In a recent visit, my parents, both in their 70s, outlined their intentions for their considerable assets, which include a trust worth millions of dollars. They propose that my brother and I (both in our 30s) serve as trustees. We would receive an unconditional portion of the trust, with access to a majority share with conditions.
My parents intend the trust to benefit ‘‘future generations,’’ in short, potential grandchildren. If there are no grandchildren (there are none currently; we’ve never discussed this topic), the trust is to be allocated for charitable purposes, particularly to support disadvantaged regional children, with my brother and me overseeing the disbursements.
This proposal has raised several ethical concerns for me. (I should note that my brother and I do not want for material things; we are both thriving in our own ways.) First, my parents’ wishes heavily favor individuals who may never come into existence. Are my parents right to value the interests of hypothetical future descendants against those of existing family members?
Second, I worry about the potential for moral hazard. My brother and I, along with our partners, now have a financial incentive to bring a child into the world for our own monetary gain. But we also have cause to wonder whether we would better serve society by not having children and ensuring that this money goes to charitable works.
Finally, I am grappling with the idea of serving as a trustee for a trust that espouses values not entirely aligned with my own. I believe that a person’s worth is defined not by the ‘‘bloodline’’ left behind but by how he impacts the people around him. I understand my parents’ desire to leave a legacy of support for future generations or to give to our community, but I find myself conflicted about this proposed responsibility for executing a plan that may not reflect my personal values or priorities.
While I understand that I should continue the dialogue with my parents, how do I manage these ethical issues? And are there other risks I have missed? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
I’ll take up the three ethical worries that you raise in turn. One is whether your parents are justified in favoring people who may never come into existence (their grandchildren) over those who already have (their sons). This, however, mischaracterizes the situation. If you and your brother have no offspring, there won’t be any grandchildren to favor. What your parents evidently seek to ensure is that any grandchildren they have will receive the resources for a life without material constraint. It’s just that the only people who can give them grandchildren are you and your brother. If you think it’s better that you don’t have children, you needn’t change course just because there is money available for their support if you do.
Then there’s the question of incentives. Surely your parents don’t think so poorly of your brother and you that they anticipate you would have children just to gain access to this money. They may wish to assure you that you can afford to have children if you want to and raise them without being constrained by cost. Here the objective would not be to pressure you but to relieve you of pressure. (Granted, what your parents view as constraint may be very different from what most people do, but it’s their intentions we’re exploring.)
Despite your reference to bloodlines, the arrangements you’ve described don’t necessarily involve biological descent. Still, you could ask them, if you wished, to make it clear that any children you adopt would be legitimate claimants on the trust. If you did want to have children, biological or adopted, I don’t see that you should be deterred by the prospect that disadvantaged children would benefit more if you refrained. Prospective parents could always forgo having children and donate the costs of raising them to charity. Yet people of conscience continue to have kids. If you think too much money would be allocated to your own children, you can ask that you and your brother be free to donate funds that haven’t been spent on their support.
In the end, though, you’re raising the question of whether your parents’ financial arrangements risk your doing something you wouldn’t do otherwise. The fact that you’re unsure you can handle this risk suggests that your parents might have reasons for proceeding as they propose to and not designating you and your brother the direct beneficiaries of this trust. They may agree that the two of you are thriving and perhaps worry that too much money too soon would interfere with your making your own way in the world.
And if there are no grandchildren to support, the decision to help disadvantaged children sounds like a perfectly decent one. So let me address your third concern. Assuming some base line of benevolence, why must your parents’ charitable priorities be entirely aligned with yours? If it were your money, you might spend it on, say, malaria prevention or nature conservation instead. But it isn’t your money.
Let’s put aside your fastidious objections to all the conditions that would keep the money from being yours. If people’s worth is, as you believe, measured by how they affect those around them, the prospect of administering a trust for disadvantaged children would seem more of an opportunity than a burden. And if you do consider it burdensome, you’re always free to renounce the role, leaving it for other trustees or a court to designate someone else. Either way, I’m glad that your conversations will continue. They may go better, however, if you take stock of your own emotions and make sure that you avoid that ever-present human temptation: framing personal disappointment in the language of moral disapproval.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a reader who was mulling how to help a friend in need. She wrote: “My partner and I are good friends with a man who is a single dad and a wonderful parent. His income is low, he has substantial debt and money is a chronic source of stress for the family, though he owns their modest home. We have given him unsolicited small-to-medium monetary gifts over the years and have offered to be his no-interest lender of last resort in emergencies. He has taken us up on that a few times and reliably made installment repayments. The family’s kitchen is in such poor structural condition that aspects of it are unusable. By their own report, their life would be considerably more enjoyable with a partial remodel. My partner would like to give him the substantial sum he needs for the repairs with the stipulation that it be used for that. I also would very much like them to have a functional kitchen, but my priorities may not be the same as our friend’s. He might want to use the money to pay down debt, splurge on the kids or anything else he may decide. I think it would be controlling and demeaning to give this money with strings attached. … We jointly own all of our assets, so this would be a collective decision. What do you think?”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “Generosity does put you in a kind of moral debt to the donor, but this only has to be a problem if that debt becomes the basis for lording it over you. … if you know a reliable contractor, why not offer to line one up and have the contractor send you the bills? Once again, paying for something specific needn’t be demeaning — you’re not going to be lording it over your friend — and it isn’t controlling, because he’s perfectly free to turn down what you’re offering him. He, not you, is in charge of whether he gets a new kitchen. It matters that you’ve apparently managed, over the years, to help your friend materially without making him (or you) uncomfortable. You’ve figured out how to combine generosity and respect. While I admire your sensitivity and thoughtfulness, I see no reason that this dynamic wouldn’t survive a kitchen rehab.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
The Ethicist’s advice is sound. It might help if the letter writer were to couch the desired kitchen remodel as an investment that would increase the value of the house, which would benefit his children not only now but also in the future upon resale or inheritance. — Mary Jane
⬥
I don’t know why the letter writer’s friend can’t be trusted to make his own decision about how to use the money. I think her suggestion of offering the money for the kitchen or anything else he wants is far more respectful than hiring a contractor for the kitchen remodel without asking first. — Debbie
⬥
The Ethicist’s idea of hiring the contractor directly is spot on. Cost overruns always pop up. (I designed kitchens professionally for over a decade, so I would know.) If the letter writer gives X amount of dollars and a remodel is scheduled, what happens to her friend when the project starts going over budget? Now the friend is faced with an expense he never planned on and probably can’t afford. The letter writer can hire a contractor and ask them to come to her and her partner with the cost overruns, saving yet another predicament. — Arthur
⬥
Speaking as a nonprofit executive director, a monetary gift with no strings attached is always the most generous and appreciated gift. In a resource-constrained setting, priority needs can change quickly. Would the letter writer’s friends be able to enjoy the kitchen if they suddenly had unexpected medical bills that she didn’t know about? Assuming she trusts, respects and supports the person she is giving to, she should trust him to use funds where they are needed most. Then her gift is not only of money but also of demonstrating her trust and belief in the person. — Joanna
⬥
As someone scraping by on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis, the thought of someone gifting me a renovation brings up an immense amount of anxiety. There are always incidentals and other items in renovations that the benefactor may not consider — and these will be for the recipient to address regardless. With a close friend recently having endured a nightmare remodel of her bathroom (bad luck with a terrible contractor), I saw firsthand the number of unexpected issues that can come up in the process. What should have been a weekslong remodel was dragged out over months and caused a lot of unanticipated stress, displacement and strain. If that scenario were “gifted” to me, any number of unforeseen setbacks would be incapacitating, financially and emotionally. What’s more, there could be major strains to the friendship if the experience turned out negative or unexpectedly stressful. There are also post-reno expenses, such as increased property taxes (if applicable) or other items. Many of us are living precariously right now, so we are not giving transitions with lots of unknowns much thought unless we are secure enough in our finances to be able to guard against the majority of them. That reality may not immediately occur to those who benefit from very different financial realities. — Alicia
The post A Trust Would Give Me Big Bucks if I Had Children. I’m Concerned. appeared first on New York Times.
