[quote author="ss" date=1233708203][quote author="ss" date=1233673108][quote author="ss" date=1233655378]Parental help could be billed more as early ss. People want to see the positive effects of the money that their beneficiaries will ss prior their untimely deaths. Personally, i think it's sad that parents don't want to help their kids out with a home purchase, especially if they have the means to do so. Of course, the kid has take responsibility, find the home, perform some dd, and have an income to support the mortgage. Seems like in this part of the country, if you don't have an advantage or a helping hand, you're stuck in ss.
Also, I think those helping parents (aka the baby boomer generation) could represent the economic peak of the ss century (pensions, rapidly increasing stock index, reaped the benefits of ss). I don't think next future generations will do as financially well and that the source of most U.S. wealth will be through ss. God help you if your parents don't have a net worth over $ss. There's always a disconnect, ss i do the math on my retirement fund based solely on a ss, ss and ss, and the lifestyle I would like to have.</blockquote>
Early inheritance? Hmm-m-m. I guess you can call it whatever you want, but in reality, it is a gift.
I think the positive effect my father wanted to have on me was to instill his values of hard work, independence, personal accountability and responsibility. I do not find it sad that my father did not help me out financially. He helped me out where it counted in that he provided a model of character and integrity. I think he wanted to give me values rather than to give me things. I think it would be sad for an offspring to treat a gift from a parent as if it was an "early inheritance." And may God help me no matter my parents net worth.</blockquote>
In reality? Yes in a tax code reality, it's a gift, but affluent Baby Boomers often pass on a portion of their wealth before they die, why is that sad? It gives them an opportunity to see the positive impact and help their beneficiaries use it wisely, who cares what you call it, be it a gift or early ssance.
Well, if your father didn't have the means to help you out financially, that's pretty tragic too. A lifetime of work and no means to help out those you love. What's even sadder is that hard work, independence, personal accountability and responsibility never paid off, dad probably should have focused on some other, less cliche values. Sure, money isn't everything and should never be a number one priority, but, it remains an essential tool and key to many opportunities that values alone can't purchase. In this country and if you look at the future generations, many would be working to the day they die if it weren't for the transfer of wealth.
It's not an either/or between values and gifts can which often do come hand in hand. Parents that help their children financially could model a desire for their children to help their children out. But I understand the bitterness, sour grapes right?</blockquote>
Yeah, it is sour grapes. :roll:
Why in the world would you assume that my father's life of <em>"hard work, independence, personal accountability and responsibility never paid off"?</em>
I never said it was sad that <em>"affluent Baby Boomers often pass on a portion of their wealth before they die."</em> I said it was sad that the receivers of a gift from a parent treat that gift as if it is an inheritance and not a gift, which it is. An inheritance is transferred upon death. A gift is transferred while the giver is still alive. Why the need to redefine the truth? Everybody else understands the difference between an inheritance and a gift. Why would you feel the need to confuse the two?
From Wikipedia:
<em>Inheritance is the practice of passing on property, titles, debts, and obligations upon the death of an individual</em>
and
<em>In common law jurisdictions, an heir is a person who is entitled to receive a share of the decedent's property via the rules of inheritance in the jurisdiction where the decedent died or owned property at the time of death. Strictly speaking, one becomes an heir only upon the death of the decedent. It is improper to speak of the "heir" of a living person, since the exact identity of the persons entitled to inherit are not determined until the time of death.</em>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance">Wikipedia - Inheritance</a>
From Wikipedia on "Early Inheritance"
<strong>No page with that title exists.</strong>
From Wikipedia on gift:
<em>A gift or a present is the transfer of something, without the need for compensation that is involved in trade. A gift is a voluntary act which does not require anything in return. Even though it involves possibly a social expectation of reciprocity, or a return in the form of prestige or power, a gift is meant to be free</em>
I am curious as to why you would feel the need to make up some fantasy term for a gift. Did you get a large gift from your parents? Are you uncomfortable with it? Do you feel obligated? Why the need to make something up?
I would venture to guess that my father and I have a better relationship than those who are bestowed with large gifts from their parents. Just a guess. My father did help me with not only the purchase of my home, but with anything that requires responsibility. He just did not help monetarily with purchasing a home. And honestly, I would have to give him credit for teaching me enough that I have been able to accumulate my own assets.
<em>"dad probably should have focused on some other, less cliche values."</em>
Wow, are you really that shallow? I guess your own writing that you consider those values to be cliche are enough evidence of that.
Do you realize that you know little of my father? I did not reveal how much wealth he has or doesn't have and yet you assume that he is not successful financially. I read through my posts, and nothing I wrote would give that impression.
<em>"It's not an either/or between values and gifts can which often do come hand in hand. Parents that help their children financially could model a desire for their children to help their children out."</em>
Agreed, it is not an either/or.
Giving to non-family could also model generosity, yes? What do you think is a better model of generosity, giving to family or non-family or is it the same?
If I gave the impression that my father never helped my financially, I mislead you. He helped me get through college. And he was extremely generous with his first granddaughter's college expenses, and I assume he will be just as generous with his other granddaughters.
<em>"I don?t think next future generations will do as financially well and that the source of most U.S. wealth will be through inheiritence. God help you if your parents don?t have a net worth over $2m. There?s always a disconnect, everytime i do the math on my retirement fund based solely on a 401k, ira and ss, and the lifestyle I would like to have."</em>
It seems we have more differences. Although I do not expect, I am training my children to do as well if not better than me financially and as parents and as humans. And I can not imagine being concerned with my parent's net worth except as it concerns their comfort and financial well being. Nor can I imagine counting on an inheritance for my desired lifestyle. When doing the math, I realize that my retirement will be more than adequate based on my own accumulation of assets. And for me, I would tend more to think, "God help me if I ever thought I was somehow entitled to my parent's assets, even through inheritance. Or if my desired lifestyle necessitated an inheritance from my parents."
Oh well, to each their own.