Reply to Large early inheritance to only 1 of 3 siblings?

Forum Index » Money and Finances

Reply to "Large early inheritance to only 1 of 3 siblings?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It’s their money and there’s no obligation to give everyone the same. [/quote]

Of course there’s no obligation and they’re free to do what they please with their money. But that doesn’t make them immune from the natural feelings of children who are treated disparately. I’ve seen first hand the fall out of my grandparents estate when siblings were treated differently. The baby of the family was coddled their whole life, didn’t marry as well as the others, and was given more money for them and their kids (while grandparents were alive). So the disparate treatment flowed down to grandkids even.

The funny thing is my parents did well enough on their own with no family money, but not well enough to be immune from the usual financial stress of trying to put kids through college, home repairs, etc. So I know it chafed my dad to see his little brother blow money on nicer vacations than we could take while he had to keep working hard to support himself. Anyone looking to treat their kids differently is kidding themselves if they think their kids will have zero feelings about one kid being favored over the others.

I have 3 and DH and I plan to split everything evenly the same as our parents planned for us. The only reason I could see treating kids differently is if one has profound special needs and the parents are funding care for them once the parents are gone (which helps the siblings not have to provide family care). Hopefully there would be some understanding in that case. But if one kid marries someone who makes less or chooses a lower paying job, then that is their life choice to make. They will get 1/3 of our estate someday and that’s it. [/quote]

Also a mom of 3 and 1000x agree. I love my daughters and I will support all of them [b]but I also don't think it's *fair* to subsidize one person's decisions to do *morally better* work. [/b]I will encourage all of my children to understand the financial implications of their choices - when it comes to marriage and when it comes to what they are studying in college and what they choose as a career. If they want to be downwardly mobile that's fine, but I'm not going to help them pretend that they're not. [/quote]

That's your view, and others are entitled to theirs. If some of my children went into professions with no meaningful social value and one becomes a teacher, firefighter, police officer etc. I view that as a noble choice and might be inclined to subsidize it. Because I believe it should be value equal to those other pursuits, and it's my damn money to do with as I please.[/quote]

+1000

It is ridiculous how many people feel entitled to their parent's money! It is their money and they can choose how to distribute it.  Personally think it is beneficial to help out a kid who goes into a meaningful lower paying job if you can do that.  we need good teachers/nurses/firefighters/social workers/etc.  And I would question if my kid(s) who go into a higher paying field (CS/Eng/Finance/etc) that would get upset with me helping the sibling who makes less simply because of their occupational choice.  I'd feel I have not raised my kid correctly if they cannot understand that and have empathy and instead feel they are entitled to my money.

Now, if kid 1 is CS and making $300K/year and kid 2 is a social worker making $50K/year---and I give kid 2 $2M and kid 1 nothing, then yes they might feel slighted.  But if I give kid 2 $100K for a house downpayment, kid 1 shouldn't complain as they can easily save that themselves.

However, I'm worth enough that I would still distribute to each kid the same, because it would be in the millions.  But if I was worth less, then yes, I might distribute differently based on what each kid "needs".

[/quote]

But what if your child who went into a lower paying field went into a lower paying field because they don't want to work long hours or because they want be at home with their kids during the summer? Are you really just subsidizing your child who didn't have the aptitude to go into CS or Finance or who was too lazy to work the hours necessary to succeed in either profession? Many jobs that pay a lot also come with more stress and less flexibility. Also, I am a former social worker and many of my former classmates treat well-healed clients who pay upwards of $200/hour to speak to them about things like why their longtime boyfriend won't propose. Yes, some spent a few years working as a school counselors to get their hours in - but let's not pretend that just because someone becomes a social worker they don't want to make money or are helping society more than a someone in a field like impact investing. [/quote]

I am the PP.  I plan to keep it "equal" for my kids as much as we can.  And I agree it does really depend upon each kid and why they are doing what they choose.   I'm not going to fund a kid who only wants to work 20 hour weeks so they can go out partying/drinking/doing nothing good.  If they have kids and want to be an at home parent that is different.  Basically they have to be good contributing members of society (and yes, we as the people with the big $$$ get to define what that is, but I don't worry because we raised our kids well and they are not entitled brats and they all work hard at life and give 110%).   Both kids know they will have a car when they graduate college--both will have a 3-5 yo very safe, very reliable decent size SUV/AWD.  They also know if they choose to sell that car when it still has good viable life left (ie a car with less than 100K miles on it that has absolutely no issues, but they sell because they "need a brand new fancy car") and choose to upgrade to a more expensive car just because, well then we might decide they don't need financial gifts much.  Basically, if they start wasting money/not making smart financial decisions then we might not feel the need to gift them $100K for a house downpayment.

We have enough that our kids will inherit more than they can every imagine.  But just like it has not been "equal" or tracked while from birth to college graduation, I won't track what I give/spend going forward.  We provide for each kid as we see fit.  One kid required much more therapies/tutoring/interventions thru HS.  They went to a good college with merit so we only paid ~$40K/year.  Next kid did not "need" any therapies, etc birth thru HS but did have an expensive EC that likely was equivalent or more than the other kids "costs"--don't really know as I don't track that stuff.  Kid is at an elite U for full pay ($80K+/year). Kid 1 might need an extra semester for a double major or may go immediately onto grad school.  We will pay.   Kid 2 will likely make more than Kid 1 in their career, as they are much more driven and choosing a field that will pay more.  We will help both kids with what they "need" and as we see fit.   We will invite both on family vacations, along with their BF/GF/SO.  If they choose to come, we pay. If they can't, oh well there is next time.  We don't keep track and my kids do not care.  They are smart enough to know they will get plenty over the years and in the future and mainly because we did not raise them to be entitled brats.   It's not a tit for tat system. [/quote]

None of what you mention is remotely similar to gifting one child a million dollars so they can have a posher lifestyle. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics