I think she has a point somewhere, but takes it to far to the extreme!
I am not rich, but I am still saving money for my son.
That won't mean that he'll be well off, and won't have to work, but he will be able to afford to take his driving test at 18 (or 17 if it stays the way it is now), maybe even buy an old car, and enjoy his youth just enough to look back later and smile!
Phoenix32890 wrote:...I don't think that the government has the right to appropriate money that someone has earned for the benefit of "others", whomever they are. A person has earned the money, and IMO has the right to do with it as she sees fit.
I think it's reasonable that people with loads of $$$$ should pay considerably more tax than those on lower incomes, though. Is that what you're talking about here?
msolga- Of course income taxes need to be paid based proportionally on earnings. What I object to are the estate taxes, which to me, is double taxation.
my husband and I had a detailed conversation about this..
We are both thinking that " Isn't taking care of our kids what we are here for? "
If we as parents can help our children out in SOME way, ( we think) that helps your children to learn yet a diffrent lesson. Unconditional love.
I will help you with what I can when I have it, and because I love you, I want to make your world comfortable as well.
Needless to say, we dont subscribe to the " Its all mine" mindset she has.
Having the mindset of " I wont leave you anything so you can learn to support yourself" is EASY when you have more money then you know how to spend. Enforcing selfish "Im not going to help you" rules on your children when it comes to money is EASY when you are making money
hand over fist for things you no longer have to work to achieve.
By the time she dies, they will be in their late 20's maybe early 30's.
Just starting their own lives, out of school and probably new parents. It is not easy being new to the world at those ages. College degree in your hands does not guarantee work, nor does it guarantee high pay.
Add a baby to the mix, a husband or wife, and possibly an ailing parent. Very few people in their lives get any lucky breaks to help them through that part of life.
Keeping all of your things to yourself, and squealing like a spoiled brat " Its mine and i will do anything I want with it so dont expect a penny" is typical of people who are spoiled themselves.
Bringing light to a subject as private as this one, the way she has done it, is just dripping of " Look at me, approve of me" behavior, Im truly not surprised she is not leaving them anything.
Im sure she busted her behind to be where she is. ANd I can ABSOLUTELY understand her idea of people not really understanding how hard work is , when you want to achieve something.. but in all honesty, all she did was write a book. And then she got -lucky- because someone famous like Oprah read it and then started telling people to buy it. She also makes a TV show correct ? So then she is lucky again there... She has a great TV personality ( with training I am sure)
And her ratings are high because she got lucky enough to get alot of exposure onher book so that people want to see what she does in the kitchen.
Writing a book........... ANY ONE CAN DO THAT. Sorry lady. You just got lucky and had the right people read it.
Sorry, that 'aint ass busting' work . Some other people I know work over 12 hours a day and just make enough to pay bills. I bet her body has not seen an ounce of physical labor. -Anyone can write a book-. Anyone can hire an editor. Anyone can get a book published.
And almost anyone, if trained correctly, can be a TV personality, and everyone has creativity in them to cook.WTF makes her so special? Oh yeah................. luck.
shewolfnm wrote: By the time she dies, they will be in their late 20's maybe early 30's.
wow, you're banking on her dying in her mid 60's.
the average british woman lives to be 80 years old....and that's average. She can afford the best healthcare and will probably live longer.
honestly, what percentage of the people you know had both their parents die when they were between 25 and 35? Usually that happens in your mid 40's, and beyond.
Her kids are 13 and under. They'll have plenty of time to make their own way in the world.
Phoenix32890 wrote:This is actually a very complex issue. Breaking it down to its components, here is my "take" on this matter.
Nigella is doing herself and her children a disservice by broadcasting what she is or is not going to do with her money. I don't know what she is after, but it is really nobody's business but hers.
I don't think that it is wrong someone to leave a person a large inheritance. If the giver is wise, she will take the character and age of the heir into consideration, and use that evaluation in determining the nature of the bequest. There is someone in my family whom I am disinheriting, since she has proven that she cannot be trusted to use money wisely. If I live long enough, and she matures, I might change my mind, but as of now, she gets nothing.
I don't think that the government has the right to appropriate money that someone has earned for the benefit of "others", whomever they are. A person has earned the money, and IMO has the right to do with it as she sees fit.
I would not feel guilty if I inherited a lot of money. I might want to give some to charity, start a foundation, build a wing on a hospital, etc., but that is my choice, and I am not obliged to do so.
When you buy a lottery ticket, you are placing a legal bet. There is nothing wrong with accepting any proceeds from that bet.
complex, indeed.
Agreeing with those who say this is a private matter and should not be news. I also agree that there is no right or wrong way to disperse an estate or to use the funds received from one. None of us walk in someone else's shoes.
msolga wrote:jespah wrote:shewolfnm wrote:Who are we to dictate and try to control how our kids, as adults, learn lessons in their lives.
Give or dont.
I think it is truly a sadly controlling person who would make it public that they will not give money to their child because they want them to learn from hardship and nothing else. Why dictate like that? If you dont want to give that is fine, but dont make it public. What a snotty move
Bingo. I also felt, well, since when was the act of you getting on your moral high horse a newsworthy event?
I can get behind giving a large chunk to charity or a school, sure. Hey, knock yourself out. But you do it fairly quietly. Even though you're a celebrity of sorts. Be known for that deed, and not the disinheriting part. Hell, be known for it after you die. But none of this crap. This just reeks of "hey everybody, look at me! I'm so moral and right and wonderful! Don't you all just wanna be me?"
Gaaah.
Yes, I also wondered why she'd decided to go public with her decision. I mean, she's not exactly a Vanessa Redgrave, is she?
And she could have kept all this quietly to herself. (& provided her off-spring with a little surprise when her will was read after her death. :wink: )
In any case, I doubt that the daughter of a Conservative UK politician didn't have a
few advantages in life?
From what I can find this was apparently a fairly minor comment in a interview she gave to some Scottish magazine which has been blown out of proportion by the UK tabliod press.
I found a note on one blog that mentioned that the original comment was one line from a paragraph that was focused on how she and her husband handle disagreements between themselves and this was the example of a disagreement that she gave.
The tabliods ignored the rest of the full page story and focused on this one quip.
I know one guy who has a trust fund so basically as an adult he has more than enough money. However, one of the stipulations of the trust fund is that he has to be gainfully employed in order to receive his monthly trust fund money - one way to ensure a child learns the benefits of working.
(Although to be quite honest he wasn't a very good worker.)
Quote: It began circulating in the media that Lawson was quoted as saying that her two children should inherit none of the fortune, apparently having said "I am determined that my children should have no financial security. It ruins people not having to earn money."[60] She strongly denied these plans in a statement on her personal website, which read "Of course I have no intention of leaving my children destitute and starving - rather, this is a story that came from a comment I made about my belief that you have to work in order to learn the value of money."[68] She also said "although I'd normally ignore it, I want to set the record, not least to spare my children continuing embarrassment."[68]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigella_Lawson
and I'll say that I've got to give her her props for her hard work to get her career to the place it is now.
listened to warren buffet interview recently when he announced giving his "remaining"
money to charity .
he said that his children had been well provided for - education , already had their own careers ... ... .
he didn't think any additional moneys would be very helpful to them .
that's the way i see it (and mrs h) : make sure children get a good education , but don't push them to do things they are really not interested in ,
try to give them a "helping hand" early on , but make sure they understand that they essentially are responsible for their own happiness .
hbg
ps . to avoid any mis-understanding : the hamburgers are definetely NOT in warren buffet's league
That seems a pretty sensible attitude to me, hamburger.
Give the young a good, supportive start in life, then let them make their own way.
