I wasn't talking about the book. I was commenting on the concept of spending (or donating) all your wealth yourself instead of leaving something for your heirs to spend or donate.
Inter-generational wealth is a good thing. A good will is important.
I agree that Inter-generational wealth is a good thing.
But you can die with zero, and still give your money to your heirs.
And it will be much better for your heirs if they receive your money
before you die. If you die at 90, your son will receive your wealth when he is 60, when he is probably already rich.
People need money in their 20s and 30s , when they are building their lifes. Buy a new house, pay school for kids, etc... At 60s-70s money isn't so important anymore, so it is not a good time to receive heritage.
If you decide to die with zero, you can make a huge donation for your heirs when they really need it, in their 20s-30s. Not leave it to some random
timeoccasion in the future when you
will die (and as I said, you may outlive an heir)