No way. |
Having kids is a CHOICE. |
not anymore |
In our family there were 3 adult children - 1 had no kids, 2 had 2 kids each. The grandkids each got a set amount. The adult children split what was leftover evenly. That seemed fair. |
Not having kids is also a choice. But it's only the inheritance giver's choice that matters. Imo, giving should always be distributed based on need. |
What does not a choice anymore mean? |
What if want a choice? If tried 9 times and 9 miscarriages, so the 9 kids the couple wanted get a share? Or reward only living? What if the pets are seriously considered someone’s baby?Just writing this is what has me say any inheritance is divided equally between the direct kids and whatever family set up those kids have, they can do what want. |
So if one kid worked hard, did jobs in high school to and during to pay their own way to go to college, graduated, got job, is saving $ and living within means with no credit card debt. The other (no mental illness) didn’t work in high school, barely graduated, jumps from job to job b/c gets bored and lives by running up credit cards. Who is the one you’d give more to for being in need? |
This. I have a close friend from a wealthy family where the trusts were set up so that money could only be left to descendants. Neither she nor her brother has kids. Their aunt---who was fairly cavalier about spending down her part of the family trust---is adamant that the inheritance my friend and her brother received has to back into the trusts (so basically aunt's kids will get it). This arrangement has caused a lot of hard feelings, especially because it means that the brother cannot freely leave his share to his wife. Divide equally. If one child (and grandkids) benefit more during parents' lifetime, via payment of tuition, etc.---then deduct that from such child's share. |
That's not enough info to say who needs it more. All else equal, the screw up kid. If one has kids, and the other one doesn't it would change who I thought needed more, and who gets more. Having kids costs money. If the more responsible one had an ill spouse or high medical costs for themself, that would also change the distribution also. |
Interesting, I’d still do 50-50. Assuming $1 million estate (house & $) and adult kids have no spouses, no kids and no health/medical issues, I’d still leave half to the one who paid own way to college and is living in means. Would think leaving family house and all or bulk of $ to the kid living off credit cards could stir up trouble even if good intentions. Actually, even if add spouses, kids or anything else, would still do 50-50. |
The entitlement on this thread is appalling. It's the grandparents' money. They can leave it to whoever they want, in whatever portion they want. The kids and grandkids didn't "earn" anything. |
50/50 |
Nothing people say here is binding on anyone. It's just what we decided (and sometimes why) My parents treated all their grandchildren the same: a 529 and a small sum in the will for each. Most of the rest was divided equally between the children: you didn't get more for being more helpful in their declining years or less because your education has cost more and they'd spent enough on you already |
I will divide equally among my 3 children. If they have kids then those kids would receive that parent's share. |