Somebody once criticized Johnny Carson for this: He gave his sons enough money to keep them phoning home for more, but not enough to take a risk and start a business.

This guy wrote about growing up wealthy and having sincere attachments to friends in young adulthood, but then seeing those connections fail as the friends learned, by necessity, how to make things happen for themselves, using skills he never developed.

I dunno: Earning a living is a pain in the ass. If you could save your kids the trouble....

He earned it, not his kids. It's his money, not his kids. He can do whatever he wants and as long as he's not breaking any laws, it's no one elses business whether he does or doesn't leave it to them.

Besides, what is his definition of 'not much' compared to the rest of the world? I bet those kids have never lived on a diet of Spagettios and Ramen like the rest of us. I highly doubt they're starving to death.

In general, I think the cream always rises to the top.

The prudent child who spends money wisely, rarely needs, a hand out, and the imprudent ones, will use the money as a crutch to keep from being successful on their own merits.

Sometimes wealthy parents and grandparents end up with descendents like this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Getty_III

Earning a living is a pain in the ass. If you could save your kids the trouble....

The problem is doing this without turning them in to wastrels.

When I was growing up in Detroit, I dated a guy from a very wealthy family, but there were many expectations of him and he grew up and became a surgeon and a good guy. I think the expectations are key.

Someone with a fair amount of wisdom once said (and I can't recall who it was and I'm too lazy to Google it), "Leave your children enough to do something, but not enough to do nothing."

It's his money, he can do what he wants with it. There are a lot of things the rich can do for their children without turning them into spoiled coked-up shitheads. I'm sure Sting's kids have had a great life, traveled all over, gotten a wonderful education, and have a great network.

On the other hand, you could train your children to not be snotty little brats, then leave your money to them and be the founder of a dynasty as your family grows into a powerful and influential family - like the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts, the Kennedys, the Gambinos, etc.

Okay, maybe not the Kennedys. Nobody wants their family to grow into that.

$306M? The "Roxanne" guy? The modern entertainment industry is a marvelous thing, sometimes.

(And yet another thing for Stewart Copeland to be pissed off about...)

I would see about giving them $5-10M like ten years after my death. But they wouldn't know it was coming. That gives them time to "grow-up" or find a path on their own and shows that I cared.

Thanks Isab-- I'd forgotten how fucked up III's life was. I remember seeing a picture of him with the twins and envying him for about 7 seconds in 1973.

Sweet Jesus.

I knew the outlines, but those more interested in this kind of thing should follow any of the early links in references section of Isab's link. This family was all fudged up. And if you go back aways, John Paul Getty himself was no prince (5 wives).

Nice museum, though. You should see it when you're in town.

See also Steyn's piece about Monaco.

Cousin Dave: Sting has said that he knew he had made it when he woke up in a hotel room one day to hear the window washer outside singing "Roxanne."

In general, I roll my eyes slightly at these, "I don't want to burden my children with wealth!" people, because I think there's always an element of "I had to work hard for a long time, so they should, too!" emotion mixed in. Yes, setting things up so your kids don't have to have a purpose in life is bad. But there are plenty of jobs out there that, to be honest, contribute far more to humanity than mine but are paid considerably less. Sting's kids could make good teachers, social workers or soup kitchen directors, with his funds ensuring that they can still afford to buy homes and pay for college for their kids, should it be needed.

…of course, I now am forced to admit that rock stars' kids who are given considerable funds don't tend to do anything particularly noble with it. And sometimes things get bad, as the tiny motherless children left by Peaches Geldof could tell you.

On a totally different note, Sting is the only performer I have seen live in concerts on multiple continents, and he has always been delightful. Plus, he gave us "Russians," as enjoyable a piece of totally outdated propaganda as one can find set to music. What might save us, me and you, is if Mr. Reagan loves SDI too…oh wait, you mean those weren't the original lyrics? They are now! So I am inclined to think well of him.

Why should anyone think that the children of a private citizen would be any better at managing money than welfare recipients?
It is the earning of money that teaches what it is – not the spending of same.

Marion, thanks for that. I must confess that, as is the case with most of the '80s bands and singers, I liked Sting a lot better when he was a cynical SOB. (Chrissy Hynde, I'm lookin' at you...) The Police were, in their early days, masters of rock minimalism. I'm still up for a run through "Walking On the Moon" any time.

If you know wealthy people who were raised well, some or many of them never had to work menial jobs but still know the value of money and don't live like jerks.

I'll bet most of them held some kind of job at one point or another.

Donald Trump, Jr. has talked about his childhood and having to get a job at 13 parking boats at the yacht club 'cause Daddy Trumpbucks insisted that if he wanted extra cash, he had to earn it. He and his sisters spent childhood summers in Czech Republic living with their grandparents among the "real" people. And I read somewhere that he regularly flies coach.

Amy, it is a bad thing to make your death a predictable payday for your kids. Using your money to help your kids (as long as it is help and not enabling) is a good thing while you are alive. Telling your kid 'When I die you will get millions of dollars.' can really mess up your relationship and their life. You really don't want your kids to hope you drop dead tomorrow.

In almost every case of inheritance I know of an unexpected windfall was better than a known one.

"That's an assumption."

Nope. Observation.

I can point at a number of family-owned businesses which capital was squandered by the entitled family of the founder, and of course you can look at the entire entitlement class w/r/t crime rates: in the projects, how can you have any concept of private property when nothing - nothing - is earned?
Of course you can steal from others. They obviously have things given to them by government, too. Even the President says that business owners didn't earn what they have.

I have also seen the other side of the coin, while working at a megayacht yard in Miami. Rich folks have that money because they know what to do with it - that it is not just the gray & green stuff in a wallet or purse. They also know the value of money from continuing to earn it.