Should children inherit or not?
By vanny
@vandana7 (98778)
India
September 16, 2021 7:02am CST
Today, I came across an interesting comment by @Fleur.
It was related to should children inherit or not.
I said they should.
My reasons are simple. The child does not know how the employment situation is, nor does he or she understand it completely as a child. The child does not know how much will be medical costs, costs of the house, etc. either.
Parents have children for their pleasure...and admittedly look after them well to the best of their abilities.
But does the contract end once the child is grown up? I think not.
Because the contract was with a minor, look I will feed you, educate you, tend to you when you are sick, and buy you a few goodies when you are young. Thereafter, you are on your own. That too not on paper for the child take help of lawyers to understand the terms and conditions. Just implied contract.
Given such a scenario, it is void ab initio, meaning there is no way it can be enforced.
The parent I feel is liable to the country for providing him/her a safe environment for job, food, residence, security and amenities. The reciprocal obligation is he abides by the rules of of the country and brings up next generation of worker conforming to the rules.
Effectively, the parent only does his or her duty towards the nation when he / she feeds, clothes, shelters, educates, and looks after the child.
He / she enjoys the child's presence is just a perk of that job.
But does the child enjoy? Is it what he / she asked for? Would he / she want to be born given the tough environment all around?
Are children similar to home loan mortgages - you clear them, and are through with the lender?
So yes, I believe, parents need to create a trust with their 1/3rd wealth such that children, when extremely helpless, can take the income from the wealth and survive. Each child too needs to contribute to that family trust and keep on increasing it such that some income is available when something untoward happens.
What do you think?
12 people like this
12 responses
@LadyDuck (457877)
• Switzerland
16 Sep 21
I could agree that parents should give their money to their children once they go. I totally disagree that children must contribute to a family trust. There are lazy children who will profit of the hard work of their siblings. As you do not ask to come to this world, you do not ask to have a brat of a brother.
3 people like this
@vandana7 (98778)
• India
16 Sep 21
I am not looking at entire money being given to the children. Only 1/3rd of their wealth. Kinda, 2/3rds are ours, and 1/3rd that of the children.
As to trust, I agree lazy ones should not benefit. But corresponding safeguards can be stipulated. If parents create the trust, and there is a drunkard, he gets nothing. But if parents create a trust, then if all children contribute equally to it, regularly, and in the next gen, there is a child that needs help for higher education or cancer, then all the family members can vote to give it, stipulating higher contribution for restoring the main balance in due course. Help only in case of misfortune, or betterment, not for carelessness.
3 people like this
@LadyDuck (457877)
• Switzerland
16 Sep 21
@vandana7 The system in Italy and here is that those who have children can decide to give to no matter they want 1/3 of their wealth, the remaining 2/3 must be divided in equal parts among their children.
I am glad my parents did nothing like that, I do not even speak to my brother.
2 people like this
@vandana7 (98778)
• India
17 Sep 21
@LadyDuck I think each generation should not have access to ancestral wealth individually. Only the returns on it. That too when they need it, whether to study further, make up for gap between home loans, treatment, etc. No money should be released for any wasteful purpose. Attempt should be to restore balance to reach equal status with other legatees.
Who should be given, how much, why and what is the proportional entitlement, should be determined by ALL WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED either directly or through ancestral inheritance.
That way trust would take care of the family members.
Major part of the income should be ploughed back, only minor part distributed annually.
2 people like this
@BarBaraPrz (45475)
• St. Catharines, Ontario
16 Sep 21
I think people should not expect anything when their parents die. If the parents want to leave something to their children, that's up to them.
2 people like this
@xander6464 (40858)
• Wapello, Iowa
16 Sep 21
I mostly agree with you. We have the most absurd system possible. One that's designed to fail and most of your ideas would fix it. The biggest is that having kids is a lifelong obligation. No more walking away when the kid is 18. If don't seem to deserve anything, I blame the parents for not doing a good enough job and there's just no excuse. It's really very simple. People just need to be responsible.
2 people like this
@vandana7 (98778)
• India
17 Sep 21
You make me feel....INTELLIGENT. LOL
Kidding...but I do feel parental responsibility term should not be merely 18 or 21 years.
Such restriction on time and extent of responsibility in India have led to population explosion issues out here.
In many ways, I think people treat children as if they are like home loan or car loan repayment. They like the car so they accept the liability. But I think they spend more time keeping cars in good condition than they spend on their children.
1 person likes this
@xander6464 (40858)
• Wapello, Iowa
17 Sep 21
@vandana7 I think you're absolutely right. The whole system is defective.
1 person likes this
@wolfgirl569 (95018)
• Marion, Ohio
16 Sep 21
I think it depends on the family. Here we can leave things to who ever we want. My husband has 2 children that never contact him. One of those almost never did. The other stopped when he would no co sign a high dollar mortgage for her. They to me do not deserve anything. The third daughter is the one I call the brat daughter on here. She visits regular without expecting anything in return as a grown child should.
2 people like this
@LindaOHio (155961)
• United States
16 Sep 21
I think that's up to the parents; and children should not expect a windfall when the parents die.
1 person likes this
@vandana7 (98778)
• India
22 Sep 21
@LindaOHio Then why do the lawmakers not do it? If they do it, parents would not be greedy too. After all, they can leave only so much to their kids.
1 person likes this
@TerribleMan (579)
• India
18 Sep 21
I like your thoughts on this.
There are so many people who expect for free from government and they also get for free.
When such is the case, it is foolishness to say I will not give anything to my child once he reaches the age of 21.
More than a sense of duty, I wish to take it as love and compassion and empathy. Even if children live in separate house after they marry, they still are part of family.
There are so many old people now who are left in old age homes. The children are not bothered. This is a sad thing.
The children should inherit from the parents and alsi support their parents in their old age. Old people anyway are not idle. They look after grandchildren, offer valuable advices . That is their contribution.
1 person likes this
@vandana7 (98778)
• India
18 Sep 21
I do not like the thinking that old people will look after grandchildren. By then their bones are too weary to do much. Expectation and fear of being discarded or hurt with barbs is what makes the old people walk that extra mile. God makes it easier for them because they are doing it for their grandchildren they love.
I have mentioned 1/3rd of property to be inherited by children here. But elsewhere my suggestion was 1/2.
I am for legalizing dowry. But only in a specific way.
So the first child in the house is to get married? Good. Congratulations. But before that establish properties such that there is no need to sell them for the next 35 to 40 years. In other words, new properties.
This property will remain in the name of the parents, but ..and this is a huge but...it will have a sort of encumbrance registered against it. This means nobody can buy it till both the parents die. Nor can anybody mortgage it or raise loans against it.
This aspect helps to ensure safety of parents.
Only the parents are entitled to income from it. More than 250000 per annum cannot be withdrawn in cash. UPIs need to be used for most payments.
Once such safeguards are placed .. there is no way child troubles parents for monies. The property is to be shared in the following ratio
2/4ths for parents ..which they can do what they want to do at the end of their lives, if the property is still around.
Balance to be divided equally among their kids.
Effectively, if one of the child is looking after the parents, and others have left them, then they may end up adding their share to that child. But cutting off children completely from inheritance is possible only if the child is a drunkard, gambler, criminal, or has abused them or other children.
1 person likes this
@vandana7 (98778)
• India
17 Sep 21
I am disagreeing with that here. While child should not expect, and it would be nice even if parents did not expect anything of the child, I dislike the after 18 you are on your own, or after 21 you are no longer my responsibility.
The duty of the parent is to focus on what child is doing and not doing, including teaching him or her how to respect others.
If the child is not taught, and parent feel relieved, ah he is now 21 ...he can rape and I have nothing to do with it...
That is plain wrong...
The parent cannot disconnect like we disconnect from mortgage. Conversely, after parents, the child has nobody to turn to. Even if grown up now, there can always be situations in which parents may be needed. That fill in the gap is through inheritance.
It should not be expected or taken upfront.
@vandana7 (98778)
• India
22 Sep 21
I have not understood some concepts.
I look after MY child for 21 years. Thereafter, the child has to look after me for 40 odd years. That is a higher return than in stock markets. The society forces such situation so that they don't have to take a stand or the responsibility does not fall on them. They too expect such "looking after" from their kids.
I do sometimes feel ..where do I draw line as far as gratefulness goes. I have a higher gene of gratefulness. LOL
But then, I also realize, nobody loves me even as much as my parent does. And so what is the point in walking out? Destiny. LOL
@DeborahDiane (40049)
• Laguna Woods, California
20 Sep 21
@vandana7 - I agree with you. We have paid for the education of our four children and helped them all get a start in life. In addition, we have occasionally helped them out financially, and they will receive whatever assets we have left when we die. In addition, I want to avoid making my children responsible for my full care when I am old. I know they will have some responsibility for me, if I live to be in my 90s or older (I am 72 now.) However, we have also made financial arrangements so that we should be able to afford a caregiver to help us when we are old, or we can move into Assisted Living. I have seen how hard it has been on my sister, who has cared for our parents during the last few years of their life. I want to spare my children that stress, or at least reduce it, if I can.
1 person likes this
@vandana7 (98778)
• India
20 Sep 21
Most people think children are ungrateful. But they do not see the child's perspective. Are jobs as easy to come by? Do they pay enough to survive with same standard of living? Is medical cost coming down? Can today's children really afford to have even two children with the costs of education as it is? Many such things that parents don't consider before having a child, and child cannot consider because he or she is much too young to understand. Nevertheless, it is the child who suffers all the issues associated with such situations.
I am not saying children should not look after parents. They should. The system or social institution of marriage is designed like that. Contemporary job needs force people to leave elderly in assisted homes or old age homes.
But even parents should keep their expectations in check considering the problems their children would be facing and create that "provident fund" ..post departure so that the child has something to fall back upon when parents are not around. It is a harsh world out there.
1 person likes this
@DeborahDiane (40049)
• Laguna Woods, California
20 Sep 21
@vandana7 - You are so right that it is a harsh world out there and anytime families can help each other out, I think it is a good thing. I understand that some families are too poor to leave money to their children, but sometimes they can help in other ways.
I know retirees who take care of their grandchildren, and I know adult children who care for their parents. I think we all need to do what we can. When we are blessed enough to have money we can leave to our children, then that is a wonderful way to help them, even after we are gone.
No one should just live for themselves. We are all part of a bigger society, and we all need to contribute in whatever ways we can.
1 person likes this
@ThatDisha (4010)
• India
16 Sep 21
It is upto the parents, what they feel
If they feel their child need support they will definitely leave behind something for the child's survival after them and if not then it's fine too as they need to learn how to survive without support too
1 person likes this
