Large early inheritance to only 1 of 3 siblings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My very wealthy father always maintained he would stick to equal treatment of his children. Well, life happened and he changed his mind pretty quickly. My brothers are almost entirely supported, and have been for nearly two decades now. It was annoying at first, as DH and I work our @sses off while they live a life of leisure (no jobs), but I wouldn't want to change places with them. We're comfortable enough and feel fortunate to live a good life with no health or psych disabilities. It's just money.

Sorry. I don’t believe neither of your brothers has a job.

One has a health disability, the other a psych disability. One lives with my parents, the other lives nearby in a condo for which they pay the mortgage and other expenses. Neither has worked in 20+ years. One worked long enough to get modest disability payments (not enough to cover the mortgage in their affluent town), the other never worked long enough to be eligible. Fine if you don't believe it, but it's absolutely true. I used to be angry about it, but what's the point? They played a role in enabling the boys, who were always vastly spoiled, and this is the result. I would hate to be middle aged and dependent on my parents.

If they both have real and documented disabilities it may not be their fault and maybe they cannot work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve got three kids and it certainly seems like a bad idea to me. though they clearly have the right to do what they want that’s not the same as a right to no reaction or an entirely neutral response.

Why is it a bad idea?

I don’t know what to tell you if your imagination can’t stretch to understanding that barring circumstances not mentioned in the op (special needs, difference in standard of living) it may cause surprise and hurt.

OP said there was a difference in standard of living. Also everyone is ignoring the church element. Maybe the parents viewed the work for the church as a real sacrifice to the family’s finances and appreciated that?

This is important. If one of my kids had a low paid career that I also thought was especially important moral work, like say, a public defender, I probably would subsidize their life.

And I don’t think that actually has anything to do with “early inheritance” despite how it’s framed in OP. It’s just a gift.

Slippery slope. Since the parents value their church, they may view any Democrat or pro-abortion children as taking part in a movement undermining morality in society. Should they apportion their kids' inheritance in a manner that reflects these views?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve got three kids and it certainly seems like a bad idea to me. though they clearly have the right to do what they want that’s not the same as a right to no reaction or an entirely neutral response.

Why is it a bad idea?

I don’t know what to tell you if your imagination can’t stretch to understanding that barring circumstances not mentioned in the op (special needs, difference in standard of living) it may cause surprise and hurt.

OP said there was a difference in standard of living. Also everyone is ignoring the church element. Maybe the parents viewed the work for the church as a real sacrifice to the family’s finances and appreciated that?

This is important. If one of my kids had a low paid career that I also thought was especially important moral work, like say, a public defender, I probably would subsidize their life.

And I don’t think that actually has anything to do with “early inheritance” despite how it’s framed in OP. It’s just a gift.

Slippery slope. Since the parents value their church, they may view any Democrat or pro-abortion children as taking part in a movement undermining morality in society. Should they apportion their kids' inheritance in a manner that reflects these views?

If that’s what they truly believe? Sure.

If you had a child who worked at the NRA I can easily imagine you disinheriting them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not an early inheritance. It's a gift. You are counting your parents money while they are still alive, which is gross, and calling it an inheritance indicates that you feel entitled to it. It's not your money. Did your parents pay for your education? Wedding? Did you need their money? Ask for it? Did your kids attend Jewish day school? Maybe your parents were wrong to spend money on one sibling's family, but there are a lot of factors and life is long. Try not to begrudge your neices and nephews their education, try not to count other people's money, and try to value relationships rather than material goods.

- signed, someone expecting an uneven inheritance because my sibling is disabled, assuming there even is an inheritance

+1000

It is your parent's money. Life is not always fair. You should not be living life and expecting anything from them as a grown ass adult.

+1000. There are too many entitled brats on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm interested in what others think of this scenario. Parents are in their 80s and have 3 adult kids, all professionals, married, and doing well. Two of the children, with their spouses, are doing very well financially. The third has a job in the church and their spouse has a well-paying professional job - they are doing fine financially but clearly not as well as the other children. When that child (who also has some health problems) moved to take a new job in the church, they wanted to live in a large house in the most desirable neighborhood of a large city, have their kids attend the best private schools, etc. but couldn't afford to do so (this would be a living standard above that of the other two siblings). As a result, the parents decided to gift $1 million of their estate early to that child. They told one of the other children about it at the time but did not tell the other (presumably to avoid the difficult conversation). Several years later, this has all come to light and it is awkward. The parents' position is that nothing will be done to even things out (now or later) as this gift was for "need". Thoughts? Advice?

This is so similar to my family. My parents are toying with the idea of giving my sister their $2.5M house (and moving to an apartment) instead of selling the house. The $2.5M value of the house would come out of her trust, which would probably be reduced to about $500K. The rest of us would retain our $3M trusts. We would have bigger principles than her that would grow larger than her principle, so we will likely have considerably more than her in our trusts when my parents die...but she will have a mortgage free house at 35 and will be able to put the proceeds of selling her old home and money she is saving on not paying a mortgage into her kids' education, investments, etc. My parents haven't asked any of us if we agree with this scheme. Although I don't feel like they are explicitly favoring my sister, it is annoying to me that they didn't ask me and my other siblings about how we felt.

Forgot to note, I find it annoying that they haven't asked us how we felt but also it's hard knowing that we'll be living within our means for the next 30 odd years and she'll have a lot more financial freedom.

And you a greedy and pathetic.

I imagine if you are a parent that you embrace dysfunction and love pitting your kids against each other. What a great legacy to leave to your children!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm interested in what others think of this scenario. Parents are in their 80s and have 3 adult kids, all professionals, married, and doing well. Two of the children, with their spouses, are doing very well financially. The third has a job in the church and their spouse has a well-paying professional job - they are doing fine financially but clearly not as well as the other children. When that child (who also has some health problems) moved to take a new job in the church, they wanted to live in a large house in the most desirable neighborhood of a large city, have their kids attend the best private schools, etc. but couldn't afford to do so (this would be a living standard above that of the other two siblings). As a result, the parents decided to gift $1 million of their estate early to that child. They told one of the other children about it at the time but did not tell the other (presumably to avoid the difficult conversation). Several years later, this has all come to light and it is awkward. The parents' position is that nothing will be done to even things out (now or later) as this gift was for "need". Thoughts? Advice?

This is so similar to my family. My parents are toying with the idea of giving my sister their $2.5M house (and moving to an apartment) instead of selling the house. The $2.5M value of the house would come out of her trust, which would probably be reduced to about $500K. The rest of us would retain our $3M trusts. We would have bigger principles than her that would grow larger than her principle, so we will likely have considerably more than her in our trusts when my parents die...but she will have a mortgage free house at 35 and will be able to put the proceeds of selling her old home and money she is saving on not paying a mortgage into her kids' education, investments, etc. My parents haven't asked any of us if we agree with this scheme. Although I don't feel like they are explicitly favoring my sister, it is annoying to me that they didn't ask me and my other siblings about how we felt.

Forgot to note, I find it annoying that they haven't asked us how we felt but also it's hard knowing that we'll be living within our means for the next 30 odd years and she'll have a lot more financial freedom.

And you a greedy and pathetic.

I imagine if you are a parent that you embrace dysfunction and love pitting your kids against each other. What a great legacy to leave to your children!

If my kids turn out to be entitled brats like so many in this thread I will have been a complete failure as a parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve got three kids and it certainly seems like a bad idea to me. though they clearly have the right to do what they want that’s not the same as a right to no reaction or an entirely neutral response.

Why is it a bad idea?

I don’t know what to tell you if your imagination can’t stretch to understanding that barring circumstances not mentioned in the op (special needs, difference in standard of living) it may cause surprise and hurt.

OP said there was a difference in standard of living. Also everyone is ignoring the church element. Maybe the parents viewed the work for the church as a real sacrifice to the family’s finances and appreciated that?

This is important. If one of my kids had a low paid career that I also thought was especially important moral work, like say, a public defender, I probably would subsidize their life.

And I don’t think that actually has anything to do with “early inheritance” despite how it’s framed in OP. It’s just a gift.

Slippery slope. Since the parents value their church, they may view any Democrat or pro-abortion children as taking part in a movement undermining morality in society. Should they apportion their kids' inheritance in a manner that reflects these views?

Sooo, your position is, "it's their money, and they are free to do with it what they like, unless it's a position I disagree with"?

So what if they don't want to fund their children for having pro-abortive views? You are all about "choice" right? And this is just money. That's literally death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s their money and there’s no obligation to give everyone the same.

Of course there’s no obligation and they’re free to do what they please with their money. But that doesn’t make them immune from the natural feelings of children who are treated disparately. I’ve seen first hand the fall out of my grandparents estate when siblings were treated differently. The baby of the family was coddled their whole life, didn’t marry as well as the others, and was given more money for them and their kids (while grandparents were alive). So the disparate treatment flowed down to grandkids even.

The funny thing is my parents did well enough on their own with no family money, but not well enough to be immune from the usual financial stress of trying to put kids through college, home repairs, etc. So I know it chafed my dad to see his little brother blow money on nicer vacations than we could take while he had to keep working hard to support himself. Anyone looking to treat their kids differently is kidding themselves if they think their kids will have zero feelings about one kid being favored over the others.

I have 3 and DH and I plan to split everything evenly the same as our parents planned for us. The only reason I could see treating kids differently is if one has profound special needs and the parents are funding care for them once the parents are gone (which helps the siblings not have to provide family care). Hopefully there would be some understanding in that case. But if one kid marries someone who makes less or chooses a lower paying job, then that is their life choice to make. They will get 1/3 of our estate someday and that’s it.

Also a mom of 3 and 1000x agree. I love my daughters and I will support all of them but I also don't think it's *fair* to subsidize one person's decisions to do *morally better* work. I will encourage all of my children to understand the financial implications of their choices - when it comes to marriage and when it comes to what they are studying in college and what they choose as a career. If they want to be downwardly mobile that's fine, but I'm not going to help them pretend that they're not.

That's your view, and others are entitled to theirs. If some of my children went into professions with no meaningful social value and one becomes a teacher, firefighter, police officer etc. I view that as a noble choice and might be inclined to subsidize it. Because I believe it should be value equal to those other pursuits, and it's my damn money to do with as I please.

+1000

It is ridiculous how many people feel entitled to their parent's money! It is their money and they can choose how to distribute it. Personally think it is beneficial to help out a kid who goes into a meaningful lower paying job if you can do that. we need good teachers/nurses/firefighters/social workers/etc. And I would question if my kid(s) who go into a higher paying field (CS/Eng/Finance/etc) that would get upset with me helping the sibling who makes less simply because of their occupational choice. I'd feel I have not raised my kid correctly if they cannot understand that and have empathy and instead feel they are entitled to my money.

Now, if kid 1 is CS and making $300K/year and kid 2 is a social worker making $50K/year---and I give kid 2 $2M and kid 1 nothing, then yes they might feel slighted. But if I give kid 2 $100K for a house downpayment, kid 1 shouldn't complain as they can easily save that themselves.

However, I'm worth enough that I would still distribute to each kid the same, because it would be in the millions. But if I was worth less, then yes, I might distribute differently based on what each kid "needs".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve got three kids and it certainly seems like a bad idea to me. though they clearly have the right to do what they want that’s not the same as a right to no reaction or an entirely neutral response.

Why is it a bad idea?

I don’t know what to tell you if your imagination can’t stretch to understanding that barring circumstances not mentioned in the op (special needs, difference in standard of living) it may cause surprise and hurt.

OP said there was a difference in standard of living. Also everyone is ignoring the church element. Maybe the parents viewed the work for the church as a real sacrifice to the family’s finances and appreciated that?

This is important. If one of my kids had a low paid career that I also thought was especially important moral work, like say, a public defender, I probably would subsidize their life.

And I don’t think that actually has anything to do with “early inheritance” despite how it’s framed in OP. It’s just a gift.

Slippery slope. Since the parents value their church, they may view any Democrat or pro-abortion children as taking part in a movement undermining morality in society. Should they apportion their kids' inheritance in a manner that reflects these views?

They are entitled to do just that. It is THEIR MONEY and they get to decide what to do with it. They can give it all to their Catholic Church charity if they want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s their money and there’s no obligation to give everyone the same.

Of course there’s no obligation and they’re free to do what they please with their money. But that doesn’t make them immune from the natural feelings of children who are treated disparately. I’ve seen first hand the fall out of my grandparents estate when siblings were treated differently. The baby of the family was coddled their whole life, didn’t marry as well as the others, and was given more money for them and their kids (while grandparents were alive). So the disparate treatment flowed down to grandkids even.

The funny thing is my parents did well enough on their own with no family money, but not well enough to be immune from the usual financial stress of trying to put kids through college, home repairs, etc. So I know it chafed my dad to see his little brother blow money on nicer vacations than we could take while he had to keep working hard to support himself. Anyone looking to treat their kids differently is kidding themselves if they think their kids will have zero feelings about one kid being favored over the others.

I have 3 and DH and I plan to split everything evenly the same as our parents planned for us. The only reason I could see treating kids differently is if one has profound special needs and the parents are funding care for them once the parents are gone (which helps the siblings not have to provide family care). Hopefully there would be some understanding in that case. But if one kid marries someone who makes less or chooses a lower paying job, then that is their life choice to make. They will get 1/3 of our estate someday and that’s it.

Also a mom of 3 and 1000x agree. I love my daughters and I will support all of them but I also don't think it's *fair* to subsidize one person's decisions to do *morally better* work. I will encourage all of my children to understand the financial implications of their choices - when it comes to marriage and when it comes to what they are studying in college and what they choose as a career. If they want to be downwardly mobile that's fine, but I'm not going to help them pretend that they're not.

That's your view, and others are entitled to theirs. If some of my children went into professions with no meaningful social value and one becomes a teacher, firefighter, police officer etc. I view that as a noble choice and might be inclined to subsidize it. Because I believe it should be value equal to those other pursuits, and it's my damn money to do with as I please.

+1000

It is ridiculous how many people feel entitled to their parent's money! It is their money and they can choose how to distribute it. Personally think it is beneficial to help out a kid who goes into a meaningful lower paying job if you can do that. we need good teachers/nurses/firefighters/social workers/etc. And I would question if my kid(s) who go into a higher paying field (CS/Eng/Finance/etc) that would get upset with me helping the sibling who makes less simply because of their occupational choice. I'd feel I have not raised my kid correctly if they cannot understand that and have empathy and instead feel they are entitled to my money.

Now, if kid 1 is CS and making $300K/year and kid 2 is a social worker making $50K/year---and I give kid 2 $2M and kid 1 nothing, then yes they might feel slighted. But if I give kid 2 $100K for a house downpayment, kid 1 shouldn't complain as they can easily save that themselves.

However, I'm worth enough that I would still distribute to each kid the same, because it would be in the millions. But if I was worth less, then yes, I might distribute differently based on what each kid "needs".

But what if your child who went into a lower paying field went into a lower paying field because they don't want to work long hours or because they want be at home with their kids during the summer? Are you really just subsidizing your child who didn't have the aptitude to go into CS or Finance or who was too lazy to work the hours necessary to succeed in either profession? Many jobs that pay a lot also come with more stress and less flexibility. Also, I am a former social worker and many of my former classmates treat well-healed clients who pay upwards of $200/hour to speak to them about things like why their longtime boyfriend won't propose. Yes, some spent a few years working as a school counselors to get their hours in - but let's not pretend that just because someone becomes a social worker they don't want to make money or are helping society more than a someone in a field like impact investing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s their money and there’s no obligation to give everyone the same.

Of course there’s no obligation and they’re free to do what they please with their money. But that doesn’t make them immune from the natural feelings of children who are treated disparately. I’ve seen first hand the fall out of my grandparents estate when siblings were treated differently. The baby of the family was coddled their whole life, didn’t marry as well as the others, and was given more money for them and their kids (while grandparents were alive). So the disparate treatment flowed down to grandkids even.

The funny thing is my parents did well enough on their own with no family money, but not well enough to be immune from the usual financial stress of trying to put kids through college, home repairs, etc. So I know it chafed my dad to see his little brother blow money on nicer vacations than we could take while he had to keep working hard to support himself. Anyone looking to treat their kids differently is kidding themselves if they think their kids will have zero feelings about one kid being favored over the others.

I have 3 and DH and I plan to split everything evenly the same as our parents planned for us. The only reason I could see treating kids differently is if one has profound special needs and the parents are funding care for them once the parents are gone (which helps the siblings not have to provide family care). Hopefully there would be some understanding in that case. But if one kid marries someone who makes less or chooses a lower paying job, then that is their life choice to make. They will get 1/3 of our estate someday and that’s it.

Also a mom of 3 and 1000x agree. I love my daughters and I will support all of them but I also don't think it's *fair* to subsidize one person's decisions to do *morally better* work. I will encourage all of my children to understand the financial implications of their choices - when it comes to marriage and when it comes to what they are studying in college and what they choose as a career. If they want to be downwardly mobile that's fine, but I'm not going to help them pretend that they're not.

That's your view, and others are entitled to theirs. If some of my children went into professions with no meaningful social value and one becomes a teacher, firefighter, police officer etc. I view that as a noble choice and might be inclined to subsidize it. Because I believe it should be value equal to those other pursuits, and it's my damn money to do with as I please.

+1000

It is ridiculous how many people feel entitled to their parent's money! It is their money and they can choose how to distribute it. Personally think it is beneficial to help out a kid who goes into a meaningful lower paying job if you can do that. we need good teachers/nurses/firefighters/social workers/etc. And I would question if my kid(s) who go into a higher paying field (CS/Eng/Finance/etc) that would get upset with me helping the sibling who makes less simply because of their occupational choice. I'd feel I have not raised my kid correctly if they cannot understand that and have empathy and instead feel they are entitled to my money.

Now, if kid 1 is CS and making $300K/year and kid 2 is a social worker making $50K/year---and I give kid 2 $2M and kid 1 nothing, then yes they might feel slighted. But if I give kid 2 $100K for a house downpayment, kid 1 shouldn't complain as they can easily save that themselves.

However, I'm worth enough that I would still distribute to each kid the same, because it would be in the millions. But if I was worth less, then yes, I might distribute differently based on what each kid "needs".

But what if your child who went into a lower paying field went into a lower paying field because they don't want to work long hours or because they want be at home with their kids during the summer? Are you really just subsidizing your child who didn't have the aptitude to go into CS or Finance or who was too lazy to work the hours necessary to succeed in either profession? Many jobs that pay a lot also come with more stress and less flexibility. Also, I am a former social worker and many of my former classmates treat well-healed clients who pay upwards of $200/hour to speak to them about things like why their longtime boyfriend won't propose. Yes, some spent a few years working as a school counselors to get their hours in - but let's not pretend that just because someone becomes a social worker they don't want to make money or are helping society more than a someone in a field like impact investing.

I am the PP. I plan to keep it "equal" for my kids as much as we can. And I agree it does really depend upon each kid and why they are doing what they choose. I'm not going to fund a kid who only wants to work 20 hour weeks so they can go out partying/drinking/doing nothing good. If they have kids and want to be an at home parent that is different. Basically they have to be good contributing members of society (and yes, we as the people with the big $$$ get to define what that is, but I don't worry because we raised our kids well and they are not entitled brats and they all work hard at life and give 110%). Both kids know they will have a car when they graduate college--both will have a 3-5 yo very safe, very reliable decent size SUV/AWD. They also know if they choose to sell that car when it still has good viable life left (ie a car with less than 100K miles on it that has absolutely no issues, but they sell because they "need a brand new fancy car") and choose to upgrade to a more expensive car just because, well then we might decide they don't need financial gifts much. Basically, if they start wasting money/not making smart financial decisions then we might not feel the need to gift them $100K for a house downpayment.

We have enough that our kids will inherit more than they can every imagine. But just like it has not been "equal" or tracked while from birth to college graduation, I won't track what I give/spend going forward. We provide for each kid as we see fit. One kid required much more therapies/tutoring/interventions thru HS. They went to a good college with merit so we only paid ~$40K/year. Next kid did not "need" any therapies, etc birth thru HS but did have an expensive EC that likely was equivalent or more than the other kids "costs"--don't really know as I don't track that stuff. Kid is at an elite U for full pay ($80K+/year). Kid 1 might need an extra semester for a double major or may go immediately onto grad school. We will pay. Kid 2 will likely make more than Kid 1 in their career, as they are much more driven and choosing a field that will pay more. We will help both kids with what they "need" and as we see fit. We will invite both on family vacations, along with their BF/GF/SO. If they choose to come, we pay. If they can't, oh well there is next time. We don't keep track and my kids do not care. They are smart enough to know they will get plenty over the years and in the future and mainly because we did not raise them to be entitled brats. It's not a tit for tat system.

[Anonymous]

Still waiting for OP to tell us about their relationship to their parents’ faith… I think it would reveal a lot about this whole dynamic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s their money and there’s no obligation to give everyone the same.

Of course there’s no obligation and they’re free to do what they please with their money. But that doesn’t make them immune from the natural feelings of children who are treated disparately. I’ve seen first hand the fall out of my grandparents estate when siblings were treated differently. The baby of the family was coddled their whole life, didn’t marry as well as the others, and was given more money for them and their kids (while grandparents were alive). So the disparate treatment flowed down to grandkids even.

The funny thing is my parents did well enough on their own with no family money, but not well enough to be immune from the usual financial stress of trying to put kids through college, home repairs, etc. So I know it chafed my dad to see his little brother blow money on nicer vacations than we could take while he had to keep working hard to support himself. Anyone looking to treat their kids differently is kidding themselves if they think their kids will have zero feelings about one kid being favored over the others.

I have 3 and DH and I plan to split everything evenly the same as our parents planned for us. The only reason I could see treating kids differently is if one has profound special needs and the parents are funding care for them once the parents are gone (which helps the siblings not have to provide family care). Hopefully there would be some understanding in that case. But if one kid marries someone who makes less or chooses a lower paying job, then that is their life choice to make. They will get 1/3 of our estate someday and that’s it.

Also a mom of 3 and 1000x agree. I love my daughters and I will support all of them but I also don't think it's *fair* to subsidize one person's decisions to do *morally better* work. I will encourage all of my children to understand the financial implications of their choices - when it comes to marriage and when it comes to what they are studying in college and what they choose as a career. If they want to be downwardly mobile that's fine, but I'm not going to help them pretend that they're not.

That's your view, and others are entitled to theirs. If some of my children went into professions with no meaningful social value and one becomes a teacher, firefighter, police officer etc. I view that as a noble choice and might be inclined to subsidize it. Because I believe it should be value equal to those other pursuits, and it's my damn money to do with as I please.

+1000

It is ridiculous how many people feel entitled to their parent's money! It is their money and they can choose how to distribute it. Personally think it is beneficial to help out a kid who goes into a meaningful lower paying job if you can do that. we need good teachers/nurses/firefighters/social workers/etc. And I would question if my kid(s) who go into a higher paying field (CS/Eng/Finance/etc) that would get upset with me helping the sibling who makes less simply because of their occupational choice. I'd feel I have not raised my kid correctly if they cannot understand that and have empathy and instead feel they are entitled to my money.

Now, if kid 1 is CS and making $300K/year and kid 2 is a social worker making $50K/year---and I give kid 2 $2M and kid 1 nothing, then yes they might feel slighted. But if I give kid 2 $100K for a house downpayment, kid 1 shouldn't complain as they can easily save that themselves.

However, I'm worth enough that I would still distribute to each kid the same, because it would be in the millions. But if I was worth less, then yes, I might distribute differently based on what each kid "needs".

But what if your child who went into a lower paying field went into a lower paying field because they don't want to work long hours or because they want be at home with their kids during the summer? Are you really just subsidizing your child who didn't have the aptitude to go into CS or Finance or who was too lazy to work the hours necessary to succeed in either profession? Many jobs that pay a lot also come with more stress and less flexibility. Also, I am a former social worker and many of my former classmates treat well-healed clients who pay upwards of $200/hour to speak to them about things like why their longtime boyfriend won't propose. Yes, some spent a few years working as a school counselors to get their hours in - but let's not pretend that just because someone becomes a social worker they don't want to make money or are helping society more than a someone in a field like impact investing.

I am the PP. I plan to keep it "equal" for my kids as much as we can. And I agree it does really depend upon each kid and why they are doing what they choose. I'm not going to fund a kid who only wants to work 20 hour weeks so they can go out partying/drinking/doing nothing good. If they have kids and want to be an at home parent that is different. Basically they have to be good contributing members of society (and yes, we as the people with the big $$$ get to define what that is, but I don't worry because we raised our kids well and they are not entitled brats and they all work hard at life and give 110%). Both kids know they will have a car when they graduate college--both will have a 3-5 yo very safe, very reliable decent size SUV/AWD. They also know if they choose to sell that car when it still has good viable life left (ie a car with less than 100K miles on it that has absolutely no issues, but they sell because they "need a brand new fancy car") and choose to upgrade to a more expensive car just because, well then we might decide they don't need financial gifts much. Basically, if they start wasting money/not making smart financial decisions then we might not feel the need to gift them $100K for a house downpayment.

We have enough that our kids will inherit more than they can every imagine. But just like it has not been "equal" or tracked while from birth to college graduation, I won't track what I give/spend going forward. We provide for each kid as we see fit. One kid required much more therapies/tutoring/interventions thru HS. They went to a good college with merit so we only paid ~$40K/year. Next kid did not "need" any therapies, etc birth thru HS but did have an expensive EC that likely was equivalent or more than the other kids "costs"--don't really know as I don't track that stuff. Kid is at an elite U for full pay ($80K+/year). Kid 1 might need an extra semester for a double major or may go immediately onto grad school. We will pay. Kid 2 will likely make more than Kid 1 in their career, as they are much more driven and choosing a field that will pay more. We will help both kids with what they "need" and as we see fit. We will invite both on family vacations, along with their BF/GF/SO. If they choose to come, we pay. If they can't, oh well there is next time. We don't keep track and my kids do not care. They are smart enough to know they will get plenty over the years and in the future and mainly because we did not raise them to be entitled brats. It's not a tit for tat system.

None of what you mention is remotely similar to gifting one child a million dollars so they can have a posher lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Some people put equalization provisions in their wills and trusts to account for unequal gifts during their lifetimes. Some do not. It’s up to them how to handle it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm interested in what others think of this scenario. Parents are in their 80s and have 3 adult kids, all professionals, married, and doing well. Two of the children, with their spouses, are doing very well financially. The third has a job in the church and their spouse has a well-paying professional job - they are doing fine financially but clearly not as well as the other children. When that child (who also has some health problems) moved to take a new job in the church, they wanted to live in a large house in the most desirable neighborhood of a large city, have their kids attend the best private schools, etc. but couldn't afford to do so (this would be a living standard above that of the other two siblings). As a result, the parents decided to gift $1 million of their estate early to that child. They told one of the other children about it at the time but did not tell the other (presumably to avoid the difficult conversation). Several years later, this has all come to light and it is awkward. The parents' position is that nothing will be done to even things out (now or later) as this gift was for "need". Thoughts? Advice?

This is interesting. Would the child have taken the job in the church if the parents had not made the offer?

My advice would be to mentally treat it as a contribution to the church, if so. Because effectively it is. The church could not afford to retain your sibling without your parents’ subsidy.