If adults kids don’t have kids what’s the point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a wretched thread. Of course people get to be sad if they don’t have grandkids. I want my kids to have kids if only because it was the best thing I ever did and I had to be talked into it. So much more important than my precious career. and I don’t want my kind to die out either!

My husband and I both went to Harvard but we’d rather send our kids to a lesser school with better marriage options and grandkid yield.

I have a friend who works out solely to stay in shape for her grandkids who won’t be born for twenty years. If she didn’t have any I don’t think she’d want to live. She is a very normal and lovely person.

Honestly, no one cares you went to Harvard but you. Get over yourself. 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope my kids don’t have children - by their choice of course. It is way overrated.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you ever and stop and think why they don’t want children? Maybe you f’ed up their childhood and life so much that they don’t want to reproduce or carry on your genes.

That was unnecessarily cruel. Are you proud of yourself?

Especially because that reasoning is bullshit, otherwise all the adults (or at least most) who suffered downright abuse as children would choose to NOT have children.

And we know that most of them do go on to have children and, unfortunately, some perpetuate the cycle of abuse.

These are unplanned pregnancies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think exactly like you, OP, except that I love parenting and do not regret prioritizing my children.

However, I agree with your greater point. What's the point if my line ends?

I don't know how old you are, but my uncle became a grandfather at 80+ years old. He had his daughter later in life, and she had a daughter at 36. It was probably the happiest day of his life.

+1
The desire to see your line continue is biological and innate. No one should be shaming OP for saying what most people feel deep inside.

Uh, maybe OP and others should use their intellect and logic (assuming they have any) to rise above these frankly primitive impulses. We don’t live in caves anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh FFS. I can't scroll through all of this. But WTF.

Same. This is the weirdest thread I’ve ever seen on DCUM.

Actually what’s weird are all the posters claiming they could care less if their kids never have kids.

I’m calling B.S.
Thee urge to procreate and see your family line continue is part of our DNA.

Nope! Don’t care at all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like what my sisters friends rich grandparents did. Set up a trust giving zero to currently living people. Even time a new kid born parents get a check $200k. When that kid graduates a four year college a second check 200k the when that kid has kids more 200k checks.

Giving childless people money 💰 with no metrics attached is useless.

The kids exist to raise educated kids of their own to go on and have more kids.

The trust is inflation adjusted. I am not rich enough to do that. But I can see setting up a trust for future kids and leave none to kids.

I was thinking leaving it all in a trust leaving zero to living people then pay out 1/10 every time a kid born after my death so first kids get a bigger share of pot.

Having kids with no kids is kinda like going to a restaurant and not eating.

Ok I don't agree that everyone should have kids or that there is "no point" to having kids if they don't have kids. Just strongly, strongly disagree.

HOWEVER

I do agree that it's kind of weird to leave an adult who is past the age where they might have had kids and didn't, a huge sum of money. What is it for? If you don't have kids, you can work for 30 years (or less if you choose the right field), save intelligently, and have an amazing life where you never really worry about money. If your parents paid for your college education, you're golden. You don't have to worry about buying a house IB for good schools, sending kids to college, paying for braces, helping your kid pay for an apartment while they job hunt, etc. You also don't have to give up career opportunities to be present for your kids, as so many women especially do.

It just makes sense to give more money to adult kids who have kids (or at least give the money directly to the grandkids) than to leave huge sums to childless adults. Why, so they can have really, extra nice retirements? They don't even have anyone to leave the excess to. It makes no sense.

If none of your kids have kids, divide it evenly and let the chips fall. But if some have children and others don't, I do actually think it makes more sense to leave most of it to the people with kids so that money actually helps future generations get an education and get started in life, instead of just helping your adult child buy a vacation home or buy a really nice TV or whatever.

This is dumb. My sister has kids, I don’t. My mother divided her money equally between me and my sister. When I die, I’ll leave what remains of my share to my nieces and nephew. So the grandkids will get it either way, just not right away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like what my sisters friends rich grandparents did. Set up a trust giving zero to currently living people. Even time a new kid born parents get a check $200k. When that kid graduates a four year college a second check 200k the when that kid has kids more 200k checks.

Giving childless people money 💰 with no metrics attached is useless.

The kids exist to raise educated kids of their own to go on and have more kids.

The trust is inflation adjusted. I am not rich enough to do that. But I can see setting up a trust for future kids and leave none to kids.

I was thinking leaving it all in a trust leaving zero to living people then pay out 1/10 every time a kid born after my death so first kids get a bigger share of pot.

Having kids with no kids is kinda like going to a restaurant and not eating.

Ok I don't agree that everyone should have kids or that there is "no point" to having kids if they don't have kids. Just strongly, strongly disagree.

HOWEVER

I do agree that it's kind of weird to leave an adult who is past the age where they might have had kids and didn't, a huge sum of money. What is it for? If you don't have kids, you can work for 30 years (or less if you choose the right field), save intelligently, and have an amazing life where you never really worry about money. If your parents paid for your college education, you're golden. You don't have to worry about buying a house IB for good schools, sending kids to college, paying for braces, helping your kid pay for an apartment while they job hunt, etc. You also don't have to give up career opportunities to be present for your kids, as so many women especially do.

It just makes sense to give more money to adult kids who have kids (or at least give the money directly to the grandkids) than to leave huge sums to childless adults. Why, so they can have really, extra nice retirements? They don't even have anyone to leave the excess to. It makes no sense.

If none of your kids have kids, divide it evenly and let the chips fall. But if some have children and others don't, I do actually think it makes more sense to leave most of it to the people with kids so that money actually helps future generations get an education and get started in life, instead of just helping your adult child buy a vacation home or buy a really nice TV or whatever.

This is dumb. My sister has kids, I don’t. My mother divided her money equally between me and my sister. When I die, I’ll leave what remains of my share to my nieces and nephew. So the grandkids will get it either way, just not right away.

Same here but my share is going to charity.💰

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like what my sisters friends rich grandparents did. Set up a trust giving zero to currently living people. Even time a new kid born parents get a check $200k. When that kid graduates a four year college a second check 200k the when that kid has kids more 200k checks.

Giving childless people money 💰 with no metrics attached is useless.

The kids exist to raise educated kids of their own to go on and have more kids.

The trust is inflation adjusted. I am not rich enough to do that. But I can see setting up a trust for future kids and leave none to kids.

I was thinking leaving it all in a trust leaving zero to living people then pay out 1/10 every time a kid born after my death so first kids get a bigger share of pot.

Having kids with no kids is kinda like going to a restaurant and not eating.

Ok I don't agree that everyone should have kids or that there is "no point" to having kids if they don't have kids. Just strongly, strongly disagree.

HOWEVER

I do agree that it's kind of weird to leave an adult who is past the age where they might have had kids and didn't, a huge sum of money. What is it for? If you don't have kids, you can work for 30 years (or less if you choose the right field), save intelligently, and have an amazing life where you never really worry about money. If your parents paid for your college education, you're golden. You don't have to worry about buying a house IB for good schools, sending kids to college, paying for braces, helping your kid pay for an apartment while they job hunt, etc. You also don't have to give up career opportunities to be present for your kids, as so many women especially do.

It just makes sense to give more money to adult kids who have kids (or at least give the money directly to the grandkids) than to leave huge sums to childless adults. Why, so they can have really, extra nice retirements? They don't even have anyone to leave the excess to. It makes no sense.

If none of your kids have kids, divide it evenly and let the chips fall. But if some have children and others don't, I do actually think it makes more sense to leave most of it to the people with kids so that money actually helps future generations get an education and get started in life, instead of just helping your adult child buy a vacation home or buy a really nice TV or whatever.

This is dumb. My sister has kids, I don’t. My mother divided her money equally between me and my sister. When I die, I’ll leave what remains of my share to my nieces and nephew. So the grandkids will get it either way, just not right away.

Same here but my share is going to charity.💰

I mean, frankly this is the better way. Down with generational wealth transfer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like what my sisters friends rich grandparents did. Set up a trust giving zero to currently living people. Even time a new kid born parents get a check $200k. When that kid graduates a four year college a second check 200k the when that kid has kids more 200k checks.

Giving childless people money 💰 with no metrics attached is useless.

The kids exist to raise educated kids of their own to go on and have more kids.

The trust is inflation adjusted. I am not rich enough to do that. But I can see setting up a trust for future kids and leave none to kids.

I was thinking leaving it all in a trust leaving zero to living people then pay out 1/10 every time a kid born after my death so first kids get a bigger share of pot.

Having kids with no kids is kinda like going to a restaurant and not eating.

Ok I don't agree that everyone should have kids or that there is "no point" to having kids if they don't have kids. Just strongly, strongly disagree.

HOWEVER

I do agree that it's kind of weird to leave an adult who is past the age where they might have had kids and didn't, a huge sum of money. What is it for? If you don't have kids, you can work for 30 years (or less if you choose the right field), save intelligently, and have an amazing life where you never really worry about money. If your parents paid for your college education, you're golden. You don't have to worry about buying a house IB for good schools, sending kids to college, paying for braces, helping your kid pay for an apartment while they job hunt, etc. You also don't have to give up career opportunities to be present for your kids, as so many women especially do.

It just makes sense to give more money to adult kids who have kids (or at least give the money directly to the grandkids) than to leave huge sums to childless adults. Why, so they can have really, extra nice retirements? They don't even have anyone to leave the excess to. It makes no sense.

If none of your kids have kids, divide it evenly and let the chips fall. But if some have children and others don't, I do actually think it makes more sense to leave most of it to the people with kids so that money actually helps future generations get an education and get started in life, instead of just helping your adult child buy a vacation home or buy a really nice TV or whatever.

This is dumb. My sister has kids, I don’t. My mother divided her money equally between me and my sister. When I die, I’ll leave what remains of my share to my nieces and nephew. So the grandkids will get it either way, just not right away.

Same here but my share is going to charity.💰

I mean, frankly this is the better way. Down with generational wealth transfer.

Agree. I find it more useful to give to worthy causes than to lazy nieces/nephews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like what my sisters friends rich grandparents did. Set up a trust giving zero to currently living people. Even time a new kid born parents get a check $200k. When that kid graduates a four year college a second check 200k the when that kid has kids more 200k checks.

Giving childless people money 💰 with no metrics attached is useless.

The kids exist to raise educated kids of their own to go on and have more kids.

The trust is inflation adjusted. I am not rich enough to do that. But I can see setting up a trust for future kids and leave none to kids.

I was thinking leaving it all in a trust leaving zero to living people then pay out 1/10 every time a kid born after my death so first kids get a bigger share of pot.

Having kids with no kids is kinda like going to a restaurant and not eating.

Ok I don't agree that everyone should have kids or that there is "no point" to having kids if they don't have kids. Just strongly, strongly disagree.

HOWEVER

I do agree that it's kind of weird to leave an adult who is past the age where they might have had kids and didn't, a huge sum of money. What is it for? If you don't have kids, you can work for 30 years (or less if you choose the right field), save intelligently, and have an amazing life where you never really worry about money. If your parents paid for your college education, you're golden. You don't have to worry about buying a house IB for good schools, sending kids to college, paying for braces, helping your kid pay for an apartment while they job hunt, etc. You also don't have to give up career opportunities to be present for your kids, as so many women especially do.

It just makes sense to give more money to adult kids who have kids (or at least give the money directly to the grandkids) than to leave huge sums to childless adults. Why, so they can have really, extra nice retirements? They don't even have anyone to leave the excess to. It makes no sense.

If none of your kids have kids, divide it evenly and let the chips fall. But if some have children and others don't, I do actually think it makes more sense to leave most of it to the people with kids so that money actually helps future generations get an education and get started in life, instead of just helping your adult child buy a vacation home or buy a really nice TV or whatever.

This is dumb. My sister has kids, I don’t. My mother divided her money equally between me and my sister. When I die, I’ll leave what remains of my share to my nieces and nephew. So the grandkids will get it either way, just not right away.

Same here but my share is going to charity.💰

+1

My nieces and nephews will inherit from my parents directly, and will get plenty from their parents as well. I plan to leave mine to charity as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think exactly like you, OP, except that I love parenting and do not regret prioritizing my children.

However, I agree with your greater point. What's the point if my line ends?

I don't know how old you are, but my uncle became a grandfather at 80+ years old. He had his daughter later in life, and she had a daughter at 36. It was probably the happiest day of his life.

+1
The desire to see your line continue is biological and innate. No one should be shaming OP for saying what most people feel deep inside.

Uh, maybe OP and others should use their intellect and logic (assuming they have any) to rise above these frankly primitive impulses. We don’t live in caves anymore.

😂😂 you’re a moron

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - my kids may have kids yet. Buy I had a brother who literally worked 60 hours a week for 40 years to make a ton of money and his wife stayed home running around with kid, paying college, paying grad school, paying for wedding.

After all that they announce the decided not to have kids. (Why even get married?)

My brother sold the family home, (no point having it as no Xmas or Thanksgiving or family parties with a house full of grandkids), sold his collector car he loved as no grand kid to leave it to.

They retired to a HOA in Florida with their now “worthless” millions. No one to leave it to. They go to early bird special, play golf. Soon their DNA will disappear along with their branch of the family tree.

Would it have killed their daughter just to pop out a kid or two?

My brother aged 10 years overnight. His entire 40 years of work means nothing and his wife doming multiple rounds of fertility treatment to have kid and quitting work to be a SAHM now all meaningless

I suspect that this is a cultural thing for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh FFS. I can't scroll through all of this. But WTF.

Same. This is the weirdest thread I’ve ever seen on DCUM.

100% agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like what my sisters friends rich grandparents did. Set up a trust giving zero to currently living people. Even time a new kid born parents get a check $200k. When that kid graduates a four year college a second check 200k the when that kid has kids more 200k checks.

Giving childless people money 💰 with no metrics attached is useless.

The kids exist to raise educated kids of their own to go on and have more kids.

The trust is inflation adjusted. I am not rich enough to do that. But I can see setting up a trust for future kids and leave none to kids.

I was thinking leaving it all in a trust leaving zero to living people then pay out 1/10 every time a kid born after my death so first kids get a bigger share of pot.

Having kids with no kids is kinda like going to a restaurant and not eating.

Ok I don't agree that everyone should have kids or that there is "no point" to having kids if they don't have kids. Just strongly, strongly disagree.

HOWEVER

I do agree that it's kind of weird to leave an adult who is past the age where they might have had kids and didn't, a huge sum of money. What is it for? If you don't have kids, you can work for 30 years (or less if you choose the right field), save intelligently, and have an amazing life where you never really worry about money. If your parents paid for your college education, you're golden. You don't have to worry about buying a house IB for good schools, sending kids to college, paying for braces, helping your kid pay for an apartment while they job hunt, etc. You also don't have to give up career opportunities to be present for your kids, as so many women especially do.

It just makes sense to give more money to adult kids who have kids (or at least give the money directly to the grandkids) than to leave huge sums to childless adults. Why, so they can have really, extra nice retirements? They don't even have anyone to leave the excess to. It makes no sense.

If none of your kids have kids, divide it evenly and let the chips fall. But if some have children and others don't, I do actually think it makes more sense to leave most of it to the people with kids so that money actually helps future generations get an education and get started in life, instead of just helping your adult child buy a vacation home or buy a really nice TV or whatever.

This is dumb. My sister has kids, I don’t. My mother divided her money equally between me and my sister. When I die, I’ll leave what remains of my share to my nieces and nephew. So the grandkids will get it either way, just not right away.

But what if you didn't intend to leave what remains to your nieces and nephews. Or what if you spend it all on yourself first? If your mom didn't trust you to spend responsibly and to leave it to her grandchildren, she might allocate more money to her child with kids to get a better likelihood that her money gets used for future generations.

Also, one thing to consider is when the money will be passed on. Passing more money onto kids with kids often means that the money goes straight to college or downpayments for grandkids because of the timing. Your nieces and nephews will not be able to use any bequest from you to pay for their educations or to give them a better start in life. If that's something your mom cared about (and something she was able to provide for you), it would make sense for her to leave more money to your sister or even to put some portion of money into trusts for grandkids, by reducing the shares to you and your sister.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like what my sisters friends rich grandparents did. Set up a trust giving zero to currently living people. Even time a new kid born parents get a check $200k. When that kid graduates a four year college a second check 200k the when that kid has kids more 200k checks.

Giving childless people money 💰 with no metrics attached is useless.

The kids exist to raise educated kids of their own to go on and have more kids.

The trust is inflation adjusted. I am not rich enough to do that. But I can see setting up a trust for future kids and leave none to kids.

I was thinking leaving it all in a trust leaving zero to living people then pay out 1/10 every time a kid born after my death so first kids get a bigger share of pot.

Having kids with no kids is kinda like going to a restaurant and not eating.

Ok I don't agree that everyone should have kids or that there is "no point" to having kids if they don't have kids. Just strongly, strongly disagree.

HOWEVER

I do agree that it's kind of weird to leave an adult who is past the age where they might have had kids and didn't, a huge sum of money. What is it for? If you don't have kids, you can work for 30 years (or less if you choose the right field), save intelligently, and have an amazing life where you never really worry about money. If your parents paid for your college education, you're golden. You don't have to worry about buying a house IB for good schools, sending kids to college, paying for braces, helping your kid pay for an apartment while they job hunt, etc. You also don't have to give up career opportunities to be present for your kids, as so many women especially do.

It just makes sense to give more money to adult kids who have kids (or at least give the money directly to the grandkids) than to leave huge sums to childless adults. Why, so they can have really, extra nice retirements? They don't even have anyone to leave the excess to. It makes no sense.

If none of your kids have kids, divide it evenly and let the chips fall. But if some have children and others don't, I do actually think it makes more sense to leave most of it to the people with kids so that money actually helps future generations get an education and get started in life, instead of just helping your adult child buy a vacation home or buy a really nice TV or whatever.

This is dumb. My sister has kids, I don’t. My mother divided her money equally between me and my sister. When I die, I’ll leave what remains of my share to my nieces and nephew. So the grandkids will get it either way, just not right away.

But what if you didn't intend to leave what remains to your nieces and nephews. Or what if you spend it all on yourself first? If your mom didn't trust you to spend responsibly and to leave it to her grandchildren, she might allocate more money to her child with kids to get a better likelihood that her money gets used for future generations.

Also, one thing to consider is when the money will be passed on. Passing more money onto kids with kids often means that the money goes straight to college or downpayments for grandkids because of the timing. Your nieces and nephews will not be able to use any bequest from you to pay for their educations or to give them a better start in life. If that's something your mom cared about (and something she was able to provide for you), it would make sense for her to leave more money to your sister or even to put some portion of money into trusts for grandkids, by reducing the shares to you and your sister.

Who cares what she does with it? If someone wants all their money to go to their grandchildren, they can leave it to them directly.
My sibling has kids and I do not. My parents are leaving each of their grandchildren something like ten grand each, and then what's left will be split between me and my sibling. That's what my grandparents did as well and I think it's the fairest approach.

Money should be left to whomever you want to leave it to, without strings attached or hopes about what they'll do with it.

It's also pretty shitty to further penalize children who might have suffered from infertility or didn't have good luck in love.

My parents love their grandchildren, but I am their child. And they know full well that I'll probably use my inheritance to travel and retire somewhere warm (where I hope my nieces and nephews will spend lots of time visiting with their own families). They're happy that I'll have a good life when they're gone, because that's what parents want for their kids.