Inheritance when one child has kids, the other does not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Give each child the same amount. It’s okay to give a set amount of money to grandchildren though. Money given to grandchildren doesn’t mean that one kid is getting more.

+1

BUT be sure to give each grandchild the SAME amount, OP. You do not want your legacy to be that you were a senile witch who showed favoritism

[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.

Disagree. There are takers, and there are those who are self sufficient. Takers should not be rewarded. Each kid should be given the same - or just give it all to charity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of three and the only one to have a child. My child is the only grandchild. My parents are splitting it evenly three ways. That is the only way to be fair.

If I was given more because I had birthed the grandchild, I’d feel like it was an award for breeding. And I wouldn’t be happy that my parents passing would cause a rift between me and my siblings.

+1

No way should the parent give more to one adult child (especially just because they have kids!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of three and the only one to have a child. My child is the only grandchild. My parents are splitting it evenly three ways. That is the only way to be fair.

If I was given more because I had birthed the grandchild, I’d feel like it was an award for breeding. And I wouldn’t be happy that my parents passing would cause a rift between me and my siblings.

+1

No way should the parent give more to one adult child (especially just because they have kids!)

Too bad. One of mine is a drug addict and my plan is to give to all of the children plus the grandchildren.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of three and the only one to have a child. My child is the only grandchild. My parents are splitting it evenly three ways. That is the only way to be fair.

If I was given more because I had birthed the grandchild, I’d feel like it was an award for breeding. And I wouldn’t be happy that my parents passing would cause a rift between me and my siblings.

+1

No way should the parent give more to one adult child (especially just because they have kids!)

Some people feel very strongly in the continuation of their families. Grandkids are very important and it's important to know that their genes will go on. My kids all have personal relationships with their grandparents and it brought a lot of comfort to my parents having grandkids.

That being said, I personally think that kids should get the same amount and then grandkids get a separate amount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of three and the only one to have a child. My child is the only grandchild. My parents are splitting it evenly three ways. That is the only way to be fair.

If I was given more because I had birthed the grandchild, I’d feel like it was an award for breeding. And I wouldn’t be happy that my parents passing would cause a rift between me and my siblings.

+1

No way should the parent give more to one adult child (especially just because they have kids!)

Some people feel very strongly in the continuation of their families. Grandkids are very important and it's important to know that their genes will go on. My kids all have personal relationships with their grandparents and it brought a lot of comfort to my parents having grandkids.

That being said, I personally think that kids should get the same amount and then grandkids get a separate amount.

That is probably the best way to do it. Kids get the same. Grandchildren get something themselves

[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.

One that parents can support. Selfish? No, I'm not going to subsidize that.

[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.

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.

Then, yes, maybe I should leave them money for mental health care.

[Anonymous]

If you're lucky enough to have an estate--can give equal amounts to each child and separate amounts to each grandchild. They all get acknowledged as the people they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Give each child the same amount. It’s okay to give a set amount of money to grandchildren though. Money given to grandchildren doesn’t mean that one kid is getting more.

This is how I look at things too. We will pay for grandchildren’s educations from PreK- college, at least, and set up trusts for them as adults. Will give same amounts of money to adult children for wedding, down payment, and trust accessible in adulthood.

[Anonymous]

I have three kids. Sister has two.

We will receive the same, and were told this at an appropriate age so that we could plan our lives accordingly. It will not be an enormous amount. I don’t have any issues with this. I respect that my parents can do as they choose with their money, and am grateful they are passing money to us.

The choice to have three children was mine. Her kids might be a little more secure down the road, but that is a reflection of the choices we each made.

[Anonymous]

You're leaving money to your children, not your grandchildren. It should be even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're leaving money to your children, not your grandchildren. It should be even.

Agree. But if your intent is to leave any money to your grandchildren, then do it directly. DH's grandparents left money to their children to then leave to the grandchildren. DH only learned recently that all the gifts his parents were making to him were from the grandparents. He is grateful for them, yet also thinks it's weird that his parents presented them as if they were from them, not the prior generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're lucky enough to have an estate--can give equal amounts to each child and separate amounts to each grandchild. They all get acknowledged as the people they are.

This is what I will do with my modest (by dcum standards) estate. I do want my potential grandchildren to have something.

But my parents aren't doing that, for whatever reason. It's all going to sibling and I. I have the only grandkids and they are really close to my parent/s (one just passed). I don't think it's an intentional thing, it's just how the family has always done. I will gift some to my kids upon my parent's passing-but I don't talk about it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give equal amounts to both of your adult children. Then also have a separate amount of money to be distributed equally among the grandkids.

So, maybe split your inheritance 40-40-20. Each of your kids getting 40% of your inheritance, and the grandkids divvying up the 20%.

In my family we give a portion to each adult child and then a portion split between adult grandchildren. Adult grandchildren are out of the house and are responsible for themselves financially, so they aren't getting as much financial benefit from the parents. Minor children share in the portion given to their parents.

That’s not as savy as you think. The adult children have already had more investment into them, because they are older. If the parents die, the minor children will need to become adults and also share their parents’ money with the adult children. So the adult children will end up getting more, when they’re adults and can fend for themselves.