Inheritance when one child has kids, the other does not

[Anonymous]

I wanted to add that I personally prefer the above to donating to various organizations/charities/universities, but a lot of people do that as well of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m curious what you’d have my parents do. I’m an only child with no children. Who should my parents leave their money to?

Use common sense? Your parents can leave their money to someone in their families on either father's or mother's side. If you're married, you can leave your money to your spouse's family. In the end, life goes on. Another option is to establish a mechanism to provide scholarships to the youth in the community. For example, I know of a high school where a former educator has a scholarship named after him for high school athletes. Another man who ran a soccer club all his life has a scholarship for academically exceptional club athletes. The amounts are small ($1000), but mean a lot to high school kids and they absolutely talk about this. I know of other small scholarships established by people in the community who are not millionaires that are for academic achievement. After all, there are only a few individuals who get libraries named after them. For these two men mentioned, their families established these scholarships after their deaths as a tribute for their lifelong passions, so there are kids and grandkids. Do your parents have passions? Did they spend their lifetime doing something that took a lot of effort and time (a career or a hobby)? I'm sure if you think a bit, you'll have your answer.

But why is it wrong if their parents want to leave it to PP? PP is their child. If PP then decides to leave their estate to charity since they had no kids that’s their prerogative. But why should they be deprived of their parents estate just because they didn’t have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea of inheritance is to continue family line. Childless child had their whole life to contribute to their career and should have enough money. Rearing children is the cost, women often have to take a break in their careers or have no careers at all. So I'd look at what my kids have done so far. I certainly wouldn't leave money to a childless child who then leaves it to charity, I can do that myself! I'd leave money to the child with kids, some to grandkids directly and if a daughter, to her, to make sure she has money in her old age.

Wow. These posts that essentially shut out childless people are shocking to me. Our family is our family and we treat and view our kids the same, whether they had children or not.

In my family my parents made my childless sister the executor and she refuses to follow the will or guidelines and who knows how much she stole from one parent and she has been clear she'll take it all from the other parent from us... we aren't treated the same and the living parent fully supports her behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless one has triple digit millions or more to bequeath, then all things being equal, the money should be divided equally amongst the children, not the grandchildren: it's the parents' choice to breed and thus their responsibility to support their own brood. Reproducing in and of itself doesn't automatically make one or one's offspring more worthy of resources: does anyone honestly think that someone like Oliver Sacks contributed less to the world than the Duggars?

That said, if I'd spent (wasted) a disproportionate amount of money on one kid for preventable and unnecessary reasons (e.g. more than one round of drug rehab because kid started using again within a week of getting out of one stint; bail; rent because of eviction owing to failure to work, etc.), I'd rebalance through my will to award the kid(s) who were hard-working and responsible all along.

Also, if I had one kid whose net worth was somewhere in the neighborhood of what, say, Serena Williams or Oprah Winfrey has and the other were, say, a middle school teacher and what I had to leave in the way of material resources would provide my middle-class child with financial security that would not affect the material welfare of my other child in any meaningful way,
I might want to bequeath a disproportionate amount to the former, but not if doing so would negatively affect their relationship with each other.

No, but the person with kids is more likely to need the money, put it to good use, and carry things forward.

And just to add, it doesn't make you more valuable to the world but having kids certainly does make an impact to your family and the grandparents.

So a childless person who leaves money to, say, the Audubon Society does less with it than a breeder who blows it on ATVs, drunkfests (vacations; graduations for high school seniors finishing with D averages), rock concerts because family? Impact, btw, can be, to quote the Rocky Horror Picture Show, "good, bad or mediocre." The lack of critical thinking ability and imagination in this thread and on this site more generally is just appalling.

No one is taking seriously a post that says "breeder." I mean, look at the same of the site you're on. Gmafb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m curious what you’d have my parents do. I’m an only child with no children. Who should my parents leave their money to?

Use common sense? Your parents can leave their money to someone in their families on either father's or mother's side. If you're married, you can leave your money to your spouse's family. In the end, life goes on. Another option is to establish a mechanism to provide scholarships to the youth in the community. For example, I know of a high school where a former educator has a scholarship named after him for high school athletes. Another man who ran a soccer club all his life has a scholarship for academically exceptional club athletes. The amounts are small ($1000), but mean a lot to high school kids and they absolutely talk about this. I know of other small scholarships established by people in the community who are not millionaires that are for academic achievement. After all, there are only a few individuals who get libraries named after them. For these two men mentioned, their families established these scholarships after their deaths as a tribute for their lifelong passions, so there are kids and grandkids. Do your parents have passions? Did they spend their lifetime doing something that took a lot of effort and time (a career or a hobby)? I'm sure if you think a bit, you'll have your answer.

But why is it wrong if their parents want to leave it to PP? PP is their child. If PP then decides to leave their estate to charity since they had no kids that’s their prerogative. But why should they be deprived of their parents estate just because they didn’t have kids.

To be blunt, it's the sense that the PP doesn't really "need the money" and so they can look more broadly at what else they may want to leave money to (charities they care about, other family members like nieces/nephews). It's not like they are going to cut out this only child PP but I don't think its uncommon for them to have other interests as well. After all it's their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m curious what you’d have my parents do. I’m an only child with no children. Who should my parents leave their money to?

Use common sense? Your parents can leave their money to someone in their families on either father's or mother's side. If you're married, you can leave your money to your spouse's family. In the end, life goes on. Another option is to establish a mechanism to provide scholarships to the youth in the community. For example, I know of a high school where a former educator has a scholarship named after him for high school athletes. Another man who ran a soccer club all his life has a scholarship for academically exceptional club athletes. The amounts are small ($1000), but mean a lot to high school kids and they absolutely talk about this. I know of other small scholarships established by people in the community who are not millionaires that are for academic achievement. After all, there are only a few individuals who get libraries named after them. For these two men mentioned, their families established these scholarships after their deaths as a tribute for their lifelong passions, so there are kids and grandkids. Do your parents have passions? Did they spend their lifetime doing something that took a lot of effort and time (a career or a hobby)? I'm sure if you think a bit, you'll have your answer.

Or they could just leave it to me, their daughter, whom they love and chose to bring into this world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m curious what you’d have my parents do. I’m an only child with no children. Who should my parents leave their money to?

Use common sense? Your parents can leave their money to someone in their families on either father's or mother's side. If you're married, you can leave your money to your spouse's family. In the end, life goes on. Another option is to establish a mechanism to provide scholarships to the youth in the community. For example, I know of a high school where a former educator has a scholarship named after him for high school athletes. Another man who ran a soccer club all his life has a scholarship for academically exceptional club athletes. The amounts are small ($1000), but mean a lot to high school kids and they absolutely talk about this. I know of other small scholarships established by people in the community who are not millionaires that are for academic achievement. After all, there are only a few individuals who get libraries named after them. For these two men mentioned, their families established these scholarships after their deaths as a tribute for their lifelong passions, so there are kids and grandkids. Do your parents have passions? Did they spend their lifetime doing something that took a lot of effort and time (a career or a hobby)? I'm sure if you think a bit, you'll have your answer.

But why is it wrong if their parents want to leave it to PP? PP is their child. If PP then decides to leave their estate to charity since they had no kids that’s their prerogative. But why should they be deprived of their parents estate just because they didn’t have kids.

To be blunt, it's the sense that the PP doesn't really "need the money" and so they can look more broadly at what else they may want to leave money to (charities they care about, other family members like nieces/nephews). It's not like they are going to cut out this only child PP but I don't think its uncommon for them to have other interests as well. After all it's their money.

But maybe someone with kids doesn’t really need the money. If you have two kids: a rich one with 4 children, and a struggling childless kid, are you really leaving it all to the one with kids? If yes, that’s honestly pretty f’ed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Or they could just leave it to me, their daughter, whom they love and chose to bring into this world?

Yes, of course they could and nobody's saying that it's wrong. But then the question is which charity gets the money in the end, the one that is dear to your parents' heart or the one that is dear to yours? If you are well-off yourself (and statistically childless people are, because you had a lifetime to earn money), why do you want the money? If of course you're not well-off and think you'll have a hard time managing your elderly years, then it's a different problem, I'm assuming here that you're in no need of money yourself (need versus want).

[Anonymous]

Well, obviously if your daughter has 5 kids with a billionaire, she's set. I and I think others are talking about average people. Statistically people with kids are worse off (especially women), because kids cost money and parents have to take time off work, impacting their lifetime income flow and retirement benefits.

[Anonymous]

"Education trust for grandchildren, then split 50/50.
"

Misguided. It still rewards the person who had kids young and had more kids. It overlooks important things like the possibility that a grandkid could get a full ride and not need their share, or that one could requires extra money for special needs.

[Anonymous]

"I still don’t get this…by default, anything they give the grandkids and cousins is: 1. Reducing what the kid has to pay for that grandkid so increasing that kid’s NW and 2. Reducing the total value of the final estate that is split evenly.

I don’t care if you do that, but it’s not splitting things evenly. No reason if you give $20k to grandkid’s 529 you can’t gift another childless kid $20k."

Exactly. Anything that reduces what's left to divide among siblings is unfair.

[Anonymous]

"
Those giving the assets do not know the future. The unmarried (adult) child may marry. The unmarried child may adopt. The unmarried child could come down with parkinson's or cancer or become disabled. Who knows?

Split it 50/50"

+1000

This was my reaction to the PP whose parents gave 30-30-30 to their kids ans 10 to the one current grandchild. Maybe one of the other siblings does IVF and has triplets? Or marries Jeff Bezos?

[Anonymous]

People with kids can avoid lots of elder care expenses because they have a built in support system. Rides to the doctor, care when sick at home, moving into the in-law suite are all things the childless will not have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People with kids can avoid lots of elder care expenses because they have a built in support system. Rides to the doctor, care when sick at home, moving into the in-law suite are all things the childless will not have.

This is wishful thinking. People live so long with so many issues that in most cases they need AL and money that that requires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming we are talking about a sizeable sum here - open and fully fund grandkids' college funds.

Then divide what remains evenly between children.

Nope…give each kid the same regardless
Of children.

Since most adults will pay for their kids’ college, this is just indirectly giving one adult child hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

Fund the grandkids to pass $$&s when alive but reduce what the adult child by same amount.

I would be so upset if my inheritance was lowered because I had more kids than my sibling. My sibling sees my parents every other year. Im here with them daily. My kids help them out a lot too- weeding, cleaning plus my kids spend a lot of time with them. I don’t think my kids deserve an inheritance but don’t think that grandparents get nothing out of grandkids. I think my kids are my parents purpose for living and their lives wouldn’t have been complete. Why should my inheritance be reduced?

It is 100% okay to give different amounts!

For example:

My sibling is always "too busy" to help with anything with the parents. We both are a plane ride away. Sibling has not seen parents in 9 years. Only ever saw them prior to that because I paid for their airfare (and neice) to visit us when parents were with us. During major medical issues, sibling refused to come and help (had no real reason not to come, they had no work at that time-ssmmer vacation, and I was willing to pay all expenses, it was just them giving their time)

Meanwhile, I help parents with everything (even from a distance), visit a few times per year, helped get them into a CCRC (Paid entry fee), am their POA and executor of the wills, etc.

When parents die, I will get repaid for the CCRC entry fee, essentially leaving little to nothing for sibling to inherit. I don't need it, but will take it because sibling is ungrateful and unhelpful. Parents don't really care if they give sibling much.

In reality, I'm the sibling who has helped parents for the last 25+ years with time and energy. So it's not far fetched to understand that parents want to leave more to me.

Two minds here:

One - your parents should pay you back for the CCRC entry fee. I've told a friend that she needs to document every time she pays her mom's taxes in order to recoup anything from the estate if possible. The two other sisters are not contributing towards these expenses - they just can't. But she should try to figure out how she can be made as whole as possible in the most transparent way possible. So, make it as transparent as possible. You and your sis may have troubles, but minimize the unnecessary ones. My paternal aunt took nearly everything when my dad's mom died. She claimed she had been the one who covered everything. It burned my parents because she had been left the much larger parcel of land and my parents had also given my dad's mom a lot of money from their wedding as his mom was a recent widow. My aunt wouldn't take any of this into account and their relationship never recovered.

Two - DH graduated from college 2 years after older sister, who spent a lot of time traveling over the eight years after she graduated from college. She and her BF, now husband, would work jobs, save their money, then take off on 2-3 month trips every year. Then for the next ten years she started her family and did not work outside the home. DH started working the fall after college graduation and has been working ever since. He has been more financially successful than she has since college graduation. And he began saving from when he first graduated at 22. Part of him thinks his financial success should be taken into account. BUT if he ends up covering the majority of his parents' expenses, he is not totally sold that she should inherit whatever assets remain and he should get little to none. As he says, "She chose not to save money for her own retirement for eight years. She wasn't working in a lower paid profession. She wasn't a SAHM. She worked jobs, quit them, and then took the 2-5K to take big trips. Why is that getting rewarded?"