Ilyce, I think your response was on point. The woman says she intends to care for a sister who will need care for the rest of her life; giving the woman the sister's share makes sense and is not unfair. Of course, no one knows with certainty whether the woman will, indeed, set aside 1/2 of what she receives to save or invest for his sister. As for the brother, he is a slug and most likely won't even appreciate the more-than-fair 1/3 share he is receiving.
I would add another factor to consider. Some have children who are childless; in such a case, the childless son or daugther will not face a lifetime of raising, caring for and educating (for who knows how long?) a child or children. So maybe allotting more to the kids who have dependents makes sense and is not unfair.
Ilyce Glink's Love Money + Real Estate
Ilyce, I think your response was on point. The woman says she intends to care for a sister who will need care for the rest of her life; giving the woman the sister's share makes sense and is not unfair. Of course, no one knows with certainty whether the woman will, indeed, set aside 1/2 of what she receives to save or invest for his sister. As for the brother, he is a slug and most likely won't even appreciate the more-than-fair 1/3 share he is receiving.
I would add another factor to consider. Some have children who are childless; in such a case, the childless son or daugther will not face a lifetime of raising, caring for and educating (for who knows how long?) a child or children. So maybe allotting more to the kids who have dependents makes sense and is not unfair.
Thanks for a great article.