Anonymous wrote:Lots of people here are defining generational wealth down, probably to avoid thinking too hard about how many advantages their lives had simply because of what family they were born into.
My grandparents left me and all of my siblings and cousins several hundred thousand dollars each, my parents paid for all of my Ivy League college degree, and they gave me about half of the deposit I put down on my first home. My parents are also likely to leave my siblings and me somewhere between $2 and $5 million one day.
I consider that absolutely to be generational wealth — it has given me far more resources than most people have and enabled me to choose a career that, while lucrative, earns far less than if I’d gone into something like finance or corporate law, which I could have done but just … didn’t want to. And yet I still have plenty of money available for paying for my own kids to go to college one day and for living in the neighborhood I wanted to.
You can pretend generational wealth only refers to people who never have to work, but I think that just hand-waves past all the benefits people like me get from wealthy but not 1 percent families.
Excellent description! It definately allows your kids to choose careers that they love, not just ones that make "enough money". And knowing that your grandkids education is paid for, also allows your kid(s) and their partner(s) to have extra money to spend on other things in life (vacations, activities,e tc) because they don't have to save $1K/month/kid for college for 18+ years
Except this is how the wealth eventually gets squandered. The kids don’t have to save for college…but they need to save to keep the generational wealth intact…not to to take fancy vacations or buy “stuff”.
Well, I’m the PP here, and in my case, we still saved hundreds of thousands dollars per kid for college (some from the money my grandparents gave us, mostly just a month at a time out of income), and I’m hoping to be in my 60s by the time I inherit anything from my parents (I’m almost 50 now). I also netted more from selling our previous house than I had inherited from my grandparents, and mostly because of that, we’re on track to have millions of our own dollars before inheriting anything more anyway.
So if anyone does any squandering, it’ll be my kids, not me.
I think the PP meant the "kids" squandering it, by being able to have jobs/careers they love (without worrying about income) and having money set aside by us (parents) for their kids (our grandkids) for education and being given money for a good downpayment. The PP thinks if they then use that money for vacations it is squandering it.
We think it is just our family enjoying life/living life to the fullest. We wouldn't gift if the kids were squandering it---if they were not saving or if they were not at least working full time in a career (something with a goal in life--pay doesn't matter, but they have to have a purpose in life), then we might not gift them $$$. But thankfully, it seems we did a good job raising our kids and they have aspirations to excel and career goals. They live within their means (based on their own salaries--keeping their rent to the 30% of income or whatever the rule is, they qualified for renting their apartments on their own accord since graduating college). They actively think about---" I went out and had to uber last weekend so maybe this week I just hang out with friends at someone's apartment cook dinner, have drinks and play games, rather than going out and spending $50-100 total.
But IMO, it doesn't make sense to wait until they are 40+ to give them access to their trusts, or until they are 50+ and we are dead. I want my kids and grandkids to enjoy life while we are around to experience with them.
Now everyone is putting all sorts of other context.
First, the squandering comment was in the context of inheriting $5-$10MM. It’s not that hard or uncommon for all that money to be gone by the kids and then grandkids blowing through it. Again, most wealth like this is in fact gone by the 3rd generation (so the grandkids’ kids).
To the PP with $80MM…this gets to the level where it’s hard to squander it. That even a kid that decides not to work and has expensive tastes will still live quite comfortably off just the dividends/interest of $80MM (or even $40MM if a sibling).
ANd the kids/grandkids won't have access to the trust if they are not working (or being a SAHP) unless there are serious health issues/etc. We don't want to be controlling but it's not there for them to live a life without having a job/career. It's there to supplement life. They will be able to use it for medical and education, but they are not able to spend $100K on a vehicle, because $40K will get you a great vehicle. Doesn't take much to set it up so it's not abused/squandered. Just like many ultra wealthy (think Gates family), we require our kids to have ambitions and careers.
The Gates family set at least one daughter up with horses to the tune of millions/year. I’m happy for them to do it but people harp on one thing he said in an interview a long time ago. Well, the horses say otherwise. And that daughter does a lot of press about it, so I think it’s fair to comment.
Yes his kids have everything. But they are not lounging around being "influencers" or something like that. They all work hard, forging career paths and doing well. You don't graduate Stanford, go to major NY city medical school and residency without doing the hard work. Yes easier to do when you have a 10M NYC penthouse to live in and a $50M estate with your horses, but she still works her ass off to be a doctor. That was not handed to her on a silver platter
Yeah...but that is what she chose to do. BTW...the younger daughter is an Influencer if I am not mistaken.
I doubt her parents would care at all if she just decided to become a full-time philanthropist and help give away the family money.
That's a fairly common uber-wealthy kid thing to do. That's basically what all of Buffets kids do...run NPOs funded by their dad.
And those are careers, that require them to use their brains and show up for work and do something with their lives. Don't see any issues with that.
And Phoebe Gates is not an influencer, she is in fashion and doing social good. She's an entrepreneur, much more than an influencer. I view that very differently than partying away your life all while posting about it online for $. Extremely different. Yes she's able to do what she does because she has family $$. But she's also working hard to advance her causes
Anonymous wrote:Lots of people here are defining generational wealth down, probably to avoid thinking too hard about how many advantages their lives had simply because of what family they were born into.
My grandparents left me and all of my siblings and cousins several hundred thousand dollars each, my parents paid for all of my Ivy League college degree, and they gave me about half of the deposit I put down on my first home. My parents are also likely to leave my siblings and me somewhere between $2 and $5 million one day.
I consider that absolutely to be generational wealth — it has given me far more resources than most people have and enabled me to choose a career that, while lucrative, earns far less than if I’d gone into something like finance or corporate law, which I could have done but just … didn’t want to. And yet I still have plenty of money available for paying for my own kids to go to college one day and for living in the neighborhood I wanted to.
You can pretend generational wealth only refers to people who never have to work, but I think that just hand-waves past all the benefits people like me get from wealthy but not 1 percent families.
Excellent description! It definately allows your kids to choose careers that they love, not just ones that make "enough money". And knowing that your grandkids education is paid for, also allows your kid(s) and their partner(s) to have extra money to spend on other things in life (vacations, activities,e tc) because they don't have to save $1K/month/kid for college for 18+ years
Except this is how the wealth eventually gets squandered. The kids don’t have to save for college…but they need to save to keep the generational wealth intact…not to to take fancy vacations or buy “stuff”.
Well, I’m the PP here, and in my case, we still saved hundreds of thousands dollars per kid for college (some from the money my grandparents gave us, mostly just a month at a time out of income), and I’m hoping to be in my 60s by the time I inherit anything from my parents (I’m almost 50 now). I also netted more from selling our previous house than I had inherited from my grandparents, and mostly because of that, we’re on track to have millions of our own dollars before inheriting anything more anyway.
So if anyone does any squandering, it’ll be my kids, not me.
I think the PP meant the "kids" squandering it, by being able to have jobs/careers they love (without worrying about income) and having money set aside by us (parents) for their kids (our grandkids) for education and being given money for a good downpayment. The PP thinks if they then use that money for vacations it is squandering it.
We think it is just our family enjoying life/living life to the fullest. We wouldn't gift if the kids were squandering it---if they were not saving or if they were not at least working full time in a career (something with a goal in life--pay doesn't matter, but they have to have a purpose in life), then we might not gift them $$$. But thankfully, it seems we did a good job raising our kids and they have aspirations to excel and career goals. They live within their means (based on their own salaries--keeping their rent to the 30% of income or whatever the rule is, they qualified for renting their apartments on their own accord since graduating college). They actively think about---" I went out and had to uber last weekend so maybe this week I just hang out with friends at someone's apartment cook dinner, have drinks and play games, rather than going out and spending $50-100 total.
But IMO, it doesn't make sense to wait until they are 40+ to give them access to their trusts, or until they are 50+ and we are dead. I want my kids and grandkids to enjoy life while we are around to experience with them.
Now everyone is putting all sorts of other context.
First, the squandering comment was in the context of inheriting $5-$10MM. It’s not that hard or uncommon for all that money to be gone by the kids and then grandkids blowing through it. Again, most wealth like this is in fact gone by the 3rd generation (so the grandkids’ kids).
To the PP with $80MM…this gets to the level where it’s hard to squander it. That even a kid that decides not to work and has expensive tastes will still live quite comfortably off just the dividends/interest of $80MM (or even $40MM if a sibling).
ANd the kids/grandkids won't have access to the trust if they are not working (or being a SAHP) unless there are serious health issues/etc. We don't want to be controlling but it's not there for them to live a life without having a job/career. It's there to supplement life. They will be able to use it for medical and education, but they are not able to spend $100K on a vehicle, because $40K will get you a great vehicle. Doesn't take much to set it up so it's not abused/squandered. Just like many ultra wealthy (think Gates family), we require our kids to have ambitions and careers.
So…as long as you are a SAHP you get free access? That’s a fairly low bar, no?
I'm a SAHP, so we would support our kids/their spouses doing that once they have kids. But they would need a career up until that point, and we wouldn't support them SAHP and a full time nanny (unless there was a medical need). So yes, if any of my kids decide to take a break to raise their kids, we would allow them to withdraw $$ from the trust. The $$$ is there to support their lives but not if they are not contributing to life and society (cannot just become a lonely 30 yo playing video games all day and have us fund it)
OK...but I gather you understand that all these decisions coming from multiple kids...and then perhaps they each have multiple kids so now their grandkids also decide to become SAHPs, because they can because they have this trust...and now here you are 3 generations and the trust is depleted because nobody was really tasked with building wealth.
So, now the 4th generation is on their own. BTW, you are long dead at the grandkids.
Anonymous wrote:Lots of people here are defining generational wealth down, probably to avoid thinking too hard about how many advantages their lives had simply because of what family they were born into.
My grandparents left me and all of my siblings and cousins several hundred thousand dollars each, my parents paid for all of my Ivy League college degree, and they gave me about half of the deposit I put down on my first home. My parents are also likely to leave my siblings and me somewhere between $2 and $5 million one day.
I consider that absolutely to be generational wealth — it has given me far more resources than most people have and enabled me to choose a career that, while lucrative, earns far less than if I’d gone into something like finance or corporate law, which I could have done but just … didn’t want to. And yet I still have plenty of money available for paying for my own kids to go to college one day and for living in the neighborhood I wanted to.
You can pretend generational wealth only refers to people who never have to work, but I think that just hand-waves past all the benefits people like me get from wealthy but not 1 percent families.
Excellent description! It definately allows your kids to choose careers that they love, not just ones that make "enough money". And knowing that your grandkids education is paid for, also allows your kid(s) and their partner(s) to have extra money to spend on other things in life (vacations, activities,e tc) because they don't have to save $1K/month/kid for college for 18+ years
Except this is how the wealth eventually gets squandered. The kids don’t have to save for college…but they need to save to keep the generational wealth intact…not to to take fancy vacations or buy “stuff”.
Well, I’m the PP here, and in my case, we still saved hundreds of thousands dollars per kid for college (some from the money my grandparents gave us, mostly just a month at a time out of income), and I’m hoping to be in my 60s by the time I inherit anything from my parents (I’m almost 50 now). I also netted more from selling our previous house than I had inherited from my grandparents, and mostly because of that, we’re on track to have millions of our own dollars before inheriting anything more anyway.
So if anyone does any squandering, it’ll be my kids, not me.
I think the PP meant the "kids" squandering it, by being able to have jobs/careers they love (without worrying about income) and having money set aside by us (parents) for their kids (our grandkids) for education and being given money for a good downpayment. The PP thinks if they then use that money for vacations it is squandering it.
We think it is just our family enjoying life/living life to the fullest. We wouldn't gift if the kids were squandering it---if they were not saving or if they were not at least working full time in a career (something with a goal in life--pay doesn't matter, but they have to have a purpose in life), then we might not gift them $$$. But thankfully, it seems we did a good job raising our kids and they have aspirations to excel and career goals. They live within their means (based on their own salaries--keeping their rent to the 30% of income or whatever the rule is, they qualified for renting their apartments on their own accord since graduating college). They actively think about---" I went out and had to uber last weekend so maybe this week I just hang out with friends at someone's apartment cook dinner, have drinks and play games, rather than going out and spending $50-100 total.
But IMO, it doesn't make sense to wait until they are 40+ to give them access to their trusts, or until they are 50+ and we are dead. I want my kids and grandkids to enjoy life while we are around to experience with them.
Now everyone is putting all sorts of other context.
First, the squandering comment was in the context of inheriting $5-$10MM. It’s not that hard or uncommon for all that money to be gone by the kids and then grandkids blowing through it. Again, most wealth like this is in fact gone by the 3rd generation (so the grandkids’ kids).
To the PP with $80MM…this gets to the level where it’s hard to squander it. That even a kid that decides not to work and has expensive tastes will still live quite comfortably off just the dividends/interest of $80MM (or even $40MM if a sibling).
ANd the kids/grandkids won't have access to the trust if they are not working (or being a SAHP) unless there are serious health issues/etc. We don't want to be controlling but it's not there for them to live a life without having a job/career. It's there to supplement life. They will be able to use it for medical and education, but they are not able to spend $100K on a vehicle, because $40K will get you a great vehicle. Doesn't take much to set it up so it's not abused/squandered. Just like many ultra wealthy (think Gates family), we require our kids to have ambitions and careers.
The Gates family set at least one daughter up with horses to the tune of millions/year. I’m happy for them to do it but people harp on one thing he said in an interview a long time ago. Well, the horses say otherwise. And that daughter does a lot of press about it, so I think it’s fair to comment.
Yes his kids have everything. But they are not lounging around being "influencers" or something like that. They all work hard, forging career paths and doing well. You don't graduate Stanford, go to major NY city medical school and residency without doing the hard work. Yes easier to do when you have a 10M NYC penthouse to live in and a $50M estate with your horses, but she still works her ass off to be a doctor. That was not handed to her on a silver platter
Yeah...but that is what she chose to do. BTW...the younger daughter is an Influencer if I am not mistaken.
I doubt her parents would care at all if she just decided to become a full-time philanthropist and help give away the family money.
That's a fairly common uber-wealthy kid thing to do. That's basically what all of Buffets kids do...run NPOs funded by their dad.
And those are careers, that require them to use their brains and show up for work and do something with their lives. Don't see any issues with that.
And Phoebe Gates is not an influencer, she is in fashion and doing social good. She's an entrepreneur, much more than an influencer. I view that very differently than partying away your life all while posting about it online for $. Extremely different. Yes she's able to do what she does because she has family $$. But she's also working hard to advance her causes
You mean this Phoebe Gates?:
Meet Phoebe Gates, the Youngest Daughter of Bill Gates
Phoebe Gates, born in 2002 in Seattle, is a 21-year-old college student, social media influencer, [/b]and reproductive rights activist. With over 76,000 followers on TikTok, she uses her platform to raise awareness about the causes she’s passionate about.
BTW, her fashion start-up is getting absolutely raked over the coals because she is reaching out to established fashion people trying to get them to hawk it for free, completely trying to leverage her name. The app is apparently terrible and going nowhere.
Anonymous wrote:Uh, yeah, probably the majority of all such people have not surpassed their parents. Haven't you heard that we're the first generation not to do better than our parents? That applies to all income brackets.
Neither me nor my three siblings have even matched our dad's income—and he only made like $250K/year, not millions. However, one sister is married to a high-earner and the other is dating a high-earmer (~$400K). Sucks that women can marry their way into wealth but men have to earn it.
The flip side of that coin is that there’s almost always an unhealthy power dynamic between spouses when one spouse vastly outearns or is the sole provider of the other.
Also, let’s not forget that more women go to college than men now, and the wage gap may shrink, adjusting for time out of the workforce for maternity leave.
No there is not an "unhealthy power dynamic" I'm the SAHP/retired spouse of a High earner. They actually appreciate and recognize all the work I have done over the years, that makes their life easier. They were in the C suite by mid 30s, and CEO by early 40s at companies under 2K employees. All but 2 of the men in the Exec teams over the years have wives who don't work. 5 of the women are DINKS (and will stay that way) and the other 2 women have SAHD once they had kids. Because it's hard to get to that level and maintain it without some strong support at home. You either have it with a spouse or you hire a full time nanny or two (nanny/housekeeper/etc) to manage the home front.
Then again, when I quit to be SAHP, our incomes were similar (making 6 figures in late 1990s at age 30). So we were both on paths to being high earners. So that may have something to do with it
+1 Most of the unhealthy power dynamics with a SAHM that I've seen are the ones where the DH doesn't earn enough to support a SAHM but the wife pushed to stay at home anyway.
In fact, the most well-run family households seem to be high earner husband, SAHM who manages the domestic and kid fronts, and outsourcing cleaning, lawn care, tutoring, nanny before kids are school age, etc. Unfortunately that's not my situation.
Anonymous wrote:Uh, yeah, probably the majority of all such people have not surpassed their parents. Haven't you heard that we're the first generation not to do better than our parents? That applies to all income brackets.
Neither me nor my three siblings have even matched our dad's income—and he only made like $250K/year, not millions. However, one sister is married to a high-earner and the other is dating a high-earmer (~$400K). Sucks that women can marry their way into wealth but men have to earn it.
The flip side of that coin is that there’s almost always an unhealthy power dynamic between spouses when one spouse vastly outearns or is the sole provider of the other.
Also, let’s not forget that more women go to college than men now, and the wage gap may shrink, adjusting for time out of the workforce for maternity leave.
No there is not an "unhealthy power dynamic" I'm the SAHP/retired spouse of a High earner. They actually appreciate and recognize all the work I have done over the years, that makes their life easier. They were in the C suite by mid 30s, and CEO by early 40s at companies under 2K employees. All but 2 of the men in the Exec teams over the years have wives who don't work. 5 of the women are DINKS (and will stay that way) and the other 2 women have SAHD once they had kids. Because it's hard to get to that level and maintain it without some strong support at home. You either have it with a spouse or you hire a full time nanny or two (nanny/housekeeper/etc) to manage the home front.
Then again, when I quit to be SAHP, our incomes were similar (making 6 figures in late 1990s at age 30). So we were both on paths to being high earners. So that may have something to do with it
+1 Most of the unhealthy power dynamics with a SAHM that I've seen are the ones where the DH doesn't earn enough to support a SAHM but the wife pushed to stay at home anyway.
In fact, the most well-run family households seem to be high earner husband, SAHM who manages the domestic and kid fronts, and outsourcing cleaning, lawn care, tutoring, nanny before kids are school age, etc. Unfortunately that's not my situation.
Yes it is key that you are not looked at as "the help". Once you are no better than the maid, cook, cleaner, nanny and driver...the power dynamic gets ugly.
Now, that can happen in a wealthy household, but 99.9% of all humans don't like to do this kind of work and outsource it if they have the $$$s.
Anonymous wrote:Uh, yeah, probably the majority of all such people have not surpassed their parents. Haven't you heard that we're the first generation not to do better than our parents? That applies to all income brackets.
Neither me nor my three siblings have even matched our dad's income—and he only made like $250K/year, not millions. However, one sister is married to a high-earner and the other is dating a high-earmer (~$400K). Sucks that women can marry their way into wealth but men have to earn it.
The flip side of that coin is that there’s almost always an unhealthy power dynamic between spouses when one spouse vastly outearns or is the sole provider of the other.
Also, let’s not forget that more women go to college than men now, and the wage gap may shrink, adjusting for time out of the workforce for maternity leave.
No there is not an "unhealthy power dynamic" I'm the SAHP/retired spouse of a High earner. They actually appreciate and recognize all the work I have done over the years, that makes their life easier. They were in the C suite by mid 30s, and CEO by early 40s at companies under 2K employees. All but 2 of the men in the Exec teams over the years have wives who don't work. 5 of the women are DINKS (and will stay that way) and the other 2 women have SAHD once they had kids. Because it's hard to get to that level and maintain it without some strong support at home. You either have it with a spouse or you hire a full time nanny or two (nanny/housekeeper/etc) to manage the home front.
Then again, when I quit to be SAHP, our incomes were similar (making 6 figures in late 1990s at age 30). So we were both on paths to being high earners. So that may have something to do with it
+1 Most of the unhealthy power dynamics with a SAHM that I've seen are the ones where the DH doesn't earn enough to support a SAHM but the wife pushed to stay at home anyway.
In fact, the most well-run family households seem to be high earner husband, SAHM who manages the domestic and kid fronts, and outsourcing cleaning, lawn care, tutoring, nanny before kids are school age, etc. Unfortunately that's not my situation.
Yes it is key that you are not looked at as "the help". Once you are no better than the maid, cook, cleaner, nanny and driver...the power dynamic gets ugly.
Now, that can happen in a wealthy household, but 99.9% of all humans don't like to do this kind of work and outsource it if they have the $$$s.
That makes sense. Also the lower-earner DH with the SAHM is resentful of having to provide for the family and feels financial stress. The high-earner DH is grateful for the SAHM who manages everything so he can have the high-paying career and a happy family.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}