Can you live a happy life without much money?

I think this is a really uplifting story. So many times I've felt angry because I grew up poor. But sometimes I forget all the lessons it's taught me. About humility. About how to be a good person. About hard work. How to appreciate my own hard work. How to be proud of what I've earned on my own steam. How to have empathy. I think what Hoffman has done for his children is a true gift...


Philip Seymour Hoffman didn't want 'trust fund' kids, filing says.

Philip Seymour Hoffman didn't want to leave any money to his three young children with Mimi O'Donnell, court documents have revealed -- supporting wishes expressed by the actor in a nearly 10-year-old will that went public in February.

Hoffman "did not want his children to be considered 'trust fund' kids," according to a new filing obtained by the New York Post.

And there's a bundle of money to be had: about $35 million, the paper said.

Hoffman died of an overdose in February at age 46, leaving behind a son and two daughters: Cooper, 10, Tallulah, 7, and Willa, 5. In his October 2004 will, the "Capote" Oscar winner gave everything to his longtime girlfriend, with Cooper as a backup in case O'Donnell had passed away. At the time the will was signed, however, the girls were not yet born.

The new details were gleaned from an interview of Hoffman's accountant that was conducted by a court-appointed attorney representing the children's interests in the resolution of the estate.

The accountant said Hoffman had more than once "summarily rejected" the idea of setting up funds for the kids, the Post said. O'Donnell would take care of them, the actor believed.

Hoffman treated O'Donnell as if she were his spouse, the accountant said, but he "didn't believe in marriage."

Though the two were not living together when he was found dead, the accountant said the presence of "substantial" joint accounts backed up the will.

Except for saying he wanted his son to be raised in one of only three cities, Hoffman echoed a sentiment recently expressed by Sting, who said in a June interview that there were no trust funds -- "albatrosses 'round their necks" -- awaiting his six children.

"I told them there won’t be much money left because we are spending it!," the former Police frontman told the Daily Mail.

"They have to work," he added. "All my kids know that and they rarely ask me for anything, which I really respect and appreciate."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-philip-seymour-hoffman-estate-will-trust-fund-mimi-odonnell-20140721-story.html

I 'm very pleased that I have no wives nor children
who will benefit by accelerating my demise,
but if I did, then I 'd consider myself morally obligated
to benefit them with my financial legacy.
I 'd not want them to need to work.

I 'm glad that I did not need to do that.
I grew up in comfort n lived my life that way.
I cud not condemn my widow nor progeny to less.

You didn't need to work?

Yes.

Well then what is your "financial legacy' rooted in, if not your own work?

I can honestly say that everything I have is something I've earned.

I'm proud of that.

In addition to my investments, largely in real estate,
I earned it thru the practice of law and from a job I had from
the State of New York, neither of which I found to be "work".
Thay were comfortable. I had assistance in my own firm
as well as in the other job. It was kinda fun.

I have had friends who really did work. I see the distinction.
It seems to me that the argument of concepts is not "work".
In my youth, I did that for free.

This is not to deny that my family was fairly well off b4 my birth.

i would not go that far, but it seems cruel to me to bring kids up as wealthy class and then leave them with nothing by choice. Back when men made all the money and women were divorced the men had to pay alimony, because they had given the women a certain lifestyle over the years and were expected to continue to do so for a time even after divorce. I dont see why this is different. If you bring kids into the world and raise them as wealthy you have obligations to them re financial pass down upon death.

AGREED. What Aaron Spelling did to his daughter
(reportedly leaving her a paltry $8OO,OOO) was reprehensible,
unless she was guilty of egregious misconduct against him.

Ok, I have agreed with both you hawkeye, and you david on other topics. But this is bullshit!

Handing children money teaches them NO responsibility or self reliance at all!

I abhor people who have things handed to them through no ingenuity or hard work of their own! If you get things handed to you in life, not only does that lessen your appreciation for them; it makes you feel entitled.

That's BULLSHIT.

If you want a silver lining given to you through none of your own hard work, you might as well be a feminist!

There is NO integrity in having life handed to you on silver platter!

My wife and I handed down good genetics to our kids which advantages them tremendously, why should we look at passing down wealth resources any differently?

You do realize I hope that you are talking to a socialist, one who believes that we do almost nothing on our own as individuals.

I have some trouble with the word " integrity" used here, but I believe that having a soft upbringing ruins people for life very often. I took care to never do that. However, if Stings kids are as good as he says that they are he does not need to worry that passing resources to them will ruin them. It will help them help others. Raise them right, dont let them have any real money till they are 30, and the odds that all will go well are good.

Because that ensures that the people being "passed' those resources through no work of their own will take them for granted.



I had thought you much stronger and more self reliant than that. I do strongly believe in taking away power from the privileged, ruling class, but socialism? I voted for Obama, but even I can't say I believe in socialism...

A former co-worker of mine was a so-called trust fund baby. His family had lots of money and he was given a trust fund - not sure how wealthy, but enough he did not have to work.

Why then was he a co-worker and not sitting on his butt enjoying the money? It was set up as such that he would have to be employed full-time (I honestly do not know all the details - just what he told me) in order to get his monthly allowance.

I guess that was the way to instill the importance of contributing in some fashion, but still as mentioned, to maintain the lifestyle he was used to.

That might be accurate, but that 's NOT
the reason that I do it. For the last few decades, I 've had a hobby
of giving $1OO.oo bills to strangers (usually cute chics in stores, or the street) who don t expect it.
I 've also done something like it qua children, hurling coins (dimes, and up to silver dollars
and sometimes $1O Gold Pieces) UP so that thay fall in the grass, like an Easter Egg Hunt.




U r not getting your BMW ready to run them over, r u ???


Yes. I have found that thay can get jaded n surfeited.
For instance, last evening, I threw coins to 2 brothers aged 9 & 11.
The younger boy decided that he 'd accept only half dollar or
full dollar coins. His brother was willing also to accept dimes & quarters
from the grass, but he left many of them down there, saying that he will
"get them tomorrow." The coins had declined in the boys' hierarchy of values
since the first distribution of coins to which thay were party.
That did not apply to their dad, who remained VERY HAPPY
and was smiling most broadly as he expressed profuse gratitude.




I dunno how u r defining "integrity".
I threw the coins in service of hedonism, not integrity.
In past years, I have dropped coins in grass from hot air balloons,
as thay pass in the sky. I dunno, but I suspect that a lot of people
do not expect money to come raining down from colorful balloons.
I thought that might be a good surprize, not necessarily related to "integrity".
When I was in the 3rd Grade, I was practicing reading in school, at age 8.
We read (inter alia) a story of some guy who threw coins to some European peasants.
Thay called him ScatterGold.
In later years, I thought it'd be fun to make myself ScatterGold to people who don t expect it.
Sometimes, its fun.





David

At the end of all this, I find myself truly saddened by the insane level of power so many of you appear to be allowing money to essentially rule and dictate your measure of contentment.

Moreover, I notice that many of you don't seem to either comprehend the O.P.'s inquiry or how to respond directly to it. Instead there lurks in so many, a requirement to feel life of less meaning and/or value unless you are substantially above the average income.

Just grateful that I've located inner peace without a desperate need of wealth or tangibles.

Do I like things? Yes. That is where it ends for me. Times, even recent, when I've been without, I have still been happy. Wish I had a way to convey and transfer this freedom to you.

I 've never found fault with it.
I 've been truly GLADDENED. Money is FUN!

money is also power and choice. In my years in in the restaurant industry I have worked with many low wage people. I have noticed that they act like money does not matter, they act like they are perfectly happy being poor and working 2-3 jobs to pay the bills, but as they get older the truth reveals. Poverty tends to be emotionally, physically and spiritually grinding. These people get ground down, and bitterness tends to replace the "HAPPY, HAPPY HAPPY!" act.

Yes.





David

Yes, David money is so much fun. As a college student in Chicago I had to take many buses to where I was going, before I could afford to take a taxi or even afford a car.

Now days, if I don't want to drive my car, I just take a cab to where want to go.

Having money, means no more bus rides and no more subway rides with uncivilized people, a new car when I want one and of course a cab at most hours of day or night.

If anyone thinks being poor is lots of fun,then let them visit some of the slums of the US, where 10 people live in 2 bed room apartments, and the only toilet is out in the hallway, where everyone who lives on that floor of the apartment building ( many, many folks ) has to visit when nature calls.

And by the way, how do you think poor folks in Chicago feel, waiting for a bus, when the temp is minus 20 or lower?

Anyone who thinks being poor is fun, hasn't tasted the harsh realities of living poor in cities such as Chicago, especially in an apartment with holes in the windows.

I say , "nuts to poverty".

That's why many women seek out wealthy men to be their husbands.

in my town a 10-15 minute road trip can easily take 1.5 hours by bus. Multiply that by two since you need to get home again.

This is just one of the many ways that poverty sucks the life out of people.