Most people seem to assume they should give an inheritance to their children. No matter what. And equally for all.

Gary North argues that may be a big mistake!

North, I believe, was the first person who challenged me to think about to whom I should give my estate. It was probably 15 or 20 years ago when I read an article in which he said, “Don’t give your money to someone who is going to use it against the very things in which you believe and for which you have dedicated your life.” –Something like that.

Just because he’s your son, doesn’t mean you have to give him an inheritance. Not if you’ve been seeking the Kingdom of God and all he’s interested in is doing the Devil’s work!

Since I read that article, of course, I’ve not only had the privilege of observing other people’s children and their perspectives on life and wealth and how resources ought to be deployed, but my own kids have grown up, and, among other things, I’ve become concerned about what I should do with, for, or to our child who has declared himself an atheist.

I was recently asked, “On a scale of zero to 10, what is your children’s attitude toward following Jesus?” I was pleased to reply, in the case of three of them, that, in order to avoid overstating the case, I would rate them each a nine. However, with respect to this last one, I would have to rate him a zero.

“Note, however,” I said, “I think the scale you gave me could–and probably should–be extended. Instead of going from zero to 10, it should probably extend from negative 10 to positive 10. And on that scale, I would continue to give our son a zero. It’s not as if I’ve seen him antagonistic toward Jesus. I don’t see any animosity. It’s ‘simply’ that I hear him strongly affirm a lack of faith.”

But even when our son demonstrates a non-antagonistic attitude: when our goal is to build God’s Kingdom, and God puts resources in our hands to (as we believe) achieve this goal: How much should we lay aside for our son to invest in his personal interests–whatever they may be–since he obviously has no interest in the Kingdom at all?

With all of that said, I would want to ask the following: Whether or not your children are antagonistic; if they are indisposed to pursue what you are concerned about, why would you want to give them extra money? If they want to pursue other goals or, more especially, to destroy what you’ve built, why wouldn’t you let them do it on the dimes they earn . . . while you invest your money, to the best of your ability, in the things that will continue to build what you believe in?

*******I did a thorough search on my computer for that original Gary North article. Despite my best efforts, I couldn’t find it.

However, strangely, I found a recent article that seems to preach much the same message. North sent it my way via his daily e-newsletter Reality Check on May 30. It was titled, “The Crucial Inheritance: Vision.”

Here’s a mental exercise that may give you a good idea about who deserves your money. Imagine that you have a time machine and you go forward a hundred years. You walk into a room in which your descendants have gathered for a family reunion. You notice that one of them looks very much like you. You go over to talk to the person, but after a discussion lasting about 10 minutes, you figure out that this person believes almost exactly the opposite of what you believe.

Then you notice another person across the room. This person is talking to a group of relatives who have gathered around him. As you listen, you realize that this person is saying almost exactly what you would say in a similar setting. The person really believes what you believe, and in his speaking ability is even better than yours. But he looks nothing like you. He has a different last name. He is a descendant through one of your daughters or granddaughters.

Under these circumstances, which person would you prefer to leave your inheritance to? Which person would you rather have in possession of your accumulated capital? Which person’s vision would you rather see determine the allocation of everything you have accumulated? I think the
answer is obvious. But it’s obvious mainly because this is a distant relative. The problem comes when you make a decision regarding the next generation.

Here is a real world example of inheritance. In the 1940s and early 1950s, Congressman Howard Buffett was the strongest defender in Congress of the limited government position. He was the closest thing to Congressman Ron Paul in his era. In fact, between Howard Buffett’s retirement in 1955 and Ron Paul’s election in 1976, there was no one comparable to Buffett. He believed in the gold standard. He believed in low taxation. He believed in a non-interventionist foreign policy. He wanted to shrink the government. He was far more libertarian than Senator Robert A. Taft. He was not well known, and he is not remembered today. He was unique in his day.

His son Warren is far better known than he ever was. Warren is probably the richest man in the world. He is worth about $60 billion. He is famous as being the most successful investor of all time. His observations are quoted by the financial press. He is correctly regarded as a genius in the field of finance. Yet he shares few of the beliefs of his father. Recently, he said that rich people should pay more income taxes than they do today. So, his view of civil government is very different from his father’s view. He inherited his father’s name, but he did not inherit his father’s view of the danger to liberty posed by the federal government.

Then there is the question of the heirs who only want their parents’ money. I will give an example provided to me by a friend of mine who wrote a biography of a highly successful entrepreneur. Because this example could probably get me sued if I mention the name of the author or the entrepreneur, I will mention no names.

The man accumulated a large fortune. He started with nothing, and he left a fortune to his children. Several years after the man’s death, my friend wanted to buy up copies of the biography. He had run out. So, he contacted the son and asked if the son had any copies remaining that he was willing to sell to my friend. The son told him that he had thrown out every copy that his father had in his inventory. My friend told me that the son showed absolutely no interest in his father’s life or achievements. He said that the man was interested only in his father’s money.

This is a depressing story. Yet even if his father had known what the son would think about his achievements, he probably would have left all of his money to his son anyway. He had no real vision of what should be done with his wealth.

He had accumulated a fortune, but he gave very little thought to what should be done with all the money that he accumulated over the years. The man was very conservative politically, and his sons seemingly have no political views one way or the other. The man’s money could have done a great deal to finance the political and economic views which he personally held. But the fact of the matter was, the man left virtually all of his money to his children. That money was wasted.

Anybody who has a lot of money has to give a lot of thought to this problem. Maybe I ought to say that he should give a lot of thought to this problem.

A lot of parents don’t do this. The result is that their money winds up undermining their vision of the future. The heir either wastes the money or puts the money to uses that the parents would never have approved of.

Very wealthy men establish well-endowed foundations. These foundations supposedly extend the founders’ visions into the future. Yet the number of rich men whose money has gone to support projects that are completely opposed to what the founders originally established the foundation to achieve is depressing. The founder’s body barely has time to reach room temperature before the bureaucrats he hired are reallocating the funds of the organization to projects he would have vetoed.

I have seen this happen repeatedly. . . .

CONCLUSION

I presume that you have a least one main idea in your life to which you are totally committed. How many people know about your commitment? How many people have heard about your great idea? Not many, in all likelihood. I hope your children do, but if you’re like most people, your children may not have a very clear idea of exactly what you believe in and why you are so committed to it. This lack of awareness is a threat to your legacy. The more money you have, the greater the threat it is.

This is why I recommend to people that they take time to talk to their children about what they really believe in. It is also important that they send their children to schools, or educate their children at home, by means of curriculum materials that are consistent with what the parents believe in. . . .

My father-in-law, R. J. Rushdoony, used to say that he did not take very seriously anyone who complained about high taxes but who also sent his children into the public school system. He said they may complain about taxes, but they tithe their children to the state. Don’t.

Technorati Tags: inheritance, purpose, vision

 |  Email This Post  |  Print This Post  |  Subscribe to It!
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 13th, 2008 at 8:10 am and is filed under family relationships, heritage, inheritance, kids, legacy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.