|
There's a lot of discussion here about making money, early retirement, savings through life style changes, etc. but I'm curious how many people are thinking about legacy financial planning (i.e. generational wealth). Now that my wife and I have a son I'm find myself thinking about what we're going to leave him to try and make his life better than our own. Even though we're only in our 30's we're already starting to plan our finances such that they could last in perpetuity. In our case, we're focusing more on real estate that can generate income well after we're gone rather than a lump sum of cash. We certainly won't be a famous name like the Rockefeller's or Kennedy's but we hope to establish a foothold where our progeny won't have to spend the best years of their lives simply trying to survive. Anyone else here working their finances with an eye on a timeline longer then their own life? As a primer there's a couple of good articles I've read on the subject that might be of interest to folks. Action Economics - Building Generational Wealth Time - 70% of Rich Families Lose Their Wealth by the Second Generation Financial Samurai - A Massive Generational Wealth Transfer Is Why Everything Will Be OK And I won't link to it here but I greatly enjoyed the book, "The Opposite of Spoiled" by Ron Lieber. It's not a book about generational wealth but how to approach finances with your young children.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
I'm kind of torn on this point because I think most children of super rich parents I've known are pretty lovely people, though I think in all likelihood I will have quite a bit of cash saved when I die, since I like my job and it pays well. But right now, I'm just focusing on making sure they don't have to pay for school. I also think the distinction between income generation and a lump sum of cash is somewhat a false one. You can always convert income-generating assets to cash and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I'm kind of torn on this point because I think most children of super rich parents I've known are pretty lovely people, though I think in all likelihood I will have quite a bit of cash saved when I die, since I like my job and it pays well. But right now, I'm just focusing on making sure they don't have to pay for school. You're absolutely right on the first part. Creating a spoiled little poo poo is a concern of ours but I think entitled, spoiled, little shits has more to do with bad parenting than money. Most of the spoiled rich kids I've run into have absentee parents who are high income earners and spend way too much time making money and not raising their children. The book that I mentioned in the OP talks a fair bit about this in terms of teaching children at a young age what money is and how to properly tend and use it. In terms of cash vs non-cash assets I disagree that they are the same thing. A lot of the generational wealth is passed down through business ownership. Perfect examples are the Hiltons, Waltons, Kochs, and even the Trumps. (I'm only listing these families as examples of successful generational wealth that people would be familiar with and not examples of people someone should aspire to be.) While I'm sure cash was a large part of the wealth transfer, it was the income generating assets that kept the family going. I also think that by having a business of some sort it gives the parents an opportunity to teach their children a skill rather than just handing them a wad of cash and sending them into the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Owning a house that is paid off and being able to rent it out makes a fair amount of money. Especially when you can live in a unit and rent out the other unit for anywhere to 1000-2000 per month in an area with a strong job market and good schools. Land ownership is also another option. (Land that might have been inherited can easily go for more now due to demand.) Passing on a business is a bit more complicated. Not everyone wants to do the family business even if it is very lucrative... Unfortunately at the end of the day, one's children can turn out in ways you really don't want them to and that is beyond your control. (Get married and get divorced at an early age? There goes the house...) Senor P. fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Dec 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
What stops your children from selling all those houses, after you die, and investing in horses? *poof* No more wealth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Bad Mr Frosty posted:What stops your children from selling all those houses, after you die, and investing in horses? *poof* No more wealth. That's their call to make but the use of a long term trust, like a Dynasty Trust would make irresponsible behavior a whole lot more difficult. But I think there's two conversations happening at the same time here. One is about how to raise a kid not to be lovely and the other is what's the best way to ensure the wealth we generate during our lifetime is maintained and if we're lucky continue to grow after we're gone. I hadn't really intended to speak on the first part (although it's a good conversation to have) but focus more on the latter. The reality is that in most instances any leftover assets will be inherited by the next generation. The question at hand is what can we do to ensure that those assets are best positioned so that the next generation is best setup to succeed (however you define that success).
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
What's your goal here? To have your "legacy" grow bigger and bigger or to give your kids something they actually want? What would you like to inherit from your parents? My parents have a few houses that I will probably end up splitting with my brother which is appreciated of course but I would definitely prefer straight up cash. And thank god they don't have a family business because I want no part of it. There's a high likelihood that your kids won't live in the same area as you do when you die. They may very well live in a different country. Having to deal with splitting up physical assets and selling businesses is a huge pain in the rear end, especially if you're not local. Leave behind whatever makes you feel good about yourself. But they want cash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Personally it's for the assets I leave behind to grow bigger and bigger. Am I concerned about my child? Yes. But I'm also concerned about his potential children and their potential children and so on and so forth. Old money didn't get that way by handing their children wads of cash. They got that way because the assets that were left behind were structured in such a way that they would continue on and grow for generations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
I don't have any kids (yet?), so I'm not worried about any theoretical progeny in the year 2200. But I imagine if I wanted to do this, I would set up a company with two share classes: one for kids, one for trustees. The kids would hold economic interest while the trustees hold voting interest. I'd require that the kids hold their shares through a trust, so they already have an idea of where they want their share to go after them. The kid shares would be splittable such that the kids could dilute their own economic interests, but not the economic interests of other kids. Maybe it would be easier if each kid had their own share class, but that would just delay the problem one generation. Since LLCs are fairly flexible, it might just be best to write some weird operating agreement for share/unit splits. Maybe it could be tontine-ish, so if all of the kids decide to murder another (or one has no heirs), the rest absorb the murdered/heirless kid's economic interests. Maybe the trust would pay life insurance for the kids, so their spouses would get something other than economic interests, while the shares themselves pass on to their kids. Maybe the trust could buy out a dumbass kids' shares if they really, really want a pile of cash instead of passive income. As for how the trustees are chosen, I have no idea. I'd probably choose a few professional firms and let the kids also elect a lesser number of themselves as trustees. If the trustees dissolve everything, oh well. Maybe one of the kids will set up their own deal and the whole thing will keep going for their side of the family. At some point the kids themselves need to want things to perpetuate, or they'll do everything they can to destroy it. "Gee, the monthly dividend's nice, but look at the pile of cash it could be!" You have a pretty good chance of things surviving one generation, but anything beyond that's probably luck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
TouchyMcFeely posted:Personally it's for the assets I leave behind to grow bigger and bigger. How much time out of your week do you spend maintaining the rental properties? What if your kids don't want to be landlords fixing clogged toilets? Maybe you pay a management company to do the work for you, and they just mail you a check each month? Great, but your kid wants to start his OWN business, a Mexican-Chinese fusion restaurant chain that only accepts bitcoin. He's going to liquidate those rentals so that he has start up money for his San Francisco offices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
TouchyMcFeely, what would you have done if your parents left you some sort of business that you aren't interested in at all? Wouldn't you have sold it so that you could afford to buy more rental properties? That is what your kids will do.
Fozzy The Bear fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Dec 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
The Mrs. and I have discussed this and agree that we intentionally won't pass along all the money if our estate proves sizable. Or, more accurately, the generational wealth transfer will be in the form of an upper middle class upbringing, with high-quality fully-paid-for education. We want the kids to make their own way in the world and not become trust-fund layabouts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
My wife and I have discussed it. The goal is to leave 8 or more rentals and our own home, by that point we will have a management company handling everything and just collect passive income. We don't want to spoil our kids either. We disagree on college payments though, so we need to sort it out. I want to help them, my wife wants to make them carry a student loan the same way she currently is. We both grew up poor (me more extremely) so I find it interesting we don't see eye to eye on that. As for cash vs assets, gently caress that. They are being left assets that my wife and I never had access to, if you're gonna piss and moan about how to handle it then I hosed up somewhere and I'll be dead so oh well. I don't give a poo poo about leaving behind multi-generational wealth because eventually someones gonna gently caress it up anyway, so let it ride.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
It seems like the problem with intergenerational wealth is that those most likely to make use of it appropriately are also the ones who need it the least, and those who could really use it will probably just fritter it away on bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Sepist posted:We disagree on college payments though, so we need to sort it out. I want to help them, my wife wants to make them carry a student loan the same way she currently is. We both grew up poor (me more extremely) so I find it interesting we don't see eye to eye on that. As someone with parents who paid for her uni, I'm with you. If your wife's concern is related to teaching personal responsibility or something like that, I'd suggest doing something like the deal I had with my parents which was they'd pay for me to do classes the first time around, but anything I failed and had to retake I would have to pay for. They started out paying for my textbooks but by the end of the degree I bought them. Making your child take on literal tens of thousands of dollars of debt for character building/personal responsibility/that's what I had to do so it's what you'll do isn't setting them up for success. It's setting them up for the stress of loan repayments, potentially having to take a lovely job because holy gently caress I need one right now, and honestly the demoralisation of seeing your money be chipped away from your bank account whenever repayments are due. The way I felt about it was that I was in such a privileged position compared to my friends that I had a duty not to gently caress it up and waste my parents' money. It sounds corny but seeing almost all of my friends have to worry about loans repayments really made me appreciate how good I had it and gave me some perspective and appreciation for what other people were going through. My grades weren't perfect but I graduated without failing a class, had found a job before I finished my degree (because I wasn't stressed about money, so I wasn't completely burnt out) and am now in a position to think about buying property if I want with the money I saved and I'm 23. If that isn't setting your kids up for financial success then I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 13:46
|
|
|
How easy it for these trusts and passed wealth to beak apart if kids marry and divorce? On one hand you may get around it with a prenupural agreement that where the "to be" spouse agrees they have no direct claim to the money/business/etc. Besides that possibly setting a marriage up for failure right off the bat, couldn't alimony affect it as well? As in, a court agreeing that the spouse is entitled to a certain amount and if the only way to obtain that amount is through liquidating the inherited asset (e.g., cash or selling off a business to get the money), that's where it would have to come form?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Sepist posted:My wife and I have discussed it. The goal is to leave 8 or more rentals and our own home, by that point we will have a management company handling everything and just collect passive income. We don't want to spoil our kids either. We disagree on college payments though, so we need to sort it out. I want to help them, my wife wants to make them carry a student loan the same way she currently is. We both grew up poor (me more extremely) so I find it interesting we don't see eye to eye on that. The "what to do when they're transitioning into adulthood" is a tough one. Paying for college seems like a good one but it also seems like the value of a college education has been greatly diminished. Almost to the point where one has to ask if it's even worth pursuing over a trade or apprenticeship. There was an episode of Radical Personal Finance (I think it was this one) where Joshua Sheats talks about why he's not saving for his kids college education. What it boiled down to is that he would rather using that money to help his kids pursue other interests when they're younger. His position was that when his kids get to college age there will be some way for them to attend a college if that's what they want to do. Whether it's loans, or we have free education, or whatever. But by using that money when they're younger they can have a wider experience in the world and be better prepared for when (or even if) they want to attend college. For example, sending them off to spend a month studying under a world class musician or teacher or an international educational tour where they get to see and study things in person that other kids would only read about in books, etc. It was a really great talk about how there is a whole world of things that you (as a parent) could use "college" money for that would be better spent on education that isn't college. It really opened my thinking in terms of what providing and education can mean and how it can be so much more than just putting your child on a bus and helping them with homework.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
To the college question, I do think that, at least in the US, college is something that is becoming more expected for middle/upper middle class jobs, and is important for making connections rather than just education. It's also going to be associated with rising costs as time goes on, given that increases in tuition have well outpaced inflation. Therefore, relying on loans or other programs when our society seems to continually move toward more stratification seems like a bad plan. I agree they need some skin in the game, so I'm planning on giving them the option of either covering costs at a private college or giving them the difference between the cost and our savings for college to do with as they wish, which could be obtained by either going to a lower cost college, working before/during college to save up, or by obtaining scholarships. As far as passing wealth on otherwise, we're planning on using up our savings before we die and passing on nothing. My wife and I keep telling our parents that, and my parents are on board, but hers can't get it out of their heads. Hopefully by the time that our deaths will roll around, our kids will be well established anyway, and any money at that point wouldn't really be all that useful unless it was some egregious sum. Probably the places where passing on money would have the biggest benefit would be for college as above, and maybe early to mid 20s, when you're just getting out on your own and trying to do things like buy a car/house but haven't had time to build up savings yet. Honestly though, I think the main thing for ensuring wealth across generations is probably a proper financial education. Because at the end of the day, the amount of money you pass on is probably less important than teaching them how to manage their money responsibly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
All valid points for sure. If the plan is to spend every penny and leave nothing behind that's fine (it's what my parents intend to do) but in the case of my wife and I, I don't think we'll aim that way. We're more interested in slow, sustained growth and there's no reason why it won't outlive us. One thing I would say is that one of the best things that happened to me as a child was to have one of my parents move to a foreign country. I had the opportunity to visit them 4 or 5 times during elementary and high school years and it was an incredibly eye opening experience. When it came time for college they co-signed my loans but paying them back was pretty much on me. I would like to provide that same type of opportunity for my son. It's also worth pointing out that if the economy continues to head in it's current direction then the number of jobs available will only continue to decrease. If that is the case then I would much rather have built my progeny there own Basic Income to help them (as best we can) avoid destitution rather than pay for an education that will have little to no positive financial impact on their life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
TouchyMcFeely posted:If the plan is to spend every penny and leave nothing behind that's fine (it's what my parents intend to do) but in the case of my wife and I, I don't think we'll aim that way. We're more interested in slow, sustained growth and there's no reason why it won't outlive us. I've always thought the spend everything, leave nothing plan was really selfish. Unless your parents are Vietnamese war orphans whose own parents got killed by the French and so on, there's always a generational transfer of wealth somewhere and in the 21st century it's even more important for your kids' future to have built in shortcuts than in the 20th. If the end result is a spoiled brat, you've probably brought that on yourself at some point. On the other hand, no specific business is ever going to survive multiple generations without a great deal of luck. A trust is one way to handle that, but again, knowing your future is set at exactly 30 or some other number is a good way to ensure the kid never has a career. What seems to work for the ultra rich and what's left of the British aristocracy is to raise their kids to be good time and money managers before anything else - they can have anything they want but they're brought up knowing they'll spend some time in real jobs to groom them for responsibility and if they want more they have to stand out and not waste what they're given. I like that plan and will probably follow it, plus or minus a billion dollars and a Sir.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
SlapActionJackson posted:The Mrs. and I have discussed this and agree that we intentionally won't pass along all the money if our estate proves sizable. Or, more accurately, the generational wealth transfer will be in the form of an upper middle class upbringing, with high-quality fully-paid-for education. My parents decided to go this way, plus first house down payment gifts (offered as matching funds). It made getting to adult financial security easy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
There's no doubt in my mind that I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure my kids are set up for as easy a path as possible. I don't quite understand the thinking behind making your kids pay for college/school. I've seen the difference in having to pay for college/grad school yourself versus having it taken care of, and I don't think I'm any better for having to take/pay off loans for med school. If anything, my peers that don't have that burden are more likely to spend time in entrepreneurial endeavors that have a higher risk/potential reward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
Adar posted:I've always thought the spend everything, leave nothing plan was really selfish. Why? I hope it's what my parents do. They earned it, they should enjoy it however they'd like. This may even include donating to causes that are not their children. Many people consider dynastic wealth an undesirable or even a bad thing. Inept fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jan 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
Inept posted:Why? I hope it's what my parents do. They earned it, they should enjoy it however they'd like. This may even include donating to causes that are not their children. I know I quoted a bunch of super-wealthy examples earlier but I think there's a major difference between the top 0.1% transferring 100's of millions or billions of dollars and leaving your children a couple hundred thousand. While the children of the super wealthy can get away with doing nothing (thanks to lovely parents) I don't think the same is true for most of the people posting in this thread. My son might get a nice windfall after I die but it's not likely to be enough that he can tell his boss to gently caress off and spend the rest of his life partying in Dubai. The way our society is currently setup sucks in that it very nearly forces you to give the best years of your life to an employer and dumps you out on the other side with little to nothing to show for it beyond what you've managed to scrape together yourself. If I can provide a way for my son to avoid that trap or even just help ease it a little I'm going to do my best to do so. I wish I could provide that kind of freedom for everyone but I can't so he will have to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 13:36
|
|
|
when you're talking at that scale, I really do not see the purpose to leaving a business to your progeny versus str8 cash homie
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
TouchyMcFeely posted:If I can provide a way for my son to avoid that trap or even just help ease it a little I'm going to do my best to do so. I wish I could provide that kind of freedom for everyone but I can't so he will have to do. But you don't need to make that a death benefit? I think estate planning should evolve as your kids grow up, and that generous gifts in their early twenties (as long as it isn't likely to leave you destitute and relying on them at the end of your life) will contribute the most to quality of life. Fund a gap year, pay for college, or help with a first car or house down payment. If your kids are comfortably independent, leaving the rest to charity isn't a bad option, and most parents live to see their kids into middle age.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Inept posted:Why? I hope it's what my parents do. They earned it, they should enjoy it however they'd like. This may even include donating to causes that are not their children. On a macro scale, maybe. Currently, we live in the most stratified society in many decades and it's possible the comparatively egalitarian post-WW1 to 1960-something era was a one off aberration as opposed to the new normal. I am very clearly and obviously where I am because of my parents, so why shouldn't I make sure my kid gets the same benefits and is able to bypass the low end of the career curve? The point isn't to make sure he does nothing his entire life and has no concept of money, it's to raise him to be responsible and then let him/his kids have whatever's left when he or they are able to use it wisely. If he genuinely shows no signs of being able to handle it we can have that conversation a few decades from now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Adar posted:On a macro scale, maybe. Currently, we live in the most stratified society in many decades[...]I am very clearly and obviously where I am because of my parents, so why shouldn't I make sure my kid gets the same benefits and is able to bypass the low end of the career curve? Do you think that the two may be related? I'm not saying that you shouldn't help your kids, but the people in this thread seem to think that leaving them a death benefit is a great way to do it. Your kids will probably be in their 40s or 50s by the time you die. That money may allow them to retire early, but it seems like a weird thing to horde your money like a dragon so your middle-aged kids can live a bit nicer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Sepist posted:I want to help them, my wife wants to make them carry a student loan the same way she currently is. What about Europe? I don't know how close they are to uni but -- right now -- Europe has top notch university which cost next to nothing and the only catch is (low) cost of living. If you can afford to obviate student loans in the states, you can afford $12k/year for studying in Germany. P.S. Why? Making your kids go through the same poo poo you did is a good way to hold them back in life. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Jan 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:What about Europe? I don't know how close they are to uni but -- right now -- Europe has top notch university which cost next to nothing and the only catch is (low) cost of living. European university systems vary so much between countries that you shouldn't try to lump them together as cheap. AFAIK it's also standard procedure that foreign/non-EU students pay the full ticket, so I'm not sure if it would be significant savings over most American universities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Inept posted:Do you think that the two may be related? Personally, I don't think it's an "either/or" question. I had initially started this thread specifically to discuss the best way to leave moderate to substantial assets to children. I tried to steer the conversation that way but it naturally grew into a broader conversation about how to financially help and raise children while we are still alive. I hope I didn't come off as opposed to paying for my children's college tuition, or helping them purchase their first house, etc and I don't think anyone else here did either. I just think that the conversation expanded beyond it's initial focus and the waters got muddied a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Wealth transfer can happen when you are alive and after you die, so it should be part of the conversation about generational wealth. My philosophy is to provide for yourself first, then transfer wealth to your kids at the time that it's most valuable to them. Once your kids are comfortable, leave what remains to charity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Engineer Lenk posted:My philosophy is to provide for yourself first, then transfer wealth to your kids at the time that it's most valuable to them. Once your kids are comfortable, leave what remains to charity. I read an interesting article recently that boiled to the idea that as long as the top 1% can increase its wealth faster than wage increases, no one who relies on a paycheck will ever be able to get ahead and will always have to rely on that paycheck. (I can try to track it down if you'd like but don't have a link handy). When I'm looking at what I'm leaving to my son, I'm looking to break that cycle/trap. Giving to your children during their most expensive transitions is great and will help but it may still not be enough to give them freedom from the rat race. But even if it does, it is unlikely to help the next generation after that. Only by creating a perpetual wealth generating machine could we hope to achieve that kind of goal for our children, and their children, and their children, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
what is a perpetual wealth generating machine edit: I am not in the top 1% but i make a very healthy salary and i do not anticipate needing to work for that salary for the rest of my life, why do you think that's not possible again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 11:28
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:what is a perpetual wealth generating machine I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're asking legitimately but I'll point it out again. There are a number of very wealthy families who have created perpetual wealth generating machines. You have families like the Kennedy's, the Rockefeller's, the Walton's, the DuPont's, etc that have organizations and investments that have continued to grow generation to generation. Someone in those families at some point looked far enough ahead to setup a strategy to make that happen. I'm not looking to make a 1% family (not going to happen in my lifetime) but I don't see any reason why we couldn't make a smaller version of that for our children.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
TouchyMcFeely posted:I'm not looking to make a 1% family (not going to happen in my lifetime) but I don't see any reason why we couldn't make a smaller version of that for our children. Because the kinds of legal structures you need to replicate what those families have (corporations, trusts, etc.) are expensive to set up and expensive to maintain. As you leave 1%er wealth (about $10M as of 2016) and head down towards upper-middle-class wealth (the "couple hundred thou per kid" you mentioned earlier), you'll find you can't economically support and administer a dynastic wealth generation scheme. The fees will eat the wealth instead of your grandkids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
I could be biased, but I see overlap, too. I expect that a family culture which emphasizes money management, modest living, long-term thinking and contributing to the estate is required for both getting and staying rich. Emphasis on that last one. I've read that most wealth only lasts a few generations due to diffusing out via inheritance. Inheritances typically split estates into many piece, so, everyone needs to contribute to keep things running. And everyone needs to contribute to the family estate if they're going to get rich in the first place -- let alone Family Office rich.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 08:29
|
|
|
The other obvious answer is that there's a few people out there who were lucky enough to become so rich in their lifetime that it doesn't need to be a multigenerational project. But yea, their children and generations after that would need to keep their spending habits under control to keep growing the wealth. I suspect compound interest will take care of the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 11:36
|
|
|
TouchyMcFeely posted:I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're asking legitimately but I'll point it out again. If you track the history of all of those families, they were tremendously successful in a specific industry and then diversified, Kennedys excepted. You appear to be considering not diversifying with an emphasis on either property or one specific business. That seems like a long-term recipe for disaster. You will lack the scale to be successful in a similar way. I'd be curious about your answer in regards to high salaried non-1% ers as well. Just because returns to invested capital are higher than returns to even elite labor doesn't mean that it's not possible to earn sufficient money through labor to remain comfortable for the rest of your life. They don't inherently compete. edit: out of curiosity, what is your background in terms of education/profession? you can be pretty vague, i'm just curious about the possible origins of some of your mindset
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
SlapActionJackson posted:Because the kinds of legal structures you need to replicate what those families have (corporations, trusts, etc.) are expensive to set up and expensive to maintain. As you leave 1%er wealth (about $10M as of 2016) and head down towards upper-middle-class wealth (the "couple hundred thou per kid" you mentioned earlier), you'll find you can't economically support and administer a dynastic wealth generation scheme. The fees will eat the wealth instead of your grandkids. There are a lot of steps in between 200K and 10M. Across most of that gap you don't want or need a trust but doing something is worth it. Accretionist posted:I could be biased, but I see overlap, too. This is exactly what I want to do. My wife and I are both on the same page and we only have one child / are raising him like this; we have no problem doing the things we like as a family, but we don't have expensive tastes and we're hopefully going to raise him to appreciate that a lot of work goes into every dollar he spends, even if it's not by him directly right now. If he never has kids he can do whatever he wants with it, but if he does I suppose we'll expect him to raise them the same way. My family has always treated money as fungible between ourselves even when we were dirt poor, so spending all of our assets on me/my generation and not passing them down feels like a mild betrayal of my kid/grandkids. It won't stop us from enjoying life and having fun money, but I guess I've just never felt the need to have a new car when a 3 year old one costs half as much and so on. If my son thinks the same way, mission accomplished.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 16:04
|
|