The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing
|Subject: Re: Passing on Assets to Heirs--Goal or Conseque||Date: 11/26/2001 10:12 AM|
|Author: wisenlucky||Number: 32639 of 82314|
I don't understand the positions espoused by jacketfan and decath. Having children is not a requirement. They could have remained childless and used all their funds for their own purpose.
Actually, I understand jacketfan's and decath's positions much better than those who hope to provide so well for their children and grandchildren that they won't have to work.
I don't think that requiring a child to provide (at least partially) for his or her own education is punishment in any way, or that it represents selfishness on the parents' part. Quite the contrary, it would allow the child to start productive life knowing that achievements are worth striving for. How much help to provide is a very personal decision, but I agree with those who hold that the parents' retirement savings must come first. If you want to place a drag on your childrens' lives, just make them have to provide for you in your retirement (spoken from experience as regards my spouse's parents).
As to other funds provided, either financial help beyond an education or providing an inheritance, I am firmly on the side of holding back. I have read too much about how this can actually damage the adult child's ability to provide for themselves. Inherited wealth seems difficult to hold on to, and I think that's because the skills to manage wealth are highly correlated to the skills to obtain it. I would much rather teach a child how to save than to maintain.
Again, just my opinion.
|Copyright 1996-2017 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|