No kids. Who do we put in the will?

[DrRoy]

For those of you having a hard time deciding who to give money to...start spending some/more of it on yourself.

+1. See the BTD thread.

 

[DrRoy]

I have asked her many times, she just says "NO." Won't give a reason...

If she won't even discuss it I doubt there is anything you could say to persuade her. Sorry.

 

[Music Lover]

I agree with Koolau. Changing one’s spending habits after a lifetime of saving is easy to suggest but very difficult to do.

I understand that it can be hard to change a lifetime habit of saving, but we're talking about people that have too much money and no one to leave it to.

I only have a modest pension and limited savings and don't have that problem. We're selling the paid off house in 2-3 years (I'm 61) and spending the money while we're still young enough to enjoy it. If I had the millions that some people here have I would have started spending it years ago.

 

[Bigbass]

I was considering St. Jude, but I saw a few things on Guidestar that bothered me a bit and we took them off the list. Nothing really major, mostly too much spent on advertising and some really, really highly paid employees (they may be surgeons, can't remember).

I was considering giving to St. Jude also until I read this

https://www.propublica.org/article/st.-jude-fights-donors-families-in-court-for-share-of-estates

Now I'm looking for small/local community foundations...

 

[JoeWras]

I was considering giving to St. Jude also until I read this

https://www.propublica.org/article/st.-jude-fights-donors-families-in-court-for-share-of-estates

Now I'm looking for small/local community foundations...

Yikes!

This confirms my idea to not name beneficiaries in the will (except for the DAF), and to not notify any charities of bequests. Keep the will simple and let the DAF handle it.

Too much information gives the lawyers too much to work with.

 

[Markola]

^^^^ That ProPublica article is very slanted and and relied on selective, salacious examples. Families of deceased relatives get very weird when money is involved and, sometimes, charities have to take charge of estate proceedings to ensure the late donor’s wishes are followed. Otherwise, shirt tail relatives and their attorneys can come out of the woodwork to dissolve a donor’s charitable estate plan. The article indicates that St. Jude engages in litigation on 1% of estates, and that sometimes courts see it their way, sometimes the family’s way. They know full well that doing so can lead to bad PR, like this biased article, so they are reluctant to. Donors expect to be engaged by the charities they support, and vocally don’t like it when they are ignored, but the article seems to say donor engagement is unethical. Except for rare examples, I disagree. People should be able to give their money where they want to.

 

[Gumby]

... Donors expect to be engaged by the charities they support, and vocally don’t like it when they are ignored....

Maybe it's unusual, but I don't want to be engaged. If I give you money, just take it and leave me alone. No cards, no letters, no calls. I have chosen to give you money for my own reasons, and if I want to give you more, I know who you are and how to contact you.

 

[OldShooter]

^^^^ That ProPublica article is very slanted and and relied on selective, salacious examples. ...

Any article inevitably involve selection of material. Nothing surprising about that. The real questions are whether the stories are accurate or not and whether they typify St. Jude's litigators' behavior.

Almost all charities work to stay in touch with possible donors. Agree that is not unethical.

HOWEVER, 1% is a very big number considering that the vast majority of bequests are going to be small. I would be interested to know what the litigation percentage is for significant (>$1M) estates.

DW's hobby in 20 years of retirement has been serving and chairing nonprofit boards. I have lost count of the number but it is probably over twenty. Usually three or four at any point in time. She has often been involved in the development function, sometimes involving donations >$1M. Inevitably the organizations are grateful for what they get and do not look the gift horse in the mouth. Never once have I heard of possible or actual litigation concerning donations.

 

[JoeWras]

Maybe it's unusual, but I don't want to be engaged. If I give you money, just take it and leave me alone. No cards, no letters, no calls. I have chosen to give you money for my own reasons, and if I want to give you more, I know who you are and how to contact you.

I'm with you. I want no engagement.

DW's hobby in 20 years of retirement has been serving and chairing nonprofit boards. I have lost count of the number but it is probably over twenty. Usually three or four at any point in time. She has often been involved in the development function, sometimes involving donations >$1M. Inevitably the organizations are grateful for what they get and do not look the gift horse in the mouth. Never once have I heard of possible or actual litigation concerning donations.

I serve on a board of a smaller charity. Litigation is the absolute last thing on our collective mind.

And yes, some donors want engagement and hand holding. They look forward to a yearly lunch we hold. Not for me, although as a board member I have to attend. I find them ponderous.

 

[Koolau]

What about thinking of spending it down to near zero? What about parents? Siblings?

I guess that would be an ideal situation, but I know we've had that discussion a few times. I think everyone wants to "bounce the last check" but unless you are the cause of your own departure, you really don't know how long you will live. I knew one guy who was given weeks to live (cancer) and lived a relatively nice life for over two years. IIRC, he had rejected any further treatments and then felt better. Then suddenly, he was ill and then gone but he got almost 2 years of near normal. You just can't call it that close, IMHO.

Yes. Parents and siblings may well be worthy recipients of "Giving with a warm hand." I've been "at the ready" to help out my Big Sis if she needs it. She whines all the time about not having money, but she drives a decent car has a really nice paid-off condo, pays her bills and "manages" her families affairs (her 2 kids have kids and one of those kids just had a kid.) She sees to it that THEY have what they need. SO, helping kids, grand kids, siblings, parents are all worthy. You just need to be certain you have enough left - just in case (I personally worry about LTC.)

But, yes. FAMILY is everything. I'd start there if there is need. YMMV

 

[Koolau]

We maintain a fund with the local community foundation. It is designated as a "crisis fund" and receives applications from local public schools among other intermediaries. One year we funded car parts so the high school auto maintenance class could repair a couple of cars which were then donated to people who needed them. Other times we have donated winter clothing to grade-schoolers. A local pastor has applied for and received grocery store gift cards to help families in crisis. The foundation does the screening and distributes the money. We just top up the fund (via QCD) once in a while. This is all small-dollar stuff but high impact to recipients. Very satisfying. Something like this would also be very easy to set up in an estate plan.

I love the way you state that: Low dollar - High impact.

Sometimes I'm overwhelmed by the needs that I see in the world. A pastor once told me: "You can't do everything, but you can do something. DO what you can." I've never forgot that and I think I've been able to make a small difference to a lot of people. Not much in this world feels better than that. YMMV

 

[Koolau]

There are exceptions, & Hawaii might be one of them. My wife & I ran our computer consulting company for 32 years, & in that time, we were unable to hire a single local graduate who lasted longer than his/her 3-month trial period! In fact, the majority didn't make it through the first month! That included two job candidates who had been "awarded" local PhDs!

It's tremendously expensive to hire employees from out of state, but that's what we were forced to do, thanks to the abysmal local education system! The local Dept. of Education spends more per student than almost any other state, so throwing more money at them isn't going to solve the endemic problem of really-bad teaching techniques.

We did our best to support local education, & my Hawaii Computers for Kids Program has put tens of thousands of computer systems into PK-12 schools since 1991. The many students who benefitted from that training wisely moved out of state to get their advanced degrees.

My point is to just be very careful when it comes to giving bequests to schools.

Bless you for the efforts you have made toward educating our local kids by providing computers. And, yes, I've seen what you've seen with kids who have completed school in our system.

We support a church school which has excellent credentials and results - but it is very expensive. I help provide scholarship money to needy students. Everyone deserves a good education, but in Hawaii, that usually means a private school.

I agree that our local school system (public) is less than ideal at best. It breaks my heart to know that some teachers allow students to use pigeon in class. I'm all for keeping our culture alive, but culture must never retard a student's learning. This world is hard enough to master without having gaps in essential learning. Sorry. End of mini-rant. Mods feel free to delete the emotion.

 

[rembrandt]

You can leave it to me. Problem solved.

 

[pb4uski]

When I was growing up, my parents drilled into us "please and thank you". I think a 14 year old is sufficiently old enough and should have shown a bit of gratitude and definitely said thank you. It unfortunately speaks to his upbringing.

Yes, a thank you is easy whether you genuinely feel thankful or not... just common courtesy.