Greedy rich people

[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.

Reading comprehension, dude. I DID financially contribute, and contributed 10x more labor. You can be as annoyed as you want, but when you pull down 7 figures and are trying to block a financially struggling sib from getting a comically small inheritance - yeah something else is going on. This isn’t about me telling them what to do with their money. It’s them trying to force others to, I don’t know, give them more money because they are rich and therefore entitled to it.

I don’t gaf about what they do or don’t do to support the remaining aging relatives (who I am estranged from and won’t support in any event). I just think it s very odd that the richer they are the more obsessive they seem to be about amounts of money that cannot functionally mean anything to them.

[Anonymous]

just because you are wealthy doesn't mean your money is free and available to spend anywhere. We have 800k and most of our money is tied up in investments that we aren't going to pull out to spend a party night, wtf is wrong w/ u op

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

well they do seem to expect me to front the money. true quote when I was working in a nonprofit: “you could be earning more, therefore you need to pay as much to support Grandma as if you were working on Wall Street.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ok then my brothers can pay me an hourly rate for all the additional time I spent caregiving.

Also if we were talking about sums that big, I would absolutely agree with you. But we aren’t. It’s a tiny amount.

I also think there’s something to the notion that a relative distributed their estate the way they want. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to make a gift to a less well-off heir? Or distribute it equally? Isn’t that really common?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:just because you are wealthy doesn't mean your money is free and available to spend anywhere. We have 800k and most of our money is tied up in investments that we aren't going to pull out to spend a party night, wtf is wrong w/ u op

I just don’t think you should go grubbing around other people’s inheritances because you are so poor due to having millions in assets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

We help my parents with over $600k to gain entry to a CcRC—they wouldn’t qualify otherwise.
Should there be anything left after estate pays bills, we are first in line to get it back.
Hint: if they live at least another 3-4 years there won’t be enough left to even pay us back. We don’t care—it’s what you do to keep parents well taken care of when you are 2k+ miles from them anc they won’t move close to us.
But siblings are not happy they won’t get anything basically.
Sure the $$ is not essential for us but we are entitled to get it back, and siblings do not help with any care (even if we offer to pay for all of their travels and expenses while doing it). Those that help take care of elderly while alive are entitled to compensation from the estate before it’s split evenly (or really however the deceased wish it’s split via their wills )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just because you are wealthy doesn't mean your money is free and available to spend anywhere. We have 800k and most of our money is tied up in investments that we aren't going to pull out to spend a party night, wtf is wrong w/ u op

I just don’t think you should go grubbing around other people’s inheritances because you are so poor due to having millions in assets.

You’re the one obsessing about this. And it’s not your inheritance. It was your expected inheritance based on a mistaken understanding. You figured they wouldn’t need to be or care about being reimbursed. You were wrong. This is a very normal occurrence: the wealthier children help front the money for aging parents and they get paid back out of the estate before any other distributions, just like all debts of the estate are paid before distributions.

You don’t want to hear it, but you’re wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

We help my parents with over $600k to gain entry to a CcRC—they wouldn’t qualify otherwise.
Should there be anything left after estate pays bills, we are first in line to get it back.
Hint: if they live at least another 3-4 years there won’t be enough left to even pay us back. We don’t care—it’s what you do to keep parents well taken care of when you are 2k+ miles from them anc they won’t move close to us.
But siblings are not happy they won’t get anything basically.
Sure the $$ is not essential for us but we are entitled to get it back, and siblings do not help with any care (even if we offer to pay for all of their travels and expenses while doing it). Those that help take care of elderly while alive are entitled to compensation from the estate before it’s split evenly (or really however the deceased wish it’s split via their wills )

Again you made a huge financial contribution. It’s fair for you to get it back. The head-scratching thing here is that it is NOT about big money - not the contributions or the estates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just because you are wealthy doesn't mean your money is free and available to spend anywhere. We have 800k and most of our money is tied up in investments that we aren't going to pull out to spend a party night, wtf is wrong w/ u op

I just don’t think you should go grubbing around other people’s inheritances because you are so poor due to having millions in assets.

You’re the one obsessing about this. And it’s not your inheritance. It was your expected inheritance based on a mistaken understanding. You figured they wouldn’t need to be or care about being reimbursed. You were wrong. This is a very normal occurrence: the wealthier children help front the money for aging parents and they get paid back out of the estate before any other distributions, just like all debts of the estate are paid before distributions.

You don’t want to hear it, but you’re wrong.

You have your facts wrong/can’t read. They are pressuring others to give up their (small) inheritances.

[Anonymous]

My grandfather left a small inheritance to his 3 kids, l think it was $40k to each of 3 kids. My dad had by far the most money, and he also had my grandfather live with him for a few years before assisted living - basically he and my mom did 99%+ of the caregiving. They still were ok with equally splitting the inheritance. Not all “rich” relatives are A holes. I can see why you’re disgusted by your brothers OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

well they do seem to expect me to front the money. true quote when I was working in a nonprofit: “you could be earning more, therefore you need to pay as much to support Grandma as if you were working on Wall Street.”

Yes. That’s the thing. They are rich because money is incredibly important to them and you’re not because it isn’t incredibly important to you. It’s not a rounding error to them. It’s their essence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ok then my brothers can pay me an hourly rate for all the additional time I spent caregiving.

Also if we were talking about sums that big, I would absolutely agree with you. But we aren’t. It’s a tiny amount.

I also think there’s something to the notion that a relative distributed their estate the way they want. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to make a gift to a less well-off heir? Or distribute it equally? Isn’t that really common?

Caregiving definitely should be taken into account. Maybe I missed that. If was the wealthy brother and wrote a check but never did anything else, I would expect part of my money to go towards your caregiving once the dust settles.

Caregiving is much harder than stroking a check; depending on the size of the check..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a fine line between keeping exact accounts and insisting on everyone contributing/ not freeloading, and just being a complete arse about it.

From your post, I'm not sure how often your brothers cross the line. They likely have expenses commensurate with their income, and are allergic to anyone making assumptions about what they can contribute solely based on their income. Likely they're of the mindset that "they worked hard to get where they are, and if others didn't work as hard, then too bad for them". Conveniently ignoring that being white and male opens doors that others have to work hard to open, and that everything has a component of luck.

I've seen both sides in my family. Well-off people being milked by poorer relatives who assume they can afford to help in every circumstance, and people getting overly defensive about their wealth to protect themselves from that same problem.

Continue to defend your financial interests, OP. This is a transactional negotiation: they play hardball, you play hardball.

that makes sense. these are small amounts of money though - they seem to expend MUCH more time and energy devising ways to control their contributions than just writing a check would take. it made sense if they were like us mere mortals and still had to pinch to save for college. but ha ha no! they actually have generational wealth now.

There is nothing wrong in controlling your own contribution. You sound very bitter.

[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.

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!

It is not clear from your post how do they come after your money. You are assuming that money is nothing to them, I am pretty sure money means a lot to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a fine line between keeping exact accounts and insisting on everyone contributing/ not freeloading, and just being a complete arse about it.

From your post, I'm not sure how often your brothers cross the line. They likely have expenses commensurate with their income, and are allergic to anyone making assumptions about what they can contribute solely based on their income. Likely they're of the mindset that "they worked hard to get where they are, and if others didn't work as hard, then too bad for them". Conveniently ignoring that being white and male opens doors that others have to work hard to open, and that everything has a component of luck.

I've seen both sides in my family. Well-off people being milked by poorer relatives who assume they can afford to help in every circumstance, and people getting overly defensive about their wealth to protect themselves from that same problem.

Continue to defend your financial interests, OP. This is a transactional negotiation: they play hardball, you play hardball.

that makes sense. these are small amounts of money though - they seem to expend MUCH more time and energy devising ways to control their contributions than just writing a check would take. it made sense if they were like us mere mortals and still had to pinch to save for college. but ha ha no! they actually have generational wealth now.

There is nothing wrong in controlling your own contribution. You sound very bitter.

I mean, there kinda is something wrong or weird about creating drama over contributions that are not really much money at all. It’s on them, but seems easier to just write a check. I mean at a certain point yeah, I expect them to be more gracious and less stressed about it when they have so much freakin’ money. To clarify again this is not about me wanting to contribute less. It’s the weirdness about small $$ that just appears yes, greedy.