Exactly, all or nothing, otherwise there will be complaints that money in the world is not worth.
But, I want to say this briefly – the father is a responsible man. If he wants to secure his own care, he is free to do so.
We sometimes also know the self-neglecting tendencies of older people when looking at their children and grandchildren. Parents are not strangers whom you can later say to: "Well mom and dad... that's what you signed... you should have taken better care." If you already invoke the word family here, then the values and key points resulting from the term should be given appropriate consideration. My parents, for example, would have blindly signed everything from me; but for that reason alone, it would not necessarily have been fair or decent, which is why they went to the notary, and I signed what he had worked out as necessary and appropriate for the matter. But I also could have refused to sign. The priority was initially the well-being and a great, rent-free apartment for the parents!
I find this attitude of always talking about "children who exploit the parents" strange. But it does no harm to consider all perspectives.
No one says that and I don't even think that in the slightest. We have four children together, each goes their own way somewhere, but no one would think of digging us up. Once we both are gone, it will be divided; a will exists, all children are informed. If the topic of care comes up and I can still decide, it will be changed so that a caregiver receives a very clear advantage. Since I do not know our life path or age-related needs, I will not diminish our property. Is that not understandable from our point of view? As soon as I have something left over, the children are first... they partly already were, just in case my view might come across as harsh. I would rather call it "responsible," at least that is our intention.
Did your parents not talk with you about the potential inheritance? Or do you not talk about it with your children?
Of course – they know everything they need to know about it, also where/how a burial should be. All of this without putting them into an unexpected obligation.
Did your parents not talk with you about the potential inheritance? Or do you not talk about it with your children?
I consider that completely normal; my parents already did that when I was 20. They wanted to ensure that it is distributed as sensibly and fairly as possible, of course such conversations take place together with my sister.
I, on the other hand, find it strange not to settle such matters during lifetime.
True, that is not good and leaves room for future trouble. But you forget that this here is about a ---BEFORE--- and not the later inheritance. That would be quite easy and 100% fair to solve here. When both parents have passed away, the house will be sold and immediately divided or someone buys the house at a then mutually agreed price. But that is not the point here, here someone wants something cheaper, and that will be the problem.
settled and handed over during lifetime.
Absolutely! That’s what I mean. "Handed over" AND "settled" — emphasis on the "AND"! To settle also means
to assume the obligations of the younger generation. That’s how it was and is on the farm. But here only the giving part is considered, and the importance of "settling" is pushed aside.
In our large family, there are two farms; everything has long been handed over and settled. The parents still live IN the house and are cared for or provided for by the younger family. Great thing, then the model fits again.
Thanks first of all for the answer.
There is a demographic bomb, and thanks to our population pyramid & the unbalanced voter potential (and their demands) fewer and fewer chances for a healthy future for everyone. This complicated situation is only due to the current situation in the country and is neither set in stone nor fallen from the sky.
A "complicated situation" also existed in my childhood in the 60s. We shouldn’t look back at these post-war years too romantically or consider today’s times as too bad. I believe that "back then" there were far fewer opportunities than today in areas such as education, health, property, housing, change... back then, these things were only possible for a smaller part of society.
Briefly & exaggerated on your example – everyone should slave away for me, and clearly take care of me. For that, there is also a bed in the attic and a personal leaf broom for the grandchildren..
:D I do understand that correctly: No, of course NOT. But I also don’t see many young people really "slaving away" for their parents...!
The "hump" sometimes rather comes from the exhausting home office, in between house building forum, espresso, fresh air thanks to controlled residential ventilation, etc. Sadly, there was no Stalingrad for my father as a home office (my strong exaggeration).
But there is something between these exaggerations, right? I had located that in the term "family," and if I don’t find this mutuality then everybody stays on their own, which is also okay.
How the next generation, which can’t afford real estate or the comparatively generous pension provision of today’s gray panthers, cope later and currently, whatever.
Is that MY duty as a parent generation? Where does this claim come from? I did not have this from my parents, and they didn’t have it from theirs. I have a right to inheritance, yes, but that is AFTER death and what remains. Nobody has to slave away for me.
You kind of left that out – where do the child and grandchildren live now? Why can’t they find suitable accommodation?
They live exactly where they decided for themselves, in part far away.
The question is also what one considers "suitable" and to what expectations I attach this "suitable." We could have built our house larger at any time and with the children, I even would have done a family housing project. But they all live somewhere else or are currently not in a position to commit elsewhere. We absolutely understand that and are therefore building our own house for the two of us, also to be as independent and secure as possible.
And why is it more important that a retiree can keep a house with a garden into old age than that a young family has enough room to run around?
First of all, it is HIS property – HIS, which the youth wants to have prematurely here; you should not confuse that.
The retiree is of course NOT more important, why do you come to that conclusion? But why am I responsible for the "running room" of my youth, while the youth is not responsible for my type of "running around":D. I encourage my children to generate as much "running room" as possible and do not hinder them.
There is also other social behavior in the family, where the patriarch is not the focus, but goes into retirement and hands over the reins to the next generation.
That’s exactly what I advocate, I would immediately contribute my property if one of the children would look for such a solution with us where both sides can surely do well.
The youth takes responsibility, assumes ownership, and the old man no longer interferes but is maximally secured. I think that’s great!
But , we don’t read that here... do we? That would be great for both sides and all involved!
The always unspoken magic or horror word remains: "CARE"!!! Why don’t we read anything about that, but about interest rates instead...