To not be happy to be gifted >1 million pounds

[HiltonKeynes]

Well, I AM happy about it and immensely grateful, but I also struggle with it.

DH's parents are millionaires. Got there through hard work and saving up. However they are of the opinion that 'you can't take it with you' and have transferred us nearly a million to invest in the stock market and buy a house.

DH has struggled with mental health issues and has therefore not done as well in his career as expected. He has been unemployed for years, but never claimed benefits due to his parents' money (and the invested part of it generating additional money). He is now going back to study and hoping to make a change to his life/career. I work fulltime, earning a decent salary in a professional role that I enjoy. We're comfortable but watch our spend.

DH is an only child and is set to inherit more money after his parents eventually pass away.

In-laws are lovely, but have very old-fashioned values around 'hard graft' and saving up. The issue is that they keep making comments like: "How are you going to afford retirement without DH having a pension?" and making negative comments about the amount of money I spend on shampoo etc. I've done the calculations. We're early forties and with the money we have been given/will receive, we could effectively retire in 5 years if we choose to live a modest lifestyle for the rest of our lives (no intention to do this though).

I find the situation very difficult. In-laws' comments about our 'lack of money' don't make any sense and I feel very uneasy about the situation. I'd much rather DH was earning a decent income WITHOUT his parents gifting us any money, but life just hasn't worked out that way. I've tried to confront in-laws about the inconsistency of giving us all this money and simultaneously making these comments but they kind of laugh it off. Only to then, next time, make the same comments again.

What do I do? Just suck it up, or is there another way?

that generation did not splash cash on luxury products in the way we do so it is a cultural difference.

The wealthy have generally always been happy spent their money on luxury products, regardless of generation. Who do you think was buying Dior's New Look in the late 1940s? All the big luxury brands were making good profits throughout the 20th century.

You don't accumulate millions by being frugal, so there's no reason to assume they are frugal people generally.

I don’t know, many of the very wealthy people I’ve known in my life have been extremely frugal, and mean - not the first to buy a round, ancient clothes, clapped out car. They believed ‘conspicuous consumption’ was vulgar

The people in the 40s buying Dior were the uber wealthy, the kind of people who buy it now. Some people do accumulate millions by being astute and frugal, one of my dad’s friends started with nothing and died worth an absolutely staggering amount. Not that you’d have known it from his fourth hand car and second hand golf clubs.

@Inbetweenie993 if you start your own thread, you are much likely to get advice. Click ‘Add thread’ which will let you start your own. Hope you get help, it sounds like a tough situation.

I do find it ironic that someone has posted an ACTUAL problem on this thread, as opposed to OP’s problem, which is basically a stealth brag.

If frugality alone, buying second hand and only buying the cheapest, was enough to accumulate multi-millions, the poor would have a lot of money in the bank. Except they don't.

You actually need to have money in the first place to be able to save it. And one quality pair of shoes (for example) will likely outlast 10 cheap pairs. Second hand cars and golf clubs (which can be good quality regardless of age) are one thing, but wealthy people don't usually buy ultra cheaply at the expense of quality.

The amount of people who are spouting nonsense on how much you can give away and whether tax is payable. No - both sides pay NO tax when the money is transferred. If the giver dies within 7 years and is over the IRT allowance when Probate is applied for tax will be have to be paid. There is tapered relief over the 7 years though.

There is also an issue if for example the givers have to go into care homes and run out of money but that isnt what is being discussed here.

Its property as well that often makes people millionaries especially if they brought in London and stayed there. It definitely helped one parent but half of it went into care costs in the end. If they have only one house then they have to live somewhere and that value only gets released when they either go into care or pass on.

That’s not quite the same as buying Dior, is it? Obviously frugality has to be accompanied by astuteness for large amounts of money to be accumulated.

Given that the ILs have given the money in cash, I don't think this is applicable to them.

But being frugal + astute does not lead to wealth. The money needs to actually come from somewhere - earnings, inheritance, winnings etc.

There are plenty of astute people living frugally in poverty.

For example, someone working for 40 years on an average salary, which they need to spend most of in order to pay rent/bills, is never going to save multi-millions, no matter how much they buy second hand.

Your example was of someone who could afford to play golf! Having second hand clubs might make golf a bit cheaper, but it doesn't make it a sport that's accessible to the poor.

Yes, you’re right and I know nothing. Happy now @TarantinoIsAMisogynist?

My point (which was in response to a different poster) is simply that wealthy =/= frugal.

In fact, wealthy people are more likely than poor people to spend reasonable amounts of money on the things they consider to be quality / worth it, because they are able to. They might be choosy about what they spend on, but that's not the same thing.

Frugal people are more likely to become not seriously wealthy but comfortably off. Both my husband and I come from poor families but studied hard, got good jobs and didnt waste money. We lived a very frugal life when interest rates shot up, we still wouldnt waste money on designer clothes and flash cars.

Some very wealthy people have to have the latest status symbol, others dont. Alan Clark once dismissed his colleague Michael Heseltine as the kind of person "who bought his own furniture". I've always bought my own furniture. 😀

I could brush those comments off for the sake of a million quid.
DH'd mother was a complete bitch to put up with and we got nothing for my trouble 😃

My parents were both teachers, so never earned loads, but have been very frugal and invested carefully. Their "estate" is worth a lot, to the extent that my Dad spends a ridiculous amount of time worrying about inheritance tax which will apparently run into millions. I wish they'd just spend it, but there we are.

Alan Clark once dismissed his colleague Michael Heseltine as the kind of person "who bought his own furniture". I've always bought my own furniture.

@anyolddinosaur That’s interesting, I’ve always equated genuine wealth/financial stability with people who can buy their cars/furniture/houses outright. If you can’t, I assume you’re less well off, even if you’re flashing cash, wearing designer clothes, etc.

I suppose if you’re perceived as really wealthy though, you can get alot of credit without too many questions asked! That’s beyond my life experience. 😂

What it means is that "quality" people don't need to buy furniture because they've inherited a fully furnished stately home.

@Pebblepaint If they have that much excess, perhaps a substantial gift to their children/grandchildren now would make sense, if they’re likely to live another seven years? Or a charitable donation.

If it’s worrying your Dad, they should get some advice now.

@Pebblepaint Ha, ha, that never even occurred to me, that’s well above my pay grade. 🤣

Give to a homeless working family then.

In order for the IHT to run into millions (plural), their estate would need to be huge.

A married couple leaving a joint estate of £6m (including a main residence worth between £1m and £2m), would incur IHT of £2m.

(NRB for residence = £1m, remaining estate £5m x 40% = £2m IHT)

That's some way beyond the level of wealth normally achievable for a couple of 'frugal teachers', unless they have a sideline in bank robbery...

Frugal people are more likely to become not seriously wealthy but comfortably off.

Agree with this.

Frugal people are also much less likely to enter into the kind of high-risk investments which will give the highest potential returns (but also have a higher chance of losing all your money).

All the money came originally from their teaching salaries, neither of their parents left anything. My dad enjoys "dabling" in the stock market (insists the riskiest thing you can do is leave savings in cash because you know that will lose value) and this is what their portfolio is now worth, while they live off their teaching pensions and are still saving from income

Ffs only on mn can a person be gifted a million quid and still have something to moan about. If your pride can’t take the hit then gracefully decline the money and get back to work.