As an old bi person, old enough to have dealt with how inheritance works, I don’t like that LW doesn’t want to give any share to disinherited bi bro. However, their thoughts about economic fairness are not wrong when it comes to big sis. The important thing is that the rules vary by state, so I can’t know what it is in theirs, but if you gift money in a year beyond a certain amount you will be taxed for that amount. And that may not be a problem for big sis, but could be a hardship for LW, and that needs to be factored in, or they can gift bro in installments over multiple years to avoid being taxed, which is smarter if bi bro is good with that, which is another reason he needs to be involved in this process.
Also bi bro may be more sensitive to the economic difference between big sis and LW and advocate for LW, which is another reason to involve bro in this. LW is lots younger and it’s how our capitalist system sets things up to disadvantage the young to rope them into the system that we won’t call an indenture, but it is.
As economic fairness goes, sis may have had advantage of the parental resources to set her up for many years, that LW may be lacking in as much as disinherited bro, depending on how long ago the shunning occurred. I think asking big sis to gift a bigger share than LW to make bi bro’s share an even third would be fairest since she needs less than either bro or LW.
But there is a spectrum between LW gifting the same amount as wealthier big sis and LW gifting nothing at all that LW may be too young and inexperienced to think of or know how to negotiate. I’m not willing to write off LW as a selfish little hypocritical homophobe when they may be dealing with other inequalities being poorer and younger than big sis who may also have a history of abusive control over LW--I’m just guessing, but I see the possibility in what LW has related here of the dynamic between them and the fact she isn’t factoring in the economic and resource difference between her and LW. I wish the adviser brought up that there are more options than either/or here for LW to consider, just as there is always more than one kind of oppression to consider here.
no subject
Also bi bro may be more sensitive to the economic difference between big sis and LW and advocate for LW, which is another reason to involve bro in this. LW is lots younger and it’s how our capitalist system sets things up to disadvantage the young to rope them into the system that we won’t call an indenture, but it is.
As economic fairness goes, sis may have had advantage of the parental resources to set her up for many years, that LW may be lacking in as much as disinherited bro, depending on how long ago the shunning occurred. I think asking big sis to gift a bigger share than LW to make bi bro’s share an even third would be fairest since she needs less than either bro or LW.
But there is a spectrum between LW gifting the same amount as wealthier big sis and LW gifting nothing at all that LW may be too young and inexperienced to think of or know how to negotiate. I’m not willing to write off LW as a selfish little hypocritical homophobe when they may be dealing with other inequalities being poorer and younger than big sis who may also have a history of abusive control over LW--I’m just guessing, but I see the possibility in what LW has related here of the dynamic between them and the fact she isn’t factoring in the economic and resource difference between her and LW. I wish the adviser brought up that there are more options than either/or here for LW to consider, just as there is always more than one kind of oppression to consider here.