Anonymous wrote:I'm the child and am going to talk to my mom about how I feel. But I'm pretty upset, so wanted to get feedback before I do.

I am one of 3 kids. My mom has said since we are all doing great and have plenty of money (debatable on both points), she is going to leave all of her money to the grandchildren (ages 9-24).

Nice thought on the grandchildren, but I'm really hurt, and it brings up a lot of memories about how my mom has always done the minimum (emotionally and financially) for me and my siblings.

My siblings and I are all doing fine, but not crazy well. It's not a huge amount of money ($600K at the most, but I'm sure most/all of it will be used up for mom's care as she ages).

One more point, my mom and one of my siblings have a turbulent relationship/don't talk much. I wonder if the grandchildren thing is a way to cut my sibling out of the will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that generation skipping has become "a thing" but I don't really understand the reasoning behind it. People never used to do it that way. Is this a tax a thing?

Personally, I feel that any money should naturally go to your adult children and it will be the adult children who will hand down to your grandchildren (their children).

Why muddy the water?

It’s because people are living longer. My parents are in their 70s and their parents are starting to pass away (both have one surviving parent). My parents retired 5-10 years ago and don’t need the money now. Giving to grandkids helps skip this problem.

People need to start rethinking wills. Money should ideally be passed along the way, not some huge amount you get when you’re elderly already. It would be better to pay for kids colleges, weddings and down payments instead like the rich do. Instead middle class parents are making kids take on debt and then leaving money later.

If a parent leaves their 70 year adult child an inheritance then the adult child would leave an inheritance to their own children and so on and so forth.

Ultimately it's the parents' money to do with as they see fit. But a grandchild's big wedding is more of a want than a 70 year old person's need for help with yard work, house keeping, etc. is.

The 70year old kid already saved plenty for their retirement and is done saving for that. Whereas the money would mean the 30 or 40 year old grandkid can have more kids, pay for their kids college, afford a home in a school district.

The grandchildren are young and able bodied and can still work. The 70 year old is usually not still working. And most people lose their parents when they are in their 50's and 60's anyway. Most 70 year old people do not still have living parents.

But the bottom line is, it is the parents' money to do with as they please. If they want to skip over their own children and leave money for the grandkids, instead. They can do it. I, personally, would prefer to leave to my next of kin which would be my children.

I think some of the issue is that so many Boomers have said that they will blow all the money (and then generation dying off were very frugal). Their parents aren't thrilled with that answer and it's why more are leaving money to grandkids. 100k is a drop in the bucket of retirement, but to a grandkid, it's a downpayment or lets them have kids. My parents inherited a lot of money, it's great. But don't be confused thinking that they are helping out their kids and grandkids with money they inherit.

My ILs inherited a couple million have spent nearly all of it over the last 25 years: expensive vacations, pricey snowbird rentals, club memberships, etc. Yes, they did spend money on their children and grandchildren, but not crazy amounts. Our assets have recently taken a hit and I'm not feeling so fondly about possibly bailing out people who blew through that much money because, as my MiL likes to say, "you can't take it with you."

Yeah, but they are family.
Are you going to let them starve/suffer to teach them a lesson?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that generation skipping has become "a thing" but I don't really understand the reasoning behind it. People never used to do it that way. Is this a tax a thing?

Personally, I feel that any money should naturally go to your adult children and it will be the adult children who will hand down to your grandchildren (their children).

Why muddy the water?

It’s because people are living longer. My parents are in their 70s and their parents are starting to pass away (both have one surviving parent). My parents retired 5-10 years ago and don’t need the money now. Giving to grandkids helps skip this problem.

People need to start rethinking wills. Money should ideally be passed along the way, not some huge amount you get when you’re elderly already. It would be better to pay for kids colleges, weddings and down payments instead like the rich do. Instead middle class parents are making kids take on debt and then leaving money later.

If a parent leaves their 70 year adult child an inheritance then the adult child would leave an inheritance to their own children and so on and so forth.

Ultimately it's the parents' money to do with as they see fit. But a grandchild's big wedding is more of a want than a 70 year old person's need for help with yard work, house keeping, etc. is.

The 70year old kid already saved plenty for their retirement and is done saving for that. Whereas the money would mean the 30 or 40 year old grandkid can have more kids, pay for their kids college, afford a home in a school district.

The grandchildren are young and able bodied and can still work. The 70 year old is usually not still working. And most people lose their parents when they are in their 50's and 60's anyway. Most 70 year old people do not still have living parents.

But the bottom line is, it is the parents' money to do with as they please. If they want to skip over their own children and leave money for the grandkids, instead. They can do it. I, personally, would prefer to leave to my next of kin which would be my children.

I think some of the issue is that so many Boomers have said that they will blow all the money (and then generation dying off were very frugal). Their parents aren't thrilled with that answer and it's why more are leaving money to grandkids. 100k is a drop in the bucket of retirement, but to a grandkid, it's a downpayment or lets them have kids. My parents inherited a lot of money, it's great. But don't be confused thinking that they are helping out their kids and grandkids with money they inherit.

My ILs inherited a couple million have spent nearly all of it over the last 25 years: expensive vacations, pricey snowbird rentals, club memberships, etc. Yes, they did spend money on their children and grandchildren, but not crazy amounts. Our assets have recently taken a hit and I'm not feeling so fondly about possibly bailing out people who blew through that much money because, as my MiL likes to say, "you can't take it with you."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I would see giving my children (her grandchildren) money is essentially giving me money. I’d be ok with it and happy for my kids.

This. I am estranged from my parents but would be fine with this. I don't like them using an inheritance as a dangling carrot and excuse for them to treat me like sh*t. So if they think that cutting me out of the will and bypassing me and leaving stuff for my kids is punishment, it's actually a relief.

You would prefer them to use an inheritance as a dangling carrot over your kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also remember that older people earned their income during pre-inflation years. What they thought was a nice nest egg has really been hit hard.

I don't feel bad for anyone that didn't plan for this. We are planning our retirement for the worst case scenario.

Anonymous wrote:Also remember that older people earned their income during pre-inflation years. What they thought was a nice nest egg has really been hit hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that generation skipping has become "a thing" but I don't really understand the reasoning behind it. People never used to do it that way. Is this a tax a thing?

Personally, I feel that any money should naturally go to your adult children and it will be the adult children who will hand down to your grandchildren (their children).

Why muddy the water?

It’s because people are living longer. My parents are in their 70s and their parents are starting to pass away (both have one surviving parent). My parents retired 5-10 years ago and don’t need the money now. Giving to grandkids helps skip this problem.

People need to start rethinking wills. Money should ideally be passed along the way, not some huge amount you get when you’re elderly already. It would be better to pay for kids colleges, weddings and down payments instead like the rich do. Instead middle class parents are making kids take on debt and then leaving money later.

If a parent leaves their 70 year adult child an inheritance then the adult child would leave an inheritance to their own children and so on and so forth.

Ultimately it's the parents' money to do with as they see fit. But a grandchild's big wedding is more of a want than a 70 year old person's need for help with yard work, house keeping, etc. is.

The 70year old kid already saved plenty for their retirement and is done saving for that. Whereas the money would mean the 30 or 40 year old grandkid can have more kids, pay for their kids college, afford a home in a school district.

The grandchildren are young and able bodied and can still work. The 70 year old is usually not still working. And most people lose their parents when they are in their 50's and 60's anyway. Most 70 year old people do not still have living parents.

But the bottom line is, it is the parents' money to do with as they please. If they want to skip over their own children and leave money for the grandkids, instead. They can do it. I, personally, would prefer to leave to my next of kin which would be my children.

I think some of the issue is that so many Boomers have said that they will blow all the money (and then generation dying off were very frugal). Their parents aren't thrilled with that answer and it's why more are leaving money to grandkids. 100k is a drop in the bucket of retirement, but to a grandkid, it's a downpayment or lets them have kids. My parents inherited a lot of money, it's great. But don't be confused thinking that they are helping out their kids and grandkids with money they inherit.