Anonymous wrote:
I also don’t think that these personal finances needed to be public.

What do you mean? Are you saying they shouldn’t be public here?

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 Sibling 1 extremely wealthy? Is there a reason that money isn’t going to Sibling 1’s own kids’ inheritance?

Sibling 3 and spouse are greedy jackasses and should get nothing. But if Sibling 1 insists on giving the money, then $10k per year per kid is more than generous. Could also just give $10k per year to the family and let them allocate it among the kids.

Sibling 3 is a spoiled brat and should get nothing.

Sibling 3 is insane.
If someone offers to give you something you say “thank you.”
You don’t berate them for unfairness and demand more.

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.

No money for your ungrateful brother and his three kids. Full stop. The lack of gratitude would seal the deal for me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the 6th grade nephew has special needs that necessitate a special school. The other people should thank their lucky stars they're not limited this way and STFU. Nobody is entitled to anything.

No, none of the kids have SN.

Doesn’t matter. The situation could be anything. Could be abject poverty for middle sibling’s child/dangerous middle school with gangs and drugs and the need to get the child out of that. Op is not then obligated to pay for this other sibling’s kids to go to private if they are not similarly situated and buying themselves trips

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

Same. Beggars can’t be choosers

Sibling 3 is truly awful. Sibling 1 owes them absolutely nothing. If Sibling is really ate to be “fair” (which completely ignores the context that led this person to help with nephew’s thing), aunt could either give the family $10k a year for 6 years or a very, very generous take would be to give the family $10k a year for each kid.

I also don’t think that these personal finances needed to be public.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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 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....