How much is considered generational wealth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My grandparents passed away with about a 65m estate. It was divided up amongst the 6 siblings equally with a large chunk going into a charitable trust. each kid got about 7M (with the rest to charity). On top of what my parents had, yes they are totally fine but once they pass that will get split up between 3 of us. So let's say they have 10M, we each get 3M.

Is that life changing, of course, does it cause me to be a waste, no. 60M trickled down to about 3M for me..If my grandparents weren't as charitably inclined, the amounts would be higher but I think that is the most valuable lesson I learned.

To answer OPs question, I think my grandparents fit the bill for generational wealth transfer, but it all depends on how many heirs, charity etc. If my mom was an only child, then of course we'd be set for life..

Good point. If, on the other hand, your grandparents had set up a perpetual trust with the stipulation that no more than 3% of the estate was to be distributed each year and it should be equally distributed between people who are direct descendants over the age of 30 and should not exceed 100K (say) a year per person (create your own rules). Index that for inflation. The 65M would have earned $3.9M (at 6%), had $1.95M available for distribution but only had to distribute $600K in the first year. Depending on when this started, it would have grown substantially over the past decade and should be able to accommodate new members being added for a very long time and for many generations, don't you think?

I clearly simplified this but that was not their wish. A huge chunk went into a family charitable trust that we control in perpetuity. Each generation was given a flat amount outright, then the bulk was in trust for the beneficiary of each of the 6 adult kids.

My primary point was the size of your family clearly impacts the amount required to maintain "generational wealth." Will any of our family members go broke, obviously not. They have all been successful in their own careers so the inheritances are more for philanthropy, education and security for the next generation.

The more important thing we inherited was the idea of philanthropy. We were shocked when 15m+ went into a charitable trust instead of to the family, but we also realize this was a phenomenal lesson for all of us and will trickle down to all generations.

That's the literal definition of generational wealth, you ingrate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t there a three generation saying? First generation earns it. Second generation spends it. Third generation blows it.

Dh and I are children of immigrants and we worked very hard for our money. We will be able to leave each child a few million.

Almost all the people we know from family money aren’t very successful themselves besides having a grandparent or parent who was wealthy.

I consider generational wealth to be at least $100m. If it is anything less, it would be split amongst children and it won’t last much further than the next generation.

Or more concisely: Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t there a three generation saying? First generation earns it. Second generation spends it. Third generation blows it.

Dh and I are children of immigrants and we worked very hard for our money. We will be able to leave each child a few million.

Almost all the people we know from family money aren’t very successful themselves besides having a grandparent or parent who was wealthy.

I consider generational wealth to be at least $100m. If it is anything less, it would be split amongst children and it won’t last much further than the next generation.

Or more concisely: Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.

Louis XIV built it, Louis XV enjoyed it, Louis XVI paid for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, if it can easily be spent on basic necessities within a generation, then it's not generational wealth. My parents are leaving ~1 million for grandkids college and another million to my brother and I. Welp that will be more than gone as soon as they hit college and will just help me pay off my house a little faster. Even with 10 million, that would be gone by the next generation considering all the grandkids and great grandkids. Not even enough to accumulate interest. 100 million yes you are getting to a point where it works because assume a ~5% return just living off that, you're drawing $5 million a year and then you can start supporting a good lifestyle for multiple families

This is possibly the most out of touch thing I've ever read on here. The vast majority of people receive no inheritance at all, and of those that do most inherit less than six figures. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2021/12/17/inheritances-by-race

$100,000 or more is absolutely generational wealth. Just because you don't necessarily appreciate or use it wisely doesn't change that.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read the other responses, but think generational wealth is where large amounts of money trickle down at least two generations, so that the second generation to receive, also receives large amounts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My grandparents passed away with about a 65m estate. It was divided up amongst the 6 siblings equally with a large chunk going into a charitable trust. each kid got about 7M (with the rest to charity). On top of what my parents had, yes they are totally fine but once they pass that will get split up between 3 of us. So let's say they have 10M, we each get 3M.

Is that life changing, of course, does it cause me to be a waste, no. 60M trickled down to about 3M for me..If my grandparents weren't as charitably inclined, the amounts would be higher but I think that is the most valuable lesson I learned.

To answer OPs question, I think my grandparents fit the bill for generational wealth transfer, but it all depends on how many heirs, charity etc. If my mom was an only child, then of course we'd be set for life..

Good point. If, on the other hand, your grandparents had set up a perpetual trust with the stipulation that no more than 3% of the estate was to be distributed each year and it should be equally distributed between people who are direct descendants over the age of 30 and should not exceed 100K (say) a year per person (create your own rules). Index that for inflation. The 65M would have earned $3.9M (at 6%), had $1.95M available for distribution but only had to distribute $600K in the first year. Depending on when this started, it would have grown substantially over the past decade and should be able to accommodate new members being added for a very long time and for many generations, don't you think?

I clearly simplified this but that was not their wish. A huge chunk went into a family charitable trust that we control in perpetuity. Each generation was given a flat amount outright, then the bulk was in trust for the beneficiary of each of the 6 adult kids.

My primary point was the size of your family clearly impacts the amount required to maintain "generational wealth." Will any of our family members go broke, obviously not. They have all been successful in their own careers so the inheritances are more for philanthropy, education and security for the next generation.

The more important thing we inherited was the idea of philanthropy. We were shocked when 15m+ went into a charitable trust instead of to the family, but we also realize this was a phenomenal lesson for all of us and will trickle down to all generations.

That's the literal definition of generational wealth, you ingrate.

How was I being ungrateful? I never expected a dime at my age. It's helped us front load our college funds so we don't have to worry about that. I am beyond grateful..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[

$100,000 or more is absolutely generational wealth. Just because you don't necessarily appreciate or use it wisely doesn't change that.

100K is not generational wealth!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My grandparents passed away with about a 65m estate. It was divided up amongst the 6 siblings equally with a large chunk going into a charitable trust. each kid got about 7M (with the rest to charity). On top of what my parents had, yes they are totally fine but once they pass that will get split up between 3 of us. So let's say they have 10M, we each get 3M.

Is that life changing, of course, does it cause me to be a waste, no. 60M trickled down to about 3M for me..If my grandparents weren't as charitably inclined, the amounts would be higher but I think that is the most valuable lesson I learned.

To answer OPs question, I think my grandparents fit the bill for generational wealth transfer, but it all depends on how many heirs, charity etc. If my mom was an only child, then of course we'd be set for life..

Good point. If, on the other hand, your grandparents had set up a perpetual trust with the stipulation that no more than 3% of the estate was to be distributed each year and it should be equally distributed between people who are direct descendants over the age of 30 and should not exceed 100K (say) a year per person (create your own rules). Index that for inflation. The 65M would have earned $3.9M (at 6%), had $1.95M available for distribution but only had to distribute $600K in the first year. Depending on when this started, it would have grown substantially over the past decade and should be able to accommodate new members being added for a very long time and for many generations, don't you think?

I clearly simplified this but that was not their wish. A huge chunk went into a family charitable trust that we control in perpetuity. Each generation was given a flat amount outright, then the bulk was in trust for the beneficiary of each of the 6 adult kids.

My primary point was the size of your family clearly impacts the amount required to maintain "generational wealth." Will any of our family members go broke, obviously not. They have all been successful in their own careers so the inheritances are more for philanthropy, education and security for the next generation.

The more important thing we inherited was the idea of philanthropy. We were shocked when 15m+ went into a charitable trust instead of to the family, but we also realize this was a phenomenal lesson for all of us and will trickle down to all generations.

That's the literal definition of generational wealth, you ingrate.

How was I being ungrateful? I never expected a dime at my age. It's helped us front load our college funds so we don't have to worry about that. I am beyond grateful..

There are none so blind as them that cannot see.

60M trickled down to about 3M for me..If my grandparents weren't as charitably inclined, the amounts would be higher. . .
If my mom was an only child, then of course we'd be set for life..
My primary point was the size of your family clearly impacts the amount required to maintain "generational wealth."

And "I never expected a dime at my age" is not impressive. You clearly felt entitled to the money at some point, or you wouldn't have been "shocked when 15m+ went into a charitable trust instead of to the family."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

$100,000 or more is absolutely generational wealth. Just because you don't necessarily appreciate or use it wisely doesn't change that.

100K is not generational wealth!

it absolutely is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, if it can easily be spent on basic necessities within a generation, then it's not generational wealth. My parents are leaving ~1 million for grandkids college and another million to my brother and I. Welp that will be more than gone as soon as they hit college and will just help me pay off my house a little faster. Even with 10 million, that would be gone by the next generation considering all the grandkids and great grandkids. Not even enough to accumulate interest. 100 million yes you are getting to a point where it works because assume a ~5% return just living off that, you're drawing $5 million a year and then you can start supporting a good lifestyle for multiple families

If you paid for your own house and kids' college and invested the $2M your parents are leaving you, then it wouldn't be gone in an instant. It would double every 10 years or so and then be an amount that your kids or grandkids could use the 5% return to supplement their incomes in perpetuity.

Well yes but then you're asking me to sacrifice my own lifestyle which I'm not willing to do. That defeats the entire purpose of "generational wealth" if we're living in a cardboard box and driving a Prius

Oof. You act like you are too good for a Prius.

Wrong. I am in a family that has been wealthy for generations. The point of generational wealth is to allow each next generation to live a good life. Start businesses, go to college, marry well. Have accomplishments, be leaders, and be remembered.

The point is not to have an awesome house and a fancy car. That's poor people thinking. The point is to give the next generation the best start it can so that they can think further than where their next meal will come from. Not to make sure your wife's got a tennis bracelet. Although a few diamonds never hurt anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My grandparents passed away with about a 65m estate. It was divided up amongst the 6 siblings equally with a large chunk going into a charitable trust. each kid got about 7M (with the rest to charity). On top of what my parents had, yes they are totally fine but once they pass that will get split up between 3 of us. So let's say they have 10M, we each get 3M.

Is that life changing, of course, does it cause me to be a waste, no. 60M trickled down to about 3M for me..If my grandparents weren't as charitably inclined, the amounts would be higher but I think that is the most valuable lesson I learned.

To answer OPs question, I think my grandparents fit the bill for generational wealth transfer, but it all depends on how many heirs, charity etc. If my mom was an only child, then of course we'd be set for life..

Good point. If, on the other hand, your grandparents had set up a perpetual trust with the stipulation that no more than 3% of the estate was to be distributed each year and it should be equally distributed between people who are direct descendants over the age of 30 and should not exceed 100K (say) a year per person (create your own rules). Index that for inflation. The 65M would have earned $3.9M (at 6%), had $1.95M available for distribution but only had to distribute $600K in the first year. Depending on when this started, it would have grown substantially over the past decade and should be able to accommodate new members being added for a very long time and for many generations, don't you think?

I clearly simplified this but that was not their wish. A huge chunk went into a family charitable trust that we control in perpetuity. Each generation was given a flat amount outright, then the bulk was in trust for the beneficiary of each of the 6 adult kids.

My primary point was the size of your family clearly impacts the amount required to maintain "generational wealth." Will any of our family members go broke, obviously not. They have all been successful in their own careers so the inheritances are more for philanthropy, education and security for the next generation.

The more important thing we inherited was the idea of philanthropy. We were shocked when 15m+ went into a charitable trust instead of to the family, but we also realize this was a phenomenal lesson for all of us and will trickle down to all generations.

That's the literal definition of generational wealth, you ingrate.

How was I being ungrateful? I never expected a dime at my age. It's helped us front load our college funds so we don't have to worry about that. I am beyond grateful..

There are none so blind as them that cannot see.

60M trickled down to about 3M for me..If my grandparents weren't as charitably inclined, the amounts would be higher. . .
If my mom was an only child, then of course we'd be set for life..
My primary point was the size of your family clearly impacts the amount required to maintain "generational wealth."

And "I never expected a dime at my age" is not impressive. You clearly felt entitled to the money at some point, or you wouldn't have been "shocked when 15m+ went into a charitable trust instead of to the family."

I don't need the money..but name anyone who wouldn't be shocked to see $15M go into a charitable trust? Shocked does not equal mad. I am proud of my grandparents for doing this.

Stop sounding so judgmental or jealous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My grandparents passed away with about a 65m estate. It was divided up amongst the 6 siblings equally with a large chunk going into a charitable trust. each kid got about 7M (with the rest to charity). On top of what my parents had, yes they are totally fine but once they pass that will get split up between 3 of us. So let's say they have 10M, we each get 3M.

Is that life changing, of course, does it cause me to be a waste, no. 60M trickled down to about 3M for me..If my grandparents weren't as charitably inclined, the amounts would be higher but I think that is the most valuable lesson I learned.

To answer OPs question, I think my grandparents fit the bill for generational wealth transfer, but it all depends on how many heirs, charity etc. If my mom was an only child, then of course we'd be set for life..

Good point. If, on the other hand, your grandparents had set up a perpetual trust with the stipulation that no more than 3% of the estate was to be distributed each year and it should be equally distributed between people who are direct descendants over the age of 30 and should not exceed 100K (say) a year per person (create your own rules). Index that for inflation. The 65M would have earned $3.9M (at 6%), had $1.95M available for distribution but only had to distribute $600K in the first year. Depending on when this started, it would have grown substantially over the past decade and should be able to accommodate new members being added for a very long time and for many generations, don't you think?

I clearly simplified this but that was not their wish. A huge chunk went into a family charitable trust that we control in perpetuity. Each generation was given a flat amount outright, then the bulk was in trust for the beneficiary of each of the 6 adult kids.

My primary point was the size of your family clearly impacts the amount required to maintain "generational wealth." Will any of our family members go broke, obviously not. They have all been successful in their own careers so the inheritances are more for philanthropy, education and security for the next generation.

The more important thing we inherited was the idea of philanthropy. We were shocked when 15m+ went into a charitable trust instead of to the family, but we also realize this was a phenomenal lesson for all of us and will trickle down to all generations.

That's the literal definition of generational wealth, you ingrate.

How was I being ungrateful? I never expected a dime at my age. It's helped us front load our college funds so we don't have to worry about that. I am beyond grateful..

There are none so blind as them that cannot see.

60M trickled down to about 3M for me..If my grandparents weren't as charitably inclined, the amounts would be higher. . .
If my mom was an only child, then of course we'd be set for life..
My primary point was the size of your family clearly impacts the amount required to maintain "generational wealth."

And "I never expected a dime at my age" is not impressive. You clearly felt entitled to the money at some point, or you wouldn't have been "shocked when 15m+ went into a charitable trust instead of to the family."

I don't need the money..but name anyone who wouldn't be shocked to see $15M go into a charitable trust? Shocked does not equal mad. I am proud of my grandparents for doing this.

Stop sounding so judgmental or jealous.

I didn't say you were mad, I said you were entitled and ungrateful. Maybe stop whining that your grandparents had too big of a family for you to be "set for life" and learn how to use ellipses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

$100,000 or more is absolutely generational wealth. Just because you don't necessarily appreciate or use it wisely doesn't change that.

100K is not generational wealth!

it absolutely is.

Yes, of course it is. The majority of people will never inherit anything close to that. If it doesn't seem like a lot to you, that's most likely because you already have a ton of privilege and opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, if it can easily be spent on basic necessities within a generation, then it's not generational wealth. My parents are leaving ~1 million for grandkids college and another million to my brother and I. Welp that will be more than gone as soon as they hit college and will just help me pay off my house a little faster. Even with 10 million, that would be gone by the next generation considering all the grandkids and great grandkids. Not even enough to accumulate interest. 100 million yes you are getting to a point where it works because assume a ~5% return just living off that, you're drawing $5 million a year and then you can start supporting a good lifestyle for multiple families

If you paid for your own house and kids' college and invested the $2M your parents are leaving you, then it wouldn't be gone in an instant. It would double every 10 years or so and then be an amount that your kids or grandkids could use the 5% return to supplement their incomes in perpetuity.

Well yes but then you're asking me to sacrifice my own lifestyle which I'm not willing to do. That defeats the entire purpose of "generational wealth" if we're living in a cardboard box and driving a Prius

Oof. You act like you are too good for a Prius.

Wrong. I am in a family that has been wealthy for generations. The point of generational wealth is to allow each next generation to live a good life. Start businesses, go to college, marry well. Have accomplishments, be leaders, and be remembered.

The point is not to have an awesome house and a fancy car. That's poor people thinking. The point is to give the next generation the best start it can so that they can think further than where their next meal will come from. Not to make sure your wife's got a tennis bracelet. Although a few diamonds never hurt anyone.

My DH’s family has been wealthy for generations. They have been attending elite colleges/prep schools since the 1700s and they are a society family in their Midwest city. My FIL is the lawyer for the family trust.

DH will have a seven figure inheritance. So it’s not tens of millions of dollars. But he inherited a trust fund to pay for his education, his parents have helped out a lot financially, AND DH makes a low seven figure income himself.

The mindset of his family (for generations apparently) has been one of passing down wealth, but also making it. DH’s father had a successful/lucrative career, and all of DH’s siblings make high six figures/low seven figures.

I don’t come from a similar background, but I see how much it benefits our kids. It doesn’t have to be $100 million for it to be “generational” wealth that is meaningful for the next generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My grandparents passed away with about a 65m estate. It was divided up amongst the 6 siblings equally with a large chunk going into a charitable trust. each kid got about 7M (with the rest to charity). On top of what my parents had, yes they are totally fine but once they pass that will get split up between 3 of us. So let's say they have 10M, we each get 3M.

Is that life changing, of course, does it cause me to be a waste, no. 60M trickled down to about 3M for me..If my grandparents weren't as charitably inclined, the amounts would be higher but I think that is the most valuable lesson I learned.

To answer OPs question, I think my grandparents fit the bill for generational wealth transfer, but it all depends on how many heirs, charity etc. If my mom was an only child, then of course we'd be set for life..

Good point. If, on the other hand, your grandparents had set up a perpetual trust with the stipulation that no more than 3% of the estate was to be distributed each year and it should be equally distributed between people who are direct descendants over the age of 30 and should not exceed 100K (say) a year per person (create your own rules). Index that for inflation. The 65M would have earned $3.9M (at 6%), had $1.95M available for distribution but only had to distribute $600K in the first year. Depending on when this started, it would have grown substantially over the past decade and should be able to accommodate new members being added for a very long time and for many generations, don't you think?

I clearly simplified this but that was not their wish. A huge chunk went into a family charitable trust that we control in perpetuity. Each generation was given a flat amount outright, then the bulk was in trust for the beneficiary of each of the 6 adult kids.

My primary point was the size of your family clearly impacts the amount required to maintain "generational wealth." Will any of our family members go broke, obviously not. They have all been successful in their own careers so the inheritances are more for philanthropy, education and security for the next generation.

The more important thing we inherited was the idea of philanthropy. We were shocked when 15m+ went into a charitable trust instead of to the family, but we also realize this was a phenomenal lesson for all of us and will trickle down to all generations.

That's the literal definition of generational wealth, you ingrate.

How was I being ungrateful? I never expected a dime at my age. It's helped us front load our college funds so we don't have to worry about that. I am beyond grateful..

There are none so blind as them that cannot see.

60M trickled down to about 3M for me..If my grandparents weren't as charitably inclined, the amounts would be higher. . .
If my mom was an only child, then of course we'd be set for life..
My primary point was the size of your family clearly impacts the amount required to maintain "generational wealth."

And "I never expected a dime at my age" is not impressive. You clearly felt entitled to the money at some point, or you wouldn't have been "shocked when 15m+ went into a charitable trust instead of to the family."

I don't need the money..but name anyone who wouldn't be shocked to see $15M go into a charitable trust? Shocked does not equal mad. I am proud of my grandparents for doing this.

Stop sounding so judgmental or jealous.

I didn't say you were mad, I said you were entitled and ungrateful. Maybe stop whining that your grandparents had too big of a family for you to be "set for life" and learn how to use ellipses.

OK...again..when....did I say I was ungrateful or whining....I was answering a question......................