if you were a PB/MM winner but had children that were irresponsible with money...Prev Topic Next Topic

New Topic New Poll

noise-gate

* In hot pursuit of $ *

White Shores- California
United States
Member #136,471
December 12, 2012
7,039 Posts
Offline

Feb 4, 2014, 4:56 pm

Would you put their "share of the money" in a trust and let them draw a certain amount each month?

Give them an outright amount and in not so many words say " this is your inheritance"..you use it badly, its " Goodnight" going forward.

Or hope for the best and that wealth may change their habits by including them in financial decisions you hope to implement?

** Have a Great Week People. .
lejardin

United States
Member #118,604
November 4, 2011
1,443 Posts
Offline

Feb 4, 2014, 5:13 pm

Interesting question Noise. My children are adults but age doesnt really matter if they dont have their priorities straight. For my family I think a trust would be best. I would like to think I would be able to handle a Pb/mm big win. There would have to be a little spending to get it out of your system and make it real but then you ave to come down to earth and be sane.
Jon D

Los Angeles, California
United States
Member #103,809
January 5, 2011
1,530 Posts
Offline

Feb 4, 2014, 6:02 pm

Quote: Originally posted by noise-gate on Feb 4, 2014
Would you put their "share of the money" in a trust and let them draw a certain amount each month?

Give them an outright amount and in not so many words say " this is your inheritance"..you use it badly, its " Goodnight" going forward.

Or hope for the best and that wealth may change their habits by including them in financial decisions you hope to implement?

** Have a Great Week People. .

Simple:

If they are irresponsible with money, don't give 'em money.

If they are irresponsible with alcohol, don't give 'em alcohol.

If they are irresponsible with guns, don't give 'em guns.

You can give support, but there's no need to just give them loads of money, that just makes for a spoiled rich kid with no morals or values. I believe the Oracle of Omaha said it best: (about not leaving money to kids)

"I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing."
Coin Toss

Zeta Reticuli Star System
United States
Member #30,469
January 17, 2006
11,788 Posts
Offline

Feb 4, 2014, 6:28 pm

If you were a PB/MM winner but had children that were irresponsible with money...

Vive l'amour

Vive' la guerre

Vivle le vive le mercenaire!

Motto of the French Foreign Legion

(Artist, feel free to correct the French)

Just kidding, as if a jackpot winner would join the FFL!

__________________________________________________

That's a tough one, noise-gate. I've often thought about individual winners themselves if they weren't glad they didn't hit when they were much youngr and would have spent it on things that don't mean as much to them now.

With some ofthe things Jon D mentioned wouldn't it be he pits to win a jackpot and fund someone else's habits?

Maybe establishing some kind of fund they couldn't tap into until they were 40 or so wouldn't be a bad idea.

Those who run the lotteries love it when players look for consistency in something that's designed not to have any. So many systems, so many theories, so few jackpot winners.

There is one and only one 'proven' system, and that is to book the action. No matter the game, let the players pick their own losers.
CDanaT

Central TN
United States
Member #121,187
January 4, 2012
7,758 Posts
Offline

Feb 4, 2014, 6:56 pm

Quote: Originally posted by noise-gate on Feb 4, 2014
Would you put their "share of the money" in a trust and let them draw a certain amount each month?

Give them an outright amount and in not so many words say " this is your inheritance"..you use it badly, its " Goodnight" going forward.

Or hope for the best and that wealth may change their habits by including them in financial decisions you hope to implement?

** Have a Great Week People. .

Of the 3 choices, I would have to consider the age of the child(ren), like 18-30, 31-37 or older. If they are older than 37 and still have money control issues ? They probably always will, so a small trust might be the better option while the wife and I are living. I also have to consider the amount I won. Then I could establish the size of their trust fund.

As the responsible parent, my instincts are to do the proper things, like pay off any school debt or medical bills, maybe get them a newer vehicle and pay for family vacations. While I would be willing to help them out with some extra $$ from time to time. I don't want to create a belief that I am the "open to take as much as you want bank". I will always exercise my right to say," Denied, but thanks for asking, drive safely, luv ya, mean it".

In the end, they will inherit the money anyway(based on our plans) so we won't care what they do with it after we am long gone.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Six balls

Sacramento, CA
United States
Member #142,448
May 12, 2013
91 Posts
Offline

Feb 4, 2014, 9:12 pm

Opposite problem here. My mother, god love her, has never met a dollar she couldn't spend twice. I would buy her a new car, get her debt free and then buy an annuity with a firm "And that's that." Maybe most people would consider that harsh, but she's well past 37 (60s) and the only reason she's not homeless because my grandparents bailed her out multiple times. The only way I wouldn't be broke within 5 years is to refuse to subsidize her beyond the initial package.
noise-gate

* In hot pursuit of $ *

White Shores- California
United States
Member #136,471
December 12, 2012
7,039 Posts
Offline

Feb 4, 2014, 11:27 pm

Quote: Originally posted by lejardin on Feb 4, 2014
Interesting question Noise. My children are adults but age doesnt really matter if they dont have their priorities straight. For my family I think a trust would be best. I would like to think I would be able to handle a Pb/mm big win. There would have to be a little spending to get it out of your system and make it real but then you ave to come down to earth and be sane.

" There would have to be a little spending to get it out of your system and make it real but then you ave to come down to earth and be sane.

All too True. It's similar to walking around with rolls of money in your pockets knowing you have " loads of it" stashed elsewhere and thinking to yourself..

" hmm- what do l do with this?". Spent it....wisely.
noise-gate

* In hot pursuit of $ *

White Shores- California
United States
Member #136,471
December 12, 2012
7,039 Posts
Offline

Feb 4, 2014, 11:31 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Jon D on Feb 4, 2014
Simple:

If they are irresponsible with money, don't give 'em money.

If they are irresponsible with alcohol, don't give 'em alcohol.

If they are irresponsible with guns, don't give 'em guns.

You can give support, but there's no need to just give them loads of money, that just makes for a spoiled rich kid with no morals or values. I believe the Oracle of Omaha said it best: (about not leaving money to kids)

"I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing."

with this statement of yours " You can give support, but there's no need to just give them loads of money".. that l feel is irresponsible.
noise-gate

* In hot pursuit of $ *

White Shores- California
United States
Member #136,471
December 12, 2012
7,039 Posts
Offline

Feb 4, 2014, 11:38 pm

Quote: Originally posted by CDanaT on Feb 4, 2014
Of the 3 choices, I would have to consider the age of the child(ren), like 18-30, 31-37 or older. If they are older than 37 and still have money control issues ? They probably always will, so a small trust might be the better option while the wife and I are living. I also have to consider the amount I won. Then I could establish the size of their trust fund.

As the responsible parent, my instincts are to do the proper things, like pay off any school debt or medical bills, maybe get them a newer vehicle and pay for family vacations. While I would be willing to help them out with some extra $$ from time to time. I don't want to create a belief that I am the "open to take as much as you want bank". I will always exercise my right to say," Denied, but thanks for asking, drive safely, luv ya, mean it".

In the end, they will inherit the money anyway(based on our plans) so we won't care what they do with it after we am long gone.

. Its amazing how many parents do allow their children to walk all over them right now when they are living paycheck to paycheck, one can just imagine what it would be like if the parents won the money and suddenly the kids took control of the money. It could well end up where the children start giving a stipend to the parents...

Worse has happened..
noise-gate

* In hot pursuit of $ *

White Shores- California
United States
Member #136,471
December 12, 2012
7,039 Posts
Offline

Feb 4, 2014, 11:42 pm

Quote: Originally posted by Six balls on Feb 4, 2014
Opposite problem here. My mother, god love her, has never met a dollar she couldn't spend twice. I would buy her a new car, get her debt free and then buy an annuity with a firm "And that's that." Maybe most people would consider that harsh, but she's well past 37 (60s) and the only reason she's not homeless because my grandparents bailed her out multiple times. The only way I wouldn't be broke within 5 years is to refuse to subsidize her beyond the initial package.

Sorry to hear 6 cajones. One solution is not telling your Mom about your win....period. Problem solved.
rdgrnr

100

The Hall Of The Mountain Kings Tennessee
United States
Member #73,902
April 28, 2009
15,378 Posts
Offline

Feb 5, 2014, 4:17 am

I think giving young people tons of money they haven't earned is counter-productive.

You appreciate things more when you've worked for them.

I'd give them all a small fund with resources enough for survival if necessary but no more.

And a larger dispersal when they were much older and more experienced.