ForumGarden

If you knew of a way to use your estate, following your death, to greatly benefit humanity but it would only leave a minimal amount to your family, would you do it?

The question involves not being able to divide it up. The only was to pull of the humanitarian fix is to invest all but the minimal amount.

No I would not. Animals yes. Other humans no. I do not have a great love for or need to benefit humanity. My loyalty is to my family.

As I do not have a great deal of monetary wealth, it is almost a moot point. But my feeling is that an inheritance is not a right...it is a decision made by the person giving the money as to where it goes. I would not have a problem designating certain charitable organizations (both for animal or humans) to give what money I had away too. My few material posessions would still go to family, but the money? Fuhgedabboutit!

My daughter is aware that the greatest part of my estate will go to environmental and educational groups. (Assuming there's anything left! :wah: )

koan wrote: If you knew of a way to use your estate, following your death, to greatly benefit humanity but it would only leave a minimal amount to your family, would you do it?

The question involves not being able to divide it up. The only was to pull of the humanitarian fix is to invest all but the minimal amount.


Leaving aside the question of my wife, who gets everything, it's all left to the kids.

As none of the kids are hurting for money and they're reasonably altruistic I'd add a codacil giving them the option to refuse it in favour of ......

How's that for sitting on the fence :sneaky:

It's an interesting poll, but it is one in which I feel the options are not balanced, in my opinion. THe reason I say this is that I don't necessarily think that people would leave money to their family in order to make them wealthy, I feel rather that their motive would be to make sure their futures are safe and that they are kept out of hardship.

Leaving your money to all humanity is a noble thought, but one with which I feel the majority of people would find difficult to do - taking care of family is after all one of the prime motivations in anyones life.

woppy71 wrote: It's an interesting poll, but it is one in which I feel the options are not balanced, in my opinion. THe reason I say this is that I don't necessarily think that people would leave money to their family in order to make them wealthy, I feel rather that their motive would be to make sure their futures are safe and that they are kept out of hardship.

Leaving your money to all humanity is a noble thought, but one with which I feel the majority of people would find difficult to do - taking care of family is after all one of the prime motivations in anyones life.
yes! :-6

I voted to help humanity, and since my family is part of humanity, it's a win-win.

WEll since everyone in the family has gone their seperate ways, I may leave some to mom.

koan;370882 wrote: If you knew of a way to use your estate, following your death, to greatly benefit humanity but it would only leave a minimal amount to your family, would you do it?

The question involves not being able to divide it up. The only was to pull of the humanitarian fix is to invest all but the minimal amount.


Family without a doubt, simply becasue HUMANITY would have the opportunity to receive more over time, than what my initial bequest might provide. That's assuming that heirs would be as benificent as those that bequeath have been. Wealth can only be perpetuated and increased by individuals, not charities.