Hacker News Reader

Comment by beart | Hacker News Reader

The framing of this headline bothers me. It implies the money always belonged to the children from the start. "Gave away" is also an interesting choice over "donated". At least in my mind, they conjure different thoughts. Donated implies a purpose, while "gave away" could mean that the money was lost needlessly.

View on HN

>It implies the money always belonged to the children from the start.

From a Chinese Culture perspective, that is exactly so.

What about from a Chinese Law perspective?

Hong Kong law approximately gives all personal effects to the spouse plus 50% of the cash, with the rest going to any children (unless there is a will that says otherwise)

Isn't this more or less the same in the rest of the world?

If the parent died and a will wasn't found, the estate is handled via "laws of intestate succession." When a person dies intestate, or without a will, the laws of the state where they resided determine how their estate is distributed. According to these laws, specific family members, or heirs, typically have a right to inherit a share of the decedent's property.

This guy spelled out a will that directly went against the way how the general laws of the land would have normally given his estate to his heirs.

Isn't that pretty much always the case when somebody writes a will?

Right, but before he wrote the will, society implicitly gives the children the right to his inheritance.

So by creating the will, he actively took that away those rights from them, and gave away his fortune to someone else.

In Asian culture, the money does belong to the children and children's money belong to their parents. The headline is accurate in this respect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com