Proverbs 13:22 says: "A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children, And the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous."
I've read several interviews over the years where wealthy people say things along the lines of "my kids won't see a cent of my money", ***but*** the way they come off is smug and holier-than-thou as if it's a virtue to not leave your kids anything.
It is one thing to say that you don't want your kids to end up being entitled brats who end up junkies but that has to do with how you parent them *before* you die. I think that when these types of stories are published, it causes older generation to think that leaving nothing to their children isn't just normal, but praiseworthy.
Additionally, when someone in the entertainment industry makes these sorts of comments, they want to believe that their wealth came from how great they were without any acknowledgement that they were lucky. It would be like a lottery winner saying that he wasn't going to leave his children any of his lottery winnings because he "wants them to know how to work for a living".
It's the *attitude* that gets me, the idea that people think not leaving your children an inheritance is something to brag about.
Also you'll see that many times family were trying to kill other family just to gain their resources. I'm not pitting my children against each other.
Yes, exactly. It's simple math. If you're going to refute this, then bring the receipts.
>Distributing it equally brings the whole family forward.
You sound like a communist redditor.
>Intentionally leaving people out just refuses seed capital and stunts your kids.
It's K-selection vs. r-selection. You are siding for r-selection, which is how cockroaches, niggers and pajeets breed.
My children will work together. I prefer to have a diversified portfolio instead of betting everything on 1 child. It creates a more resilient family as a whole. Weakest link and all that.
Depends on how big a family you're talking about. Sure, if there's something that can't be split like a business or a paid-off house, the best thing for the family as a whole would be to leave it to whichever kid would be best able to take care of it. But if there's only one or two other kids, then there's no harm in investing to grow multiple strong branches of the family, like how old noble families sometimes sprouted off cadet branches.
I'm glad you used the example of the noble families. Once again, only one person inherits the "Baron" / "Duke" / "Kaiser" / etc title. Not every sibling gets it. Which only proves my point about generational wealth.