Do people still leave their money to their children?

seven-day-weekend

We helped or son out with a deposit on his flat, and will be helping him again to extend his lease. He will also be the major beneficiary (by a long way) when we die.

We have one child, he doesn't even have to share it with siblings

steampowered

Jamiehelsinki wrote: »

I'd you left 100k to charity, how much would actually get spent where you intended it to be?

Very little I bet!

Mines going to my daughter.

If you want to give your money to your daughter that's fine, but don't cite administration costs as a reason.

Charity accounts are public. You can run an online search and find out in less than 5 minutes what percentage of their funding a particular charity spends on administration and fundraising.

It is entirely your choice whether to support a charity with low administration costs or high administration costs.

zagfles

steampowered wrote: »

If you want to give your money to your daughter that's fine, but don't cite administration costs as a reason.

Charity accounts are public. You can run an online search and find out in less than 5 minutes what percentage of their funding a particular charity spends on administration and fundraising.

It is entirely your choice whether to support a charity with low administration costs or high administration costs.

Yes, this is well worth doing. Admin costs themselves are often low, perhaps 1-2% or so, but fundraising costs are sometimes massive - maybe 30-40% of income!

When looking at the accounts, it's best to ignore retail income and costs (since shops obviously have overheads) and "restricted" funds, these are usually grants for specific purposes etc which often don't cost much to raise, and just look at "voluntary income" (ie donations/legacies) and compare with the "cost of generating voluntary income", or "fundraising costs".

Another thing to bear in mind is choice of executor if you leave some/all of your estate to charity. Some of them are will hassle and harrass the executors to get their money - see https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5548092

zagfles

TheTracker wrote: »

Charity admin costs vary greatly. The Red Cross has long been near the top with about 5%. The worst of them more like 25-50%. It’s easy to search for the admin costs for charities that meet your interest. My rule of thumb is never to give to a charity that uses Chuggers.

What's their cost of fundraising? That's costs of chuggers, adverts, people who phone existing donors trying to get them to cough up more, cost of letters asking for donations etc. None of that usually comes under admin costs AIUI. It comes under fundraising costs.

bostonerimus

I haven't been "blessed" with children....... I got divorced before we had any which I was glad of initially, but I sometimes wish I had some children now. So my will divides the money between my nieces and a couple of charities. Right now I gift the max amount allowed ($14k) to my grand nieces and nephews each Christmas.

ewaste

The argument that people leaving more money to inherit because of high property prices and that the inheritees are somehow benefiting disproportionately compared to the past I find to be rather nonsensical.

Do the inheritees somehow live in Teletubbyland without property?

bigadaj

ewaste wrote: »

The argument that people leaving more money to inherit because of high property prices and that the inheritees are somehow benefiting disproportionately compared to the past I find to be rather nonsensical.

Do the inheritees somehow live in Teletubbyland without property?

Don't understand your argument, if there is one.

High property prices are having the effect of reducing social mobility, the latter increased radically through the sixties and remained fairly high until the nineties or early noughties.

Now so much wealth is tied up in property, rather than assets that actually produce something, that a simple inheritance can provide enough money for life, often from a single property; property values are reaching a very large multiple of average incomes in many areas meaning that those not benefitting from a windfall find it very difficult and often impossible to purchase, especially if they are paying the high rents that are a consequence of increased capital values.

Inflation is often thought to be a bad thing, apart from house price inflation of course.

ewaste

I agree with the rest of your points that property is an essentially unproductive asset and seriously impacts social mobility especially given the much higher multiples compared to income. However my argument is that property prices have rocketed not just for the person who owns the property until their death but also for the person or persons who will inherit that property.

zagfles

ewaste wrote: »

I agree with the rest of your points that property is an essentially unproductive asset and seriously impacts social mobility especially given the much higher multiples compared to income. However my argument is that property prices have rocketed not just for the person who owns the property until their death but also for the person or persons who will inherit that property.

Yes but in most cases the inheritee will already have a property, often with no or little mortgage remaining. Typically someone may die in their 80's/90's and leave their property to their children in their 50's/60's.

I've always suggested my parents leave their property direct to their grandchildren, who haven't got properties, rather than to their children, all of whom have and all of whom bought their property while prices were reasonable.

Sea_Shell

zagfles wrote: »

I've always suggested my parents leave their property direct to their grandchildren, who haven't got properties, rather than to their children, all of whom have and all of whom bought their property while prices were reasonable.

In your case is this all equal? i.e. each child has an equal number of children (Grandchildren). Or will they make adjustments for those with none, or more than the others?