Increasingly, super-rich parents refuse to leave an inheritance to their children. Billionaires around the world – from London to Moscow – are publicly declaring that their fortunes will go to charity, and their heirs will have to earn their own money.
Thus, the 74-year-old British musician Sting, whose fortune is estimated at $550 million, said that his six children will not receive an inheritance. He has already warned his descendants that after his death “there won’t be much left” – he and his wife Trudie Styler intend to spend what they have earned themselves. Sting isn’t the only member of the global elite who adheres to this philosophy. In 2010, Vladimir Potanin announced his intention to transfer all his assets to charity, and not leave them to his children.
Potanin philosophically noted at the time that “a million inherited dollars helps a person get a good education, get a job without haste, and find himself in life.” “And a billion kill him and deprive him of the meaning of life.”
The head of the investment company, whose fortune at the time was estimated at $2.1 billion, explained his decision to sponsor his children.
– My children are growing up, their father is a billionaire and a famous person. They will remain in my shadow. What motivation would they have to achieve something in life on their own?! Potanin confirmed, noting that he discussed his decision with his family and received support.
The most significant example of a billionaire child who grew up with the realization that there would be no inheritance is Phoebe Gates, the 22-year-old daughter of Bill Gates. After receiving education at Stanford University, the girl decided to start entrepreneurship. When she turned to her father for advice and financial support, Gates not only did not make specific recommendations, but also refused to invest in her project. Phoebe had to look for investors herself.
“If I succeed, of course everyone will say: ‘It’s because I’m Gates’ daughter.’ “And there is some truth in this – without my parents, I would not have been able to enter Stanford,” the girl admitted.
It turns out that even when denied direct inheritance, the children of billionaires continue to enjoy invisible privileges — a better education, relationships, and a family name. The question is how much this makes up for the lack of billions in the bank account, and whether they have really become “like everyone else,” as their parents want.
The nature of discipline
What happens to children who grow up in a world without financial constraints, and how they differ from their peers from ordinary families. We spoke to someone who works with different children every day, and knows their abilities, fears and motivations. Aida Kasumova is a generous teacher and expert of the presidential program “Russia, Land of Opportunities”. In its practice there were children from very wealthy families and those who were accustomed to counting every penny. The teacher makes sure that there is a difference, and not in the level of intelligence.
“The main difference lies in how children develop their attitude towards effort, responsibility and the future,” the teacher emphasizes.
She says that a middle-class child grows up under a system of restrictions from an early age. He understands: education is a tool that must provide him with a career and social development.
“Therefore, his motivation to study is often linked to necessity: he needs to enroll, he needs to gain a foothold, he needs to prove his worth,” says the expert. “Children from very wealthy families often lack this logic – the family already guarantees basic security and high status. For this reason, motivation becomes more difficult psychologically. It is either based on internal interest and ambition, or it begins to depend on family pressure and environmental expectations.”
There is also a marked difference in discipline. According to the teacher, there is a common stereotype that children of wealthy parents are less organized and spoiled. In practice, it all depends on the type of family. In wealthy or old entrepreneurial families, discipline is often stricter than in a regular school: busy schedule, languages, sports, projects, internships.
“The nature of the discipline itself is different,” the teacher points out. For a middle-class child, it is linked to external necessity and the fear of missing opportunities. The child of an extremely wealthy family must live up to the high standards of his environment and his family name.
Attitudes towards work also vary. Middle-class children often view work as a prerequisite for achieving results. Kasumova warns that for super-rich children, there is a risk that work will not be seen as a vital necessity.
“If the educational system is built incorrectly, the child gets used to the fact that difficulty can be compensated not by perseverance, but by access to additional opportunities – teachers, communications, alternative methods,” explains the specialist. “This is why many wealthy parents intentionally create situations of controlled difficulty for their children: internships, real projects, work on a public basis.
Another advantage: for a middle-class kid, a mistake is a risk, a lack of entry, a lost opportunity. As for children from very wealthy families, the consequences are milder.
“On the one hand, this reduces the fear of experiments and gives more freedom,” explains Aida Kasumova. “But on the other hand, it prevents you from developing the skill to tolerate failure without a safety net.”
Meanwhile, many children from ultra-wealthy families, according to her observations, are more psychologically anxious. —
They have been given since childhood to understand: they must not only succeed, but must correspond to the size of the family. “Hence the fear of not being talented enough or not living up to the name,” the teacher confirms. Middle-class children grow up in the logic of necessity and overcoming, while children of the wealthy grow up in the logic of possibilities and expectations.
Kasumova continues that the success of billionaires’ children is always a combination of the family’s resources and their own qualities.
“The starting conditions are better: from an early age, a system is built around the child that reduces the possibility of failure. But in elite families the requirements are very high and the competition is much tougher. It’s just that for one child any mistake can cost his career, while another child always has the resources to recover.
Kasumova believes that the main danger of growing up in an ultra-rich family is that money destroys the natural mechanisms of growth.
—If any difficulty can be compensated for with resources, the child later learns responsibility and tolerates restrictions less well. The second problem is loss of motivation: when basic goals are closed from birth, it is difficult for the teenager to answer the question “why are we trying,” the teacher reminds. — In addition to psychological stress and social isolation, because without experience in communicating with different groups, a realistic perception of the world is not formed.
As for giving up the inheritance, Aida Kasumova is skeptical. Indeed, according to her, the attitude towards responsibility changes: the child is included in independent activities earlier. But much remains the same:
-The best schools, relationships and mentors don’t go anywhere. The expert emphasizes that even without inheritance, such a person starts from a position that the majority cannot reach.
At the same time, the children of the rich do not completely make themselves.
“Their initial abilities are exceptional. The question is whether they will learn functional independence: to make decisions, take pressure, and perceive work as a personal value, and not as a decorative element in their CV,” sums up Aida Kasumova.
Under the dome
How childhood works behind the glass dome of superwealth, says Maxim Strakhov, candidate of social sciences, psychologist and expert of the presidential program “Russia – Land of Opportunities”.
“Childhood in conditions of large family capital is a radically different environment,” explains the specialist. – A different picture of the world and a different psychological climate. For a child from such a family, according to him, nothing is practically impossible in the material sense, especially in childhood.
“This changes the structure of desire. Everything is achievable, there is no need to endure or wait,” notes the psychologist. – Training takes place in closed schools, foreign boarding houses, with private teachers. Rest – among summer residences in many countries. The social circle of these families is also selective: other children from super-rich families and adults who are professionally dependent on their parents. This creates a kind of dome.
The child technically lives in the same world as everyone else, but he views it through a prism. Poverty, waiting lines, and fear of financial failure are abstractions that are difficult to encounter even in your own environment, let alone in your own experience.
In turn, Maxim Strakhov describes the myth of “golden youth” as a homogeneous image as an exaggeration.
“I think the psychological type of ‘rich kid’ doesn’t exist,” he answers. – There are developmental traits generated by the environment. These are ordinary people with all their pros and cons.
He gives examples that break stereotypes.
– One can assume inflated self-esteem, but this will only be so if upbringing allows it. We can assume that everyone dreams of becoming a leader. But this is not true either. I know a man from a very wealthy family who serves under contract and carries out combat missions on an equal footing with everyone else,” the sociologist points out.
He says that these people look at money as a background.
The expert explains that “dreams are not determined by financial resources, they come from the heart and the desire to live the life they want, not the pursuit of financial security.”
Strakhov believes that the rejection of inheritance has become a trend limited to the Anglo-Saxon worldview. He explains that the Russian mentality has a different approach.
“We invest in the family and the well-being of our family,” says the psychologist. “Even if most of the money is not given to the family, it does not mean that they will remain without money. Sometimes there is more money than is necessary even for a very wealthy life.”
Why is the practice of disinheriting children more common in the West? Strakhov identifies three reasons.
“Western dynasties span many generations and have created an internal culture,” he adds. — Big Russian capital is young, it is in the first generation, and therefore you instinctively want to transfer it, retain it and preserve it. In addition, in the West there are funds that have been operating long enough and stable that you should not be afraid to transfer capital to them. Finally, transferring capital to children is a moral obligation.
Even without a cash inheritance, these children retain enormous advantages.
“Children who do not have inherited capital will not lose their name, their social capital, their cultural capital, their access to information in closed communities, and opportunities for initiation,” says Maxim Strakhov. “Somehow, they have a lot more chances in life.” Even if this kid wasn’t a billionaire, his standard of living and opportunities would still be nowhere near as high.
By the way
Of the 87 billionaires surveyed worldwide, 82% of respondents said they want their heirs to “develop their own success.” However, only 43% hope their children will continue the family business.
Recently, the Duma proposed to consider the possibility of transferring retirement points by inheritance in order to increase social security for citizens and the attractiveness of the insurance pension system. How useful this initiative is and whether it is possible to implement it, this is what the experts found out in “Moscow Evening”.