MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Roman Rockafella leave all his money to his kids?

Katie-Kat-Kins

I also like Peter Jones idea.

I think there are other options too though, the trust fund could pay out without question for educational fees so that no loans are needed for university.

Perhaps it could also pay out for the purchase of a first home, say a sum equivalent to the average current house price so that the child can be mortgage free or have a better house for the mortgage they can get.

Perhaps a lump sum upon other special events, a lump sum for marriage, to help the child set pay for a wedding or set up home with his or her spouse. And a lump sum upon the birth of a child that would automatically start a new trust fund towards that child's education.

debtfreein4years

Id say that he would be best bringing up his child(ren) in an average house with an average lifestyle. That in my opinion would teach them the best lessons in life rather than paying over the odds for them to go to private school and socialise with some spolied brats (not all are but the some definetly are). Or I would say trust fund that they can only get when 30 but on the provision that they have either gone to uni and got a job and held the job for x number of years or if they go straight to work and have held the job for x numbe of years.

I personally beleive it would be better for the child not to know that they have a trust fund but should be told that its all going to charity, that way they arent expecting anything and if they do get left anything then it will be a nice surprise for them.

AllysonH

Rockafella should be careful not to turn his children into brats because of his hard earned cash & he should put in his will that they get a small amount if he dies when they are youngish to help them, with larger amounts when they are 25 - 30 years old, but they have to earn their own money - he should hopefully get them interested in business asap & if they've got his strengths they will make their own fortune & they could even set up charitable foundations that would benefit from the Rockafella fortune. Of course they wouldn't miss a million for little old me!

starbump

The bulk should obviously go to his spouse if the kids were young but if they were older, I see no reason not to split the estate between them and his wife (assuming she did not pre-decease him). Not having money clearly does not give you a work ethic - otherwise you wouldn't have people happy to live off state benefits for their entire lives. Thus, in reverse, having money should not prevent you from having a work ethic.

ratkin

Surely his children will cope with the money in the manner they've been brought up in. If he's raised his offspring to be unappreciative of money, then they're more likely not to respect its value. However, if he's tried to give them an understanding of financial matters then they're more likely to be responsible. The only problem with that is if he dies young!

purplegaily

It's a lagre enough estate that it will have to have sensible administrators(!)

Give the kids something to start them on their way - after you've paid for education and weddings etc, then trust fund their share of it until they are either a set age - or deemed responsible enough.

I am assuming that the relevant parts of his estate have already been made over to his favourite fluffy animal sanctuary.

I'll go for drink with the kids - especially if young and male!!!! :beer:

GhostRider_2

I say give them the lot. Allow them to kick back and chilax. Eat, drink and be merry. Life is short so why spend so much of it working and getting stressed. If they have been raised correctly then they'll probably stay on the rails anyway and if they don't thats fine too. Most of the people we really admire have never been anywhere near the rails.

It not even that much money if you think about it. A few nice houses accross the world, a few ferraris, a large yaght, private jet and a self indulgent lifestyle will soon see £250m go. After all that life experience they will have no trouble making money. Chances are they will become another celebrity who has absolutley no talent other than knowing how to party. So like I say, why be a cog in a machine when you could design your own machine.

Hayesaver

I think Id just give them the money. Maybe they could only get their hands on the money when they hit 21, so they would be at a more mature age and wouldnd spend it all in one go. If they do go mad and blow it all then its their own stupid faults and I think that would be a much better lesson to learn! The hard way!

Oooooooo! Why havent I got a mega rich Dad???!!!!

ElizabethJH

Idiophreak wrote: »

I think I'm gonna be alone here, but I'd just give them the lot.

Not quite the lot, but I think if I had the money I would want my children to discover life through travelling and socialising rather then having to work!?

Trust funds seems the sensible approach... but with a fair whack of money to enjoy at each milestone!! I think I would actually be a nicer person for not working and having the stress, having to cope with the hierarchy and ridiculous rules of a company.... but that'd be thanks to my wonderful parents!!

pineapple

The problem with giving them what they have earned is that it could encourage a ruthless dog eat dog approach ie someone clawing their way to senior management with no care who gets hurt in the process. And it's a very money centred approach. Would you want to give this approach as a legacy to your kids?
In fact for a lot of entrepreneurs the money earning potential comes second to the challenge of building up your own business. Plus as has been pointed out, they might be in a low paid job and be good and happy at what they do.
I would say give/leave each kid the same lump sum (or equivalent in inflationary terms) but 18 is too young. Maybe at 25 or even later so they have to learn to manage on their own first. Thereafter they only have access to a hardship fund administered by trustees or by a board if the father is still alive. There should be a limit on this. Plus maybe a further lump sum when they get to 50/60.
The wife and charity should get the rest. But there again I am biased as I would like to be that wife!