What is fair re:money to grandchildren

[lookinginsidemywindow]

I will start by saying that I am NOT thinking of saying or doing anything about this to my father before I start getting accused of being ungrateful or other stuff, but trying to work out in my head what is fair.

My father started a saving fund for his first granddaughter (my niece) when she first was born. I then had another girl and my father opened a fund for her too with the same amount of money.

My brother has then had 2 more girls and is keen for a boy so there is a chance they will have more. I am not able to have more for various reasons so we will only have her.

I am not sure my father would be able to afford the same amount for all the grandchildren.

Is it fair that he keeps the same amount for mine and divides the rest to cover all the grandchildren from my brother's side, or shall he reduce the money all the grandchildren receive?

I repeat, I will let my father decide what he wants to do and gracefully and gratefully accept his decision.

That still doesn't address the issue of any GC who are born after your death, though.

Some people may say that's fine, as the GP never knew them and didn't have a relationship with them; but I think most people would primarily love them and want to help them along in the world because they are their GC, rather than because of what they feel they 'gave back' to them; thus they wouldn't want to make one or more GC seem inferior, just because they happened to be born later than the others and never got to meet their GP.

If you're going down the route of giving directly to your GC, rather than to your own DC, the only fair way you can guarantee that no more GC will be born - especially if you have any sons - is to say that all of the GC share the pot of money equally only after your own last child has died; by which time the GC will probably be of an age themselves where the inheritance won't make nearly such a difference to them as it would have done in their 20s.

I know they likely hardly need the money, but look at all the famous men who have children when they're in their 70s or even 80s. There's no way that their own parents will still be around to ensure that all of their GC inherit and are treated fairly. I remember seeing an interview with soul singer James Brown, when he was 70 - his oldest DC was 50 and his youngest was 4!

With some of the huge age gaps in children (not even just celebrity men), if you could know and wait until your very last GC had been born before sharing the fund/bequest between them all, you could potentially be leaving money fully intended to give your GC a good start to set up in their young adult lives when some of them are already pensioners!!

Why? If the next generation are well set up it can be a good idea to leave some directly to GC as if you leave it to children and then they leave it to GC it can lose some value due to inheritance tax.

I fully intend to leave money to my GC, some to charity and some to my children. Quite honestly if they don't like it they can decline to accept it. I really don't think there is a "should" to it.

Same amount for each grandchild is fair.

Ever grandchild should get the same amount, whether that’s £1 each or £10,000 each etc.

It’s absolutely nothing to do with how many children you and your DB have, and no, your DD should not get more than her cousins.

Think yourself lucky you’ve got such a generous DF.

I agree with this. Inheritance and savings are totally different. Inheritance is to the children
Savings are specifically to gc.

My mothers Will says her inheritance is split equally between her 4 children. If they predecease her each child's share gets split between that child's children.

So if my sibling with 1 child dies before dm that child gets 1 quarter of her estate.

If my sibling with 2 children dies first his children only get a half of a quarter each.

But if my mother set up savings funds fir all gc they would each get the same.

I find it interesting that in these type of threads people often treat gifts to GC as akin to gifts to the children.

IMO that confuses things and isn’t correct.

Each GC is a person, and each is a relation of their grandparent in their own right.

So OP you are essentially asking should my brother & I be treated the same when it comes to gifts. Therefore my child gets 50% and other kids get 50% spilt. While I completely see the logic, I think the slightly better logic is that your dad gives all his GC the same.

Gifts to you and your brother directly I would hope save for valid reason would be equal.

Do you think your grief at not having more children has been triggered by your brother having 3 and talking of more and the impact it has on daughters gift?

I think your emotions are very understandable .

Don't be daft. All GC get the same if he can't afford it then all GC get it reduced or stopped

They’re keen for a boy? Yack, they must be out of their minds!

WTF? What’s wrong with boys?

I treat all my GC equally. They are all people in their own right, with their own relationships with me, that exist aside from my relationships with their parents. I can't imagine a situation where I would divide what I gave three ways because I have three children meaning those GC with siblings got less. That to me would be grossly unfair.

They grow up into men 😂

Theres no ROI on them compared to girls.

I actually think he needs to reduce the amount being given to the older dc. He may need to do that significantly, or top up the pot of the younger children with lump sums as and when he can.

Otherwise, eventually the oldest will have substantially more just for being older.

Ideally when he dies or on turning 18, his grandchildren should have very similar savings pots.

It’s not the fault of the GC that they have siblings. They should all get the same.

WTAF.

The grandchildren should be treated equally, I think your take on it is a little odd. You and your brother should also receive the same inheritance.

I have one of each, should I start neglecting the boy one as there is no ROI apparently?!

To this this is the most logical way of approaching it. GC are not a limb of their parents, they are people in their own right. So if you have 4/5 GC it doesn’t matter whose kids they are, you simply have 4/5 GC.

I know exactly how I will leave money to all my grandkids and I assure you that it would be equal and fair - same amount to all because I love them as equally.

Someone I know left money to be put in a trust for the benefit of her grandchildren. She died young, and at the time of her death, there was only one grandchild.

I don't know if the will was badly written, or the trust fund wasn't set up properly, but all the money went to the first grandchild and the 3 GCs her younger 2 children subsequently had got nothing. It was invested well, too, and by the time that first grandchild was 21, it was enough for him to buy a house in Brighton with only a 25% mortgage.

Her husband is still alive, and very comfortably off, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if his will did something to try and redress the balance, especially as the first grandchild's mother is absolutely loaded and has a life-limiting illness.

Grandchildren born after the death of a grandchild can’t inherit, that’s madness.

Grandchildren born after the will has been made - easy, include a provision for “all of my grandchildren, including but not necessarily limited to the following…”

But people who didn’t even exist at the point someone dies? Don’t be daft. The estate cannot be sitting in limbo until everyone is through menopause or has had a vasectomy, for goodness sake. The parents can make things “fair” through their share if they feel it needs doing.

I’m not sure what ROI girls bring that boys don’t. I didn’t realise raising kids was an investment TBH

Which is why I personally am in favour of only leaving to your own children.

That way, all grandchildren will eventually inherit whatever is left from their GPs via their parents, with none left out.

I know that it's absurd to expect it to work leaving money to potentially as-yet-unborn GC; but I doubt that most GPs would deliberately want to exclude any of their GC - because they are their GC - even if they don't live long enough to ever meet them.

Money left to the grandchildren will always be theirs. The downside of leaving everything to the next generation is that if they get divorced, their partner can walk away with half the money that you left to your child.

Very good point.

Im sure there are lots of situations where it would make more sense to give money directly to GC.

I’d assume the only way you could look after unborn grandchildren would be a trust. Other than that an estate has to be distributed at a point in time.

Hmm, this is interesting. I know my parents have set up savings accounts for all their grandchildren, and regularly pay into them - no idea how much, might be £10 every week or £10 just on birthdays. I do wonder how the accounts compare, as my eldest brother’s kids are almost adults and mine are the youngest by several years, so I assume that DD (3) has by far the smallest amount in her account, and don’t expect my parents to top hers up to match her 17yo cousin. I’m not sure they could afford to even if they wanted to!