Equality vs Equity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your intent is to permanently damage their sibling relationship, then sure, leave them different amounts.

So true!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your intent is to permanently damage their sibling relationship, then sure, leave them different amounts.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal inheritance.

And you will most improve your kids' lives by giving them money while they are young/you are alive. If you want to give more financial support to your younger kid, do it now. It will make the most difference.

Equal inheritance.

Agree with this, plus what would it do to their relationship if they got unequal inheritances?

About the same damage as it would if they got unequal contributions along the way..Im surprised that people seem to be OK with parents giving more money to one kid (Private college vs. Public, fuding more grandkids' education for one kid, etc.) but take issue with "unequal inheritance".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of high paying jobs really really suck and lower paying jobs are more enjoyable.

I’m the highest paid sibling and while making this money is nice, it’s a lot sacrifice and stress. I am completely tied down to a single geographical area that I don’t particularly enjoy because of it. I’d love to live somewhere else - but my career is here and I don’t want to give it up and become destitute. I only do my career at this point for the money not because I like it. If I had $10M liquid I would move to another region of the world and pursue my passions.

My siblings live wherever they want because they work service industry jobs that pay next to minimum wage, but their jobs are honestly fun and more fulfilling than mine - I envy them, minus the crappy income.

So if my parents decided to reward my siblings with all the money it would be like punishing me for trying to be the responsible one in the family. It’s super messed up to reward the children who chose fun over responsibility.

+1 I also worked hard at a job I hated because it paid well and we were tied to DC (which I also hate) with both our jobs and we have 3 kids (all have special needs that we pay $$$ for therapies). I had to stop working due to disability.

One sibling chose a prestigious but low-paying passion field in academia w/ a high-earning spouse, 1 kid.
One sibling chose very low-paying and low-stress jobs and prioritizes a fun and easy lifestyle, spouse earns very little and also prioritizes very little stress/ doing only what they desire to do each day and lots of fun, no kids.
One sibling chose a very high-paying profession with long hours and earned by far the most of all of us w/ a high-earning spouse who retired very early, no kids.

The best way to do this is split it evenly, and I think this even though there's a case for me getting the most due to disability and the most kids. Sibling and wife who do only what they want and quit anything that isn't fun have every right to do that, but why should anyone else fund this lifestyle? At the end of the day my parent could choose to make them financially even with the higher earners, but then we'd all be very uneven in terms of the decades of sacrifices we made to earn that money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal inheritance.

And you will most improve your kids' lives by giving them money while they are young/you are alive. If you want to give more financial support to your younger kid, do it now. It will make the most difference.

Equal inheritance.

Agree with this, plus what would it do to their relationship if they got unequal inheritances?

About the same damage as it would if they got unequal contributions along the way..Im surprised that people seem to be OK with parents giving more money to one kid (Private college vs. Public, fuding more grandkids' education for one kid, etc.) but take issue with "unequal inheritance".

I think most people would expect those contributions to be taken into account when things are split in the end. That’s not what people mean when they say the inheritances should be equal. They mean don’t give one kid a ton of help because they’re unmotivated and don’t work as hard. Things should be equal, but of course if one kid doesn’t need the money now and the other does then you can give the money at different times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8 figures is a ton, even split in half. I would give to both equally. The only time I say otherwise is in the case of severe disability where the adult child needs lifelong caregiving.

+1
You want BOTH kids to know and believe that you loved them equally. Otherwise, you will create anger and resentment in them. Also, put the money in trust for each specific purpose - eg - each grandkid gets 4 yrs of instate college tuition to be handed at the time of college admission.

My parents gave equally to all three siblings. That is the reason that a great love for our family of origin remains in our hearts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would kid 2 need more than $4 million?

I would give it equally. If the inheritance amount was much lower, I might have a different answer.

Agree with this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of high paying jobs really really suck and lower paying jobs are more enjoyable.

I’m the highest paid sibling and while making this money is nice, it’s a lot sacrifice and stress. I am completely tied down to a single geographical area that I don’t particularly enjoy because of it. I’d love to live somewhere else - but my career is here and I don’t want to give it up and become destitute. I only do my career at this point for the money not because I like it. If I had $10M liquid I would move to another region of the world and pursue my passions.

My siblings live wherever they want because they work service industry jobs that pay next to minimum wage, but their jobs are honestly fun and more fulfilling than mine - I envy them, minus the crappy income.

So if my parents decided to reward my siblings with all the money it would be like punishing me for trying to be the responsible one in the family. It’s super messed up to reward the children who chose fun over responsibility.

+1 I also worked hard at a job I hated because it paid well and we were tied to DC (which I also hate) with both our jobs and we have 3 kids (all have special needs that we pay $$$ for therapies). I had to stop working due to disability.

One sibling chose a prestigious but low-paying passion field in academia w/ a high-earning spouse, 1 kid.
One sibling chose very low-paying and low-stress jobs and prioritizes a fun and easy lifestyle, spouse earns very little and also prioritizes very little stress/ doing only what they desire to do each day and lots of fun, no kids.
One sibling chose a very high-paying profession with long hours and earned by far the most of all of us w/ a high-earning spouse who retired very early, no kids.

The best way to do this is split it evenly, and I think this even though there's a case for me getting the most due to disability and the most kids. Sibling and wife who do only what they want and quit anything that isn't fun have every right to do that, but why should anyone else fund this lifestyle? At the end of the day my parent could choose to make them financially even with the higher earners, but then we'd all be very uneven in terms of the decades of sacrifices we made to earn that money.

This. I also have three siblings and we each will inherit our have trusts with equal amounts. And in addition to our trusts, will split their estate equally. It would be impossible to say one of us was in more need than the others. One of my siblings is unmarried and makes about $100K, but they are late 20s while the rest of us are mid 30s to early 40s; one of my siblings and their spouse make about $350K and have one child but spouse comes from wealthy family that helps them financially and will receive large inheritance; another sibling and their spouse make about $300K with two kids one of whom is ND but sibling’s spouse has a trust fund and will receive large inheritance; spouse and I make $800K and have three children but spouse is not from a wealthy family and had $65K in grad school loans when we met. We have considerable earning potential and could easily make $2M+ in our mid-40s based on both of our trajectories while siblings and their spouses would be lucky to top out around $450K. But why would my parents give my siblings larger inheritances? We work in high stress, high risk- high reward fields in positions that are not as secure or flexible as my siblings’ positions because our lifestyle is not supplemented by my spouse’s parents, unlike my siblings. My parents NW is $30M+ and when we inherit will likely be considerably more than that. None of us could possibly need more than an equal share of the inheritance. Further, my parents are poorly positioned to evaluate the nuances of our financial decisions and life choices and make subjective decisions about worthiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal inheritance.

And you will most improve your kids' lives by giving them money while they are young/you are alive. If you want to give more financial support to your younger kid, do it now. It will make the most difference.

Equal inheritance.

Agree with this, plus what would it do to their relationship if they got unequal inheritances?

About the same damage as it would if they got unequal contributions along the way..Im surprised that people seem to be OK with parents giving more money to one kid (Private college vs. Public, fuding more grandkids' education for one kid, etc.) but take issue with "unequal inheritance".

These examples of unequal contributions along the way don’t seem the same to me as giving one child a larger down payment. If one child wants to go to a college that is less expensive than a siblings’ college it is what it is. It’s fine to set a limit on what you will pay for each child for college, but if one child wants to go to a less expensive college then I don’t see the issue. Same with paying for college for grandchildren. If it’s offered to all grandchildren there shouldn’t be an issue. Kids are very expensive and time consuming. There are all sorts of opportunity costs associated with having children. To maintain the same lifestyle, someone with three kids has to work much harder than someone with no children or one child as they will spend much more on childcare, activities, food, clothes, medical care, private education, etc. to say nothing of the mental, emotional, and physical strains that come with parenting and with each successive child.

[Anonymous]

Always equal