Husband doesn't want to leave our kids much in inheritence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I totally understand where you are coming from, but I agree with your DH. I would change it from a flat dollar amount to a percentage though to deal with inflation not could also be the greater of $2M or x% of the estate.

In all fairness I’m having the same struggle as your DH. I don’t want to leave my children much. I will educate them through whatever they want and they will graduate debt free. I’m just not sure beyond that how much of any they should get. We have 3 kids and about $40M net worth. Plus another $10M in life insurance. I expect it to grow but it works out to $17M in todays dollar a piece. No one needs that. DH disagrees on the amount. He wants to leave them comfortable. But he concurs that there is a limit. He would like to leave half to them and the balance to charity.

Do you not want to take car of your grandkids and their kids? With that type of money you can give each kid half and the other 50% to charity. Set up trusts so education (and major medical) is covered for future generations.

We are in a similar situation. Right now each kid would get $10M+, but that will grow and has the chance to become $30M+. If we hit the higher level, more will go to charity, but we believe charity starts at home. So in that case, we would set up trusts for nieces and nephews kids, etc. to provide for education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We plan on doing essentially the same, with different numbers of course. One potential difference: we plan to help our child with funds while we are living. College, grad school, mortgage, gifts. Then a small inheritance.

She can get our stuff after we die, sell that (fully paid off homes, luxury vehicles etc) and pocket that money, but any left over goes to our nieces and nephews and charities.

Helping while it matters most is key IMO. Fully paid for college, grad school (if desired), large downpayment for home, gifts yearly so they can max retirement savings and save well outside retirement. Might as well gift when it makes the biggest impact---their 20s/30s, not when we are dead at 80+ and the kids are 50+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He needs to donate the money now to avoid the debate about the estate.

These are joint funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of charities don’t really do anything.

As opposed to people with inherited wealth, the heroes of America's story.

The number of charities who don't really do anything is vanishingly small. Mostly they are staffed by idealistic young people and they do their best for half the salary you earn (if that.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would someone earn all that money if not to leave it to kids? seriously

This is not one of my goals at all.

I suspect it depends on how you were raised. The expectation in my family is that everyone would be fully self sufficient, an adult responsible for enabling whatever life they sought.

I had zero expectations if getting a dime from my parents.

It is my belief that this is a sign if having successfully raised your kids (ie, they are no longer dependent upon you).

But you can raise successful kids who can fully function on their own, and still gift them $$ to ensure they have an even better life. Why wouldn't you want that for your grandkids and their kids? If you we worth $20M+ when your kids are 18-20, can you honestly tell me you wouldn't pay for their college education and gift them money in their 20s to ensure they max out Roth and 401K? that you wouldn't help them purchase a new car, so they can continue to save?
It does not mean they are not independent----they have a good job and can be fully independent. But why make them have roommates and live in a dump.

Yeah keep installing your kids on 3rd base and telling them they hit a triple. That won't give them a demented view of the world at all. They'll be wonderful little libertarian housecats.

They can be well aware of all the "help" they have received. Doesn't mean they also don't work hard at their jobs and in life. They just have it a "bit easier" and more flexibility to enjoy life.
Wouldn't do this if a kid wasn't working hard.
But really, you think my kid earning $70K at first job would "learn more about life" if they lived in a crappy apartment with an unknown roommate, so they could save more for retirement versus us gifting them some money and them living in a decent (not luxury) 1bedroom apt they can afford on their own (and still save for retirement, just not as much)?
My kids appreciate what they have and are well aware that most of their friends and colleagues (same age as them) have student loans and car payments (or drive older cars because they can't afford a car payment). My kid drive a 12+ yo vehicle and has no desire to replace it, because financially it's smarter to keep the older car that runs just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would someone earn all that money if not to leave it to kids? seriously

Because the husband also sees the value in leaving some to charity. Sad that you can't understand this motivation.

Question: who earned the money in the estate-to-be?

Does not matter. They are a married couple, if she is/was a SAHM, she contributed to the family that way, without a paycheck. The money is Theirs, not HIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a great reminder of the 99% majority's moral obligation to eat the greedy rich. Get that bag when they grow old and senile but still trying to clutch those $millions.

They’re not being any more greedy or self-interested than you are. Maybe make more money and you wouldn’t need to mooch so much.

[Anonymous]

With that amount of money why not create a trust for your children (and descendants?)

You can give them $2 million each in inheritance and the remainder can go in the family trust to be used for college tuition or medical expenses for biological or adopted children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With that amount of money why not create a trust for your children (and descendants?)

You can give them $2 million each in inheritance and the remainder can go in the family trust to be used for college tuition or medical expenses for biological or adopted children.

But why limit it?

Smart plan is to gift to kids starting with paid for college and graduate school, fully funding their retirement, first car, downpayment assistance, etc. Best bang for the buck.

[Anonymous]

I am with your husband on this one too. I don't want my child to believe they have millions waiting for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With that amount of money why not create a trust for your children (and descendants?)

You can give them $2 million each in inheritance and the remainder can go in the family trust to be used for college tuition or medical expenses for biological or adopted children.

But why limit it?

Smart plan is to gift to kids starting with paid for college and graduate school, fully funding their retirement, first car, downpayment assistance, etc. Best bang for the buck.

Why not just fully support your kid for everything in their life? Why stop at all of this...pay for their food, kids' private school, going on vacations, utility bills... you name it.

I mean, fully funding their retirement? Wouldn't that mean giving them all your money right now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With that amount of money why not create a trust for your children (and descendants?)

You can give them $2 million each in inheritance and the remainder can go in the family trust to be used for college tuition or medical expenses for biological or adopted children.

But why limit it?

Smart plan is to gift to kids starting with paid for college and graduate school, fully funding their retirement, first car, downpayment assistance, etc. Best bang for the buck.

Why not just fully support your kid for everything in their life? Why stop at all of this...pay for their food, kids' private school, going on vacations, utility bills... you name it.

I mean, fully funding their retirement? Wouldn't that mean giving them all your money right now?

we gift them $36K/year to take advantage of the tax free gifting. Feel we pay max taxes for years now, they might as well take full advantage of the Roth IRA and max their 401K. By time they are 30, they will have enough in their tax free retirement accounts to stop contributing and have $2M+ at age 65. They will obviously continue to contribute, but it will be a great start. They would still be able to save 40-50% of that without our assistance, and be doing better than most their age. But why not maximize the tax free saving potential?

rather than giving them $10M+ in 20+ years, why not gradually give it to them now?

FYI---our kid would still be saving 50% of what they are on their own accord/budget without any assistance. This way they just maximize the tax savings and also continue to save more on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With that amount of money why not create a trust for your children (and descendants?)

You can give them $2 million each in inheritance and the remainder can go in the family trust to be used for college tuition or medical expenses for biological or adopted children.

But why limit it?

Smart plan is to gift to kids starting with paid for college and graduate school, fully funding their retirement, first car, downpayment assistance, etc. Best bang for the buck.

Why not just fully support your kid for everything in their life? Why stop at all of this...pay for their food, kids' private school, going on vacations, utility bills... you name it.

I mean, fully funding their retirement? Wouldn't that mean giving them all your money right now?

we gift them $36K/year to take advantage of the tax free gifting. Feel we pay max taxes for years now, they might as well take full advantage of the Roth IRA and max their 401K. By time they are 30, they will have enough in their tax free retirement accounts to stop contributing and have $2M+ at age 65. They will obviously continue to contribute, but it will be a great start. They would still be able to save 40-50% of that without our assistance, and be doing better than most their age. But why not maximize the tax free saving potential?

rather than giving them $10M+ in 20+ years, why not gradually give it to them now?

FYI---our kid would still be saving 50% of what they are on their own accord/budget without any assistance. This way they just maximize the tax savings and also continue to save more on their own.

Giving then $36k per year is different than "fully funding their retirement". Not sure why you used that phrase.

[Anonymous]

#RichPeopleProblems

Meanwhile, many of us are stressing that our kids will be able to afford a house someday. I cannot imagine not wanting to leave them as comfortable/safe, financially, as possible. But, you have a different perspective when you grow up poor and have had financial instability for much of your life. Doing well'ish now but those fears never leave you. I guess maybe if I had the money some of you seem to have but that is not the case. So I do not understand the OPs DH and people who agree with him.

If you're at the point where it is multiple millions and think it is too much for the kids, why would you not set up your future grandkids??? If there are no grandkids, remainder can go to charity w/ whatever else you are giving in that regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:#RichPeopleProblems

Meanwhile, many of us are stressing that our kids will be able to afford a house someday. I cannot imagine not wanting to leave them as comfortable/safe, financially, as possible. But, you have a different perspective when you grow up poor and have had financial instability for much of your life. Doing well'ish now but those fears never leave you. I guess maybe if I had the money some of you seem to have but that is not the case. So I do not understand the OPs DH and people who agree with him.

If you're at the point where it is multiple millions and think it is too much for the kids, why would you not set up your future grandkids??? If there are no grandkids, remainder can go to charity w/ whatever else you are giving in that regard.

Warren Buffet has said he won't leave anything to his kids or grandkids (though one of his kids does run his charitable arm). Not surprisingly, the attitude is more prevalent among self-made rich people from modest or poor origins vs old money folks (where most of their wealth was inherited wealth).