What do Sting, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have in common? All three have huge fortunes, and none of them are giving it to their kids.
Sting just revealed that most of his $300 million won’t end up with his six adult children. “I certainly don’t want to leave them trust funds that are albatrosses round their necks,” the musician told the Daily Mail in June. “They have to work. All my kids know that and they rarely ask me for anything, which I really respect and appreciate.”
Philip Seymour Hoffman, who died of a heroin overdose in February, left specific directives in his will, which was made public last month: His son should be raised in a large American city and “be exposed to the culture, arts and architecture” that such a setting offers. The will was created before the birth of his two younger children, but the actor deliberately didn’t give his $35 million to his children because he didn’t want them to be “‘trust-fund’ kids.” (They’ll be fine; his entire estate went to their mother, his longtime girlfriend.)
The rap on trustafarians — all those spoiled rich kids with more money than sense — is that they won’t make smart choices or live healthy, productive lives if they have unfettered access to a large inheritance.
Wealthy families have always struggled with this issue. But the same drama is now playing out on a smaller scale for millions of baby boomers, who are poised to give away $30 trillion over the next 30 years — the largest transfer of wealth in U.S. history, according to consulting firm Accenture. What used to be a private family matter has become a public discussion about wealth, privilege and personal responsibility.
Fortunes to charity
Bill and Melinda Gates are giving a reported $10 million for each of their three children: pocket change compared with their $76 billion. Buffett’s three kids each have a $2 billion foundation. The rest of his money? Going to charity, just like Gates and several other billionaires who have pledged their vast fortunes to improving the world.
As Buffett famously put it, the perfect amount to leave children is “enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.”
“We probably struggled over this more than any other issue,” said a self-made multimillionaire. The businessman and his wife, worth hundreds of millions, grew up modestly in middle-class families and wanted to create a financial plan that would take care of their children — but not spoil them — if the couple died suddenly.
“We were horrified by what might happen if they had control of a large amount of money at a young age,” he said. “The more we stared at that, the more we became uncomfortable.”
Inspired by Buffett’s example, they created trusts for each of their now college-age children. Each kid has $2.5 million controlled by trustees, who can release money only for education, health care, a home purchase or a business start-up. Any unspent money in the trust will continue to be invested and grow.
Those restrictions remain in place until each child reaches age 40; after that, the money is all theirs to do as they please. In their 20s and 30s, the funds are there to get them launched; by 40, their parents assume they will be mature enough to use the money wisely or save it.