When I first saw this article in Money magazine it got my blood boiling.   The idea that children should be upset that parents are spending the children's expected inheritance is just plain wrong.  I am a firm believer that children have no right to expect an inheritance from their parents.  Parents do not owe their children anything in terms of finances after the child has reached the age of adulthood. 

My children have recently been treading a fine line here.  As they evaluate and apply to colleges, they have demonstrated an implicit assumption that Mom and Dad have to pay for college.  I discussed this with them the other night.  I come away comforted by the belief that they do assume we will voluntarily contribute to college costs because we have always implied that was the case.  We did.  But the comfort lies in learning that they don't assume it is our obligation to do so.  I decided to take similar comfort from the Money magazine article if I assume the author intended it as a gentle reminder to adult children about priorities in relationships. 

Then I came across a paper written by the IRS about the estate tax. The paper is titled Taxation of Inheritance and Wealth Transfers.  This paper spoke to the philosophy student in me.  The authors examine the philosophical theories that support or deny the idea that people have a right (not the obligation) to leave an inheritance to their children -- or anyone else.  Here I had to examine my own assumptions about our property rights. 

I enjoy it when I discover what I considered a "basic truth" is really a cultural blindside.  This might be one of those situations.  Upon reflection, I can see that some cultures and philosophies could find it to be a "basic truth" that we can only control our property as long as we are alive.  Under that philosophy, we don't have a right to direct what happens to our property when we die.  Isn't it just as reasonable to argue that the property should go back into the common pool, like throwing cards back into the deck when we leave the game?

So now I come away believing that the right to direct one's property at death is a good right to have, but maybe not an obvious truth.  But I still remain convinced that there is a corollary to that right.  If we have the right to leave our property to whom we choose, then we don't have an obligation to leave it to anyone specific, including our children or other family. 

Mom and Dad can't be spending "your inheritance" because it isn't yours.  Of course, that also means that your money isn't theirs.  So, if Mom and Dad are spending unwisely, you might feel worried they will run out of money and turn to you.  If that is really the concern, you might be justified in talking to them about whether they feel you have some sort of obligation to support them if necessary.  Doesn't feel very comfortable, does it?  Families are messy, but expecting adults to be obligated to each other financially merely because of familial ties often just makes them messier.