With $2M, they won’t have similar struggles as you two did and can retire on that if they can adhere to a 3-4% withdrawal rate.

Anonymous wrote:A friend from childhood was given a very modest trust fund (think $20K-40 a year). He does absolutely noting productive with the money and just surfs and sails and hangs with trust fund crowd-- he's in his 50s. Not saying it's a bad life, but not what I would want for my kid.

At some point you don't get a say in your adult child's life choices.

Anonymous wrote:We are in the process of updating our estate documents and it has become very tense. Current investments are around $14M and our only debt is $400K mortgage and we will owe income taxes when we exercise our stock options (probably around $1.2M or so in taxes). Bottom line, we aren't going to run out of money based on our current spending so there will be a substantial amount left when we die.

My husband only wants to leave each of our 2 kids $2M each and the rest to charity. My concern is $2M seems like a lot of money, but when you consider inflation, who knows what it will be in 20 or 30 years. He keeps telling me he doesn't want his legacy to be making his kids wealthy. I am struggling with leaving them such a small percentage of our estate. Both my husband and I came from very humble background, and he basically wants our kids to have our same or similar struggles in life. I am at a loss at how to counter this.

Anyone else grapple with this?

How old are you? You never know what will happen and you might need your money to take care of your needs. $2 million is plenty.

Anonymous wrote:We plan on doing essentially the same, with different numbers of course. One potential difference: we plan to help our child with funds while we are living. College, grad school, mortgage, gifts. Then a small inheritance.

She can get our stuff after we die, sell that (fully paid off homes, luxury vehicles etc) and pocket that money, but any left over goes to our nieces and nephews and charities.

What are your siblings leaving to her?

A friend from childhood was given a very modest trust fund (think $20K-40 a year). He does absolutely noting productive with the money and just surfs and sails and hangs with trust fund crowd-- he's in his 50s. Not saying it's a bad life, but not what I would want for my kid.

Compromise on 2.5 million per kid. That's 100K a year.

Think about the kind of modeling your husband (and you) would be doing for your children by being generous to the planet or to others. That's a better legacy from you as parents than any money could offer.

OP here. Yes, we will further discuss and I think it is a matter of me to "nudge" him to go higher than $2M.

Just for a little history, before this, he was intent on funding a foundation to the tune of $2M. This was a couple of years ago, when we had A LOT less money. I talked him out of that and indicated that we could just fund our existing donor advised fund upon death. I was worried if one of us need a high level of long term care that they money will be in the foundation and not accessible. So that's where the idea of only leaving $2M to each kid came up.

Thanks for all your input. It gives me a lot to ponder before our next meeting with our financial planner. I think the financial planner is team OP by the way...but he is treading lightly lol.

And for those who complimented DH...you are right. He is a really good and generous guy. But I am mama bear and want to protect the kiddos.

Op, you should care more about: he dies and you keep control, and therefore decide after his death.

Or if you die first, he'll do what he wants anyway. You, of course, will have no power. He could remarry some gold digger and the money could go anywhere

For practical purposes, if he's doing to get this done -- with or without your approval, gently try to nudge the amount to 2 or 3x what he suggests. See if there is some wiggle-room. A few more MIL but not a lot more MIL may not seem like such a big step for him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of charities don’t really do anything.

As opposed to people with inherited wealth, the heroes of America's story.

I mean, I would rather see it go to charity then passed on as inherited wealth. But I seriously cannon wrap my head around why someone would spend their prime years doing the kind of work necessary to amass this kind of money, then NOT want to leave it to your kids? I know four people with wealth on this scale (estates between 10mil-40 mil) and they basically ruined their homelives to get it. Three (the men) worked 24/7 while their SAHW coped with everything, even after serious health issues. One (the woman) basically abandoned her kids to their dad and moved to another city.

I get wanting to make sure your own kids work hard and have motivated. But why TFFFFF did they spend decades frankly neglecting their families to accumulate all of that?

I'm not seeing how leaving your kids more money than they could reasonably need addresses the problem of absentee parenting.

Because if you start gifting it to them in their 20s/30s/40s, they can have a good life and not have to join the crazy rat race of working 80+ hours per week and traveling 3 weeks out of the month. They can have a good career and bit more work life balance and still live in a nice home with good schools. They don't have to worry about maximizing retirement savings because that is covered.

Nobody achieves great success without putting in the work. I don't want my kids thinking they can just work a crappy middle management job because of free money. I would rather they see the financial cushion as a reason they can take a chance on that start-up (which BTW is going to require 100+ hour work weeks) because they don't need to just work a job.

We may be doing the same things, but sounds for nearly opposite reasons.

If it's my kids wish to take a chance on a start up, they will have the money avaialbe to do just that. But I don't believe they need to be in the rat race with a goal of C suite position, unless that makes them happy. It's nearly impossible to be in a C suite position and have a good work/life balance. I'm aware of that, that's why we have a SAHP in our household.

Not everyone wants/needs to be an executive. I want my kid to be happy. And if they can earn $100-150K/year, have a successful career they are happy with, and get to be home for the kids sports/activities at 4/5pm several days a week, or can start work at 9 am so they can help shuttle them off to school, I'm all for it.

Life is not all about work. It shouldn't be. Life is too short for that. You could have a medical event that ends your life as you know it at anytime, and you don't want to regret that you didn't get to spend enough time with your friends and family while you could.

If I'm worth Millions, why wouldn't I allow my kids to be whatever career path they want.

FYI--my kid works 45-50 hour weeks. But they are definately not the striver type to work 100 hour weeks. They wouldn't be that even if we didn't have $$. It's just part of their personality from the time they were a kid/ES. They would be miserable working 100 hour weeks and it would not be good for their mental health.

I for one am proud of my kid, 2 years out of college, doing well, moving up in their company and getting more responsibilities daily. Yet also proud they know how to have a work life balance (despite not seeing that at home).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of charities don’t really do anything.

As opposed to people with inherited wealth, the heroes of America's story.

I mean, I would rather see it go to charity then passed on as inherited wealth. But I seriously cannon wrap my head around why someone would spend their prime years doing the kind of work necessary to amass this kind of money, then NOT want to leave it to your kids? I know four people with wealth on this scale (estates between 10mil-40 mil) and they basically ruined their homelives to get it. Three (the men) worked 24/7 while their SAHW coped with everything, even after serious health issues. One (the woman) basically abandoned her kids to their dad and moved to another city.

I get wanting to make sure your own kids work hard and have motivated. But why TFFFFF did they spend decades frankly neglecting their families to accumulate all of that?

I'm not seeing how leaving your kids more money than they could reasonably need addresses the problem of absentee parenting.

Because if you start gifting it to them in their 20s/30s/40s, they can have a good life and not have to join the crazy rat race of working 80+ hours per week and traveling 3 weeks out of the month. They can have a good career and bit more work life balance and still live in a nice home with good schools. They don't have to worry about maximizing retirement savings because that is covered.

Nobody achieves great success without putting in the work. I don't want my kids thinking they can just work a crappy middle management job because of free money. I would rather they see the financial cushion as a reason they can take a chance on that start-up (which BTW is going to require 100+ hour work weeks) because they don't need to just work a job.

We may be doing the same things, but sounds for nearly opposite reasons.

Start giving the kids up to the IRS gift limit every year now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of charities don’t really do anything.

As opposed to people with inherited wealth, the heroes of America's story.

I mean, I would rather see it go to charity then passed on as inherited wealth. But I seriously cannon wrap my head around why someone would spend their prime years doing the kind of work necessary to amass this kind of money, then NOT want to leave it to your kids? I know four people with wealth on this scale (estates between 10mil-40 mil) and they basically ruined their homelives to get it. Three (the men) worked 24/7 while their SAHW coped with everything, even after serious health issues. One (the woman) basically abandoned her kids to their dad and moved to another city.

I get wanting to make sure your own kids work hard and have motivated. But why TFFFFF did they spend decades frankly neglecting their families to accumulate all of that?

I'm not seeing how leaving your kids more money than they could reasonably need addresses the problem of absentee parenting.

Because if you start gifting it to them in their 20s/30s/40s, they can have a good life and not have to join the crazy rat race of working 80+ hours per week and traveling 3 weeks out of the month. They can have a good career and bit more work life balance and still live in a nice home with good schools. They don't have to worry about maximizing retirement savings because that is covered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#RichPeopleProblems

Meanwhile, many of us are stressing that our kids will be able to afford a house someday. I cannot imagine not wanting to leave them as comfortable/safe, financially, as possible. But, you have a different perspective when you grow up poor and have had financial instability for much of your life. Doing well'ish now but those fears never leave you. I guess maybe if I had the money some of you seem to have but that is not the case. So I do not understand the OPs DH and people who agree with him.

If you're at the point where it is multiple millions and think it is too much for the kids, why would you not set up your future grandkids??? If there are no grandkids, remainder can go to charity w/ whatever else you are giving in that regard.

Warren Buffet has said he won't leave anything to his kids or grandkids (though one of his kids does run his charitable arm). Not surprisingly, the attitude is more prevalent among self-made rich people from modest or poor origins vs old money folks (where most of their wealth was inherited wealth).

He's full of it. He has given his kids plenty of money. For one, he gives them money to start businesses, which is a common trust provision. He put them all through college and grad school. etc.

Well, he did have a grand daughter on welfare...maybe he is willing to give money for very specific things, but seems like he is also fine with providing little help as well.

He has a step-granddaughter who was cut off after she went on some reality show about rich kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of charities don’t really do anything.

As opposed to people with inherited wealth, the heroes of America's story.

I mean, I would rather see it go to charity then passed on as inherited wealth. But I seriously cannon wrap my head around why someone would spend their prime years doing the kind of work necessary to amass this kind of money, then NOT want to leave it to your kids? I know four people with wealth on this scale (estates between 10mil-40 mil) and they basically ruined their homelives to get it. Three (the men) worked 24/7 while their SAHW coped with everything, even after serious health issues. One (the woman) basically abandoned her kids to their dad and moved to another city.

I get wanting to make sure your own kids work hard and have motivated. But why TFFFFF did they spend decades frankly neglecting their families to accumulate all of that?

I'm not seeing how leaving your kids more money than they could reasonably need addresses the problem of absentee parenting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t stress about this until you find out how much long term care you will both need.

Oh please. Any level of long-term care can be comfortably supported without touching the principal of $14m.

Not if you want that care to be in-home, top quality, 24 hour specialized nursing care. That can run you $300k+/year. If both of you require that, then $600K+. That's just for the nurses, you still have to maintain the home and have food and other items provided

$600,000 is less than 4.5 percent of $14 million per year, so OK, maybe they'd have to slightly touch the principal to cover all this, but it's not like they're at risk of running out of money.