Intergenerational wealth, how is it done?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Byron
  • Start date Start date
mmm....shiney! said:
The concept of encouraging your children to build their own future and their own wealth rather than using yours is one that is based on a notion of egalitarianism - that is, every one should be given an opportunity to prove themselves and no one should have an advantage over another. We don't live in an egalitarian world - and nor should we.
Click to expand...

No the reasoning has nothing to do with egalitarianism (well at least not in my case).
It is about raising children to be self motivated and self disciplined.

If they are provided a deposit for a house and don't have to be self disciplined to save for it themselves, how will they be disciplined enough to pay the loan ?

I'd rather help kids buy a house by providing a low interest loan once they prove they are disciplined enough to save the deposit.
Also would keep money out of bankers hands - just a bonus :lol:
 
trew said:
mmm....shiney! said:
The concept of encouraging your children to build their own future and their own wealth rather than using yours is one that is based on a notion of egalitarianism - that is, every one should be given an opportunity to prove themselves and no one should have an advantage over another. We don't live in an egalitarian world - and nor should we.
Click to expand...

No the reasoning has nothing to do with egalitarianism (well at least not in my case).
It is about raising children to be self motivated and self disciplined.
Click to expand...


Yes, egalitarianism probably is not your motive, but it is with most of society. A lot of people resent others getting handouts from families, it is viewed either as a weakness or old world.

trew said:
If they are provided a deposit for a house and don't have to be self disciplined to save for it themselves, how will they be disciplined enough to pay the loan ?
Click to expand...

You can't answer questions about self-discipline if it is in the future, you can only speculate. If your premise were true, then there'd be no such thing as mortgage stress.

trew said:
I'd rather help kids buy a house by providing a low interest loan once they prove they are disciplined enough to save the deposit.
Also would keep money out of bankers hands - just a bonus :lol:
Click to expand...

A house that has no debt ensures the money is not in the hands of the banksters. Bugger the giving kids money for a deposit, it'd be my plan to leave each of them a house or some form of RE that they haven't had to drum up the deposit for and pay the repayments. Saving the deposit on a house and paying off a mortgage is not a prerequisite for living a proper life. It is the only road open to most, I'm going to skirt that road and take them down the highway.

This will help free up their capital that they earn for investing in other areas - where they will have plenty of opportunity to prove their self-discipline. ;)
 
Henry Ford famously said he owed everything to some simple advice his father gave him: "Son, I'm giving you a million dollars. Don't lose it".

The only gift I know to give that makes a difference to children is love, education and self-reliance. If you give that then wealth is secondary to a fulfilled life.
 
I do agree that education is an important part.. Also the exposure and explanation of why one does something helps the understanding process.. My parents brought me to every property negotiation and deals done.. I could be playing my nitendo in the back and joining in when I was older but was always around listening in the back ground.. The physical presence of being around helped me grow in my experiences rather then just being left at home and thrown into the "real" world after uni..

Cheers,
Jragon
 
Teaching your children self-reliance is an elusive thing. Upbringing is crucial. My parents had very little education yet they made enough of a fortune to pass it on to their children. Some of my siblings have made more, some less...all with advanced degrees. There is no magic formula. And there is always one bad apple in the bunch...who presumably got the same upbringing and education.
 
here's a question regarding this topic which one of you smart chaps might be able to expand on....My brother in law (a complete bum-head) has just separated from his wife & kids and they aim to be divorced promptly. He has been a bum head of a very long time now and finally my sister in law has seen the light. Anyhow, she tells us that she knows she'll have to split up the assets they have ie: house, investments, cash in accordance to the settlement however her dad has a trust set up which spreads out across all his 4 of his kids (my wife being one of them BTW) What is this bum head entitled to if he chases down that pathway to get hold of her dads trust fund? It's actually a trust fund and not really her dads trust fund more like a family trust fund.

Any ideas are welcomed. She doesn't want to see a lawyer due to the fees involved but most likely will. It's good to have some in-put before she meets up with him due to his fees which will get out of control. :rolleyes:
 
Generally speaking when it comes to family law, trusts do not provide asset protection unfortunately.
 
'Doesn't want to see a lawyer' ..... then tell her to bend over and grab her ankles.

She MUST have a competant lawyer on her side, there is no other alternative unfortunately. As much as i would like the system to be fair and reasonable, it's not! She needs good advice, fast.

My Divorce Lawyer was one of the most 'expensive' in the town I live in, he saved many multiples of that fee in the long run. I paid my ex, and still have more to pay at some point, but when divorcees gather to tell war stories, mine is one of the better ones.

I can't stress how inportant a 'good' lawyer will be for your sister in the coming months, yes, agreed, they are parasite scum, but being shafted by someone elses 'good' lawyer is a whole lot worse!

ok, [end] well meaning rant

Slight upside. Kids in the equation change a lot of the paramaters, but general rule, if she can prove the asset value at the start of their marriage or relationship, usually only the asset appreciation after that point in time is considered a joint asset. Not always the case, but a good start point to get the bargaining rolling.

Without a family court ruling on the settlement, either party can come back for another bite of the cherry in the future at any time, any agreement between the two without a court ruling is pretty much meaningless. She needs a family court settlement, and for that, she needs a lawyer.
 
From what I've witnessed-

One generation puts in all the hard work and makes all the sacrifices to build an empire.

The next generation could see how hard it was and probably had to become involved to make it work so they appreciate their wealth and at least manage to maintain it.

The next generation gets everything handed to them on a platter. For them, money grows on trees and they squander it.

The unfortunate part is that the generation that loses the wealth quite often have the same qualities that were needed to build the empire in the first place.. There's no need for them to reach their full potential so they never do.

C
 
Contrarian said:
...
The next generation gets everything handed to them on a platter. For them, money grows on trees and they squander it.
...
Click to expand...

I hear the Rothschild family have been doing better and better with each generation... I wonder how they do it?
 
yennus said:
Contrarian said:
...
The next generation gets everything handed to them on a platter. For them, money grows on trees and they squander it.
...
Click to expand...

I hear the Rothschild family have been doing better and better with each generation... I wonder how they do it?
Click to expand...

I've heard one strategy is to make wealth skip a generation. So if you work hard and make a lot of $ you don't give it to your kids other than to help them start off on the right foot. Then when the grandkids come to a working adult age you give your wealth to them (after they've already learned to put the nose to the grind stone). The alternating generational wealth creation and the delayed inheritance keeps it moving forward over many generations. On the other hand if you allow the money to flow in a linear direction father to son to grandson to great grandson you get the lazy silver spoon fed kids who often develop self-esteem issues trying to live up to granddad or dad. Is this true? I have no idea but someone explained it to me like this and it makes sense.
 
Contrarian said:
The next generation gets everything handed to them on a platter. For them, money grows on trees and they squander it.
Click to expand...

If set up correctly the trust will not allow them to do this.
 
The authors of "The Millionnaire Next Door" Stanley and Danko found that immigrant groups that were under-represented as a proportion of the total population, tended to be over-represented as a proportion of the total number of millionaires in the US. The longer the group remains in the US though, the less likely they will be disproportionally represented:

In general, the longer the average member of an ancestry group has been in America, the more likely he or she will become fully socialized to our high-consumption lifestyle.
Click to expand...

The top 3 ancestral groups (1990 census)? Israeli, Latvian and Australian.
 
Where did the initial post that started this thread go? At this date the 1st post is mine and this definitely isn't my thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top