Heirs and charities

I read an article this morning that reminded me: Most estate- and legacy-planning professionals ignore philanthropic considerations in their basic planning strategies.

Alexis Martin Neely, for example, notes, in an article printed in the latest Bottom Line Personal, that single adult parents (widowed or divorced, in particular) need to make allowances in their estate plans not only for their personal health care, but also “for the guardianship of any minor children and transfers [of] assets to heirs of your choice while minimizing taxes.”

It struck me: This is the standard mantra of traditional estate planning professionals. For them, estate planning is all about minimizing taxes and maximizing flow-through to the next generation. And it has absolutely nothing to do with larger life purposes, the legacies–the accomplishments–for which donors might want to be remembered. They don’t ask about favorite causes or charities or philanthropic goals they may have. The question simply never comes up.

And so a person who actually might be inclined to make a significant contribution to some effort in which he or she is truly interested . . . simply won’t make the contribution. S/he will “forget” . . . because s/he was never reminded, never caused, even, to think of it.

And this line of thought reminded me of what I heard two or three years ago from Henry Doorn, executive director of the Barnabas Foundation: “What if you were to add another ‘child’ to your estate plan? What if that ‘child’ were a charity?”

I thought, this morning, “What if we turned that statement on its head? Instead of your favorite charities becoming additional ‘children,’ what if you thought of your children as additional ‘charities’?”

And why would we want to think of our children as “charities” rather than our favorite charities as additional “children”?

Personally: I think it makes sense to think of our children as “charities” because . . . once they are grown, and especially if and as they pass their 20s and become settled adults: what good, really, will our bequests do them . . . or their children?

Yes, for a while, perhaps–while Sarita and I are in our 50s and our children are still establishing themselves in the world and our grandkids are still at home–it might make sense for us to give bequests that could aid them with their lives. But by the time Sarita and I are in our 70s and our own kids are in their 40s and 50s and our grandkids are past college: isn’t it time for our kids to be passing along their resources to their children and grandchildren? . . . So our part becomes more of a charitable contribution to their lives, a “little something extra,” perhaps.

But whatever we give ought not to be some major portion or major addition to their own nest eggs!

Beyond that, shouldn’t we be thinking of the significance of our donations: what our donations will achieve? Will our donations achieve something more important through the lives of our children . . . or through a favorite agency, foundation, or other philanthropic or charitable entity? . . . Especially if and/or as one or more of our children or grandchildren “moves on” to espouse or to pursue causes to which we ourselves are opposed! –Should we donate to them–so they can invest more in their antithetical causes? Or should we donate to the charitable causes that we believe in and let them do whatever they want apart from our support?

[I have one more idea along these lines based on a conversation I had a few weeks ago with a wealthy man I know.]

Share and Enjoy: