Earlier this evening, a publicist sent me a pitch about a law professor’s take on the trend among the rich and famous, like CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, to leave their heirs with less rather than more — the idea being that children who inherit vast sums of money would be de-incentivized to get off their keisters and work for a living.
This presumes terribly young heirs. By the time many people inherit anything they are well into middle age. That’s a long time to hold out hope for a pot of gold. But it could be that knowing all they have to do is to play the long game would keep heirs from striving. Hasn’t exactly stopped Prince Charles from running his farm, advocating for the environment and performing his royal duties, though, has it?
Anyhoo, the publicist went on to quote John D. Rockefeller on the harm of giving people money — this from a millionaire many times over who gave out dimes to children in the Great Depression. Back then, a dime could buy you a meal or a movie ticket. Still, it was shiny, new dimes, intended to start conversations that he gave out, not dollars.
This is not to dump on Rockefeller, who spawned a philanthropic dynasty whose multiple generations have carved out interesting lives and careers, or Cooper (a Vanderbilt on his mother’s side) or any of the others like billionaire investor Warren Buffet and now-former James Bond Daniel Craig who see inherited wealth as “distasteful.” There is much to be commended in those who use their wealth for the general good and leave it to do good thereafter. It speaks to the core American value of individualism — making your own way. But I believe there’s more to it than the desire to instill rugged American individualism in the next generation.
After all, if you raise your children well, who’s to say that they’re going to squander your money when you’re gone? And if they do, does it matter? I’ve seen people who inherited great wealth whose nose is always to the grindstone and those within the same family who flit from one party to the next, enjoying the money and the moment. Maybe, as Jesus would put it, the partygoers have “chosen the better part.” Who’s to say they’re not imparting joy in their own way?
Of course, this isn’t about money. Well, actually it is but it’s about more than that. It’s about the idea that in a country where money is a currency of love, withholding it from “loved ones” also speaks to the desire to control it — to have power over your legacy — beyond the grave. If you don’t leave it to your family, presumably you are going to leave it to a charity of some sort. But did the charity ever put its arms around you? Did the foundation take your criticisms on the chin? Did the municipality sit through all those sometimes tense holiday dinners? Was the nonprofit with you as you lay dying?
What’s lost in all the virtue signaling of wanting to keep descendants independent is fear. You wake up one day — or maybe you’re just walking down the street, the sun is shining, you’re feeling good — and you suddenly realize that you and everyone around you is going to die some day. And as Cosmo in “Moonstruck” would say, “that’s a bad, crazy day.” What you need is a legacy. So in your will, you leave your house to become an arts center or you donate millions to a hospital, knowing full well it’s going to have to name something after you. Because, let’s face it, it’s not like your Alexander the Great, who’s still famous more than 2,000 years after he died. There aren’t any Persian Empires to conquer anymore. (Must be why Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are so interested in blasting off into space.)
I’m not saying that this is what celebrities are doing. I have no idea what is going on in their minds. Let’s presume they’re acting from the highest parental and humanitarian instincts. But I’ve known people who got to the end of their lives and suddenly found their legacy wanting. And that’s because they never had any relationship with their children to begin with.
For most people, children are their greatest legacy — not some building or park or bequest to a charity that will help others in the abstract. For most people, having something concrete to leave their kids in the form of a house or a bankbook is important. For most people, a small amount of money can transform their lives for the better. For most people, the sad truth is that while money can’t buy happiness, it can make misery comfortable. Try being sick in this country without it. But then, most people in this country aren’t rich. They don’t have the luxury of withholding great wealth from their children.
Still, rich or poor, some parents and grandparents like to settle scores at the end. Call it the ultimate form of control. That’s why I always recommend to those who eye the Tiffany lamp in their favorite aunt’s home a little too longingly that they not look to what they might get. It’s not theirs to give.
Rather I would say to both those who are looking for a legacy and those who are expecting an inheritance, it might be best to do as much good as you can, enjoying life in the present as the future always has a way of taking care of itself.