Is leaving all your inheritance to your children unethical?

[brasty]

I have been reading this article which argues that if you are leaving an inheritance to your children, that you should also leave some money to charities who help disadvantaged people, in recognition that not everyone inherits. It argues not to do that is unethical.
I think I agree, unless the inheritance is a very small amount - under £5k.

www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/ethics-inheritance-nussbaum-levmore/547934/

If you die without a will you die intestate:

if you have a spouse and no children it all goes to the spouse
if you have a spouse and children the personal chattels, first £250k and half the remainder go to the spouse. The other left over half to your children
If you have no spouse and no kids it goes to your parents. If they are gone to your siblings equally. Then to their children.
Cohabitees get NOTHING

In England you can leave your estate to whoever you want - even the cats home. Certain categories of people can challenge a will they are left out of (spouse / kids). However claims only likely to succeed if you are a cut out spouse or were being supported by the deceased or a minor / disabled. Courts don't like disgruntled able bodied adult children challenging wills.

I have a very low income, and came from no money, but because I am insured up to the eyeballs, when I die I will leave behind a small flat to my DS. I think that's an amazing start in life so I have left most of the residuals (what there is - not much) to charity in the hope of giving others a hand, just as I've been given a hand in the past.

I've also included an environmental charity, but I consider that a legacy to DS as he's got to live in this place once we've gone!

After seeing the way two charities have treated a relative recently after the death of his wife I won't be leaving a penny to any charity. anything I have will go to my children and they can decide what to do with it.

If charities behaved completely ethically then I might have done, but I won't take the chance now. I'm not having anyone say to my children shortly after I died "Don't you think your mum would have wanted you to donate to X" which is what a charity said, word for word, to a my relative about his wife (when they'd already been given a substantial donation on her death).

I'd like to leave a sum to charity, after I've ensured my DD has enough of my estate (whatever's left after care fees etc) to have a financially secure future.

For those posters who say they won't leave to charity because it all goes into CEO pockets, I can assure you that there are hundreds if not thousands of charities for whom a small legacy would make an enormous difference and positive impact to people, services, animals, environment, culture, whatever. I've worked for quite a few charities, large and small, and I have seen real benefit and gratitude for generous legacies,

disinwhat????

In practice, many inheritances do not happen until the recipient children are actually in their later middle age. So all this talk of good start etc is not correct unless lifetime gifts are made.

I think the problems with inheritance comes with the element of entitlement and lack of drive in the younger generation, waiting to get a large inheritance; and thus not striving themselves. But for most people, the amount they inherit wont be life-changing so not very impact.

The real issue in this country is ensuring there are sufficient funds to pay for a secure and pleasant old age. I don't like to see older people scrimping and going without to ensure they will be something to leave their children. In reality all it takes its a stretch in a nursing home with dementia to eat into a possible inheritance.

Lots of people get no inheritance or family safety net. That is why we have a welfare state.

Yes, and we all know how well that works don't we?!

I don’t think there is a charity for ‘people who didn’t get an inheritance’ so you wouldn’t be levelling anything up.

Inheritances in middle age help enormously to ensure that you can retire early. If you have kids, you can use the money to help them.

DM died in September and I will inherit her estate. It’s not huge, enough to pay off our mortgage and a few debts but it will make a huge difference to us. Being mortgage and debt free will mean that DH will no longer have to do a job that he struggles with due to health reasons and I can think about changing my job to one where I don’t wake up in the morning and dread going in.

Yes, it will change my life and if anyone thinks I’m going to apologise for that they are wrong.

I have a nephew who has significant SEN. It's extremely unlikely that he will ever be able to live independently. My sister and BIL spend a considerable amount of time planning - and worrying - about what will happen to him, and who will look after him, when they've gone.

Your blithe little statement "we have a welfare state" demonstrates a profound ignorance of the availability of state-backed help in this day and age - and under this current government. Social services and community care has been completely eviscerated. You have to be absolutely desperate and on the complete bones of your arse before the state will step in. And even then the "welfare" is in many cases not even enough to live to the most basic of standards. There are genuinely people who have to choose between heating and eating.

The state provides zero respite and support for my nephew - it was a local charity that did that. Guess what - they've just closed down because of lack of funding and because the rent on their building doubled. The local council declined to offer any support, so now 100s of families that were being supported now have no help at all. To suggest that those families should decide not to leave any provision for their children is fucking laughable. Who is going to look after them when their parents are gone? Do you have any idea of how poorly mental health and SEN provision is for adults right now? It's bad enough when you're a child because CAHMS is stretched to breaking point, but once you reach 18 - forget it, game over.

So you can take your egalitarian ideals and fucking shove them, quite frankly. But what do the disabled matter, eh? We have a welfare state!

brasty "Inheritances in middle age help enormously to ensure that you can retire early. If you have kids, you can use the money to help them."

well, yes. But this seems to contradict your view in your OP?

Redistribution on death should not be down to individual acts of charity but rather through a robust system of taxation (since most of us, myself included, would rather leave all our wealth, such as it is, to our own children).

After seeing the way one of my dear friends was treated by one of the big charities after her father died I re-wrote my will and and took all charitable donations out.

I plan to spend most of my money before I die and everything else to be left to my children.

It's certainly not 50% of income for most people, even if you fall into the highest rate band. But I agree with taxing people properly while they are alive, not after they die (not beyond the current IHT system anyway).

There will always be financial "inequality" just as there will always be poverty.
Throwing money at a problem, however that money is obtained, does not necessarily alleviate the situation.

Stuff that! I'm leaving my money to my child so he can have a good chance in life. I don't much care about everyone else I'm afraid.

I give plenty to charities, work for a charity, but I'm looking after my own when it comes to leaving and inheritance.

I'm hardly rich anyway.

I think the problems with inheritance comes with the element of entitlement and lack of drive in the younger generation, waiting to get a large inheritance; and thus not striving themselves. But for most people, the amount they inherit wont be life-changing so not very impact

What?! Are you seriously unaware of the gap in wealth and opportunity between over-65s under under 40s in this country? That a large proportion of the older generation are sitting pretty in houses that are now worth 10x what they paid for them, simply because the housing market is out of control? And that huge numbers of the younger generation are effectively locked out of the housing market for the very same reason? And you think somehow this is because they're lazy and entitled?! That is one of the most selfishly tunnel-visioned statements I've ever read on here.

Doobigetta one of the problems is that there are not enough properties suitable for older people to downsize to, thus releasing family houses. I am somewhat in this dilemma - in a couple of years I would love to move to a two bedroomed house, but remain in the area I live in now. There are almost none around. So my choice is to remain put or move away from my friends and social activities.

I'm not leaving anything to anyone but my son when I die. (Unless I have more kids). If you are a millionaire, yes I could agree that you could help others. But I earned the money along with partner. I grew up on benefits, in poverty, I would never expect others to not inherit whatever they wanted. If you like it, you do it.

Charity begins at home.
I do give odds and ends of cash/ donate to shop of my chosen charity.
My money will be my children's money, they can choose if they spend it wisely on themselves or give it to charity.
They really agree with me though, there are some very rich people working for charities, they can leave their money and their inheritance to the charity

My view is that life is a struggle for many of our adult children and I would like to think that any legacy from me might make their lives easier

Exactly. They didn't ask to be born. The people who do this probably wouldn't donate any inheritance they received to charity.

Cosmos, I appreciate that. I don't think that it is automatically incumbent upon all older people to downsize and release larger houses. But to not recognise that there is a very uneven playing field that older people are benefiting from at the expense of their children is wilfully obtuse, imo. And to actually blame the younger generation for a situation that is not in any way of their making is just mean.

My DH and I will not inherit anything, nobody in our family owns property and don't have any savings. That's just how it is! Somebody else's money going to charity wouldn't change that. I want to leave our children everything we've got.

I've worked my whole life - I will leave my money to whomever I choose and an article will not tell me otherwise!