Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

You don’t see the irony? You both work easy low-pay “hobby” jobs—which is fine—more power to you! Enjoy your life! However, to say in the same breath that you don’t want your kids to be entitled layabouts is ironic. The extra bit about how you’re teaching them by example is especially rich. At first glance I thought you were trolling, but I think I think you might actually be for real. I guess the old adage is true, the rich truly live in a different world.

I’m still a little baffled, to be honest. You said “hobby jobs,” not me. I truly don’t know why you have such a problem with the concept of a a “relatively low-paying, low-stress job.” I’m so curious as to what you envision that being that warrants your laughter. I have a boss, I work in a freaking cubicle—that makes me entitled and a bad example to my kids? If I had this same job, but no trust fund, would I still be a entitled layabout? (I’ll be sure to tell my coworkers.) What would you have us do, run ourselves ragged trying to make money that we don’t need, or do absolutely nothing at all? Would that be less funny?

NP - no one is saying you shouldn't work. But the pious attitude, and the notion that you are setting some sort of fantastic example, is pretty funny. What example is that, exactly? "You don't need to work, Larlo, but you really should, because . . . " How does that sentence finish?

PS - workingn when you don't need the money is pretty much the definition of a hobby job.

DP here, I don’t know what you think the PP should do instead. They might as well do something productive even if they don’t need the money.

I never suggested she shouldn't work, or that she's doing anything wrong. It's the insistence that she's doing this to teach her kids that is really out there. She has the luxury to work a low-stress, low paying job without any financial consequences, and she thinks that by doing so she's teaching her kids something. What is that?

And BTW, there's more than one of us who thinks she lacks a little self-awareness.

Okay. So that person has a trust, and has children. Here are their options:

*Work a big law type job, 80 hours/week, big salary,big house, never see kids.
*Work a cube drone middle management/has life balance to enjoy their children and spend time with them
*Do nothing all day but entertain children.

The money is there. That isn't changing, and the OP who so offended you didn't choose that, they have it. Given that they have it, which of the above choices would you NOT look down on?

If the answer is just "none of them, I look down on this person for circumstances they had no control over" that is acceptable, just admit it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like several PPs, I work at a job (in academia) that I couldn't afford to work at if I didn't have inherited money. We pay ZERO premium for family health insurance coverage through my employer (and I don't see how concierge medicine is some kind of rich people alternative to insurance. I might need an organ transplant someday, and it's hard to even get on the waiting list if you don't have insurance, even if you're rich enough to just pay for it). It's better insurance than what I could get buying a plan on my own.

Also, tuition benefits for my kids (sure, I can afford to pay out of pocket for college, but do I want to? Not really. My ancestors worked too hard for this money for me to waste it). And I want my kids to see that I work, so that they will hopefully have some ambition and not waste whatever money they inherit.

So you have a trust fund and you are forcing your kids to go to college for free? My DH has a trust and college tuition is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the earnings of the fund and he went to medical school. Plus my kids will be beneficiaries of said trust, if we were so cheap luckily for them they could fund their own education.

I'm shocked your trust doesn't provide for your kids better.

Look, SAHW with a husbanddoctor chimes in!

All the people who are urging TF kids to just flippantly pay for health insurance and college is hilarious. The reason we have accumulated wealth is because we are able to make wise decisions around money ~ not because we buy everything without a second thought because "drop in bucket!!!"

Anonymous wrote:Let’s stay on topic. Being a trust fund kid means getting access to $$ at a young age, generally 21 and under. If you inherit $$ in your 30s or 40s, you were clearly never a trust fund KiD 🤨

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

You don’t see the irony? You both work easy low-pay “hobby” jobs—which is fine—more power to you! Enjoy your life! However, to say in the same breath that you don’t want your kids to be entitled layabouts is ironic. The extra bit about how you’re teaching them by example is especially rich. At first glance I thought you were trolling, but I think I think you might actually be for real. I guess the old adage is true, the rich truly live in a different world.

I’m still a little baffled, to be honest. You said “hobby jobs,” not me. I truly don’t know why you have such a problem with the concept of a a “relatively low-paying, low-stress job.” I’m so curious as to what you envision that being that warrants your laughter. I have a boss, I work in a freaking cubicle—that makes me entitled and a bad example to my kids? If I had this same job, but no trust fund, would I still be a entitled layabout? (I’ll be sure to tell my coworkers.) What would you have us do, run ourselves ragged trying to make money that we don’t need, or do absolutely nothing at all? Would that be less funny?

NP - no one is saying you shouldn't work. But the pious attitude, and the notion that you are setting some sort of fantastic example, is pretty funny. What example is that, exactly? "You don't need to work, Larlo, but you really should, because . . . " How does that sentence finish?

PS - workingn when you don't need the money is pretty much the definition of a hobby job.

DP here, I don’t know what you think the PP should do instead. They might as well do something productive even if they don’t need the money.

I never suggested she shouldn't work, or that she's doing anything wrong. It's the insistence that she's doing this to teach her kids that is really out there. She has the luxury to work a low-stress, low paying job without any financial consequences, and she thinks that by doing so she's teaching her kids something. What is that?

And BTW, there's more than one of us who thinks she lacks a little self-awareness.

Okay. So that person has a trust, and has children. Here are their options:

*Work a big law type job, 80 hours/week, big salary,big house, never see kids.
*Work a cube drone middle management/has life balance to enjoy their children and spend time with them
*Do nothing all day but entertain children.

The money is there. That isn't changing, and the OP who so offended you didn't choose that, they have it. Given that they have it, which of the above choices would you NOT look down on?

If the answer is just "none of them, I look down on this person for circumstances they had no control over" that is acceptable, just admit it.

Poor little rich girl.

Let me spell it out for you since you’re so worked up about this. Any of those choices would be fine. There’s nothing inherently better or more honorable about any of them. A person with a trust fund has the luxury to choose precisely because they don’t need to earn a living. What people are rolling their eyes at is the idea that somehow working a hobby job is teaching your kids the value of “hard work.” That’s the disconnect.

Poster who inspired so much eye-rolling here. You’re continuing to twist my words around. I never once said I was teaching my kids the value of hard work. I said we were teaching them and leading by example. By which I mean we are showing them how to live responsibly within the means they will inherit. Those lessons might not apply to you, or to many others, but it’s teaching nonetheless. They might decide to take their careers much further than I have, which would be great. They might decide to do nothing much at all, which would concern me quite a bit.

Anyway, off to my so-called hobby job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

You don’t see the irony? You both work easy low-pay “hobby” jobs—which is fine—more power to you! Enjoy your life! However, to say in the same breath that you don’t want your kids to be entitled layabouts is ironic. The extra bit about how you’re teaching them by example is especially rich. At first glance I thought you were trolling, but I think I think you might actually be for real. I guess the old adage is true, the rich truly live in a different world.

I’m still a little baffled, to be honest. You said “hobby jobs,” not me. I truly don’t know why you have such a problem with the concept of a a “relatively low-paying, low-stress job.” I’m so curious as to what you envision that being that warrants your laughter. I have a boss, I work in a freaking cubicle—that makes me entitled and a bad example to my kids? If I had this same job, but no trust fund, would I still be a entitled layabout? (I’ll be sure to tell my coworkers.) What would you have us do, run ourselves ragged trying to make money that we don’t need, or do absolutely nothing at all? Would that be less funny?

NP - no one is saying you shouldn't work. But the pious attitude, and the notion that you are setting some sort of fantastic example, is pretty funny. What example is that, exactly? "You don't need to work, Larlo, but you really should, because . . . " How does that sentence finish?

PS - workingn when you don't need the money is pretty much the definition of a hobby job.

DP here, I don’t know what you think the PP should do instead. They might as well do something productive even if they don’t need the money.

I never suggested she shouldn't work, or that she's doing anything wrong. It's the insistence that she's doing this to teach her kids that is really out there. She has the luxury to work a low-stress, low paying job without any financial consequences, and she thinks that by doing so she's teaching her kids something. What is that?

And BTW, there's more than one of us who thinks she lacks a little self-awareness.

Okay. So that person has a trust, and has children. Here are their options:

*Work a big law type job, 80 hours/week, big salary,big house, never see kids.
*Work a cube drone middle management/has life balance to enjoy their children and spend time with them
*Do nothing all day but entertain children.

The money is there. That isn't changing, and the OP who so offended you didn't choose that, they have it. Given that they have it, which of the above choices would you NOT look down on?

If the answer is just "none of them, I look down on this person for circumstances they had no control over" that is acceptable, just admit it.

Poor little rich girl.

Let me spell it out for you since you’re so worked up about this. Any of those choices would be fine. There’s nothing inherently better or more honorable about any of them. A person with a trust fund has the luxury to choose precisely because they don’t need to earn a living. What people are rolling their eyes at is the idea that somehow working a hobby job is teaching your kids the value of “hard work.” That’s the disconnect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like several PPs, I work at a job (in academia) that I couldn't afford to work at if I didn't have inherited money. We pay ZERO premium for family health insurance coverage through my employer (and I don't see how concierge medicine is some kind of rich people alternative to insurance. I might need an organ transplant someday, and it's hard to even get on the waiting list if you don't have insurance, even if you're rich enough to just pay for it). It's better insurance than what I could get buying a plan on my own.

Also, tuition benefits for my kids (sure, I can afford to pay out of pocket for college, but do I want to? Not really. My ancestors worked too hard for this money for me to waste it). And I want my kids to see that I work, so that they will hopefully have some ambition and not waste whatever money they inherit.

So you have a trust fund and you are forcing your kids to go to college for free? My DH has a trust and college tuition is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the earnings of the fund and he went to medical school. Plus my kids will be beneficiaries of said trust, if we were so cheap luckily for them they could fund their own education.

I'm shocked your trust doesn't provide for your kids better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

You don’t see the irony? You both work easy low-pay “hobby” jobs—which is fine—more power to you! Enjoy your life! However, to say in the same breath that you don’t want your kids to be entitled layabouts is ironic. The extra bit about how you’re teaching them by example is especially rich. At first glance I thought you were trolling, but I think I think you might actually be for real. I guess the old adage is true, the rich truly live in a different world.

I’m still a little baffled, to be honest. You said “hobby jobs,” not me. I truly don’t know why you have such a problem with the concept of a a “relatively low-paying, low-stress job.” I’m so curious as to what you envision that being that warrants your laughter. I have a boss, I work in a freaking cubicle—that makes me entitled and a bad example to my kids? If I had this same job, but no trust fund, would I still be a entitled layabout? (I’ll be sure to tell my coworkers.) What would you have us do, run ourselves ragged trying to make money that we don’t need, or do absolutely nothing at all? Would that be less funny?

NP - no one is saying you shouldn't work. But the pious attitude, and the notion that you are setting some sort of fantastic example, is pretty funny. What example is that, exactly? "You don't need to work, Larlo, but you really should, because . . . " How does that sentence finish?

PS - workingn when you don't need the money is pretty much the definition of a hobby job.

DP here, I don’t know what you think the PP should do instead. They might as well do something productive even if they don’t need the money.

I never suggested she shouldn't work, or that she's doing anything wrong. It's the insistence that she's doing this to teach her kids that is really out there. She has the luxury to work a low-stress, low paying job without any financial consequences, and she thinks that by doing so she's teaching her kids something. What is that?

And BTW, there's more than one of us who thinks she lacks a little self-awareness.

Okay. So that person has a trust, and has children. Here are their options:

*Work a big law type job, 80 hours/week, big salary,big house, never see kids.
*Work a cube drone middle management/has life balance to enjoy their children and spend time with them
*Do nothing all day but entertain children.

The money is there. That isn't changing, and the OP who so offended you didn't choose that, they have it. Given that they have it, which of the above choices would you NOT look down on?

If the answer is just "none of them, I look down on this person for circumstances they had no control over" that is acceptable, just admit it.

Poor little rich girl.

Let me spell it out for you since you’re so worked up about this. Any of those choices would be fine. There’s nothing inherently better or more honorable about any of them. A person with a trust fund has the luxury to choose precisely because they don’t need to earn a living. What people are rolling their eyes at is the idea that somehow working a hobby job is teaching your kids the value of “hard work.” That’s the disconnect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like several PPs, I work at a job (in academia) that I couldn't afford to work at if I didn't have inherited money. We pay ZERO premium for family health insurance coverage through my employer (and I don't see how concierge medicine is some kind of rich people alternative to insurance. I might need an organ transplant someday, and it's hard to even get on the waiting list if you don't have insurance, even if you're rich enough to just pay for it). It's better insurance than what I could get buying a plan on my own.

Also, tuition benefits for my kids (sure, I can afford to pay out of pocket for college, but do I want to? Not really. My ancestors worked too hard for this money for me to waste it). And I want my kids to see that I work, so that they will hopefully have some ambition and not waste whatever money they inherit.

So you have a trust fund and you are forcing your kids to go to college for free? My DH has a trust and college tuition is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the earnings of the fund and he went to medical school. Plus my kids will be beneficiaries of said trust, if we were so cheap luckily for them they could fund their own education.

I'm shocked your trust doesn't provide for your kids better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m married to a trust funder. We both work, albeit relatively low-paying, low-stress jobs. My kids are going to inherit a lot of money one day—and they don’t have a clue—I don’t want them to be entitled layabouts, so we try to teach by example.

lol

I’m not sure why that’s funny. We both have full-time jobs, but we’re not killing ourselves with 60-hour work weeks because that would be ridiculous. Do you really think one needs a high-stress power job to demonstrate responsible adulthood? How sad.

You don’t see the irony? You both work easy low-pay “hobby” jobs—which is fine—more power to you! Enjoy your life! However, to say in the same breath that you don’t want your kids to be entitled layabouts is ironic. The extra bit about how you’re teaching them by example is especially rich. At first glance I thought you were trolling, but I think I think you might actually be for real. I guess the old adage is true, the rich truly live in a different world.

I’m still a little baffled, to be honest. You said “hobby jobs,” not me. I truly don’t know why you have such a problem with the concept of a a “relatively low-paying, low-stress job.” I’m so curious as to what you envision that being that warrants your laughter. I have a boss, I work in a freaking cubicle—that makes me entitled and a bad example to my kids? If I had this same job, but no trust fund, would I still be a entitled layabout? (I’ll be sure to tell my coworkers.) What would you have us do, run ourselves ragged trying to make money that we don’t need, or do absolutely nothing at all? Would that be less funny?

NP - no one is saying you shouldn't work. But the pious attitude, and the notion that you are setting some sort of fantastic example, is pretty funny. What example is that, exactly? "You don't need to work, Larlo, but you really should, because . . . " How does that sentence finish?

PS - workingn when you don't need the money is pretty much the definition of a hobby job.

DP here, I don’t know what you think the PP should do instead. They might as well do something productive even if they don’t need the money.

I never suggested she shouldn't work, or that she's doing anything wrong. It's the insistence that she's doing this to teach her kids that is really out there. She has the luxury to work a low-stress, low paying job without any financial consequences, and she thinks that by doing so she's teaching her kids something. What is that?

And BTW, there's more than one of us who thinks she lacks a little self-awareness.

Okay. So that person has a trust, and has children. Here are their options:

*Work a big law type job, 80 hours/week, big salary,big house, never see kids.
*Work a cube drone middle management/has life balance to enjoy their children and spend time with them
*Do nothing all day but entertain children.

The money is there. That isn't changing, and the OP who so offended you didn't choose that, they have it. Given that they have it, which of the above choices would you NOT look down on?

If the answer is just "none of them, I look down on this person for circumstances they had no control over" that is acceptable, just admit it.

Anonymous wrote:Like several PPs, I work at a job (in academia) that I couldn't afford to work at if I didn't have inherited money. We pay ZERO premium for family health insurance coverage through my employer (and I don't see how concierge medicine is some kind of rich people alternative to insurance. I might need an organ transplant someday, and it's hard to even get on the waiting list if you don't have insurance, even if you're rich enough to just pay for it). It's better insurance than what I could get buying a plan on my own.

Also, tuition benefits for my kids (sure, I can afford to pay out of pocket for college, but do I want to? Not really. My ancestors worked too hard for this money for me to waste it). And I want my kids to see that I work, so that they will hopefully have some ambition and not waste whatever money they inherit.