HAHAHAHA I wish
My Mom is going leave me with between $20,000-$30,000 of debt
HAHAHAHA I wish
My Mom is going leave me with between $20,000-$30,000 of debt
Dumb parents wrote:
HAHAHAHA I wish
My Mom is going leave me with between $20,000-$30,000 of debt
You can't be left with debt from another person.
killermike wrote:
Dumb parents wrote:
HAHAHAHA I wish
My Mom is going leave me with between $20,000-$30,000 of debt
You can't be left with debt from another person.
Credit cards are unsecured debt. Offspring do not have to pay their parents outstanding credit card debts. How do you think you are going to assume ownership of your parents real estate without either paying off the mortgage, lump sum or making payment arrangement to pay off the mortgage?
My kids are going to be in their late 50s or 60s before I am ready to go (based on general life expectancy since none of us ever get to know). Hopefully they are going to have successful, secure lives of their own and maybe there are people who could get more value out of that money.
Parents give an awful lot to their kids while they are alive. Usually more than the children will ever know. I promise you that you will never fully appreciate your parents while they are alive.
Sometimes a series of unforeseen events can completely wipe someone out. Declining health both physical and mental brings a hefty toll. One which nobody can ever truly anticipate.
Don’t be too quick to judge.
Even the most carefully laid plans can fail and its pointless to try and lay blame. You’ll only cause unnecessary grief.
This is where the concept of “respect for the dead” comes in. No matter how horrible someone was, when they’re dead you should let them rest.
you can't take it with you wrote:
some don’t even have that wrote:
This is gross, but a lot of people don’t even have “a few hundred K left” when they pass. A lot of people are just that bad at life.
What were these people planning to do if they lived a few years longer. Seems shortsighted.
There are people who will work until they die or are physically no longer able to because they can't afford not to. In the latter case they'll live on Social Security for their remaining time. My grandmother had nothing but Social Security. She lived with one of her daughters. When she dies the Social Security stopped. None of her kids got a cent. In some cases whatever they had will be eaten up by end of life medical costs. If they go into a home or have some kind of intense, extended care, Medicare will pay for it. But in such cases once the person dies the government claims anything and everything they have left.
My mum's had round the clock care for years that Medicare has paid for. She actually has a bit of money, emphasis here on "bit." We use that for things related to her care that Medicare doesn't cover, which really isn't much. But when she goes any of what's left will go to the government. My sister and I won't get a cent.
EntitledShhiiittts wrote:
Did the first two posters collaborate to build the most obnoxious and most millennial thread of the day?
No millennial thinks of a few hundred K as being poor unless they're born rich. We can't make that much money in a damn decade.
I'm a believer in providing opportunity to my kids, not supporting them their whole lives. If I die before they reach the age of 18, they will get enough from my life insurance to ensure they have every opportunity they need to succeed. If I survive longer than that, I don't see the need to pamper adults. If you raise your kids correctly, they won't need or even want money when you pass.
Strangely, my brother and I both feel this way, but my sister doesn't. She wants a big inheritance. She's 50. How old do you have to be before you stop looking for handouts from other people and go do something for yourself?
It's honestly embarrassing how our society largely accepts treating your grown children like children.
If I had children I wouldn't leave them any money. I think it may be upsetting for your parent to die and you receiving a bunch of money. It could lead to something bad.
When my dad died I did get some money, but I wish I didn't.
My grandfather was very wealthy. Then in his 70’s he hooked up with a 25-year-old who subsequently took him to the cleaners to the tune of several $M. (And no, she was neither smart or pretty, and rarely sober.) He won’t be leaving anything to my dad or my uncle or aunt because there ain’t nothing left to leave. I’m happy to say my parents are still together and will be leaving me a pile. I’m even happier to say I won’t be needing it.
UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:
I'm a believer in providing opportunity to my kids, not supporting them their whole lives. If I die before they reach the age of 18, they will get enough from my life insurance to ensure they have every opportunity they need to succeed. If I survive longer than that, I don't see the need to pamper adults. If you raise your kids correctly, they won't need or even want money when you pass.
Strangely, my brother and I both feel this way, but my sister doesn't. She wants a big inheritance. She's 50. How old do you have to be before you stop looking for handouts from other people and go do something for yourself?
It's honestly embarrassing how our society largely accepts treating your grown children like children.
It's not so much about needing the money for support. It's more a matter of building intergenerational wealth. My family going back generations has consisted mostly of middle class professionals, but our assets have grown little by little one generation after another. I'm going to try to pass on a little more than I received to my kids. Not because I think they need to be pampered, but because I benefited from it and I see it as somewhat of a duty to pass it along.
It's not really about needing the money to function day to day. I live off of my personal earnings and largely ignore the fact that I have a sizable chunk of money available to me. But having some modest wealth gives me two things. The first is the security to take risks that I otherwise couldn't. I've never had to fall back on my safety net, but just knowing that it is there gives me freedom. I'm not looking for my kids to live an easy life and drive fancy cars while doing nothing, but I do want them to be able to take business risks and bet on themselves. And if I really raise them right, that's what having a little bit of money will allow them to do.
The second (and more important to me) is the ability to actually change things in the world when I want to, if only on a relatively small scale. For example, when a free healthcare clinic in my hometown was facing some real financial hardship, I was able to donate enough money to ensure that they wouldn't have to close their doors or cut back on services. I don't spend lavishly on myself (I drive a Nissan and we live in a relatively small, plain house), but being able to throw money around on things I believe in and care about is an indescribable blessing.
TL;DR I'm in favor of building intergenerational wealth and "family money" doesn't have to just be about giving idiot kids the means to live the playboy lifestyle.
not credit cards but ... wrote:
killermike wrote:
You can't be left with debt from another person.
Credit cards are unsecured debt. Offspring do not have to pay their parents outstanding credit card debts. How do you think you are going to assume ownership of your parents real estate without either paying off the mortgage, lump sum or making payment arrangement to pay off the mortgage?
Okay, but that's not a net amount of debt. When you say "I'm going to be left with debt," most people are going to think you are saying the debt outweighs the assets. That's like if I gave you a million dollar house with a $50,000 mortgage, would you tell people that I left you with $50k in debt? Maybe you would, but most wouldn't.
family money wrote:
UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:
I'm a believer in providing opportunity to my kids, not supporting them their whole lives. If I die before they reach the age of 18, they will get enough from my life insurance to ensure they have every opportunity they need to succeed. If I survive longer than that, I don't see the need to pamper adults. If you raise your kids correctly, they won't need or even want money when you pass.
Strangely, my brother and I both feel this way, but my sister doesn't. She wants a big inheritance. She's 50. How old do you have to be before you stop looking for handouts from other people and go do something for yourself?
It's honestly embarrassing how our society largely accepts treating your grown children like children.
It's not so much about needing the money for support. It's more a matter of building intergenerational wealth. My family going back generations has consisted mostly of middle class professionals, but our assets have grown little by little one generation after another. I'm going to try to pass on a little more than I received to my kids. Not because I think they need to be pampered, but because I benefited from it and I see it as somewhat of a duty to pass it along.
It's not really about needing the money to function day to day. I live off of my personal earnings and largely ignore the fact that I have a sizable chunk of money available to me. But having some modest wealth gives me two things. The first is the security to take risks that I otherwise couldn't. I've never had to fall back on my safety net, but just knowing that it is there gives me freedom. I'm not looking for my kids to live an easy life and drive fancy cars while doing nothing, but I do want them to be able to take business risks and bet on themselves. And if I really raise them right, that's what having a little bit of money will allow them to do.
The second (and more important to me) is the ability to actually change things in the world when I want to, if only on a relatively small scale. For example, when a free healthcare clinic in my hometown was facing some real financial hardship, I was able to donate enough money to ensure that they wouldn't have to close their doors or cut back on services. I don't spend lavishly on myself (I drive a Nissan and we live in a relatively small, plain house), but being able to throw money around on things I believe in and care about is an indescribable blessing.
TL;DR I'm in favor of building intergenerational wealth and "family money" doesn't have to just be about giving idiot kids the means to live the playboy lifestyle.
A couple things:
1. I really don't understand this "duty." If I have raised my kids and provided a quality education to them, I don't see how it follows that I have a duty to also leave them money. I think donating it to an effective charity is far better, and if we are simply looking at it from some sort of deontological perspective, I don't really see where this duty comes from.
2. The idea of intergenerational wealth sound good, but the sheer numbers make it unfeasible for most people over the long haul. If I have two or three kids, and they have two or three kids who have two or three kids, pretty quickly we are looking at 8-27 offspring in just three generations. One would have to have a LOT of money to make a real difference in intergenerational wealth when we are talking about dozens of people.
My father is a millionaire, but it's because he lived very modestly his entire life.
He drives a Buick Encore and lives in a 110k house. My family has a small cottage in Naples as well.
But they at least have a stable retirement for now.
My own worth isn't much (above 75k in total assets) but I have no debt. I drive a 2007 Corolla with 282k miles. The key is to live like you make 30k a year even if you make double that salary. My apartment is a 288 sq. ft. effiency at $569 a month.
this is merica. what, you some sort of commie always livin off welfare? the merican dream is to work hard for your own loot, not expect to sponge off your mommy and daddy like you was a brojo. we needs 100% tax on inheritance.
Well, if my kids grow up to be responsible adults and I trust that they will use the money better than my favorite charity, then I will leave it to them. If not, they will get nothing. I honestly hope that I can leave my money to my kids, but I don't feel an obligation to do so.
Because they should work their rear off for it just as the parents did, entitled millennial.
You're young or trust fund wrote:
not even that rich wrote:
It's devastatingly sad that people don't have a few hundred K to their name when they die. It either means they died tragically young or they were really bad at saving.
Most people are just getting by. Only app. 70% of U.S. adults over age 30 have a BA/BS. Most college graduates are not wealthy. App. a third of non-four year college graduates are doing okay. If your world is the top one percent, think what you can do to make the world better for others.
You don't need to have a college degree or be in the "top 1%" to save properly for retirement. Not even close.
yawn yawn at troll troll wrote:
not even that rich wrote:
It's devastatingly sad that people don't have a few hundred K to their name when they die. It either means they died tragically young or they were really bad at saving.
or maybe they were really good at life and had a great time, had good friends, and didn't waste their time on earth on trivial pursuits like wealth accumulation or trolling an incel message board on a Friday night.
you seem to be tragically bad at trolling, I hope you are better at savey savings. everyone likes the saver.
Let me guess:
1. You're poor due to bad savings habits.
2. You don't actually have "a great time with great friends" because you spend lots of time here.
3. You're embarrassed about #1-2 and have to insult responsible people to cope with this.