Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

What does fairness look like to you in this scenario?

840 replies

JonahAndTheMinnow · 16/10/2023 19:34

Parent 1 and parent 2 have been married for a long time and have four adult children. They’ve recently sold an asset and want to share £300k amongst their children.

All children are aged between 35 and 48.

Child A - Eldest child. Married with grown-up children who live independently. Mortgage cleared recently. Household income isn’t very high and they don’t have much of a pension pot so will likely rely on state pension and likely work to full retirement age.

Child B - Was a very young single parent. Their child is now grown up and B has a partner. They live together in B’s house (bought by B’s parents) and B has no mortgage. B is a very low earner with no personal pension and will rely on state pension and work until full retirement age. Their job is tough and very physically demanding and working to 65+ will be a challenge.

Child C - Has two children (teens) in full time education, one with severe physical disabilities who will never live independently. C can’t work due to caring needs. Her husband works and he has a pension which should see them both live a modest but comfortable retirement. Child is in receipt of disability benefits. C and her husband have about 4 years left on their mortgage. Monthly payment is low on a house worth over £500k, thanks to generous gifts from parents, but they’ll never be able to downsize as it’s custom built to meet needs of disabled child. They have a lot of additional costs linked to their child- physio, need for a vehicle that can meet their needs rather than a cheap run-around etc.

Child D - Youngest child. Vey high earner married to a very high earner. No children. High mortgage costs on a large home but will clear in next five years. Own several investment properties and an holiday home outright. D and spouse will retire early with significant pensions. Current unmortgaged assets valued in the millions and had an inheritance from spouse’s parents of £600k in 2020.

Parent 1 wants to split the money between children A, B, and C so they’ll each have £100k. 1 thinks they need the money more than D and it’s a life changing opportunity for them whereas it’s not for D. 1 thinks that treating people fairly doesn’t always mean treating people equally and circumstances have to be taken into account.

Parent 2 wants to split the money equally between all 4 giving them £75k each. 2 believes that all children in the family should be treated equally, regardless of their current position.

What do you think?

OP posts:
MsCactus · 20/10/2023 21:36

Parent 2 is right

Blue444 · 20/10/2023 22:17

Treat all children equally....always. even if they say they don't mind. They can then do what they like with their share. Very fair

LimePi · 21/10/2023 00:31

OP, are you sure you’ll never have children?
also I’m sorry to sound morbid, but if you do things happen and children may not be healthy… or things happen to adults too and they may not be able to continue their jobs
with this in mind, it’s fairer for you to have the same share, and then gift it (eg via trust) or leave it as part of inheritance to your siblings or their children

Sugarfree23 · 21/10/2023 00:38

Parent 2. You don't know what the future holds for D.

Sugarfree23 · 21/10/2023 01:15

Op I've gone back and read your updates.

I can see why your mum is upset. She doesn't want you to feel pressured into giving up your share.

Your only 35 you might still have a baby.

Take your share invest wisely and you can leave your estate to your niblings eventually.

WoodenBlinds · 21/10/2023 01:59

Has to be equal as anyone can lose, or gain, anything - including life - overnight.

D could hitch up with a ready made family or lose everything financially. A,B or C could win the lottery tomorrow.

Life is a long time. I lost everything in the space of one year and could never have seen that one coming. I’ve been child D, and pitching it against everyones current circumstances is a mistake.

IncomingTraffic · 21/10/2023 08:05

ilovemydogmore · 19/10/2023 12:33

for those still arguing

I really wish people would stop posting this nonsense.

In this situation they can all already see the bloody game (they all have houses and pensions and such like). So it’s not ‘equity’, it’s choosing to give more based on how ‘deserving’ you think they are.

The cartoon is also over simplified. Even if we are talking about an equitable outcome - everyone can see - there are different ways to achieve this. And they may be more or less ‘fair’.

For example, one way to ensure they could all see would be to remove the fence entirely. Or lower it so everyone can see over it. No need to give anyone more than the others. You can do one thing and they all achieve the same outcome for everyone. Equality is actually possible in that scenario. But the cartoonist wants to frame the argument about equity as giving people more than others.

Equity needs to be considered in relations to specific outcomes. It’s not some free floating thing separate from specific circumstances. None of the OP’s siblings are destitute or close to it. They’re all currently in reasonable, stable financial situations. Some siblings have already had additional help because of specific challenges to get to that position.

But the OP just has more money and lots of people on MN really don’t like it when people are wealthy. The siblings here have been allocated different sized boxes by their parents. They can all already see the game. There’s more boxes available though and some MNers think they should be unevenly allocated just because someone is short - regardless that they can already comfortable see.

Flufferz · 21/10/2023 09:13

Well done parent 1… punish child 4 for working hard and being successful 🤦🏼‍♀️

Koalasparkles · 21/10/2023 10:46

Parent 2 is right. Parent 1 is making judgements on their children's life choices and situations and who knows what's round the corner for child D. They could also have a disabled child, become unemployed through illness etc. It's just that they're younger and haven't had kids yet. Plus not splitting equally will just sow resentment between the children. If child D chooses to give their share to the other 3 siblings that would be their choice. The parents could even say to D when dividing the money - "we know that you're better off than your siblings, but it wouldn't be right to treat you all unfairly. What you do with the money is up to you"?

Btw how well off is your family?!! 😅 hard choices ey?

Finlesswonder · 21/10/2023 10:54

Why are you overthinking this? Take your share, add it to your pot, one day you might fall on hard times or your parents will be gone and your siblings might be in trouble, pay it forward then.

Your siblings have already had more than most people ever get

carduelis · 21/10/2023 12:06

Your siblings have already had more than most people ever get

Also - 75K is such a vast amount that really, who’s going to be bitter about “only” getting £75K rather than £100K?!

Jojofjo44 · 21/10/2023 16:58

Didn't read all the circumstances, they're irrelevant, parent 2 is correct, equal shares between the 4.

Callmesleepy · 25/10/2023 20:41

If you really don't need it could you spend it on a big family get together? Use it for quality time as that's obviously what matters most to all of you.

Grantanow · 02/11/2023 11:32

Equal shares otherwise storing up resentment.

1mabon · 05/11/2023 23:32

Divide equally.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page