I think there is. It’s the fact that you and your wife decided to put them on the planet. They did not have a vote in it. So, form an ethical point of view, you are responsible for their wellbeing. Not until you die of course, until THEY die..
I like this concept for two reasons.
Slightly changing tack I have argued that the same is true for where we are born. We dont have a say in the matter, and yet we are immediately constrained by the artificial boundaries set by every country.
I have also heard it argued that as much as the parents have a responsibility for the reasons you outline, equally in what way do the children have a responsibility to repay the parents for the cost both emotional and monetary for their upbringing? How much have times changed? Once it was the accpeted norm that the children and parents would almost certainly spend their lives in the same area, and when in turn the parents became children again (in their state of old age) the children would be expected to look after them. I suspect we have all experienced both ends of the spectrum from the children wanting little or nothing more to do with the parents as they get older, to those children who help and support their parents, especially as their parents needs become greater.
You still pay IHT (UK) if you give it to your kids – there is no concession. The only workaround is for the donor to survive the gift by 7 years.
There are always concessions, you just have to have enough wealth to pay accountants and lawyers to make sure you are taking advantage of them if that is what you wish to do. :-) Of course for the majority of the population you are correct.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I have also heard it argued that as much as the parents have a responsibility for the reasons you outline, equally in what way do the children have a responsibility to repay the parents for the cost both emotional and monetary for their upbringing?
Very valid question. I think we don’t have any responsibility whatsoever, morally speaking. Sounds harsh doesn’t it? Luckily in the vast majority of the cases there is a bond of love between parents and children, but there is no ethical obligation to help your parents. I’ve seen cases where there there wasn’t much affection but that the parents more or less emotionally blackmailed their kids into helping ‘because we did the same when you were little’. Totally wrong. Same goes for the relationship between brothers and sisters I think.
There is another relationship which seems to work.
“I don’t expect to die for at least seven years. Here is all my money, house and assets. You must look after me until I die, then you get to keep the residue.”
It requires trust, of course, but that is often strongly there in parent-child relationships.
Personally, I don’t much approve, because I think that there is a Social Contract to pay tax, but it is a model that I have seen several people use successfully to avoid tax.
Timothy, King Lear’s inheritance tax planning went awry I believe :)
We are lucky enough to have two boys, just as ordered.
I thought you meant this
was yours for a moment!
you just have to have enough wealth to pay accountants and lawyers to make sure you are taking advantage of them if that is what you wish to do
There are trusts… When I divorced in 1999 I made a Will leaving everything (not that I had anything, post divorce 
) to the 2 boys, but since they were just 3,6 I got it to create an accumulation and maintenance trust which would delay the handover, but the longest possible delay was until 25, or some such. Then the law changed, IIRC, rendering that void, or some such… eventually they were old enough to leave it to them directly. Now my situation is different and so is the Will… If you want to delay the handover for longer than Age X you have to leave the stuff to some trusted person instead, with instructions. The drawback is if that person runs off with it, goes bankrupt, dies (without leaving an equivalent provision under their Will / their Will might be contested by some barmaid in Thailand holding a 5 year old / etc). Accordingly, most serious “old money” wealth in the developed world is held in proper (and complex) trusts, otherwise the almost inevitable sequence of divorces, coupled with 35.765% of spoilt offsprings getting into heroin / callgirls / rentboys / etc would ensure that the family money disappears down the plughole in a few generations 
I guess it is a question of personal preferrance and how you stand with your kids.
Personally I had to save and fight for all my possesions and I would prefer my wife and kid to have full use of them once I am gone rather than see them sold off by a charity or someone else and most likely thrown of the rubbish heap of history…
Those who say kids should make their own pile, well that is true for many of them but most will be in the normal situation that they work paycheck to paycheck and the day they inherit means they will get some independence and may continue to use the house their father owned or to do with whatever they please and follow their own dreams.
I don’t have much to leave behind and my situation is clear if I don’t decide differently…
I agree that it should be any parent’s interest to see to the well being of their kids until they are grown up and have their own lifes. Thereafter, I would think parents should be free in their decision what to do with their money, it is theirs after all. Most parents have endured hardship and savings while trying to pay for their kids education and once that is all done, why should they not enjoy what is left maybe even together with their kids?
Of course we are responsible for them but with them growing up, that also goes both ways. Yes I know there are kids who leave their old parents in some nursing home and refuse to even see them there more than 2 times a year, but most I know have a good relationship and enjoy having their old folks around long after they fly the nest.
I hope i will be able one day to see my daughter grow up and have a good life of which, provided I am still around, I can be a small part in. She should know that Daddy will always be there for her and hope she’ll be there for me too. That is what I believe it is all about.
@Mooney_Driver, couldn’t agree more. The harder you worked for your money, the more you focus on where it goes after you’re gone. Scattering it to the four winds looks pretty unappealing
Giving money to your children while you’re alive may be taxable in some places over a certain (lowish) annual limit. Trusts, LLCs etc are in wide use, obviously. Virtually universal in the US for people with assets, at and over middle age.
There is another issue I see come up quite often which is the division of wealth between children. I have seen quite a few parents decide to divide their wealth other than equally. In one particular case there were three children, one sadly passed on due to alcoholism, of the other two sons one was a complete scoundrel, but I should add a very likeable scoundrel, and the other as straight as a die and a very safe pair of hands, reasonably well off in his won right as well. The soundrel had very little. The Dad very much against my advice gave the whole estate (many 10s of millions) to the scoundrel, on the basis that he needed the money. The other borther shortly after asked if he felt this was equitable and whether they should agree some other division. He did not agree to a further division. To this day, the two sons have never spoken again.
Then there is the Middle Eastern model. Another person I know well is a billionaire. He has three daughters and two sons. The vast majoirty of his estate (he recently passed) was left to the eldest son, with a great deal less for the other son. The daughters received nothing. The three daughters are all married and were given generous gifts during Dad’s liftetime. We had many discussions. His rational was their tradition is once the duaghters are married, it is their husbands responsibility in the first instance, and their husbands family in the second, to look after the daughters. The sons in their turn, well it is the Dad’s resposnibility to pass on his wealth to the eledest son who becomes responsible for the family as he see fits. In this way the wealth is not divided but is (hopefully) preserved for future generations. As he said to me, it has been this way for generations, this is the way of his Father and his Father’s father, and this is the way the wealth remains intact for future the next generation.
