Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If your intent is to permanently damage their sibling relationship, then sure, leave them different amounts.
+1 Can't stress this enough. My father plans on giving all of his money to my lazy brother because he "needs it more." I already told my brother that I will terminate our relationship if he doesn't give me an equal share. I also have mixed feelings about my father doing something like this.
It's also complicated because your stance on equality vs equity is likely influenced by political ideology. My father is very far to the left and I think that is a factor.
I know this will fall on deaf ears, but in this situation, YTA. Actually, YT greedy A.
I can't believe you wrote what you did thinking that you are in the right.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If your intent is to permanently damage their sibling relationship, then sure, leave them different amounts.
+1 Can't stress this enough. My father plans on giving all of his money to my lazy brother because he "needs it more." I already told my brother that I will terminate our relationship if he doesn't give me an equal share. I also have mixed feelings about my father doing something like this.
It's also complicated because your stance on equality vs equity is likely influenced by political ideology. My father is very far to the left and I think that is a factor.
Anonymous wrote:Spilt it absent disabilities - that amount is in the (high end of the) sweet spot of being significant even when split to be a very generous inheritance/safety net - but not so significant that flat out greed/dynastic wealth kicks in.
Regarding giving $$ to grandchildren - do they have kids yet? Do they have a similar number of kids? More kids on the way? Stepkids? That can be a landmine for many reasons (child with more kids might feel entitled to more, child with no kids might feel it’s unfair, etc etc)

Anonymous wrote:Equally, duh. OP you said yourself that kid 2 is “not as driven”, how is that at all caused by differences in luck?
Also think about it this way: if you give the less driven and responsible kid more money, he’s way more likely to squander it vs kid 1.
This is the dynamic in my family as well. Every generation has that sibling who can’t get it together and makes dumb life choices. In every situation that I’ve observed, when this type of person receives money from an inheritance, they blow it all on dumb s***, while the more successful siblings actually invest it to preserve the familial wealth (or at least spend it responsibly).
If anything, I would give LESS to the sibling who demonstrated they can’t generate their own wealth. They won’t be able to handle it.
Anonymous wrote:If your intent is to permanently damage their sibling relationship, then sure, leave them different amounts.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Spilt it absent disabilities - that amount is in the (high end of the) sweet spot of being significant even when split to be a very generous inheritance/safety net - but not so significant that flat out greed/dynastic wealth kicks in.
Regarding giving $$ to grandchildren - do they have kids yet? Do they have a similar number of kids? More kids on the way? Stepkids? That can be a landmine for many reasons (child with more kids might feel entitled to more, child with no kids might feel it’s unfair, etc etc)
Anonymous wrote:Equally.
If I’m understanding right, kid 2 is still in college? If so, I think it is pretty sad for some posters to pass judgement on them so soon. Kid 2 is still young and still figuring it out.