In a recent interview, the
singer/songwriter Sting (formerly of The Police), said he grew up poor near the
Wallsend shipyards in England. At present, he has an estimated net worth of
$300 million. Sting has no plans to leave any of it to his six children. He
wants his children to have the chance to come up the way he did. The 62-year-old musician stated that he didn't
want to "leave them trust funds that are albatrosses round their
necks."
According to Sting, the issue of his
inheritance might not come up at all, considering how fast he goes through his money.
Sting has over 100 people he employs, and said in the interview, "There
won't be much money left because we are spending it! We have a lot of
commitments. What comes in, we spend, and there isn't much left."
Do you think Sting should leave some
money for his children? Please state why or why not.
I think Sting has a very stupid motive. As a parent, I want my kids to grow up with a better lifestyle then I did. He is self absorbed with arrogance.
ReplyDeleteAlan H (67)
Amen. The nerve of this guy. Jeez.
DeleteI think Sting has a very good idea, even though I don't agree with him. I would want my kids to have the security of knowing that they will be okay and not have to struggle. He just wants his kids to grow up and make it on their own without the help of his money. I see nothing wrong with that, we are all different.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Victoria Forsman,
DeleteI do agree with your statement. I think people who has a gold spoon in their mounth, and dont know how it got there, have no idea of value or how to treat people. It is a lesson he wants to teach his kids, though the bible says, that a good man leaves an inheritance for his children's children. Its his money, and he do with it however he sees fit.
Samantha P 67
I think Sting will not have enough money left for his siblings since what comes in is spent by his empoyees but seems he did not save money all his life through for the future. It is not good not to have a little left for your children though it is not a must but atleast it is good. You do not want anybody to struggle the way you struggled from the scratch.
ReplyDeletejane k in response to victoria. I guess i would wish to have something for my kids in the future even if it is small. It is always good to be fair and considerate.
ReplyDeleteFridah H 67
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what sort of values he has instilled in his kids because if you give them a good foundation,usually they tend to make decent decisions. For example the Johnson & Johnson's these kids have huge trust funds but the only way to it is to work for it .One of them said that he started working for his family at the age of 16 yrs & by doing so it helps them understand the value of a dollar. Warren Buffet said he'd leave them enough money to do anything but not enough that they'd do nothing.I'm neither for or against.
I think that Sting should leave some money to his children even if it's not a large amount. Enough to get a college education at a local school and maybe enough to buy a modest, common place house and car would be a good foundation for when they no longer have a father figure to turn to. Sure they could make it on their own, but who wouldn't want to make their children's lives more safe and secure?
ReplyDeleteKatelin S 67
Erin H. 67
ReplyDeleteI think he should leave at least a little bit, if it is not much. His children would actually get something out of it. He may not have grown up the way he wanted, but why would you want your children to have little money. They are raised in money, but not actually able to use it. I can see where the singer of Sting is coming from, but I would still want my children to have something. If the most he would give is, maybe, a thousand dollars, that could help them. Maybe he could set it up where they could only get it if they were in major financial troubles.
If he decides to not leave them any money that is his choice. As of right now his children have had a better childhood than what he had. He has given them everything he could only wish for when he was a child. Why is it people assume that just because someone is rich, their children will automatically become rich too? I understand that he doesn't want his children to simply profit from his death and do nothing to earn significant wealth. He had to work to get what he has, why shouldn't they? Am I saying leave his kids nothing? No. Then again I'm not saying to leave them everything, either.
ReplyDeleteJustin,
DeleteI have seen this played out both ways. I grew up with kids whose parents gave them anything and they seem to have lost the ability or motivation to work or know how to keep good work ethnics. Otherhand, I have seen parents withhold money and expect their kids to earn a living, and the kids seem to all do very wel because they have high expectations and it was not given to them.
A.Smithers 60
ReplyDeleteI think its a good thing to teach your kids to work hard for what they want in life, and not hand them everything. I grew up mowing the lawn and cleaning house to earn money and I babysat from 13-16 years old to save for a car that I bought in full at 16. It builds character and good work ethic, I still don't have a lot of money, but my bills are paid and my kids are fed. Its hard to say he is wrong to do that cause I've never been in that position so I would have to say I agree with him. In life you have to work for what you get.
Mara H in reply to A. Smithers
DeleteYour post was excellent. I grew up babysitting and working at McDonalds because I wanted to accomplish something on my own. Making my own money made me feel proud that I could be a productive part of society. Like you said, I am not rich but the bills are paid.
James M. 67
ReplyDeleteI too grew up poor, so I can see Sting’s point of view. Being forced to make your own way is supposed to build character, and give one a sense of pride in one’s accomplishments. That being said, Sting is full of it. If he expects anyone to believe that he is giving his children the opportunity to come up the way he did, then he is crazy. When someone’s father has a net worth of 300 million dollars, one might surmise, that someone is probably living an over privileged life with no real sense of want. So one could conclude that it is to late for them to know how tough it is to make it on their own. Sting should not let them live a rich man's life and then take it away just because he dies. At the same time, one can only speculate on how Sting’s children may or may not be pampered. Regardless, I have two children and I would never want them to suffer financial hardships. My advice to Sting would be to stop spending money as quickly as you get it; teach your children right from wrong, while at the same time instilling in them the importance of generosity; mold them into responsible human beings. If Sting does his job as a father, he will not be “leaving albatrosses around their necks.” Instead, he will be leaving them with a financial blessing that can help them to follow their dreams, without all the hardships that come from being broke.
I think it's entirely up to the owner of the money. He made it, he spends it, it's his. I don't think anyone is entitled unless given that privilege. I know we all have different opinions regarding this,There is actually scripture referencing the importance of money and inheritance regarding children as well as money, and idolatry. I believe Sting has decisions to make and he should check out his own spiritual condition and the legacy he wishes to leave behind. That's far more important than 300 million.
ReplyDeleteSting is being selfish. As a parent, I'm kind of surprised when I see another parent deny their children a lifetime of security and stability. Isn't that the point of being a parent? If I were worth a quarter of a billion dollars, I would want nothing more than to provide my children and grandchildren with the best life possible. It would be my sole reasoning for accumulating such a large sum of money, but to each his own, I guess.
ReplyDeleteMara H 60
ReplyDeleteThis is the choice of the person that made the money. I would think that in most cases the children have already used their name to get into a profession of their choosing. In most cased I would not think that the children would need their celebrity parents money. On the news they were talking about this and they were saying that while the celebrity parent is alive they usually shower their children with everything that they need. If this is the case then the children should be all ready set when the parent dies.
Adunola S. 67
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Sting went through poverty does not mean he should allow his children to go through the same thing.I think he wants them to be independent(not to depend totally on his wealth) and know that it takes hard work to be successful but as a father he has to leave some money for them so that they will not struggle much"have bread is better than none."The way he trained them also matter,if he knows they can't spend the money wisely at their present age he may keep the money in the bank for them to claim at a certain age.No good parent will want their children to suffer .
I understand why Sting would rather give his children experience than money: he does 'nt want them to be spoiled. If Will Smith's kids did'nt have money who knows where they would be, but I think that as a father Sting is morally obligated to do every thing he can to provide the most comfortable life for his kids.
ReplyDeleteDouglas
I truly understand why Sting doesn't want to leave his kids money, but on the other hand they are used to living with money. I know he is trying to instill values in his children and want them to live how he lived growing up, and make a life for them selves instead of living off of his riches. I still feel like he needs to leave them something, even if he leaves them a lump sum so they cans split it evenly, something is better than nothing.
ReplyDeleteLuisa W. 60
ReplyDeleteI don't believe he should leave his children any money on the grounds that he simply says he does not want to and for good reason in my personal opinion. I can agree that our children should be given the opportunity to develop independently. From my personal observation, children who grow up privileged without responsibility to level them usually lack a sense reality and often struggle to make healthy decisions or even seem to think they are invincible and certain rules do not apply to them. Good job Sting!
I completely agree.
DeleteThe above comment is from Douglas.
Deletejoseph garland
ReplyDeletehe can spend then money he earns anyway he wants
Jennifer D. 73
ReplyDeleteMan I am late to the party, I just noticed I missed this blog post but I will respond anyway. =/
I am kind of on the fence about how I feel about Stings decision. I need to know more details. If he is leaving absolutely no money for his kids I think that is INSANE. Surely he saved some money for their college, or a little stash of money here or there for if they are ever on hard times. But I understand the motive not to leave them millions of dollars, I think that is some what noble of him. I don't know how old his kids are but I would assume that they won't understand the idea behind it until they are old enough and mature enough to see why he wants them to fend for themselves.
Marcus Andrade
ReplyDeleteI personally think that he should leave at least some money for his kids, but I also see what he is attempting to do for them. He may be trying to show them that life is not singularly about money although it can bring you nice things.
Adunola S.67 In response to Justin Connally
ReplyDeletePeople believe that if parents are rich their children most be rich because their parents will leave some investment or money for them.It depends on how the children spend the money.If they are wise they will work make extra effort by working hard and not be lazy by depending on the money.
I don't think so, it is his choice on what he does what his money and this will teach his kids that everything is not given to them, they have to work for things in life.
ReplyDelete