Supporting the individualistic argument. The family values trend in my prosperous region of Canada is leaning toward successful businessmen and entrepreneurs valuing empowering their children but not supporting their children past adolescence.
The accepted end goal IS to die as close to net zero as possible, I’ve not seen strong obligations to leave a large inheritance behind. The only strong obligation is the empowerment of their upper-middle class children so they can follow the same zero to wealth to zero cycle.
Where sons stay in the same industry as fathers, instead of striking out on their own, they work for the fathers firm until they have the credit and savings to start taking loans and buying shares of the fathers firm. Successful succession planning is when the children can buy 100% of the firm by the time the parents are ready for retirement.
(All based on personal observations of a single province and a group of peers n~20)
The accepted end goal IS to die as close to net zero as possible
Is there an exception for real estate? I’m thinking both “regular” houses (reverse mortgages are uncommon) and, in particular, things like summer houses and farmland which tend to stay in the family.
I agree that the desire to leave behind a large bank account is… not widespread, but land and houses look sticky to me.
Farmland is far closer to a business asset and ends up treated the same as any other economic asset. Of course in farming there is a higher ratio of dynasty minded families (function of this province’s immigration history and strong east-european cultural backgrounds).
I see what you mean about personal homes and personal land. There may be a mental division between economic assets, which shall not be given only sold, personal assets which are gifted away. This is a gap in my knowledge, It appears I need to spend more time with close to retirement, independently wealthy individuals.
“Lacking self-control” is probably what you mean :-)
Example: the Vanderbilts.
Supporting the individualistic argument. The family values trend in my prosperous region of Canada is leaning toward successful businessmen and entrepreneurs valuing empowering their children but not supporting their children past adolescence.
The accepted end goal IS to die as close to net zero as possible, I’ve not seen strong obligations to leave a large inheritance behind. The only strong obligation is the empowerment of their upper-middle class children so they can follow the same zero to wealth to zero cycle.
Where sons stay in the same industry as fathers, instead of striking out on their own, they work for the fathers firm until they have the credit and savings to start taking loans and buying shares of the fathers firm. Successful succession planning is when the children can buy 100% of the firm by the time the parents are ready for retirement.
(All based on personal observations of a single province and a group of peers n~20)
Is there an exception for real estate? I’m thinking both “regular” houses (reverse mortgages are uncommon) and, in particular, things like summer houses and farmland which tend to stay in the family.
I agree that the desire to leave behind a large bank account is… not widespread, but land and houses look sticky to me.
Farmland is far closer to a business asset and ends up treated the same as any other economic asset. Of course in farming there is a higher ratio of dynasty minded families (function of this province’s immigration history and strong east-european cultural backgrounds).
I see what you mean about personal homes and personal land. There may be a mental division between economic assets, which shall not be given only sold, personal assets which are gifted away. This is a gap in my knowledge, It appears I need to spend more time with close to retirement, independently wealthy individuals.