give it to me straight - am I entitled over inheritance or are my parents selfish

[twoopsie]

To cut a long story short. My parents are very well off,dad is on a final salary pension and mum draws a state pension. They have a 5 bed Edwardian house in the south east, 2 buy to let flats owned outright, and from my dads side they inherited the family farm that is let out to four different people / businesses.

They have an income after tax of 8k a month and spend money stupidly. Dad bought a Mercedes purely to drive to the golf course as the clubs won't fit in the ferrari. 4 exotic holidays a year. Spend more on an extension than my whole house cost.

Anyway good for them but they have told me that they don't intend to leave me anything as they have earnt everything and want me to do the same. Firstly they haven't earnt everything as they inherited , mum has had state pension for more years than she worked and dad got to retire early on a final salary pension. They happy take extras like the free bus pass so the car won't get scratched in town and talk about using the winter fuel allowance to buy wine and claim theyve worked for this and are entitled to them.

Aibu to at least expect them to pass on what they were lucky enough to inherit?

The state doesn't automatically step in where the child has money to pay for it.

But it isn't all about money is it? My grandmother is still at home because my cousin has agreed to live with her, she has carers four times a day but really she could be at home without my cousin there overnight.

She could afford a home but she doesn't want to be there and we don;t want her to be there. She should be entitled to leave her money to my cousin if she so chooses.

I guess it's true what they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree

I had the same thought Crumble. The parents certainly have the daughter they deserve but they can hardly complain, they created her.

I grew up in an extended family in which there was too much focus on inheritances. The wealthy elders were very fair, set up trusts, etc, but the heirs spent too much time fretting about what they would receive & when, & not so much time in thinking about how they would make their own way in the world.
The best philosophical way to deal with the issue of inherited wealth is to expect NOTHING and act accordingly. Then if you do receive something, you are gratified and pleasantly surprised. Much better way to live your life.
BTW, not judging OP, parents sound obnoxious!

everybody dies of something and nobody can know when.

Thank you for pointing out (the obvious)
Whenever anyone starts a thread on mumsnet that involves complaining or worrying or perhaps even anything I disagree with, I will from now on just check out the news, pull out the latest tragedy and tell them 'shame on you'.

I don't know why the Samaritans don't do that too.

Wilf83 linking this thread to the Sydney siege is ridiculous.

As far as I'm concerned it's the parents at fault, I'm not surprised the op feels upset. Caring parents want to help their children. I find the op's parents attitude bewildering.

Maybe caring for your offspring sometimes involves teaching that being greedy entitlement heroes is not the way to go through life. It is vulgar.

I think they are extraordinarily egotistical in their idea that they have 'worked for' a bunch of stuff that they actually inherited - not to mention that luck plays a huge role in things like employment. I can't STAND people who think that they got there by pulling themselves along, when they were really just lucky, or the beneficiaries of history or inheritance. Sure, I reckon they probably did work for it - but plenty of people work REALLY hard and never earn more than minimum wage.

Thanks that's it exactly, they fail to understand that they were just very very lucky with housing, job, education & pensions. They dont understand that those days are long gone and the people that need help are their dgc. If they had some understanding of being lucky and grateful I wouldn't get so annoyed by them. But they are the first to complain about anything.

My dh often works 60-80 hour weeks of hard physicial work while df did 9-5 in a local council and got to retire early at 55. He has no idea how different it is today.

Wish there was a poll here, some think I'm awful for wanting to enherit the family assets passed down last two generations, some think my parents are and some think we both are.

Arf at 'is this a plot from The Archers?'

OP, YANBU. Your parents sound deeply unpleasant. You are understandably upset. Better you know now though I think. If you cancel them for Christmas are you prepared to go NC forever? If you think you can't get past this it might be better for you in the long run. Might even make them have a hard look at themselves too, you never know. I don't think you have come across as entitled either. Of course no one has a right to inherit but their attitude is beyond the pale.

Good luck.

I haven't read the whole thread, only most of the OP's comments.

It is reminding me why in some ways, it is just fine for DH and me to have two sets of parents with very little to leave. We expect nothing, which is good, as that's most likely what we will get and that is just fine.

That said, I do think it is odd for parents/grandparents who have money to be leaving it all to the cats home when they could be putting something in trust to pay for the grandchildren's education or a deposit for a home. It isn't like it is a lifechanging amount that is going to make anyone sponge for the rest of their lives, as it would only be putting their grandchildren on the same level as people of their own age who got a student grant and no tuition fees when they were young. It is hardly a grabby situation.

I do feel for you in a way OP; whilst I do support that they are free to do as they please with their own money, I can't imagine having a parent not wanting to help in some way if they could, it must be pretty hurtful.

They fail to understand that they were just very very lucky with housing, job, education & pensions. They dont understand that those days are long gone and the people that need help are their dgc.

They did however live in a world that understood a solid work ethic, and not leading a greedy consumer lifestyle. Credit cards and buying shit you neither need nor are willing to work for, were not a feature of their generations. The consumer debt explosion is a feature of our generation. We are the ones who are not willing to forgo pleasure and consumption even if we are not willing to work for it.

If they had some understanding of being lucky and grateful I wouldn't get so annoyed by them. But they are the first to complain about anything.

Who cares? It is their money; their property. You have no right to tell anyone what they should be doing with their wealth, especially when your sole motivation is your own selfish ends.

My dh often works 60-80 hour weeks of hard physicial work while df did 9-5 in a local council and got to retire early at 55. He has no idea how different it is today.

So, DH works hard but not sufficiently so as to succeed in the private sector, while DF does not work hard, but understands the system this country operates and has taken advantage of it. Both have free will and freedom to choose. Both live under the same laws in the same country, with the same system and the same opportunities. And you are pissed that DH is not as clever or opportunistic as DF. I get that, but DH chose to provide for you in the manner he does, that was absolutely his choice and no one else's.

Twoopsie. I don't know what to think as I am still wondering about the wider picture. Have they helped you out before? Are the supportive to you emotionally? Are they usually arses? Do you get on with them? Do you have DC Etc.

I'm not sure I buy into your 'it's not fair' way of thinking.

Several people on this thread seem to think a final-salary pension scheme is some sort of lucky windfall. It isn't. It's deferred pay, that comes out of the employers pocket, and is just as much earned as the salary from the job that generated the entitlement.

Someone mentioned they have to contribute 9% to their pension whereas their parents in the same job contributed nothing. This is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the pension is earned. All it means is that in the modern workplace employers allow workers to choose the balance they prefer between current and deferred pay, whereas in the past things were more rigid.

It's true that final salary payment schemes are better than defined contribution schemes because the individual doesn't have to take stock market risk. But, ignoring swings and roundabouts, they require roughly the same amount of funding to produce a given size of pension. The fact that they are no longer available doesn't necessarily mean those of us who only have a defined contribution scheme are getting less.

So, DH works hard but not sufficiently so as to succeed in the private sector, while DF does not work hard, but understands the system this country operates and has taken advantage of it. Both have free will and freedom to choose. Both live under the same laws in the same country, with the same system and the same opportunities. And you are pissed that DH is not as clever or opportunistic as DF. I get that, but DH chose to provide for you in the manner he does, that was absolutely his choice and no one else

The same opotunties do not exist and that's a stupid low point to try to say my dh is less clever than my df.

I'm encouraging my dp to spend their money on enjoying their retirement but I would also be incredibly upset if they said I would not be getting what (if any) was left. I would also be upset if they were deliberately spending it only because they wanted to avoid me getting anything.
Yes live life to the full and if there is nothing left then fine, but to make it disappear for the sake of it, then YANBU op.

YANBU, I do get your frustration.

Both my DBs are civil servants convinced that if they worked in the private sector that they would be paid squillions and that their generous final salary pensions are compensation for this. They have no idea!

The smug complacency your parents are expressing must be incredibly annoying. They havent worked hard all their lives. They were just lucky.

I find the whole 'spending the kids inheritance' attitude infuriating. All too often the people who claim this are just taking advantage of massive property gains. These property gains were made because their offspring are now paying huge mortgages.

Not so much spending the kids' inheritance as spending the kids' mortgage.

I think people are being overly harsh on the OP. If this is an accurate portrayal of the parents, they do sound vile.

I think the hurtful thing here is not around the money, but more around their attitude to you. My mother is always waving the fact that she is not leaving me anything in my face and i find it hurtful that she actively seems to want me to feel hurt by her apparent rejection of me. I find it even more hurtful that she controls my late feathers assets and so I will have nothing from him - not a single reminder in the form of a a photo album or one of his possessions because she is so determined that I should get nothing. And, no I am not a drug addict nor an alcoholic, nor do I gamble. I am an unassuming teacher in my 40s with two children and a mortgage. i don't have a great deal to do with my mother right now, but that is because she behaves in such a hurtful way she is not good for my sanity.

*Both my DBs are civil servants convinced that if they worked in the private sector that they would be paid squillions and that their generous final salary pensions are compensation for this. They have no idea!

The smug complacency your parents are expressing must be incredibly annoying. They havent worked hard all their lives. They were just lucky.

I find the whole 'spending the kids inheritance' attitude infuriating. All too often the people who claim this are just taking advantage of massive property gains. These property gains were made because their offspring are now paying huge mortgages.

Not so much spending the kids' inheritance as spending the kids' mortgage*

Great post, agree 100%. Especially about spending the kids mortgage, this increase in house prices isn't magiced out of thin air, its made by the younger generation taking on more debt.

However he's told us that he will leave everything to my (much younger) step mother.

I suspect an expectation of financial advantage, usually by women, is often a part of marriage, even nowadays. That "much younger" stepmothers inheritance is "wife pay", that's why she (and her children) will (and perhaps should) get his money, rather than his former children.

(Though depending on how much money he has and what he has explicitly or implicitly promised his wife, he might be able to benefit everyone.)

Auntlinny that sounds very tough and know how you feel. It is so hurtful and nasty, probably doing the best thing by not having someone like that in your life.

*Elephantspoo

They did however live in a world that understood a solid work ethic, and not leading a greedy consumer lifestyle. Credit cards and buying shit you neither need nor are willing to work for, were not a feature of their generations. The consumer debt explosion is a feature of our generation. We are the ones who are not willing to forgo pleasure and consumption even if we are not willing to work for it.*

Er, isn't "leading a greedy consumerist lifestyle" exactly what the OP's parents are doing now? Also, I haven't seen anything in the OP's posts that suggest she is living an extravagant lifestyle on the never-never, so it's a bit irrelevant to blame her for the sins of modern society.

It's also irrelevant as her parents clearly didn't accumulate their wealth by being frugal with their wages, they accumulated it while working in cushy office jobs and retiring early but inheriting the assets built up by the previous generations' hard work on the farm.

OP, it seems that your father must have been the sole heir to the farm, is that right? Otherwise he'd not be able to decide when to sell it.

"former children" was not quite the right expression! Presumably people will understand what I meant.

OP you're wasting your time worrying about it. Your parents have that sort of spoilt, unrealistic attitude that I've seen before that comes from that privileged generation who had jobs for life, final salary pension schemes and inherited. My PIL are the same, so are the family up the road. Both come out with this same sort of line about not leaving a penny to anyone and spending it all before they die, because they've earned it. They think it means their children will spend much of their lives running around after them trying to get them to change their minds. It seems to work in some cases; both sets I've mentioned do have children that spend so much time hanging around their parents houses that I actually wonder if they have any time for a normal social life. DH is with me on that one, while we used to love visiting family, letting it take over your whole life so as to make sure you are first in line for any inheritance is just awful to observe.

OTOH DH and I are castigated as some sort of black sheep for not doing this, for moving away and being in regular professional jobs. Its idiotic, and I can't be bothered with it. I suggest you get on with living your own life, FWIW I agree with you re cancelling the Christmas invite. They are being horribly rude to you with their comments and also unkind and selfish, so they must reap what they sow. You will lead a much better life and get much more satisfaction out of forgetting about any inheritance, and doing your own thing.

that's why she (and her children) will (and perhaps should) get his money, rather than his former children

His "former" children are still his children and maybe they should get the equivalent of "wife's pay" for having such a thoughtless (possibly selfish or vindictive) father! That's just as unreasonable.

The same opotunties do not exist and that's a stupid low point to try to say my dh is less clever than my df.

No. You rile at the inequity of DH having to work 60-80 hours a week when DF works less for the council and can retire at 55. We live in a free country, where anyone may choose to do as they wish. DH could choose to be an oil magnate and earn £50M a year if he chooses, but he chooses not to. He could own stores on every high-street in Britain if he chooses to, but he chose not to.

We all get to choose what we want to do in life. 9 out of every 10 millionaires are 1st generation rich and come from the working classed, not the middle classes.

I merely point out that you are encumbered by the choices DH has made, and it is unjust to covet the choices DF has made, and the benefits they have enjoyed as a result.