Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 2:36 pm
mac808 wrote: ↑
Sun May 27, 2018 3:18 pm
Wildebeest, I have a genuine question for you: what obligations do you believe your kids have (in the moral sense) to spend time caring for you as you get older? If you got dementia and were unable to manage your own affairs, would you expect them to step in and help? If one day you can't live alone and move to a nursing home, how intensively would you expect your kids to manage your caregivers and medical staff?
I believe we should love and cherish our children but not burden them. I believe that our children have no obligation, moral or in any other sense to take care of me when I get to be old and decrepit. Their job is to do the best job they can to parent their children. We have the good fortune that we can stay in our home with around the clock nursing care. However the best laid plans etc.
My mother and father did not want to be a burden on us and I will not want to burden our children.
The Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:02 am
Cruise wrote: ↑
Sun May 27, 2018 6:39 pm
Here is your statement that reeks of envy:
"It genuinely bothers me that my peers (the ones that leveraged parental support without being harmed by it) are able to do things I would have liked to do but couldn't."
Here is your demand that people not make their own choices on what to do with their heard-earned money:
"...you all should be donating the money you're giving your kids to people in the inner city, poor rural towns, or developing countries."
And you think I am dumping on you? I would suggest that you be content on making your own choices in life and let the people on this thread --one devoted to intergenerational wealth transfer-- comfortably do all the intergenerational wealth transfer they desire without having to be lectured by you.
You left out a critical part of that sentence, which I think indicates you are not operating in good faith in this conversation:
I'm quite sure my tune would change if it were my children, but along these lines, I think that there is a real case to be made that you all should be donating the money you're giving your kids to people in the inner city, poor rural towns, or developing countries.
It's clear that I'm making a broader social and rhetorical point, and reflecting on the state of the world. I make it clear there and in a later post that I would find it hard to put what I think is an important social point into practice with my own offspring. This is a far cry from a "demand" that people do anything at all, and was clearly not made in that spirit. You are engaging in selective misquoting that is dishonest.
I don't know what your deal is and why you feel so threatened by my post or engagement in this thread. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be bothered by the fact that I felt constraints in my career choices that my peers obviously didn't. That is not the same as me "reeking of envy." I also don't think it's unreasonable to make the point writ large in this conversation that intergenerational wealth transfer makes sense for families but might be bad for society. Finally, I think my post was germane to the discussion and hopefully useful. This conversation is mostly parents discussing the optimal level of support for their kids. I thought people might benefit from what someone in their kids' peer group observes with regards to the effects of this kind of support. Things they might not see as the parental unit. What I wrote about it was hardly all negative about wealth transfer; it was just unvarnished.
- Site Admin
- Posts: 55810
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
- Location: Philadelphia
This thread has run its course and is locked (derailed to discuss general impacts of wealth transfer on society, getting contentious).
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.