Inheritance....to leave or not to leave

Hmm. I don't think they should cut them out completely.

I assume they are talking about the very rich, those with millions. If I split what I might be able to leave to mine when selling the house etc. It would be helpful but they would not be able to sit back and not work.

Besides, there might not be that much left by the time I shuffle off this mortal coil.

I find it difficult to believe that Lenny, Sting, Simon Cowell and co won't leave their children any inheritance. My children will certainly get anything we have to leave (including the dogs

Haven't these children of wealthy people already had a fair chunk of money in their upbringings, schooling, expensive holidays, allowances etc. I don't suppose they will be destitute.

They have had all the privileges of money but I was thinking more about how these rich parents seem to think it's a good thing to disinherit their own children.

I suspect these children who do not get money when their wealthy parent dies do however get a good large settlement long before that. It helps avoid death duties and enables the, by then deceased wealthy person, look good after their death

I can entirely understand how they feel, to be honest. They are all self-made people and therefore have a strong work ethic. Leaving an obscene amount of money to their children could be disastrous: what would the children do? They certainly wouldn't bother working and they'd have more money than they'd know what to do with.
So, what? Become one of the idle rich, partying all day and night, out of it on drugs and alcohol because, well, they can afford it, can't they? And they certainly don't need to save the money for anything serious or important, already got that.
That is the fear, I believe, that these celebrity parents have and I'm sure they've seen this descent into chaos and, ultimately, poverty that children of the very rich have suffered.
Of course we talk about leaving our children everything we have. But everything my DH and I might wind up with would probably do little more than pay their gas and electricity bills for a few years.

I actually think it is better to leave one's children money on death rather than giving it to them in life.

The average age of death is now well over 80 so most children do not inherit their parents wealth until they are nearly of pensionable age themselves. By getting the money that late in life the children have had to go out and make their way in life and earn their living to provide for their families. The inheritance gives them a secure retirement and could be construed as a reward for good behaviour.

Wealthy parents giving their children huge trust funds in life to avoid inheritance tax are the ones fuelling the party lifestyles. Not those who make them wait until they die.

Unless I drop down dead in the street, I doubt if there will be much money left for anybody after my house has been sold to pay for expensive care home fees. I should manage to stay in the home for a year or two provided London house prices keep rising.

I believe that people should have to work for a living and not act like the idle rich with a rich daddy indulgently paying for everything. Two young female royals spring to my mind.

It doesnt seem to occur to some of them to leave their children ^ a bit^.
They seem to see it as all or nothing. When there are many shades in between.

I agree though that giving them too much is not likely to help them.

kids get spoilt if they are given too much money, attention etc.

Who knows how much you're going to be able to leave behind? It could all go at the end, paying for care etc.
We tend to agree with not leaving all to the children , but at the moment they're all hard workers TG, and manage without our help.
Of the 4 of them, 2 are materialistic, and expect something, the other two don't .
We've made wills leaving most to charities, but could change that. There won't be a lot.
My Mum left a few thousand for me, my sister and grandchildren, and I was very grateful for the small amount I got, it came in handy at the time.
She had spent most of the proceeds of their house on her care costs.

We have recently been discussing this very subject. My MIL has been in care for the past couple of years and her considerable savings and the proceeds from her house sale are going down at an alarming rate, due to the care costs, which is sadly what happens. She worked hard all her life and saved in order to leave something for her children....she would be devastated to know that (almost) all her money has now been spent. We talked about giving our children some money while we are still here and while they are all relatively young with young families and trying to make ends meet (in case we end up in care)....ideally I would like to know what the future brings in order to work it all out....that's the problem!?

Being widowed young and living in a police house I bought a house from the insurance money for our little girls and myself , as my husband wished . After both daughters married I sold the house to help our daughters, one had children and a morgage, one a morgage and needed IVF , I do not regret it, it was the time when they needed the help and I always considered the property as ours not mine

All three of our DDs work hard and never ask us for anything. That's not to say we don't treat them every so often. Anything we leave will go to them and I hope they enjoy it. Maybe those who don't want to leave anything to their children have seen that said offspring are happy to take without working and striving for themselves.

vampire I think the situation is entirely different if you and your children have had to live on a fairly basic income. Children of rich parents have generally lived in a spacious and comfortable home in an attractive neighbourhood and have had all sorts of benefits that children from less well off homes may well never have had, including things like music and dance classes, private education/additional tuition that should help them to get on in life.

I can understand why somebody would not want to risk their children possibly becoming lazy, arrogant, unmotivated and out of touch with the "real world".

However, I think even if children have had these sorts of benefits, most parents would want to leave them something. For me, it would largely depend on how financially secure they were as to how much I would want to leave them. If they were fairly well off in their own right I think I would leave the bulk to other less wealthy relatives and friends and to charities, campaigns and individual causes that I supported.

We do not have a lot to leave, so the children are welcome to it. I do think it is a good idea to give something to children whilst they are able to enjoy it, - not of course if they are just whiling away their time without bothering to find a job, but if they need a foot on the ladder for something, then why not enjoy seeing them achieve that with a little bit of help from ourselves.

I think it is very different if you have a fortune. Ours is not enough to stop them working, so it will just be split 3 ways.
If I did have millions I think it would be very detrimental to leave it to them. Everyone needs to have to work and save up for things IMO.

It might be very hurtful for children, even well-off ones, to be left nothing unless the reasons have been explained, understood and accepted, especially if they have views about actual legatees.

It would be very unfair to leave nothing to the children, I agree. With the sort of fortunes these people have, perhaps leaving a modest amount to the children and/or grandchildren to help them along the way, but just think what good huge fortunes like these could do if donated to charities!

And let's not forget, HMRC will want their substantial cut too

I suspect they will leave them something, if not money then perhaps a house.
Most of us would like to leave the children something in our wills, but the problem is that we don't know the future and there may not be anything to leave.

There are laws on inheritance and likely any disinherited children would claim those legal rights. I was carer to my parents while a sibling had disappeared after being caught fiddling money from the oldies. My parents wanted to reward me for my dedication but the !!!!! claimed legal rights totally against what my parents wanted.
I am now the oldie and I am facing tough decisions. I have two children now adults but they have dependant "men" who do nothing. I feel the money is my parents although now in my bank accounts. My parents would be horrified at the thought of those idleonians being kept at their expense. I am not im favour of paying their way either. So what do I do? I had lived on Carers Allowance for so long I cant cope with this money. I barely know how to shop till I drop. I think it is right to reward the person who helps the oldie the most especially if it is solo caring.
Inheritance is a huge minefield..
Sugarpufffairy

Sugarpufffairy I'm not sure I like the term "oldie" - I feel it's not a very respectful way to refer to elderly people.

I have always worked on the principle that if I am able to give her some money when absentdaughter needs it, then she can have it when she needs it. Then, it's gone – she won't get that when I'm dead. It's a limited amount but when she has a mortgage, huge bills and a bunch of young kids, it is particularly useful. Better then, that when she is perhaps in a comfortable old age and can do without.

Eloethan - sorry you dont like the use of the term "oldies" I used it as a short form so that I did not have to list all the relatives I was referring to. Then if you read further on I refer to myself as the "oldie". You would really have to know me to understand that although my age says I am no longer a youth I have not given up on doing adventurous things that I enjoy.
I really wonder about all this political correctness. It will end up that no one is allowed to say anything
However - sorry if I upset you Eloethan it was not meant in derrogatory terms.
Sugarpufffairy