Inheritance to grandchildren bypassing children

[mucky123]

I just wondered if someone could shed some light on why I feel the way I do. It is absolutely none of my business. I freely admit any thoughts about it are unreasonable. If anyone should have anything to say its my bil/sil.

My dh and I are quite comfortable, not interested in an inheritance. We have 3 dc. My Bil not so comfortable but alright. Think they might have a tougher retirement than we do. They have 2 kids.

My ILs. Have some money not loads but are comfortable and very likely to leave readonable inheritance. They intend to leave everything between 5 grandkids. So my kids will get more of the pot than bils. I'm really irritated by this on every front (1) haven't discussed it with their sons, feels like a kick in the teeth for them, (2) gc will be inheriting fairly young. Will this discourage them ftom working, will they piss it up the wall or lose half on an unsuitable marriage, (3) it's like the parents aren't trusted to send the money on to their kids, and (4) it's unfair between brothers as our kids get a bigger slice of pot. That seems unkind to lovely bils family.
Partly also I'd like to be the one to give my kids a house deposit, pay for their wedding etc and this has all gone as they will now have a reasonable inheritance quite early.
I know I'm being unreasonable,

I don't know why people keep saying anybody can leave anything to who they want as if it's a revelation? I mean that's bleedin' obvious, so why say it?

I'm not in this position but in all honesty I would view grandchildren who watched their parents struggle caring for a parent with dementia for sometimes years and happily took the money when that grandparent died knowing that parent couldn't even get a holiday as thanks as very shitty human beings.
They should find some way of giving some to them. It's just the right thing to do.

I would also view the aging parent who let their child struggle taking care of them day in day out with not even a f-ing penny left to them when they die for a nice holiday as completely shitty humans , too.
No matter how much wealth those children had!

In the absence of tax avoidance, who the blazes does this? Mind boggling.

Interestingly, the culture in various European countries agrees with you - by law you have to leave a percentage of your estate to your children there.

Lots do it. If there are step grandchildren for example and they want to ensure it’s not passed to them.

Spoke to a man a while back who thought parents should sell their homes and give the proceeds to their children asap so their kids could have a lovely life. Person was a man - his mother looked after his kids 2 days a week -so he didn't think she'd get dementia because she still had a job looking after his kids and even if she did - she wouldn't need nursing care because it didn't last more than 2 years and even if it did - the social provided homes his mum could be dumped in. And his mum didn't need to have any money anyway because she had nothing to spend it on and he had never heard of any one travelling the world - why would an older person want to do that when they could be so useful to their kids. He had no clue about elderly care - too young to know anyone with elderly parents who needed their kids to look after them - but he was definitely quite vocal about all the things his mother should still be doing to make his life better.

Can I just say - kids or grandkids who expect parents to give up everything for them are shitty and selfish. Older people have a right to a nice life, they have a right to nice holidays, they have a right to use their money to pay for good quality care in their advanced years. What is going on? Every week on here there are posts about how older people don't deserve to live life in comfort because the younger generation is much more deserving! I'm a big fan of assisted dying - at least the the grabbiness of the current generation you could go out with the bang. These threads depress me - I know I should stop reading them.🙄

And also delays the IHT by a couple of generations. If the grandparents' estate added to the parent's estate exceeds the IHT threshold, grandchild will receive the net amount after IHT. But if grandparents estate goes straight to grandchild, it would be received net of a much lower IHT liability (or more likely none), and likewise grandchild will receive net of a much lower IHT liability (or more likely none) from the parent when they die. So the grandchild ends up with two larger net estates rather than one smaller one (due to IHT on the double-counted grandparents estate). Of course, the grandchild(ren) will have a large estate on which IHT would be due when they die, but they likewise could leave to their grandchildren. IHT planning is ALL about the long term and intergenerational wealth transfers.

@QuintadosMalvados

In the absence of tax avoidance, who the blazes does this? Mind boggling.

Firstly, tax planning is rapidly becoming more important and relevant given the freeze in thresholds for many years and the recent IHT changes to both pension pots and business assets.

Secondly, generational wealth planning is more relevant than ever these days because the incidence of "blended families", marriage break ups, divorces, unmarried couples having children, etc. Grandparents (and parents) want their estate to go to who they want it to go to, usually blood relatives, rather than spouses/children of a new relationship (and step children) following a divorce or death of their flesh and blood. Unfortunately, lots of people don't consider making or re-making their wills after a divorce or marriage and/or don't make wills when they enter into a new relationship or co-habiting with a new partner and their family creating a blended family.

Go back a couple of generations and elderly parents were worried about leaving money to their grandchildren in case they spunked the lot of wine (wo)men and song. These days, they're worried their inheritance could end up with the non blood related spouse of their son/daughter who in turn leaves it to their biological children and not the grandchildren of the elderly person.

You are not unreasonable, being bypassed isn't a nice feeling. For good or bad generally speaking many kids anticipate that the second of their parents to die will leave whatever is left, if anything, to them in equal shares. It is human nature to be put out if that doesn't happen.

Even more so if siblings have different numbers of kids and the split is per grandchild.

The grandkids getting it too soon is problematic and can put them off ensuring they set themselves up by working to support themselves.

The most sensible reply on this post.

if they want to leave it to The Dogs Trust or the local church then that’s up to the person writing their will.

No one should expect an inheritance .

I never get the argument that it's unfair if grandchildren inherit over children, more specifically the argument that's its somehow more unfair if the number of grandchildren is un-equal between the sides of the family, it's irrelevant, the money isn't being combined together for each of the families then one sides gets to gloat or have a prize for having more, it's presumably going equally to 5 different individual people, with their own free will and own needs/goals in their lives.

Respectfully, I gave an opinion, not decreed it as law. There is a reason that without a will an inheritance is equally split between the next in line (usually the children) and it is the common sense approach.

My thoughts on passing it to the next generation rather than the one after that have little to do with the money and what would be done with it, after all, if every person skipped a generation, everyone would still get an inheritance just from a different stage of the process.

My mum has been told by both me and my sibling to spend the lot enjoying herself, and she has been. The only thing I asked her is that she leave us the house, but that is for sentimental reasons, and I did tell her that if she wanted or needed the money (so had considered selling her home) that I would just buy it from her so she had the money but lived in it. If anything is left to my sibling and I then we will choose how much and when our children receive it, so that we can help support their life goals in the right way. I’ve seen people in their late teens and 20s be given huge sums of money and it impact their lives for the worse long term, so handling these things together is better.

But, I say this as someone who has every intention on financing their child’s house deposit via personal assets, so it’s not like they will miss out on a help in life.

What I do worry about is that the generations who plan to skip their children with inheritance giving because they ‘dont need it’, may not fully understand the difference in pensions across the generations. Their children may look financially sound, but could be struggling.

anyway, personal preference, not law, and also not being awful when it comes to money. Thanks

Not all families are so uncommunicative.

Yeah… it’s perfectly possible to have happy, functional, communicative family relationships and for in-laws to understand they have no business suggesting what people do with their own money. The two are not mutually exclusive.