BadCookie, you and I have different constraints. The way you're thinking about accumulating assets makes sense given a child who will need assets and can't accumulate them themselves. The way I'm thinking makes sense given that my 5 kids are all launched and responsible for their own finances. (I invested in all of them--it's not like I just kicked them out at 18.)
My first reaction to your comment was defensiveness. When you explained how your situation differs from mine I realized you had just over-stated. Happens.
I wish you and your child well. A permanently dependent child is a tough position to be in.
I wasn’t criticizing the author. The author says that money they have when they die is of zero value to them. It’s the polar opposite of my perspective, as a person with a special needs child who must plan to support that child beyond my death.
So I’m surprised that I am getting chastised for this comment.
A quote from the article that stood out to me: “For me, though, a billion dollars after either I’m too old to enjoy it or after I’m dead is worth nothing. I’d literally rather have one dollar in my hand today.“
But "this person must not have children" is such a shallow internet dismissal (edit: at least that's how it reads to me). Kent has written publicly about his children, btw. That makes me think I probably should have cited this guideline instead, though:
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
