What is fair re:money to grandchildren

Same amount for each grandchild is fair.

Why? If the next generation are well set up it can be a good idea to leave some directly to GC as if you leave it to children and then they leave it to GC it can lose some value due to inheritance tax.

I fully intend to leave money to my GC, some to charity and some to my children. Quite honestly if they don't like it they can decline to accept it. I really don't think there is a "should" to it.

That still doesn't address the issue of any GC who are born after your death, though.

Some people may say that's fine, as the GP never knew them and didn't have a relationship with them; but I think most people would primarily love them and want to help them along in the world because they are their GC, rather than because of what they feel they 'gave back' to them; thus they wouldn't want to make one or more GC seem inferior, just because they happened to be born later than the others and never got to meet their GP.

If you're going down the route of giving directly to your GC, rather than to your own DC, the only fair way you can guarantee that no more GC will be born - especially if you have any sons - is to say that all of the GC share the pot of money equally only after your own last child has died; by which time the GC will probably be of an age themselves where the inheritance won't make nearly such a difference to them as it would have done in their 20s.

I know they likely hardly need the money, but look at all the famous men who have children when they're in their 70s or even 80s. There's no way that their own parents will still be around to ensure that all of their GC inherit and are treated fairly. I remember seeing an interview with soul singer James Brown, when he was 70 - his oldest DC was 50 and his youngest was 4!

With some of the huge age gaps in children (not even just celebrity men), if you could know and wait until your very last GC had been born before sharing the fund/bequest between them all, you could potentially be leaving money fully intended to give your GC a good start to set up in their young adult lives when some of them are already pensioners!!

I think he should change it to one savings account and put it in his will that it gets divided equally between all grandchildren, without specifying how many that is if your brother, for example, is likely to have more children. That seems fairest. After all you’d be pretty put out if your eldest sibling got more simply because they were the eldest, and younger got less.

well if that is the case, then no one should be able to access those accounts to remove money.

It depends - my grandma has done this for all her grandchildren and great grandchildren but has accounted for it in her will, so that 'their' savings pot gets filled up to x- amount from the estate before the rest gets divided up if she dies before they hit 18 (if that makes sense).

She did the same amount per child but given the age differences adjusted it for inflation so the amount my younger cousins got each was more on paper but similar in value.

Your dad wants to support each of his individual grandchildren equally. Which is fair and generous.

Don’t worry OP, the likelihood is that he will leave his will divided equally between you and your siblings meaning you will have more per child to pass down in turn.

Really, this is not your business to question with your Dad, and very grabby to even think of some of your nieces and nephews being penalised for having siblings.

My grandfather had 3 children. He left no money to them but instead gave it to his grandkids as though he were giving it to them. I.e. a third of his estate was split between the children of his first child, second and third. I happen to be a grandkid of the largest family so ended up with less than my cousins. It didn't bother me at all. I totally understood the reasoning.

And this is why, abusive family relationships aside, any monies should only ever descend by one generation.

My sister has two children, I have none by choice, and our mother has made it very clear that my sister and I will inherit 50/50.

However, my niece and nephew will also inherit from me, so it all comes out in the wash.

I have one child. My sister has 3. My sister is massively better off than me.

It never (honestly) occurred to me that what was left in our fathers will (the grandchildren component of it) should be shared 50% to my child and 50% divided by the 3 children of my sister (16.6% each). The grandchildren all got 25% of the grandchildren component.

Yes, my daughter will get less from me when I die than my sister's children will get from her. That's the way it goes. There is no karma to share stuff out equally.

I don't understand how your DD's amount is being reduced

Best not to tell your DD about the money. Let it be a lovely surprise for her once she's grown up.

I'm leaving a btl house that will be paid off in about 4-5 years to my 2 DGC. I'm very unlikely to have more biological DGC as neither of my 2 DS's want DC. My long term foster son may want dc and would be left a sum to split between them when the youngest was 18.

better to have assumed nothing then you wouldn't be sad now.

I'm a GM and if I were to set up saving accounts for DGC they would all receive the same. However, in my will I'm leaving my estate to my two DC equally as one of them has 3 DC and the other has none. The one without DC should not be financially disadvantaged.

So your share should be the same as your brother think you think your child should get more than the other grandchildren?

Why? Surely all the grandchildren should be treated equally regardless of who their parents are. It’s not as though the sibling would be getting more - the money is going to the grandchildren, not their parents.

Fair is a pig of a concept.

There are 14 years between me and my eldest sibling.

The oldest two went to university with grants, the middle fees of 1k per year and me, the youngest, 3k per year.

Life won't be fair, but grandparents can be, and that means splitting equally between the children.

But he isn't giving this money to his children, nor is it their money to disperse.

He's leaving it to his grandchildren, who are separate individuals. He doesn't love OP's one child four times more than her brother's four children, does he? So why would she get 4 times the money that her cousins do - thereby creating a huge disparity.

It's also fair to leave equal amounts to his children (OP and her brother) if that is what he wants, and have a separate pot he divides equally between his grandchildren.