My dear husband and I got into a conversation last night about sibling rivalry and communism last night after we got home from visiting the Polleys. I think that the reasons that we differ in opinions somewhat is because he’s an only child and has therefore never dealt with sibling rivalry. Would you mind weighing in on this situation:
Two kids in the family, one grows up to be a doctor and the other grows up to be a teacher. Obviously these two individuals have drastically different salaries. When the parents die they obviously have the free will to give whatever inheritance amount they want to the two kids (or none at all).
Should they give their children even amounts or should they give them different amounts based on need?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
If you want to avoid situations of resentmant and feeling "unloved" or not as loved by the parents, give the same amount. The doctor then can make the choice to share more with the teacher....
Why did I assume that the doctor had more? He could be more in debt with his med school bills...hmmmmm
Fair is equality in this case.
Other times I would say it would be fair to give more to the one with the greater need, but with parents you can get into the situation of one kid feeling less loved.
I thought about this a lot in the last year because I lost 2 grandparents. My mom lost her mother and recieved the same amount of money as inheritance as the rest of her siblings. I didn't necessarily think this was 100% fair because 3 of her siblings still lived with my grandma and were also left the house....
Hmmmm, none of the siblings complained because those 3 needed the house to live or they would've been out of a home.
This is a tough scenerio. Karen stop with the one child and you never have to worry about this :) hehe
Whose side am I on?
they don't owe their kids any inheritance. They could donate it all to charity. Or spend it before dying; afterall you can't take it with you. However, even amounts to all children. The parents assumedly supported, however, did not decide their children's paths, both have sucessful careers, which are rewarding in their own ways. Dude, these peoples parents are "dead"...money won't change that (although with scientific advancements, that could change in the future, haha)
I feel that you work to get to the place that you are. Obviously it takes more work to become a doctor and that should not be held against you. If I were the parents I would not show any favortism toward either kid. You love them the same and it's not a matter of money. I feel it's a matter of respect. The doctor can feel more than free to give their brother/sister some of the money if they don't need it as much but the parents should discriminate based on the lifestyle that the child chooses.
I agree with everyone, split it down the middle.
I think a third alternative hasn't been mentioned yet.
The real way to go here is for the parents to meet with the kids at some point and discuss the situation. That way everything is in order BEFORE the parents die. If they feel like leaving more to the teacher, they can explain their reasoning to everyone together and make sure that no one feels slighted.
In addition, this is something that my parents have discussed with us kids. We have been allowed to state the things that we would like now, and mom and dad change their wills accordingly. So far, nothing has been claimed by more than one kid, so no arguments.
It's kind of odd, but it ensures that everything is taken care of before my parents are in a state that they can't decide.
Greg, your point was mine - why "punish" the doctor for choosing a different lifestyle? If the teacher wanted a better lifestyle they would have chosen to be a lawyer or something.
Jim said everyone should be happy they got anything and not think of it in terms of "so and so got more". That's why i said that he doesn't understand because he's an only child. he's the neediest and the least needy all in one!
Everything should be split evenly as to not cause hard feelings between the siblings. This happened on my dad's side of the family... ugh!
On the other hand... I'm like Tom. We have all sat down as a family and discussed wishes for certain things and the parents have made changes based on their final decisions.
If the doctor wants to help out the teacher sibling then that's his decision, but at least they know that it is split evenly.
Coming from a family of eight, I think it should be split evenly. It would drastically cause hard feelings towards all siblings. It happened to my dad’s side of the family as well and my mom’s. To give the short side of that, my mom’s grandma passed away and left my mother a large sum of money. She did not leave any to my mom’s half sister (aunt) though. Though not related to the said grandma but still was very much a part of the family for YEARS… the grandma didn’t agree in divorces & My aunt (half sister) was from a divorced family. Anyways, my mom was not obligated to share the money at all but she split it evenly. My aunt blew through the money in just a few years while my mom put hers away in savings. Now my aunt thinks my mom kept more than half and my mom is angry at my aunt for even accusing her of that. Money tears families apart!
Long story short, even is the way to go. If the teacher is in some kind of financial strain, then he/she should change jobs or ask the doctor for a loan of some sort. The teacher knew the ballpark of the salary before going to school and being a teacher. They chose that lifestyle. The doctor shouldn’t be punished for being in a high demanding stress filled job that pays a crap load!
I see the masses vote for an even split.
My view is that if Karen & I retire at age 55 w/ a comfortable retirement amount, we live life the way we want, buy what we want, etc. Inheritance is not even factored into the equation. Once we get to a point (say age 80) where we consider inheritance, we look at the state of the family and inheritance is dictated situationally. If we have one grandchild who is at Johns Hopkins University busting his butt in medicine, we lean a little more his/her way than if we have one who does not apply themselves as much (this is where the arbitrary nature of the argument comes in.. I put more stock in Science & Engineering, Karen puts more in Liberal Arts).
I guess mine is more of a meritocracy approach, and given we are the benefactors, we can be judge and jury. I am strongly of the mindset though that any inheritance should be viewed in the absolute and not comparitive. If I get $2K and my brother got $10K, the view should be that "I am now $2K to the better than I was when I woke up yesterday," and not the opposite approach of "I am $8K less rich now than my brother". In my opinion, it is that mindset that causes the rift in the family, not the choice to give more to one person than someone else (this is where some would say "well, just give evenly and avoid it all together"... then a circular discussion ensues and we get back to the beginning).
Oh well... we've all got about 50 years before we may have to deal with this so I think we're in the clear for the time being.
Let me start this with, Jim, I'm not yelling at you. Hehe...
Wow, I take serious issue with this statement Jim:
"If we have one grandchild who is at Johns Hopkins University busting his butt in medicine, we lean a little more his/her way than if we have one who does not apply themselves as much (this is where the arbitrary nature of the argument comes in.. I put more stock in Science & Engineering, Karen puts more in Liberal Arts)."
I DO bust my butt. And I'm a Liberal Arts graduate. I'm the teacher than Karen mentions in her situation. I think it's unfair to say that doctors work harder than teachers. They just do a different kind of work. And quite frankly, get a lot more respect. I work very hard. AND, don't forget that I'm educating the guy who will wipe your butt some day. So you should give me a little more value and respect. =P
Just because I chose to be a teacher doesn't mean that I'm mediocre in comparison to my husband because he chose to be a doctor. And I would say the same thing would be true as a sibling. My mother isn't going to give me more for being a teacher and not my brother because he's just a painter.
So basically, I take the side that everyone should get the same cut. Because as simple as it sounds to say "We're all ahead" that should be up to the children to decide if one should get more than the other, not the parents. You don't love one child more than the other, do you? Because that's the way it will appear if you don't split it evenly.
Plus, you're already going to be splitting everything evenly for your kids all their lives. Right down to how much chocolate milk is in their glass...so you better start getting used to it Jim.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox. And once again say, I'm not yelling. =)
Lisa raises a good point in something I wrote which could easily be interpreted not the way I intended. When I said one grandkid goes to school for medicine and one does not, my thought was that the other didn't go to school at all, but looking back at my comment, it comes across as though the medicine is held at a higher esteem than the liberal arts, due to my parenthetical statement about Karen's & my's preference on schooling.
My overarching theme was meant to be if one grandkid is busting his/her tail in school to better themselves and another one is not, I could justify giving more help to one the one in school.
Agree with Jim on the following point:
Everyone should have the mindset that they're ahead. The money doesn't break families apart, the wrong mindset does.
I agree with the field that:
Money should be split evenly amongst the kids because of the fact you can't and shouldn't judge who's more in need of it or not. So, best thing to do is to just split it evenly. A potential remedy is to establish a trust and specific instructions for the money in the case that they feel like the money won't be spent in the right way.
aside from Jim, are there any other "only childs" voicing an opinion (which may be one reason why the "masses" are skewed one way versus another)
Also, I think Jim needs to start a blog. He apparently has a lot to say: principles of processing crude oil, differences among IRAs, inheritances, the way words are perceived typed versus the author's intent....
I second Martha's comment! I want Jim's knowledge! Sign up tomorrow!
Wow, what a debate. Trey and I are both the oldest of 4, so I feel like I should chime in...
Regardless of who does what kind of work and who makes more money and who works harder, I think if it's money, or any kind of property that does not have sentimental value, it should be split evenly. I would hope that most folks writing a will would realize that once they were gone, their descendents may very well fight about it.
In the case of pieces or property that does hold sentimental value, I think those things should go to the descendents who will appreciate them. I.e. - my father's accordian is still sitting at my mom's house. When she goes, my brother Mark will probably get it because it means the most to him. I'm not sure how much accordians cost, but I think they can be pricey. I don't care because I won't appreciate it the way Mark will.
In Trey's family, his D'Daddy (DNJ the first) owns a ranch. Trey is starting to become concerned about what will happen to it after D'Daddy is no longer with us, mostly because he's concerned about it staying in the family. He has so many fond memories from time spent there that he doesn't want to see it lost, therefore, it would be better if the ranch went to Trey's father or to Trey, than to someone else in the family who never really went out there...
I think parents should give the most to the kid they love the most.
:-P
Hope that made ya smile a little!
What about the way that a child treats his/her parents?
If one sibling cooks, cleans, takes their parent(s) to appointments, handles their finances, etc., I believe that sibling deserves more than a sibling who occasionally says hi or sends a birthday card.
If all siblings share in the care of their parents, then inheritances should be divided equally.
It's not always about how much your parents love you, but rather, how much you love your parents.
I have a similar scenario, that i use to base my opinion...the parents are still alive, but one child is more financially stable, and one is more financially insecure. When the beloved grandchildren come along, is it treating one more unfairly because the grandparents buy shoes or provide "daycare" for the needier family, but not for the family that can afford to provide these things themselves....Does that mean that one child is loved more than the other, or that the love is expressed differently based on the needs of the children? Even as the youngest of 4, I disagree with martha, that it doesn't have to be monetarily equal to be fair. (which brings us to the age old question: Can we have separate but equal?) the example used was actually a combination of two families...one with 4 children, one with 7, both of which had at least one child that had greater financial needs than their siblings. I think it is "unfair" if people are in similar circumstances, and one gets favored, but not unfair if they are different, and the less fortunate gets a little help (as long as it's not assumed that it will be provided, and is adequately appreciated!!)
I think it is only fair to give equal amounts. Carole, my wife are going through the process of making out our "Wills". Right now one of my daughters who is 25 makes more money than myself and my other daughter who is 21, put together. My step son, who is 25 is in the Army. After 2 deployments to Iraq, and now one in Korea, and re-enlisting again for another 4 years, he is doing very well. So, after we pass, maybe my son will not re-inlist, and my 25 year old daughter could have some kind of situation that would drop her income for some reason. My 21 year old daughter could end up winning "American Idol" and she would actually be the one with the most income later on. Who knows. If the amounts are the same for all, they receive our love "equally", at least in their minds. No matter what the income levels at the time. If the child who makes more money receives less, I believe they would be hurt by it, even if they really understood why it was done.
Post a Comment