So does she have a good point OR is she just being Greedy?

[Justice wanted]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaire-says-her-kids-aren%E2%80%99t-fit-for-inheritance.html

....Billionaire Says Her Kids Aren’t Fit for Inheritance


Most of today’s self-made rich didn’t grow up with money (surveys show 75% of millionaires didn’t inherit their wealth). And today’s rich parents expect their kids to grow up with middle-class values– just as they did.

SNIP

Gina Rinehart, the Australian mining billionaire, has cracked open the debate with a strange court battle winding its way through the Australian legal system. In short, Ms. Rinehart inherited a mining empire from her dad. Her three kids were also left with a stake in the family trust. Yet Ms. Rinehart shut them out of their ownership stakes, and now the kids are fighting back.

_______________________________________________________________________________

I can see her point BUT she herself inherited the money as well. She also went on to say that the only jobs her children have had are ones that family gave them.

Considering I was always taught that parents try to make their children's lives better I would think she would give them their share.


As "Rich" People couldn't she teach her children by showing them how to put their money to work by donating time and money to help others?

What has she done to give a good example to her kids?

[elleng]

1. Not really her business, imo,

if they were left a stake in family trust.

Rockefellers etc. all taught their kids to assume responsibilities, for the greater good, with their wealth, and she should have done the same. Too bad if she didn't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. The adult kids inherited their share of the trust from grandpa.

It's none of mom's business.

If mom raised them to be douchebags, it won't matter if they're rich douchebags or angry middle class ones.

[PowerToThePeople]

3. 100% inheritance tax

Get rid of silver spoons. To each as they have earned it.

[napoleon_in_rags]

4. Its cases like this where you see the true believers in the right wing ideology.

I think Carnegie did the same, donated his vast fortune to create libraries and so forth, leaving a comparatively small sum for offspring. IT goes back to an old fact:

The right wing ideology ONLY functions if the people who accumulate all the money are "morally superior" as they are supposed to be, which is to say they donate vast sums to charity, they self redistribute. If they don't do this, the facade shatters: You get these sons and daughters entitled to vast wealth by being born at the right place and the right time.

The right wing ideology is based on perpetuating the ideal of meritocracy at all costs: The idea that these people actually somehow earned that money, based on innate moral qualities they possessed. Without that basically religious faith in the idea that money comes only to those who earn it (thus the right wing struggle against multi-millionaire drug lords in south America) the inequality, the fundamental evil of the system comes to light.

So the fundamental drive of the left must be to shatter the illusion of the "meritocracy". Understanding that, the answer to this quandary is clear: Support her kids, they sat on their asses for that money just like she did.

[sabrina 1]

5. Looks like she's more worried about the money than the kids:

Court documents cited in the Australian media show that Ms. Rinehart believed the kids weren’t fit to manage their fortune.

She raised them, so if she failed to teach them good values, I guess she knows that better than anyone. Now she's trying to protect the money from people she failed to train properly, at least in her own view.

I would like to know more about the kids. Maybe they turned out alright and money isn't everything to them, as it seems to be to her.

And what did SHE do to earn that money? She inherited it according to the article. She thinks they should get jobs, which isn't a bad idea. But maybe she should get some experience living without all that money for a while, see how well she does.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Some rich people are so into control

that they would rather alienate and disown their kids rather than see them cash out the family holdings and spend their fortunes away. Keeping the Money together in one formation, mobilized for further accumulation and acquisition, is more important to them than keeping family together. They were probably not very present in their children's lives to begin with, so then when their kids turn out to be big disappointments to them, without any ambitions beyond having a good time, they find it preferable to "cut their losses" with the children than to see the money being lost. The children will die, but capital endures.