<p>I dont know if there will be an inheritance when I’m gone, but I definitely wont be leaving them a pile of debt and any leftover financial obligations, that includes the cost of caring for me should I get sick. I bought good Long Term Care Insurance and have been financially responsible. Everything willing, I will leave this world(and my daughters), debt free and with a pre paid funeral.</p>
<p>I see an inheritance as a safety net for our kids after we’re gone and can no longer provide that safety net ourselves. That is how it’s worked in my family for several generations. So I see it a bit differently than #20. There is definitely a sense of passing on what you yourself received. Of course we aren’t talking huge inheritances that generate enough income you can live the jet set lifestyle without working.</p>
<p>The significant positive impact is not having to ever worry you’ll end up destitute and homeless. I think that allows for a bit more risk taking. Up until now, that risk taking has tended to pay off financially. Who knows what happens going forward?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The life expectancy for US women is about 81 years (76 for men). That means offspring will inherit, if at all, when they are about between 51 and 61 years old. That is a long time to be unproductive and put lives on hold. Were your friends living in poverty until the gold rolled in?</p>
<p>I knew one family - 2 parents, two kids - all very intelligent: college profs, etc. Millionaire Grandpa died when the parents were 40-ish and only one of the kids continued to work in any kind of intellectually challenging profession after that. They’ve spent a lot of time fighting with each other over the money. They were living comfortable middle class lives before; now, after divorce, emotional blackmail, profligate spending, litigation and constant in-fighting, some of them are living in poverty. Another scion I knew inherited a decent chunk of change in his early 20’s. Dropped out of college, spent it all, and has scuffled around ever since. Another group of high-achieving sibling professionals has done OK financially - but they’re not speaking to each other, a rift growing out of a dispute over the disposition of the late Mom’s assets. As a lawyer I’ve been repeatedly treated to the spectacle of families torn apart with vicious in-fighting over who is “entitled” to what from a parent’s estate, even if they don’t turn into drones. </p>
<p>The lust for money you didn’t earn yourself, and the rationalizations for why you deserve to have it (and your no-good siblings don’t), can be incredibly destructive to a person’s morality, sense of self-worth, and respect for the rights of others. This is not a new observation. On the other hand, the confidence gained by being able to support yourself by working for your own income and being able to take care of yourself through your own skills and effort tends to have a positive impact on people’s happiness and overall mental health. That’s why I’d rather spend money now on my kid’s educations than hoard it so they can get it when I die, and they’re middle aged.</p>
<p>This reminds me of the New Yorker cartoon of some years back --</p>
<p>A father and son are looking out onto the the sprawling plant of a successful company, headed by the father, who says: “All this will not be yours one day, I’m having myself cloned.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is extremely common, even when the assets are not monetarily valuable. I have seen some siblings’ relationships ruined over who gets to keep mom’s amateur oil painting of a flower.</p>
<p>
The problem is in knowing how much you are going to need in retirement, though. By planning for the worst case, in the average case there is going to be a decent chunk of money left.</p>
<p>Where’s the line between “enough to enhance your kids’ retirement or help them pay for the grandkids’ college” and “enough that they are going to fight over it and destroy the family”? $500K? $1 million?</p>
<p>Or is it more a question of being scrupulously even in dividing up the money?</p>
<p>Some comments: </p>
<p>About 2/3 of boomers want to spend morer of their inheritance money on themselves and half of those want to spend some of their inheritance to “have fun” . . . wow, imagine all those selfish people not wanting to leave ALL their money to their kids</p>
<p>“Boomerrs haven’t saved enough for retirement” That’s common to ALL older people: in 2008, 40 percent of senior beneficiaries got more than 90 percent of their income from Social Security</p>
<p>“27% of boomers” believe that THE major expense in their lives got in the way of saving for retirement , instead of blaming areas where they spent less – sounds like clear-headed thinking: “I chose to spend my money on my kids” . . . too bad for the kids that we invested it in their education? </p>
<p>We don’t accept reality? You expect the 60s generations to face reality? Hahahahahaha</p>
<p>Happiness: lemme see . . . we’re taking care of elderly parents and our 20-something kids, and we’re supposed to be happy? Happiness dips at 50, and goes up from there, for everybody.</p>
<h1>24 For at least two generations, our parents and ours, siblings have had the lawyer divide the estate unequally to benefit a sibling who had greater need. No complaints from our parents’ generation, and none from ours 15 years after settling our father’s estate.</h1>
<p>I was not the one who got the bigger share ;)</p>
<p>I agree education is the best gift we can give our kids.</p>
<p>Modeling is important. The older I get, the more I see this. And how lucky I have been.</p>
<p>My MIL inherited a large amount of money when she was 68. She has used that money to pay for all her grandkids’ college educations, and started a 529 fund for each of her great grandchildren. I would like to be able to do the same for my grandchildren some day. My kids know how lucky they are to have that education money, it is a wonderful gift.</p>
<p>What is considered a significant inheritance? To be honest if someone left me $50k my life gets significantly easier.</p>
<p>
I think most of us could use an extra $50K, but there’s an interesting phenomenon: No matter what your income level, people consistently believe subjectively that if they had more income they’d be happier. Typically, the magic income increase which would be “enough” tends to be about 15% more than the person’s current income - across the board, among people who make low five figure incomes to people who earn high six-figure incomes. Kind of like the donkey chasing the carrot on a stick, always so close, always out of reach. “Just 15% more money…”</p>
<p>But objectively, emotional well-being has been found to correlate with income only up to about $75,000 per year. Above that, more money doesn’t equate to more happiness. </p>
<p>Food for thought.</p>
<p>My H inherited a significant chunk of money from his sister who died recently. The major thing it did was increase his retirement account and other assets. We have not made any other changes in our lives and H did NOT retire at that time. We think it will make a bigger difference for BIL, who did not have much of a retirement account and other assets but now has much more than expected from his sister. He feels that now he may someday be able to retire.</p>
<p>Mostly, don’t know many who have inherited large sums of money. I think it helps if you’re older when it happens and have already been working at a career you love. </p>
<p>If we have enough, we’d like to help fund any grandkid’s college educations (so far there are no grandkids and our kids aren’t even in serious relationships). We will spend some of it on travel and experiences with our kids, parents and loved ones, while we’re healthy enough to enjoy it.</p>