Philip Seymour Hoffman leaves his children out of his will, did not want them to become "trust fund - Polidicks

[quote]When Oscar-winning actor Philip Seymour Hoffman died of a drug overdose in February at age 46, he left behind three children ages 10 and under — and the entirety of his estimated $35 million fortune to their mother, his longtime partner, Mimi O'Donnell. Why didn't Hoffman bequeath any of his estate directly to his son and two daughters? According to documents filed in Manhattan's Surrogate Court and obtained this week by E! News, Hoffman had told his accountant that he "did not want his children to be considered 'trust fund' kids." Hoffman's decision seems to hint at a common worry among the wealthy. In late June, a survey by law firm Withers LLP found that the second biggest concern for respondents who are worth $10 million or more was that their children "will lack the drive and ambition to get ahead." Hoffman wasn't the only celebrity concerned about the impact of a huge inheritance. Sting recently said he won't be leaving his $300 million fortune to his kids. "I certainly don’t want to leave them trust funds that are albatrosses round their necks," he told The Daily Mail. "They have to work. All my kids know that and they rarely ask me for anything, which I really respect and appreciate.”[/quote] [url]http://www.today.com/parents/philip-seymour-hoffman-leaves-35m-partner-instead-kids-1D79959171?cid=sm_n_main_1_20140722_28263286[/url]

good, they dont need to be spoiled

Bill Gates did the same thing too, right?

Can't really argue with this.

I'm still a bit surprised that he's dead, it came out of nowhere really

Well he gave it to his wife instead of kids and she should be responsible for managing this money and doing what's right with it.

[QUOTE=sirdownloadsalot;45476099]Bill Gates did the same thing too, right?[/QUOTE] Pretty sure he left them [I]something[/I], but all relatively low amounts compared to his total fortune.

Just because their mother has the money it doesn't mean they're going to somehow be immune to not being spoiled.

[QUOTE=markg06;45476304]Just because their mother has the money it doesn't mean they're going to somehow be immune to not being spoiled.[/QUOTE] I think the point is it won't be THEIR money, which is what a trust fund would do. So the mother can put them through school and whatnot very easily, but they'll have to earn their living.

This maybe an unpopular opinion. Honestly, I find this kind of mentality silly. I understand their reasoning behind it, but I don't think there is anything wrong in them passing down their wealth to their children. Why not at least inspire the kids to follow their dream careers? If the kids just sit on their asses do nothing with their lives, then the parents at least share some of the blame.

I gotta agree with that decision because it's the same way I was raised. My father and mother didn't want me to become a trust fund kiddie either, though the term doesn't have much currency around here yet.

[QUOTE=Lamar;45476409]This maybe an unpopular opinion. Honestly, I find this kind of mentality silly. I understand their reasoning behind it, but I don't think there is anything wrong in them passing down their wealth to their children. Why not at least inspire the kids to follow their dream careers? If the kids just sit on their asses do nothing with their lives, then the parents at least share some of the blame.[/QUOTE] it really depends how young they are

[QUOTE=Lamar;45476409]This maybe an unpopular opinion. Honestly, I find this kind of mentality silly. I understand their reasoning behind it, but I don't think there is anything wrong in them passing down their wealth to their children. Why not at least inspire the kids to follow their dream careers? If the kids just sit on their asses do nothing with their lives, then the parents at least share some of the blame.[/QUOTE] why can't they follow their dream careers with less money? if anything, if you're already rich enough that you don't have to work unless you want to, you're gonna be less motivated to get off your ass and work towards what you want

[QUOTE=Lamar;45476409]This maybe an unpopular opinion. Honestly, I find this kind of mentality silly. I understand their reasoning behind it, but I don't think there is anything wrong in them passing down their wealth to their children. Why not at least inspire the kids to follow their dream careers? If the kids just sit on their asses do nothing with their lives, then the parents at least share some of the blame.[/QUOTE] The chances of you being responsible and wisely using 50 million dollars that just kinda appeared in your life is incredibly small.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;45476451]The chances of you being responsible and wisely using 50 million dollars that just kinda appeared in your life is incredibly small.[/QUOTE] I dunno about that. Also you CAN bequeath money conditionally. Like say it can only be used for school or it can't be used until this age or whatever.

[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;45476526]I dunno about that. Also you CAN bequeath money conditionally. Like say it can only be used for school or it can't be used until this age or whatever.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but if it's somehow challenged after your death, there's nothing you can do to defend it. Honestly, the only way to insure your money goes to who you want is to give it while you're alive. Which of course, causes its own difficulties.

Didn't leave the money to his kids, but their mother... what's the difference ?

[QUOTE=AntonioR;45476668]Didn't leave the money to his kids, but their mother... what's the difference ?[/QUOTE] I've known people on both sides of the trust-fund equation, those who needed it and those who used it to float around aimlessly. Since the mother's still around and assuming she's had a good relationship with him and the children - it's much better off in her hands for the time being. Especially since they're younger than 10.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;45476668]Didn't leave the money to his kids, but their mother... what's the difference ?[/QUOTE] they won't have any when they move out?

[QUOTE=AntonioR;45476668]Didn't leave the money to his kids, but their mother... what's the difference ?[/QUOTE] the difference is that the kids are 10 years old and will never appreciate the value of a dollar if they just have an infinite bank account, and would likely end up squandering it before they get through their 20's then have to enter the world with zero applicable skills the mother has the money now and can put it towards schooling and necessities while they're young, and when they get older she's still free to hand over chunks of it to them I know as kids we all wished we just had a million dollars to do anything, but this kind of stuff goes far beyond just 'spoiling' all we can really hope is that the mother doesn't just squander it herself, though that happens more when previously not-well-off people end up with huge sums dangling in front of them (like macaulay culkin's dad)

Jackie Chan did the same thing, as well.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45476449]why can't they follow their dream careers with less money? if anything, if you're already rich enough that you don't have to work unless you want to, you're gonna be less motivated to get off your ass and work towards what you want[/QUOTE] The way I think of it, can you become something like a fashion designer or a movie director as easily without a large sum of wealth at your disposal?

Those who grow up with money are actually generally more responsible with it than those who don't. It's called the culture of poverty. Such a person burns through their cash quickly because they're not used to it sticking around anyway. Of course there are exceptions both ways, but why assume all rich kids are irresponsible?

These kids don't particularly need the money anyway. They will have had a great education and if they decide to pursue showbusiness they will be able to get tons of jobs from the name alone. It isn't like he's donated the money to a charity that makes wigs for ducks. It has gone to their mother who can provide the monetary safety nets if his children truly run in to trouble.

[QUOTE=dai;45476746]all we can really hope is that the mother doesn't just squander it herself, though that happens more when previously not-well-off people end up with huge sums dangling in front of them (like macaulay culkin's dad)[/QUOTE] Look up "the curse of the lottery". I did a paper on it back in high school. It's pretty interesting to say the least. It's amazing how large sums of money will change people.

[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;45476794]Those who grow up with money are actually generally more responsible with it than those who don't. It's called the culture of poverty. Such a person burns through their cash quickly because they're not used to it sticking around anyway. Of course there are exceptions both ways, but why assume all rich kids are irresponsible?[/QUOTE] I'm sure the kids aren't being thrown on the streets to earn minimum wage at 10 years old. The family unit will still be very well off and they'll have what they need, but won't have a gigantic pile of burning cash on top of their bank accounts

[QUOTE=Lamar;45476791]The way I think of it, can you become something like a fashion designer or a movie director as easily without a large sum of wealth at your disposal?[/QUOTE] Yes

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45476860]Look up "the curse of the lottery". I did a paper on it back in high school. It's pretty interesting to say the least. It's amazing how large sums of money will change people.[/QUOTE] I tried looking it up but this website redacted itself [t]http://i.imgur.com/MH3HjwG.png[/t] I'm probably too poor to read 'the richest'

[QUOTE=Lamar;45476791]The way I think of it, can you become something like a fashion designer or a movie director as easily without a large sum of wealth at your disposal?[/QUOTE] considering they're probably going to have some of the best education out there (since their mother still has the money), yeah. they probably wouldn't be as eager to start those careers if they had all that money to themselves though

[QUOTE=dai;45476922]I tried looking it up but this website redacted itself [t]http://i.imgur.com/MH3HjwG.png[/t] I'm probably too poor to read 'the richest'[/QUOTE] It's not a specific article. It's a term for a phenomena that happens to a majority of the big lottery winners. Most of them end up broke, bankrupt, or dead. There are a few exceptions, as always, but it's still very interesting. It could be used as a basic model for what would happen if random people started receiving large sums of money who aren't used to having wealth, and all else equal.