Do people still leave their money to their children?

scd3scd4

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.

I agree my mum is 75 with a property of about 275k. My mortgage is small now. I will use some for a pension for myself and help her grandchildren as they marry and so one..

zagfles

bigadaj wrote: »

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.

Some people are incredibly stupid when it comes to house prices. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that house price inflation is a bad thing for the average person.

It benefits a minority in specific situations, and speculators, BTL'ers etc. But it's bad for the ordinary homeowner, unless either they want to retire abroad/to a cheaper part of the country, or they want to downsize when their kids move out and don't understand or care that what benefits them, screws their kids.

zagfles

Sea_Shell wrote: »

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?

Why would they? I don't think they consider a grandkid worth less because their parents had 3 kids rather than 2.

The point is to distribute housing wealth to those who need housing, not to those who don't. I don't want to benefit from high house prices while my kids and nephews/nieces get screwed by it.

Any non-housing wealth I've suggested they share between their kids.

They seemed to quite like the idea and think it's much fairer than just doing the usual thing of dividing equally between the kids.

Sea_Shell

So if testator has 3 children, who themselves are: 1 with no children, 1 with 1 child and 1 with 3.

In this scenario if you leave 25% to each grandchild, then one child is effectively dis-inherited.

Personally, I feel that each grandchild (or neice or nephew) should be put in the position they would've been if their parent had inherited an equal share.

That's what we plan once all N&N's are over 18 (we'll swap our siblings for their kids).

But I understand it's a highly personal choice, and as long as everyone is on the same page, and there are no hard feelings, all's good.

bigadaj

zagfles wrote: »

Some people are incredibly stupid when it comes to house prices. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that house price inflation is a bad thing for the average person.

It benefits a minority in specific situations, and speculators, BTL'ers etc. But it's bad for the ordinary homeowner, unless either they want to retire abroad/to a cheaper part of the country, or they want to downsize when their kids move out and don't understand or care that what benefits them, screws their kids.

Some people, about 90% of the population I'd estimate, including the majority of the media and politicians.

zagfles

Sea_Shell wrote: »

So if testator has 3 children, who themselves are: 1 with no children, 1 with 1 child and 1 with 3.

In this scenario if you leave 25% to each grandchild, then one child is effectively dis-inherited.

Only housing wealth, in the scenario where the 3 direct offspring already own houses with paid off (or almost paid off) mortgages. They don't need housing wealth to buy housing, the grandkids do.

The non-house wealth can be distributed to direct offspring. So no-one is "dis-inherited".

Other than pure selfish greed, I fail to see why someone who already has a house they bought at a reasonable price, should benefit from their parents' house rising massively, while the next generation down get screwed by having to pay the current ridiculous house prices.

zagfles

bigadaj wrote: »

Some people, about 90% of the population I'd estimate, including the majority of the media and politicians.

Depressingly you're probably right

PennyForThem_2

Yes, why not? I nurtured and looked after my children so why would I not help them with money if I can?

I have just sold a flat that was rented - and gifted both my children the profit. Yes, I know that this deflates my estate. But family hereditary shows that my family is long lived - so help now would be more appreciated than when I die.

If I get Alzheimers then I really won't know the difference as long as care is adequate.

POPPYOSCAR

PennyForThem wrote: »

Yes, why not? I nurtured and looked after my children so why would I not help them with money if I can?

I have just sold a flat that was rented - and gifted both my children the profit. Yes, I know that this deflates my estate. But family hereditary shows that my family is long lived - so help now would be more appreciated than when I die.

If I get Alzheimers then I really won't know the difference as long as care is adequate.

We are just about to do the same.

It is going to be nice to see our daughter get on the property ladder and our son build his house extension.

Sea_Shell

zagfles wrote: »

Only housing wealth, in the scenario where the 3 direct offspring already own houses with paid off (or almost paid off) mortgages. They don't need housing wealth to buy housing, the grandkids do.

The non-house wealth can be distributed to direct offspring. So no-one is "dis-inherited".

Other than pure selfish greed, I fail to see why someone who already has a house they bought at a reasonable price, should benefit from their parents' house rising massively, while the next generation down get screwed by having to pay the current ridiculous house prices.

That's quite a tricky thing to achieve though...how to write a watertight will to ensure that happens.

Yes, you can leave a property to specific people, but then you run the risk that the property has been sold, or they've had to move, between the date of the will, and death, by which time they might not be in a position to re-write it. Then you could end up with ALL the estate becoming residual estate, relying on a DoV, or goodwill, to redistribute/gift the estate.

Alternatively, for some people, their HOUSING wealth, is the only real assets they have, without any other residual estate to distribute to their children. Any maybe without the house, they'd actually be an insolvent estate!!