Greedy rich people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s easier to be generous with other people's money. Or to think other people should be generous.

X10000

Stay in your lane OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s easier to be generous with other people's money. Or to think other people should be generous.

I mean yeah, I don’t demand that they be generous. But they were *certainly* demanding that I pay my “fair share” (fairness as defined by them.)

Is your “fair share” the same as theirs? Seems fair to me.

My fair share was what I could afford, which seems fair to me? Did they want me to stop funding my retirement and repaying my student loans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s easier to be generous with other people's money. Or to think other people should be generous.

X10000

Stay in your lane OP.

Reading comprehension, please. I don’t think they need to spend their money. They are coming after MY money. Despite their 7-figure incomes, and despire the money being nothing to them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s easier to be generous with other people's money. Or to think other people should be generous.

X10000

Stay in your lane OP.

Amen to this. It is easy to criticize other people’s generosity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How else do you think rich people get and stay rich?

This.

[Anonymous]

Your brothers are correct and here is why:

They are allowing the relative(s) to retain their assets so they have some money BUT are giving an interest free loan which may or may not be paid back. They are not saying the relative or his estate MUST repay the loan. They are saying this:

Relatives are older. At some point, we are each entitled to a third when relatives die. If I'm helping relatives so they can keep their cash now, I would like to be repaid for that when they pass. Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is for your brothers to help the relatives out, keep quiet about it being a loan which will be repaid by the estate if the funds exist, and then when the person passes try to falsely claim they always intended to be repaid. They are upfront with how and why they want to give the money, and it helps your relatives. How is this greedy? The only way is if you feel like they should help out with no expectation of repayment even though you will end up getting money when the person passes. Wouldn't you want your relative to have the access to the loaned money now and for the relative to never have to repay it during their livetime? And if the inheritance is so small, what are YOU complaining about? You're in the wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your brothers are correct and here is why:

They are allowing the relative(s) to retain their assets so they have some money BUT are giving an interest free loan which may or may not be paid back. They are not saying the relative or his estate MUST repay the loan. They are saying this:

Relatives are older. At some point, we are each entitled to a third when relatives die. If I'm helping relatives so they can keep their cash now, I would like to be repaid for that when they pass. Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is for your brothers to help the relatives out, keep quiet about it being a loan which will be repaid by the estate if the funds exist, and then when the person passes try to falsely claim they always intended to be repaid. They are upfront with how and why they want to give the money, and it helps your relatives. How is this greedy? The only way is if you feel like they should help out with no expectation of repayment even though you will end up getting money when the person passes. Wouldn't you want your relative to have the access to the loaned money now and for the relative to never have to repay it during their livetime? And if the inheritance is so small, what are YOU complaining about? You're in the wrong.

No, they have been pretty clear that their goal is to be repaid out of the estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your brothers are correct and here is why:

They are allowing the relative(s) to retain their assets so they have some money BUT are giving an interest free loan which may or may not be paid back. They are not saying the relative or his estate MUST repay the loan. They are saying this:

Relatives are older. At some point, we are each entitled to a third when relatives die. If I'm helping relatives so they can keep their cash now, I would like to be repaid for that when they pass. Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is for your brothers to help the relatives out, keep quiet about it being a loan which will be repaid by the estate if the funds exist, and then when the person passes try to falsely claim they always intended to be repaid. They are upfront with how and why they want to give the money, and it helps your relatives. How is this greedy? The only way is if you feel like they should help out with no expectation of repayment even though you will end up getting money when the person passes. Wouldn't you want your relative to have the access to the loaned money now and for the relative to never have to repay it during their livetime? And if the inheritance is so small, what are YOU complaining about? You're in the wrong.

No, they have been pretty clear that their goal is to be repaid out of the estate.

I mean, their express goal is that nobody get an unfair share of the estate, not to be repaid per se. Because it is a TINY amount of money (possibly no money at all. they can do whatever they want with their money. What’s weird is that with SO MUCH money their main motivation still appears to be to protect themselves against being “ripped off,” and when the amount is actually very small.

[Anonymous]

Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

not the rich brothers! but really this isn’t about proving who did more or less for Grandma. It’s about the fixation on what seems to me to be negligible amounts, rounding errors, to them. which in this case has resulted in them demanding MY money. I could make a case adding up all the hours I spent, the money I gave, to show why I deserve the money that was legally left to me. But that seems incredibly absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s easier to be generous with other people's money. Or to think other people should be generous.

I mean yeah, I don’t demand that they be generous. But they were *certainly* demanding that I pay my “fair share” (fairness as defined by them.)

Is your “fair share” the same as theirs? Seems fair to me.

My fair share was what I could afford, which seems fair to me? Did they want me to stop funding my retirement and repaying my student loans?

Actually, yes they do want you stop funding those items as they don’t care. They will never be able to fund those items so you should not also. Crabs in a bucket mentality that will never change. Keep far far away.

[Anonymous]

I am on the brothers sides.

This is quite normal in estate distribution. If my parents had $500k and I gave them $100k and they ended up passing away with $400k. I would get $250k and my brother would get $150k. How is that not fair?

The most equitable thing is to pay your brother back what they put in, then split 1/3 after they have been paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

not the rich brothers! but really this isn’t about proving who did more or less for Grandma. It’s about the fixation on what seems to me to be negligible amounts, rounding errors, to them. which in this case has resulted in them demanding MY money. I could make a case adding up all the hours I spent, the money I gave, to show why I deserve the money that was legally left to me. But that seems incredibly absurd.

I'm the wealthy one in my family and your attitude is exactly what annoys me about my family members. They like to count my money and decide how it should be best spent, and since they have determined that the amount of money I need to spend for the family good is basically nothing to me, then I should be happy to spend it without a single thought of repayment! It's not up to you to decide how much they can easily part with, and it's not for you to decide what they should be spending their money on. I agree with the PP - they are saying that they are willing to spend their money to help out family members, and they know that they will possibly not get repaid out of the small estate. But what they don't want is for family to decide that their wealthy family members should be writing blank checks, and then when it's time to distribute the estate, the poor relations who paid nothing should get a windfall. It's more about fairness than the money itself. People are always happy to spend your money for you and cry foul when you put up any boundaries, but somehow still feel entitled to whatever windfall they can get their grasping hands on. They're financially supporting your relatives. Maybe you should just be grateful that the burden isn't falling on you, instead of whining that you won't get more inheritance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is doing the non-monetary labor of caring for the elderly relatives?

I don’t feel I have enough info to take OPs side or not.

not the rich brothers! but really this isn’t about proving who did more or less for Grandma. It’s about the fixation on what seems to me to be negligible amounts, rounding errors, to them. which in this case has resulted in them demanding MY money. I could make a case adding up all the hours I spent, the money I gave, to show why I deserve the money that was legally left to me. But that seems incredibly absurd.

I'm the wealthy one in my family and your attitude is exactly what annoys me about my family members. They like to count my money and decide how it should be best spent, and since they have determined that the amount of money I need to spend for the family good is basically nothing to me, then I should be happy to spend it without a single thought of repayment! It's not up to you to decide how much they can easily part with, and it's not for you to decide what they should be spending their money on. I agree with the PP - they are saying that they are willing to spend their money to help out family members, and they know that they will possibly not get repaid out of the small estate. But what they don't want is for family to decide that their wealthy family members should be writing blank checks, and then when it's time to distribute the estate, the poor relations who paid nothing should get a windfall. It's more about fairness than the money itself. People are always happy to spend your money for you and cry foul when you put up any boundaries, but somehow still feel entitled to whatever windfall they can get their grasping hands on. They're financially supporting your relatives. Maybe you should just be grateful that the burden isn't falling on you, instead of whining that you won't get more inheritance.

Bingo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your brothers are correct and here is why:

They are allowing the relative(s) to retain their assets so they have some money BUT are giving an interest free loan which may or may not be paid back. They are not saying the relative or his estate MUST repay the loan. They are saying this:

Relatives are older. At some point, we are each entitled to a third when relatives die. If I'm helping relatives so they can keep their cash now, I would like to be repaid for that when they pass. Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is for your brothers to help the relatives out, keep quiet about it being a loan which will be repaid by the estate if the funds exist, and then when the person passes try to falsely claim they always intended to be repaid. They are upfront with how and why they want to give the money, and it helps your relatives. How is this greedy? The only way is if you feel like they should help out with no expectation of repayment even though you will end up getting money when the person passes. Wouldn't you want your relative to have the access to the loaned money now and for the relative to never have to repay it during their livetime? And if the inheritance is so small, what are YOU complaining about? You're in the wrong.

No, they have been pretty clear that their goal is to be repaid out of the estate.

I know. And that’s why I said. The brothers being upfront makes them in the right. Had they kept quiet about wanting to get repaid, is where issue could arise. Kudos to them for being clear and helping out while the people are still alive. Be thankful your family isn’t coming to you to front the money.