S/O What makes this fair

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Omg sibling 3 is a total A!!! I would give them zero.

+1

$10k for school tuition grades 7-12 if needed. Otherwise wait until the will is read. The amounts used can be netted out of the will plus inflation.

Sounds like the original situation may have been a special need or something and well done on them for successfully obtaining 75% merit or need aid.

This shouldn’t have any bearing on family 2 demanding even one cent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Sibling 3 is insane. If his kids were not offered FA, that's not the donor's problem.

It would be nice to offer the $10K to cover an academic summer camp, maybe that would relieve this situation.

Sibling 1 has said that it can go towards school or camp or an extracurricular activity. Sibling 3’s kids were at a $10K private school before this situation came up so Sibling 1 has just taken over those payments.

What is the catalyst for that specific gift or any of these gifts and why now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t even think sibling 1 needs to offer a red cent. I assume the first nephew has SN? Which presumably the other three kids do not have. So it is fine.

No, Sibling 2 is very ill and unable to work, and they live in an area with not-great public schools. But no kid special needs in either family.

Then only do this. Sibling 3 should touch in too: $5k and $5k.

Play that out and don’t fling anymore money around especially to extortionists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sibling 3 sounds absolutely awful.

Is there some weird dynamic that OP is not revealing where sibling 1 is really like a parent to siblings 2 and 3 because the parents died young or something? Because otherwise this is very, very strange for sibling 3 to expect that they should be given this money in any circumstance....

Probably just that Sibling 1 is much wealthier than the (still well-off) siblings...

Seems older too.

What culture or homeland is this all originating from?
Just greedy white Americans creating their own definition of FAIR (ie pay full price not discounted for me, me, me times three kids not one!) or some guilt ridden developing country immigrant chain migration story?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sibling 3 sounds absolutely awful.

Is there some weird dynamic that OP is not revealing where sibling 1 is really like a parent to siblings 2 and 3 because the parents died young or something? Because otherwise this is very, very strange for sibling 3 to expect that they should be given this money in any circumstance....

Probably just that Sibling 1 is much wealthier than the (still well-off) siblings...

Wealthy smealthy.

Put some numbers on it. If they have $100 million and sibs and their spouses aren’t lazy leaches, maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sibling 3 sounds absolutely awful.

Is there some weird dynamic that OP is not revealing where sibling 1 is really like a parent to siblings 2 and 3 because the parents died young or something? Because otherwise this is very, very strange for sibling 3 to expect that they should be given this money in any circumstance....

Probably just that Sibling 1 is much wealthier than the (still well-off) siblings...

Seems older too.

What culture or homeland is this all originating from?
Just greedy white Americans creating their own definition of FAIR (ie pay full price not discounted for me, me, me times three kids not one!) or some guilt ridden developing country immigrant chain migration story?

Racist, go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something feels off about this whole scenario. But if I'm taking this all at face value, Sibling 1 doesn't owe anything to to Sibling 3. If I was Sibling 1 and wanted to be "fair" then I would just put some money in a 529 for Sibling 3's kids and call it a day.

OPTIONS- what’s fair?:

$10k a year to Family 2 kid because one parent is sick and ill and can’t work, $0 to Family 3 in nice big house, public schools, etc.?

$10k a year to Family 2, $10k a year to Family 3?

$10k a year to 1 Family 2 kid, $30k a year to Family 3 kids?

$10 a year to 1 Family 2 kid, $150k a year to 3 Family 3 kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sibling 3 sounds absolutely awful.

Is there some weird dynamic that OP is not revealing where sibling 1 is really like a parent to siblings 2 and 3 because the parents died young or something? Because otherwise this is very, very strange for sibling 3 to expect that they should be given this money in any circumstance....

Probably just that Sibling 1 is much wealthier than the (still well-off) siblings...

Seems older too.

What culture or homeland is this all originating from?
Just greedy white Americans creating their own definition of FAIR (ie pay full price not discounted for me, me, me times three kids not one!) or some guilt ridden developing country immigrant chain migration story?

Racist, go away.

Nope and nope.
I’m hit up for money all the time from my extended family overseas. And you know it too.

[Anonymous]

Option A: free market, law of the jungle, all is fair in love and war

Option 2: Shared values according to a strict cultural tradition with authoritative rules.

Option D: Chaos of communal consensus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP is this a cultural thing? Are you Indian?

In American culture this is just bizarre. While it would be fine and thoughtful for a wealthy sibling to gift money to a lower income sibling to close the gap between the financial aid award and tuition bill , it would be really strange for another upper middle class sibling to stick their hand out expecting a gift too. This would be viewed in American culture as greedy, gross and really embarrassing, cringe worthy in fact.

However, in other cultures, shoving hands out whenever they find out a relative has money to get as much as they can isn’t viewed as negatively.

It’s up to you to decide which way to go. As the sibling, you are under zero obligation to give the UMC sibling anything.

WTF you racist jerk???? Why bring Indian culture into this? OP is clearly WASPY AF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP is this a cultural thing? Are you Indian?

In American culture this is just bizarre. While it would be fine and thoughtful for a wealthy sibling to gift money to a lower income sibling to close the gap between the financial aid award and tuition bill , it would be really strange for another upper middle class sibling to stick their hand out expecting a gift too. This would be viewed in American culture as greedy, gross and really embarrassing, cringe worthy in fact.

However, in other cultures, shoving hands out whenever they find out a relative has money to get as much as they can isn’t viewed as negatively.

It’s up to you to decide which way to go. As the sibling, you are under zero obligation to give the UMC sibling anything.

American Culture?? BWAHAHAHAHAHAAH. You don't know any Americans, do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sibling 3 sounds absolutely awful.

Is there some weird dynamic that OP is not revealing where sibling 1 is really like a parent to siblings 2 and 3 because the parents died young or something? Because otherwise this is very, very strange for sibling 3 to expect that they should be given this money in any circumstance....

Probably just that Sibling 1 is much wealthier than the (still well-off) siblings...

Seems older too.

What culture or homeland is this all originating from?
Just greedy white Americans creating their own definition of FAIR (ie pay full price not discounted for me, me, me times three kids not one!) or some guilt ridden developing country immigrant chain migration story?

Racist, go away.

Nope and nope.
I’m hit up for money all the time from my extended family overseas. And you know it too.

Um, my family does not "hit us up" for money. Ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t even think sibling 1 needs to offer a red cent. I assume the first nephew has SN? Which presumably the other three kids do not have. So it is fine.

No, Sibling 2 is very ill and unable to work, and they live in an area with not-great public schools. But no kid special needs in either family.

Then the kid should go to public. Better off to save that money and go private. All are being greedy. It should go by child. Each child should get the same amount but really none should get it and it should go for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If sibling 1 really wants to do something (which they don’t need to) they could put $10k a year in a 529.

This^ and should make sure their retirement is secure and their own children aren't getting the short end of the stick.

Great point.

Wonder what the Aunt’s own adult kids and future respective spouses and grandkids think of $10000*4 extended relatives*6+ years of donations.

This doesn’t even make sense unless Op is a locked in multi millionaire with tons of locked up passive income or rental income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of it is fair. Sibling 1 should not have offered, given that none of the other children of sibling 2 were offered money for their education. Sibling 3 is ABSOLUTELY AWFUL!

Sibling 1 should rescind the offer.

Sibling 2 just has the one kid.

OK, but it doesn't change the conclusion. I bought in a very expensive school district to send my kids to the good publics we have in our area. I do not want to send my kids to private, and if I did, I would have planned things differently.

But S3 does want private school. His kids were in private school before the offer.

Is this OP or some sock puppet or a troll who keeps responding with semantics clarifications like “ not SN”, “in private now” despite buying in good public.

While outlandish thread seems fishy now.