Thoughts a will to protect generational wealth?

[techcrium]

I have been thinking of creating a will that will last generations and it goes something like this:

Spirit of the Will:
1. Ensure the money continues to last throughout generations
2. Ensure that my parents, brother, brother's kids, and my kids are taken care of via a percentage of money each year
3. Ensure that my kids and future generations are taken care of via a (2%) money each year
4. Award milestone rewards for future generations that matches the dollar amount they received in the previous year
5. After the 4th generation (~250 years), set up a family foundation which receives (1%) to donate to various causes and the other (1%) is divided up between the family individuals in 1, 2, 3, 4 that are eligible

-Money is only dispersed to the individual starting at age 30 (with exceptions of milestones such as college, marriage, kids). Before the age of 30, I deem the individual not responsible enough to handle money.


Where it could go wrong:
-Complex: Potential infighting/lawsuits (litigation costs) which erodes the will
-One branch of family member could potentially have 9-10 kids while another family branch has only 1 kid which means the dismemberment is dominated by 1 side.
-Possibility of new investment instruments not in ETFs which could potentially be missed
-Many other ones I have not thought of

Edit: Also, instead of just giving away money each year, perhaps set up a matching program into their retirement accounts?

Thoughts?

[KyleAAA]

What is your reason for wanting to do this? By generations a fortune of even billions will be too diluted to matter to anybody. I don't see much of an upside here.

[Chuck107]

After you are gone Lawyers will suck up a lot of it when the rest of the "generations" start the infighting over "It's my money and I want it now"
I can't think of a better way to divide the future generations of the family.

[JoMoney]

My thoughts, are that while there are clearly special situations that require some sort of trustee, I'm generally opposed to dead people trying to control the world of those that remain, and that it usually doesn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.

[Watty]

I have not gotten around to reading it but with threads like this people often suggest the book "Beyond the Grave"

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Grave-Rev ... 173&sr=1-1

Complicated estate planning is not something you can do by yourself. You really need to work with a good estate planning lawyer. I would just concentrate on what you want to accomplish then ask him or her how to do it.

[oldfort]

250 years is too far in the future to worry about. 250 years ago, the US was an English colony and the fastest way to travel was by horseback. In 2270, the world will be so radically different as to be almost unrecognizable.

[techcrium]

What is your reason for wanting to do this? By generations a fortune of even billions will be too diluted to matter to anybody. I don't see much of an upside here.

Well let's say its $250 million divided between 200 family members. At 2% distribution, that is $25,000/year per member. If each individual family member wealthy enough to not care for that $25,000 then I would say I have correctly achieved my goal.

[techcrium]

My thoughts, are that while there are clearly special situations that require some sort of trustee, I'm generally opposed to dead people trying to control the world of those that remain, and that it usually doesn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.

If that is the case, what are your thoughts on the Nobel Foundation or multitudes of other foundations that have been around for hundreds of years?

[goingup]

What is your reason for wanting to do this? By generations a fortune of even billions will be too diluted to matter to anybody. I don't see much of an upside here.

Well let's say its $250 million divided between 200 family members. At 2% distribution, that is $25,000/year per member. If each individual family member wealthy enough to not care for that $25,000 then I would say I have correctly achieved my goal.

From your prior posts, you are mid-30s and just hit 2 commas last month. I think you'll have a nice-sized portfolio when you retire and will bequeath a fair amount to your immediate heirs. This won't the stuff of generational wealth unless I'm really missing something here.

[anon_investor]

I have been thinking of creating a will that will last generations and it goes something like this:

Spirit of the Will:
1. Ensure the money continues to last throughout generations
2. Ensure that my parents, brother, brother's kids, and my kids are taken care of via a percentage of money each year
3. Ensure that my kids and future generations are taken care of via a (2%) money each year
4. Award milestone rewards for future generations that matches the dollar amount they received in the previous year
5. After the 4th generation (~250 years), set up a family foundation which receives (1%) to donate to various causes and the other (1%) is divided up between the family individuals in 1, 2, 3, 4 that are eligible

-Money is only dispersed to the individual starting at age 30 (with exceptions of milestones such as college, marriage, kids). Before the age of 30, I deem the individual not responsible enough to handle money.


Where it could go wrong:
-Complex: Potential infighting/lawsuits (litigation costs) which erodes the will
-One branch of family member could potentially have 9-10 kids while another family branch has only 1 kid which means the dismemberment is dominated by 1 side.
-Possibility of new investment instruments not in ETFs which could potentially be missed
-Many other ones I have not thought of

Edit: Also, instead of just giving away money each year, perhaps set up a matching program into their retirement accounts?

Thoughts?

You can't go 4 generations in most US states, it violates current trusts and estate laws (rule
against perpituties: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_ag ... rpetuities).

[JoMoney]

My thoughts, are that while there are clearly special situations that require some sort of trustee, I'm generally opposed to dead people trying to control the world of those that remain, and that it usually doesn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.

If that is the case, what are your thoughts on the Nobel Foundation or multitudes of other foundations that have been around for hundreds of years?

That while there are special situations, they likely didn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.
... and to some extent, situations they never could have imagined. There are awards being given out in Nobel's name, like Economics, that Alfred Nobel never intended.

[techcrium]

What is your reason for wanting to do this? By generations a fortune of even billions will be too diluted to matter to anybody. I don't see much of an upside here.

Well let's say its $250 million divided between 200 family members. At 2% distribution, that is $25,000/year per member. If each individual family member wealthy enough to not care for that $25,000 then I would say I have correctly achieved my goal.

From your prior posts, you are mid-30s and just hit 2 commas last month. I think you'll have a nice-sized portfolio when you retire and will bequeath a fair amount to your immediate heirs. This won't the stuff of generational wealth unless I'm really missing something here.

Yes in fact you are missing something huge: Compounding interest.

At my rate (7% RoR + 30K/year), I expect to reach 12 million by 65

if I withdraw 1% and live to 90, that money will grow to $50million.

Isn't $50 million a decent amount for the start of generational wealth?

[techcrium]

My thoughts, are that while there are clearly special situations that require some sort of trustee, I'm generally opposed to dead people trying to control the world of those that remain, and that it usually doesn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.

If that is the case, what are your thoughts on the Nobel Foundation or multitudes of other foundations that have been around for hundreds of years?

That while there are special situations, they likely didn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.
... and to some extent, situations they never could have imagined. There are awards being given out in Nobel's name, like Economics, that Alfred Nobel never intended.

Really? You think that the Nobel Prize have deviated dramatically from the Alfred's original intention??

I don't think that at all. Bearing some minor technicalities (e.g. adding Economics as a category), the Nobel foundation definitely operates exactly as how Alfred intended.

-The Nobel prize is one of the most prestigious if not THE most prestigious prize
(*The fact that the Nobel Peace Prize generates so much controversy is because it is so prestigious. If I awarded Donald Trump the Techcrium Peace Prize, no one would give a hoot)
-His legacy is forever cemented in the Nobel Foundation
-Most people know of Nobel Prize rather than the fact that he invented dynamite.
-Practically no one today hates him for inventing dynamite.

Alfred Nobel only had 2 goals, both have been achieved.
#1 Have people remember him as more than inventing dynamite
#2 to Better humanity via awarding various prizes.

[TomatoTomahto]

Yes in fact you are missing something huge: Compounding interest.

At my rate (7% RoR + 30K/year), I expect to reach 12 million by 65

if I withdraw 1% and live to 90, that money will grow to $50million.

Isn't $50 million a decent amount for the start of generational wealth?

Gosh, there’s nothing between you and a $50M bequest. Even so, $50M is not sufficient for generational wealth, imo, if you’re talking 50+ years from now.

[Normchad]

What is your reason for wanting to do this? By generations a fortune of even billions will be too diluted to matter to anybody. I don't see much of an upside here.

Well let's say its $250 million divided between 200 family members. At 2% distribution, that is $25,000/year per member. If each individual family member wealthy enough to not care for that $25,000 then I would say I have correctly achieved my goal.

From your prior posts, you are mid-30s and just hit 2 commas last month. I think you'll have a nice-sized portfolio when you retire and will bequeath a fair amount to your immediate heirs. This won't the stuff of generational wealth unless I'm really missing something here.

Yes in fact you are missing something huge: Compounding interest.

At my rate (7% RoR + 30K/year), I expect to reach 12 million by 65

if I withdraw 1% and live to 90, that money will grow to $50million.

Isn't $50 million a decent amount for the start of generational wealth?

If it were this easy, a lot more people would have $50 million......

[Jefferson]

What is your reason for wanting to do this? By generations a fortune of even billions will be too diluted to matter to anybody. I don't see much of an upside here.

Well let's say its $250 million divided between 200 family members. At 2% distribution, that is $25,000/year per member. If each individual family member wealthy enough to not care for that $25,000 then I would say I have correctly achieved my goal.

From your prior posts, you are mid-30s and just hit 2 commas last month. I think you'll have a nice-sized portfolio when you retire and will bequeath a fair amount to your immediate heirs. This won't the stuff of generational wealth unless I'm really missing something here.

Yes in fact you are missing something huge: Compounding interest.

At my rate (7% RoR + 30K/year), I expect to reach 12 million by 65

if I withdraw 1% and live to 90, that money will grow to $50million.

Isn't $50 million a decent amount for the start of generational wealth?

I hope you reach these milestones. But I’d be willing to bet that when you do, the buying power of $12MM and $50MM will be nowhere near what it is today.

You’re doing great, and setting up a trust for your family could be a great idea. But I don’t think you’re at the stage yet of having to worry about four generations.

[JoMoney]

My thoughts, are that while there are clearly special situations that require some sort of trustee, I'm generally opposed to dead people trying to control the world of those that remain, and that it usually doesn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.

If that is the case, what are your thoughts on the Nobel Foundation or multitudes of other foundations that have been around for hundreds of years?

That while there are special situations, they likely didn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.
... and to some extent, situations they never could have imagined. There are awards being given out in Nobel's name, like Economics, that Alfred Nobel never intended.

Really? You think that the Nobel Prize have deviated dramatically from the Alfred's original intention??

I don't think that at all. Bearing some minor technicalities (e.g. adding Economics as a category), the Nobel foundation definitely operates exactly as how Alfred intended.

-The Nobel prize is one of the most prestigious if not THE most prestigious prize
-His legacy is forever cemented in the Nobel Foundation
-Most people know of Nobel Prize rather than the fact that he invented dynamite.
-Practically no one today hates him for inventing dynamite.

"deviated dramatically" isn't what I said, or think.
I don't know how he would feel that people hate him for a controversial prize, rather than not know his name at all.
It is only a couple generations old at this point, still plenty of time for it to take a really bad turn, or if it does, more likely that it just ceases to be a thing at all.

[techcrium]

My thoughts, are that while there are clearly special situations that require some sort of trustee, I'm generally opposed to dead people trying to control the world of those that remain, and that it usually doesn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.

If that is the case, what are your thoughts on the Nobel Foundation or multitudes of other foundations that have been around for hundreds of years?

That while there are special situations, they likely didn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.
... and to some extent, situations they never could have imagined. There are awards being given out in Nobel's name, like Economics, that Alfred Nobel never intended.

Really? You think that the Nobel Prize have deviated dramatically from the Alfred's original intention??

I don't think that at all. Bearing some minor technicalities (e.g. adding Economics as a category), the Nobel foundation definitely operates exactly as how Alfred intended.

-The Nobel prize is one of the most prestigious if not THE most prestigious prize
-His legacy is forever cemented in the Nobel Foundation
-Most people know of Nobel Prize rather than the fact that he invented dynamite.
-Practically no one today hates him for inventing dynamite.

"deviated dramatically" isn't what I said, or think.
I don't know how he would feel that people hate him for a controversial prize, rather than not know his name at all.
It is only a couple generations old at this point, still plenty of time for it to take a really bad turn, or if it does, more likely that it just ceases to be a thing at all.

I doubt anyone hates Alfred Nobel, the person, because Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton or another controversial figure was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Again, his legacy is forever positively cemented in his foundation.

The *spirit* of the purpose of the foundation has not changed at all.

[willthrill81]

My thoughts, are that while there are clearly special situations that require some sort of trustee, I'm generally opposed to dead people trying to control the world of those that remain, and that it usually doesn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.

If that is the case, what are your thoughts on the Nobel Foundation or multitudes of other foundations that have been around for hundreds of years?

Foundations generally have significant discretion in terms of how much of their funds to distribute, as well as to whom. For this reason, they have a huge advantage over 'generational wealth' pursuits, where the wealth is almost invariably shared with an ever increasing number of family members, thereby diluting it. Carnegie's foundation is still alive and well, for instance, while the Vanderbilt family's wealth has been greatly eroded.

[techcrium]

My thoughts, are that while there are clearly special situations that require some sort of trustee, I'm generally opposed to dead people trying to control the world of those that remain, and that it usually doesn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.

If that is the case, what are your thoughts on the Nobel Foundation or multitudes of other foundations that have been around for hundreds of years?

Foundations generally have significant discretion in terms of how much of their funds to distribute, as well as to whom. For this reason, they have a huge advantage over 'generational wealth' pursuits, where the wealth is almost invariably shared with an ever increasing number of family members, thereby diluting it. Carnegie's foundation is still alive and well, for instance, while the Vanderbilt family's wealth has been greatly eroded.

Did the Vanderbilt family actually have a trust where the trust itself distributed the wealth and invested the principal?

I thought it was because family received the money in lump sum and they partied way too hard with all the money....which is exactly what I would hate to have happen.

[muddgirl]

A family foundation is a nonprofit or charitable trust and can't really distribute money specifically to family members at all. I don't think you understand what the Nobel Foundation or the Carnegie Foundation do.

[willthrill81]

With the amount of money that the OP is realistically likely to leave behind, I think that a 'family 529' might be a great and simple means of achieving the desire to protect generational wealth.

While $50 million, a number that the OP has tossed out as a possible bequest, sounds like a lot, it pails in comparison to the earning capacity of an entire family. Therefore, helping to ensure that that earning capacity is maximized, which is most often best achieved through some type of secondary education, whether a bachelor's or even vocational degree (I've recently heard that new plumbers in Atlanta are making $90k right now ), seems like a fantastic means of creating genuine generational wealth.

A large, extended family of high-income earners with good financial behavior is worth far more than $50 million decades from now.

[JoMoney]

...
I doubt anyone hates Alfred Nobel, the person, because Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton or another controversial figure was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Again, his legacy is forever positively cemented in his foundation.

The *spirit* of the purpose of the foundation has not changed at all.

Alfred Noble is dead. The prize that bares his name is, as even you seem to acknowledge, controversial.
I think it's naive to believe something "cemented" is permanent and can last "forever" unchanged. I believe the more rigidly constructed, the more likely it will crumble while everything around it moves on, and the more fluid it is, the less likely it will retain it's original form.

[techcrium]

With the amount of money that the OP is realistically likely to leave behind, I think that a 'family 529' might be a great and simple means of achieving the desire to protect generational wealth.

While $50 million, a number that the OP has tossed out as a possible bequest, sounds like a lot, it pails in comparison to the earning capacity of an entire family. Therefore, helping to ensure that that earning capacity is maximized, which is most often best achieved through some type of secondary education, whether a bachelor's or even vocational degree (I've recently heard that new plumbers in Atlanta are making $90k right now ), seems like a fantastic means of creating genuine generational wealth.

A large, extended family of high-income earners with good financial behavior is worth far more than $50 million decades from now.

Agree which is why instead of simply distributing a percent amount each year, I've toyed with the idea of doing retirement matching or awarding money for milestones (college, wedding, kids etc)

[Gill]

Who are you going to find to administer this trust? Are you familiar with the rule against perpetuities in effect in most states prohibiting multi-generational trusts?
Gill

[willthrill81]

With the amount of money that the OP is realistically likely to leave behind, I think that a 'family 529' might be a great and simple means of achieving the desire to protect generational wealth.

While $50 million, a number that the OP has tossed out as a possible bequest, sounds like a lot, it pails in comparison to the earning capacity of an entire family. Therefore, helping to ensure that that earning capacity is maximized, which is most often best achieved through some type of secondary education, whether a bachelor's or even vocational degree (I've recently heard that new plumbers in Atlanta are making $90k right now ), seems like a fantastic means of creating genuine generational wealth.

A large, extended family of high-income earners with good financial behavior is worth far more than $50 million decades from now.

Agree which is why instead of simply distributing a percent amount each year, I've toyed with the idea of doing retirement matching or awarding money for milestones (college, wedding, kids etc)

The problem there is that the distributions could quickly mushroom. With college expenses being as high as they are today (though I personally don't think that they will continue growing much faster than inflation), funding that alone could be a more than ample burden on even a multi-million dollar 529.

How many heirs do you have/anticipate having? Do you wish to include any extended family (e.g. nieces, nephews)?

[lws]

Keep working on your plan then consult the best lawyer you can find.

[afan]

Presumably, you are talking about 7% nominal return. Over many decades this is far less than 7% real return. Even 7% nominal after tax is at the very boderline of realistic. The amount of money you may have at 90 could be a nice sum if all goes well over a very long time. But it will not be enough for generational wealth.

It will be further depleted by trustee fees.

Rule against perpetuities. For someone with this goal, just create your trust in a state that permits perpetuities. There are a number of them. South Dakota is aggressively promoting itself as a trust situs.

[luckyducky99]

-Money is only dispersed to the individual starting at age 30 (with exceptions of milestones such as college, marriage, kids). Before the age of 30, I deem the individual not responsible enough to handle money.

People who are irresponsible at 29 will be no less irresponsible at 31.

Instead of trying to provide financially from beyond the grave, focus on doing what you can to raise responsible and thoughtful children who can thrive independently. With resources, you can provide a rich environment for them to do so. Cross your fingers and hope they will do the same for their children.

[123]

You can't buy reputation or respect of a current or future generation of family (or anyone for that matter).

[alpenglow]

(I've recently heard that new plumbers in Atlanta are making $90k right now ),

My BIL makes $150-180k/year in a specialized area of plumbing in the NYC Metro area. No college degree.

[Pinotage]

-One branch of family member could potentially have 9-10 kids while another family branch has only 1 kid which means the dismemberment is dominated by 1 side.

I guess with a larger family there would probably be more limbs...but hoping you meant disbursement?

[oldfort]

My thoughts, are that while there are clearly special situations that require some sort of trustee, I'm generally opposed to dead people trying to control the world of those that remain, and that it usually doesn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.

If that is the case, what are your thoughts on the Nobel Foundation or multitudes of other foundations that have been around for hundreds of years?

Foundations generally have significant discretion in terms of how much of their funds to distribute, as well as to whom. For this reason, they have a huge advantage over 'generational wealth' pursuits, where the wealth is almost invariably shared with an ever increasing number of family members, thereby diluting it. Carnegie's foundation is still alive and well, for instance, while the Vanderbilt family's wealth has been greatly eroded.

Which is mind boggling to me. Gloria Vanderbilt inherited about $73 million in today's dollars. If you assume she left her kids $3M, not that Anderson Cooper needs the money, then how do you spend $70 million in one lifetime?

[willthrill81]

My thoughts, are that while there are clearly special situations that require some sort of trustee, I'm generally opposed to dead people trying to control the world of those that remain, and that it usually doesn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.

If that is the case, what are your thoughts on the Nobel Foundation or multitudes of other foundations that have been around for hundreds of years?

Foundations generally have significant discretion in terms of how much of their funds to distribute, as well as to whom. For this reason, they have a huge advantage over 'generational wealth' pursuits, where the wealth is almost invariably shared with an ever increasing number of family members, thereby diluting it. Carnegie's foundation is still alive and well, for instance, while the Vanderbilt family's wealth has been greatly eroded.

Which is mind boggling to me. Gloria Vanderbilt inherited about $73 million in today's dollars. If you assume she left her kids $3M, not that Anderson Cooper needs the money, then how do you spend $70 million in one lifetime?

Johnny Depp reportedly lost/squandered $650 million in a matter of a decade or so. I believe that he was spending something like $30k/month just on wine for a while.

[Pomegranate]

I have been thinking of creating a will that will last generations and it goes something like this:

Spirit of the Will:
1. Ensure the money continues to last throughout generations
2. Ensure that my parents, brother, brother's kids, and my kids are taken care of via a percentage of money each year
3. Ensure that my kids and future generations are taken care of via a (2%) money each year
4. Award milestone rewards for future generations that matches the dollar amount they received in the previous year
5. After the 4th generation (~250 years), set up a family foundation which receives (1%) to donate to various causes and the other (1%) is divided up between the family individuals in 1, 2, 3, 4 that are eligible

-Money is only dispersed to the individual starting at age 30 (with exceptions of milestones such as college, marriage, kids). Before the age of 30, I deem the individual not responsible enough to handle money.


Where it could go wrong:
-Complex: Potential infighting/lawsuits (litigation costs) which erodes the will
-One branch of family member could potentially have 9-10 kids while another family branch has only 1 kid which means the dismemberment is dominated by 1 side.
-Possibility of new investment instruments not in ETFs which could potentially be missed
-Many other ones I have not thought of

Edit: Also, instead of just giving away money each year, perhaps set up a matching program into their retirement accounts?

Thoughts?

250 years? 4th generation and counting?
I'd suggest to start from reading this beauty
Harry Stephen Keeler - John Jones' Dollar

[oldfort]

My thoughts, are that while there are clearly special situations that require some sort of trustee, I'm generally opposed to dead people trying to control the world of those that remain, and that it usually doesn't work out as well as the originator probably intended.

If that is the case, what are your thoughts on the Nobel Foundation or multitudes of other foundations that have been around for hundreds of years?

Foundations generally have significant discretion in terms of how much of their funds to distribute, as well as to whom. For this reason, they have a huge advantage over 'generational wealth' pursuits, where the wealth is almost invariably shared with an ever increasing number of family members, thereby diluting it. Carnegie's foundation is still alive and well, for instance, while the Vanderbilt family's wealth has been greatly eroded.

Which is mind boggling to me. Gloria Vanderbilt inherited about $73 million in today's dollars. If you assume she left her kids $3M, not that Anderson Cooper needs the money, then how do you spend $70 million in one lifetime?

Johnny Depp reportedly lost/squandered $650 million in a matter of a decade or so. I believe that he was spending something like $30k/month just on wine for a while.

Crazy, over $2 million a month in spending, with $200k/month on air travel, $30k a month on wine, and $1.77 million/month on what else?

[sandramjet]

-Money is only dispersed to the individual starting at age 30 (with exceptions of milestones such as college, marriage, kids). Before the age of 30, I deem the individual not responsible enough to handle money.

So you believe you are able to judge 4 generations into the future about how someone can handle money? Did you manage your own money under 30?

If it were me, I'd look to do more good with the money now (during your lifetime), without regard to trying to make your family live by your rules into the future

[makingmistakes]

(I've recently heard that new plumbers in Atlanta are making $90k right now ),

My BIL makes $150-180k/year in a specialized area of plumbing in the NYC Metro area. No college degree.

Awesome. I think it’s great that folks in the skilled trades are able to make good money. Many are much smarter than white collar college grads, work in much tougher conditions, and do jobs that are essential to making our lives better.

For the record, I have a Masters degree and make more than I’m worth. I have a good friend and a BIL who never went to college, but both are much smarter than me and more skilled in many areas.

[alpenglow]

(I've recently heard that new plumbers in Atlanta are making $90k right now ),

My BIL makes $150-180k/year in a specialized area of plumbing in the NYC Metro area. No college degree.

Awesome. I think it’s great that folks in the skilled trades are able to make good money. Many are much smarter than white collar college grads, work in much tougher conditions, and do jobs that are essential to making our lives better.

For the record, I have a Masters degree and make more than I’m worth. I have a good friend and a BIL who never went to college, but both are much smarter than me and more skilled in many areas.

As a school teacher, I've always felt that the skilled trades are seriously neglected in career planning conversations, which is a disservice all around.

[willthrill81]

(I've recently heard that new plumbers in Atlanta are making $90k right now ),

My BIL makes $150-180k/year in a specialized area of plumbing in the NYC Metro area. No college degree.

Awesome. I think it’s great that folks in the skilled trades are able to make good money. Many are much smarter than white collar college grads, work in much tougher conditions, and do jobs that are essential to making our lives better.

For the record, I have a Masters degree and make more than I’m worth. I have a good friend and a BIL who never went to college, but both are much smarter than me and more skilled in many areas.

As a school teacher, I've always felt that the skilled trades are seriously neglected in career planning conversations, which is a disservice all around.

Despite being a professor, I am very quick to say that there are great employment opportunities that don't require a college degree, many degrees aren't worth much more than the paper they're printed on, and not everyone is 'college material' (which is pure heresy in many groups, but it's still true).

[OnTrack2020]

Where it could go wrong: remarriage. Read the post on elder abuse/theft.

[otinkyad]

Johnny Depp reportedly lost/squandered $650 million in a matter of a decade or so. I believe that he was spending something like $30k/month just on wine for a while.

Crazy, over $2 million a month in spending, with $200k/month on air travel, $30k a month on wine, and $1.77 million/month on what else?

“I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.” —George Best

Multi-generational wealth seems like a worthy goal to me. It’s certainly one of mine. But the vehicle matters, I think. I’m inclined to say that money may provide opportunities, but it’s up to the next generations to make good on them.

“Elves seldom give unguarded advice, for advice is a dangerous gift, even from the wise to the wise, and all courses may run ill. But what would you? You have not told me all concerning yourself; and how then shall I choose better than you.” —Gildor, The Fellowship of the Ring

[Misenplace]

This thread has run it's course and is locked (not actionable Edit to add- and not personable to the OP). Some current issues with OP's proposal have been explored, but since OP is not in any position to set up a $50 M multi-generational trust (well, maybe in 60 years), the topic is exhausted.

Moderator Misenplace