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

sillypants

perhaps mr 'rockafella' should leave the money in his will to those he robbed it off. We all know it's been families like the Rockerfellers, Morgans, Rothschilds etc. who've engineered this recession in the first place.

This would have the added benefit of spurring his spawn on to steal the money back, thus achieving his original intention.

Mr-tom, i highly doubt rockafella has paid that much in income tax, these sort of filthy rich mostly get that way by effective tax planning, i.e. setting up corporations where many 'expenses' are tax-deductable, setting up tax-exempt 'foundations' through which they operate (the real Rockerfellers, Morgans, Rothschilds, even the Bushes operate through several) and such like. They are the biggest social burden because they steal from the poor and give to the rich.

It's all very well having a hypothetical character, but this one's a little too close to home.

mariaconcheets

I think he should set a monetry goal for them to achieve - through working, if they reach it or exceed it then he can either match the figure or give a preset %, with different milestones at each stage of their lives. It's not rocket science!!!!!!

brokeinwales

I'm not sure that I see the whole obsession with giving children "work ethic" for it's own sake. It's a valuable quality if you expect your kids to have to work to have a good standard of life, but surely if they have no need to work, then having a work ethic is fairly pointless. I don't see that working has any intrinsic value (in the same way as being kind, honest, unselfish have an intrinsic moral value.) . So I'd hope to teach them to be good people whilst I was alive, and then split between them and a few charitable causes in the will.

slickvic

This is a delma that most of us unfortunately will ( no pun intended) not have, however if I was placed in that position I think I would leave a proviso in my will, that my children will only get an equal share of my fortune ( as If ) if they have a useful function in life, a job, a business, of charity work with a min number of hours, commisurate with their abillity or talent, slackers don't get backers.:cool:

stationaryace

leave all three of them the money and trust them to enjoy themselves and continue being the "good" people they were brought up as- nothing wrong with taking time out to enjoy yourself ie spend a year travelling, if the money is there to support it. and haunt anyone who said nasty things about me during life

PollyB_3

Deco wrote: »

I would instruct my lawyer to give my children a small 10Kpayment and tell them the rest has been left to charity.
After sufficent time has passed that they have experienced a relatively normal working life then an account with all the money will be distributed between them.

The wife I would give a big chunk to if I met her before I was rich.
If I met her after hitting it big and she happens to be alot younger than me shes not getting a penny!

That is really good! :T Definately the best idea. It forces them to have a normal life but does give them the money.



I wish I had all that money! I can only dream...

keet83

leave a certain amount to each child at first, then put the rest in a trust fund so when they either reach a certain age or earn an amount of their own earnings, some of the fund is given out to them. another option is to buy them shares however that can be risky and is not guaranteed to last for them to have when he dies.

therichnessinside

Why assume the kids are lazy? Besides he could change his will later - if he's not hit by a bus. Or a yacht. Which puts a leetle bit of the onus on karma. Which is fair enough, as RR - and his dosh - is not the only influence on his kids.
And a good school can be a strong influence in the direction he's looking at.
Also actually I heard that often the first generation makes the dosh, the second generation saves it (ish), and the 3rd generation squanders it. So maybe the question is what sort of will RR's kid will make.

sweething

:mad: Of course he should leave the money to his child, its how you bring the child up, make him or her understand the true value of small amounts of money . why should his kids suffer just because he did......?:mad:

englishmac

mr-tom wrote: »

Sorry - noticed this too late for my previous post.

I want to take issue with this.

Our Rockafella has, all things being equal, paid about a third of a billion pounds in income tax. If he wants his kids to attend a comprehensive, then they should flipping well be able to attend the comprehensive.

This man will put more than a thousand time into public finances than he will ever get out again.

How on earth can he be claimed to be a burden on those same finances?

To me, this is similar to the "no taxation without representation" argument. In this case, it is the concept that if you pay your taxes, you should not be denied access to universal public services such as education.

Frankly as they've not moved to Monaco to avoid paying tax, the government should be falling over themselves to make sure they are not discriminated against.

Welfare is about supporting those in need within the community when they fall on (or experience through no fault of their own eg disability) hard times to help them through eg unemployment. And provide support services that people would otherwise be unable to afford eg health services. It isn't about taking back as much as you can of your contribution. If you don't need it, don't take it. Less tax would be required in the long run so everyone wins in a supportive atmosphere.