Anonymous wrote:Do people honestly look at inheretences drastically differently than other resources coming in? Maybe it's because of the size of some of these inheretences? Is there a level at which you think it should be treated drastically differently than say a big bonus or something that one spouse gets?

I can't imagine that my spouse would consider any earned income to be their purview if you have mixed finances. I even come from the old school line of women with few options who all sort of secretly hid a little money from time to time , so I know about needing to stand on your feet. But I feel like what we are talking about here are couples where both are capable of standing on their own anyway

Yes, I do look at inheritances drastically differently from other resources. An inheritance is not “earned income” - it is money that one’s parents earned and saved over their lives, and then left to their child. It has emotional meaning that earned income will never have.

Not at all the same as earned income.

People seem to take a different approaches in their relationships and all that really matters is that the people involved agree.

For my part, my spouse and I share everything that comes into our marriage. We are a single unit in terms of our finances. Interestingly, though, each of us keeps a separate account that the other could theoretically access but never does.

To my thinking, gifts and inheritances aren’t different in any material away from other money that comes into our marriage. Some of our money we have because I did not need to pay off the school dance because my parents paid for my schooling. so that additional wealth is attributable to my parents, like a gift or inheritance, but doesn’t change that my husband and I share all finances. similarly, when I have given money to family members on my side for (emergency medical issues), that doesn’t come out of my half of any ledger in our marriage. It just comes out of our collective pot.

Some families are different, but this is how we see it and it works for us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Professionals in the field will tell you child only.

So people with entirely co-mingled finances would be expected to set up a solo account? I get why that's smart for asset protection but IRL it seems cold AF, like the person sees the writing on the wall.

This is what my husband did. I hate him and his parents and it truly ruined my adult life with him and didn't make for a happy household for our children. Three more years and I'm out, and I will find some way to sue him for something, since we have had to spend every dime that I have earned while he sits on his trust funding not spending a dime of it without a care in the world (he doesn't have a job). You rich people are horrible and should be left to die alone. My husband and his parents will have only each other and I hope they are miserable in their old age. When my kids are adults, they will know exactly who these people are and I promise you will never give them the time of day.

+1

My father died when I was young (16) and my mother died when I was 28. My inheritance paid for my DH's grad school and allowed me (ie us) to not pay child care for the 3 years I was home with our twins. It didn't make sense to work as day care would eat the earnings I made and then some.

Well, DH became ex DH at 48 when his alcoholism became out of control and he started to hit. I'll never see a dime of his very large inheritance and that's not fair.

All these stories just confirm for me that even in the best of marriages men use money to control or punish their wives/ex-wives.

My husband had no money. His ex cheated and she took the kids way back when 50/50 was rare. She always used the kids and money to control him. There was no amount of money (above the child support and alimony) that was ever enough. And, then she'd use money as an excuse to keep the kids from visiting or talking to him. And, he'd go to court and the judges would just tell her to allow visits with no consequences. You can have a story for everything.

This poster should not get inheritance. Its not her family. Just like if he got inheritance he should not get it.

So you really think it's okay for me to be working, paying all the bills, while husband doesn't work, sponges off my income, while his money just sits there making hundreds of thousands every year? He doesn't have to worry about retirement and the only way I won't be destitute in retirement is if I stay with him. How is this okay? I really didn't have a choice though. We bought our house together, paid it off, then he quit working the following year. I could never afford to live even remotely comfortably if I had to go buy another house. A house at half the value of our little shack would not be livable.

You're an adult. No one is forcing you to pay his bills. It sounds like you're staying because you think he's going to support you in retirement? What makes you think he'll suddenly get generous when you decide to retire? The only leverage you have now is the children. If you split up, a court will order him to pay child support. Once the kids are 18, you have to split the marital property and he can leave you with basically no consequences, assuming that his trust specifies that it is protected from divorce.

FWIW, if the husband was a SAHM, would people feel differently about this situation?

Do people honestly look at inheretences drastically differently than other resources coming in? Maybe it's because of the size of some of these inheretences? Is there a level at which you think it should be treated drastically differently than say a big bonus or something that one spouse gets?

I can't imagine that my spouse would consider any earned income to be their purview if you have mixed finances. I even come from the old school line of women with few options who all sort of secretly hid a little money from time to time , so I know about needing to stand on your feet. But I feel like what we are talking about here are couples where both are capable of standing on their own anyway

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean I get that the inheritance goes just to the child. Its just easier to write it that way anyway. But once it goes to the child, if that adult deems that they won't share that money with the spouse at all or won't use it to pay for joint expenses like childcare etc, that's a whole different ball game and different issue than the actual inheritance.

If you need to use inheritance money to pay for normal expenses like childcare, your finances are messed up.

Once it goes to the child, the child decides what to do with it. The spouse can provide their .02, but the decision about the money belongs to the person who inherited it.

Sure, so we are making the same point. It becomes about the relationship, it's not really about how the money was left.

Also I think you are in a wealthy bubble if you think all inheretences are so big that they wouldn't go to helping with regular expenses. No one said you couldn't afford childcare without an inheritance, but for many people getting 20k or something allows them to shift resources they would spend on say childcare or part of a mortgage to other things that are needed, etc

We are not actually making the same point. I think an adult who inherits money can choose no to share that money with the spouse at all and that is absolutely fine.

We are both saying it's a relationship decision at the end. You keep wanting everyone to agree that it's fine vs not, but that's not the point the point is you leave it to your kids and their relationship will individually dictate what that means in practice

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean I get that the inheritance goes just to the child. Its just easier to write it that way anyway. But once it goes to the child, if that adult deems that they won't share that money with the spouse at all or won't use it to pay for joint expenses like childcare etc, that's a whole different ball game and different issue than the actual inheritance.

If you need to use inheritance money to pay for normal expenses like childcare, your finances are messed up.

Once it goes to the child, the child decides what to do with it. The spouse can provide their .02, but the decision about the money belongs to the person who inherited it.

Sure, so we are making the same point. It becomes about the relationship, it's not really about how the money was left.

Also I think you are in a wealthy bubble if you think all inheretences are so big that they wouldn't go to helping with regular expenses. No one said you couldn't afford childcare without an inheritance, but for many people getting 20k or something allows them to shift resources they would spend on say childcare or part of a mortgage to other things that are needed, etc

Inheritance is after a person dies. Gift is when they are living. A grandparent can pay a day care or school directly to avoid the gift tax. The issue is the gift tax limit rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean I get that the inheritance goes just to the child. Its just easier to write it that way anyway. But once it goes to the child, if that adult deems that they won't share that money with the spouse at all or won't use it to pay for joint expenses like childcare etc, that's a whole different ball game and different issue than the actual inheritance.

If you need to use inheritance money to pay for normal expenses like childcare, your finances are messed up.

Once it goes to the child, the child decides what to do with it. The spouse can provide their .02, but the decision about the money belongs to the person who inherited it.

Sure, so we are making the same point. It becomes about the relationship, it's not really about how the money was left.

Also I think you are in a wealthy bubble if you think all inheretences are so big that they wouldn't go to helping with regular expenses. No one said you couldn't afford childcare without an inheritance, but for many people getting 20k or something allows them to shift resources they would spend on say childcare or part of a mortgage to other things that are needed, etc

We are not actually making the same point. I think an adult who inherits money can choose no to share that money with the spouse at all and that is absolutely fine.

sure, but said spouse can also stop paying bill and let the spouse who inherited either pay them or not

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean I get that the inheritance goes just to the child. Its just easier to write it that way anyway. But once it goes to the child, if that adult deems that they won't share that money with the spouse at all or won't use it to pay for joint expenses like childcare etc, that's a whole different ball game and different issue than the actual inheritance.

If you need to use inheritance money to pay for normal expenses like childcare, your finances are messed up.

Once it goes to the child, the child decides what to do with it. The spouse can provide their .02, but the decision about the money belongs to the person who inherited it.

Sure, so we are making the same point. It becomes about the relationship, it's not really about how the money was left.

Also I think you are in a wealthy bubble if you think all inheretences are so big that they wouldn't go to helping with regular expenses. No one said you couldn't afford childcare without an inheritance, but for many people getting 20k or something allows them to shift resources they would spend on say childcare or part of a mortgage to other things that are needed, etc

We are not actually making the same point. I think an adult who inherits money can choose no to share that money with the spouse at all and that is absolutely fine.

Child only.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean I get that the inheritance goes just to the child. Its just easier to write it that way anyway. But once it goes to the child, if that adult deems that they won't share that money with the spouse at all or won't use it to pay for joint expenses like childcare etc, that's a whole different ball game and different issue than the actual inheritance.

If you need to use inheritance money to pay for normal expenses like childcare, your finances are messed up.

Once it goes to the child, the child decides what to do with it. The spouse can provide their .02, but the decision about the money belongs to the person who inherited it.

Sure, so we are making the same point. It becomes about the relationship, it's not really about how the money was left.

Also I think you are in a wealthy bubble if you think all inheretences are so big that they wouldn't go to helping with regular expenses. No one said you couldn't afford childcare without an inheritance, but for many people getting 20k or something allows them to shift resources they would spend on say childcare or part of a mortgage to other things that are needed, etc

Anonymous wrote:I mean I get that the inheritance goes just to the child. Its just easier to write it that way anyway. But once it goes to the child, if that adult deems that they won't share that money with the spouse at all or won't use it to pay for joint expenses like childcare etc, that's a whole different ball game and different issue than the actual inheritance.

If you need to use inheritance money to pay for normal expenses like childcare, your finances are messed up.

Once it goes to the child, the child decides what to do with it. The spouse can provide their .02, but the decision about the money belongs to the person who inherited it.

So after we got married, my mom gave us money up to the annual gift limit. Then the limit was $11,000 a year to one person. But she wanted to give us $40k. So she wrote a check to me, and then a check to my DH in December. And in January, she did the same thing.

So she was able to give us $40k in 2 months, and stay under the taxable amount.

We put it aside of our down payment on a house, so keeping it separate wasn't a huge issue.

I mean I get that the inheritance goes just to the child. Its just easier to write it that way anyway. But once it goes to the child, if that adult deems that they won't share that money with the spouse at all or won't use it to pay for joint expenses like childcare etc, that's a whole different ball game and different issue than the actual inheritance.

+3

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's not unusual to make smaller gifts to both spouses, but generally an inheritance (for some unforeseeable time in the future) is just to the child.

+1

+2