Physical wealth and non-physical wealth: Two separate conversations?

[John Holzmann]

I invited a bunch of people from the Sonlight Curriculum forums to join the conversation here. One person expressed consternation:

It seems like two quite separate conversations to me: one about what to do if you have substantial wealth to leave to your children and another about handing on your principles to them.

I can understand the confusion. And yet . . .

And yet.

It disturbs me to realize how greatly these two forms of wealth have been divorced one from the other.

People who have substantial financial assets receive all manner of professional counsel about how to pass those assets on to future generations with as few encumbrances from taxing authorities or potential litigants as possible.

So the money and other physical assets go through to future generations in a more or less pristine condition.

But the vast majority of these professional estate planning consultants completely ignore the deeper issues of values and relationships and family history and all the other so-called "soft" issues that can "make" or "break" the family long-term . . . sometimes because of the transfer of assets.

[Who hasn't at least heard of the spoiled brat rich kid who had absolutely everything given to him (or her) and who--partially as a result of that gift of "everything"--become worse than useless . . . to him- or herself . . . not to mention to society at large? Do I need to name names?]

How much better could parents (and/or grandparents, and/or great-grandparents) do by talking about and working through these so-called "soft" issues?

And then, on the "other" side--the side of all those who sense they have little if any physical wealth, few if any financial assets: How many of such people are ever challenged to think through how, best, to transfer their non-financial assets--their family stories, their values, their vision, their multi-generational heritage--to their children?

And, moreover, despite our claims to poverty, how many of us here in the United States are truly destitute, having absolutely nothing, physically, to pass on to our children? Don't we all have some things--maybe more of sentimental than cash value, but some things, nonetheless--that are of deep significance to us and that we would want our children to treasure?

* Do your children know what those things are?

* Do they know why you treasure them, what they mean to you . . . and why?

* Do you know what things of yours they treasure . . . and do you have any idea why they might treasure those (potentially, even) seeming trinkets?

My point--and the reality--is that things that you may view as "nothings," really, "just trinkets," "just rubbish," may mean a whole lot to one of your sons or daughters.

Have you ever asked?

What if two children both want that one item? Have you discussed with them what things they would most want if (and, of course, finally, when) you die?

*****

I will confess: At this point in my life, this matter of how items of sentimental value can destroy families is more theoretical than it is a living reality. I haven't yet had both my parents die. I haven't been close enough to a family where both parents died to see how the inheriting generation can be blown apart over battles having to do with items many of us would think are not worth even a moment's notice.

But I have heard the stories.

Perhaps you have a story you might be willing to share with the rest of us?

Am I completely barking up the wrong tree?