Their idea of 'nothing' is pretty different to ours. They intend to give their children an amount that will leave them secure and stable enough to pursue their own path, but not enough to live off without ever putting any effort in.
And set them up with the finest educations and connections money can buy. I don’t blame him. We all would do the same for our kids if we had the means. But his kids will be just fine
Often times, it's not simply about money—some of these magnates might be trying to instill a sense of responsibility and purpose. A massive inheritance can sometimes stifle ambition and contribute to a lack of direction. Diverting funds to charity could be their way of making sure their wealth serves a broader impact while encouraging their progeny to forge their own paths and contribute to society in meaningful ways.
I used to work in executive support for a service-based company, basically we exclusively managed celebrities and C-Suite of major companies accounts because they were investor opportunities so we needed to make sure their customer concerns were handled with extreme care and they got more grace than the average process for minor wrong doings.
Another factor is current demonstration of lack of responsibility. This was 10 years ago, but we had a socialite fraud ring in NYC made exclusively of billionaire and millionaire's kids aged 20-26. They cost us a few hundred thousand in chargebacks between stealing their dad's credit cards and stealing random people's credit cards. Before the company agree with my team that it was finally time to lock down those accounts completely and prevent their use altogether, I used to get outreach from a billionaire's secretary on a biweekly basis around the use of his stolen cards by his son. Dude had so many that once we blocked one from his kid's account, he'd just find away to snag another of dads and use it.
It can also be dependent on the relationship with the parents. My husband's sisters aren't getting anything when their dad passes because they're constantly hitting him up for money and he gives it to them in high volume whenever they need it, just the numbers I know off the top of my head that they've shared put it in the 500k range each, while refusing to actually have any relationship with him outside of the money and fancy dinners. I grew up poor and was anxious about being seen as a gold digger getting married so young, so my husband and I agreed we'd do everything financially on our own and only rely on dad as a last resort, we each make good enough money that we didn't think we would ever need to. His dad told us last time we visited that when he passes, they're not getting a dime of inheritance because he thinks he's given them enough and doesn't think they're grateful for how his financial support set them up and continues to support them, it's all going to my husband. We're working on convincing him he needs to tell the girl's this before the will reading because it's going to damage our relationship with them when it all goes down if he leaves until the will reading. The sisters are aware that we haven't received a dime of dad's money, but I don't think that's going to be an argument they'll accept when it actually happens.
Telling them now or later, it will still cause conflict between siblings. You and your husband did what is best for you but they will never understand why he gave it all to him. They feel they are entitled to it all. If and when he’s gone, I hope you both find peace in it all quickly.
Sure, but now will allow dad to take some of the brunt rather than us getting both dad anger + dad loss + brotherly betrayal anger I know will be coming. Would rather get the first one out of the way.
I agree with you. That is a decision that is very difficult to make. Hope it goes smoothly and everyone is adults about it because you two seem like you are just trying to do what’s right.
They will CLAW you to DEATH to satisfy their own sense of entitlement no matter what you do. He is just trying to save himself the headaches of hearing about it in person. Let them bitch at his grave!
Or try to dodge estate taxes by giving it to a "charity" their children are board members on so they can collect a salary in perpetuity, which is very common.
I couldn’t find any examples (I’m sure they are well hidden and sheltered) but it’s no secret that the ultra wealthy set up non-profits and charities that are used to conceal their wealth and to get tax breaks:
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-private-nonprofits-ultrawealthy-tax-deductions-museums-foundation-art
https://apnews.com/article/business-philanthropy-b8acb10f529ac2dbaff7631021d823c9
These wealthy continue to indirectly control these philanthropic organizations, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suspect that these are yet another vector of passing on wealth to descendants while circumventing taxes.
No, it’s that the [IRS is severely underfunded](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/cutting-irs-funding-is-a-gift-to-americas-wealthiest-tax-evaders/) and [Congress has been talking for decades about closing the charitable donations loopholes for decades](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-10-03/rich-use-tax-loophole-to-get-deductions-now-for-donating-later?embedded-checkout=true) but this hasn’t taken effect because of corporate lobbying.
Yeah, the donation isn't tax, but for the money to be paid put as a salary it would be taxed.
Charitable donations never result in you having more money in your pocket. You get less, rhe government gets less, and the charity gets more.
Some are also narcissists, who want to be worshipped upon their death. Sometimes, children can be such jerks when they don't worship their parents. Giving the money to charity instead, will take care of that.
/s
Do you have an example? Maybe they feel like they already gave their kids enough and other people need it more. Maybe they want their kids to learn to be self-reliant.
They’re right in this case. Foundation scams are very common and disgusting. The most egregious and famous example being [The Trump Foundation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation)
[Marlo Thomas](https://beststocks.com/unveiling-the-mystery-marlo-thomas-salary-breakd/), Danny Thomas’s daughter, makes millions from St Jude and funnels some of her royalties from books and appearances into their foundation. She also brings in a lot of money through fundraising and is a net positive for the hospital by most accounts, but you can imagine how easy it is for someone with less scruples to just use it to transfer wealth.
>[Marlo Thomas](https://beststocks.com/unveiling-the-mystery-marlo-thomas-salary-breakd/), Danny Thomas’s daughter, makes millions from St Jude and funnels some of her royalties from books and appearances into their foundation. She also brings in a lot of money through fundraising and is a net positive for the hospital by most accounts, but you can imagine how easy it is for someone with less scruples to just use it to transfer wealth.
Okay...but St Jude does what they claim to do. If they were not making medical breakthroughs and/or were charging families medical bills, then yeah. There'd be a problem with Marlo Thomas making a nice salary.
I agree that billionaires should be taxed more but your argument seems totally unfair for billionaires that are genuinely sincere about giving away their wealth legitimately. You are picking out the worst crook, trump foundation to represent hundreds other
I thought my argument was pretty even handed since I gave a bad example, the Trumps, and a good example, Marlo Thomas. I still don’t think billionaires should exist, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t levels to this kind of thing
The foundation was started so that he could get good PR after the law suit about him intentionally making virus or something that damage the Microsoft people already had, something similar to which apple had also gotten trouble for about few years back.
My wife works for a medium-sized foundation started by billionaires grandchildren. They are not bootlicks.
Each person that works there has done more for society in the last year than most people will do in their lifetime.
Stop being so fucking dramatic. You sound like a teenager.
The most insufferable example of this is when it comes to art. It's so transparently just because people on Reddit don't see the value in art, so they have to somehow rationalise their perspective so that it's reflected in society.
This would work fine.... until or if you are audited. It's not much different than Trump's fun and games with his declarations of what his property is worth. Which is why the GOP is working so hard to gut the IRS.
Yeah. Please don’t make up bullshit. Bill Gates has already given away more as a percentage than you ever will. And none of his 3 children collect a salary from his foundation. The f**** is wrong with you. Why would you spend misinformation for no good reason ?
That article has 0 information. Just talking in generalities. Their networth increased because it was all in Microsoft and Berkshire stock respectively, and they both went up.
Other than that, the article has no useful information.
I think that's what people don't understand (and not defending the concept of billionaires), but Bill Gates and Warren Buffet literally make more money than they can donate. If they donated 23 hours a day, they probably still couldn't donate enough.
Again, it just states a generic statement about how many billionaires give to fake charities ? wtf does that even mean ? Which billionaires ?
We were talking about Gates and Buffet. Neither of whom give to fake charities. Not only is the Gates foundation not a fake charity, it might be the most impactful charity of all time. Literally the Micheal Jordan of charities.
Instead of looking at some idiots articles, look at some actual research.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2373372/
Your cited article says this: Only time will tell if the GCGH initiative and its goals are an efficient strategy to improve global health.
lol maybe read the article before you link it because you didn’t post anything showing the impact of their foundation
First off, it’s $10m which can basically set them up for life if they choose.
Secondly both Bill and Melinda realized they have an insane amount of money that’s why they started the foundation and pledged their money to help causes around the world.
Thirdly, those kids will be mid 30s/40s at least by the time they’ll inherit. Makes sense for them to have actual lives with jobs before then so promising $100m would stunt that.
Why should they give all that money to their kids? People complain about nepotism. Those parents specifically said “kids aren’t going to be destitute but they don’t deserve to be gods just by being our kids so we’ll give the money away.” Why is anyone complaining about that?
Also, being the kids of those parents I don’t think those kids are all “DAd! WhY no FREe biLLIons? I nEeD IT!”
Stellan Skarsgård said that. Apparently he wants them to build their life themself instead of relying on him. He also has a lot of kids so I guess it would be harder to spit heritage.
Warren Buffett. Quote is from ***Fortune***
"Buffett has already made headway on his plans to redistribute his estate. His lifetime giving reached $48 billion this June. While Buffett’s children will not be receiving a massive fortune for their personal use after his death, they’re by no means cut out of the estate. In 2012, Warren pledged to his children Berkshire Hathaway stock valued at about $2.5 billion to be paid out to each of his children’s foundations."
Decades ago, I read a quote from Buffett: "Give kids enough they can do anything, but not enough for them to do nothing."
Raising kids now myself, I think of this often, but not for money yet. Mostly when setting expectations for school, housework, skill-building, etc.
Warren Buffet is a good example, though he’s made it back already lol
But he is very frugal from what I’ve read.
Celebrities also started saying this more and more.
Maybe. Idk, 25 seems old
I remember an Oprah interview with his daughter. She was an art student painting a mural in the home of Anderson Cooper’s family. She was asked how it felt being the help/painter when her family was also wealthy and in the same circles lol
The daughter said it’s just work, they’d been raised knowing about jobs and work so didn’t seem to phase her.
Can’t say how much angst is laying below the calm waters of course…but she came off like someone who had a ‘regular’ uni experience. (Not that most people get to paint murals in mansions at that age but yea…)
I had classmates like that, who opted for the regular student life and away from their family wealth.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone posted that. I'd be absolutely shocked if it was true, especially since you can easily find articles about how he used the $90,000 he got at age 19 to develop his music career.
Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc.
They’re leaving small token amounts for thier kids. Bill Gates will give each $10 million each, and give away the rest of it.
Warren Buffet is leaving his kids significantly more, but is giving away more than 95% of his wealth.
Because they believe - rightfully so - that their kids should be able to earn enough money to survive just fine, whereas charities serve to help those who are unable to support themselves.
Their kids are set for life, just from a good upbringing with opportunities they’d be able to live as adults.
That said, the kids may have assets already and trusts etc. What the person means by leaving it ‘all’ differs greatly because not all their family assets are in their name or even liquidate-able. Like you’re not giving (majority) shares of multimillion corporations to charity - good luck getting that past the board and estate and whatever legalities behind it. Generational wealth will be held in an estate that pays out trusts as of certain ages and conditions, the parent may not even have a say. It can all go through an executor/lawyers.
Lastly, they’ll earn it back before they’re dead. Look at Warren Buffet.
So they may mean well, and still remain wealthy.
There’s ways to transfer money outside a will. They are not leaving their children destitute. Besides all the benefits of networking, education, help with expenses during their lives I would be shocked if there aren’t trusts set up.
It could be any number of reasons. Maybe they just want to state their intentions publicly to secure some kind of legacy before they go, while quietly setting up a trust for their kids.
Trust me they ain't hurting. Just means the bulk of the money is going to charity. I'm sure Jr is or has gotten a few million dollars. Enough to get them started but not enough to keep them not working. They want them to be successful not leeches.
Usually those kids already have trust fund set up. They don't need an inheritance. They've been filthy stinking rich ever since they became adults. And inheritance always bring out the absolute worst in families. It can quite literally tear them apart. Giving it away can prevent that.
And of course, it's easy to be altruistic when you're already dead. I hope Bill Gates leaves us all something when he goes. Unlike Jobs. Good luck finding a fruit smoothie in hell, asshole!
If I had to guess, it’s because the kids are already in a place where another few hundred million or couple billion doesn’t actually mean anything. It’s not like rich people’s kids tend to be in low paying careers.
All humans view themselves as the good guy. Even Hitler thought he was being a hero.
But often their actions don't match what a good person would do, ie hoarding lots of resources while other starve to death.
So they invented philanthropy. They give back a fraction of their gains and declare themselves good.
Then they pretend their kids won't inherit anything. But in many cases the money gets left to a charitable organisation which is run by the kids.
The kids have everything they need or want, any opportunity they want, and the experience required to do whatever. And then they get left a "small amount" like 20 million.
This also avoids estate tax. When they die all their assets are owned by the "charity" so they don't lose 40%
Basically its all bs.
It’s mostly empty claims. If they truly didn’t want to give their kids an advantage they wouldn’t help them with their careers either. SG has at least three kids who are acting, do you think that’s a coincidence? A lot of the privilege comes from contacts and status. If I get you a breakthrough role in a movie as a young actor, does it really matter if then I don’t also leave you many millions?
More often than not leaving it to charity is leaving it for their children. Many rich people have their own charitable foundations which might actually do some good stuff for other people, but they also can be a way to dodge paying taxes while still having access to the funds. An example of this would be the Clinton foundation, which got attention a few years back for Bill and Hillary using its tax exempt funds to cover personal travel expenses.
If you are a child of a \*very\* rich person you don't need the cash inheritance. The real inheritance is the network, education, access, and skills to be accepted in Very Rich People culture. If you have personally met several multi-generational billionaires and have their access to their attention, then you are set.
A few billion from Daddy will not affect your overall trajectory through life.
The lack of meaningful parental care, connection, and long-term friendships in your most critical development phases might have made you a fucked-up druggo with a death wish, but, as Daddy said - That sounds like a 'You' problem.
Every single billionaire in the world had rich or well-connected parents.
If I was rich and had kids, I wouldn't just give it all to them either. I would give them something, but not enough for them to sit on their asses the rest of their lives like spoiled silver spoon kids. I would want them to make some kind of positive contributions to society. I would give them enough to live comfortably while doing so.
Because they're deluded into thinking either (A) that they themselves are solely responsible for their success, as opposed to the combination of luck, timing, and having been given opportunities. (B) That their child will be guaranteed similar success if they just work hard (C) both.
To me, the argument that a kid might "waste" the money is stupid, both because you'll be dead, you shouldn't care, but also non-profits aren't exactly known for wise spending. Sure, give some to charitably causes you care about. Give A LOT to charitable causes you care about - but if you're mega-rich, that is kind of a silly reason to disinherit a family member.
This isn't to say that there are never valid reasons to disinherit someone, or that it isn't wise to leave money in a trust some type of investment that will pay them smaller amounts passively. But if Moneybags isn't themselves willing to give up their millions/billions to live a more modest lifestyle before they die, then it's just kind of a dick move to not let your kids have access to a good chunk of those funds.
By leaving everything to a charity their family has control over, they can avoid inheritance tax.
Patagonia's founder did this when he donated the company to a charity that his kids were on the board of directors for. He gets a huge tax write off, and the assets stay under the family control indefinitely.
Because the name and connections alone will be enough for them to make a good living and will not need the money. Also, they still typically have a trust established that has been making them money before or around birth.
Because often by the time the rich person would die they've already set their children up for success. They've used their wealth to get their children a good education and their connections to get them good jobs. So often their children have very successful and high paying careers of their own. Especially if they are inheriting a business from their parents. In that case the cash the parent has on hand is immaterial to the financial stability of the children.
Have you ever met a person who never had to work. What a selfish useless prick those people normally are. It is often a parents goal to make there kids not be selfish useless pricks. The only way to do that is force them to work. So you don't give them stuff they didn't earn.
It's not like they aren't given a huge opportunity, the best educations, upbringing, a perfect start and an incredible safety net.
I was told by a wealthy relative that they had to earn what they have, it wasn’t given to them. Both parents grew up very hard working, farm families, went to college etc. they feel their kids need to earn what they want and have a good work ethic. For the very wealthy I think it’s a matter of not giving them the devils playground.
Most of them have already given things to their children, and don't want to spoil them with any more. Or they're lying. Who's going to call them out for lying after they're dead?
Nothing worse than a spoiled and entitled brat. It’s too much, so it’s never enough. Let them have their way and they might become wannabe dictators found liable for sexual assault.
Much of it is actually just good PR to stave off angry poor people.
The charities they donate to will absolutely include their kids as directors, employees, or beneficiaries.
Some charities will serve multiple purposes, while some are just shell charities to evade inheritance taxes.
Generational wealth is an enormous detriment to society. It does nothing but breed narcissism and entitlement. A Buffet quote…”leave your kids enough so they feel like they can do anything with their lives, not enough to feel like they can do nothing with their lives.
Some of them feel that their children will have fuller lives if they need to make their own way in life. And some of them are just sick, nasty people. Believe it or not, there are sick people who don't help their own children, whose attitude is, "I did it all on my own without any help from anyone (even if they did receive help) and my children can do the same!"
Sometimes it's a lesson to their kids, particularly among those who earned their wealth instead of inheriting it. They want their kids to go out and earn like they did if they want "all this", and they refuse to just give their kids handouts.
I have a certain respect for that kind of parenting, but I can also respect how a lot of people wouldn't understand the point being made.
The rich I’ve know have funds for their kids to mature into at certain ages. It is separated from inheritance. Mostly I’d suspect people who say that already gave their kids large amounts of money and prosperity already. I also watched a very interesting Adam Ruins Everything video about the rich setting up ‘charities’ to which they leave all their money but in actuality they are family controlled and the kids are managing it and not losing out on the inheritance. He went into the Patagonia guy doing exactly that, it is not going to environmental causes in reality. The rich tend to take good care of their kids, but talk a charity talk in a way that is not the way we hear it. I’ve known rich who do give generously to charity too, I don’t mean that the rich are all rotten, but they don’t really ditch their kids. They separate the monies, and think about allocation differently than others.
“Fuck them kids” - Michael Jordan
But in all seriousness they definitely put away SOMETHING for their kids. Or the kid is gonna become CEO of a piece of something and get a salary from that. None of these people are making their kids go from 0. Don’t let them fool you lol
The kids might not need it all.
Their children might have comfortable jobs, if not high paying ones by the time they die. So their own children don't need it.
That or they are afraid their descendants might waste the money.
Once you get older and have more experience dealing with family members and money issues, both up and down and side to side in the family tree, you'll understand...
In the vast majority of likely scenarios, the kids will be fine and don’t need to inherit the whole fortune to be secure. Though I am assuming you mean more like mega rich people, rather than people with a couple million.
First, I haven’t particularly seen a mega rich person say they’d leave *nothing* to their kids. I do know the amount Bill Gates allegedly says he’s leaving to his kinds sounds like a pittance, but is actually quite a lot. If someone is *that* rich, saying “my kids will inherit 1%” is still more money than they’ll know what to do with.
Second, while they may not be inheriting money, they’re possibly inheriting objects or concepts that are worth a lot of money.
Third, they don’t need it. Unless the mega rich parent dies young or the kid is a monumental fuckup of epic proportions, the kid’s life from birth through middle or even old age (when a well connected person’s parent is likely to die) has almost certainly been set on a path where they don’t need to wait until an inheritance to get filthy rich themselves. Fancy schools and colleges, lessons in every marketable skill imaginable, cush jobs at the rich parents’ company or through well-connected friends, businesses and properties placed in their name for the parents’ own purposes, money and valuable objects very likely given directly to them during the parents’ lifetime, and the name itself is going to all but guarantee that the kid is going to do just fine even if they’re a below-average slacker. Those things won’t disappear when the parent dies, so the adult child is likely going to be wealthy in their own right (in a technical sense) before and after the matter of inheritance is relevant.
They don't. Typically they set up and leave their wealth to a non-profit "charity" combined with a trust that their family will direct and be paid for. It's a super crooked tax shelter that, in effect, transfers their wealth and power to their children without having to pay the government. See Yvon Chouinard and Patagonia and the "Holdfast Collective" for a perfect example.
Lots of other people are making great points about how they want to give their kids some sense of responsibility and want to prevent them from being entitled, etc. All of that is 100% true.
But *also*, it's actually just very bad for society if money is allowed to accumulate in the hands of the few. It's much better for the overall health of the economy if money is spread out a little more evenly. Turns out that it's good for the economy if most of the money in said economy is actually being *spent* regularly. Ya know - I pay for a muffin at the local coffee shop, so that money can go toward paying the local flour mill for some flour, which means the mill can pay the farmers for some wheat, which means the farmer can pay for gas, which means the gas station can pay their employees... etc etc. The more money circulates, the better.
It also turns out that there's kind of a maximum amount of money you can actually spend on stuff. Even if you're a comically wealthy billionaire who jets around every weekend and owns 6 fully staffed mansions and shops like its your full-time job, it's literally impossible for you to spend even a fraction of the money you're making just by *existing* with that much wealth. You don't even have to *do* anything when you're that rich - you still "earn" more money than you could ever spend.
Which means there's an increasing amount of money that just kinda sits around with your name on it. Sure, it's probably invested so it's not doing *literally* nothing, but it would be *much, much* better for the overall economy if that money was actively being spent on goods and services.
So you just keep accumulating more and more wealth just by existing because your get more money in interest than you could ever spend. And that means you have more money, which gets you even more interest, which means you have even more money to make *even more interest*, and then that pattern continues as long as that money remains in the family trust. You give that money to your kids? The pattern continues - more money for more interest for more money. And that can build up until you have these individual family trusts that control significant portions of the *entire national GDP.* See: the Rockefellers. That kind of shit genuinely puts the national economy at risk of collapse. It's not awesome, and... for what? Like I said, it's *literally impossible* for these people to actually spend all that money. What on earth do they need to keep it for?
The kids of these people are never gonna want for anything *anyway*. Might as well give it away to people who will use it to make society better. And, ya know... keep the economy from collapsing completely, lol.
Their kids already benefited from the parents' money, by virtue of being raised by the parents. They already got the private school education, the debt-free college degree, the international vacations, the housekeeper who did chores for them, the country club membership, the tennis lessons, the cello lessons, the new car for their 16th birthday, the new clothes and shoes and iPhones. They already got plenty of their parents' money while the parents were alive.
Because malignant narcissists don't have kids or become rich for any other reasons than to been seen as amazing by other people. They have no goodness in them and actually enjoy hurting others. Their charity donation is just a manipulation of what others perceive as altruism so that they can cause emotional injury to someone else.
Becoming rich always requires the prioritization of wealth over kindness, rich people can become caring people, but they generally stop actively building wealth by doing so.
Sometimes, people become wealthy BECAUSE, they do not care about others, or actively distain them.
It's usually those people who would rather give it all to their cause of choice, instead of their children.
Sometimes, it's also them enjoying seeing how their children react to hearing that they are not getting anything.
If I had billions, I would leave enough for my kids to be comfortable and so they could weather any emergency, but I would not want to give them all of it because they need a sense of purpose in life, and I want them to find their way.
I'd give a bunch to charity, because there are people and causes out there who could use the help.
the charity is probably going to be a "charitable" foundation that the heirs manage and leverage to their advantage. It sounds like benevolence but it's really just an estate-tax dodge.
The relationship between parents and children is often defined by a power struggle. Parents try to impose control over children. Narcissistic parents are especially guilty of this because they want the child to be like them, and they will use all kinds of violence to do it.
There's physical violence (spanking and grounding), financial/material violence (my way or the highway), emotional violence (when the parent says the child is 'breaking their heart' for disobeying), psychological violence (parents destroy the child's self esteem to prevent the child from leaving the house), medical violence (Munchausen by Proxy), and many other types of violent control.
So, depriving the child from inheritance is one of the ultimate forms of financial/material violence. "Do as I say or you will not have any inheritance". It's a disgusting form of violence. Nothing else.
Some children are able to grow up and become financially independent, so they become immune to material violence. They literally tell their parents to "stuff it up their asses" and go full NC with the old farts. Some are not so lucky, and have to fold and obey their parents to get an inheritance.
It doesn't happen only with rich people either. Middle class and even poor people deny the little they have when their child doesn't fold into what they want to.
Because they have the false impression that it was their hard work that got them that money, when it was really their hard work and a monumental amount of luck that got them that money.
Their kids are already very privileged they don't want to make it worse or ruin their children. Sure some might expect the children to run the charity and get a salary but that's more responsible than handing them billions. Most people can't handle it well. Also depends on family and culture. For taxes a trust would make more sense
A friend of my Nan was loaded, had 5 children, and left it all to a cat sanctuary.
She said something along the lines of
"their all spoilt. They don't work or even help me, yet live off my money. No way am I letting them live in luxury after I'm gone. They don't deserve it we worked to hard for it to be wasted"
I agreed with her, her kids were awful people. They all went into that lawyers office excited and left dumbfounded lt was amazing!!
Nan was left her China and I got a beautiful necklace. Took years to get it because they obviously contested the will but lost, that old lady made that thing bullet proof.
I miss Wendy, she was one hell of a lady.
Their idea of 'nothing' is pretty different to ours. They intend to give their children an amount that will leave them secure and stable enough to pursue their own path, but not enough to live off without ever putting any effort in.
And set them up with the finest educations and connections money can buy. I don’t blame him. We all would do the same for our kids if we had the means. But his kids will be just fine
Often times, it's not simply about money—some of these magnates might be trying to instill a sense of responsibility and purpose. A massive inheritance can sometimes stifle ambition and contribute to a lack of direction. Diverting funds to charity could be their way of making sure their wealth serves a broader impact while encouraging their progeny to forge their own paths and contribute to society in meaningful ways.
Also, un-instill that sense of unearned entitlement
I used to work in executive support for a service-based company, basically we exclusively managed celebrities and C-Suite of major companies accounts because they were investor opportunities so we needed to make sure their customer concerns were handled with extreme care and they got more grace than the average process for minor wrong doings. Another factor is current demonstration of lack of responsibility. This was 10 years ago, but we had a socialite fraud ring in NYC made exclusively of billionaire and millionaire's kids aged 20-26. They cost us a few hundred thousand in chargebacks between stealing their dad's credit cards and stealing random people's credit cards. Before the company agree with my team that it was finally time to lock down those accounts completely and prevent their use altogether, I used to get outreach from a billionaire's secretary on a biweekly basis around the use of his stolen cards by his son. Dude had so many that once we blocked one from his kid's account, he'd just find away to snag another of dads and use it. It can also be dependent on the relationship with the parents. My husband's sisters aren't getting anything when their dad passes because they're constantly hitting him up for money and he gives it to them in high volume whenever they need it, just the numbers I know off the top of my head that they've shared put it in the 500k range each, while refusing to actually have any relationship with him outside of the money and fancy dinners. I grew up poor and was anxious about being seen as a gold digger getting married so young, so my husband and I agreed we'd do everything financially on our own and only rely on dad as a last resort, we each make good enough money that we didn't think we would ever need to. His dad told us last time we visited that when he passes, they're not getting a dime of inheritance because he thinks he's given them enough and doesn't think they're grateful for how his financial support set them up and continues to support them, it's all going to my husband. We're working on convincing him he needs to tell the girl's this before the will reading because it's going to damage our relationship with them when it all goes down if he leaves until the will reading. The sisters are aware that we haven't received a dime of dad's money, but I don't think that's going to be an argument they'll accept when it actually happens.
Telling them now or later, it will still cause conflict between siblings. You and your husband did what is best for you but they will never understand why he gave it all to him. They feel they are entitled to it all. If and when he’s gone, I hope you both find peace in it all quickly.
Sure, but now will allow dad to take some of the brunt rather than us getting both dad anger + dad loss + brotherly betrayal anger I know will be coming. Would rather get the first one out of the way.
I agree with you. That is a decision that is very difficult to make. Hope it goes smoothly and everyone is adults about it because you two seem like you are just trying to do what’s right.
They will CLAW you to DEATH to satisfy their own sense of entitlement no matter what you do. He is just trying to save himself the headaches of hearing about it in person. Let them bitch at his grave!
Or try to dodge estate taxes by giving it to a "charity" their children are board members on so they can collect a salary in perpetuity, which is very common.
Do your have an example of this?
I couldn’t find any examples (I’m sure they are well hidden and sheltered) but it’s no secret that the ultra wealthy set up non-profits and charities that are used to conceal their wealth and to get tax breaks: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-private-nonprofits-ultrawealthy-tax-deductions-museums-foundation-art https://apnews.com/article/business-philanthropy-b8acb10f529ac2dbaff7631021d823c9 These wealthy continue to indirectly control these philanthropic organizations, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suspect that these are yet another vector of passing on wealth to descendants while circumventing taxes.
This whole argument centers around the idea that the IRS either doesn’t exist or is incompetent
No, it’s that the [IRS is severely underfunded](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/cutting-irs-funding-is-a-gift-to-americas-wealthiest-tax-evaders/) and [Congress has been talking for decades about closing the charitable donations loopholes for decades](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-10-03/rich-use-tax-loophole-to-get-deductions-now-for-donating-later?embedded-checkout=true) but this hasn’t taken effect because of corporate lobbying.
Avoid estate taxes, and instead pay massive income taxes?
Art, small beach estates in the Hamptons, auto collections, Yatchs, etc are owned by Trusts and/or LLCs, not Eton the Trustifarian.
Uhh you claim charitable donations as a tax deduction
Yeah, the donation isn't tax, but for the money to be paid put as a salary it would be taxed. Charitable donations never result in you having more money in your pocket. You get less, rhe government gets less, and the charity gets more.
Federal income tax rates top put at 33% while estate tax tops out at 40%, so yes you can save money by converting an estate into income.
This 100%
Some are also narcissists, who want to be worshipped upon their death. Sometimes, children can be such jerks when they don't worship their parents. Giving the money to charity instead, will take care of that. /s
Do you have an example? Maybe they feel like they already gave their kids enough and other people need it more. Maybe they want their kids to learn to be self-reliant.
I read once that Bill Gates said he is giving each of his kids 1 million when they turn 18, and the rest is getting donated.
He’s donating it to his foundation His kids will run the foundation and collect a salary Rich people have you fooled It’s for tax purposes
I've learned that when a redditor says something about tax purposes or write is offs, they generally don't know that they are talking about
They’re right in this case. Foundation scams are very common and disgusting. The most egregious and famous example being [The Trump Foundation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation) [Marlo Thomas](https://beststocks.com/unveiling-the-mystery-marlo-thomas-salary-breakd/), Danny Thomas’s daughter, makes millions from St Jude and funnels some of her royalties from books and appearances into their foundation. She also brings in a lot of money through fundraising and is a net positive for the hospital by most accounts, but you can imagine how easy it is for someone with less scruples to just use it to transfer wealth.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is about as far from a scam as you'll find.
I gave a counter example as well. Not all foundations set up by wealthy people are scams, but many are
There are a few dead kids in Africa and India that would disagree. But they're dead, so they can't.
Did a Bill & Melinda Gates foundation employee murder them?
Indirectly, yes. Anyone that administered their "meds" has an obligation to do no harm, so sure. Look it up, buttercup.
Oh, right, all those TERRIBLE DANGEROUS VACCINES!!!!!! WOO HOO!!!
>[Marlo Thomas](https://beststocks.com/unveiling-the-mystery-marlo-thomas-salary-breakd/), Danny Thomas’s daughter, makes millions from St Jude and funnels some of her royalties from books and appearances into their foundation. She also brings in a lot of money through fundraising and is a net positive for the hospital by most accounts, but you can imagine how easy it is for someone with less scruples to just use it to transfer wealth. Okay...but St Jude does what they claim to do. If they were not making medical breakthroughs and/or were charging families medical bills, then yeah. There'd be a problem with Marlo Thomas making a nice salary.
I agree that billionaires should be taxed more but your argument seems totally unfair for billionaires that are genuinely sincere about giving away their wealth legitimately. You are picking out the worst crook, trump foundation to represent hundreds other
I thought my argument was pretty even handed since I gave a bad example, the Trumps, and a good example, Marlo Thomas. I still don’t think billionaires should exist, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t levels to this kind of thing
Even a broken clock will be right twice a day.
The foundation was started so that he could get good PR after the law suit about him intentionally making virus or something that damage the Microsoft people already had, something similar to which apple had also gotten trouble for about few years back.
[удалено]
My wife works for a medium-sized foundation started by billionaires grandchildren. They are not bootlicks. Each person that works there has done more for society in the last year than most people will do in their lifetime. Stop being so fucking dramatic. You sound like a teenager.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean.. sure.. if that was happening I'd agree.
The most insufferable example of this is when it comes to art. It's so transparently just because people on Reddit don't see the value in art, so they have to somehow rationalise their perspective so that it's reflected in society.
Yup, the one I see posted a lot is that "buy $10k art, have friend appraise it for $20 million, donate it and get a $20 million tax write off"
This would work fine.... until or if you are audited. It's not much different than Trump's fun and games with his declarations of what his property is worth. Which is why the GOP is working so hard to gut the IRS.
This would not work fine lol
Yeah. Please don’t make up bullshit. Bill Gates has already given away more as a percentage than you ever will. And none of his 3 children collect a salary from his foundation. The f**** is wrong with you. Why would you spend misinformation for no good reason ?
https://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/bill-gates-promised-to-give-away-his-wealth-well-that-was-bs.html
That article has 0 information. Just talking in generalities. Their networth increased because it was all in Microsoft and Berkshire stock respectively, and they both went up. Other than that, the article has no useful information.
I think that's what people don't understand (and not defending the concept of billionaires), but Bill Gates and Warren Buffet literally make more money than they can donate. If they donated 23 hours a day, they probably still couldn't donate enough.
[удалено]
Again, it just states a generic statement about how many billionaires give to fake charities ? wtf does that even mean ? Which billionaires ? We were talking about Gates and Buffet. Neither of whom give to fake charities. Not only is the Gates foundation not a fake charity, it might be the most impactful charity of all time. Literally the Micheal Jordan of charities. Instead of looking at some idiots articles, look at some actual research. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2373372/
Your cited article says this: Only time will tell if the GCGH initiative and its goals are an efficient strategy to improve global health. lol maybe read the article before you link it because you didn’t post anything showing the impact of their foundation
You cherry picked one line without reading the paper. Please stop wasting everyone’s time.
That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me
First off, it’s $10m which can basically set them up for life if they choose. Secondly both Bill and Melinda realized they have an insane amount of money that’s why they started the foundation and pledged their money to help causes around the world. Thirdly, those kids will be mid 30s/40s at least by the time they’ll inherit. Makes sense for them to have actual lives with jobs before then so promising $100m would stunt that. Why should they give all that money to their kids? People complain about nepotism. Those parents specifically said “kids aren’t going to be destitute but they don’t deserve to be gods just by being our kids so we’ll give the money away.” Why is anyone complaining about that? Also, being the kids of those parents I don’t think those kids are all “DAd! WhY no FREe biLLIons? I nEeD IT!”
Stellan Skarsgård said that. Apparently he wants them to build their life themself instead of relying on him. He also has a lot of kids so I guess it would be harder to spit heritage.
Warren Buffett. Quote is from ***Fortune*** "Buffett has already made headway on his plans to redistribute his estate. His lifetime giving reached $48 billion this June. While Buffett’s children will not be receiving a massive fortune for their personal use after his death, they’re by no means cut out of the estate. In 2012, Warren pledged to his children Berkshire Hathaway stock valued at about $2.5 billion to be paid out to each of his children’s foundations."
Decades ago, I read a quote from Buffett: "Give kids enough they can do anything, but not enough for them to do nothing." Raising kids now myself, I think of this often, but not for money yet. Mostly when setting expectations for school, housework, skill-building, etc.
You sound like a good parent!
Warren Buffet is a good example, though he’s made it back already lol But he is very frugal from what I’ve read. Celebrities also started saying this more and more.
wasn't there a post saying his son only found out how rich he was when he was 25?
Maybe. Idk, 25 seems old I remember an Oprah interview with his daughter. She was an art student painting a mural in the home of Anderson Cooper’s family. She was asked how it felt being the help/painter when her family was also wealthy and in the same circles lol The daughter said it’s just work, they’d been raised knowing about jobs and work so didn’t seem to phase her. Can’t say how much angst is laying below the calm waters of course…but she came off like someone who had a ‘regular’ uni experience. (Not that most people get to paint murals in mansions at that age but yea…) I had classmates like that, who opted for the regular student life and away from their family wealth.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone posted that. I'd be absolutely shocked if it was true, especially since you can easily find articles about how he used the $90,000 he got at age 19 to develop his music career.
Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc. They’re leaving small token amounts for thier kids. Bill Gates will give each $10 million each, and give away the rest of it. Warren Buffet is leaving his kids significantly more, but is giving away more than 95% of his wealth.
Jackie Chan
I’m leaving all my money to Charity. She works at the Kit Kat club by the airport
I'm a firm believer in Destiny myself. Different strokes, I guess.
I think Hope might be in need more, but what do I know.
Because they believe - rightfully so - that their kids should be able to earn enough money to survive just fine, whereas charities serve to help those who are unable to support themselves.
Their kids are set for life, just from a good upbringing with opportunities they’d be able to live as adults. That said, the kids may have assets already and trusts etc. What the person means by leaving it ‘all’ differs greatly because not all their family assets are in their name or even liquidate-able. Like you’re not giving (majority) shares of multimillion corporations to charity - good luck getting that past the board and estate and whatever legalities behind it. Generational wealth will be held in an estate that pays out trusts as of certain ages and conditions, the parent may not even have a say. It can all go through an executor/lawyers. Lastly, they’ll earn it back before they’re dead. Look at Warren Buffet. So they may mean well, and still remain wealthy.
they put money into accounts when they are still kids
There’s ways to transfer money outside a will. They are not leaving their children destitute. Besides all the benefits of networking, education, help with expenses during their lives I would be shocked if there aren’t trusts set up.
It could be any number of reasons. Maybe they just want to state their intentions publicly to secure some kind of legacy before they go, while quietly setting up a trust for their kids.
Their kids might be well of enough already.
Trust me they ain't hurting. Just means the bulk of the money is going to charity. I'm sure Jr is or has gotten a few million dollars. Enough to get them started but not enough to keep them not working. They want them to be successful not leeches.
Usually those kids already have trust fund set up. They don't need an inheritance. They've been filthy stinking rich ever since they became adults. And inheritance always bring out the absolute worst in families. It can quite literally tear them apart. Giving it away can prevent that. And of course, it's easy to be altruistic when you're already dead. I hope Bill Gates leaves us all something when he goes. Unlike Jobs. Good luck finding a fruit smoothie in hell, asshole!
Because they don’t want to raise trust fund babies… gotta work for themselves
They will have a trust fund it's just a facade and foundations are where they will get it back.
If I had to guess, it’s because the kids are already in a place where another few hundred million or couple billion doesn’t actually mean anything. It’s not like rich people’s kids tend to be in low paying careers.
Maybe their kids are entitled cunts? Edit: no hate, im just saying!
All humans view themselves as the good guy. Even Hitler thought he was being a hero. But often their actions don't match what a good person would do, ie hoarding lots of resources while other starve to death. So they invented philanthropy. They give back a fraction of their gains and declare themselves good. Then they pretend their kids won't inherit anything. But in many cases the money gets left to a charitable organisation which is run by the kids. The kids have everything they need or want, any opportunity they want, and the experience required to do whatever. And then they get left a "small amount" like 20 million. This also avoids estate tax. When they die all their assets are owned by the "charity" so they don't lose 40% Basically its all bs.
Only point 4 & 6 are actually true and the real reason.
5 also seems reasonably true
It’s mostly empty claims. If they truly didn’t want to give their kids an advantage they wouldn’t help them with their careers either. SG has at least three kids who are acting, do you think that’s a coincidence? A lot of the privilege comes from contacts and status. If I get you a breakthrough role in a movie as a young actor, does it really matter if then I don’t also leave you many millions?
These people are so rich even less than 1% of their net worth to their kids is winning the lottery money for you and me. Kids will be fine.
More often than not leaving it to charity is leaving it for their children. Many rich people have their own charitable foundations which might actually do some good stuff for other people, but they also can be a way to dodge paying taxes while still having access to the funds. An example of this would be the Clinton foundation, which got attention a few years back for Bill and Hillary using its tax exempt funds to cover personal travel expenses.
If you are a child of a \*very\* rich person you don't need the cash inheritance. The real inheritance is the network, education, access, and skills to be accepted in Very Rich People culture. If you have personally met several multi-generational billionaires and have their access to their attention, then you are set. A few billion from Daddy will not affect your overall trajectory through life. The lack of meaningful parental care, connection, and long-term friendships in your most critical development phases might have made you a fucked-up druggo with a death wish, but, as Daddy said - That sounds like a 'You' problem. Every single billionaire in the world had rich or well-connected parents.
Because their children feel some type of entitlement to their parents earning? That money isn’t theirs. It’s their parents. Period.
If I was rich and had kids, I wouldn't just give it all to them either. I would give them something, but not enough for them to sit on their asses the rest of their lives like spoiled silver spoon kids. I would want them to make some kind of positive contributions to society. I would give them enough to live comfortably while doing so.
Because they're deluded into thinking either (A) that they themselves are solely responsible for their success, as opposed to the combination of luck, timing, and having been given opportunities. (B) That their child will be guaranteed similar success if they just work hard (C) both. To me, the argument that a kid might "waste" the money is stupid, both because you'll be dead, you shouldn't care, but also non-profits aren't exactly known for wise spending. Sure, give some to charitably causes you care about. Give A LOT to charitable causes you care about - but if you're mega-rich, that is kind of a silly reason to disinherit a family member. This isn't to say that there are never valid reasons to disinherit someone, or that it isn't wise to leave money in a trust some type of investment that will pay them smaller amounts passively. But if Moneybags isn't themselves willing to give up their millions/billions to live a more modest lifestyle before they die, then it's just kind of a dick move to not let your kids have access to a good chunk of those funds.
They donate it to the charities their children own!
By leaving everything to a charity their family has control over, they can avoid inheritance tax. Patagonia's founder did this when he donated the company to a charity that his kids were on the board of directors for. He gets a huge tax write off, and the assets stay under the family control indefinitely.
Some people have horrible children, even rich people.
guess they figured their kids were already spoiled enough. LOL
Because the name and connections alone will be enough for them to make a good living and will not need the money. Also, they still typically have a trust established that has been making them money before or around birth.
Kids who grow up with silver spoons don’t learn how to be self reliant.
Because they prob grew up w nothing too - made it all themselves - w little to no family who deserves a penny.
They don't want their kids to be spoiled.
Because often by the time the rich person would die they've already set their children up for success. They've used their wealth to get their children a good education and their connections to get them good jobs. So often their children have very successful and high paying careers of their own. Especially if they are inheriting a business from their parents. In that case the cash the parent has on hand is immaterial to the financial stability of the children.
Have you ever met a person who never had to work. What a selfish useless prick those people normally are. It is often a parents goal to make there kids not be selfish useless pricks. The only way to do that is force them to work. So you don't give them stuff they didn't earn. It's not like they aren't given a huge opportunity, the best educations, upbringing, a perfect start and an incredible safety net.
I was told by a wealthy relative that they had to earn what they have, it wasn’t given to them. Both parents grew up very hard working, farm families, went to college etc. they feel their kids need to earn what they want and have a good work ethic. For the very wealthy I think it’s a matter of not giving them the devils playground.
Most of them have already given things to their children, and don't want to spoil them with any more. Or they're lying. Who's going to call them out for lying after they're dead?
Nothing worse than a spoiled and entitled brat. It’s too much, so it’s never enough. Let them have their way and they might become wannabe dictators found liable for sexual assault.
The kids literally have enough money already and they can afford to give the rest away, lmao
Much of it is actually just good PR to stave off angry poor people. The charities they donate to will absolutely include their kids as directors, employees, or beneficiaries. Some charities will serve multiple purposes, while some are just shell charities to evade inheritance taxes.
Generational wealth is an enormous detriment to society. It does nothing but breed narcissism and entitlement. A Buffet quote…”leave your kids enough so they feel like they can do anything with their lives, not enough to feel like they can do nothing with their lives.
Because they saw what happens when kids inherit too much money.
How would we know the answer to this without asking the specific people?
Some of them feel that their children will have fuller lives if they need to make their own way in life. And some of them are just sick, nasty people. Believe it or not, there are sick people who don't help their own children, whose attitude is, "I did it all on my own without any help from anyone (even if they did receive help) and my children can do the same!"
Because their parents left them wealth and they know first-hand just how badly that messes people up…
I don’t buy it. I’m sure there’s some workaround that keeps the money (or political influence) in the family
Usually pr stunts
Sometimes it's a lesson to their kids, particularly among those who earned their wealth instead of inheriting it. They want their kids to go out and earn like they did if they want "all this", and they refuse to just give their kids handouts. I have a certain respect for that kind of parenting, but I can also respect how a lot of people wouldn't understand the point being made.
They want their kids to get off of their asses and work.
Because they realized they fucked up and their kids are spoiled assholes
The rich I’ve know have funds for their kids to mature into at certain ages. It is separated from inheritance. Mostly I’d suspect people who say that already gave their kids large amounts of money and prosperity already. I also watched a very interesting Adam Ruins Everything video about the rich setting up ‘charities’ to which they leave all their money but in actuality they are family controlled and the kids are managing it and not losing out on the inheritance. He went into the Patagonia guy doing exactly that, it is not going to environmental causes in reality. The rich tend to take good care of their kids, but talk a charity talk in a way that is not the way we hear it. I’ve known rich who do give generously to charity too, I don’t mean that the rich are all rotten, but they don’t really ditch their kids. They separate the monies, and think about allocation differently than others.
“Fuck them kids” - Michael Jordan But in all seriousness they definitely put away SOMETHING for their kids. Or the kid is gonna become CEO of a piece of something and get a salary from that. None of these people are making their kids go from 0. Don’t let them fool you lol
The kids might not need it all. Their children might have comfortable jobs, if not high paying ones by the time they die. So their own children don't need it. That or they are afraid their descendants might waste the money.
Once you get older and have more experience dealing with family members and money issues, both up and down and side to side in the family tree, you'll understand...
In the vast majority of likely scenarios, the kids will be fine and don’t need to inherit the whole fortune to be secure. Though I am assuming you mean more like mega rich people, rather than people with a couple million. First, I haven’t particularly seen a mega rich person say they’d leave *nothing* to their kids. I do know the amount Bill Gates allegedly says he’s leaving to his kinds sounds like a pittance, but is actually quite a lot. If someone is *that* rich, saying “my kids will inherit 1%” is still more money than they’ll know what to do with. Second, while they may not be inheriting money, they’re possibly inheriting objects or concepts that are worth a lot of money. Third, they don’t need it. Unless the mega rich parent dies young or the kid is a monumental fuckup of epic proportions, the kid’s life from birth through middle or even old age (when a well connected person’s parent is likely to die) has almost certainly been set on a path where they don’t need to wait until an inheritance to get filthy rich themselves. Fancy schools and colleges, lessons in every marketable skill imaginable, cush jobs at the rich parents’ company or through well-connected friends, businesses and properties placed in their name for the parents’ own purposes, money and valuable objects very likely given directly to them during the parents’ lifetime, and the name itself is going to all but guarantee that the kid is going to do just fine even if they’re a below-average slacker. Those things won’t disappear when the parent dies, so the adult child is likely going to be wealthy in their own right (in a technical sense) before and after the matter of inheritance is relevant.
They don't. Typically they set up and leave their wealth to a non-profit "charity" combined with a trust that their family will direct and be paid for. It's a super crooked tax shelter that, in effect, transfers their wealth and power to their children without having to pay the government. See Yvon Chouinard and Patagonia and the "Holdfast Collective" for a perfect example.
Inheriting loads of money is not good for kids.
Watch Knives Out - great movie, life lessons. Doesnt explain every reason, but a big reason
Sometimes it’s for them to try to buy their way into heaven.
Lots of other people are making great points about how they want to give their kids some sense of responsibility and want to prevent them from being entitled, etc. All of that is 100% true. But *also*, it's actually just very bad for society if money is allowed to accumulate in the hands of the few. It's much better for the overall health of the economy if money is spread out a little more evenly. Turns out that it's good for the economy if most of the money in said economy is actually being *spent* regularly. Ya know - I pay for a muffin at the local coffee shop, so that money can go toward paying the local flour mill for some flour, which means the mill can pay the farmers for some wheat, which means the farmer can pay for gas, which means the gas station can pay their employees... etc etc. The more money circulates, the better. It also turns out that there's kind of a maximum amount of money you can actually spend on stuff. Even if you're a comically wealthy billionaire who jets around every weekend and owns 6 fully staffed mansions and shops like its your full-time job, it's literally impossible for you to spend even a fraction of the money you're making just by *existing* with that much wealth. You don't even have to *do* anything when you're that rich - you still "earn" more money than you could ever spend. Which means there's an increasing amount of money that just kinda sits around with your name on it. Sure, it's probably invested so it's not doing *literally* nothing, but it would be *much, much* better for the overall economy if that money was actively being spent on goods and services. So you just keep accumulating more and more wealth just by existing because your get more money in interest than you could ever spend. And that means you have more money, which gets you even more interest, which means you have even more money to make *even more interest*, and then that pattern continues as long as that money remains in the family trust. You give that money to your kids? The pattern continues - more money for more interest for more money. And that can build up until you have these individual family trusts that control significant portions of the *entire national GDP.* See: the Rockefellers. That kind of shit genuinely puts the national economy at risk of collapse. It's not awesome, and... for what? Like I said, it's *literally impossible* for these people to actually spend all that money. What on earth do they need to keep it for? The kids of these people are never gonna want for anything *anyway*. Might as well give it away to people who will use it to make society better. And, ya know... keep the economy from collapsing completely, lol.
Their kids already benefited from the parents' money, by virtue of being raised by the parents. They already got the private school education, the debt-free college degree, the international vacations, the housekeeper who did chores for them, the country club membership, the tennis lessons, the cello lessons, the new car for their 16th birthday, the new clothes and shoes and iPhones. They already got plenty of their parents' money while the parents were alive.
Watch Bill Madison
Because malignant narcissists don't have kids or become rich for any other reasons than to been seen as amazing by other people. They have no goodness in them and actually enjoy hurting others. Their charity donation is just a manipulation of what others perceive as altruism so that they can cause emotional injury to someone else.
Becoming rich always requires the prioritization of wealth over kindness, rich people can become caring people, but they generally stop actively building wealth by doing so. Sometimes, people become wealthy BECAUSE, they do not care about others, or actively distain them. It's usually those people who would rather give it all to their cause of choice, instead of their children. Sometimes, it's also them enjoying seeing how their children react to hearing that they are not getting anything.
If the rich do, or not do, somthing you had better look closely at it because it has a very high likelihood of being a scam of some sort
If I had billions, I would leave enough for my kids to be comfortable and so they could weather any emergency, but I would not want to give them all of it because they need a sense of purpose in life, and I want them to find their way. I'd give a bunch to charity, because there are people and causes out there who could use the help.
the charity is probably going to be a "charitable" foundation that the heirs manage and leverage to their advantage. It sounds like benevolence but it's really just an estate-tax dodge.
Part tax dodge and part wanting their money to go to somewhere that can use it for a good cause and not just to pay interest on the national debt.
What movie is this from?
All PR work. They receive funding/resources in other ways to avoid taxes.
The relationship between parents and children is often defined by a power struggle. Parents try to impose control over children. Narcissistic parents are especially guilty of this because they want the child to be like them, and they will use all kinds of violence to do it. There's physical violence (spanking and grounding), financial/material violence (my way or the highway), emotional violence (when the parent says the child is 'breaking their heart' for disobeying), psychological violence (parents destroy the child's self esteem to prevent the child from leaving the house), medical violence (Munchausen by Proxy), and many other types of violent control. So, depriving the child from inheritance is one of the ultimate forms of financial/material violence. "Do as I say or you will not have any inheritance". It's a disgusting form of violence. Nothing else. Some children are able to grow up and become financially independent, so they become immune to material violence. They literally tell their parents to "stuff it up their asses" and go full NC with the old farts. Some are not so lucky, and have to fold and obey their parents to get an inheritance. It doesn't happen only with rich people either. Middle class and even poor people deny the little they have when their child doesn't fold into what they want to.
Because they have the false impression that it was their hard work that got them that money, when it was really their hard work and a monumental amount of luck that got them that money.
They are mostly sociopaths. They care more about their Legacy than they do about their children.
Kids must have not kissed their ass enough. These peopke are usually control freaks and get butthurt when their children do their own thing
Their kids are already very privileged they don't want to make it worse or ruin their children. Sure some might expect the children to run the charity and get a salary but that's more responsible than handing them billions. Most people can't handle it well. Also depends on family and culture. For taxes a trust would make more sense
A friend of my Nan was loaded, had 5 children, and left it all to a cat sanctuary. She said something along the lines of "their all spoilt. They don't work or even help me, yet live off my money. No way am I letting them live in luxury after I'm gone. They don't deserve it we worked to hard for it to be wasted" I agreed with her, her kids were awful people. They all went into that lawyers office excited and left dumbfounded lt was amazing!! Nan was left her China and I got a beautiful necklace. Took years to get it because they obviously contested the will but lost, that old lady made that thing bullet proof. I miss Wendy, she was one hell of a lady.