Discussion on inheritance - is it sometimes ok to give children different amounts.

[Whattheactual20201]

Was talking to parents the other day and then DB
We are a family of 3 siblings, I am the youngest at 28 then the eldest is 36.
I have 2 children soon to be 3, my own house with a very small mortgage and not much left to pay. We survive and have luxuries. I do have savings
DB who is a few years older has 1 child but they are trying for number 2 and has a house with an affordable mortgage and a great income.
Eldest is DS who has one child and one on the way. She has always worked as hard as us but does earn a lot less and rents has no savings and lives a bit more day to day than we do.

My parents have always told us the grandkids will have their own “ pot “ which will be equal.

However us as their children will get different amounts due to circumstances.
They would want to leave the house to sister
With w smaller cash inheritance
Then a bigger cash inheritance to me and DB ( it wouldn’t be as much as what the house is worth by any stretch )

I am ok with this and see their point in a way however DB feels a bit hurt they would leave the house to only one of us ?

You are being fair, and caring, something that money usually destroys - see some posts here for examples!

Purely a personal decision to those leaving it, and l am sure it is never taking hastily, respect and understand the reasoning behind it

Should it be equal to the hedge fund manager with yacht and London flat, as the career nurse topically caring for covid patients with no desires for the trappings of success/greed?

I have always felt that l would level up any inheritance l received with my own values

Blue touch paper lit........

Should it be equal to the hedge fund manager with yacht and London flat, as the career nurse topically caring for covid patients with no desires for the trappings of success/greed?

yes

why on earth wouldn't it be?

Your fund manager child worked their arse off to get where they are, why on earth do you think they deserve any LESS?

Nowhere have I said that the nurse doesn't work equally hard btw.

But without the tax paid by the "successful and greedy" ones , and the money they generate in the economy, you'd find that your saintly carers would have nothing to care and treat others...

You might find that society need both. Judging negatively your own child because they chose a career path you wouldn't is despicable.

Equal all the way. No ifs or buts !! Doesn't matter about personal circumstances in my opinion.

randomer
That's why I feel the same as you about this. Unless a child has long term disability or SEN needs that affects their ability to thrive independently then it should be equal in my opinion. Anything else is making a judgement about inheritance based on circumstances often decades before the will needs to be implemented and anything can happen in that time.

I can't imagine being the type of person to begrudge a struggling sibling extra financial help from our parents. Sad that so many do.

@Prozacyogurt

I can't imagine being the type of person to begrudge a struggling sibling extra financial help from our parents. Sad that so many do.

you can't understand how hurtful it can be to see your parents making it obvious they prefer your sibling?

I could never do that to my children. I might have my opinion over their choice of career or partner, and would try to hide it completely anyway, but a will is not the place to make a point about it.

One doesn't "deserve" more help because they chose a lower paid career, or because they chose a better paid one
One doesn't "deserve" more help because they could have more children

And if there's only 1 house to give away, it should be sold and shared equally (or one keeps it and pays their share to their siblings)

It's not about arguing over pennies or a couple of quid because 1 piece of jewellery is worth a bit more than the other, but the main inheritance should be equal.

I can't imagine being the type of person to begrudge a struggling sibling extra financial help from our parents. Sad that so many do.
I think there is a fairly obvious difference between giving different financial support based on circumstances at the time (eg help towards a deposit for a sibling who may never buy otherwise, or free childcare for another) and making a decision in 2020 for each child to inherit differently in say 2040 based on their situation in 2020. Nobody knows what will happen in those decades and grief is horrible. Why do anything that makes things harder for your children in the days, weeks, months after you pass away?

@Prozacyogurt

I can't imagine being the type of person to begrudge a struggling sibling extra financial help from our parents. Sad that so many do.

I assume your parents very obviously love you and all your siblings the same.

Thats not always the case in families.

making a decision in 2020 for each child to inherit differently in say 2040 based on their situation in 2020
Which is why all serious advice about wills starts with “what would you like to happen if you dropped dead tommorow”. It’s not meant to be a 20/30/40 projection because fat to much can and will change.

I am one of 3 children. We all have similar life situations. I have received more financial support as my daughters were very ill. My siblings never questioned how his gift was used to support our family in need. It was his money to give and never considered any part of an inheritance.

When my father passed away, we each inherited in equal amounts. The money and support he gave to each of our families was different. The £50k does not sound like it is an amount for inheritance. Rather, the support of your parent's of their grandchild and family. Personally, I would say that all 3 should inherit equally. If your sister wants to then buy the family home, she could then use the cash that she received to pay the difference for the house. This keeps it all fair and equal. Otherwise, there may well be issues down the line as life happens.

Good luck with everything.

Which is why all serious advice about wills starts with “what would you like to happen if you dropped dead tommorow”. It’s not meant to be a 20/30/40 projection because fat to much can and will change
And how many people seriously update their wills each time their child gets a new relationship, or new job? Do people really update their wills based on their opinions of their children's lives? Are all these people who are making judgements on their children's situations really in possession of all information about their children's finances?

It seems a bit odd to decide that child A has a nice house so they get less. Or child B gets more because they have a lower paying job when due to help from B's in laws they have more savings than A and a smaller mortgage. Most people I know don't lay their household finances out in front of their parents.

Other than SEN, disability or going NC, I struggle to empathise with situations where parents would choose to take an unequal approach because in many situations adult children are living lives thay reflect their choices.

One of my siblings has had much more support than me from my parents, some of it justifiable and others I let wash over me because life is too short. I'd be hurt in years to come if my parents decided to prioritise Sibling A because "but they need it" when A has made life choices meaning they have routinely needed support, whilst me and my other sibling have stood on our own two feet (eg choosing to give up a job because you don't like it and needing bailing out vs accepting that a job is needed to pay the bills but looking for another job).

I think wills/inheritance should be private so people could leave their assets where they really want rather than playing the game to avoid familial fallout.

And how many people seriously update their wills each time their child gets a new relationship, or new job? Do people really update their wills based on their opinions of their children's lives? Are all these people who are making judgements on their children's situations really in possession of all information about their children's finances?
Just because people don’t doesn’t mean that it’s not something they should do.
Example. My DSD is taken care of by life insurance at present, because if DH dies tommorow I don’t want to be having to sell my and my childrens home to pay her mother. That split is something we will look at again once all children are financially independent.
If one of my children wins the lottery and the other is seriously disabled in a road accident and can no longer work (extreme examples I know) I would be looking after the child that needed it and fully expecting the luckier sibling to understand.
Needs change. Resourced ebb and flow. And sensible, pragmatic people update their wills accordingly.

Its absolutley nothing to do with 'begrudging" a sibling.
The inequality is a measure of your worth in the eyes of parents and a whole series of assumptions.

As I said previously, if you give, you give with your heart not as a means of pointscoring.

A further factor is older people, though deemed to have capacity, may be influenced and subtly coeerced.

I really want my surviving parent to leave my sibling the house and me the money, even though that means I'll get about half as much on paper.

My sibling actually wants the house and has said they would quite like to live in it when they retire. I don't. It's a lovely house but it's in completely the wrong part of the country for where my life is and I could only move up there by getting divorced, which I have no other reason for wanting to do. I don't want all the extra administrative faff of part owning another house, selling it or renting it out, tax implications if we rent it out (I don't have to do a tax return at the moment as my tax affairs are extremely simple), extra travel to keep an eye on the house, etc, etc. My parent's savings are not much more than half the value of the house but they would be genuinely life-changing for me. It would be massively more inconvenient for me if my parent decided to split everything "fairly."

My friend's dad left the family home to her brother (which was very much the tradition here back in the day). He was going to leave his money to her. He ended up in a nursing home so all the savings went on paying for his care so she ended up with nothing. Her brother didn't sell the house and give her half.

Youseethethingis
As you say, you're choosing extreme examples here and most people who believe in equality on this thread have already said that they account for disability etc.

I still fundamentally disagree with parents looking from the outside at their children's lives and deciding to demonstrate very different treatment based on the life choices the children made.

For example,
A gets more than B because A married a man with a higher paying career.
A gets more than B because A has a 'better job' but A chose to spend several years building their career and paying for additional qualifications and B didn't.
A needs to get more because they are renting and B owns a house, but A chose to spend their 20s living in an expensive city and travelling when B spent their 20s saving and living somewhere more affordable
A gets more because they chose to have 4 children and B chose to have 2.
A gets more because parents have heard A complaining about money lots even though A spends a lot. B gets on with life and lives within their means and doesn't fish for money so parenta decide B doesn't need anything.
A needs more because they have chosen to privately educate their child and extra money will help them out, B meanwhile sends their DC to the nearest state school because private education wasn't a priority for them. Unfortunately their parents have decided A needs the money more for an entirely optional additional expense.
A gets more because they work part time so this means they should get extra, meanwhile B is working full time out of necessity because they can't afford for her to process part time.
A should get more because they're a SAHM and B has their own money.

Etc. You get the idea. Making the decision to give different inheritance based on your opinion of your children's life choices is a really easy way to cause hurt and resentment. The purpose of inheritance (IMO) is not to compensate one child for making different life choices from their siblings.

@LolaSmiles
I get the idea. But my main point is that people should update wills.
Say you’ve got 4 children over a 15 year period. 2 are adults when you die, two are still minors, one still the whole of secondary to go.
Do you still write your will today as if you could only possibly die in 40 years time? Because if you do and then you die next week, you’ve just left your kids in a bit of a shit show because although you split everything 4 ways to be fair, two of your children have already been supported to adulthood and two have not. Is that really equality? Really? 🤔

Your parents are starting something here. A big row. An Inheritance like this one is bound to cause bad blood. I cant believe they even told you guys about it already. ..and considering your sister worked from age 15 like you said and is still renting and living from day to day (unlike you and db)it sounds like she is probably not really good with money? ...

Anyway. Your parents havent dies yet thankfully!!! But at the same time theyve already caused a wedge between their offspring 😣

The problem with parents leaving the inheritance in unequal shares is that it will cause resentment to those children who get less. This could fester and spoil their relationships forevermore. They may feel that it is because the parents loved the favoured child more than them.

They may feel that it is because the parents loved the favoured child more than them

Indeed. Wills, property, money, belongings - they are all symbolic as well as material. When a parent has died, these material things are also memorials of the relationship - not the ONLY memories, but they are one of the symbols of what one might have been "worth" to the deceased parent.

Midwifery is ‘burying talent’?!

I took this moment to be a Biblical reference.

The master went away and gave three servants respectively 5 talents, 3 talents and 1 talent (a talent here was a sum of money, not an ability) to invest on his behalf..

Two of them invested wisely, and doubled their original sums, the last was afraid to invest and buried it, so that at least he didn't lose any money.

I assumed that whoever made the "talent" comment meant that she had been afraid to take risks - but that isn't necessarily so. She chose a different, less well-paying path - but she may have contributed much more to society in general as a midwife than her brother has as a hedge fund manager, or whatever he is.