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

[Shane]

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.

I agree. Your suggestion is a good one, and we plan on doing that as well with our daughter. I'd rather help her out a little bit, here and there, when she's young and really needs it, rather than just giving her a big lump sum after we're dead.

[Pigeon]

We'll leave it equally divided between our two kids.  I doubt there will be some massive generational accumulation of wealth.

We both have very elderly parents.  If they were to die, we would inherit a modest chunk of money on each side, maybe $100K if we are lucky (we both have many siblings).  It would come in handy in supplementing what we have saved for our kids' post-secondary education.  It will not end up taking on a life of its own.

[Drifterrider]

What's the best thing to do with all that money?

Traveler's Checks.

[Shane]

What's the best thing to do with all that money?

Traveler's Checks.

Does anyone really still use travelers checks? :)

[arebelspy]

I found this article, and the questions he poses at the end, relevant:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/between-past-and-future/?_r=1

[brooklynguy]

I found this article, and the questions he poses at the end, relevant:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/between-past-and-future/?_r=1

I had also considered posting that piece here when I read it.  Its relevance becomes even more direct when you extend the author's reasoning beyond the question of making sacrifices while we're alive (which is what he examines) to the question of making sacrifices (if you can even still call them sacrifices) once we're dead (which is the true topic at hand).

The author argues that if, in a thought experiment where it were somehow possible to do so, we would (or would at least recognize that we should) be willing to sacrifice ourselves from ever having come into existence in order to prevent past atrocities from ever having occurred, then, in the reality in which we actually find ourselves, we should be willing to sacrifice at least something of value in order to prevent or mitigate present and future atrocities.

In making this argument, he notes the following caveat:

I should note here that the situation of the past is not exactly symmetrical to that of the future. There is a complication. If I had not existed, I would not technically have lost anything, because there would have been no “I” to lose it in the first place. (Of course, it’s even more complicated than that. I have to exist to consider the possibility of my never having existed.) However, now that I do exist, in sacrificing myself I do stand to lose something — my future existence.

But this caveat no longer applies, or at least applies to a lesser extent, in the context of decisions that won't take effect until after our own death, when we will once again not exist.  So the situation of the post-death future, once we cease to exist, is closer to being symmetrical to that of the past, before we had ever come into existence.  (It's still not perfectly symmetrical, I think, because now that we do exist, we are aware of, and we care about, things that we expect to survive the termination of our own existence, which would not have been true had we never existed in the first place.)

This is all just another way of articulating Rebs' "low-hanging fruit" concept, I think.

[Drifterrider]

What's the best thing to do with all that money?

Traveler's Checks.

Does anyone really still use travelers checks? :)

I have no idea.  I think I remember reading that Amex had done away with theirs.

[tobitonic]

Children and charity.

[forummm]

don't understand the inclination people feel to give all their hard earned money to charity. Especially since most charity's are inefficient and will siphon most of the cash for themselves before redistributing it.

What is this shit? News flash, this forum frowns on negativity and willful helplessness.

There are plenty of good charities, and if you're not sure if you're looking at a good one, there's readily available information on how each one uses its money.

There are plenty of crappy charities that prey on folks, but as zephyr911 says: the info is out there.

I use these 2 for ratings.  (And if you have better ratings sites, share 'em.)
http://www.guidestar.org
http://www.charitynavigator.org/

http://digg.com/2015/how-to-vet-nonprofits-before-you-donate

The above charity search ratings are based on keeping overhead and fundraising expenses low. This is a really interesting talk about why that's misguided from the speaker's perspective. His business was part of those high fundraising expenses, so he's not completely unbiased. But his talk is definitely worth listening to.
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong?language=en