Arrowman

On another thread, corwin and I had the following exchange, which I would like to pursue in a discussion on - "What moral or ethical obligation does a person have to create, preserve and pass on an estate to their descendants?"

I'll give my opening position after the background quotes.....

First off, I doubt that many would argue that a person is obliged to build an estate for the primary purpose of passing it on to their descendants. Sure, some people might be pleased to be able to do that as a side effect of their own goals in life (eg the successful business person or entrepreneur) but not as a primary objective.

However - given that a person has
a) provided [been able to provide] for their own retirement years,
b) not been able to achieve the Nirvana of "spending your last cent on the day you die" and therefore
c) has some sort of estate, and one or more direct descendants, and
d) the estate is of "average" size, and the descendants are of "average" means
(Let's not get distracted by discussing the "morals" of children squabbling over a million dollar bequest to a dog's home when they've already inherited $2 million each )

All disclaimers like "everyone's situation will be different" and "there's probably no objective moral standard which could be defined here" aside, I'll say...

I suppose a glib answer would be "charity begins at home". I believe that a person has an obligation to make reasonable provision for the support and betterment of their offspring, before (or in greater proportion to) any provision they make for other people or organisations. This might be deposit on a house, provision for children's (grandchildren's) education, or somesuch. In an extreme case, where a child has suffered serious financial disadvantage through no fault of their own, I think the obligation extends further because your bequest might mean the difference between that person living out their life in poverty, or in dignity.

"Family continuity" springs to mind - I think that each generation of a family would wish to make a small step on the previous generation (and would wish the next generation to make a small step) rather than have each generation start from scratch, financially speaking.

In corwin's example in particular (not wishing this to get personal, corwin - just extending the discussion) - ie, cryogenics - I think it is unreasonable for a person to make provision for extension of their own life in extremely unlikely and hypothetical circumstances, where that provision is at the expense of a reasonable provision for their own offspring - whose future existence and needs are far from hypothetical. It's imho only a small step from spending your entire estate on a memorial.

Of course, judgements of what is "reasonable" etc can be very subjective. Although one could always come up with a financial formula, I guess. Anyway - any discussion and in particular differing views?

The Other Michael

Hi Arrowman,

What do you do in the case of the wastrel child, or one that has been "disowned"? Should you be required to give money/property to a child that you hate and want nothing to do with?

Some parents kick their kids out the door the minute they turn 18 (reach majority) - even if the kid isn't out of high school (I believe I heard of a case of this recently). Others let the kids continue to move back into the parent's home well into their 40s.

Does it seem likely that those two sets of parents might have a differing view on passing on an inherentance?

What if your kids are doing OK for themselves, so that the $30K left in your estate doesn't really make a difference to their lifestyle/eating regularly? Should you have to give it to them even though you passionately believe that the Secular Web would make far better use of the money, and thereby benefit a greater number of people?

And where does "family continuity" come in for those of us who have made the decision not to procreate? Are we supposed to give our estate to nieces/nephews that we may have seen 3 or 4 times instead of to charitable organizations/friends that mean more to us?

It seems to me to be a very vague line to draw.

I'd say it is up to the individual. They can allocate their estate in any way they want.

However, this is quite a separate question, I think, from whether the State has a right to impose an inheritance tax.

cheers,
Michael

Arrowman

Hi Michael

On "wastrel" children: No, I would definitely not argue that a parent should be obliged to pass on their estate to a child who had demonstrated an incapacity to make good use of money. That money would be better applied elsewhere (to make this a more objective argument - balancing family obligation vs societal good, I suppose).

- We're only talking here about responsible offspring who can be trusted to apply the family "fortune" well. Like me

On "disowned" children: Again, I agree. If one has the right to disown a child (as I believe one does), then one should not then be morally obliged to "undo" that disowning come inheritance time.

- Of course, this raises the supplementary question of what constitutes "valid grounds for disowning". For example, in the case of fundie parents who disown atheist kids, and then pass on their inheritance to the church rather than their own children (who might be able to make very good and appropriate use of the money), one might question the moral perspective of those parents.

On how long you're obliged to take care of your kids: (ie, your para about parents kicking their kids out the door at 18, or taking them back in at 40) - Well, I suppose everyone is different but all I can say is, I'll always remember Steve Martin and Jason Robards in "Parenthood". I don't think one is obliged to care for one's children all their life, no matter what mistakes they make; on the other hand, parenting doesn't stop at 18 (or any other age)....

On $30K making a difference: This is of course a judgement call but, going beyond "eating regularly", I think if you calculated the annual income above which a $30K inheritance would "make no difference", it'd be pretty high. Sure, if the kids already own their own home, have the grandkids' education taken care of, etc... but imho the great majority of people could always make good use of $30K. In the case you cite, - oh I don't know - I'd be giving maybe $2-5K to my most passionate cause, and the rest to the family.

- I wouldn't agree with someone leaving the entirety of a $30K estate to a charitable cause, if their offspring could use the money well. And yes, for some people anything above "eating regularly" might be considered "unnecessary" but I think the education etc of your own family are also important.

(Care to guess where I scored on the Family section of the "moral foundations" test a while back? )

On those who choose not to procreate: Hey, go for it. I'd never suggest that you should feel obliged to pass on the money to relatives - any relatives - above other causes. I'm only talking about direct descendants - the people you have voluntarily assumed some responsibility for.

- Unless, of course, I am your nephew - in which case I will e-mail my bank account number on request

On inheritance tax: Yes, a separate but related question. I am opposed to inheritance tax because
(a) it is double dipping on money which has already been taxed (and if the estate was garnered without "adequate" taxation, then fix the tax system first), and
(b) it is an imposition on the person's right to dispose of their estate, based on the simple accident of the timing of their death.

pescifish

I don't think anyone should feel obligated to provide for anyone else, except for their children while they are still dependents, if they choose to take on that responsibility of spawning.

I don't think children are obligated to care for their elderly parents, I don't think parents are obligated to pay for their children's college educations and I definitely don't think people should specifically build an estate to leave for their descendents.

I recently inherited some money from my parents -- not enough to really change my financial situation but enough to make things much more comfy. I can tell you right now that I would give all of it back, doubled, if my mother had been able to spend it and enjoy herself during the years after my father passed away.

We are all responsible for our own happiness and livelihood. Anything we decide to give of ourselves should come from genuine desire to do it for the recipient, not some mythical obligation.

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: pescifish ]</p>

Arrowman

Yep, OK - broadly speaking I agree with you. However I'll take issue with the words "responsibility of spawning" as though that's what parenting is. &lt;cheap shot alert&gt;You're not a parent, are you? &lt;/cheap shot&gt; I don't want to appear snide, or make a big issue of that, but I can't let it pass either. Let's discuss more substantive issues.

As a - well, given my personal philosophy on life - I believe that people need to make their own decisions and take responsibility for those decisions and their consequences. If a child of mine decided of their own volition on a low-paying but personally satisfying career and then put their hand out for financial aid to, say, buy a flash house, I'd think twice. But, as a parent, I feel I will have some responsibility to aid and support my children well beyond their majority - provided I feel that that support is not some sort of compensation for free choices that they have made. (And balanced against how easy it is for me to give the aid, as well as equitable treatment for all the children.)

Again, I refer to the movie "Parenthood", in which Jason Robards decides (feels obligated) to give his profligate son some $30,000 to save him from serious injury or even death at the hands of drug dealers, because, as he says to Steve Martin "they never stop being your children".

My parents babysit for me on occasion; this allows me to enjoy a decent social life. Do they do this out of "obligation"? I doubt they would put it that way; they enjoy the company of their grandchildren and they like to help me out. "Genuine desire to do it for the recipient" as you put it. Where does "genuine desire to help" end and "obligation" begin"? Or indeed "because it makes you feel good"? I don't know. But I do think I'll discuss this with my parents some time - I'd like to hear what they think, them being Jason Robards to my Steve Martin on this subject.

I disagree. The extent of care to which one might be obligated may be debatable, but I think it does lie above "no care at all".

Well on the latter point we agree. On the former point - well, I do think parents are "obligated" to do the best they can. I do think that (extreme example I admit) parents who could afford a college education out of the small change pocket, but do not provide it, choosing instead to spend the money on overseas holidays etc, are taking, shall we say, a rather loose view on parental responsibility. OTOH bringing your kids up doing without a lot of the good things of childhood, just to finish off the college fund so little Johnny doesn't have to work at all for his own education - it's all a matter of degree I suppose (no pun intended!)

Absolutely. My sympathies on your loss.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

pescifish

C.S. Lewis was asked repeatedly on what basis he felt qualified to write children's stories when he had no children of his own. His answer was "I was a child!"

I don't disagree that a parent should be involved in a supportive role with his/her adult children. Or vice versa for the adult child and aging parent. You make some assumptions about me, for reasons I don't know or need to understand, but if you did know me, you would know that I live my life in a highly supportive role for my family and friends. And, as you say, my life choices are not part of the substantive topic. I just don't believe in any specific "obligation", especially to provide an inheritance.

Arrowman

Please don't take offence pesci, and please don't assume that I have - er, made assumptions about you. (can we make this a truly recursive discussion?!)

I make no assumptions about you and certainly I make no assumptions about the role you play in care and support in your family. I just don't like it when people refer to parenting as "spawning". And I'm a grumpy old sod sometimes.

Arrowman
Whose daughter might have inherited a substantial amount from a distant aunt, had we named her "Druscilla".

pescifish

I didn't assume you assumed -- I felt that you clearly implied an assumption in the way you asked your question "You're not a parent, are you?"

Honest, there is no offense taken! I am glad for the opportunity to clear up the next point.

Actually, I was not referring to parenting in that case. I used the word "spawn" because I am a fish, but the intended, non-cutesy word would be "procreation". I wanted to emphasize that the decision to responsibly procreate should be a conscious one and well considered. The responsibility of parenting is a huge part of that decision, definitely, but I would like to include heredity/genetics, the state of the society the child would be born into and other factors as well.

However, I didn't jump into this thread to try my hand at discussing parenting, I simply wanted to give my opinion on the original question of the thread. The dialog you quoted was from the perspective of the child inheriting from the parent, so in that case, regardless of my motherhood status, I felt qualified to respond.

As a child inheriting from my parents, I can honestly say that if they had chosen to do something else with their money, I would have thought "Good for them!" For my parents, I know the disposition of their moderate means was very important and specifically intended to be beneficial to us kids. And, since it turned out to be beneficial, then I say "Good for them!" with the full appreciation of someone who did not expect it.

Me too.

I am not equipped to adequately debate on this board, so I generally try to stay away from any direct controversy. I hope I haven't gotten myself all balled up in this one, either.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: pescifish ]</p>

Jamie_L

If children have been provided for, raised well, and are capable of supporting themselves, I don't think there is a moral obligation for parents of independent, adult children to pass on any of their estate to them. Their money is their money, earned by them, and they can dispose of it as they wish.

Anything I inherit from my family I view as generosity - something they did not have to do, but which they have chosen to do. I in no way feel "owed" anything. After all, I didn't earn any of it. If anything, I'm the reason my parents have less money than they do - they'd probably be richer if they hadn't had to raise me.

Lastly, as someone who understands terror of death, I've got no problem with anyone spending their money to try and prolong their lives, regardless of how slim the odds. I mean, suppose a parent got terminal cancer. The doctor's said an experimental treatment would give them a slim chance at recovery, but it was still a high probability they would die, and insurance would not cover the treatment. Would it be immoral for that parent to spend money on that slim prospect instead of investing it so it could be passed on to his/her kids? If my parents could have a chance of being alive again some day, I'd give up my inheritance for that chance. I want more than anything for them to live as long as they possibly can.

Jamie

abe smith

Just tangential to the initial post here, there is the 2,3 centuties-old idea [forget whose; probably a Frenchman} that "[all] Ownership is theft." Praps we can bat this around sometime.