

[jpdx]

Enjoying this thread and agree with the OP's perspective, although I would be inclined to split the money between charity and inheritance. The ratio would be circumstantial.

Would it be possible to setup a charitable trust that the kids can manage (once they reach an appropriate age)? They can direct the money to causes they are passionate about, and hopefully do some lasting good long after you've quit your "breathing habit."

[Erica]

I love my child too much to jerk him out of his rightful inheritance


I just hope those that slap their kids in the faces like this are not so haughty they phone their kids when they need help in old age.
Even if it is just for advice, or to let their kids know their  bodies are falling apart. Such a sad thread

[ixtap]

I love my child too much to jerk him out of his rightful inheritance


I just hope those that slap their kids in the faces like this are not so haughty they phone their kids when they need help in old age.
Even if it is just for advice, or to let their kids know their  bodies are falling apart. Such a sad thread

Angry much? It is only a slap in the face if you have let your children assume that your money is to become their money.

It seems perfectly reasonable to tell an adult "Hey, you are doing great. Will you distribute my money as I request after I die?"

[ltt]

I don't think there is anything wrong with inherited wealth at all, considering generations have been passing down their wealth.  I do view receiving inheritance in your younger years versus middle age versus older years as vastly different.  If we're able to, I would like to make sure all our children have a decent place to live and not have to worry about housing.  That is my major concern given some are special needs, and the cost of housing in the U.S. is pretty high dollar wise.

[PhilB]

I don't think there is anything wrong with inherited wealth at all, considering generations have been passing down their wealth.

Hmmm.
There's nothing wrong with modest amounts.  There is a huge problem if the amount becomes so big that it continues to snowball across the generations concentrating an ever higher percentage of wealth into the hands of a small elite until eventually you end up with a bloody revolution.

[MMMarbleheader]

I went to a boarding school as a scholarship kid in high school.

One thing that always impressed me about the old money crowd that while clearly money didn't matter they were all expected to blaze their own trial. And what came out of that was the ability to truly Follow their dreams. Many of them are doing great things for this world and the family money sure helped enable that. Instead of bagging groceries in the summer they were able to travel and gain an understanding of the world.

I am sure all of them had help with schools and a down payment on their house. They convene on the family compound in Nantucket or Maine in the summer but overall they are pretty decent group. Again this is a very New England view of things. Here the flashy Florida new money look is shunned and mocked. Yankee magazine publishes articles about people trying to wait until November 1 to turn their heat on and the richest towns are rural and you need to bring your own trash to the dump because that's the way it has always been done.

Anyways, having seen how the old money crowd uses their wealth to do good in the world and create a pretty darn good life I am not concerned about helping out my kids as long as I work to get them to think this way