Let’s say your parents own property that is valued over a million dollars. Is it a parents’ duty and responsibility to leave that wealth and pass it onto their children when they pass? Would they be ‘bad/irresponsible’ parents for not giving their child/children the inheritance but instead giving it away to the bank or charities?
Let’s say your kid who is now middle aged is up to no good and will just waste their money on themselves building nothing, leaving nothing behind, as parents who have wealth to leave behind (property, investments/savings/, life insurance), would you still hand down everything to your middle aged child knowing they are a crackhead and will just spend the money on themselves for pleasure? Or would you feel ok to not give them a dime and donate it elsewhere?
On the one hand, it seems irresponsible for parents to not leave anything behind for their kids when they pass. Whether you agree or disagree with their lifestyle choices, shouldn’t parents duties be to pass their wealth to their kids? But on the other hand, if your kid is a crackhead and will just blow all that life savings away on materialism, pleasures, hedonistic addictions, then would it be wise to give them that wealth? It seems it would be better to either a) spend it all on yourselves before you die (ie travel, do all the things you ever wanted to do and not leave much wealth behind for your crackhead kid) or donate it charities, hospitals, good causes you know your wealth is going to be put to good use.
If you worked 50 years to build that wealth, and then hand it over to your kid (who was poor pretty much up until receiving the inheritance) who will blow it all away in just a few shorts years seems like a very controversial thing to do as parents. But to not do it also seems controversial because you are the parents and they are you kid after all…shouldn’t you take care of them?
Parents have a duty to raise their children to be independent, functional adults.
They do not have an obligation to leave any form of wealth to those children. It is nice if they can leave wealth to their kids, but it’s entirely optional.
I won’t try to track down the quote but (approximately): “I want my kids to have enough money to do anything they want to, but not so much that they can do nothing.”
But that’s not precisely responsive to the OP’s question.
I’ll agree that parents don’t owe their kids an inheritance. But in my case, where my child has always held a job and always been a great person, I definitely want to leave her as much as I can. I want her to be able to buy a house and send any kids she might have to college. And to retire early.
But if she was wasteful, irresponsible, and self-centered, I’d just try to leave her a modest lump. Enough to get out of modest debt, or make a house down payment.
Agree, though there might be exceptions in cases when the offspring are incapable of becoming independent, functional adults because of mental or physical disability.
But no, I don’t think parents have a “duty and responsibility” to pass their wealth on to their children. Why are their children any more deserving of wealth than other people who didn’t have the fortune to be born to wealthy parents?
This is not a definitive list but more than a few very wealthy people have decided to not leave their fortune to their kids. They may leave something (even millions which is still a lot) but not their total fortune.
Full Title: 14 high-profile billionaires and millionaires who aren’t leaving their fortunes to their children
(Yeah…I get they say 14 but the graphic says 12)
ETA: They get Gordon Ramsay’s net worth waaaay wrong (I think they mean million and not billion) so…maybe not a reliable article but you can find others like it. Many extremely wealthy people have been upfront about this.
True, although that might be not so much leaving the money directly to such children as establishing a trust to care for them and their needs.
It would also be only a moral requirement - so far as I know parents are not obligated to provide anything for their children regardless of their ability (or not) to take care of themselves and their affairs. There might be jurisdictions where that is a requirement, I’m just not aware of them.
My feeling is that a person has every right to do what they want with the money they’ve earned and the things they possess. Hopefully, people in that position will make wise and fair choices one way or the other.
People get to do whatever they want with their money - including spending it all or leaving it to the cat. But I think there’s a huge difference between Bill Gates leaving his children $10 million each and the rest of his billions to charity vs. someone leaving their million dollar estate (which might consist entirely or mostly of a house around here ) entirely to charity and nothing to the kids.
Those people with only a “million” or so to leave behind ( or give way while they are still alive) - they have every right to do whatever they want to with their money but sometimes people don’t seem to quite understand that it’s a two way street. To use the example I’ve seen most often, the parents give one child more than the other(s) . Maybe they transfer the house to that kid, or allow that kid to live “at home” rent free or list that kid as the beneficiary of the life insurance. Often in return for an explicit agreement that the kid will help the parents as they age. Which is 100% fine - but then the parents get surprised when they hear " Ask Dave to take you shopping , you gave him your million dollar house". And my guess is that if someone plans to leave every dime to the cat charity, they might hear " Call a cab and leave the cats $20 less"
No, and in fact I’ve told my parents (who just retired this year) repeatedly that “but this your inheritance!” is a terrible reason to not travel and buy nice things and generally enjoy their golden years. So long as they’ve got enough to eventually transition into comfortable assisted living, I hope they spend every dime.
On the flip side, I have an extremely wealthy great uncle who is free to leave me something in his will (he will not).
I agree that it’s their money and they can do what they like with it.
Hopefully the family are all on good terms. So if one child had bad luck (e.g. expensive health problems), I think it reasonable to leave more money to that child.
When my parents retired they owned a house and some savings.
My sister and I (the only children) both owned our own houses, so we told our lovely parents to feel free to spend!
They went on a cruise and enjoyed it a lot.
I don’t have any children, so am leaving some to my sister and the rest to my friends.
My aunt recently passed and even though she had a tidy sum of money and decent house she left her two surving kids only $500 each becasue they no longer brought joy into her life, just problems. She totally skipped her grandkids as well, as most of them turned out to losers in her eyes and that they wasted their potential. She told me this just a few weeks before she passed.
She left the bulk of her money in a trust to her three great grandchildren, becasue they brought great joy to her and their was still hope for them to become productive, well functioning people. I say good for her!
She left me a picture that I always liked and her two huge house plants that were her pride. She wanted them to go to me becasue she knew I’d take good care of them.
So no, parents are not obligated to leave anything to their kids, especially if they don’t believe that they put it to good use.
I don’t have any children, but I do have three siblings who could potentially be my heirs if I ever amass a fortune.
If hypothetically, I won the Powerball jackpot and had 100 million dollar net worth, I would set up Trust Funds for my close friends and family. I would set up the fund in such a way that nobody would live in luxury without working, but they could never go homeless or lack for medical care either. The fund would also pay for higher education and/or vocational training.
In order to incentivize work, the fund will match any money earned in a job dollar for dollar. So if my brother earns $25,000 a year through a job, the trust would pay him $25,000 to get him to $50,000.
I personally think I would have some responsibility to my children. Having children is a responsibility to care for them and I do not think that ends when they turn 18.
I often read that Millennials and younger have a very hard time buying a home and settling down. I’d think giving them a leg-up with your estate is a rational and ethical thing to do.
Of course, relationships are all over the place and the parent is not obliged to help their kids…but I think they should except (maybe) in edge cases (e.g. the kid is a drug addict and will squander their inheritance).
@Doreen nailed it for me. Continuing from her excellent starting point …
Parents have zero obligation to healthy offspring. None. And any offspring who feels slighted by that is in the wrong.
With multiple offspring parents face three conflicting goals: To each according to need, to each according to merit, and to each equally period amen. Pros and cons to each. The more those three desiderata point in different directions, the better it is for the parents to shrink the amount given to the offspring and instead spend it on themselves or donate it to the greater good of society.
I’ve had the same discussion with my mother. She has enough saved to make it into her nineties without touching the equity in her fully paid off condo. If she makes that far, she can either use the equity in the condo to support her for another decade or she sells it and moves into assisted living where the invested funds would never run out.
Will there be money left for me and my siblings? Almost definitely, but it’s residual and will be used for her benefit until it’s gone.