Hacker News Reader

> If you are said parent, which of the kids do you absolutely trust to never ever screw you over no matter how much incentive there is and no matter how hard a times they fall on?

From the purely optimization viewpoint your "never ever" is too strict. This just has to be less likely and/or less damaging (however you want to choose a utility function) than losing your marbles and getting into a professional con artist's net.

Everyone's case is different, but I personally would never take my parents money for my own goals; same for my siblings and their kids. Maybe it is just my experience, but I grew up in a strong culture of "kids first"; parents are always sacrificing something for kids and that was seen as normal. If my parents had money and knew that my kids were hungry I have absolutely no doubt that they would push it to feed their grandkids before I ask.

Not to criticize your post (I think you are being unfairly downvoted), but mentally running a check on how would I feel today if I were in my 80s, totally incompetent, and my kids wanted to steal my money. Heck, in that case I do not know what I would live for -- kids, take whatever I still have, use it for your family and put me out of my misery.

I think your problem is with your mentality of "my money" when it comes to you vs your children. I cannot even understand that to be honest.

In cultures where children are expected to take care of their aging parents, it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that the child who ends up taking care of them gets to inherit most of the estate.

> I think your problem is with your mentality of "my money" when it comes to you vs your children. I cannot even understand that to be honest.

Why? It's one thing when they're children, sure if I had kids I'd do everything for them (which is why I don't have them). But when they're in their 40s or 50s and still trying to mooch off me? Screw that.

"Mooch off you"? My grandfather isn't in the best shape (he was diagnosed with alzheimer's last year) and I want to make sure the few years he has left, he can enjoy them (even if he won't remember everything).

My mom has one brother, and I'm an only child, so I will (probably) indirectly inherit a decent amount of his wealth. And yet, I couldn't care less.

Yes, an inheritance is nice to receive. But I'd give it up in a heartbeat if it meant having a person you love around for another 10+ years.

That's awful and I'm sorry.

Thanks. :( That's life I guess -- you play the hand you're dealt.

> "Mooch off you"?

Yes, as per my original post where I specifically said the hypothetical person in question takes the money for their own needs, not for the needs of the person whom they have power of attorney over.

Regardless of age, that should never happen. People who abuse power of attorney (and especially if family) are horrible people (and yet, I am aware, there are many).

My tax lawyer told me a story about how some guy, who was appointed by the courts to handle the affairs of older people who were unable to, abused said privilege and went ahead and purchased himself a new luxury car, furniture etc using funds from the people he was supposed to protect. I don't get how people end up doing things like that..

Yup, that's beyond horrible.

But not something I'd be worried about when it comes to family. I think I can trust them enough for that.

The part that worries me is when people get pressed between a rock and a hard place. It is exceptionally difficult to keep your hands out of the honey jar sitting in your lap when you're starving.

My great uncle was basically robbed by his own daughter, and his daughter had money to begin with. She had power of attorney and sold everything he owned out from underneath him while his wife (her mother) was dying in the hospital of cancer. It took everything he had left to defend himself from becoming stuck in a home. I don't know the awful woman that did this to him, but obviously my great uncle thought he could trust his daughter (his daughter!) enough not to steal everything he owned and sell it. You cannot trust family. Honestly, I would rather set up a trust of some kind that is very explicit about my elder care, which has this durable power of attorney even if/when I'm not there anymore mentally. Blood is a terrible reason to make any business arrangement in our culture. We are trained to be lone wolves from the beginning in American culture. I don't understand how people can then years later come around and act like their children can be trusted not to be lone wolves when it comes to their care.

American culture puts a lot of emphasis on being self-sufficient, yes, but most of us aren't raised to put our needs ahead of what is right.

When my grandfather died a year ago, I found out that he and my grandmother had set up a special CD for my brother to get when they both die, but not one for me. My response was basically "Well, he has a wife and two kids, and he's a teacher. I'm single, working in IT, and living overseas. They obviously felt that he needs it more than I do, and they're probably right."

None of us are perfect, but a majority are still decent.

> We are trained to be lone wolves from the beginning in American culture. I don't understand how people can then years later come around and act like their children can be trusted not to be lone wolves when it comes to their care.

Well, presumably the parents knew how they raised their children and what examples they set.

And I really mean it by examples -- children pay a lot more attention to what their parents do than what they claim to do. E.g. I think I'd be fine trusting my future kids if they see me responsibly taking care of my parents. If not though, all bets are off.

The alternative is my grandmother with severe alzheimer's. In her mid 70s and in very poor health, someone sold her a 30 year annuity for the vast majority of her savings. It took the family a year in court to undo the transaction.

This is how I think about this: I want my children to benefit from the fruit of my labor. I would like to help them enjoy their lives even after they become adults, so long as my help does not impact their sense of independence. I will enjoy (indeed love) seeing them benefit from my savings and I don't want anyone to even subconsciously wait for my death so that they can get the estate. If I were incapacitated one day I hope my children will prioritize their own needs over mine (the current "me" will no longer really be there). My first wish is not to be a burden to them. Of course I will want to make this all clear in writing so they won't need to face any moral dilemma.

My kids are not adults yet. I hope my feelings towards them won't change as they mature. It will be my own greatest failing if somehow I lose my love for them and I won't be happy no matter how much wealth I have left.

Couldn't you get a durable power of attorney that only comes into effect once you become "incapacitated?" If you can, I'd imagine that I'd protect against this kind of abusive guardianship without being vulnerable to the problems you outlined.

That’s called a springing power of attorney. I don’t remember the specifics but my estate attorney warned against doing that.

> When I was 10 my dad drained my and my sister's savings[1] account that way.

Is this a typo? At least in my state minors cannot own anything -- their guardians do. Therefore it would have never been yours to begin with. Even then, who is 10 and has enough money to float a business?

> Even then, who is 10 and has enough money to float a business?

I don't know how much was in there, but say my parents were putting in $10 every month. By the time I was 10 that would be around $1200. In a country where median income back then was probably around $15000 that's 1 month's salary. Plenty to tie one over when they're low on cash and see a paid invoice just around the corner.

I'm sure he did it with the best of intentions and with full intent to put it back in just a short while.

My point is that when you are strapped for funds and you have full legal access to somebody else's funds, it can be hard to resist.

This is why I am not putting anything into my kids "savings". They are not their saving they are mine. Period. If for tax reason I have to do it I will never tell them about it.

Of course he should have used that money, it was his. Not to mention you most likely benefitted quite a bit from his business surviving. If that concept is not something he explained to you then he failed as parent in other ways.

Well it also lead (among other things) to my parent’s divorce and me and my sister growing up in a single parent home with a dad who claims he’s too broke to pay child support. Afaik he still owes my mum most of it and has turned to skirting the law to get out of debt collector crosshairs.

The problem isn’t that he took the money. The problem is how he did it (unilaterally and without discussion with other people whose money it also was)

And his business did not survive so I didn’t benefit from that either.

So yeah, how was that good for me again?

It's fairly common around the world that minors can and do own bank accounts - usually tied to a guardian but the money is nominally 'theirs'.

My 3yo niece has about 2000AUD in her bank account, from various gifts through her short life so far.

I created this account to say: I have parents like yours. My parents took money from me. But fortunatly we are unusual. Most parents dont have to worry that they will face retribution for the times when they took money from there kids. It just doesnt happen that often. More often than it should but still not that often.

Multi-party signatures?

Something like "X has my PoA, if Y agrees that its necessary."

But really, what's wrong with that?

Why is someone entitled to control accumulated wealth after they lose their faculty?

Most parents live for their children. If a parent doesn't want to give wealth to their children, that's fine; the parent can give wealth to their grandchildren in trust, or anyone on the world they choose.

This is disgusting. It's their assets and it should be handled in the way(s) they determined when they had full control of their faculties. Anything short of that is fraud, theft, and saying "what's wrong with that?" to someone just stealing money from a parent is horrible.

This is ridiculous property-rights absolutism. Obviously it would wrong to leave them completely bereft and unable to support themselves, but people with compromised mental faculties lose plenty of other rights; there's no reason they get to sit like a senile dragon on a hoard of accumulated wealth.

Are you serious? That wealth belongs to them until they make a sound decision to part with it. If that means they’ve decided to purchase something and haven’t been deceived, great. If that means they pass it on to someone of their choosing when they die, that’s their right too. When someone takes advantage of their weakened mental state, that is just plain reprehensible.

"This is ridiculous property-rights absolutism. ... there's no reason they get to sit like a senile dragon on a hoard of accumulated wealth."

WTF. It isn't ridiculous to respect the fact that unless explicitly given to you, other people’s property is NOT yours and this applies to your parents too. It’s amazing that this has to be disputed at all but it explains why one sees some people with families going beyond will-making to planning for divestiture of their wealth to occur while alive later on.

People can feel aversion to the idea out of love or respect for their parents instead of pure legalism.

Try this reasoning:

Giving a gift is great. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is theft.

What's wrong with one sibling stealing a parent's accumulated wealth while they are still alive and not leaving it for the other siblings? Quite a lot.

Uh, it's less about "leaving it for the other siblings" and more that it's the parent's money. It doesn't belong to any of the children until the parents are deceased and it's actually given to them.

The number of otherwise good people I've heard refer to "their money" when actually referring to their parents' assets is heartbreaking.

Maybe they simply think of the assets as "family assets" regardless of who actually owns them? Why assume they are malicious?

because the people that actually own the assets need to agree for this to be ok.

His issue was that people talk about assets as if they were theirs, not that they using them as if they were. It's quite possible that they simply don't have a dysfunctional family and can agree on what's to be done with them, hence it doesn't matter who actually owns them, and not making the distinction in conversation isn't an issue.

"agree"

Exactly my point. I understand what you are saying - but in conversation, my reaction is much more like the parent comment, it sounds like an entitled POV. Many people who say such things, in my anecdotal experience, feel they have a right to the wealth, and may not have agreement.

> Why is someone entitled to control accumulated wealth after they lose their faculty?

Not directly answering why they're "entitled to", but why they'd want to - they will (likely) still be alive for quite some time, and their quality of life will depend heavily on the resources they have available.

I agree with your sentiment. As reported people who lose their faculties do not control their assets. The appointed guardians are supposed to jealously protect the assets from the family because this is supposedly in the best interests of the incapacitated. Sadly people do not make their intent clear when they are still capable. I think people down vote you because without express consent it can be construed as theft even if the incapacitated would have made the same choice if they were still capable. To avoid this tragedy we need to discuss with our loved ones and make our intent clear (and with legal power) while we are still lucid.