In a society where the generational divide is often discussed in terms of technological savvy or cultural touchstones, a new trend is highlighting a more financial aspect of the gap between older and newer generations.

It's called SKI, or 'Spending Kids' Inheritance', and it's a movement that's gaining traction among older Australians, much to the chagrin of some in the younger generations.

The concept of SKI is straightforward: rather than saving and scrimping to leave an inheritance for their children, an increasing number of older generations are choosing to spend their hard-earned money on themselves.

This could mean travelling the world, indulging in hobbies, or simply enjoying a comfortable retirement without concern for what's left behind.

This trend, which some might label ‘selfish’, is sparking heated debates across family dinner tables and online. But is it as straightforward as it seems?

Older generations are spending their hard-earned money on themselves with the latest trend. Credit: Shutterstock

Trudy Wertheim, a single mum in her 50s, subscribes to the SKI philosophy. After years of hard work and dedication to supporting her family, she's looking forward to her retirement.

She believed that her children, now in their 30s, were supportive of her decision to use her savings for her happiness.

‘There is a whole generation of kids being raised, who perhaps their carers didn’t instil in them from an early age, that if you do work hard, you can have everything you want out of life and more,’ she said.

‘There are generations coming through that just don’t expect to work. They expect to inherit or be given or bought a family home by their parents.’

‘They’ve never said to me, “We expect you to not spend your hard-earned savings because that’s ours,”’ she said.

‘Never has that come out of their mouth. My children have said to me, “Go and live your life. Do what you want to do. We just want you to be happy mum”.’

She's instilled a strong work ethic in her children, and they've expressed that they want nothing more than for their mum to live her life to the fullest.

The SKI movement raises important questions about the expectations of inheritance and the responsibilities of parents towards their adult children.

Some parents help their children financially while still alive, perhaps contributing towards education or a house deposit.

However, as Wertheim pointed out, this can lead to its own set of complications, especially when trying to be fair to all children, regardless of their circumstances.

The debate is further complicated by the stark reality facing many young Australians today.

According to a 2020 report from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, ‘almost half’ of young Australians may not own property by the age of 54.

With house prices soaring and the rental market becoming increasingly unaffordable, many people's dream of homeownership is slipping away.

In the 1980s, older generations were entering the housing market at a time when the average wage was around $13,458, and the median house price was 2.9 times that amount.

Today, the average wage in Australia is $98,000 a year, with median house prices in Sydney and Melbourne reaching upwards of 10 times this figure.

While slightly more affordable in other capital cities, the disparity between income and housing costs remains a significant hurdle.

Supporters of the SKI movement argue that they've earned the right to spend their money as they see fit, and that younger generations should not feel entitled to an inheritance.

‘My kids are happy for me to spend it. They can have our house, which is more than I got when my parents passed away,’ wrote one.

‘They earned it, and they can spend it. So many entitled people,’ said another.

A third added: ‘The kids inherit your house. Your money is your business to spend how you like.’

Key Takeaways

• Older generations in Australia are engaging in a trend known as SKI, or 'spending kids' inheritance', to use up their savings rather than leaving an inheritance for their children.
• The SKI trend is creating controversy, with some seeing it as unfairly depriving younger generations, while others argue that it encourages a necessary shift in mindset away from dependence on inheritance.
• A single mum, Trudy Wertheim, shared her support for the SKI philosophy, emphasising that she taught her children the value of hard work and did not feel obligated to leave an inheritance.
• There is an increasing difficulty young Australians face in achieving home ownership, with current house prices being significantly disproportionate to average wages compared to several decades ago.

Where do you stand on the SKI movement? Have you embraced the trend of spending your kids' inheritance, or do you plan to leave something behind for the next generation? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

 

[Macarj]

I always have wondered where the figures for a basic wage and the cost of housing in the 80's comes from. We paid $210,000 for our home in 1989, and then the interest rates went up to 17.8 %. The figures in this article suggest the average house cost around $40,000. Some weeks i struggled to find the $2 that i put into my girls dollarmite account, but never missed. They received that money when they left home, as well as us buying them new furniture and white goods. Both girls also got brand new cars from us when they got their licenses. I think they have been given enough, time to stand on their own two feet. My residual money is going to a not for profit animal shelter,the children can have the house!

Our first home was $38,000 just a 2bedroom home on quarter of an acre that was 1982, 1988 we added another 2 bedroom a sitting room and a bathroom and all up that only cost $40,000 then in 1995 we built a 5 bedroom home and that cost $230,000 including the land which was $36,000

 

[Rob44]

I always have wondered where the figures for a basic wage and the cost of housing in the 80's comes from. We paid $210,000 for our home in 1989, and then the interest rates went up to 17.8 %. The figures in this article suggest the average house cost around $40,000. Some weeks i struggled to find the $2 that i put into my girls dollarmite account, but never missed. They received that money when they left home, as well as us buying them new furniture and white goods. Both girls also got brand new cars from us when they got their licenses. I think they have been given enough, time to stand on their own two feet. My residual money is going to a not for profit animal shelter,the children can have the house!

I paid $50 000 for mine; it was a bit rough but I fixed it. You were living in the wrong city, probably Sydney at a guess. Or it was a very flash home in a flash suburb. In 1989 where I lived there were places around for $150 000-$350 000, but they were in very up-market suburbs where solicitors, barristers and judges liked to congregate. Darwin was always ridiculously expensive even earlier than 1989. $150 000 would buy a top quality place there or perhaps $200 000 in a "better" suburb. Otherwise around $80 000-$90 000 was seen as "good value" for a 3BR, cooler type of place on stilts.

Wills. We have a friend whose husband has just died. His first son by his first former wife is trying to grab the cash he set aside for the future education of his second wife's baby son, and also the house he left to her, despite his first son being left $200 000 in his father's Will and the fact that he has his own property. A right greedy bastard!

The REAL issue in terms of the disparity in the housing market is that in the 50's-70's when those parents entered the housing market, that 'entry' consisted mostly of a simple 2-bed, 1-bath fibro cottage with an iron roof in a purpose-built workers suburb created by the government. So obviously housing costs as a % of wages was much lower. Todays 'starter homes' are virtual mansions with multiple bathrooms, 3 or 4 bedrooms and a double garage made of brick and tile. These are built in elaborate suburbs created by developers for maximum profits. If people and governments REALLY want to bring down housing costs and reduce the cost-of-living pressures that people are facing, go back to the 3-tiers of government working together to create suburbs of workers-cottage style starter homes. Today's equivalent of that would probably be something like a 400-500 square metre block with a 2-bed, 1 bath cement block cottage with a skillion cement roof to easily mount solar panels onto. These could be built very cheaply and easily by the thousands, even connected as rows of terraces, but NO, people's expectations of what are 'starter-homes' must consist of today are dictated by developer's profits, not people's most basic needs.

 

[BellaB18]

Why should anyone except their parents to leave all their hard earned money to them.
Our two kids will get out house. And if there is any money. I would not count on that one. The house a definite.
Thankfully our kids have fantastic work ethic and we taught them only buy what you can. Neither of the kids have their own homes because of poor choices with partners.
They know money does not bring happiness or good health.
We updated our wills this year and l must admit l was surprised how horrified the kids were when we said well of course you get half the house each. Do want you want with what is in it. They were like we have never thought about what we want from inside the house. Oh you two are not going anywhere in a hurry. They were uncomfortable me talking about this. I said well kids you know at least one day you will have a deposit for your own home one day. They both said we don't care we would rather have you both.
Go spend your money and enjoy your life. This generation is very self absorbed. We all should work hard for what we have then you appreciate what you have.
Kind regards to all Vicki

 

[Gaena]

My parents helped my brother and I as much as possible through our early lives although we rarely asked, towards the end of their lives we constantly told them to spend everything on them selves as we both believed they had earned it, sadly we lost Mum 11 years prior to Dad and before he passed away he seemed to become obsessed with leaving what he called an inheritance for the both of us, even though we were joint executors of his will and would obviously inherit the house and any remaining money in the bank accounts, being a very small family there was no objections to this and apart from a healthy amount of cash going to my brothers two children there was no animosity, I do not understand the expectations of an inheritance of any type that seems to be so acceptable now, I can only think it is greed on the part of the children who believe that somehow they are owed.

 

[Scaveola]

I don't get this entitled attitude, its not their inheritance unless we leave it to them. I don't know about anyone else but my parents worked hard all their lives to raise us, give us a good home, feed us and had no savings. Sure, when they passed we got the Family home but we weren't expecting it.
I remember my in laws having the attitude that they had to leave an inheritance so much so that we had to literally force them to buy a decent car as they aged, which was just wrong. They, as we, worked hard for what little money they had and shouldn't have had to think that way.
We help our kids as much as we can when they need it and provide childminding, rent free board when needed but they earn more than we ever did.
Yes, costs are so much higher but we survived on second hand everything until we could afford to buy new, people these days don't want that, they want everything brand new.
It baffles me how the cost of housing is so high yet people are out there buying, are they depending on inheritance to pay it off? Don't live beyond your means if you don't have the money to do so.
Having said that, this country should take a leaf out of other countries books and stop overseas people from buying up our housing. You are not allowed to buy land or housing in places like China, Greece, Denmark if you are not native citizens so why do we allow it?

Hear Hear!

 

[Rob44]

Our first home was $38,000 just a 2bedroom home on quarter of an acre that was 1982, 1988 we added another 2 bedroom a sitting room and a bathroom and all up that only cost $40,000 then in 1995 we built a 5 bedroom home and that cost $230,000 including the land which was $36,000

I'd suggest a 3BR 1-bathroom, 120 square metre house is a perfectly adequate starter for a family of 2 parents and ultimately2 kids ; and a 600sqm block with decent soil will grow adequate vegies for the family and even if you have a couple of fruit trees you still have space for a decent shed or double garage. The kids don't need a car or motorbike until they have left home and in the meantime let them walk or cycle or catch the bus to school. The modern McMansion with three cars and the boat that seems to be expected now is just ludicrous. Especially when anthropogenic global heating has triggered the worst and earliest hurricane in the Caribbean, wiping out 98% of buildings and the telcommunications on Grenada. And is still ripping through the islands of the Caribbean and also hitting places such as Venezuela.

However, the Caribbean is a long way from Cairns and Townsville and Brisbane and Sydney and Perth and Broome and Darwin, and is nowhere near Melbourne, isn't it?

 

[Scaveola]

My only son will inherit my house which is worth a fair bit. I have some savings, but am now unable to travel as I am on dialysis. I worked hard all my life, sacrificed a lot in my personal life as I had a business, didn't do much travel except in Australia, and now have nothing I need to buy except maybe a new car and a few items of furniture. I still do a bit of work from home, as I find it keeps me going.
I would love to spend some of my super going overseas, but can't now - I don't have that much anyway but enough to live on! I couldn't do dialysis and would not be covered by travel insurance. If I did organise treatment, the cost would have to come out of my pocket, I have two low-cost hobbies. I have enough clothes and jewellery.
So spend money, travel etc while you can and are still fit enough to do so. Your children need to make their own way in life. I know people who gave their a lot of money to kids , or let them take over their home, building a granny flat for the parent, who then sold up and kicked the parent out. They ended up relying on social housing, and were g=iven no share of the proceeds of the sale!.

 

[Rob44]

Then there is the proposed inheritance tax, otherwise known as death duties. That may not eventuate but . . . . .

I'd better die sooner than I had intended if that is the case. Bugger any government or politician taxing me for my death. Income tax is fair , although Howard's grab and sting tax is not, and I'd go better than Albanese in raising income taxes for the well-off.

I'd be like Margaret Thatcher, 60% for the top tax level in 1979-80.

 

[Rob44]

My only son will inherit my house which is worth a fair bit. I have some savings, but am now unable to travel as I am on dialysis. I worked hard all my life, sacrificed a lot in my personal life as I had a business, didn't do much travel except in Australia, and now have nothing I need to buy except maybe a new car and a few items of furniture. I still do a bit of work from home, as I find it keeps me going.
I would love to spend some of my super going overseas, but can't now - I don't have that much anyway but enough to live on! I couldn't do dialysis and would not be covered by travel insurance. If I did organise treatment, the cost would have to come out of my pocket, I have two low-cost hobbies. I have enough clothes and jewellery.
So spend money, travel etc while you can and are still fit enough to do so. Your children need to make their own way in life. I know people who gave their a lot of money to kids , or let them take over their home, building a granny flat for the parent, who then sold up and kicked the parent out. They ended up relying on social housing, and were g=iven no share of the proceeds of the sale!.

Keep well!

 

[MariaG]

Sometimes it's the parent who thinks he/she should pave the way for the kids.
My hubby was one of them. His will was so complicated because he wanted to be sure my 2 stepsons get the benefit of his hard work. He had a weird thought that if he went first, I as a step mum would be tempted to hold on to our vast wealth (lol) instead of passing things on to the 2 sons.
This way of thinking resulted from the influence of his mother who lived through the depression.
Naturally, we had to sort this out between us, and changed our wills to be a more simplified matter.
This was some 40 years ago, and neither of us have dropped off the perch. So, our hard work has resulted in having full ownership of our home, and, we spend what is needed on ourselves when necessary. The care of my man is a large part of this, so, what is left will be what is left.
As it stands, our 2 boys (now both in their 50's) will have the property between them. We don't have enough money for it to be an issue.

 

[mylittletibbies]

I paid $50 000 for mine; it was a bit rough but I fixed it. You were living in the wrong city, probably Sydney at a guess. Or it was a very flash home in a flash suburb. In 1989 where I lived there were places around for $150 000-$350 000, but they were in very up-market suburbs where solicitors, barristers and judges liked to congregate. Darwin was always ridiculously expensive even earlier than 1989. $150 000 would buy a top quality place there or perhaps $200 000 in a "better" suburb. Otherwise around $80 000-$90 000 was seen as "good value" for a 3BR, cooler type of place on stilts.

Wills. We have a friend whose husband has just died. His first son by his first former wife is trying to grab the cash he set aside for the future education of his second wife's baby son, and also the house he left to her, despite his first son being left $200 000 in his father's Will and the fact that he has his own property. A right greedy bastard!

Should imagine he'll loose that one, what on earth would he use as a basis for his claim.
He must have found a very unscrupulous lawyer to take such a case.
The worst part about these cases is that the costs involved come out of the estate which means the entire estate is decreased.
I hope he gets a judge who decides the costs against him for his greed. That would be a very fair outcome, let him pay from his part of the inheritance

 

[Be-a- woof]

my children inherited a farm, which they sold & have wasted the money they received. Now their children are expecting me to hand out & can't understand why I can't, as my income is only the pension. Unfortunately we have raised a couple of generations of people that seem to feel everything should be handed to them on a silver platter.

 

[Steve Critchley]

My kids are happy for us to spend and enjoy our retirement. We had one conversation with my eldest son while in Maui for our daughters wedding. Talking over breakfast I said to our son that we holiday like we do and spend your inheritance. Instantly his reply was if it’s my money you can pay for breakfast. So funny in that moment, I did pay.

 

[Rob44]

How selfish of the children expecting an inheritance!
These selfish individuals should be told to go and work as hard as their parents did to earn the money.

Some kids do.

 

[Rob44]

Should imagine he'll loose that one, what on earth would he use as a basis for his claim.
He must have found a very unscrupulous lawyer to take such a case.
The worst part about these cases is that the costs involved come out of the estate which means the entire estate is decreased.
I hope he gets a judge who decides the costs against him for his greed. That would be a very fair outcome, let him pay from his part of the inheritance

The problem is that siblings from a first marriage can most certainly challenge the will of their father who has remarried, and the court decides what is fair. The simple threat of having to fight a court action throws severe stress on the second wife especially after her husband has just died. And the system is indeed a bit biased against second wives it would seem, just like the Family Court tends to regard blokes with contempt and ignore what they have done for their children and their wives who play the argument that the mother should have custody of the kids, and therefore the family home.

I read some years ago that 50% of marriages in Australia end in divorce and that 60% of those divorces are instigated by the wives. Oddly enough, most blokes are not wife-beating bastards. It's odd that a great many marriages that I have seen fall apart occur when the couples are in their mid to late 30s or very early 40s and when genetics has it that any offspring are old enough to fend for themselves, even if they aren't in our modern world. In tribal societies living "in harmony" with Nature, mothers begin motherhood at age 16, if not a year earlier; by 35 most of her assorted children are adults; and both male and female parents are either dead or decrepit by 50 years old. That's a research project for some anthropologist but perhaps that is what is driving modern divorces; basic biology.

 

[mylittletibbies]

The problem is that siblings from a first marriage can most certainly challenge the will of their father who has remarried, and the court decides what is fair. The simple threat of having to fight a court action throws severe stress on the second wife especially after her husband has just died. And the system is indeed a bit biased against second wives it would seem, just like the Family Court tends to regard blokes with contempt and ignore what they have done for their children and their wives who play the argument that the mother should have custody of the kids, and therefore the family home.

I read some years ago that 50% of marriages in Australia end in divorce and that 60% of those divorces are instigated by the wives. Oddly enough, most blokes are not wife-beating bastards. It's odd that a great many marriages that I have seen fall apart occur when the couples are in their mid to late 30s or very early 40s and when genetics has it that any offspring are old enough to fend for themselves, even if they aren't in our modern world. In tribal societies living "in harmony" with Nature, mothers begin motherhood at age 16, if not a year earlier; by 35 most of her assorted children are adults; and both male and female parents are either dead or decrepit by 50 years old. That's a research project for some anthropologist but perhaps that is what is driving modern divorces; basic biology.

I would still be under the impression that the elder son was adequately taken care of with a $200,000 inheritance.
The second wife is entitled to their home and the younger son entitled to be educated and taken care of under his father's will.
It is just my impression from quite a few years working in legal offices that his case wouldn't be looked on very favourably as he is already an adult with his own home trying to deprive a widow and his half-brother of what his father's wishes were.
People can be so greedy and vindictive when it comes to wills.
More attention should be given to the wishes of the person who made the will.
My brother benefited much more than me under our stepfather's will. These were his wishes I accepted that and was grateful for what he left me and for the good life he gave us after marrying our mother.
His daughter from his previous marriage, who had not seen him for over 35 years, even when he was dying,contested the will and received nothing, except a reprimand from the judge

 

[Lissu2]

You have worked hard and saved , it is yours to spend

 

[cwillis4]

My father scrimped and saved. He was a product of the Great Depression. He wouldn't spend any money. My mother wanted to visit my nephew in Canada, but my father would not spend the money as he wanted to leave it to us - his five children. The morning after my mother died, he said to me, "I should have taken her to Canada'. My response was -it is a bit bloody late now!

We are retired and help our son by saving them on childcare fees and running the grandchildren to their weekly activities. They lived with us while they looked for a home. I think I work harder now!

It is our retirement; he'll get the house when we are gone, and hopefully, that will not be for a good few years yet!

 

[Leoniey]

I am in the same situation as Trudy. I worked hard as a single mum to raise my 4 children, went without any luxuries, only had second hand (everything; car, furniture and clothes) paid for a better (private) education for my children and then myself (university) and bought a very modest home that I could afford.
My children only want the best for me and are happy for me to now spend the money I have invested and saved. They will get my home when the time comes and any money that is left. I do still live very frugally, but also enjoy holidays and travelling overseas when funds permit which also brings my kids joy, to see me finally living a full life after so much hardship. I have been very fortunate though to be able to give my children some of their inheritance early after selling my investment properties and they were extremely appreciative but it certainly was never expected by them - I could have funded a world holiday and they would have been happy for me. I wanted them to have it now so I could see the benefit to them. They realise they are in better positions than I was at their age and often ask "How did you do it mum?"

 

[maximus111]

I didn't receive a cent after my remaining parent, my father passed. My younger brother and sister got it all. But really, that doesn't bother me, and besides it was many years ago now.
But I'm of the belief and have been for a very long time, that children who whinge about 'the parents spending their inheritance' deserve nothing.
The fact that they believe they are due the money the parents have accrued over their working lifetime is theirs is nothing short of greed and selfishness. The parents raised them doing all that was expected, fed, clothed, schooled, holidays, etc and are entitled to spend their hard earned dollars on themselves after having raised those kids and worked hard all their lives. Why shouldn't they spend it on themselves.
Totally agree with the parents getting out and enjoying some guilt free spending with their own money...Cheers