A recent media piece points out that many people "prematurely conclude that estate plans are only useful for securing wealth for later generations."
On initial examination, it is understandable why some individuals and families in Southern California and elsewhere might think that, especially if their exposure to estate administration considerations has only been fleeting and peripheral.
After all, estate planning is in fact centrally focused upon the passing along of wealth to family offspring in future years.
But not exclusively so, which presages the above argument that there is often something more involved in the planning process and outcome that renders sound estate planning of great importance for most individuals and families.
The above quote is made in reference to a singular segment of the American population, namely, a married couple defined by working careers and no children.
Like much else in American culture, that qualifies for its own distinct acronym, with DINK denoting "dual income, no kids" couples.
The point is that many of those couples might believe that, because they lack children and will have no future generations of family members to pass wealth along to, they might as well just nix the estate planning process entirely.
That thinking embodies a certain fallacy, notes the above-cited article, which is that sound planning does not entail considerations in addition to endowments to children down the road.
In fact, it does, across many dimensions and in materially important ways that range broadly from charitable giving and provisions made to family members other than children to health care planning and the naming of trusted persons to act on behalf of a planner in the event of incapacity.
The advantages of establishing a well-tailored estate plan, states the above article, "can be realized by all persons."