Should inheritance always be split equally amount children?

[Purpleturtle45]

Should you always split inheritance equally between children or should you adjust it according to their individual circumstances like their income and whether they will get inheritance from their in-laws etc?

YANBU-equally is the only fair way
YANBU-take circumstances into account and adjust accordingly

When you don't split equally you are essentially showing your judgement on your children lives and relationship.

If you split equally but children have different circumstances then it is your children bringing their own judgement to your actions.

My youngrt brother has high level special needs and so I have always assumed that I will not be getting the lions share of the inheritance and it doesn't bother me and because of this I don't generally feel entitled to any. However, if I found out that my other brother got more than I did (he stayed closer to home and had kids) I would feel a bit annoyed and sad.

I think if one child is extremely wealthy and the inheritance would not be appreciated or notice so whilst the other child was on a normal income then yes I would talk to the wealthy child about changing the will to less than 50%.

circumstances do change but if you are leaving £250k and one child has a net worth of £5m and the other £15k then it’s hard to imagine the richer siblings circumstances changing that much.

What’s equal isn’t always fair. If I had a disabled child the lions share will be going to them. M

Im a farmer. Splitting our assets equally will destroy our business. One child will get the main business and we will work hard to give the others something.

I also think work ethic comes into it and leading a good life. As Dave Ramsey said if I misbehave then I’d expect not to see my name in a will. By that I mean drugs or a complete inability to manage money. Again, my vision is skewed by the farm but there is no way the family farm is going to the sibling that has lived above their means for 40 years, not worked for 20 of those and frittered away precious small inheritances.

Should still be equal. One child shouldn't be punished for doing better in life. It's not just about the money anyway.

Agreed.

Equally. The world is unpredictable, bad luck, good luck, hard work sometimes prevails, sometimes bad things happen. But my love and choices for my kids will always be equal and i would never make a choice that puts that into question. I can't control their experiences in life but i can control consistency of my choices and actions.

Harry is hoping so.

I think it depends on the circumstances. For example, my neighbour gave up his job, his social life and in the end his freedom to take care of his parents until they died. His sibling got to go out into the world, build a career and start a family. When their parents died my neighbour inherited everything. Both were fine with this.

And the in-laws might end up spending years in a care home, in which case there'd be very little left!

A member of my family left different amounts to the children and it caused such a problem. Leave it equally, you never know what might happen in the future.

In an ideal world equally.

But if your parent is not doing this, surely the more important thing, as an adult, is to accept that they are not obliged to, it’s not the law, and it’s their decision.

Try to focus on the relationship with your family, which at the end of the day is worth more than money hopefully?

From the perspective of someone with a disabled sibling who will likely need a lot of care in older age ( he’s completely independent now but it will get worse) I would rather my parents reflected that in the will and left a lot more to him, They say I can always vary the will in his favour but I feel that may affect our relationship as he would feel beholden to me. And even if I kept the money I would feel pretty shit going on holiday while he’s living in a hovel so I’d end up spending it on him but it would be harder for him to accept it.

i also think caring for parents in old age should be reflected and the other siblings who get shitty about that should take their share and go buy themselves some perspective.

Still equal. The likelihood is the disabled person has already received more funds in general help. I would consider what is classed as disabled.

Even when the children's circumstances are wildly different?

My late DP was one of four (he predeceased his mother).

Sibling 1 has 3 children and she and her husband are millionaires several times over.

Sibling 2 is comfortably off and her PILs are very comfortably off, so there will be inheritance from that side, and has one child.

Sibling 3 has never earned more than average, was married to a woman who spent money like water and his only asset is a 25% share in the house he lives in with his partner. He has two children, both of whom have health issues that severely impact their earning potential.

If MIL had significant wealth/assets, would it really be fair for them all to get the same? She lives in a council house, but even if she owned it, it wouldn't amount to much more than £300k. Sibling 1 wouldn't even notice an extra £100k, but it would make a huge difference to Sibling 3 and, ultimately, his children.

Always equally.

Equally.

Sibling 1 - working full time from age 16, has own mortgaged home, 2 children with various paid for hobbies and now both working themselves (aged mid/late teens) ie family with a work ethic! Communicates daily with parents, arranges lunches together and generally shows in interest in parents life.

Sibling 2 - reduced hours as much as possible from the birth of their first child to claim UC top ups/get as much free child care as possible. Sold their mortgaged home at the worst time and made a loss because ' they didn't like it'. Bounced around rentals and finally got into social housing. Regularly doesn't pay important bills to put the money towards socialising (getting pissed multiple times a week with their friends) neither child of this Sibling has had any kind of job (also mid/late teens), No communication with parents outside of pre arranged visits organised by Sibling 1.

Arguably Sibling 2 would benefit more from a larger share of any inheritance but that would be punishing Sibling 1 for 'doing the right thing ' all of their life and trying not to burden anyone. Sibling 1 will invest money if possible and try to make it go further for the next generation, there will be house deposits/money towards existing houses and lump sums for weddings , help with child care costs etc.
Sibling 2 will spend, spend, spend. The children will probably get a few amazing holidays out of it. Within a few years their situation will be exactly as it was pre inheritance.

Arguably, favouring the child that 'has less' will always be a lose, lose situation. Generally speaking (not including disability etc) the child with less has less for a reason, no work ethic, spending issues, alcoholism, drugs etc. Handing them a large chunk of money/estate won't suddenly better their life.

Equally.
Although I could understand parents leaving more to a disabled child but even at that it needs careful consideration.
Often that would just mean their benefits get cut until the inheritance is used up so really they don't benefit from it.

Equally, the exception being a disability. Inheritance often feels like love, it’s not worth the damage to sibling relationships to try to “even” things up, plus peoples circumstances change.

They were brought into the world, brought up and educated the same.

The decisions they make as adults is down to them. One adult child's choices over another should not be favoured by the parents.

Equally, assuming all ACs are in contact with their parents. A different situation if one/more has gone NC

Equally. I witnessed a close family blown to bits over one sibling inheriting everything.

Equally regardless of circumstances. Inheritance shouldn’t be conditional. And any decent parent should use said ‘inheritance’ to relieve the caring role of any ‘exhausted’ children while they are still alive.

My Mum has given half of her business to my sister, because I've already got a business with DH. It really pisses me off, to be honest. Just because I've worked hard and done well, it feels like a punishment. I'm not going to be surprised if my sister also gets mums house. DH and I have made wills and our 3 DC get equal shares and are all joint executors of the wills.

I think it depends on the circumstances.
if you are an aristocrat, with a family estate, etc, then usually the eldest son gets the lot, or most of it. The daughters used get a payout when they got married.....
If you are a farmer, with a set amount of land, I would leave the bulk to the person who was the most interested in carrying on the farm, which I hope would be identified by then.
Otherwise, circumstamces can easily change, so I would divide equally between them all (which is exactly how I have set out my will).
If one has a good job, why punish them for working hard, and leave less.
The only real way is to leave equally.
If one person is doing all the 'elderly' care, then maybe a bit extra, but most of anything could be used up in Care Home fees by the time of the death, so again this could be problematical.

Absolutely it should be equal between the children. It sounds like Sib3 has made some poor choices in terms of career and marriage, which they shouldn’t be rewarded for.

Like lots of PPs, I’d say it would’ve different if one sibling was disabled and thus less well off through no fault of their own.