Daniel Craig announcing he isn't leaving much inheritance to his kids

[Balgoresboy]

news.sky.com/story/james-bond-star-daniel-craig-says-he-will-not-leave-children-substantial-inheritance-as-he-finds-practice-distasteful-12384357

From reading this articles and other inheritance posts on mn is anybody else sort of shell shocked that one wouldn't leave their wealth, especially that of Craig's, to their kids?

He calls it ''distasteful'', which I cannot understand as you are providing for your kids when you are gone and talks about giving it all away before he goes. I know it is his money to do as he pleases but unless I was estranged from my kids, most of my assets will/would go to them at the time of my death.

I see another news story too where Tamzin Outwaithe says she and her siblings lost out on her mother's will as it wasn't made properly. Again surely if Tamzin is upset there must have being significant money there so again baffles me how people don't make solid wills.

''A big concern for me is that whilst dh and I came from working class families that struggled at times we now have good jobs and a middle class lifestyles. I worry that they won't have the same drive we had to succeed so am reluctant to give them things on a plate.''

This has being said so many times on mn it has become cliché by now. I think people don't really understand what working class and middle class mean anymore really.

So whilst I will cook for them when away at uni, I don't plan on paying towards accommodation fees (get a loan like I did), they will be able to stay home if they would like.

''I also won't be paying out for house deposits or towards them, I expect them to do the hard graft we did but would of course allow them to stay at home inorder to save. Noone owes you anything in life, even your parents. I want to raise them with a good work ethic and will always be available for support but they will need to make their own way in life.''

And you do realise that getting a deposit these days is much harder than 3 years ago, never mind when you bought your house which I assume was much more than 3 years ago. I know plenty of people, educated with ''good work ethics'' who work around the clock in jobs like teaching but are still unable to buy in their 30s and 40s. These days a ''good work ethic'' isn't always enough to get a property. Saddens me you equate having no drive to not having all the finer things, it's not that black and white.

''Kathleen Turner didn't exactly get rid of her wealth did she...''

She's being a jobbing tv and theatre actress who's even done commercials since around the mid 90s, she wouldn't be extremely wealthy as during her peak of 84-91ish actresses weren't taking in the massive pay cheques we see today.

Comfortable yes likely but she was never in the league of the Julia Roberts pay cheques.

Hes worth over 100million.
If he gives each kid 1%, that's a million pounds.

My point being is that these are people who work hard and still don't get the money they deserve. I don't disagree. But that doesn't lead to/isn't caused by DC and others like him earning a lot. And I'll say again, these people are just a handful in the scheme of things.

Daniel Craig and other over paid celebs generally don't work for the money they earn as they are overpaid It's not incontrovertible fact that he and other celebs are overpaid, so it's a precarious point to argue from.

@Balgoresboy

''Kathleen Turner didn't exactly get rid of her wealth did she...''

She's being a jobbing tv and theatre actress who's even done commercials since around the mid 90s, she wouldn't be extremely wealthy as during her peak of 84-91ish actresses weren't taking in the massive pay cheques we see today.

Comfortable yes likely but she was never in the league of the Julia Roberts pay cheques.

Ok. Her networth is "only" 20 mil or so. So is that the bracket? Anything over is not ok? Or where is the line?

@ShippingNews

I'm sure that Daniel Craig's children will have had an excellent education, every possible advantage in life, homes bought for them etc. They won't be poor at any time . So what if they don't also get a huge chunk of money when he dies , I doubt that they'll be in the poor house.

This.

I don't know or know of many children that have grown up knowing they won't have to work for a living who have turned out balanced and happy. Some of them go into 'acting' or just want to be famous but they don't know what for, as that's all that's left.
I know a couple of wealthy families who have done the same as Daniel Craig and their sons and daughters do have careers- though not in the family business as one father hoped. They still benefitted from the leg up that their family could give them, so their careers are pretty good.
After a certain amount of money, you don't NEED it anyway. It's just greed and consumerism.

''Ok. Her networth is "only" 20 mil or so. So is that the bracket? Anything over is not ok? Or where is the line?''

Where did you get this figure? Considering Turner's film career has been dead for 30 years I'd say it's a lot less.

Magic of google, innit

Are we talking about different Turner? Because this one's career isn't that dead
m.imdb.com/name/nm0000678/

I meant her high flying film career was dead. Yes she still acts but she's no longer a list.

So again. What's the limit for acceptable net worth?

He can say that because he is a celebrity and nepotism alone will see his kids through in life. Plenty of talentless star kids around making a decent living.

''So again. What's the limit for acceptable net worth?''

not going to go there but Craig is worth excess of 100 million so it's well above the average.

So again. What's the limit for acceptable net worth?'
not going to go there

Why not? That would seem to be important to your argument.

ok I would say anything in excess of 2-3 million. I'm going to get flamed whatever I say here.

nepotism alone will see his kids through in life
Exactly.

I'm going to get flamed whatever I say here.
Not because of any amount you give, but because it becomes apparent when we dig into this that it's not possible/meaningful to give an 'acceptable' amount above which people should be judged, or should behave, differently.

@Balgoresboy

ok I would say anything in excess of 2-3 million. I'm going to get flamed whatever I say here.

Then you might want to stop quoting someone who is worth 10x that😁 Just saying

''Not because of any amount you give, but because it becomes apparent when we dig into this that it's not possible/meaningful to give an 'acceptable' amount above which people should be judged, or should behave, differently.''

it is though, if he is earning 10s of million a year then it puts him on a different level. You can't argue that. It also in my view takes away his right to say money shouldn't just be handed to people when effectively excess amounts have being handed to him.

''Then you might want to stop quoting someone who is worth 10x that😁 Just saying''

Kathleen turner wouldn't be worth 20 million though, just because google says it doesn't mean it's true. Considering her body of work is mostly of bit roles in films, guest stars in tv shows and theatre work along with radio adverts in the last 3 decades she wouldn't be getting the high salaries she criticised.

it is though, if he is earning 10s of million a year then it puts him on a different level.
Different level of income than many, yes, I don't disagree; he earns more than me/a nurse.
But
It also in my view takes away his right to say money shouldn't just be handed to people when effectively excess amounts have being handed to him.

'in my view' is the key phrase here. And money hasn't been 'handed to him', not in the same way as an inheritance is handed to someone; whatever you may think of his job, it is a job nonetheless; he goes to work and gets paid for it.

Kathleen turner wouldn't be worth 20 million though, just because google says it doesn't mean it's true.
Well unless you're DC's financial adviser, I'm guessing your idea of how much money he's got is from Google too.

''Well unless you're DC's financial adviser, I'm guessing your idea of how much money he's got is from Google too.''

perhaps but craig would be much richer than turner as he is alist and was alist at a time when stars are paid much better than in turner's reign. That and his films have sold much better than Turner's so using common sense.

Again, unless you're privy to his financial details, none of us know how much money he may have given away/how much he's actually worth.

Still, all this is fairly pointless as it only means anything if we're identifying and accepting a certain level of (perceived) wealth as the line above which people must be judged differently. Which we can't.