According to a recent reader comment, there’s at least one person out there who thinks I’m an idiot.
A previous post on wills and giving to kids, from quite a while ago, elicited a nice bit of name calling from a reader in a comment. Here are small snippets of the comment:
I think you are an idiot……In any case, it is wrong to treat children differently, and that can only be measured in dollars
The full comment was much longer, and you can go to the post to read it in full. Anyway, my simple response was to note the opinion that the comment was “kind of harsh, just a bit?”.
Here’s the deal: I think that in a will, there are some circumstances where it can be okay to leave different amounts of money to kids in a will.
Revisiting that debate, it just seems to me that in a will, that it might be the fair thing to do in some cases to leave more money for one child versus another. I didn’t think this at first, but further reflection got me thinking that there could be times when it’s best.
What if one grown-up kid ends up far more successful financially than the others?
What if one kid has serious health problems, and will have major expenses going forward in life?
What if one kid went through a painful divorce leaving him (or her) in financial ruin?
As long as the kids are each hard working, well-meaning, good people – it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with giving more help to the one(s) who truly needs it the most. I’m not talking about shutting out a kid just because he or she is more fortunate? Rather, just giving a little more to the ones that are less fortunate.
I suppose there are some people that are anti-inheritance anyway. As in, not believing in the idea of leaving money to others. Rather, just spend it. Kind of an extension of the notion that nobody is entitled to an inheritance, which makes sense in many cases.
While I’m not a fan of entitlement, it seems like there shouldn’t be anything wrong with helping someone in need more than someone who needs it less. Ideally, siblings who care about each other would be understanding, and wouldn’t falsely assume favoritism. If they do, perhaps it’s their own personal shortcoming.
What Do You Think?
Do you think that there can be circumstances where one kid can justifiably be given a bigger inheritance than his or her siblings?
If so, what are circumstances in which it would be okay?
If you don’t agree, why not?
I know you won’t engage in name calling 🙂
In my family, the ‘grandparent’ generation has died off over the last 10-15 years, and each of them has always left equal amounts. Personally, I think this is the best approach. Even though some have been more successful than others, that didn’t matter. I think they all knew that leaving things uneven would just cause problems and strife and could lead to bad feelings. If things are uneven, there’s always going to be the chance for resentment, feuds, and these things can get passed down to other generations. I wouldn’t go so far as to say you’re an ‘idiot’ but I do respectfully disagree just on my family’s experience and having seen other experiences where uneven distributions caused a lot of anger and bad feelings. Even if it’s unintended, that can be the legacy, and I doubt that’s what the person had hoped to leave.
MB – respectful disagrement is cool, of course. I suppose every family is different, and it looks like that approach worked well in your family’s situation. In the end, nobody wants bad feelings, I agree.
Well, at least you’re engaging your readers! My solution is to leave it all to The Nature Conservancy. That way I know the monetary rewards of my life will be spent consistent with my values. But maybe I’m an idiot too.
Kurt – no, you’re not an idiot either. Neither of us are! I respect your idea of being consistent with your values.
Do you have siblings? It doesn’t sound like it. Why give the more successful kid the short end of the stick, and the one who burns through money more? You’re rewarding irresponsible behavior, not just helping out the less fortunate.
Kathleen – perhaps you scanned the post, and missed my noting that I would be assuming that each kid was hard-working and well-meaning. In other words, no uber slacking or irresponsible behavior. IF you have 2 kids, both being equally responsible and good people, yet one has a great life and the other is really struggling big time, wouldn’t it make sense to help the one really having a tough life? Wouldn’t the more successful one have compassion for his/her sibling who is in bad shape? One would think so!
I think there are plenty of times when this is OK. When one kid got a ton of support throughout life and the other received none taking the support out of the kid who got money throughout life’s portion would be acceptable to me!
Lance – in that case, I agree. Makes sense to me!
I agree. My spouse is one of 3 children. His parents have agreed to leave their inheritance to all 3 equally. However, one needs care/support and lives with parents. In the inheritance, he will receive his “third” to care for his future needs. One has some financial difficulties and is drawing from his parents now, knowing he will get a reduced inheritance later. And my spouse should get a full third – later rather than now. And we are, of course, hoping it will be as late as possible!
Dar – just another good example of how different families have different approaches to fairness. Thanks for chiming in!
It is shocking how many families ‘break up’ because of inheritance issues.
I personally plan on dividing our assets up into thirds and hand it all out equally.
I am one of three children. My mom has nothing, so I expected I will get one third of nothing. However, my siblings are better off financially than we are, but I would still expect an money to be split into thirds, I would not expect anything extra. (One sibling is childless, which explains the increase in wealth. 🙂 )
My husband’s brother has a disabled child. If his parents decided to leave more to the brother to help care for their child, I would be all for that. I actually don’t even care about what I get in any will because I did nothing to earn that money. Now if the will said “I am giving Kris less because I hate her”, then I would be upset.
If someone decides to do a less than equal split, then I don’t see a problem with it as long as it is explained in the will. The way I see it, the person worked their whole life for that money, and they can do whatever the heck they want with it. Nobody wants to create family strife either while alive or dead (I am guessing), and everyone has different values. I think people tend to do the best they can and then hope for the best. If someone is immature and doesn’t understand the deceased intentions, then maybe they don’t deserve the money.
(All comments above can be thrown in the trash in the case of a bitter, self serving person that intentionally causes problems by being divisive in their will.)
Kris – great to hear from you. As usual, you have a very rational and level-headed perspective on the issue. I especially like your last 2 sentences: “I think people tend to do the best they can and then hope for the best. If someone is immature and doesn’t understand the deceased intentions, then maybe they don’t deserve the money.” Well said!