Inheritance when one child has kids, the other does not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grandkids should get equal shares.

No way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one kid refused to have kids but could have had them if they chose to then I would provide more inheritance to the one with kids. Reason: kids are expensive. Single or dink isn’t expensive.

Nothing has to be 50/50. It’s your money and you allocate based on your priorities.

Being single carries a lot of financial penalties.

Np- no way. Sure being a DINK is better financially than being single but I’m sure a single person has much better finances than those with kids. I spend 4k a month on daycare. College is $$$.

Yup! Our friends who choose to be DINKs are in a much better financial position. College is upwards of $200-400K for one kid. Daycare is $10-15K/year for 5 years, then we spent $5-10K on activites/tutoring/etc for each kid. Have 2 kids and it will cost you a million $$$ easily. Now imagine being able to spend that on yourself.

Having kids is a CHOICE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one kid refused to have kids but could have had them if they chose to then I would provide more inheritance to the one with kids. Reason: kids are expensive. Single or dink isn’t expensive.

Nothing has to be 50/50. It’s your money and you allocate based on your priorities.

Being single carries a lot of financial penalties.

Np- no way. Sure being a DINK is better financially than being single but I’m sure a single person has much better finances than those with kids. I spend 4k a month on daycare. College is $$$.

Yup! Our friends who choose to be DINKs are in a much better financial position. College is upwards of $200-400K for one kid. Daycare is $10-15K/year for 5 years, then we spent $5-10K on activites/tutoring/etc for each kid. Have 2 kids and it will cost you a million $$$ easily. Now imagine being able to spend that on yourself.

Having kids is a CHOICE.

not anymore

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one kid refused to have kids but could have had them if they chose to then I would provide more inheritance to the one with kids. Reason: kids are expensive. Single or dink isn’t expensive.

Nothing has to be 50/50. It’s your money and you allocate based on your priorities.

Being single carries a lot of financial penalties.

Np- no way. Sure being a DINK is better financially than being single but I’m sure a single person has much better finances than those with kids. I spend 4k a month on daycare. College is $$$.

Yup! Our friends who choose to be DINKs are in a much better financial position. College is upwards of $200-400K for one kid. Daycare is $10-15K/year for 5 years, then we spent $5-10K on activites/tutoring/etc for each kid. Have 2 kids and it will cost you a million $$$ easily. Now imagine being able to spend that on yourself.

Having kids is a CHOICE.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one kid refused to have kids but could have had them if they chose to then I would provide more inheritance to the one with kids. Reason: kids are expensive. Single or dink isn’t expensive.

Nothing has to be 50/50. It’s your money and you allocate based on your priorities.

Being single carries a lot of financial penalties.

Np- no way. Sure being a DINK is better financially than being single but I’m sure a single person has much better finances than those with kids. I spend 4k a month on daycare. College is $$$.

Yup! Our friends who choose to be DINKs are in a much better financial position. College is upwards of $200-400K for one kid. Daycare is $10-15K/year for 5 years, then we spent $5-10K on activites/tutoring/etc for each kid. Have 2 kids and it will cost you a million $$$ easily. Now imagine being able to spend that on yourself.

Having kids is a CHOICE.

not anymore

What does not a choice anymore mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one kid refused to have kids but could have had them if they chose to then I would provide more inheritance to the one with kids. Reason: kids are expensive. Single or dink isn’t expensive.

Nothing has to be 50/50. It’s your money and you allocate based on your priorities.

Being single carries a lot of financial penalties.

Np- no way. Sure being a DINK is better financially than being single but I’m sure a single person has much better finances than those with kids. I spend 4k a month on daycare. College is $$$.

Yup! Our friends who choose to be DINKs are in a much better financial position. College is upwards of $200-400K for one kid. Daycare is $10-15K/year for 5 years, then we spent $5-10K on activites/tutoring/etc for each kid. Have 2 kids and it will cost you a million $$$ easily. Now imagine being able to spend that on yourself.

Having kids is a CHOICE.

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 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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one kid refused to have kids but could have had them if they chose to then I would provide more inheritance to the one with kids. Reason: kids are expensive. Single or dink isn’t expensive.

Nothing has to be 50/50. It’s your money and you allocate based on your priorities.

Being single carries a lot of financial penalties.

Np- no way. Sure being a DINK is better financially than being single but I’m sure a single person has much better finances than those with kids. I spend 4k a month on daycare. College is $$$.

Yup! Our friends who choose to be DINKs are in a much better financial position. College is upwards of $200-400K for one kid. Daycare is $10-15K/year for 5 years, then we spent $5-10K on activites/tutoring/etc for each kid. Have 2 kids and it will cost you a million $$$ easily. Now imagine being able to spend that on yourself.

Having kids is a CHOICE.

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.

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?

[Anonymous]

I am a firm believer in giving two each child evenly, including the amount given to grandchildren.

One option is to divide it into two trusts. Your children should each be the beneficiary-trustee of their own trust. The remaindermen should be the grandchildren. If one child has not had kids, that child should have the option to leave the remainder to any of your grandkids or to charity.

Or, give half to the child with no kids. Give the other half to the family of the child with kids: give seventy percent to the child and divide the other thirty percent among that child's kids.

But don't do it so that one kid's side of the family collectively gets more just because they had grandkids.

For one, what is the childless kid has kids down the road, winds up with stepkids etc? but even if that doesn't happen, it just isn't fair to give more to the sibling with kids.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one kid refused to have kids but could have had them if they chose to then I would provide more inheritance to the one with kids. Reason: kids are expensive. Single or dink isn’t expensive.

Nothing has to be 50/50. It’s your money and you allocate based on your priorities.

Being single carries a lot of financial penalties.

Np- no way. Sure being a DINK is better financially than being single but I’m sure a single person has much better finances than those with kids. I spend 4k a month on daycare. College is $$$.

Yup! Our friends who choose to be DINKs are in a much better financial position. College is upwards of $200-400K for one kid. Daycare is $10-15K/year for 5 years, then we spent $5-10K on activites/tutoring/etc for each kid. Have 2 kids and it will cost you a million $$$ easily. Now imagine being able to spend that on yourself.

Having kids is a CHOICE.

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.

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?

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one kid refused to have kids but could have had them if they chose to then I would provide more inheritance to the one with kids. Reason: kids are expensive. Single or dink isn’t expensive.

Nothing has to be 50/50. It’s your money and you allocate based on your priorities.

Being single carries a lot of financial penalties.

Np- no way. Sure being a DINK is better financially than being single but I’m sure a single person has much better finances than those with kids. I spend 4k a month on daycare. College is $$$.

Yup! Our friends who choose to be DINKs are in a much better financial position. College is upwards of $200-400K for one kid. Daycare is $10-15K/year for 5 years, then we spent $5-10K on activites/tutoring/etc for each kid. Have 2 kids and it will cost you a million $$$ easily. Now imagine being able to spend that on yourself.

Having kids is a CHOICE.

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.

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?

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

50/50

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

[Anonymous]

I will divide equally among my 3 children. If they have kids then those kids would receive that parent's share.