I wouldn’t dream of turning down the inheritance. It was her money to do with as she wished. If my small action made me worthier than the charity in her eyes, welp. Those were her wishes, and I plan to respect them. This is self-serving, of course. But still, I would turn around and do some good things with the money afterward. See, I would like to enjoy the fringe benefits of philanthropy, like notoriety and fancy dinner parties and getting a box at the opera in exchange for my donation. If the money goes straight from the old lady’s estate to the Met, nobody would get to enjoy those benefits.
Also, chocolate pound cake and lemonade?? That’s worse than pizza and milk.
I’d probably give more than half back to charity. Not because of the SDOW, but that’s what I’d do with any windfall reaching tens of millions of dollars. I don’t want to pay enormous amounts of taxes so that’s one way to reduce that. I’d also start my own foundation so I can make a bigger donation and still control where the money goes over time (is that legal?). I could also use that to make sure my kids are employeed cutting down my likely expensives. I’ll take a nice piece for myself and waste it, but the rest isn’t enough to achieve world domination, so I might as well do some good with it.
My charity would be finding more missing dogs of slightly dotty but insanely wealthy little old ladies. Or finding dogs that look a lot like them and hoping for some extra dottiness.
AClockworkMelon, loved your post, and feel the same way.
I’d take the money and make a generous, largely tax deductible donation to her chosen charity every year for the rest of my life. Hopefully my investments would pay off and in my will I’d be able to leave them the balance of what they’d have received with any left over money going to my heirs and charities of my choosing.
I once had pizza with ice cream on top. I know you’re sitting there making finger-down-the-throat gestures, but, y’know, it was actually very, very good!
Anyway, I’d keep more than half, but donate some, and I’d feel a little guilty, but not a whole lot.
Also, I might well divert some of it to charities of my own choice.
I’d accept it without guilt. I might donate some money to that charity anyway, but that’s just because I’m now a millionaire and can afford to more directly advance the causes I support.
I was raised not to give to charity. My parent’s belief was the money should always pass thru commerce to do the most good. And I was taught to never give your time or abilities away (“If it’s worth doing, then someone should pay you for it”).
To that end, I’d probably keep most of it, but I’m not completely sure. I have a minor disagreement with my folks regarding charity when it produces a measurable ROI (training people to be self-sufficient, etc.). I do contribute to organizations with a proven record of getting people back into the workforce.
Take the money without any shred of guilt. After all, I too will be leaving my little all to charities when I die – the local animal shelter, and the cancer research hospital. Charity will win eventually, no worries about that :).
I missed the edit window, but I would like to take the dog too. Not because it comes loaded, but because I like doggies in general, and, in any case, I would have taken it in had it been left homeless and penniless too.
I’d keep the money guilt-free, then give some to a charity of my choice (Toys For Tots). Then I would spend time not consuming chocolate pound cake and lemonade at the same time, because that’s gross.
On further consideration, I would set up a small charitable foundation catering to helping people who were once millionaires, only to lose it all to wild living.
I wouldn’t feel any guilt keeping all of it. That being said, after paying off mine and other family members’ mortgages and debts, I would likely give much of the rest to the charities I currently volunteer for (a pit bull rescue and my local shelter). If the original charity was something I would have been likely to support in any case, they might get some.
I have to take it, or else, the charity won’t get it. Then I have to deal with the legal headache, so I’ll probably take a modest fee out, maybe the $50 plus the value of the time I spent. The rest goes to the charity.
If I hadn’t known, the only difference would be that I would set myself up for being able to live modestly for the rest of my life, paying off bills and stuff, and then it would still go to charity. Keeping money for yourself, especially money you didn’t earn, is immoral.
There’s a problem with your logic–what you are getting is essentially charity. You didn’t earn that money. If you can’t give money to charity yourself, how can you accept money given to you as charity and not be a hypocrite?
Wait, changed my mind. I’d give them even more money if I invested the money (at least part of it), instead of immediately giving to them. I’m sure I can put it in the market in a way that would assure me, barring financial collapse, that I at least give the original amount I would have given.
I’d also, under the hypothetical that the lady forced me to know about the situation, think it was horrible of her, intentionally setting up the system where I’d have a chance to feel guilty. So I might, might, take out a little more, with the intention that it’s a loan. I’m sure I could make back the money by investment.
Okay, maybe in real life I’d not be this moral, as I am human, after all. But this is a hypothetical, and I can be as moral as I want to be in these!
We could have some nice trips.