Should a rich parent share out their wealth to the progeny when they are still alive or should they sell it and enjoy the proceeds while they still live and let the children fend for themselves?
This is the question presented to us in The Earth by Emile Zola when the Fouans decide to partition the land they own to their children; two sons and a daughter. The elder sister, Le Grande, widowed and mean, advices the younger brother intent on dividing his land to his children not to do it that he will shortly become a beggar. The brother at this point in time is not able to till the land and would not want to see it lie fallow for he has lived all his life working the land. For Le Grande, strangers would rather take the land than she partition it out to her children.
What’s your take?
And a bonus question, are children owed an inheritance from the labour of their parents? All of it or are parents at liberty to dispose of their assets as they see fit?
Random thoughts 
The last question is the answer to all these. Our parents wealth is not ours so they can do whatever they wish with it but the society we live in will never understand this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most people think children have a right to the labour of their parents. If say a parent dies without a will, what should become of the assets? Should it go to the children or state? Why?
LikeLiked by 1 person
In that case the children should be considered worthy of them but greedy relatives do grab before it goes further.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. If intestate with spouse and children, the spouse gets personal chattels absolutely and life interest on the estate. Upon their demise, life interest is transferred to the children and any other heir. If no spouse, goes directly to them. If no children, to the state unless had relatives who were dependent on the intestate.
LikeLike
My take on the issue is complex, and as you might know I do favor some kind of estate tax to reduce severe inequality of wealth. However, simultaneously I also see the prospect of inheritance as an incentive for children to look after their elderly parents. In short if they do not take care, they might forfeit their inheritance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My take is similar to yours. There should be ways to reduce severe inequality and taxation is one of them though the rich have found ways to evade or avoid taxes. A loophole which should be fixed
LikeLiked by 3 people
Essentially, I favor the “pay-when-you-die” rule when it comes to tax.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also support an Estate Tax. Any inheritance below a certain amount should be excluded from taxation, and the amount over that limit should be heavily taxed. This would be the fairest solution while helping to address the worsening problem of wealth inequality and social stratification.
LikeLike
What should this minimum be? Should we say median income for the country or something of the sort?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That can be debated and many options are available such as the sliding scales used in progressive taxation systems. But, it’s the basic concept that is important.
LikeLike
Agreed with Nicole, at last as far as who owns what and when. No one ‘owes’ a child anything, nor does a child ‘owe” anything to the parent,
We have a similar situation here, neighbors of ours have been farming and raising livestock for three or four generations. Some of the younger members go off to have lives of their own (one is a minister, two are teachers, one was a police chief), and those who wish to stay do so. The understanding is, you stay, you work, you take over the land when it’s time. It works for them, because there’s little greed involved, and a true love for what they do.
However, many parents use this kind of ‘when Im gone” thing as a carrot on a stick, to ensure loyalty (and if you feel you need that, well…) and possibly a continuation of what came before, whether it’s a family business or a partnership, or whatever. Or just gobs of money.
It’s complicated, and can be complex and each family handles it differently, often poorly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is quite comprehensive, Judy.
LikeLike
Children have 0 rights to their parents wealth. If the parents wish to gift them some, that’s what it should be considered. A true test off their character imo is how grateful children are of what their parents have given them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pink argues, and I am tempted to agree with him, that because children did not ask to be born, those responsible for their birth owe them
LikeLiked by 1 person
Parents have a huge debt to their children. I can think of no violence greater than inflicting life on someone.
LikeLiked by 4 people
This is to say once the violence of life has been inflicted on a person, those responsible are forever in their debt
LikeLike
Absolutely, because the violence is on going until we die.
LikeLike
Those parents who disown their children are guilty of an unforgivable violence, it seems?
What would we say about children who cut off ties with their parents? Is this also an injustice?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No because the children are the unwitting victims. The parents are the ones who, for selfishness or at the very least irresponsibility, decided they had the right to make someone endure life in this appalling planet.
LikeLike
Children, as long as they’re dependants should always be provided for. So making one’s will should legally reflect this. But if everyone is of age, haha you just hope for the best lol.
LikeLike
Dependants*
LikeLike
I have seen 40 year olds coming out of the woodworks when their parents died to claim a part of the estate, especially kids born to mpangos and all. What should be done?
LikeLike
The children of a male deceased person include his children born out of wedlock. The fact that the mother was not married to him is no bar to the child inheriting in intestacy.
LikeLike
Well yes. If the deceased is leaving property to the progeny, then all of his issue are owed. But the question here really is should the norm be that children are owed or should as Judy suggested, if you work the land or say work in the family business then you inherit, if you don’t, then forget it.
LikeLike
Our culture says we take care of our children
LikeLike
And I think the law reflects that
LikeLike
Did you see this?
https://www.nation.co.ke/newsplex/inheritance/2718262-5068488-m05r8tz/index.html
LikeLike
It all depends whether the person died with/without a will. If testate, it’s pretty much sealed unless it can proven
If the person dies intestate (without a will) kuna rules. If there’s a surviving spouse they get personal and household effects and life interest on property which is later transferred to the children
LikeLike
The main issue here is how do we address wealth inequalities that arise because of inheritance?
LikeLike
Unless it can be proven the person left out dependants*
LikeLike
Now you know the position of our law is that there are basically no illegitimate children.
LikeLike
In terms of succession, they’re considered equal to other children if any
LikeLike
I guess it depends on the age of the children and how well the parents get along with their children. There’s a possibility that gifting your children money too early in life might entice them to become spendthrifts rather than financially responsible adults.
LikeLike
Is that reason enough to not leave them inheritance?
LikeLike
Ultimately, it’s everyone’s right to dispose of their wealth as they please. If you love your kids, bequeath it to them; if not, then not.
LikeLike
This is pragmatic, I think
LikeLike